Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
Words like "unit" and "additional" are easy for everyone to identify and act on without intimate knowledge of the jobs performed. If you require something else, perhaps it would be better suited to your local database.

Heaaders that include the name of a country are also easy for everyone to identify and act on without intimate knowledge of the jobs performed.  I'm sorry, but this really isn't as hard as people are trying to make it.

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

Heaaders that include the name of a country are also easy for everyone to identify and act on without intimate knowledge of the jobs performed.  I'm sorry, but this really isn't as hard as people are trying to make it.

Yet the rules have nothing to say about country headers. Don't you find this a bit strange?

I find it funny, that we are arguing over a phrase in the rules, that doesn't make any since.

The term "Unit Photographer", is not even an allowed credit, even though it is included in one form or another for almost all movies.  They are the people that take "pictures" of everything that is happening.  They do this for marketing and other promotions and documentaries.  With this definition in hand, I think we have been misapplying the phrase for a while.

I can understand not using the unit photographer, just as we would not include a unit publicist, or any other job on set that is not actually part of the film making process.  I do not think this was ever designed to be a limitation of second unit, or location crew, as much as a limit on a class of jobs.

I feel, that this line could be removed, and it would not have an effect on our credits, considering, our credits come from a specified list.


Charlie

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
I do not think this was ever designed to be a limitation of second unit, or location crew, as much as a limit on a class of jobs.

I happen to remember that that was exactly why it was added to the rules.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
location crew and unit crew are not the same thing.

Please don't generalize: sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.

Please stop taking things out of context in order to muddy the waters.  In the context of this discussion, they are not the same thing.  As I explained in another thread...unit crew will have it's own director and DoP/Cinematographer, while location crew, the location crew we are talking about, will not.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Then why use an example, that in itself would not make any sense.

If it was a restriction on "Second Unit", it would have been just as easy to write "Do not include unit crew, such as members under Second Unit"

Charlie.

T!M is correct, as far as I remember, that the rule was added to prohibit the addition of Second and Third Unit crew.  Why it was written the way it was, I don't know.  What I do know, is that it was not written to exclude location and restoration crew.  That interpretation was added after the fact.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Then why use an example, that in itself would not make any sense.

It does use an example that makes sense - you're just mistakenly interpreting it as a still photographer, while the rules mean to refer to a unit cinematographer.

T!M is correct on this as well.  You will notice that, under the acceptable roles for Cinematographer are 'Photographed by', 'Photography by' and 'Lighting & Photography by'.

Quote:
I agree things could - and should! - be worded better, but unfortunately that applies to a rather big chunk of the rules... 

Agreed...though, the last time I said that, I was nearly tarred and feathered. 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Then why use an example, that in itself would not make any sense.

It does use an example that makes sense - you're just mistakenly interpreting it as a still photographer, while the rules mean to refer to a unit cinematographer.

T!M is correct on this as well.  You will notice that, under the acceptable roles for Cinematographer are 'Photographed by', 'Photography by' and 'Lighting & Photography by'.

Quote:
I agree things could - and should! - be worded better, but unfortunately that applies to a rather big chunk of the rules... 

Agreed...though, the last time I said that, I was nearly tarred and feathered. 

  but not the term "Unit Photographer".  That aside....

At Intervocative, it only made reference to "Do not include Unit Directors or Directors of Special Features", which would indicate "2nd Unit" et al. (2005)

When was the addition made, Invelos doesn't show it in it's revision history starting Feb 2007.  Where was the discussions or clarifications?

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
I think Ken made a big mistake by expanding the credits system as much as he did.

It should just be Direction, Writing, Producer, Cinematography, cast list, all exactly as credited. No location or unit crews. Not perfect but much simpler.

It really doesn't matter. I think it was clarified that you can make partial contributions so if all you want to contribute are those roles then that's all you need to do. If other people want more then I don't see how it hurts matters and for some more is more

Sometimes location crews do more of the film than the "regular crew" as for other crew roles I think the animators on a Pixar or Disney production add far more to the film than acting credits like third henchman etc. Special effects on Jurassic park, the soundtrack and set design on 2001 etc etc. These all made a real contribution to the films and should be available to track for those interested. I'd have some other crew as well. Stunt co-ordinators can be integral to some films and have individual styles as well that would be worth contrasting and tracking. That said adding more roles means the contribution traffic goes sky high so should be used sparingly.