Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
Kindly define "appreciable body of work".
Using that as a criterion would lead to endless ping-ponging, I'm afraid.

Hi dee1959jay,
I won't hold myself out as the authority on that subject.  There are people far more qualified and interested in the subject matter than I am who would be able to put forward a satisfactory answer, I'm sure.

But it would have to consider a number of factors such as:
the number of descriptive Roles they've played eg. "Waiter" "man at bus stop" "Hairdresser"
The number of named Roles they've played eg. "Walter" "Walter Smith" "Raymond"
The number of leading Roles they've played in A rated movies
The number of leading Roles they've played in B rated movies
...

...I can see your point.  But that's no reason to include every Tom, Dick or Harry just because they appeared in a film   I hope there's a film buff out there willing to lend us their views on an appreciable body of work.

Thanks for the question

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Dragonfire:

Quote:
Isn't uncredited for people in the movie but not listed in the cast?

Not quite.  Uncredited is for people in the movie, but not listed in the credits.

That's what I meant before...not listed in the credits.  I just typed the wrong word.  Sorry about that.

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
J68 can you please stop. Your posts are very close to trolling in my opinion. 

So, he's the troll. Yeah. Good one.

I didn't say he is a troll. Please read what i wrote again. Why do you have to heat this up again? I was complaining about twisting what I said and that I don't like it if you take a sentence out of the context to make it something that it's not. The Martian complained that the same user was twisting his words also, so I am not alone. Please there is no need to stir this up again und put words in my mouth, that I never said!

Quoting J68:

Quote:
Extras are as it says on the tin, "extras".  They are not by definition "Cast" they are "Extras".

Please be so kind as to show me this definition of 'extras' that makes them 'not cast'.  I looked, but couldn't find it.  The one I did find, however, defined extras as minor actors.

Quote:
Yes, there are times when an Extra's Role is sufficiently prominent that they are given acting credits.  I applaud anyone's attempt to make it big and if they secure acting credits, more power to them.  However, most Extras aren't credited.  If your definition of Cast is so wide that it encompasses Extras, then I understand why you think this is a simple matter.

It's not my definition, it is the definition...the actors in a play.  When used in the context of film, they are the actors in a film.

Quote:
However, if you limit the inclusion of Extras to those named in the main credits and those unamed actors who have an appreciable body of work, then the topic is not so simple.

Why would I do such a thing?  An actor is an actor and, if he is credited, he is part of the credited cast.  If he isn't, I can enter him as part of the uncredited cast.  Again, it seems so simple to me.

Quote:
I don't know what you said in the other paragraph, because as I scanned it I caught sight of a word that looked remarkably "thorny", so I didn't read it.

Betray, in the context I used it in, means to reveal unintentionally as in"Her smile betrayed her true feelings."  Nothing "thorny" about that.

I have decided that seemingly endless debating on semantics is unproductive. So, I will not participate in those types of discussions.

Please note that I am NOT specifically addressing any one person in particular. I am just going to put down some of my thoughts that helped to come to this decision.

If there is a question or concern, I will do my best to answer it. But, I will not contribute to the continuous rehashing of the same things over and over.

I must admit that I have had to bite my tongue several times in order to keep to this decision. It is difficult to not to respond to comments that seem so at odds with what I think is an obvious answer.

I am sure that this feeling is true for both sides of an issue. Both sides feeling that they are right and the others are wrong.

Or, it is just possible that some people enjoy the semantics game.

Or, it might be that because this is an online discussion taking place across the world, there are barriers to effective communication. English is not the first language to most which can cause misunderstandings in some cases.

Then, there are so many areas that impact the way we think and view things. Our values or cultural, religious, political and social differences all impact how we react and treat one another.

With all these, and many other things impacting our discussion, it would amaze me if we ever come to an agreement on any discussion.

All I know is that there are many times when I know that the discussion has reached an impasse. At that point I will no longer contribute to a conversation that seems to be deadlocked.

I would hope that in such discussions that Ken or Gerri would weigh in. But, based on their history of of not intervening, I will not expect that this is going to occur.

It might be that they are waiting for these debates to end on their own. It seems they always do but often not soon enough in my opinion.

So, I am going to do my best not to contribute to the discussion once an impasse has been reached. Hopefully others might follow suit. This might help the forums or it might not. Time will tell.

All I know is that something must change and I am trying to take the first step in starting that change.

Quoting johnd:

Quote:
Can't people see how idiotic these discussions are?

Yes, I can, but I was just so flabbergasted by that line of thinking, I couldn't help myself.  I will have to exercise better self control next time. 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
This is not addressed to anyone in particular. In fact, many of the recent posts were written over the past 12 hours or so while I've considered posting. Also, this post is directed at myself as well. I have been in the midst of many such forum squabbles as this. In trying to come to terms with how to effect a positive contribution to DVD Profiler for myself, I am evolving to the following:

When a consensus is achieved, as is apparent in this case, even though there is dissent, here is my recommendation:

Stop responding to the dissent - You won't change their opinion. Be confident that Invelos rarely adopts extreme views; therefore, there's not much need to concern oneself with outlier opinions.

No need to point out personal attacks - They're already evident, as are lies and self-aggrandizement. Use the red arrows. In some ways, the red arrows are a sugar pill, but it's really all we have. Understand that Invelos' nature has created an authority vacuum that attracts the negative behavior you are trying to protest. Invelos won't take a side, as evidenced by this post. You will just be seen as part of the "back and forth".

Contribute the change per the consensus - If you get 'no' votes from a dissenter, ensure that your contribution notes address the issue that the dissenter objects to. Don't address the dissenter; address the issue. Invelos evaluators respond favorably to (short) reasonable explanations, especially if you can link it to a forum consensus.

Remember the end goal - The database is the end goal. Converting the dissenter in the forum or in their vote is not an achievable goal.

Remember the purpose - This is a hobby. It's supposed to be enjoyable.

I wanted to bump these words of wisdom from James.