| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
The difference between your examples and mine is that mine aren't different roles. 'American Sequences' adds context to the role of 'Directed by' as it tells us what part of the film he directed.
What about the earlier quoted 'underwater sequences directed by'? Is this the same role as well? It does add context, doesn't it. I don't see how you could allow one and not the other.  | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
The wording of the rules could only allow those roles as direct translations. If we agree that those are direct translations, then any other functional equivalent would go as direct translation as well.
Again, in your opinion. My opinion, as I have already explained, is different. Clearly, you don't agree, and I have already accepted that, so I see no point in continuing to go around in circles.
This is about the wording of the rules and not about my or your opinion. But it is. While we might agree on the wording, we don't agree on how that wording applies to this credit. I think they allow it, and you think they don't...that is 100% opinion. | | | 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 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
The difference between your examples and mine is that mine aren't different roles. 'American Sequences' adds context to the role of 'Directed by' as it tells us what part of the film he directed.
What about the earlier quoted 'underwater sequences directed by'? Is this the same role as well? It does add context, doesn't it.
I don't see how you could allow one and not the other. Neither do I. Would I add it myself? That would depend on the film. Would I vote against someone else adding it? No. | | | 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 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
The difference between your examples and mine is that mine aren't different roles. 'American Sequences' adds context to the role of 'Directed by' as it tells us what part of the film he directed.
What about the earlier quoted 'underwater sequences directed by'? Is this the same role as well? It does add context, doesn't it.
I don't see how you could allow one and not the other. From a syntax point of view, you are correct. Both roles use the same syntax. And since the rules tell us to look for the syntax ("For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Role" and "Credited As" columns."), it must be either both or none. And since this exact role is not listed, it must be none. The only exception would be, if this role would be considered a direct translation. On the other side, if we would go by function of a role, we would easily see that 'American sequences directed by' is not similar to 'underwater sequences directed by'. As correctly stated by TheMadMartian the American sequences in 'Tora! Tora! Tora!' are a major factor of the movie. This is even more supported by the fact that the credits for the theatrical cut are exactly the other way around. Therefore 'American sequences directed by' is a functional equivalent to 'directed by' in this case. While the underwater sequences are often very important to a film as well, there is a different reason for them to have their own director. It's more like the director of stunt scenes or the second unit director. Both are roles which we do not list. What I'm saying is, that we have to change the rules to allow functional equivalents, if we want officially to list 'American sequences directed by' and the other examples given by TheMadMartian which are contributed already on a regular basis. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
This is about the wording of the rules and not about my or your opinion.
But it is. While we might agree on the wording, we don't agree on how that wording applies to this credit. I think they allow it, and you think they don't...that is 100% opinion. Words do have a meaning which is beyond opinion. And I can't see your interpretation except if you claim for direct translation. Quote:
For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Role" and "Credited As" columns. If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section. IMO your interpretation of the rules would allow functional equivalents already today. And until now people generally claimed that we go by label only. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Words do have a meaning which is beyond opinion. And I can't see your interpretation except if you claim for direct translation. I can say the same thing about your interpretation, so, now what? | | | 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 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Words do have a meaning which is beyond opinion. And I can't see your interpretation except if you claim for direct translation.
I can say the same thing about your interpretation, so, now what? You make the conclusion.  |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | These types of situations are bound to occur every once and a while. It is not possible to write guidelines that will cover every single thing.
The amount of time and energy that is spent rehashing the same arguments over and over might be better spent updating the tens of thousands of easy changes that need to be done.
On the rare occasion that a difficult situation arises, and consensus is not possible, contribute to the best of your ability, document thoroughly including posting the relevant discussion thread, and let the screeners decide. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
These types of situations are bound to occur every once and a while. It is not possible to write guidelines that will cover every single thing.
Sure it is Kathy, this is call "use common sense"  Of course a minority here can't agree with this simple concept, because they will loose their wrestling match on the forum every week... Each time with something more insane than the previous "controversy"  |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
These types of situations are bound to occur every once and a while. It is not possible to write guidelines that will cover every single thing.
