| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Good day, Sirs,
I remember that you are not fond of further crew.
But if there's a group heading 'Additional Visual Effects by company xyz', should we enter their 'Digital Effects Supervisor'?
Love, bbbbbb | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Personally, I have been without issue.
Charlie |
|
  | Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 |  Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can't find anything about this in the rules, so I would say yes. | | | | Cor |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | Since we are after the people that do the work, we should only look at their individual credits and not the credit for the company that they may work for.
Now if the individual was credited with "Additional Digital Effects Supervisor" then I don't think that credit would be allowed.
So yes, this Digital Effects Supervisor in the OP should be credited without question imo. |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote:
Now if the individual was credited with "Additional Digital Effects Supervisor" then I don't think that credit would be allowed. Now that's interesting. "Additional Digital Effects Supervisor" isn't valid, but "Additional FX by <insert company>" followed by a name is? That's a rather strange distinction to make: purely the lack or presence of a company name makes the difference? |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
Now if the individual was credited with "Additional Digital Effects Supervisor" then I don't think that credit would be allowed.
Now that's interesting. "Additional Digital Effects Supervisor" isn't valid, but "Additional FX by <insert company>" followed by a name is? That's a rather strange distinction to make: purely the lack or presence of a company name makes the difference? I don't necessarily agree that it is a strange distinction, but I would be in favor of adding "Additional <insert crew here>". In my mind this does not make a person an apprentice or assistant, just in charge of another aspect that may not be as important as the primary. Just an opinion Charlie |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
I would be in favor of adding "Additional <insert crew here>". In my mind this does not make a person an apprentice or assistant, just in charge of another aspect that may not be as important as the primary. This sounds exactly like a description of "unit crew". If they aren't allowed why should other "additional" crew be added? --------------- |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:
Quote:
I would be in favor of adding "Additional <insert crew here>". In my mind this does not make a person an apprentice or assistant, just in charge of another aspect that may not be as important as the primary.
This sounds exactly like a description of "unit crew". If they aren't allowed why should other "additional" crew be added? I wonder about that, too. One of the things I particularly like about the rules, is the bit on editors, where it's explained that we're only after the "Principal Editors when credited together". It doesn't matter whether someone else is credited later on in the credits with a valid label for the "Film Editor" credit - if he's not credited together with the principal editor, we still don't credit him. To me, that says something about what Invelos is after, and I wish we could use that approach more. |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | So how many crew credits would you be happy with? 8 or 10? Only the most important?
I don't think that is very indicative of what Invelos is after, and never have agreed with the statement.
I am not sure, why there is a group of people that think less is better in the online. I think as the program advances, we should include more and more in the online. There are animated movies, in which there are various supervisors for different parts of the animation that I believe should be included.
I would like to see a definitive Company Divider
I would like to see a true Location Divider
I would like to see the addition of nested group dividers.
I would like to see the addition of Casting, and Stunts.
I would like to see the addition of categorized open credits.
I would like to a system, where people could choose what they wanted to collect, from a complete array of information.
Your limited choice should be in your local, not in the online. Not everybody wants the same information, and they should be able to choose, just as you do.
Just an opinion
Charlie |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
Not everybody wants the same information, and they should be able to choose, just as you do. And they can. It's all on the discs. --------------- |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:
Quote:
Not everybody wants the same information, and they should be able to choose, just as you do.
And they can. It's all on the discs.
--------------- By that logic, it is all on the disc, so why have an online at all? Charlie |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:
Quote:
Not everybody wants the same information, and they should be able to choose, just as you do.
And they can. It's all on the discs.
---------------
By that logic, it is all on the disc, so why have an online at all?
Charlie I was just thinking the same thing. If it is all on the disc, just let each person add what they want on their own. It would certainly limit the number of discussions around here. | | | 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: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
I was just thinking the same thing. If it is all on the disc, just let each person add what they want on their own. It would certainly limit the number of discussions around here. I'm glad to know that I've come up with one good idea.  --------------- | | | | Last edited: by scotthm |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
Now if the individual was credited with "Additional Digital Effects Supervisor" then I don't think that credit would be allowed.
Now that's interesting. "Additional Digital Effects Supervisor" isn't valid, but "Additional FX by <insert company>" followed by a name is? That's a rather strange distinction to make: purely the lack or presence of a company name makes the difference? How is that strange. We don't credit Additional Director of Photography or Additional Sound Editor or anything like that. All I was saying is that if the credit was for Additional Digital Effects Supervisor then that is something we wouldn't credit. It makes no difference if there is or isn't a company name attributed to that credit. We don't credit companies at this time except for entering their names in dividers as needed. But that is not a credit per se, it's just duplicating the data attributed to what company the individual worked for. It would be like if there is a London Crew and both a Visual Effects Supervisor and an Additional Visual Effects Supervisor is credited. We would credit only one and leave out the Additional credit. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now if the individual was credited with "Additional Digital Effects Supervisor" then I don't think that credit would be allowed.
Now that's interesting. "Additional Digital Effects Supervisor" isn't valid, but "Additional FX by <insert company>" followed by a name is? That's a rather strange distinction to make: purely the lack or presence of a company name makes the difference?
How is that strange.
We don't credit Additional Director of Photography or Additional Sound Editor or anything like that. All I was saying is that if the credit was for Additional Digital Effects Supervisor then that is something we wouldn't credit.
It makes no difference if there is or isn't a company name attributed to that credit. It's not a mere company name that is attributed to this credit, but rather the crew member is under a group label "Additional Visual Effects". | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbbbbb: Quote:
It's not a mere company name that is attributed to this credit, but rather the crew member is under a group label "Additional Visual Effects". If we would like to argue semantics, we can do that. In all realism, any VFX company in the credits, except for the main company, provides additional VFX. So any company after the main one, should not be listed by that logic. I have a hard time understanding, why people want to argue words, instead of arguing jobs. There is a debate going on about location crew. People will vote no one way and yes the other, depending on the addition of the word "Unit". That word is just a descriptor, that without taking the context of the use, has no meaning. Same thing here. Without taking context to the meaning, the words means nothing. Charlie |
|