 |
|
|
|
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 3 4  Previous Next
|
|
Are credits under a divider like 'Aditional Visual Effects by ...' allowed? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: October 30, 2011 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,870 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
And that isn't relevant, since that is for cast credits.
Isn't that what he said?
Quote:
I'm talking about crew credits.
Perhaps, but your statement didn't mention crew credits. You simply said, "Where is it said in the rules to include additional." Well, he told you where. I detected a hint of sarcasm. I guess you missed it.
Quote:
Just another case of someone cherry picking from different sections of the rules to condone contributing incorrect data.
At least he quoted a rule. I have yet to see you quote a rule to support your opinion.
Quote:
Try again.
"List individual credits only, not company name credits. Exception: If a company name heads a group of crew, use the Group divider to enter the company name."
Does a company name head this group of crew? Yes. Does the rule say, "Unless it includes the word additional?" No. Seems pretty simple to me. If this, then that. No need to pick any fruit. I have to agree with Martian on this. Company headers are different than group headers (as he posted earlier also) I don't think that the contents of a company header automatically propagate down to the crew either. For example if this type of credit existed Visual Effects By ZZZZFred Smith SupervisorJust because Fred works for a company marked as Visual Effects does not alter his role from "Supervisor" to "Visual Effects Supervisor" and in this example he would not be credited because of that. By that same logic "additional" would not propagate down to the actual credit either. | | | | Last edited: by Scooter1836 |
| | Registered: September 29, 2008 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,550 |
| | Posted: | | | | Allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Visual Effects Supervisor Fred Smith
Not allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Additional Visual Effects Supervisor Fred Smith
Not allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Supervisor Fred Smith
It's that simple, for me, at least. | | | My one wish for the DVD Profiler online database: Ban or remove the disc-level profiles of TV season sets. It completely screws up/inflates the CLT.
FACT: Imdb is WRONG 70% of the time! Misspelled cast, incomplete cast, wrong cast/crew roles. So for those who want DVD Profiler to be "as perfect as Imdb", good luck with that.
Stop adding UNIT crew! They're invalid credits. Stop it! | | | | Last edited: by huskersports |
| | Registered: October 30, 2011 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,870 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting huskersports: Quote:
Allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Visual Effects Supervisor Fred Smith
Not allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Additional Visual Effects Supervisor Fred Smith
Not allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Supervisor Fred Smith
It's that simple, for me, at least. Exactly my opinion |
| | Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Not Allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Visual Effects Supervisor Fred Smith
Not allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Additional Visual Effects Supervisor Fred Smith
Not allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Supervisor Fred Smith
It's that simple, for me, at least. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
Not Allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Visual Effects Supervisor Fred Smith
Not allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Additional Visual Effects Supervisor Fred Smith
Not allowed: Additional Visual Effects by XXXXX
Supervisor Fred Smith
It's that simple, for me, at least. Based on what rule? I have looked, and the only place the word 'additional' is used is in the cast section of the rules. Nowhere do the rules say additional anything is not allowed.  | | | 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 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Based on what rule? Rule #357, obviously. --------------- |
| | Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
Based on what rule?
Rule #357, obviously.
--------------- Rule #GFY, obviously. there is nothing rule specific stating not to enter Additional crew credits. So now I will start to enter additional Re-recording mixers, additional art directors, additional makeup and so on. and all the agreements that have been made by the community on what is viable crew that are not in the rules mean nothing if it's not in the crew chart or a direct translation it should be removed or added. there are only a select few that can not be contributed per the rule (co-, assistant, unit photographer, etc.) | | | | Last edited: by ateo357 |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
Based on what rule?
Rule #357, obviously.
---------------
Rule #GFY, obviously.
there is nothing rule specific stating not to enter Additional crew credits. So now I will start to enter additional Re-recording mixers, additional art directors, additional makeup and so on.
and all the agreements that have been made by the community on what is viable crew that are not in the rules mean nothing if it's not in the crew chart or a direct translation it should be removed or added.
there are only a select few that can not be contributed per the rule (co-, assistant, unit photographer, etc.) I love this final play. A Classic While this disussion is relatively narrow in its application. Whether or not the word "Additional", when applied to a company header, should also be applied to the crew under it. So now you say, that since people disagree with your interpretation of the rules, all other agreements are now null and void. While I would agree with The Martian, the rules only have the word "additional" 5 times, and none of them are in regards to the crew entries (or directly to cast entries short of the reference to a group header), it has been commonplace for some time now (as long as I can remember), to exclude anything that has additional directly before the job of any crew member. You can go ahead and add the crew that you said are not against the rules, and other members will vote on it. I would imagine that it would be an overwhelming "no" vote. Then let the chips fall where they may through the screeners. I will continue to add appropriate crew members under the header "Additional....", until I am told not to. (I have never had one that was not approved). I will not add the other crew that you allude to, even though through spite, you appear ready to. Charlie | | | | Last edited: by CharlieM |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
So now you say, that since people disagree with your interpretation of the rules, all other agreements are now null and void. In fact he doesn't. He is just thinking the point of those that disagree to the end. We had an agreement not to enter "Additional Anything" in Crew, which was not based on the wording, but on the intention of the rules (Principal Crew-Members Only). Now if some of us (for what reason ever) want to insert "Additional VFX" credits and this based on the fact that nowhere in the rules it is disallowed to enter "Additional Anything", the consequence MUST be that "Additional Anything" IS allowed, except where explicitly forbidden. Simply because the arguments given for entering "Additional VFX" can be used to enter "Additional Make-Up", "Additional Photography" (-> Cinematographer), etc ... And this even more so since those unofficial agreements never got fixed anywhere. Another fact is: If you don't like the logical consequences of your position, maybe it's time to re-think the position. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | The whole basis for this thread..
