I’ve know about Imdb for years and it’s my number one site for cast information and actors. I don’t know how many users they have but even my 71 year old mother uses it all the time. If I was a publisist or agent I would make sure every one of my clients had their picture and bio on Imdb. Seems like it would be cheap and easy way to get you clients face out there. When I am curious about someone I see on TV it seems like well over half of them do not have pictures and have a half assed bio. Everyone I know uses Imdb, why doesn’t Hollywood?
Possibly because Hollywood didn’t invent IMDb?
Or because Hollywood can’t control IMDb.
It’s not as accurate as they’d like us to think–a great deal of the information is provided by the fans from fansites. Plus, we’ve heard from actors & such here on the board that agencies have access to much spiffier websites & tools than the IMDB.
That being said, they might well use it just as a quick reference… “has this guy worked with that actress” or “has this director done any Westerns…” kind of thing.
I think Loach meant use it for publicity. I’ve noticed a lot of actors who don’t have a picture. And I use it anytime I have a question. Similarly, my parents will use it when they’re playing their favorite movie game, “Six Degrees of What’s-His-Name.”
It’s probably a mistake to post during my second day of puking my guts out. Feel free to speak for me.
Publicity only works if you target people who can give you work. Having a pretty picture on the IMDB for me to look at won’t get you in the door anywhere. Having a picture/resume in a place where a casting director will look is going to be 100x more important.
Of course, if I was in the biz, and had a listing on the IMDB, I’d probably send over a picture and accurate bio just out of vanity.
I play poker online with some actors and I’ve teased a few of them about not having a picture up. These are A-/B+ level actors and they’ve pretty much said that it’s not worth even the $35 IMDB charges to have a picture. Obviously that sentiment isn’t uniform across the industry (or else IMDB is putting up a lot of those pictures itself).
I have only seen it mentioned once by someone big name, and never again. John Waters casually dropped it into this monologue once, and I was completely surprised. Of course, he is more indie than Hollywood, but he is still some what mainstream.
I don’t think this is the correct calculus. If you become well known to the public at large, that can only help you in landing roles.
–Cliffy
On NPR a couple weeks ago, they had some Hollywood schmoe who talked about how IMDB was used by EVERYONE in Hollywood. As a typical usage, he talked about how you might be on the phone with someone trying to kiss ass, and you’d say, “I loved you in The Mongoose Strikes at Twilight!” when really you just IMDBed the movie seconds before.
He made it sound pretty useful to Hollywood folks, just maybe in a different way.
Daniel
Tell your actor friends they’re idiots. IMDB is the quickest and easiest way for a member of the general public to visually identify character actors. I actually think LESS of an actor if I go to their page and there’s no picture there. If they don’t care if I know what they look like, then why should I care who they are? There’s plenty more where they came from. Actors who have self-esteem and pride in their work will cough up the $35.
Yeah, it seems to me like we here at Les Dopant Droit are all the time digging up pictures of sometimes obscure celebrities, and having them more easily accessible would only increase the potential for viral publicity.
I’m not entirely sure that the kind of publicity that a thread like “Don Knotts and Joe C-List-Star: Separated at Birth?” generates is the kind they really want…
You all realize there’s an IMDbPro that’s specifically designed for people in the industry. It’s not free to view, however.
I agree that any B actor or better should have a nice headshot and bio.
Sure, there’s that. But there are also the many “Which C-list-celebrity would you totally do?” threads.
Andy Richter mentioned it in some DVD commentary I watched. He told another actor something like, “after I met you I had to look you up on imdb.com to figure out who the hell you were,” or something.
It made me imagine that probably a lot of actors use it that way. You could meet someone at a party or as someone you will potentially work with, but don’t know much about and then just look them up to spy on them.
If the general public isn’t going to be offering them jobs, why should the actors care whether the general public looks them up? If the picture isn’t on IMDB, it’ll come up through Google and that’s free.
It’s definitely known (and used) by net-savvy people in the industry, but mostly in the ways mentioned (seeing what else your future co-star was in, checking up on your personal message board comments, etc.). And yes, it is FULL of mistakes- trivia, middle names, etc.
You have to pay IMDB to have a head-shot on your entry? Has it always been this way? Does that mean Jack Nicholson coughed up $35 to IMDB? I always assumed that they would add a picture for free, as long as the person signed a release. I’ve seen ads on IMDB for new talent to pay for a head-shot and profile, but I assumed that they got more – like being added to services in IMDBPro.
It seems like if a person has a profile, then it is in IMDB’s interest to add a head-shot, otherwise people will just google the name as Otto suggested. I would assume that IMDB cares more about website hits then actor’s memberships.