Template talk:Infobox Film/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

Rottentomato/Metacritic meter rating

I think that the Rotten Tomato meter rating should be kept, since it is reflective of the opinions of professionals. .... 03:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose a link to the main article or just listing the Freshness/Rotten ratings along with the percentage? -- UKPhoenix79 06:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
(This comment was moved from another thread). Question for users: Does a similar INFOBOX rating system exist for Rotten Tomatoe reviews? (I've heard about it, but I've never seen an INFOBOX entry for this before). If it doesn't exist I recommend this be developed soon.--P-Chan 15:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
someone else just asked that question below. What do you propose? A link to the article or the rating given by it? -- UKPhoenix79 19:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Definetly a rating, to me this is far most important, than simply having a link. I agree with the other users who have said that the IMDB star system is prone to POV.... and thus by placing the IMDB star system into Wiki, we could be POVing the articles. Most people seem to respect the Tomato Freshness rating though (%), and we should be able to add the % Freshness rating into the info box. Does anyone know how to do this??? UKPhoneix, do you know how to? Maybe the person who designed the imdb star system would know... Who knows. Main thing is, is that this needs to be done. It's a professional opinion and it looks cool. --P-Chan 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yea I can do it. Were you thinking of the ##% followed by the Fresh/Rotten tomato image? Are the tomato images copyrighted? If they are what would you suggest as a replacement? Should it have text saying Fresh/Rotten? Do you think it should go below the poster, under the caption or a different location? Something akin to below with a star standing in for the tomato?
Rotten Tomatoes 100% *
Or should it be something that is in the main body of the template?
Rotten Tomato Rating.............100% *
As much feedback or any ideas that you have would really help. -- UKPhoenix79 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go under where the imdb is in the infobox. The second one you did looks ok to me (without all the .........).

So something like.... Rotten Tomato Rating 100% *

All we need is something basic for now, just to communicate the main information so we don't have to go into the whole Fresh/Rotten stuff. Also, in regards to the Tomato picture. I haven't a clue. I think it should be ok though. (But I'm not a lawyer). It's easy to make an image of our own, certainly. (We could just have a red blob with a green dot.)  :) --P-Chan 22:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

One possibility...

Rotten Tomato Rating 75%

--P-Chan 22:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well actually the .... thing was in place of spaces. I was trying to imply that it could be put in the main body of the template below and similar to Followed by {{{followed_by}}}. I will come up with a way to do it but do you want me to use stars for now or should I upload the tomato images and do it from there? I was thinking of making it default to the rotten image and requiring an extra value added to show that it is fresh.
ok you added a great image while I was typing. Have you found a rotten tomato image also? -- UKPhoenix79 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This will be a major change. In regards to whether or not we have a fresh/unfresh distinction... I really can't say at the momment. Fresh/unfresh is a marketing tool very specific to their website. Off the top of my head, I don't know all the factors to consider. I will message the other contributors to the info and invite them into this discussion as to what they think about having a rotten tomato % in the infobox, and maybe they can comment on the freshness concept as well. (For balance purposes, we may also want to have a Metacritic % score as well.) (I'll start messaging people now).--P-Chan 23:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Metacritic % score? I'm not sure what that means, but I do think that some way to symbolize the freshness is a good idea. I plan on having this optional like everythng else on this template and the code is pretty much finished. I only need a rotten image now! -- UKPhoenix79 23:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Metacritic is also highly respected for ratings. We could include it to counteract some of the POV issues of just having Rotten Tomatoes... optional of course. (We might as well talk about metacritic now while we're already on the topic of Rotten Tomatoes.)
I think an INFOBOX change like this is big enough to warrent some community discussion on the use of external meta-reviews in Wikipedia. Thus, I've invited the people who participated in the IMDB discussion earlier to comment on this issue. (If we don't get consensus early, I think it would just cause problems later.)--P-Chan 23:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I was called over here from my userpage (being a contributor to film articles). I personally do not see the rationale for adding the Rottentomatoes % if the reason for deleting the IMDB scores was POV. Many critics that I've seen on Rottentomatoes have as much if not more POV than a typical IMDB user, and many of the reviewers on IMDB are actually more qualified to review the films (especially the more obscure ones, which are outside most professional critics' traditional areas of expertise. In these cases, the professional critics become reporters trying to pass off as being educated about the subject, and frequently getting the information wrong). I have no objection to the Rottentomatoes link being included somewhere, but I do not think that the percentage should be up there unless the IMDB score is also there. It quite simply does not make sense to me to allow one and not the other. Esn 23:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Esn on this; if IMDB is POV, then all external reviews must be POV. Using data from more than one of them in the infobox doesn't stop it being POV. I'd rather just retain links to the relevant review sites in the main body, no mention of their ratings.--duncan 07:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the code that I have come up with at the moment I haven't tested it out yet but there would have to be 3 variables for this to work. rotten_id (for the weblink), rotten% (freshness rating) & rotten_fr (image if fresh). It would be better to have the Fresh/rotten image chosen by the rotten% but I would have to do some experimenting to get that to work and I don't want to mess with this heavily used template. Does anyone have any ideas? Freshness is decided on the rotten% being >= 60%

Well I'm game if people want the Metacritic review site added also.

-->{{#if:{{{rotten_id|}}} | <tr><th style="font-size: 100%;" align="center" colspan="2">[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/{{{rotten_id|}}}/ Rotten Tomato Rating] {{{rotten%}}}% [[Image:{{{rotten_fr|rotten_tomato.png}}}| | 15px | Freshness}}]]</th></tr>}}<!--

| rotten_id = v_for_vendetta
| rotten% = 75
| rotten_fr = Tomato-Torrent-Icon.png

-- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Rotten Tomatoes scores do not belong in the film Infobox. The website combines the opinions and review of professional film critics and reviews from websites for a very unfair advantage. Consider that Plan 9 from Outer Space (considered by many to be a leading contender for worst film ever made) has an outrageously high score of 52% on Rotten Tomatoes. Seriously. (Ibaranoff24 23:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

I disagree with adding this to the infobox. If someone wants to add it some other way to the article, like in the external links, then that's fine (that's a different discussion), but I think we need to start drawing the line somewhere. The infobox gets longer almost by the week around here. Adding this to the infobox not only makes it longer, but also shows favoritism to that website. Even IMDb in the template, to a lesser extent IMHO, is bad and truthfully unneeded. A lot of older films do not have sufficient amount of reviews to even take RottenTomatoes as a credible source. K1Bond007 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The comments so far sound very reasonable. I think it is generally agreed upon that having an optional rating system regardless of whether it is IMDB, RT, MC, etc... is generally considered a bad idea. Even if we were to leave it simply as an optional feature to put into the INFOBOX (is this last inference correct)?

I'm going to open a related issue based on K1Bond007's and Esn's comments.--P-Chan 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Upon dwelling on this issue a little further... I've come to a conclusion. Notice that very objective data on a film's performance.... like Box Office earnings, # of theaters, etc are not included in the INFOBOX. If those figures aren't there, then it would probably not be a good idea to include such qualitative measures like RT, IMDB, etc. Although, they seem to be unpopular in the INFOBOX, it is generally quite common to find these measures used in the main reception text. One possibility is to simply organize these three ratings IMDB, RT, MC into a chart format within the reception section, and leave it up to the readers to decide.--P-Chan 00:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
What I had set up, which was rightfully reverted, i didn't quite know the chain of procedure, was to place in the infobox another listing, a la Director, Writer. It looked like this

Tomatometer 93% If, on Rottentomatoes, the rating was certified (meaning that it had had over 40 reviews, with the meter coming in at 75% or above, I would simply place (certified) after the rating. Also, the link from the rating would go to the film's actual entry on Rottentomatoes. .... 06:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Metacritic stinks to high hell. They don't even have Gone With The Wind. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


I would refrain from adding RT and Metacritic scores to the film infobox. As I mentioned on the Talk:Rotten Tomatoes page, RT reviews are heavily weighted towards North American reviews, which would be in violation of WP:NPOV. There are rarely international reviews (save the single BBC review or so) that represent a broader critique of films. I find the N.American-centric bias troubling when

  • A) many blockbusters have international release dates during the same week. So it would be very easy for RT to find reviews from international reviewers
  • B) RT reviews foreign films. For example, when films like Bend It Like Beckham or Hero finally get shown in North America it would be helpful to have a look at the local and international reviews from critics during the films' original release dates.

And I was just thinking about the recent screening of Marie-Antoinette at Cannes. While the French press generally panned the film, reviews from North American outlets (such as A.O. Scott of NYT) gave it a more lukewarm to warm review. When Marie-Antoinette is released later this year, RT and Metacritc's reviews won't reflect the geographical disparity in the critical response. Historically, there's the memorable example of how Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was well-received internationally, but regarded as a sterotypical wuxia film among Chinese audiences.

