SOLVED, thank you. IMDb Assistance with Obvious GOOF.

But I am not guessing. Which is why I've included a link and timestamp to the movie and scene. It's clear as day that those are two different voices coming from the same character within the same line of dialogue where one is obviously human and the second is obviously a robotic AI generated voice. Anyone that has ever listened to Siri or Alexa or any text-to-speech voice try and dictate information, or read aloud a text message, would instantly recognize: The over enunciation of each sound within a word while it's inflection jitters unnaturally up and down before hard-pausing on comma breaks like its Christopher Walken. ***edited to add*** Although I understand the point you're suggesting in that maybe it's the way I've phrased the information that may be an issue. Like by saying that it "sounds like an Alexa" (because it does) it sounds like a guess, when maybe it should read more affirmative like "At first it's the voice of ABC then it suddenly changes to an AI-generated voice with the line, "temp included excerpt of dialogue". Thank you for the suggestion, I'll try it on attempt #4 if I'm still not getting anyone from IMDb replying in to help.

I watched the scene and the line sounds like DeWulf's voice, although slightly different from the lines before because it was ADR'ed, but it doesn't seem like a 2017 AI voice to me. But I have no knowledge of this beyond that, just my two cents on it.

@talentest​ Since we don't know for sure what happened, maybe it would be better to say that the voice sounds different, which shows that it was added in post-production, and not speculate about the source. I agree that it is a goof.

@Peter_pbn​ @capdeac​ Thank you both for taking the time to provide input. You both make really good points since I didn't even take its year of release in 2017 into account and don't know if Alexas were even a thing back then. Or how ubiquitous text-to-speech was at that time either. So even if it does sound artificially generated it could very well just be a terrible ADR reading and I'll take your suggestion Peter and not speculate on the source, rather I'll just call to attention how notably jarring the difference is.

@Bethanny​ Hey Bethanny, my 4th attempt failed like all the others. Can you tell me if these are declining because someone is looking at them and deciding that or is it automated? I've had one other goof I tried to include also get declined and at this point it is just frustrating not knowing why.

@Bethanny​ Hey I promise I am nearing the point of giving up without anyone from IMDb just officially reviewing one of my attempts to say what is incorrect about so I can quit guessing and re-submitting. I'm making one more 5th attempt (with the timecode, hyperlinking Actress, without the quoted dialogue), then a 6th (with the timecode, hyperlinking Actress, with the quoted dialogue included), and a 7th (without a timecode, without hyperlinking Actress, without the quoted dialogue) before I dunno. Just so frustrating not being able to get one person to just look this over and telling me why is this obvious to anyone who has seen it goof be routinely declined.

@talentest​ manking several attempts after another on the same thing are only gping to ewsult in one thing. They are going to be declined automaticlly. As they are seen as being dublicats

Have you successfully used the format with the @ before? I would suggest changing it. FromGoofs: Please use the format (at around xx mins) or (at around xh xx mins).

I dunno actually. Hadn't considered that. I'll try amending it with the formatting you quoted and see if that was the problem.

@Peter_pbn​ Nope. That didn't work either. Got declined again as "Unable to verify" despite me providing a free link to the movie, a time code, and description. I don't get it, I see so many nebulous "goofs" that got approved (like "He said over there but pointed over here") yet this particular goof isn't being accepted.

Hi