Torrent-Only Movie Denied IMDb Listing 207
An anonymous reader writes "A film set to be released for free via BitTorrent has been denied a listing in the Internet Movie Database. The Tunnel is currently in production and despite pleas from the makers, IMDb won't allow it on their site. The creators of this horror movie believe that because they have shunned an official distributor and chosen a BitTorrent model instead, this has put them at a disadvantage with the Amazon-owned site."
OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OTOH (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon? (Score:5, Insightful)
this has put them at a disadvantage with the Amazon-owned site.
That explains why the site has been getting so "design" heavy it is almost unusable. It can only be viewed with flash and javascript blocking.
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was thinking the same thing. I'm not impressed with the direction IMDB has been going in recent years, more and more paywalls, I think it's about time someone create an alternative to IMDB and I think it's rather scary that one website has wielded so much power over a movie database for as long as IMDB has.
Like Field of Dreams said "If you build it they will come". Judging by the torrent movies I've seen there's quite a few that would love a site where they might get better exposure than buried under Avatar and Iron Man
These guys are either... (Score:4, Insightful)
...idiots or trying to drum up publicity (my bet is the second).
Really - IMDB can't do what they want them to and remain a reliable source of movie information. IMDB clearly told them what was needed: be at a late enough period of production or at release so they can tell it isn't simply a hobby or publicity stunt or have a major publisher sign off. So they resubmitted without *any* of that happening and *gasp* got rejected each time! I mean, there is only one explanation right - they are protecting Amazon.com business of selling movies!!!!!! BitTorrent is a *distribution method*, not a distributor. They are following their rules for self published movies and those are in place for a reason. It's like complaining that a CentOS repository will not take your half baked project like sourceforge would - after all you have other half baked projects that made it! It's not some grand conspiracy, they list professionally made published movies and some publishers are reliable enough that they allow them to "pre-publish" information. Any other database that is looking for a similar reputation (again, take a community accepted CentOS repository) and they have to do the same thing. Nothing wrong with either way and there is place for both, but do not expect one striving for the higher reputation to take anything.
Further this is what you pay publishers to do and is the tradeoff one pays for saving that money. To use another computer analogy no reason you can't self publish your own x.509 certificate, set up a secure server, and rely totally on that. Just do not complain when people do not trust it like they would a certificate signed by Verisign - you are not really paying for the distribution, you are paying for the trust and connections that the publisher (or CA) has. Lots of examples there too - have your home for sale by owner? You aren't going to get the ability to advertise like a real-estate agent would. Service your own equipment? The place you purchased your items from aren't going to refund your money because you hit something with a hammer you were not supposed too. Yea, they have a few other movies with them but I bet they were not added unless: the movie was released, at the end of production, or had a publisher backing it. Even then one has to note the number of movies that are "in production" and never make it, by that observation the standards are already low.
IMDB is *not* looking to be a repository for information on any and all movies out there (they aren't looking to be a sourceforge of movies, they are looking to be a community wide accepted CentOS repository). Yea, some "real" movies may very well end up with much worse production values than this one - but they aren't going to take your word for it. If they release a quality movie and IMDB refuses *then* lets blast them, until then these guys are only marginally better then me submitting my upcoming movie to IMDB.
Re:No shit (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, IMDB needs to be replaced (Score:3, Insightful)
No public API, only some ambiguous statement saying they *might* be willing to license you you for at least $10,000, maybe, if they are feeling ok about it that is.
There needs to be an open web platform that does what IMDB does, but allows it's information to be used freely. While I can understand there needs to be a standard as to what get's in, not including something solely because it's internet distribution only shows that though they exist on the net, they don't really care for it. We deserve better.
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:1, Insightful)
Fuck that. Let Amazon fuck themselves. We don't need IMDB. List it here and lets me done with it.
Re:Your definition of movie may vary... (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW: His wife is also a well know Aussie TV personality and is drop dead gorgeous.
Re:IMDb is corrupt. Thank-you Amazon. (Score:3, Insightful)
write your own pointing out that Amazon is selling favorable reviews to Hollywood marketing firms and that the movie in question probably sucks just badly enough to require the kind of manipulative push an astro-turfing tactic offers.
Then watch your review mysteriously vanish.
You know, given that reviews are supposed to be reviews of the MOVIE in question and not rants about amazon's business tactics (even if they're rants that are factually accurate), I don't think this is actually a bad thing.
Re:RottenTomatoes (Score:3, Insightful)
Thankfully the "community" comments and ratings are kept separate and are not factored in to the actual rating of the movie.Avoid the "RT Community" tab if you want to avoid reviews authored by spambots and the "omg i lolled and milu jovinich is hot " crowd.