[HN Gopher] Ordering movie credits with graph theory ___________________________________________________________________ Ordering movie credits with graph theory Author : sigil Score : 146 points Date : 2021-12-21 17:48 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (endcrawl.com) (TXT) w3m dump (endcrawl.com) | zestyping wrote: | Why? What's the point of trying to come up with a single optimal | order? Every movie does it differently and probably has reasons | for doing so. This seems like investing a huge amount of work to | solve a problem that no one really needs the solution to. | conroy wrote: | > probably has reasons for doing so | | Probably not. They do credits for movies of all sizes. If | you're doing a small student film, do you really want to think | about the order of your credits? This gives you a great default | choice. | TigeriusKirk wrote: | You probably want to pay particular attention to credit order | on a student film since it's often the only compensation | there is for a lot of the crew. | Zababa wrote: | > What's the point of trying to come up with a single optimal | order? | | On the frontpage of Endcrawl, the company behind this blog | post: | | > Ace your end credits and de-stress post production with the | solution used by over 2,000 films and series. | | Having a standard template seems like a way to easily "de- | stress post production", and maybe even "ace your end credits". | If this actually becomes an industry standard, the company | behind it would also get some publicity. I've personally never | even thought about how credits were made, and never knew that | there were companies focused on just this point. Now I know | that Endcrawl exist, and have a positive opinion of them | because they wrote an intersting blog post, that could be used | as a reference for other ordering problems. They're also | trading this standard template for your email address: | https://endcrawl.com/template/ | noxvilleza wrote: | I wonder, now that there's a metric for what are the most | "normal" credit structures, what the most abnormal structures | are. | | Also interested why they went with Trueskill over Glicko 2, since | it's just 1v1 'encounters' anyway. | ridaj wrote: | I wonder if the low level production assistants tasked with | putting together the credit lists cost enough to justify the work | going into this. | jacobr1 wrote: | That is the premise of the startup that funded this work. Use | their tools to build the credits at both higher quality and | cheaper than the current approach. Having a standard order | (that is modifiable when needed) both establishes creditability | and seems necessary to auto-generate credits when the list of | creditable people provided is unordered. | citizenpaul wrote: | What is the abomination of a webpage that removes the scroll bar? | Pass. | adrianmonk wrote: | Not being a movie buff, I really did not understand the basics of | what the goal is here. (There was a problem statement, but it | really didn't give the 50,000 foot view.) After having read much | of the article, I think I can summarize it. | | (1) Whose name comes up first when the credits roll matters in | some way. Presumably people feel slighted if they don't have the | right amount of prominence or something like that. | | (2) Apparently, despite this being important enough to worry | about, and even though there are standardized titles, and even | though people have been making movies for well over 100 years, | there isn't a consensus or standardized order. Seemingly every | film just sort of does something they feel is appropriate. | | (3) It must be a fair assumption that people who arrange credits | do it with purpose, so that if you look at the order they chose, | it tells you something meaningful about what the right order is. | | (4) The goal, then, is to basically computationally reverse | engineer what order people have in mind when they put credits on | film and produce an ordering that reflects actual practice as | accurately as possible. | | (5) This is a messy process because the data is inconsistent and | contradictory, so it is fertile ground for creatively applying | algorithms to tease out the meaningful parts. | tzs wrote: | "Cheers" had an interesting solution to a conflict over who | should come first, or perhaps more accurately who should not be | second. Ted Danson and Shelley Long both wanted top billing. | | The solution was to have Shelley Long on the upper right of the | first screen with names and to have Ted Danson on the lower | left of that screen. The credits were the consecutive screen | type, not the long scroll type, so the two names appeared at | the same time. | | Long would be read first by someone who read down, and Danson | would be read first by someone going left to right. The | producers were able to convince both Long and Danson that they | were not second. | | The rest of the main cast each got a screen afterwards with | just their name on it. | | Here's the credits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS0VQOHX7lM | | When Long left and Kirstie Alley joined the cast as the new | female lead and there was now no question than Danson was the | star of the show there were no more special screens. Each main | cast member got their own screen, with Danson's being the first | shown. | | Here's that version: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGdpE8Dsr0U | dylan604 wrote: | (1) is sometimes contractually obligated | | (2) commonly, once the leads or "above the fold" credits, they | list by department with leads listed first, then plebes last. | Look at all of the 3D artists. Just a list of names. Above | them, are the project managers, above them are directors, | producers, etc. | | *all of the above comes from personal involvement. sometimes | asking a direct question of "what goes first" is responded with | "I'll get back to you", but never does. "Just do what everyone | else does" is common response too. | | you have to remember that the person doing the credits is | pretty much the lowest of jobs. nobody wants to do this job, | and it is often assigned to intern level assignments. "take | this Word Doc/Excel/.txt, and turn it into a graphic". Every | post house I've worked in has always cried "there must be a | better way". | dylan604 wrote: | Where I stated "above the fold", that totally should be | "above the line". This isn't a newspaper. DOH! | utexaspunk wrote: | I think the primary goal here is to create an exercise for | exploring different graph theory concepts, not to actually be | useful. You're thinking too much :) | melony wrote: | Imaginary ego boosts is always better than having to pay them | more. | jacobr1 wrote: | Is there any evidence that they aren't imaginary? For | example, does be listed early in one project, lead to | improved likelihood of getting a better placement on the next | project (with corresponding higher future pay)? | | If that is the case, then the perception that one is a "star" | or whatever, with credit order, mind correlate with future | success. Of course, that correlation might be independent of | credit-order placement (such as the actor is actually better | in the movie and would be perceived as such even without | credit order placement). | dylan604 wrote: | It's almost as if nobody has heard of the term "top | billing". It's not any different than deciding whose name | goes on the marquee, on the poster, etc | sfink wrote: | Cool article, it's fun to see how many situations can be mapped | to graph theory. | | The description of the cost function seems strange, since it's | described in terms of the distance from "the correct order". It's | clear that there is no single correct order. If two movies | disagree on the ordering, it is not necessarily the case that one | of them is doing it "wrong". | | Mathematically, it seems like it would be better to see any given | movie's ordering as a sample from a statistical distribution. | That suggests that computing cost in confidence terms, as in the | probability of generating that ordering given your assumed | distribution, might make more semantic sense. So for example you | could maybe use the frequency graphs from the article and sum up | the surprise of each path from the first to last entry in your | list. (Where "surprise" here is the inverse of how frequently one | node follows another.) That's linear. Or you could do it | quadratically by making a matrix of A-follows-B frequencies and | then summing up all pairs of entries in your list (normalizing by | the length of the list). The latter takes more of the graph | structure into account. | | Which is also the other thing that seemed a bit odd -- it seems | like the "A follows B" relationship is getting a little mixed up | with "A immediately follows B". As in, clumping the generator- | related roles together isn't the same thing as saying an intern | should follow a principal, and the cost function shouldn't treat | those constraints the same way. I don't know how much noise it | introduces, but intuitively it seems like the algorithm probably | ought to do an ordering and then a clumping. Or perhaps the | opposite: do ordering within clumps ("everything with 'generator' | in the name"), then treat the clump as a single component for the | main ordering pass. | | The last thing is that the article seems to take NP-hardness too | seriously. Sure, if you really had to consider every possible | permutation, it would take too long. But there's _way_ more than | enough structure in the problem to take advantage of. Some very | very conservative heuristics would surely dramatically reduce the | size of the _relevant_ N that participates in the core NP-hard | problem. Your Traveling Salesman may have to visit 50 cities in | each of Oregon and New York, but you _know_ there 's no point in | making him fly back and forth between the states more than the | minimally required (2). Write your algorithms in such a way that | you don't need to even allow the possibility of putting the | Gaffer behind the Intern Electrician's Boyfriend's Dog. | sigil wrote: | _If two movies disagree on the ordering, it is not necessarily | the case that one of them is doing it "wrong"._ | | (Author here.) Indeed! This is about trying to discover | emergent conventions, so we can give first-time filmmakers a | good starting point. | | _Or you could do it quadratically by making a matrix of | A-follows-B frequencies and then summing up all pairs of | entries in your list (normalizing by the length of the list). | The latter takes more of the graph structure into account._ | | This is what PageRank (Experiment 3) does! | | _The last thing is that the article seems to take NP-hardness | too seriously. Sure, if you really had to consider every | possible permutation, it would take too long. But there 's way | more than enough structure in the problem to take advantage | of._ | | I ask this question in a footnote [0] -- is this permutation | space amenable to gradient descent? Don't know the answer! If | someone knows this area well I'm all ears. | | [0] https://endcrawl.com/credits-ordering/#fn:permutation- | search | glitcher wrote: | Off topic: | | Does anyone know of a resource where you can search for peoples' | names that appear in any movie/tv credits? The list of credits | can be massive, and I don't think sites like IMDb are trying to | create archival coverage at that level of detail. | lucasgw wrote: | IMDb Pro does a very good job of this. But you do need the | subscription. | bigmattystyles wrote: | This is a tangent, and I know everything is negotiated via | contracts but what is the deal with the ordering of names on | posters not matching the order of the actors on the poster when | the poster picture is a group photo. | bena wrote: | Movie posters are a complex subject. Way more complex than they | have any right to be. | | Look at the poster for "The Towering Inferno". Steve McQueen's | name is left-most while Paul Newman's name is the highest. | William Holden is lower than both of them and to the right, | lining up with McQueen's last name. And Faye Dunaway is about | half an line lower than Holden's last name. | | Then there's fights about how big someone's name/picture can be | in relation to others. | | Look at the live action Beauty and the Beast Poster. Emma | Watson gets a lot of poster estate and first billing. Then it | gets a bit crazy. Not to mention, how people are billed is a | bit contentious as well. You'll notice that it's mostly a list | of names except the final two. "with Ian McKellen and Emma | Thompson". That's because being a special mention is worth | something. It's a way to give prominence to non-leading actors | who are significant in other ways. | | The Thor movies do this with Anthony Hopkins. Clearly he's not | the lead, but dude has had a career and he was a big get for | the movies. For Ragnarok, they even toss it to Mark Ruffalo, | probably as a way to acknowledge his part's significance in the | film. | | Spider-man: Homecoming is another interesting one to look at as | well as it gives a lot of real estate to Robert Downey Jr. Tom | Holland has a smaller picture than the Spider-man suit, while | Robert Downey Jr. is much larger than the Iron Man suit. | Michael Keaton also gets the double up, but both of his images | are much smaller. | | A lot of the Marvel posters are good to look at to see the | politicking that goes on as they do a lot of ensemble movies. | | And then there's also the fact that sometimes the pictures are | made before the credits are put on it. So you're locked in an | image but contracts dictate name order. | lesuorac wrote: | Top Billing is the term to learn more. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billing_(performing_arts)#Top_... | xmprt wrote: | Because of an antiquated rule where the highest paid or biggest | actor's name is always left most. So you naturally end up in | the situation where the biggest actor name is on the left but | the picture is in the middle. | smegsicle wrote: | antiquated? what changed? | bee_rider wrote: | Probably for one thing the relative importance of the | marquee vs standalone posters. | wingmanjd wrote: | I had no idea this was the reason! It always annoyed me when | they didn't match. | goto11 wrote: | The names are listed with the biggest star first. Billing order | is part of the contract. But the posters typically have the | biggest star in the middle, most visually prominent, and then | the smaller stars on both sides or sourrounding. | forrestthewoods wrote: | Fun post. Well written and great visuals. | | Is it stealing the scroll bar for anyone else? I literally can't | tell where I am in the article and have to scroll with my mouse | wheel. Wat? | scubbo wrote: | Doesn't this presuppose that there exists a single canonical way | to order the credits, rather than them being reordered per- | project? Perhaps the Lighting Electrician role in Love Hard was | less impactful than in Black Is King, leading to it being | intentionally ranked lower. | egypturnash wrote: | That's my thinking too. It also ignore any and all _social_ | reasons for changing the order. | | Shaking out a fairly optimal list that jibes with the instincts | of people who have read a lot of credits has its uses, though; | it feels like a good starting point from which to deal with the | fact that this production had some _incredible_ demands put on | the Balloon Tech, and that the Basecamp Electrician 's father | is one of the studio executives and cut a deal to have their | kid's name higher up in exchange for greenlighting the show. Or | whatever. | ridaj wrote: | No, it acknowledges that common practice varies such that there | is no canonical ordering, and tries to get at an ordering that, | when applied, minimizes difference with common practice. | monocasa wrote: | I thought most of that was in the union contracts. | 88 wrote: | Surely the order of movie credits is a political decision, not a | technical one? | beaconstudios wrote: | yes - but I think the idea was to reduce the perceived level of | arbitrariness of their ordering by appealing to mathematical | analysis. Technical analysis is used for this purpose all the | time. | btown wrote: | "The tool you bought said X, I just went with that to get | something to you quickly" is a great way to Get Things Done | in any political industry. If stakeholders care, they'll | override it placing less blame on your shoulders than they | would otherwise. And tool makers that optimize for minimizing | surprise can be great allies in this. | LeonardoTolstoy wrote: | The main acting credits order in films is an interesting question | as well which I guess could maybe be answered in a similar | manner. Some films order actors alphabetically. Some by | appearance. And some order the first N by some contractually | reasoning, but then presumably the rest will be ordered less | strictly, possibly somewhat randomly. I've always wanted to | tackle the problem of trying to standardize the lists somewhat. | | Just an example to explain what I mean. The film Bard Wire has an | alphabetical cast list (so Pamela Anderson Lee, as she went by at | the time, is mid way down the credits). Interestingly the "three | actors" listed by IMDb has Anderson first, but then the next two | are just the top two on the credits. It would be useful, to a | degree, to try and figure out who those second and third people | should be based on some metric. | jacobr1 wrote: | Ordering by appearance also seems to be common. | dahfizz wrote: | Really interesting write up. I hate that this website hides my | scroll bar, though. And overlaying the ordering right on top of | the image of the credits as you scroll is irritating. If you want | to compare the ordering and the credits themselves, you have to | scroll up and down repeatedly. There is plenty of room to put the | ordering next to the credits, no "fancy" styling required. | dkonofalski wrote: | I didn't even notice until you had pointed it out and now I | hate it. Thanks for that. | fudged71 wrote: | Sort of like movie credits. You have no sense of how much | longer they are going to take. | | Maybe these same folks can add a progress bar to end credits | across major films ;) | fudged71 wrote: | Jumping off the end of the article... Has this technique been | done with org charts? Is there any place I can dump a list of | role names and have an "expected" org chart generated? | jacobr1 wrote: | There are two preconditions for performing the analysis the | same way. You need a standardized set of roles between | companies. And you need a corpus of existing org-charts. | Between those two, you could compute the "most common" org | hierarchy. It actually would be interesting just to understand | how how common titles align across firms, even independent of | hierarchical structure. | KarlKemp wrote: | A completely useless busywork to generate a chart that will | eventually get upper management to devour each other? Boy, | that sounds like a job for ISO 9001: | http://9001quality.com/iso-9001-organizational-structure- | job... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-21 23:00 UTC)