What was the reason for deleting the collection?

I second the idea of a collection. And if the director called it the “Eastrail 177” Trilogy, then so be it. I couldn’t understand, after organizing the first two films into a collection folder, why Kodi failed to see it.

Someone with the ability to do so, please add this (and lock it to prevent deletion).

It probably will once it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray.

We’re talking about marking the three separate films as part of a collection on this site, for the purposes of scraping utilities and general organization. We’re not talking about a sales bundle or anything like that.

Movies marked as part of a named collection on themoviedb.org have a “Part of the _________ collection” banner.

Well there are mods you can talk to if you feel it should be this way. Though I suspect it has to do with the fact the film is still in theaters and they'd make such a change once the dust settles, ie it comes to home media. But, again, I'd contact a mod and see what they say.

I haven't watched any of these films and know nothing of them but I think here is the issue addressed about six months ago by several mods: https://www.themoviedb.org/talk/5b54db31c3a3685c91004884. It sounds like they somewhat came to an agreement that the three films do not belong together in a collection, or that they shouldn't be put in a collection yet, OR that they should be put into a completely different feature, called universe, which that has yet to be implemented into this website (though I believe Travis plans to have it on the website "late 2019"; from what I remember reading).

I would reccommend reading this: https://www.themoviedb.org/bible/collection and if you think these three do belong in a collection, making a report on this entry or make a post in the support forums or Re Open that thread and make a new reply, stating why you think they should be in a collection. (Or, you can just do any of those three without reading that thing I linked or without giving any reasons, haha your life; your choices ).

Okay, so it may be a collection “after the fact,” but so what? If a filmmaker explicitly wants to group his/her films in a collection, and promotes them as such, I kinda feel like the web info should match that. Otherwise, we’re back to posters full of Roman numerals.

I like the “universe” idea, though I think it might be unwise to start splitting hairs for something that is mostly just for automatic scraping and organization.

Already, issues have come up with films like the recent Ghostbusters reboot with regard to collection status. Deciding these things will seem almost arbitrary. With franchises being such film juggernauts, it just seems like it will make more work and headaches for mods (and scraping app creators). Won’t be long before they start putting films in sub-collection folders of a larger universe collection folder.

My sympathies lie with all site mods responsible for maintaining any info that begins with the word “Star”.

Btw, I'm not sure if any mod will see this discussion because it's under general rather than being a report or a support topic. If you really want to hear what the mods say and want this change to happen I would recommend making a post in the support forums, making a content report in this entry (or on any of the other related films' entries), or replying to that report thread I linked.

I vote for a collection. I bet there would be way more yays then nays if a poll was posted.

It's listed as a trilogy/series here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbreakable_(film_series)

i was looking fro the same thing... if you look at the tmdb page of unbreakable in the conversation section someone ask why they didnt in a collection and one mod answer this : "Hi, unfortunately the last movie is a sequel to both the first and the second, while the second is not a proper sequel to the first movie, meaning this is not a fit for our current collection rules. We have to be patient and wait for universe style collections. Thanks."

so i did a google research and i found this : https://www.themoviedb.org/bible/collection

But i still think its a big mistake not to link these films together.

@thedieher said:

i was looking fro the same thing... if you look at the tmdb page of unbreakable in the conversation section someone ask why they didnt in a collection and one mod answer this : "Hi, unfortunately the last movie is a sequel to both the first and the second, while the second is not a proper sequel to the first movie, meaning this is not a fit for our current collection rules. We have to be patient and wait for universe style collections. Thanks."

so i did a google research and i found this : https://www.themoviedb.org/bible/collection

But i still think its a big mistake not to link these films together.

That explanation makes no sense. So apparently I should be able to create a movie set of only Split and Glass, because according to the mod quote that's a true sequel? Let's do that then, if only to see what reason the mods come up with to delete it.

For more nonsensical wisdom, visit this thread: https://www.themoviedb.org/talk/5a049ff79251416afa001372 (You'll have to login since it was removed)

I love how that thread is deleted and there was never a response to the points nabsltd brought up, except "we already explained countless of times". Yet I can't find a conclusive argument addressing those points anywhere. I get the feeling this decision was made before Glass was released and now the mods are just doubling down on it for no reason? Seems really weird.

I also think that it should be a collection, since they are the same characters and the 3rd installment directly touches the previous 2, if this film is not a collection it would be necessary to review the collection of 007 since although it is the same character they are not correlative films

The mod replied but mmm... i am still confused.

https://www.themoviedb.org/talk/5b54fd070e0a2673cd0075c0