 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2  Previous Next
|
|
Dancing with Wolves |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 18, 2007 |  Posts: 389 |
| | Posted: | | | | I was watching Dances with Wolves, and I came upon this:
The current blu-ray profile has:
Robert Kurtzman
Greg Nicotero
Howard Berger
Shannon Shea
listed as Visual Effects, but the actual film credit says: "Buffalo Effects Supervisors" is this allowed under the current rules, does it need to be removed or is it in the wrong catagory? |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 663 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would say no, since the rule for the visual effects credit only covers these: Quote:
Visual/Digital/Special/Special Visual Effects, including Designer, Supervisor, and Director,
Special Photographic Effects | | | We're on a mission from God.
 |
| | Registered: June 12, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'd vote against a Visual Effects credit for Buffalo Effects | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's pretty much the same as this question. That credit isn't allowed per the rules either, yet many people happily enter it regardless. It shouldn't come as much a surprise, then, that many other credit variations are being entered as well. This is a perfect example of that. If you support one deviation, you can't stop the next one. So either we follow the rules, or we just enter whomever we deem interesting - no matter whether they're actually allowed by the rules or not. Lately, the latter approach seems to be on the winning hand... Note that I'm not taking sides - just observing. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
It's pretty much the same as this question. That credit isn't allowed per the rules either, yet many people happily enter it regardless. It shouldn't come as much a surprise, then, that many other credit variations are being entered as well. This is a perfect example of that. If you support one deviation, you can't stop the next one. So either we follow the rules, or we just enter whomever we deem interesting - no matter whether they're actually allowed by the rules or not. Lately, the latter approach seems to be on the winning hand... Sorry, but it is not "pretty much the same". While 'Prosthetic Make-up artist' is a type of make-up effect, we have no idea what 'Buffalo Effects' are. Are they Visual, Digital, Special or Special Visual Effects? We don't know because, unlike the 'Prosthetic Make-up artist' credit, it does not contain the base credit. Now, if it were 'Special Buffalo Effects' or 'Digital Buffalo Effects', I would have a different answer, but it isn't. It is more likely that this is some kind of creature effect and we don't track those. We track the creature designer, but not the creature effects people. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,087 |
| | Posted: | | | | Beaten by the Martian.  As Buffalo Effects are very unspecific, I wouldn't enter them. (Could also be Make-up Effects for example  ) | | | | Last edited: by VirusPil |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,087 |
| | | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Sorry, but it is not "pretty much the same". I'm sorry, but it most certainly is. Fact #1: neither "Prosthetic Make-up Artist" nor "Buffalo Effects Supervisors" are listed as a valid job in the crew credits table. Fact #2: apparently some users feel that they deserve to be entered regardless, as we can see from Fact #3: both "Prosthetic Make-up Artist" and "Buffalo Effects Supervisors" have made it into profiles. On all those counts, it's not even "pretty much" the same - it's exactly the same. And all the rest is nonsense - of course you were going to say: "yeah, but my example is different" - which is (again) exactly the same reasoning that the contributor of this 'Dances with Wolves' profile used to justify the entry of these "Buffalo Effects Supervisors". This is exactly what I've been trying to warn for: if you say, like you have, that a "functional equivalent" can be entered (no matter if that was just about one particular example), then it should come as no surprise that people are indeed going to contribute functional equivalents - and not just the ones that you'd like. Again, it's exactly the same thing: not listed as a valid job in the crew credits table, but someone felt that it was a "functional equivalent" and they contributed it despite not being listed in the crew credits table. Of course you're convinced that your "functional equivalent" is correct, while this one is wrong - but that guy may feel the exact opposite. So... who gets to make that call? Who gets to decide that your deviation from the rules is fine, while the next deviation isn't fine at all? Wouldn't it be nice if, for things like this, there was something like, I don't know, a set of rules of some kind...? | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
Sorry, but it is not "pretty much the same".
I'm sorry, but it most certainly is. I am sorry, but as I already explained, it most certainly isn't. Quote:
Fact #1: neither "Prosthetic Make-up Artist" nor "Buffalo Effects Supervisors" are listed as a valid job in the crew credits table. As I have already explained, and you seem to have ignored, 'Make-up artist' is listed while 'Effects Supervisor' is not. That makes a difference. Quote:
Fact #2: apparently some users feel that they deserve to be entered regardless, as we can see from Fact #3: both "Prosthetic Make-up Artist" and "Buffalo Effects Supervisors" have made it into profiles. On all those counts, it's not even "pretty much" the same - it's exactly the same. Whether or not they deserve to be entered is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they are allowed by the rules. Based on my reading of those rules, the one that includes the base credit and can be called a direct translation, is allowed, while the other is not. Quote:
And all the rest is nonsense Remember this the next time you want to play the victim and try to claim that I am trying to pick a fight with you. If you want to disagree, fine, disagree but if your only reply is that my post is nonsense, don't bother to reply because it makes your opinion worthless.  Quote:
- of course you were going to say: "yeah, but my example is different" - which is (again) exactly the same reasoning that the contributor of this 'Dances with Wolves' profile used to justify the entry of these "Buffalo Effects Supervisors". Again, it's exactly the same thing: not listed as a valid job in the crew credits table, but someone felt that it was a "functional equivalent" and they contributed it regardless. Of course you're convinced that your "functional equivalent" is correct, while this one is wrong - but that guy may feel the exact opposite. So... who gets to make that call? Who gets to decide that your deviation from the rules is fine, while the next deviation isn't fine at all? Who? The same people that always make the call...the voters and the screeners. Quote:
Wouldn't it be nice if, for things like this, there was something like, I don't know, a set of rules of some kind...? Tell me again how you are not taking sides...maybe, just maybe, I will believe you this time. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Remember this the next time you want to play the victim and try to claim that I am trying to pick a fight with you. If you want to disagree, fine, disagree but if your only reply is that my post is nonsense, don't bother to reply because it makes your opinion worthless. I never "play the victim", but you do indeed seem to enjoy to pick fights for some reason. Sad, really. As for your second comment: too bad that "nonsense" was far from my "only reply". If it was, you'd have a point. Now, not so much. Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Again, it's exactly the same thing: not listed as a valid job in the crew credits table, but someone felt that it was a "functional equivalent" and they contributed it regardless. Of course you're convinced that your "functional equivalent" is correct, while this one is wrong - but that guy may feel the exact opposite. So... who gets to make that call? Who gets to decide that your deviation from the rules is fine, while the next deviation isn't fine at all?