--Madchester 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Adding Rotten Tomatoes

Reading through the above comments, it doesn't seem like there is a consensus at all to add Rotten Tomatoes to the INFOBOX. I'd like to add my opposition along with Ibaranoff24 and K1Bond007. Of the recommended review sources mentioned (IMDB, AMG, Metacritic), I find Rotten Tomatoes to be the most unreliable of all. For one, it only takes a sampling of a very small percentage of film critics, few of whom are particularly well known or notable in any particular way. Worse, that site will frequently list a review as favorable when the actual critique can be mixed or even negative in tone. I'm personally against linking to any of these mass-review sites because they are inherently POV due to the selective nature of the chosen reviews. I think both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can easily give a deceptive overview of a particular film's general critical consensus. I'd much rather have a link added to All Movie Guide, which offers brief, starred reviews of films; their sister site, All Music Guide, is frequently used as a source for CD reviews in wiki album INFOBOXES. Other reviews (both negative and positive) can be sourced in the film's article to give the reader a feel for the critical response the film received. If the reader wants to read further reviews, he/she can research the Movie Review Query Engine ([1]) if so inclined; unlike Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, that site can list hundreds of reviews, from all sorts of different sources (from the New York Times to obscure bloggers).Hal Raglan 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
AMG is ridiculously error-ridden, and much less amenable to correction than IMDb. Neither one, nor any other movie website, however, should be treated as anything more than just additional reference resources, since none are in any way reliable about how or where they accrue their "data". Much of it is fan provided, and often can be found to have been taken from earlier, print works, not necessarily accurate themselves. 12.73.195.203 00:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

IMDB, AMG, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic

Instead of having simply a rating system... what are people's opinions of having additional (OPTIONAL) film sites linked inside of the INFOBOX. For the longest time, there was only IMDB (then recently AMG was added). Now, if I'm not mistaken some people really like having IMDB there, but some people don't like it due to POV issues. Would including the option of AMG, Rotten tomatoes, and metacritic sites in the INFOBOX help this? Would there be benefit in having these sites as alternatives in IMDB?--P-Chan 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have only ever frequently visited IMDB and Rottentomatoes of all of those sites, so I cannot give an educated opinion just now. But I do know this much: the question facing us is not whether or not to include those sites in the infobox - it is, "where do you stop?". I am strongly in favour of keeping the IMDB link in the infobox - it provides a lot of useful information that is often not available on Wikipedia (many of the film articles over here are still relatively sparse). Having it near the top of the film pages in an infobox is just convenient. I have nothing against adding in Rottentomatoes either, as long as it is simply a link without the percentage added beside it (as I explained previously, I would include it only if the IMDB rating is also included - including one rating but not the other does not make sense to me). But about these other sites - I just do not know. AMG seems to be similar to IMDB in some ways, and Metacritic seems to be similar to Rottentomatoes (except that their category of films only goes back to 1999, with a few exceptions for well-known classics). So how do we decide which to keep in the infobox? As someone stated earlier, sometimes AMG may have more info than IMDB about a film (not sure how true this is).
Perhaps one solution might be to add all of these to the template, but allow only one of IMDB or AMG, and one of Rottentomatoes or Metacritic to be included in the infobox for each film article. Which one it is could be decided on the discussion pages for that film. I realize that this is a somewhat unwieldy solution, but what bothers me is that in the future a LOT of different review/info sites similar to these may pop up, and we'll need some kind of system to decide which to include and which to keep off. Therefore, I suggest grouping sites that provide similar services together, and allowing only ONE from each of these groups to be present in the infobox for a film. Esn 07:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


I think you have to have something like that to give readers an idea of the consensus opinion.
In fact, the way I found myself here was from reading what was written about Last of the Mohicans (1992). It is obvious the person that wrote that has a negative opinion of the film because they only quoted from negative reviews even though it got mostly positive reviews at the time of its release and still is viewed mostly positively (e.g., 80% of IMDB voters rate it 7 or higher).
I don't even particularly like the film but I knew it wasn't the way the majority responded. Unless you want this to become yet another review site, something is needed.
While they did include a positive comment from those reviews, they pretty much explicitly say the negative comments are correct: "style-over-substance nature was not lost on Desson Howe"; "Rita Kempley also recognized the heavy drama".
This shows how an author can essentially review the film by selectively choosing reviews and comments that match their own opinion even if it is the minority viewpoint.
Because film quality is subjective, there is no way to really get an objective view. The closest you can come is an overview and possibly consensus via RT, IMDB, etc.
On my own review site, I include the RT, IMDB and Metacritic ratings in the infobox. While none by themselves can be taken as gospel, taken together they can give a good idea whether the consensus is generally positive or generally negative or generally mixed.
What you DON'T want is for the viewpoint that the film snob consensus is the correct view. The more broad-based views the sites mentioned give is vastly preferable to that in my opinion. EvanMinn 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no major issue with the links being in the infobox, although it would still be better to include them in the External Links section only, but it seems like a terrible idea to include subjective evaluations of ratings such as IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes etc. in the infobox. Ziggurat 00:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Listing Un-credited input.

