It's a dumb title, but bare with me here. 

I'm auditing my profile of April Fool's Day.

The credits read as such:

Special Effects and Make-up Effects
Reel EFX, Inc.
Martin Becker
Christopher Swift
Jim Gill
Bettie Kaufman

How would you list the credits in the profile:

Martin Becker - Visual Effects
Christopher Swift - Visual Effects
Jim Gill - Visual Effects
Bettie Kaufman - Visual Effects
Martin Becker – Make-up Effects
Christopher Swift – Make-up Effects
Jim Gill – Make-up Effects
Bettie Kaufman – Make-up Effects

OR:

Martin Becker – Visual Effects
Martin Becker – Make-up Effects
Christopher Swift – Visual Effects
Christopher Swift – Make-up Effects
Jim Gill – Visual Effects
Jim Gill – Make-up Effects
Bettie Kaufman – Visual Effects
Bettie Kaufman – Make-up Effects

??

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Group names of crew members together within each role available

Ah yes. I guess that really does apply... I think I was reading it wrong... 

While I'm at it, if anyone wants to throw an answer at this one.

There's a credit for 2nd Re-recording Mixer that every single profile, including mine, contains.

Am I wrong in thinking that 2nd Re-recording Mixer should NOT be listed in the credits, or is it right that it's there?

I will admit that I was looking for different wording when I found that one.  While I have never read it that way, as worded, it can be read that way.  Some of these rules really need to be worded better. 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
The rule sates, "Group names of crew members together within each role available and list in exactly the same order credited."

That's actually a nice reminder - does anyone actually apply that rule? I mean, for instance, if the end credits show a "Make-up Department Head" credit, then some other contributable art crew, and then later on a bunch of regular "Make-up Artist" credits, should I then group all the make-up credits them together, rather than sticking with the crew order as I see them on-screen? I don't believe I've ever seen that method applied... Am I doing something wrong?

Yes Tim, I do.

And I agree with martian on the proper approach.

Skip

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Merrik:

Quote:
Am I wrong in thinking that 2nd Re-recording Mixer should NOT be listed in the credits, or is it right that it's there?

I've been leaving any "2nd" credits out - not just for sound mixers, but for anything: "2nd make-up", "2nd editor", and so on. I noticed that some people are entering them - while some might be able to shrug that off, I've actually come accross cases where one or two of such entries have managed to shift a common name... Just because of that, a strong consensus on what to do with any "2nd" credits would be very welcome.

Agreed. The people that are entering are also using unclear notes that do not Communicate very well what they are doing and that data when uncovered then has to be removed. This is why I keep talking about the value of Communicative Notes in ALL cases.

Skip

Skip

I have yet to see a contribution that does it that way, so I am fairly sure most people don't read it that way.  As an example, if there is a Visual Effects credit in the opening credits, followed by other art credits, then more Visual Effects credit at the end of the film, I do not put them directly below the first visual effects credit...I simply list them where they are in the credits.  As I said, I have yet to see a contribution that does.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I will admit that I was looking for different wording when I found that one.  While I have never read it that way, as worded, it can be read that way.  Some of these rules really need to be worded better. 

Forum Moderator: Removed Everybody that wrote that Rule could write it slightly different today, but then we have a lot more data under our belts today than we did back then. And if wrote some sort of improvement today, I will wager in five years , I could make exactly the same remark about your writing when someone finds something that you failed to allow for. Forum Moderator: Removed. Does that mean the Rules could be clearer or that somebody simply found something that points to a possible improvement. I too, never looked at it any other way than you see it. If we are dealing with the majority around here, this kind of credit is not unheard of, so should not the majority Rule and the minority sit down and be quiet. No, the Online databaser should serve ALL users, and a problem has been found, that could stand some improvement.


Skip

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
You really need to stop with the unprovoked insults. 

Several rules, when taken as written, give us unintended results.  Because of that, they need to be better worded.  Why that infuriates you, is beyond me.  I would think clarity in the rules would be supported by everybody. 

As to my doing any better, of course I could and have done so, with very little effort, on several occasions...it's just something I am good at. 

Then stop insulting me. You don't understand why that is an insult. I suggest that you think about it awhile. Ego issues I wasn't aware of. Where is that needke, i have a balloon to pop.

The Rules aren't perfect and never will be, Martian, and wouldn't be if you had written them. But that is no reason to disparage them or the people that worked on them.

However I still wonder about your majority Rules premise in acase lie this. Clearly after 5 years the majority never had a problem with this, which makes Merrik a minority, should he not sit down and be quiet, by your standard, yes he should, by mine no he should not.

Skip