| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Including Designer, Supervisor, and Director, results in 12 possibilities.
For additional role synonyms are already accepted: do you think I should enter a first-named
'Special Effects Co-ordinator'?
Or is Co evil from the start, like in Co-Director?
What is the practical difference between Supervisor, Co-Ordinator and Director?
Love, bbbbb | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | There has been some discussion about allowing FX Coordinators but currently they aren't allowed. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tweeter: Quote:
There has been some discussion about allowing FX Coordinators but currently they aren't allowed. Okay. Below I encountered a "VFX Supervisor". Damned, Supervisor sounded good, but VFX is neither listed in the Role nor in the Credited As column. VFX could be an abbreviation for Visual Effects, though. Do I have to leave him out? | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | VFX is just short for Visual Effects (FX=Effects)
And since Visual Effects is allowed then VFX Designer, VFX Supervisor or VFX Director is allowed as well.
But as of right now Coordinators aren't, but there are discussions in the Rules Committee forum about including them.
I have done many profiles and quite a few use that abbreviation for Visual Effects. I just note that in my notes, such as VFX Supervisor (Name). |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | We do not at this list time list Co-Anything.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote:
And since Visual Effects is allowed then VFX Designer, VFX Supervisor or VFX Director is allowed as well. No, unfortunately neither spelling variants nor functional equivalents are allowed. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
And since Visual Effects is allowed then VFX Designer, VFX Supervisor or VFX Director is allowed as well.
No, unfortunately neither spelling variants nor functional equivalents are allowed. Not to offend...but this is a ridiculous statement. Most people know that VFX = Visual Effects; and to exclude it would be damaging the database. If we follow your logic then the following would not be allowed: Visual FX FX Supervisor Special FX Supervisor Effects Supe (yes I have seen that once) There's following the rules, using intelligence and logic....and then there's simply blind adherence to the wording of the rules. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
And since Visual Effects is allowed then VFX Designer, VFX Supervisor or VFX Director is allowed as well.
No, unfortunately neither spelling variants nor functional equivalents are allowed.
Not to offend...but this is a ridiculous statement.
Most people know that VFX = Visual Effects; and to exclude it would be damaging the database.
If we follow your logic then the following would not be allowed:
Visual FX
FX Supervisor
Special FX Supervisor
Effects Supe (yes I have seen that once)
There's following the rules, using intelligence and logic....and then there's simply blind adherence to the wording of the rules. Fact is, that the rules as written do not allow name variants. I hope that the next rule revision as announced by Invelos will correct this flaw. Whether you want to ignore this flaw of the rules today and contribute according to logic and common sense, is up to you, and I would not vote against such a contribution. But if someone asks in the forum if a specific role is allowed, I tell him that it's not and that the rules should be changed. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | For some roles which are the same but under completely differing names I would agree to err on the side of caution & not enter them yet. For those that 'everyone' knows is the same such as those listed by Pantheon, I highly doubt that Invelos would decline them & most users would vote in favour of them. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
For some roles which are the same but under completely differing names I would agree to err on the side of caution & not enter them yet. For those that 'everyone' knows is the same such as those listed by Pantheon, I highly doubt that Invelos would decline them & most users would vote in favour of them. I would not vote against such a contribution as well, but I still want to see the rules corrected to allow name variants and functional equivalents in addition to direct translations. |
|