I think that the infobox should only list credited input, hence resembling the credits of it's respective film. I think that if you start to list uncredited input, it gets messy. Leave the uncredited info for the article body. .... 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this. What about when the "uncredited" person actually contributes a significant amount to the film, and is only uncredited because of space or political concerns? I've seen films where the main composer was uncredited in order to save space in the credits (let's not forget that until Star Wars, all credits had to come at the beginning of a film). Esn 05:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Otherwise, you ignore the realities of who really made the film, like IMDb does. Their preoccupation with second-classing uncredited people borders on the pathological. 12.73.194.79 14:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
But it makes the infobox untidy. I think it would be best for the infobox to list credited input, but to elaborate on uncredited input in the body. There are varying degrees of uncredited unput. For instance, listing George Lucas as a director of The Empire Strikes Back, alongside Irvin Kershner is not really telling the truth: Lucas only directed new special effects shots for the re-release. If we're going to do that, then we have to list all the second unit directors and all that mumbo-jumbo, because they directed scenes, didn't they? And, for instance, Laurence Olivier's Hamlet. Olivier wrote the line : This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind. But I have removed him from the list of Writing credits on that film. You know why? Because ITS ONE LINE! There are endless examples, but seriously, let's just put the credits in the infobox. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 09:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're worried about space in the infobox, why not simply abbreviate "uncredited" to something shorter like "unc", with a note in small print at the bottom of the infobox that "unc=uncredited"? This is a measure that I'd support.
I see what you're saying about having to list EVERYONE, but you're not addressing my point about films where some very important people remained uncredited because of space or political concerns. I think the real issue here is this: the infobox shouldn't really be for listing everyone in the first place - it should only list the more important people, and the rest should be listed in a "cast/crew list" at the bottom of the article. It just so happens that in a lot of films some rather important people were uncredited, and some less important people were credited. Perhaps you and I just visit different pages on Wikipedia, but I know of a lot more movies that would be hurt by what you're proposing than those that would be helped. Esn 05:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oscars

I think that in the infobox, it would be good to have little thumbnails of Oscar statuettes, one for each win, a faded out one for each nomination ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)--></nowiki>

MPAA Ratings

I strongly feel that the MPAA Film Ratings should be put in the infobox for each film.Mollymoon 01:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia, not an American one. However, ratings can be found on some pages. See Halloween (film) and Richard III (1955 film) for ideas as to how to put the classification in the article ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
He might have a point... but if we put in MPAA it is our obligation to include all of the other ones as well. I'm not sure that this is necessary, though, since there's already a link to IMDB in the infobox, and you can find all of the ratings over there. Esn 05:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh the irony this is for me. I came across an orphaned template and put it up for TfD, but somehow ended up improving it, and now it looks like it will go for a keep. Sure though, seems there is a demand for it.. It's a template for international film ratings: Template:Infobox movie certificates. See Cowboy Bebop: The Movie for an example of it in action. Hope that helps. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Now, that's a good template. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that's a good template. Although the font size at the very top might be a bit too big... in any case, though, it's definitely prefferable to having it in the main infobox, I think. Is there any info on your template on the WikiProject Films page yet? Esn 01:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have another comment... why are only certain countries and not others hyperlinked, and what if a film has a different rating in the different regions of Belgium (there are French/English/German-speaking regions, I think)? Esn 01:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It was a bit of an orphaned template when I found it. I only edited it so it wasn't so chunky and the variables were optional (as in, it only displays countries when you input a rating for it). Other people, long before me, put in hyperlinks to articles that were about that countries movie ratings. I haven't yet taken the time myself to look for similar articles for the rest of the countries. As for countries with more than one rating system, Canada is actually on there twice, once as "Canada" and again as "Quebec", so I guess that would be ok to do it for other countries as well. And I just left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films about the template, I'm not sure if they knew about it before (probably not, since, like I said, it was an almost-orphan before). -- Ned Scott 05:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative text for images

I want to add an "alt text" parameter for infobox images, but I'm not sure of the syntax. Is

{{{image|[[Image:IIH.png|200px|<!--
-->{{#if: {{{alt text|}}}
        | {{{alt text}}}
        | {{#if: {{{caption|}}}
               | {{{caption}}}
               | {{PAGENAME}}
          }}
   }}]]}}}

going to do it? I want it to use the "alt text" if specified, failing that the "caption", failing that the article name. (In most cases, there is no reason for the image to have a caption.)


