@RobertAltmansPopeye said:

Hi all. Apologies if I've missed this in my searching but I'm looking for further clarification on this rule.

Stripped down versions of official posters are allowed. Custom posters made from promo pictures and/or logos should primarily be used for movies without an official poster.

I'm wondering why this allowed? I understand that some posters have a lot of text but they are designed as a whole. Removal of actor names or even studio info at the bottom almost always results in a worse poster. I often find the removal is noticeable too, no matter how good someone is with the clone stamp. The proliferation or these altered posters seems counter the TMDB's stated goal of being a "high quality and trusted source of entertainment data."

Its allowed because the ideal poster for TMDB is a title only poster- an official poster that is naked/clean (no credits, text (other than title), taglines or logos) aswell as a bunch of other things like having the ideal aspect ratio 1:1.5, and being high quality, etc.

Read about primary posters here: https://www.themoviedb.org/bible/image/59f7582c9251416e7100005f#59f758309251416e71000061

Yes, a lot of posters are uploaded to the site where the photo-editing that was done is noticeable/sub-par and those posters should be (reported and) deleted by the mods. If you see any it would be helpful if you reported them.

But there are also a lot of posters being uploaded that have been stripped down very successfully by someone with very good photo-editing skills. Sometimes the posters themselves are very easy to strip down with not much skill required because the text/logos were surrounded by a plain color or were surrounded by a pattern that is easily replicated with clone stamp or content-aware or heal-selection tools, etc.

Today I was looking at the theatrical poster for Fay Grim (2006) versus the default poster on TMDB. On the original poster, the images are framed intentionally by the actor names. The type creates a sense of claustrophobia, drawing eye to the fraught look on Posey's face and the motion of the blurred image on the bottom. Without the type the poster looks incomplete and unmoored. The original poster has not been posted. This is just one example but I have seen too many to keep track of or count.

The original poster should be uploaded. But the site's preference is for naked/clean posters to be the primary poster ideally. Your argument for the site not having this preference (for some or all posters) is valid though. But advocating for not stripping down official posters, would go against a very established preference on this site I beleive.

Thank you for your reply @softpillow.

The original poster should be uploaded. But the site's preference is for naked/clean posters to be the primary poster ideally. Your argument for the site not having this preference (for some or all posters) is valid though. But advocating for not stripping down official posters, would go against a very established preference on this site I beleive.

I'm really curious as to why this is the site's preference if anyone is able to shed light on that. It wouldn't be acceptable to "strip down" any other elements of a movie (for instance if someone thought a tagline was clunky or there were too many credit lines). These altered posters create a false history and seem antithetical to the idea of a database.

@RobertAltmansPopeye said:

Thank you for your reply @softpillow.

The original poster should be uploaded. But the site's preference is for naked/clean posters to be the primary poster ideally. Your argument for the site not having this preference (for some or all posters) is valid though. But advocating for not stripping down official posters, would go against a very established preference on this site I beleive.

I'm really curious as to why this is the site's preference if anyone is able to shed light on that. It wouldn't be acceptable to "strip down" any other elements of a movie (for instance if someone thought a tagline was clunky or there were too many credit lines). These altered posters create a false history and seem antithetical to the idea of a database.

What do you mean any other elements of a movie? A stripped down version of an official poster (a naked/clean official poster) includes removing both taglines and credits?

What do you mean any other elements of a movie? A stripped down version of an official poster (a naked/clean official poster) includes removing both taglines and credits?

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, those examples I gave were meant to be about the data entry on a movie. I just wanted to point out that editorializing the information about a movie is unacceptable which why I'm so curious why it's the preference for the posters.

@RobertAltmansPopeye said:

What do you mean any other elements of a movie? A stripped down version of an official poster (a naked/clean official poster) includes removing both taglines and credits?

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, those examples I gave were meant to be about the data entry on a movie. I just wanted to point out that editorializing the information about a movie is unacceptable which why I'm so curious why it's the preference for the posters.

I see.

Well to be fair the database wants both clean/naked official posters AND any other kind of official posters (including ones with credits, taglines, etc.). And it is my understanding (I could be wrong though...) that this allows any website or app using this database the choice to use whatever posters they want that is uploaded to the entries of movies/shows. So the "false history" is sometimes the ideal option for posters but the "real history" is still available to be used. Also note that many many movies and shows have official naked/clean posters that have no photo-editing/are original- so often the clean/naked official poster is a "real history" poster.

But if you want to know why the preference is to prefer naked/clean posters (even when they may sometimes be an edited version) then someone else will have to answer that. I personally agree with it, but thats just more of my personal preference.

Just wanted to bump this thread, I'm hoping someone can shed more light on this for me.

Here's another small example that just caught me eye: I'm looking at the default poster for Terminator 3. The person who edited this didn't just remove elements. They increased the size of the title, justifying it to the subtitle and rule separating the title and subtitle. Why? It doesn't appear like on the original poster. The relationship of the title and subtitle was a design decision made by the poster designer. These changes may seem innocuous and inconsequential but they are not, they disrupt and distort the original designs. The poster was designed this way for a reason—the title and subtitle were stacked to create a triangle from the negative space of the top image to visually flow down to the larger image on the bottom.

@RobertAltmansPopeye said:

justifying it to the subtitle and rule separating the title and subtitle.

What does this mean?

@RobertAltmansPopeye said:

Just wanted to bump this thread, I'm hoping someone can shed more light on this for me.

The person who edited this didn't just remove elements.

I'm not saying youre wrong (I dont know if you are or not), but I am curious how do you know someone edited it/why do you think its an edited image and not an official one? It would be helpful to know how you determined this, so I can use it myself to determine which posters I should be reporting potentially.

@softpillow said:

@RobertAltmansPopeye said:

justifying it to the subtitle and rule separating the title and subtitle.

What does this mean?

In design, to justify means to align to something.

@RobertAltmansPopeye said:

Just wanted to bump this thread, I'm hoping someone can shed more light on this for me.

The person who edited this didn't just remove elements.

I'm not saying youre wrong (I dont know if you are or not), but I am curious how do you know someone edited it/why do you think its an edited image and not an official one? It would be helpful to know how you determined this, so I can use it myself to determine which posters I should be reporting potentially.

I look for people selling original movie posters that have photographs of the actual posters. I check ebay and posteritati.com. I also look at other official art releases for the movie . In no case did I find an instance where "Terminator 3" is justified to the subtitle. This only exists in posters uploaded to this site. It is antithetical to the idea of a database to allow this.

@RobertAltmansPopeye said:

Just wanted to bump this thread, I'm hoping someone can shed more light on this for me.

Why? It doesn't appear like on the original poster.

It's possible the answer to your question is simple. It shouldnt be and should be reported and deleted. Especially if there are other clean posters on that movie page that are official or are "less edited"/more faithful to an origianl official design (since to my understanding of the rules custom posters are only really allowed when there are no other options).

@softpillow said:

@RobertAltmansPopeye said:

Just wanted to bump this thread, I'm hoping someone can shed more light on this for me.

Why? It doesn't appear like on the original poster.

It's possible the answer to your question is simple. It shouldnt be and should be reported and deleted. Especially if there are other clean posters on that movie page that are official or are "less edited"/more faithful to an origianl official design.

This is just one example. I am pointing it out on Terminator 3 because it's an extremely popular and often edited entry with more than 100 posters uploaded to it (many of these contributions have copied each other, changing the way the title and subtitle were laid out for no discernible reason). Almost every edited poster on this site deviates from the original designs in one way or another and, more broadly, allowing any type of manipulation to these posters is antithetical to the idea of a database.

I am happy to continue to talk this out with you but would love some clarification from someone who worked on or maintains the contribution rules.