The cast list of Ghostbusters (2016)

Ghostbusters (2016) lists the names as uncredited. If only the original version is considered and they were not in it, they should not be listed at all. But there are examples where credits for extended versions are allowed, see the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

@Peter_pbn​ That's probably true even though the guide is not all the clear about it and maybe needs to be updated.

Hi

Hi, @Michelle. I apologize for reopening this old thread, but what was the final decision on this point? I have recently come across a couple of cases similar to the one commented by the OP and would like to know if I should delete the names of people who only participated in the extended version of the film. Thank you very much! P.S. I would post here, as I usually do, the screenshots to properly explain the matter (as well as other pending issues I want to discuss, but I prefer to wait for Sprinklr to finish once and for all with the web maintenance tasks...).

Hi ljdoncel - Apologies for my delayed reply here. I can see that the original ticket filed was unfortunately, not prioritized. I will raise this again directly with the appropriate team. If you have some recent cases examples, can you post them here so I can include them for the team to review?

Hi, @Michelle! No problemo. I understand that there are a lot of changes going on lately and other things need more attention. However, this issue has been pending for years, and I think it is time to define a clear directive on the matter. Because in many occasions, during the complete audit of a title, I come across names that do not appear in the credits, but are listed in IMDb with attributes referring to other versions of the film (extended cut, director's cut, IMAX version, etc.). And at that moment I have the same doubts as @adrian and @Peter_pbn: * Should I keep the original attribute and add (uncredited)? * Should I remove the original attribute and add (uncredited)? * Should I remove the credit completely? (as Peter rightly says, if only the original version is considered, these entries shouldn't be allowed). I leave here an example that is part of a series of titles where the writing credits need to be corrected because they do not match the ones submitted by the WGA. I have not reported them yet because I am waiting for Sprinklr to allow posting images again, hoping they will be easier to correct (by the way, I would never have thought it would take so many weeks...). I'm talking about Green Lantern (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1133985). At https://imgur.com/a/green-lantern-2011-cHvNheX you can see the cast of the original 2011 theatrical version (45 credited names). In 2012, for the Blu-Ray release, an extended cut with a couple of additional scenes was published. The credit titles of both versions (theatrical and extended) are exactly the same, except for a final card showing the cast of such additional scenes (see same link above). Those actors are currently listed in the IMDb title page (positions #46-#50) with the attribute (extended cut). In other cases I would probably have left those entries alone (without a clearly established policy, it hurts me to remove information from the database), but it turns out that two of those names need (as...) attributes, and it bothers me that the current information is incomplete. I have a saved update (#250301-172928-762200) with all the changes that should be applied to the current cast on IMDb, retaining the names of the extended version, but I need to know if these names should really be removed or not. I look forward to receiving an answer to this question soon. Thank you very much! Cheers!

Hi, @Michelle: Another month has passed (3 years since the first time a clarification was requested on this matter). Can we finally know what has been decided? Here's another egregious example: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016). * Theatrical version: 128 cast credits on screen. * Extended version (Ultimate Edition): 161 cast credits on screen. At https://imgur.com/a/pP5IvYA you can check both credits rolls (I've highlighted in yellow the differences between the two casts). Should I remove the names from the extended version??

4 weeks later... no response. Perhaps I'm missing something... Wasn't this the Data Issues & POLICY DISCUSSION forum?

Hi ljdoncel, Apologies for our delayed response to this matter. I have passed this onto the appropriate team to re-open any discussions on this. Please bear in mind that this may not guarantee an outcome, however I will ensure that a review of this open issue is expedited, as I realize this has been a longstanding question. Cheers!

Hi, Ozzy. Thank you very much for, at least, giving a brief update on the matter. I would like to emphasize that a final resolution should be mandatory and, ideally, any time soon. We are not talking about new genres whose approval would imply changes in the software, but about a basic policy that should have been very clear for a long time, since it refers to the very first essence of a database, which is, which elements can be part of it and how they should be collected.