Does the word "Additional" when used in a company header such as "Additional Visual Effects by XXXX", apply to the crew that is listed below it?
At this point, we are not arguing whether or not "Additional Sound Mixer" is an allowed credit. For that matter whether a crew listed as "Additional Visual Effects Supervisor" is an allowed credit. Most of us came to an agreement long ago on jobs listed as those.
So you are not following it to it's logical conclusion, unless you can convince people that the word "Additional" applies to the crew below the header.
The logical conclusion would be, if it does, then all visual effects companies, aside from the primary, are "addtional" visual effects companies (implied), therefor they all must be removed. If that were the case, then the crew underneath become a moot point.
I contend, that while the company may be providing "Additional" visual effects (what those effects are unknown, and really doesn't matter), that the crew listed as "Visual Effects Supervisor", is the primary visual effects supervisor for that company, and therefore, by the rules are allowed.
Charlie |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
So you are not following it to it's logical conclusion, unless you can convince people that the word "Additional" applies to the crew below the header. So you now try to tell me that I'm not allowed to point out the flaws in their logical system? The consequences of this discussion will (naturally), as pointed out by Ateo, go far beyond its original intent. I will not, even if my life would depend on it, see in how far someone hired by a company doing "Additional Anything" can suddenly be considered to be a Principal Crew Member. If the company is only responsible for "Additional Anything" this must, of course, be correct for its employees too. After all we are tracing movie-credits here and not the internal ranking within companies. And since many participants in this thread seem to disagree on this (quite simple) logic I will most likely open a thread proposing to enter (e.g.) "Additional Photography" and all I'd need to do to have a lot of fun is to pick up the points made in this thread and see how fast people will disagree with their own statements. EDIT: Quote:
I contend, that while the company may be providing "Additional" visual effects (what those effects are unknown, and really doesn't matter), that the crew listed as "Visual Effects Supervisor", is the primary visual effects supervisor for that company, and therefore, by the rules are allowed. This thought to the end would mean: If I find an "Additional Crew" entry followed by a "Photography By" credit it is OK for you to enter this person as Cinematographer? | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
Most of us came to an agreement long ago on jobs listed as those. Yeah, heard about this, but did this agreement make it to rules? So, putting aside that this "agreement" will be very hard to find it within the bowels of this forums, in how far can an "agreement" that is nowhere to be found, and is (obviously) only propagated by an interested group, can be considered to be binding? What I see here is, in fact, Personal Preference and nothing that is based on the contribution rules. . . . Just noticed, I don't even need to open a new thread ... | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | No worse that you arguing with anybody else.
The idea of principle crew went out a long time ago. If this were still the argument, we would not have a lot of the crew that are in the credits now.
Since when can you claim that a costume supervisor, can be considered a designer? Or how about a listing of 10 special effects technicians (just because they are listed under a header of "Special Effects"), when we already have a special effects supervisor? Makeup artist after makeup artist, when we already have a Makeup department Head?
It's a little late to put that horse in the barn
Or how about the exclusion of many critical departments, especially in animation and modeling.
When in truth, we have an imperfect system, and we make the best of what we have.
So, Again I ask, Convince me that the word "Additional" when applied in a company header such as "Additional Visual Effects by XXXX", should be applied to the Lead visual effects supervisor of that company.
And if so, convince me why we should not remove every company, short of the lead VFX company from all the credits, for all those companies are technically providing "Additional" visual effects. | | | | Last edited: by CharlieM |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | As far as the "Agreement", it was not something that I was technically privy to, but rather something I came to understand. Maybe it is time to actually open that discussion again, and see where it goes. If people want to add Additional (insert crew job), then maybe this argument will become moot. Who knows...  Charlie |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | [EDIT]It took some time to write the following answer. Charlie's response right above made it almost entirely unnecessary. I let it stand for completeness[/EDIT] Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
The idea of principle crew went out a long time ago. If this were still the argument, we would not have a lot of the crew that are in the credits now. Possibly. But where can I find this principle? Surely not in the rules. Quote:
Since when can you claim that a costume supervisor, can be considered a designer? Or how about a listing of 10 special effects technicians (just because they are listed under a header of "Special Effects"), when we already have a special effects supervisor? Makeup artist after makeup artist, when we already have a Makeup department Head? I wouldn't, but the contribution rules (sic) tell us that those are allowed. And in the cases you listed omitted the (otherwise present) "Only If ...". I wish I could say the same thing about "Additional Anything" being forbidden. Point me to the rule and/or (by all means) to the "agreement" and I will happily agree. Quote:
It's a little late to put that horse in the barn Uhhm ... No! Quote:
So, Again I ask, Convince me that the word "Additional" when applied in a company header such as "Additional Visual Effects by XXXX", should be applied to the Lead visual effects supervisor of that company. Have you ever tried to convince someone during the process of a discussion? It is impossible! All I can do, is to show you where your opinion will lead to, you may not like the consequences, but nevertheless they are real. And if I should really open the "Additional Photography"-Thread you will have a hard time to convince ME, why the arguments made in this thread suddenly should not count anymore. Quote:
And if so, convince me why we should not remove every company, short of the lead VFX company from all the credits, for all those companies are technically providing "Additional" visual effects. Now, my point would be that exactly those should be removed. At least if the so-called agreement not to enter "Additional Anything" would be real. If it wasn't, they could, of course, remain untouched. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
The whole basis for this thread..
Does the word "Additional" when used in a company header such as "Additional Visual Effects by XXXX", apply to the crew that is listed below it?
Of course it does. Why do you even bother to enter company headers at all if you don't think they apply to the crew below it? I know this is the funny farm but you are taking the absurdity to another level. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |