| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Actually, Skip, I wasn't offended. If I was I'd have let you know very clearly.
I simply thought that stating 'No you know nothing' is a bit rude. I interpret that as 'You don't know what you're talking about'. Which, IMO, belittles the opinions of others.
So, let's put that aside.
I still see absolutely no benefit to listing 'Visual Effects by XXX' in dividers. I have yet to read anything that convinces me otherwise - and I am positive that you will feel the same way for NOT including the full info.
We will just have to agree to disagree. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Then you misunderstood what i was saying, amigo. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | There can be very specific credits in regards to Visual Effects Companies. For instance here is my recent contribution for Final Destination 3. Quote:
Roller Coaster & Subway Sequences by Meteor Studios
Timothy Stevenson: Visual Effects
Cristin Pescosolido: Visual Effects
Visual Effects by Soho VFX
Allan Magled: Visual Effects
Visual Effects by Digital Dimension
Benoit "Ben" Girard: Visual Effects The Meteor Studios credit is very specific of what effects they did for the film. If we eliminate the specifics of the credit and only list the studio we get the following. Quote:
Meteor Studios
Timothy Stevenson: Visual Effects
Cristin Pescosolido: Visual Effects Sure you know that the two people did Visual Effects work on the film, but without the specific credit it is rather vague of what they did. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Exactly my point, Cubby. In other words based on the data we know nothing.  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote:
There can be very specific credits in regards to Visual Effects Companies.
For instance here is my recent contribution for Final Destination 3.
Quote:
Roller Coaster & Subway Sequences by Meteor Studios
Timothy Stevenson: Visual Effects
Cristin Pescosolido: Visual Effects
The Meteor Studios credit is very specific of what effects they did for the film. I would agree that this information is more pertinent - but, in my experience, this is the exception rather than the rule. In the rules we have instances of 'In this situation do: XX. But, if this occurs: XXX, Do this XX' I wouldn't have a problem with: Only use the Name of the Effects House in dividers, eg. Meteor Studios; unless it is specified what section of the film the company worked on, eg. Roller Coaster & Subway Sequences by Meteor Studios. In this case use the entire statement. In all the films/TV shows I've edited I haven't seen this sort of thing enough to make adding 'Visual Effects by' useful in my opinion. | | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
There can be very specific credits in regards to Visual Effects Companies.
For instance here is my recent contribution for Final Destination 3.
Quote:
Roller Coaster & Subway Sequences by Meteor Studios
Timothy Stevenson: Visual Effects
Cristin Pescosolido: Visual Effects
The Meteor Studios credit is very specific of what effects they did for the film.
I would agree that this information is more pertinent - but, in my experience, this is the exception rather than the rule.
In the rules we have instances of 'In this situation do: XX. But, if this occurs: XXX, Do this XX' I wouldn't have a problem with:
Only use the Name of the Effects House in dividers, eg. Meteor Studios; unless it is specified what section of the film the company worked on, eg. Roller Coaster & Subway Sequences by Meteor Studios. In this case use the entire statement.
In all the films/TV shows I've edited I haven't seen this sort of thing enough to make adding 'Visual Effects by' useful in my opinion. I agree with all of that. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I see your point Neill, but I don't favor sometimes yes and sometimes No, I support consistency and the added information does generate added data value. so I think it is important to list it ALWAYS. Anything else is simp-ly inconsistent or of little value. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
I see your point Neill, but I don't favor sometimes yes and sometimes No, I support consistency and the added information does generate added data value. so I think it is important to list it ALWAYS. Anything else is simp-ly inconsistent or of little value. I do understand your point, Skip. Honestly, I do!  However, I have seen many examples like this: This is a fictional example Visual Effects (stand-alone divider above all FX houses) Industrial Light & MagicName Name Name Pixel MagicName Name [hy*drau"lx]Name Name Name In the above instance, doing it your way there would have to be a divider for 'Visual Effects' above ILM but NOT above the other two as it doesn't appear that way in the credits. Or we would have to incorrectly add the words Visual Effects to each divider. However, by ONLY listing the company names this becomes consistent across the board (especially if the rules include and exception as in my earlier post). |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | In such cases, which I haven't seen yet (but that means nothing) I know I will; I see one of two ways the first being the closest to what would be displayed On screen. I haven't seen the issues talked about with a Double Divider But, I will assume them to be correct so we could go with
Visual Effects
Group End
Industrial Light & Magic
Name
Name
Name
Pixel Magic
Name
Name
OR
Visual Effects By Industrial Light & Magic
Name
Name
Name
Visual Effects By Pixel Magic
Name
Name
Either would communicate the extra contextual data. And you lose the data your way, under the far more common credit style that I have seen so far, where each company is preceded by its task relative to the film. I have done about 200 films so far, the ones that I still have in the house, and haven't seen what you described yet, so I presume it is fairly rare, though I know the industry to well to ever say No to any sort of credit possibilities. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | BTW, Neill the first one would accurately reflect the data as it appears On Screen and would also accurately define the data that follows since they are all, as you seem to describe it, grouped together. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think you miss my point.
With using only the name of the company the vast majority of entries will be the same.
Going your way things will be vastly different:
We'd have some with just the company name (as in my example), some with 'Digital Effects by', others with 'Visual Effects by', 'Special Effects by' 'Effects by'
To me, this is very messy and adds nothing to the db that the actual individual credits don't already tell us (with the exception of credits like the 'Rollercoaster' one mentioned earlier). |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | It does bring context and detail, Neill. We can't do anything about inconsistencies introduced by Hollywood, as long as we are consistent with it ourselves, which is the function of As Credited. Had this benn a discussion point back at the time, Neill, i would have stated exactly the same thing, AS CREDITED, just because it is a company credit does not exempt it from As Credited, I will however bow to martian's suggestion relative to company suffixes. As Credited is not messy, departing from As Credited is what is messy.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | edit:
nevermind. too tired... | | | | Last edited: by lyonsden5 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Which brings us full circle....to agree to disagree.
We both think the other is wrong on this issue and I've learnt that in these circumstances further discussion is pointless.
I believe we have both made our positions very clear; and we will continue to do what we feel is correct.
Until Ken makes a ruling either way, neither of us is doing anything against the rules so things can just continue as they are. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'll buy that.  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|