Advertising Last completed movie pages
Kenworth Hustler Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2014-08-09 01:59 |
Left one is a Kenworth. |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 05:32 |
![[Image: ablaze2001torrentsruavi_002994611.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/15460/ablaze2001torrentsruavi_002994611.jpg) |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 16:45 |
reused footage !!! /vehicle_518844-Kenworth-Hustler.html |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 16:46 |
suggestion maybe this reused footage entries should be DELETED BUT this looks to be better print so maybe put this shots o the original movie entry ?! |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 18:47 |
Why would you want this to be deleted from another movie  |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 19:37 |
because it's stock footage reused ? |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 20:27 |
Yes, but this movie does nothing but reuse stock footage. You might as well delete the whole movie. |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 20:36 |
there are scenes shot for it like this /vehicle_727489-Lincoln-Town-Car-1993.html |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 22:48 |
Just because a movie reuses footage, doesn't mean it has to be deleted. |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 22:50 |
I said the reused footage scenes not the whole movie or is my english not understandable enough ? ![[:kiki]](https://imcdb.opencommunity.be/images/smileys/kiki.gif "[:kiki]") and in this case the reused footage is about 90% of vehicles, what the point to list the very same shots twice or more ? -- Last edit: 2014-08-09 22:51:21 |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 22:53 |
BTW can't you use this shots to replace the one from original entry since they are better quality ? |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 22:53 |
And I meant the reused footage scenes don't have to be deleted. |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 22:57 |
wonder what ANTP will say about this  meanwhile why not replace the original pics ? /movie_78976-City-on-Fire.html |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 23:02 |
Plenty of other movies reuse footage from other films, and just because scenes are reused is not a good enough reason to delete to them. In fact, it's interesting to see how movies recycle footage from older films. |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 23:07 |
but in this case seems the ENTIRE "movie" consists of reused footage |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 23:08 |
Yeah, so? |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 23:09 |
so what's the point listing the very same thing again and again , even the same angles, waste just HD space which isn't unlimited here all for some D-list "movie" which nobody cares about -- Last edit: 2014-08-09 23:10:19 |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 23:12 |
So that everybody here could see that this movie was so bad and cheap, that they had to reuse footage from 2 movies.  |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 23:18 |
ANTP should make you all who have this keep all, upload thumbnails at insane levels pay money for extra HD space  -- Last edit: 2014-08-09 23:18:39 |
|
◊ 2014-08-09 23:42 |
In that case, you should be charged every time you write a demanding request or complaint.  |
|
◊ 2014-08-10 01:03 |
^antp could give up Google Ads and move to a bigger apartment. But with re-used footage you could post thumbnails of the other movie's cars, to save space. Then you'd also provide the information where it was originally used. Although the problem is not so much with movies, that should happen with documentaries. |
|
◊ 2014-08-10 01:30 |
As a small observation, reused footage can often be better quality than original - digitally cleaned up or enhanced for new media (eg 1950s stuff now released on DVD, or for a blu ray version etc). This is very common with a lot of recent documentaries - the modern releases are much better than original sources were. Plus as a practical point, I can just about manage my own captures as they build up - if I have to start digging into captures made by other people, things would start getting too complicated for my envelope. And for mike's basic point, the primary purpose of the site is to provide IDs for things people might see in films (alongside various bits of mission creep to provide fun, contributor retention, reference material etc alongside) so a random site visitor has to be able to discover our assigned ID quickly and easily. It does not matter if that footage has been recycled several times - if their starting point is film X, it should appear on film X's page. It's that simple. We'll always need to solve the practicalities and technical capacity stuff, but if those issues constrain the primary objective to prevent full delivery, then we start losing our raison d'etre. This also means - to answer another recurring theme - that we don't ditch things just because we have not (yet) identified them - it is still a useful offering for our random visitor that something may not actually ever be identifiable despite our best efforts |
|
◊ 2014-08-10 05:02 |
My guess that we are dealing a person who has two side: one needs extra thumbnails for his construction/engineering equipment analysis and none for the other Let's see how strong he can take this ![[:austinou]](https://imcdb.opencommunity.be/images/smileys/austinou.gif "[:austinou]") -- Last edit: 2014-08-10 05:26:05 |
|
◊ 2014-08-11 17:27 |
We often had movies using footage from other ones, there is no problem in listing these. As long as it is creating a new movie. What we do not list : - movies made just with two or three series episodes put together, as it sometimes happens - music videos, shows or documentaries simply showing scenes from movies There is also sometimes common footage between documentaries, that's much more annoying/useless than cases like this one. For a movie made completely with parts of other movies, listing all is not useful, cf for example this famous French movie: /movie.php?id=321715 but I guess that here they just took pars of other movies but also included their own footage... -- Last edit: 2014-08-11 17:48:27 |
|
◊ 2014-08-18 14:27 |
100% agreeing with this and most of people here. Look at IMPDB where a specific page is built for these reused pictures or same objects .gif ";)") Frequently Seen Aircraft It doesn't spoil interest. -- Last edit: 2014-08-18 14:29:33 |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
