| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm confused.
I thought dividers should only be used in the cast where the word in the divider actually divides the cast list:
Example One:
Role: Actor
Role: Actor
Role:
Actor
Actor
Actor
Role: Actor
In the example above I would use a divider for the role and list the actors beneath without a role.
Example Two:
Role: Actor
Role: Actor
Role: Actor
Actor
Actor
Role: Actor
In this second example I wouldn't use a divider; but would simply repeat the role for the three actors grouped by it.
For me, the key word is divide. If it doesn't actually divide the cast then don't use a divider.
However, I know of at least two users who are using dividers for example 2. Not only does this make the cast list look extremely messy; but I'm not sure it's correct.
I'd like to know if I've got this totally wrong before I cast a vote.
Many thanks
Pantheon |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Neil.. this was brought up to Ken when he first showed us the new rules. And he said he meant that we were to use the divider for both the ways you show in your post. Edit: See This Page is where it was talked about. it is brought up about half way down the page. (Rules Committee Forum Access Needed) | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | You have it right for 'episode' dividers, but not for 'group' dividers. Episode dividers are used for divided cast, 'group' dividers, per the rules, are used for cast that are grouped in the credits. Both of your examples would fall under the 'group' divider portion of the rules. | | | 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: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I personally like it the way it is too. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 79 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree, Pantheon; using group dividers for example two looks awful, and is not a close representation of the actual film credits, which is what I thought we were trying to achieve.
However, it seems we are in the minority. I will still keep doing them the 'old' way, though, until a clear statement from Ken (I don't have access to the thread referred to). |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr Quote:
I also think the rule about group headers are unclear. I don't know if the rule only thinks of groups like this:
Soldiers
Actor Role
Actor Role
Or if the rule also thinks of groups like these two:
Soldiers
Actor
Actor
Actor
Soldier Actor
Actor
Actor
I would prefer only the first option though as I don't see what we gain by using the group divider for the second option. For the second option, the way that it has been done so far is the best option in my opinion.
Also, I think that the rule should specifically mention if we are to use dividers for headers like "additional cast" or not.
It would be nice to get Ken's opinion about how he imagined the divider to be used. Quoting Ken Cole Quote:
The rule as written is intended to include these groupings. I don't see a reason to exclude them, but am willing to listen to arguments either way. For now, I've added clarification in support of this position. I think the word divider may not be the best, but this is what it is for. | | | | Last edited: by CharlieM |
|
| Registered: September 30, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,805 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've been doing it the way Pantheon described, and agree with the thoughts Pantheon & Dag described. I even removed a group divider recently because the cast was listed the second way in Panethon's post because I thought that's how it should be done, or at least they way I read the rules.
I didn't realize there was a post from Ken about it.
I'm not sure I agree with that however. I thought the group dividers were to be used to represent the actual credits as closely as possible, if there's no divider, why use the divider? It's not really representative of the data presented, is it?
I'll do it either way I suppose, if the group dividers are there to be entered for a repeating role, that's fine, but I think it should be spelled out more clearly in the rules as it's now a change of pace from how we've previously entered these credits. | | | | The night is calling. And it whispers to me soflty come and play. | | | | Last edited: by Merrik |
|
| Registered: April 14, 2007 | | Posts: 415 |
| | Posted: | | | | A divider for 2 actors grouped as in example 2 in a long list of single actor/roles is going to look very silly...  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I personally like it the way it is too. I do too. It keeps us as-credited where we don't have to singularize roles.  | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting jmbox: Quote:
A divider for 2 actors grouped as in example 2 in a long list of single actor/roles is going to look very silly... I guess it is a matter of taste. I have used them for two actors and I think it looks fine. | | | 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: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Merrik: Quote:
and agree with the thoughts Pantheon & Dag described. Obviously, since I objected in the rules thread, I also agree with Pantheon and Dag Ove. It would be interesting to have a poll about how people likes to deal with a case like this before we change too many profiles. | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | The rules definitely aren't clear on this matter.
While Ken's post does indeed confirm that dividers should be used for both my examples but I still think it looks absolutely awful in the cast list. Not only that, but when editing I would be looking for an actual divider and would have removed it (without the knowledge of Ken's statement).
I realise that this prevents users changing roles to singular versions - but that could have been solved simply by a note in the rules stating 'Do not change role to singular version, eg. Soldiers to Soldier'.
As Ken has recently stated that the rules are not set in stone and are open for further debate I would like to know how other users think. |
|
| Registered: February 10, 2008 |  Posts: 244 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm with Pantheon, Dag and reybr on this |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,018 |
| |
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Same here: I think it looks awful, and misrepresents the actual credits. Also, the fact that there's no "nesting" possible turns surprisingly many casts lists into a real mess...  I much preferred using it only for when an actual group header is shown on-screen. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
I personally like it the way it is too.
I do too. It keeps us as-credited where we don't have to singularize roles. This is my line of thinking as well. I think not only does it get us closer to exactly as credited (as there is only 1 role for a group of people) I think it looks better as well. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|