+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Development (/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+--- Forum: Feature Suggestions (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Movie Sets Collection Grouping for Video Database Library Custom Sort Order Filters? (/showthread.php?tid=14476)
- sho - 2008-09-11 12:45
This is certainly interesting, now how to get this into a future version of XBMC in a sensible manner
One idea would be a "connections" View type.
I guess the headache would be to have XBMC automagically pick up the connections in your db and display them, without user intervention.
- clackerdacker - 2008-09-13 06:19
Given this situation is the exception rather that the rule I still think having a sorttitle field that can be manually edited in the same way that the title field is via a menu option is the least intrusive.
- I know the table is "full" but can't the constant in the code limiting the number of columns be extended?
- If not, can't a new table be created for extended movie data and linked one on one via the movie id? This could then have fields added to it as required as I'm sure there'll be other features requested in the future.
- rwparris2 - 2008-09-13 06:42
Quote: I can't see any way that automating the process will work to everyones vision and therefore it should be up to us to decide how our data is modified.
Agreed. Link Movie To TV Show requires user intervention, and so should this. Scrapping IMDB could help suggest/automate things, but ultimately it should be the user's choice.
- jmarshall - 2008-09-13 07:10
You can, ofcourse, bump the number of columns and add another one (or 10).
- Rand Al Thor - 2008-09-13 17:05
clackerdacker Wrote:Given this situation is the exception rather that the rule I still think having a sorttitle field that can be manually edited in the same way that the title field is via a menu option is the least intrusive.
I can't see any way that automating the process will work to everyones vision and therefore it should be up to us to decide how our data is modified.
- I know the table is "full" but can't the constant in the code limiting the number of columns be extended?
- If not, can't a new table be created for extended movie data and linked one on one via the movie id? This could then have fields added to it as required as I'm sure there'll be other features requested in the future.
This seems like a pretty logical way of doing it. That way there are less chances of people complaining that it doesn't sort the way THEY want it to. Each person can set sort as wacky as they please. I guess that would negate the "series stacking" Ie you would click on Indiana Jones and then it would show the Indiana Jones movies. While the stacking of movies in a series sounds nice, I see it more as a fluff feature. Set sort just seems much more straight forward from a design, navigation, and logic standpoint. Just my thoughts. Cheers.
- Gamester17 - 2008-09-13 17:26
rwparris2 Wrote:Yes, imdb does keep track of that sort of stuff under /movieconnections. They tag related movies as "follows" and "followed by."I think that would be a great idea as the "followed by" and other "movie connections" information is listed on IMDb
See star wars :the empire strikes back , ghostbusters , lotr
Off the top of my head, the only way I can think to use this info is an option like highlight Alien>movie info>see movie connections>create new movie group. Some of you UI experts could probably make that part a lot more intuitive...
The info is there, hopefully we can use it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/movieconnections
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/movieconnections
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/movieconnections
- clackerdacker - 2008-09-14 03:30
Sounds and looks good, the only caveat here though is the movie connections seem to be purely chronological and Star Wars 1-3 being prequels should appear prior to 4-6 but that should be easily fixed manually once the data is returned.
I think this might well be the best compromise at an automatic sorting solution and I'm all for compromises to achieve a common goal, although I'm still of the opinion that manual intervention is the cleanest and lowest impact solution. You gotta love XBMC!
- Gamester17 - 2008-09-14 13:17
clackerdacker Wrote:the only caveat here though is the movie connections seem to be purely chronological and Star Wars 1-3 being prequels should appear prior to 4-6 but that should be easily fixed manually once the data is returnedI think that many Star Wars fans will disagree with you there about in which order the should be watched for the true saga experience
...but that is a discussion for a other time and place, ...maybe in a galaxy far far away.
- clackerdacker - 2008-09-15 01:30
Gamester17 Wrote:I think that many Star Wars fans will disagree with you there about in which order the should be watched for the true saga experience
I'm 42 and remember queuing up to see Star Wars, watching it, then queuing up again and then again! My 10 year old on the other hand has a totally different perspective, although even he thinks Jar Jar Binks is a well we all know
- angryshot - 2008-09-26 06:00
for me the issue is not the order that things would be in (there are many ways to order movies, date, part, alpha etc - i am happy to use what ever) although i guess others do in which case being able to select another order might be nice but i'll be buggered if i had to manually group 20+ Bond films together - it should be automatic as a first step.
the problem for me is finding the movie in the first place.
take James Bond for example 20+ movies that using IMDB and Lib view today spreads them from a-z (well not quite but close to)
then take Indiana Jones - the first movie is called Raiders of the lost Ark where are the others are called Indiana Jones and..... and hence not together
the way i think of finding movies is group then specific movie (i can't remember the specific naming conventions for each series)
my 2 cents