Extras Are Not Principles

Most of you know I am sure of www.imdb.com aka internet movie database. which is the end all be all of movie information of movies past , current and future. Well what has been happening as of late is that under movies that have filmed in Boston actors that were extras have listed their names and photos under the principles list. This one action that has been going on the past 24 months has led a division line right down the middle of the new england actor community. The debate is extras should not list their names under the principles list. My opinion is I agree with them. If you were working as a background performer in a film you really have no business listing your name under the credits. As a recent 2nd assistant director from a major feature film that was just here stated and I quote " if your name is not going to be on the end credits, your name should not be on the imdb under the cast of that film" If you said "boo" in the movie and were paid for it, sure your name should appear or if you were a "stand in" of course! But as an extra is just doesn't go.

Comments

Anonymous said…
According to Webster:

principle:

1 a: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

principal:

1 f: a leading performer
Anonymous said…
LOL!
Anonymous said…
On imdb.com Extras are usually credited as

Name - role -(uncredited)

Then again you have to have done a principal role in order to have your uncredited's listed.
Anonymous said…
I worked as an extra! Now if I see myself in the final cut, why can't I get listed as say 'quiet bar man' (uncredited)?
Anonymous said…
Please answer. If you were an extra is it okay to be listed as -Uuncredited?
Anonymous said…
No, extras shouldn't be credited. Maybe a mass accreditation. The credits would be longer than the feature.

I have been an extra.
Anonymous said…
The IMDB instructions say nothing about extras not being allowed to enter their data. So no one has a legitimate reason to be upset with them for doing something they have every reason to think is legitimate.
Anonymous said…
Imdb allows extras to be credited as (Uncredited). So what's the big deal if the extra wants to be credited? They did their job right? Oh how some people want to hog the limelight!
Anonymous said…
I agree. That would be a problem listing them on the film's credits. I think maybe someone is misunderstanding, and thinking that same logic must be applied to IMDB? Another case of treating extras like dirt.
Anonymous said…
There is a major fault in logic that must be pointed out here. Producer's contracts with SAG do not stipulate that EVERY speaking actor has a credit title. Rather, it allows UP to a certain number - something like 50, I think. This will come as quite a shock to some people, but it is true. That means if a movie has 100 speaking parts, the filmmakers are in their right to not include half of them. So going by the logic of the original post here, those speaking actors have no business listing their roles on IMDB, either.
One is an orange, the other is an apple. What is the big deal, anyway? Sheesh!

Popular posts from this blog

People agreeing to work and not showing up.

Keep your political views home..

SAG Strike close to NOT happening :)