Does Buccaneer Island (2000-) really exist?

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 3 months ago
  • Answered
Does Buccaneer Island (2000-) ( actually exist? It has been added years ago, when it was easier to add new titles and also there are only a country, a language and color/b&w information listed. I also can't find anything via search engines about this.

Photo of Marco


  • 1602 Posts
  • 2040 Reply Likes

Posted 10 months ago

  • 3
Photo of Marco


  • 1602 Posts
  • 2040 Reply Likes
If anyone feels like sending a delete for this title, feel free to.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7402 Posts
  • 9811 Reply Likes
I've not abandoned IMDb, but my activity both on the main site and the community forum has slowly declined considerably in the past several months. To be fair, a lot of this has to do with me being more engaged in other activities, whether on the Internet or offline. If feels like the IMDb infrastructure is just not really scaling with the desires of contributors and fans, and the needs of customers, over time.
Photo of Marco


  • 1602 Posts
  • 2040 Reply Likes
NIkolay, it sure is a personal question, but that's okay. It seems I'm about five years older than you are. It's been about fifteen years since I've been in my late teens. Jeez, I feel old now. :)

You refer to my reaction to recent IMDb activities. I can understand that you feel that way given the fact I did refer to some recent issues concerning IMDb, but please note that I also referred to issues going back 2 years (the removal of admission numbers on regular IMDb) and even 9 years (the five new genres).
Also, when I say I feel IMDb doesn't prioritize the way I feel they should, that's a very old sentiment. It's something I've been saying every now and again for the last 10-15 years I think. :)
Apart from that, I've applauded quite some changes in the past. The introduction of Full Episode Support (FES) in, I believe, 2006 was more than brilliant and so was the switch from swiki to non-swiki for the FAQ's, parental guides and plot synopsis about two years ago. I was also very happy to see the coming of in 2008 but also fully understood why it was discontinued some years later. The same goes for the character pages. (although I wasn't happy with the wikid nature of them) I still miss the message boards on IMDb itself, but understand why they had to be discontinued, even though for me personally, the message boards where more user-friendly than GetSat is (or am I the only one who keeps getting logged out every couple of weeks for no apparent reason?). And a statement of mine from November 2017 regarding the ever faster processing times even made the end-of-year message, which was, of course, quite an honor (see the message here:
So I'm afraid I can't agree with your assessment that I reacted to recent IMDb activities and that it might have something to do with the pure concept of things changing.

In my humble opinion cutting away your IMDb participation because you are dissatisfied with some of the website's proceedings and yet still being an active user is hardly a viable solution.
About the cutting away: Well, I said I've severely cut down. I didn't say I had totally quit. As a matter of fact, I did submit a new episode for a Dutch talk show about half an hour ago. But the contribution before that stems from August 20th.
Also, I'm still using the database as a customer to look up information about titles I've just seen and I'll keep rating titles.
Apart from that, I'll keep reading this board. Because you are absolutely right: this is a place where we can all learn quite a bit. Besides that, it gives one the opportunity to point out issues that can make IMDb (even) better.

About the being dissatisfied with some of the website's proceedings: Here are things I'm not happy with, divided in categories. I think it's quite a long list of things that give me pause, but feel free to feel to disagree of course.

Issues that have been going on for way too long, which leads me to think IMDb doesn't prioritize them while I think it should:
-A proper place for dubbers.
The first time I've asked for this (in 2003 on the old Contributors board, so I can't give a link), IMDb already said that they would want to offer this to their customers. 16 years later, it's not only not here yet, but I don't have a reason to believe it'll be here in the near future.
-The addition of the five new genres.
You may feel that they are only secondary genres, but I disagree when it comes to soap opera and erotica. These are very basic genres. Apart from that, IMDb has been talking about adding these since 2006 (!).
-Offering loved ones of deceased filmmakers a change to add a photo of someone in the database
Years ago, IMDb had a Family Tribute Waiver, giving family of a deceased filmmakers the chance to add a picture of them to their IMDb page. This service has been discontinued years ago, but there still isn't a good substitute for it.
-Ordering Other Works
I think it has been about ten years ago that I first asked to be able to order people's other works sections. Currently, they can be very unwieldy and if they could be put in a certain order (chronological order springs to mind), it would help customers a lot. It would also make it easier for contributors to weed out possible duplicates.

Issues I just happen to strongly disagree with:
-Allowing people to buy their way into the database by buying a page on IMDbPro, which also creates a page on regular IMDb.
I feel people should only have a page on the regular IMDb if they've worked on an eligible title.
-Allowing people to remove the name they were given at birth.
IMDb is a database concerning people. Obviously, this comes with birth names being listed. Allowing some people (not all people, just the people who are more equal than the other people) to be able to delete factually correct information is the last thing a database should allow. (Also, one can wonder if this will be last thing that people will be able to get deleted. Will dates of birth be safe on here? Or certain titles with certain n-words in them? I used to be sure about their survival on IMDb. Now, I'm not)
-Allowing people to submit extremely short reviews.
This makes for terrible reviews. 50 characters is way too low a minimum to allow user reviews.
-Allowing contributors to add very silly information to people's trivia pages.
I've deleted thousands of pointless, silly, teen magazine fodder, but IMDb doesn't want to help in keeping this number contained:

Things that do bother or annoy me, but aren't (extremely) principal on my part and/or also haven't been going on long enough for me to question IMDb's prioritizing skills. (but the sum of issues listed here doesn't help making me a happy camper, as I hope you'll be able to understand)
-The fact that it takes IMDb quite some time to fix certain issues and the lack of response when one asks about this.
An example of things that take quite a while:
I'm happy to see this language issue fixed, but it did take 1,5 year:
This two year old question regarding last names still hasn't been answered, despite a few bumps of mine:
-Splitting off more areas of the filmography section.
I realize this is a very big undertaking and I was happy to see Location Management getting their own section about three (?) years ago, but others (script department being one of them) have been in the pipeline very long now.
-The fact that the Locations Tree is still gone.
A very useful place for customers and a perfect spot for contributors to make the database a bit better. See this thread to vote it back:
-The silliness regarding the Oscar badges.
Well, this is a bit principal because it is just very silly, but it's not important enough to be passionate about, if that makes any sense. :) Anyway, see:
-Not allowing end years for a series until after the last episode has aired.
Just silly. See:
-The fact that there is no cross-reference for keywords as well as no list of definitions.
Given the number of different keywords, I fully understand why this hasn't materialized yet. However, it does mean it is very probably the messiest section of the whole database.
-The fact that end years of series can't be added via the regular update button.
No biggie, more of a pet peeve perhaps, but I have been hoping for it for years and I do think it leads to less submissions in this area.
-Creating title types for music videos and commercials.
I understand why they can be added to the database, but it's been quite some years now that we've been waiting for proper title types for these types of titles.
-Tens of thousands of empty names don't get deleted from the database.

Obviously, if I took (even) more time, I could make the last list longer, but I think you see why I don't mind taking a bit of a (temporary) break from updating.

I don't get what was the functionality of duplicated plot summaries list, but my guess is that it might be connected, as in case with some of the list functionality out there, is connected to the fact that site moved to a new engine.
It might, but my question about it a month ago, has yet to be answered by IMDb:

(the lack of communication from staffers has been an off and on problem ever since Jon Reeves was let go in 2011)

This post has gotten longer (and taken me longer) than I anticipated, so let me end by stressing that I know staffers work very hard to make this database a bit better every day. And of course, the processing times have only gone up and up and up over the years, which is amazing, given the number of submissions that have to be processed. Optimistic as I (also) am, I know that in time, some of the issues I listed above will be taken care off and I will probably be back with enough contributions to become a Top Contributor (as I've been some times in the past: once again, but for now, my contributions will be few and far between while I'll keep lurking and posting here every now and again, also working, in my own little way, to make the database a tad bit better than it was the day before.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7402 Posts
  • 9811 Reply Likes
Just to note, the benefit of the swiki system was that a the edit history was visible to all registered users, plus it was possible to include hyperlinks to external sites and stylize the text in bold or italic. To me, those benefits outweighed the problem of spam gone unnoticed by data editors. The transition to the newer system was also poorly executed and a lot of important data was lost.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3569 Posts
  • 4930 Reply Likes
Marco I am more then okay to read long posts and I really appreciate you taking time to write this and explain in detail. I can easily subscribe to most of the problems listed being issues I'd like to see resolved, although most of them are double-sided and have more then one problem attached to them... Still, in this situation after re-reading my own commentary and your answer mine seems to be way more childish and optimistic, I guess. :) 

You have that list anywhere as a sort of checklist or were you able to remember all of the problems on the fly? Because... It's very impressive. I'd love to keep it somewhere and compare the situation in a few years, to see what was added and what is still in limbo. 
Photo of Marco


  • 1602 Posts
  • 2040 Reply Likes
Thanks for your kind reply Nikolay.
I don't have the list anywhere (well, now I do, obviously), but the issues in the first two categories were very top of mind, so to say. And the third list of issues was rather easily created by scrolling through my GetSat posting history.

We'll see how things are in a few years. I suspect better than they currently are, but that's not necessarily the same thing as good enough :)
Photo of Marco


  • 1602 Posts
  • 2040 Reply Likes
If someone knows for sure this title doesn't exist, one can send a submission for it. Staffers probably won't respond, given the fact that this thread is labeled Answered, even though a probably faulty title is still listed in the database.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 22402 Posts
  • 26674 Reply Likes
After doing a little research Marco it looks like it is a duplicated title of this series,
albeit with the incorrect word Island attached. But that is speculation.

This title was cancelled was due to the fact that the series revolved around an unusual aircraft. That aircraft crashed outside of Boston Massachusetts which dashed plans for a second series of the above listed title.

Whether on not the reference second series was a season #2 of 'Buccaneer' or a spinoff that would have been titled 'Buccaneer Island' is not addressed in the article that I read.

So it may or may not be a legitimate title. It is speculation.

Reference for all of this is here.

A reprint.

The aircraft that "starred" in the series was a Bristol Britannia of Redcoat Air Cargo, registration G-BRAC, which wore the markings of "Redair", the name of the fictional airline in the series.
One reason for there being only one series (13 episodes) of this drama was that the fact that Bristol Britannia G-BRAC was destroyed in a crash near Boston, Mass., on 16 February 1980, shortly after the completion of filming, but just before transmission of the series. Of the eight people on board, seven were killed, and only one survived, albeit seriously injured.[1]
With the "starring aircraft" destroyed in a crash plans for a second series were abandoned.

Photo of mjwm44


  • 65 Posts
  • 37 Reply Likes
Two decades later seems unlikely for a spin-off or sequel series to Buccaneer (1980).

Perhaps a page started after an announcement of intent to produce such a series, that later got scrapped, much like the Wayward Sisters page.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 22402 Posts
  • 26674 Reply Likes
It is not the passage of time between now and then, it was the intention then of the series. IMDb lists it because it is fact. Not because it ever aired or may ever air. There are hundreds of unaired pilots for TV Series listed in the database because they indeed existed. Never aired mind you, but do indeed exist. IMDb aims to be the most reliable source for all information. Not the most reliable for what has aired only.