The amount of time and energy that is spent rehashing the same arguments over and over might be better spent updating the tens of thousands of easy changes that need to be done.
On the rare occasion that a difficult situation arises, and consensus is not possible, contribute to the best of your ability, document thoroughly including posting the relevant discussion thread, and let the screeners decide. Hear hear!  |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,652 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
It is not possible to write guidelines that will cover every single thing. Right! But these are rules. We used to have guidelines, but that was changed because some people, like me, maintained that since they were guidelines they were not absolute. Guidelines would allow for deviations based on common sense. But apparently that could not be tolerated. So here we are...  | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 823 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
This movie is nothing without both sequences, so why wouldn't we credit all three?
Just to be clear, the rules prohibit 'Co-Directors' and 'Directors of Special Features'. They say nothing about 'Sequence Directors'. Try to completey forget about Tora! Tora! Tora! for a moment and imagine this ficticious example: Title: Death of a Flower Director: Bill Peters South American Sequences Directed by: Jorge Gonzalez You never heard of it. It's a lesser known title. You picked it up because it looked interesting and you watched it and thought it was OK. About half of the movie takes place in South America. You add it to DVD Profiler. Would you include both directors or just Bill Peters? | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." | | | | Last edited: by Grendell |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
Quote:
It is not possible to write guidelines that will cover every single thing.
Right!
But these are rules. We used to have guidelines, but that was changed because some people, like me, maintained that since they were guidelines they were not absolute. Guidelines would allow for deviations based on common sense. But apparently that could not be tolerated.
So here we are... You can substitute the word "rules" for "guidelines" if you wish. My point is that there will always be exceptions no matter how complete one tries to make something. Ken and Gerri even have a pinned thread that addresses some of these situations. And then there are the way people read and see things differently. I mean some of these topics are quite amusing to me. For example, look at the thread debating whether or not there is a dash on the cover of...well let's see, is it: I Spy...or I-Spy...or I-Spy(I Spy)?!? I have done tens of thousands of changes over the last year for contributions that were blatantly wrong. I believe that the database might be better served if we concentrate on fixing those easy things first. These other issues don't have to be that difficult either. On those rare occasions, such as with Tora! Tora! Tora!, in which there is some confusion, it is important to get the communities feelings. Post the topic, get feedback, document carefully the concerns and then let the screeners decide the issue. Once the screener make their decision share that in the appropriate thread so that others know the result. If the decision is in disagreement with how you see the issue - lock you local database. It seems quite simple to me. | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Grendell: Quote:
Title: Death of a Flower
Director: Bill Peters
South American Sequences Directed by: Jorge Gonzalez
You never heard of it. It's a lesser known title. You picked it up because it looked interesting and you watched it and thought it was OK. About half of the movie takes place in South America. You add it to DVD Profiler. Would you include both directors or just Bill Peters? And what if only three minutes of the movie takes place in South America? Is that going to be the criterium, the percentage of the movie that that particular sequence amounts to? If so: what's the cut-off point? And who gets to decide that? And every contributor needs to go and time how long those sequences run for to decide whether to contribute the guy?  | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Post the topic, get feedback, document carefully the concerns and then let the screeners decide the issue.
Once the screener make their decision share that in the appropriate thread so that others know the result. If the decision is in disagreement with how you see the issue - lock you local database. I'm sorry to have to say that something like that will never work, Kathy. A random screener decision isn't an official Invelos stance on any given subject. They make mistakes like anyone else, and if we can't figure something out, they usually can't either - we've seen that time and time again, to the point where even support requests about how to contribute a certain bit of data get answered with "we have no information on that". I've personally seen the screeners making the exact opposite decision on the same changes, with the same notes, within minutes from eachother - the only difference being the voting balance. I've seen that happen many, many times. With that in mind, I can tell you that I will always abide by what Ken or Gerri tell us, no matter whether I like it or not, but I certainly will never take a random screener decision as gospel - and I don't think many of us will. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I definitely agree with that. The decision of the screeners really means nothing at all. Between what Tim said and the fact that they are told to let small wrong things through for bigger updates (as long as majority is right)... you really can't go by screeners decisions for anything. | | | | Pete |
|