Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
So the 1998 DVD was loaded with Dozens  of uncredited names which to me looked like an IMDB clone.,which came to my attention a few years back ( 2004), when The film was released on a 4 disc set with the main movie on two discs.  After finishing the cast for the dividers in place for the all the opening credits ( there was  no closing credits in those days), I was informed that all the uncredited cast I removed for the special 4 disc ed was wrong as the uncredited names are all included in a special booklet that came with the 2004 edition.
The 1998 edition was approved with no uncredited , Why? because They appeared to be an IMDB clone as well as there was  no booklet.
So what will happen this fall ,, IF  Blue ray releases the 2004 Special ED. without a commerative booklet? 
But the 1998 (ala 2k 2004) ediiton  is the same version a 4k Ultra-Resolution transfer and archival video master was achieved for BlueRay and HD TV ., .

Which clone shall we  take it's cast from ? the 1998 or 2004 edition? There are both the same movie.

If you have the booklet from the 1998 edition that lists uncredited actors you can use it as a means of documenting for future editions.  Just document that's where you got the data in the new contribution.

Well, whichever it is, Terry that is solid documentation re: (uncredited), there COULD be errors, but it is also form the company archives presumably and is more accurate than any third part source.

Skip

We do not enter actors that are on the TV set playing in the background.  If someone is doing that, then it needs to be removed.  As for removing all uncredited, that battle is lost.  Ken has made it quite clear that it is data we are going to keep because there are users that want it.  Those that don't can easily remove them from their local DB.

BTW, Terry, I was on your side, I wanted to scrap all of the old (uncredited) and start over with documentation for ALL. Why? Because I saw exactly the problems we have today, but as Unicus noted Ken had other ideas and I CAN understand that rationale, but I also have no problem with us as users expecting a little better of each other for the benefit of ALL. Not just so you (generic) can save a few keystrokes.

Skip

ROFLMAO, Unicus, I think we all had or "Creature Feature". In my hometown of Clearwater, Fl we had Three of them, we had Friday Night "Shock Theatre" with the most unbelievable commercial for the Columbia Restaurant in Tampa. If there are those from the area in that time, they will know...Salud and happy days 5, 746 times.        

The on Saturday afternoons we had Terminus Theatre. Then we had another one I forget when it aired, for some  reason i didn't watch it much but i remember the host Dr. Paul (Pall) Bearer. It turns out that D. Paul Bearer was one of the hosts for Shock Theatre.

But the original was Shock Armstrong
and you can read about him and see his picture
http://www.shockarmstrong.info/ 

Boy does that take me back.

For thiose who would like to see a picture of the Good Doctor and his hearse see
http://www.crazedfanboy.com/spotlight/drpaulbearer.html

Skip

INHO Uncredited cast info does have value. Clint Eastwood's early appearances have already been mentioned. Another typical example I'm thinking of are the traditional cameos by Alfred Hitchcock in many of his films. I agree with Ace as well.

It's all a matter of proper documentation.

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Plus, many early films had no credits or only credited a couple people. Uncredited info is important.

Boy are you right about this, Ace.  It really annoys me when I watch a movie from the 30s or 40s that has maybe 30 important characters in it but there are only 10 credited.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Plus, many early films had no credits or only credited a couple people. Uncredited info is important.

Boy are you right about this, Ace.  It really annoys me when I watch a movie from the 30s or 40s that has maybe 30 important characters in it but there are only 10 credited.

I'll agree with that.  The only real problem I have is that the source for all of this amazing data is suspect.  But, a long list of names certainly looks more impressive than a short list of names, regardless of accuracy.