—wwoods 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Art Director

How about an entry for the Art Director? In some films (especially animation), this is a very important role, much more important than editor or cinematographer, and often even more important than the cast members (Triplets of Belleville (2003), for example, has almost no dialogue). Esn 02:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Strandardization of country abbreviations (USA, U.S., etc)

It appears that some editors have different opinions on which country abbreviation is best (I've noticed someone changing instances of "USA" in a film infobox to "U.S."), so I thought I'd put this up to a vote in order to hopefully settle this issue (I hope this the right place). I myself prefer "USA", the reason being that "USSR" is prefferable to "U.S.S.R." (it takes up less space). It's best not to use an abbreviation for another country that does have periods (like "U.S.") if we are to be consistent. Also, are there any other countries besides those two that are typically called by abbreviated forms of their names? DPRK might be one, but I think it's usually called North Korea. Esn 02:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas:
Bisco 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox links that are already in the article

Should every name that appears in an infobox be linked, even if they are already linked within the text of the article itself? Wiki's Mos states that a page is overlinked if a link appears more than once, yet I find myself doing a lot of reversions where people insist on duplicating the links within the infobox. Which is correct? Chris 42 14:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Just as a point of reference, here is the argument that I provided to Chris (after his posted here) in favor of "redundant" linking in the infobox:
"I consider the infobox content to be both supplemental and separate from the article (for example, movie infoboxes tend to have IMDB links, even though they are usually in the "External links" section, and will cite release dates, regardless of whether they are already mentioned in the article)."
Also, I just realized that, as the infobox floats above all the content in the article, its links would be "proper", and all the links in the article itself would be the redundant ones. I might be confused, but I'm pretty sure that's right (and, might I add, lame). EVula 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The Manual of Style just says, "may be considered overlinked" (emph added). The infobox is effectively a section; I don't see any reason not to have links in both the box and the running text. It saves having to hunt around for the linked instance of a name. —wwoods 00:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that sentiment. Some people will read the infobox first, while others will start with the article proper. It's best to try and accomodate both of them. Esn 02:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Executive Producers

I notice that User:68.4.159.26 has been adding an Executive Producer and Associate Producer field to the infobox and User:Ned Scott has been removing them; what are people's opinions on whether they should be included or not? Ziggurat 02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, what about adding an entry for "art director"? In many films this is a very important role - sometimes even more important than the actors. Esn 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I remember attending a lecture by Craig Harrison in which he suggested that everyone involved in the making of a film considers themselves to be the most important part of the process. An infobox isn't supposed to contain all the same information as the credits, so there has to be an upper limit on who is listed here. Directors, producers, and main actors are usually most prominently displayed, so they should be a given. Writers, editors, and cinematographers have a strong case for inclusion. Music, costume designers, and art directors I'm not so sure are essential here, as it seems to be more dependent on the individual film whether they're important or not. Of course, that's just my opinion; hopefully we can all reach an agreement on what's up and what's on the chop! Ziggurat 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Why can't there just be a section on this? Making the template much longer kinda tears down the purpose of the infobox IMHO - quick and easy information - if the thing is long as hell it no longer does a service for that purpose. It's already bigger than it should be, but that's just my 2 cents. K1Bond007 03:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Aye, including in the infobox or not doesn't make anyone less or more important. From the article Executive producer:
“ An executive producer of a motion picture is typically a producer who is not necessarily involved in any creative or technical aspects of production. They generally handle business issues, and may even be a financier of the film. Some executive producers act as representatives of the studio (which releases and/or makes) or production company (which makes) a film, occasionally being credited as executive in charge of production.

Many times someone will receive Executive Producer credit because of their prior involvement with a property that has since been optioned into a film, even if they had no direct input into the production of the film itself. Some instances of this include authors of optioned literary works; people who had previously owned or currently own a property's movie rights; or, someone who had produced, or been involved in the production of, a previous version of the film.

 ”
So, even if they're important, they're usually not directly involved with the creation and such, thus it's not very useful at-a-glance info. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
On second thought... I agree with Ziggurat in that the point of an infobox should be to point out the most important people associated with a film. In most cases these are the actors and director(s), etc. I'd say that the composer is also rather important for many films (can you imagine "Star Wars" or "Jaws" without the music? I cannot). In animated films, I think that the Art Director holds one of the more important roles. Therefore, if it IS put in, perhaps it could come with a stipulation that it is only to be filled in for films in which the role of "Art Director" is an important one (all animated films would fall under that, as well as some visually-reliant live-action ones). Esn 07:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that associate and executive producers shouldn't be on this template. gren グレン 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)