Who? The same people that always make the call...the voters and the screeners. As always, it's a nice soundbite, but it doesn't work that way. For instance, as you can see, they've welcomed these "Buffalo Effects Supervisors" into the database. For a consistent database, we need rules. We cannot leave everyone submitting hundreds of what they feel are valid "functional equivalents" for every crew job that we track - presumably often obscured by limited contribution notes , too - to the voters and the screeners. Neither party will make consistent decisions. Instead, we need a clear set of rules: such-and-such is allowed, the rest is not (but we still have the ability to track additional credits locally). Again, if you say, like you have, that a "functional equivalent" can be entered (no matter if that was just about one particular example - one particular call that you may feel comfortable making), then it should come as no surprise that people are indeed going to contribute functional equivalents - and not just the ones that suit you. You can pick fights until you're blue in the face, but it's that simple. Quote:
Tell me again how you are not taking sides...maybe, just maybe, I will believe you this time. Another lovely soundbite, but again completely meaningless. What's your point with this, really? Since you apparently don't believe me, would you mind telling me what side I've picked, then? Am I in favor of "Buffalo Effects Supervisors" and "Prosthetics Make-up Artists"? Or not? Or am I in favor of the former and against the latter? Or the other way around? If you've got something to say, then by all means, say it. But I think we can all do without pointless hyperbole like this. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
Remember this the next time you want to play the victim and try to claim that I am trying to pick a fight with you. If you want to disagree, fine, disagree but if your only reply is that my post is nonsense, don't bother to reply because it makes your opinion worthless.
I never "play the victim", but you do indeed seem to enjoy to pick fights for some reason. Sad, really. There you go, playing the victim and pretending that you didn't pick this fight. I am sorry, but I wasn't the one who said, "And all the rest is nonsense." Quote:
As for your second comment: too bad that "nonsense" was far from my "only reply". If it was, you'd have a point. Now, not so much. Reading comprehension is your friend. I didn't call your post nonsense, that was you refering to mine. What I said was, if you are going to call my post nonsense, then don't bother to reply as it makes your opinion worthless. In other words, if you aren't going to give my opinion the same respect I gave your's, then your opinion is worthless. Quote:
You can pick fights until you're blue in the face, but it's that simple. Please be so kind as to point out the fight I picked. My reply, to your original post, was quite civil. While I disagreed, I did not belittle you or your opinion. Can you say the same? As you called my post "nonsense," I don't think you can. The only thing I did was disagree with you...is that the fight I picked? Maybe it was my taking issue with you calling the bulk of my post nonsense...is that the fight I picked?  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm afraid that I have to agree with T!M here. You (the general you) have opened the door and decided to allow certain "functional equivalents" and or "variations" of the credits that are actually listed in the crew table to be entered into the online. Once you've opened that door, you cannot very well deny someone else's "interpretation" of a credit with a whole lot of credibility. Once you stray from "exactly" as listed in the crew table and misinterpret the "translation" part of the Rule to mean translations within the same language instead of only between languages, you have breached the dam, and there is no way to stop the flood. I have little sympathy for those who take issue with variations that stray further and further from "common sense". You asked for it! Now you've got it!  | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I'm afraid that I have to agree with T!M here.
You (the general you) have opened the door and decided to allow certain "functional equivalents" and or "variations" of the credits that are actually listed in the crew table to be entered into the online. Once you've opened that door, you cannot very well deny someone else's "interpretation" of a credit with a whole lot of credibility. Once you stray from "exactly" as listed in the crew table and misinterpret the "translation" part of the Rule to mean translations within the same language instead of only between languages, you have breached the dam, and there is no way to stop the flood. First, that door was opened the minute we started profiling english language films made outside of the US as different countries use different words for the same job. Second, who is denying somone else's interpretation? The OP asked for opinions, and opinions were given. The only person who can deny a user of anything is Ken. Quote:
I have little sympathy for those who take issue with variations that stray further and further from "common sense". You asked for it! Now you've got it! Again, the OP asked for opinions on a credit, and opinions were given. The only thing I took issue with, and it is the only thing I ever take issue with, is when a user believes that his interpretation is the only valid one and chooses to insult anyone who doesn't agree with them. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 823 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
The only thing I took issue with, and it is the only thing I ever take issue with, is when a user believes that his interpretation is the only valid one and chooses to insult anyone who doesn't agree with them. The only one I see insulting anyone is you. You seem to be turning into the new Skip. Very sad to see. | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I'm afraid that I have to agree with T!M here.
You (the general you) have opened the door and decided to allow certain "functional equivalents" and or "variations" of the credits that are actually listed in the crew table to be entered into the online. (...) I have to agree with T!M as well. Functional equivalents should officially be allowed (with appropriate documentation). |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |