 |
|
|
|
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... 3 4 5 6 7 ...14  Previous Next
|
|
Supervising Producer |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
I am NOT entering data under a false heading: the credits show me a producer, and I enter him as such. That he's "supervising" is all the more reason to list him - he supervises the others - but he's a producer nonetheless.
Again: we enter the "supervising" people for every other category. I've used "supervising re-recording mixer" as an example, and it's clear that the DVD Profiler community almost unanimously enters those: do me a favor and check in how many 'Anchorman'-profiles "supervising sound mixers" Scott Millan and Bob Beemer are listed, for instance? Are all these profiles wrong, because "supervising sound mixer" isn't listed as an "acceptable" credit? No! It goes without saying (literally: that's why you don't see them in the rules!) that when "sound mixer" is acceptable, that "supervising sound mixer" is, too. It's as simple as that. I really can't stress this key issue enough: almost all of us will enter such "supervising" credits without even giving it any thought. And this producer situation is THE EXACT SAME THING: in both cases the "supervising" is not addressed in the rules. That doesn't mean they're not valid, though: the rules seem designed to track the most "important" crew people. For instance: we track the "principal" editors, not any additional ones. So how could we not track the "supervising" producer, but only those working under him? It just doesn't make sense.
If it's not listed as acceptable, we don't credit them, simple as that. Anything else is against the rules and your personal preference which does not belong in the database. You're busted, dude. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Patsa: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
I am NOT entering data under a false heading: the credits show me a producer, and I enter him as such. That he's "supervising" is all the more reason to list him - he supervises the others - but he's a producer nonetheless.
Again: we enter the "supervising" people for every other category. I've used "supervising re-recording mixer" as an example, and it's clear that the DVD Profiler community almost unanimously enters those: do me a favor and check in how many 'Anchorman'-profiles "supervising sound mixers" Scott Millan and Bob Beemer are listed, for instance? Are all these profiles wrong, because "supervising sound mixer" isn't listed as an "acceptable" credit? No! It goes without saying (literally: that's why you don't see them in the rules!) that when "sound mixer" is acceptable, that "supervising sound mixer" is, too. It's as simple as that. I really can't stress this key issue enough: almost all of us will enter such "supervising" credits without even giving it any thought. And this producer situation is THE EXACT SAME THING: in both cases the "supervising" is not addressed in the rules. That doesn't mean they're not valid, though: the rules seem designed to track the most "important" crew people. For instance: we track the "principal" editors, not any additional ones. So how could we not track the "supervising" producer, but only those working under him? It just doesn't make sense.
If it's not listed as acceptable, we don't credit them, simple as that. Anything else is against the rules and your personal preference which does not belong in the database. You're busted, dude. it's going to take a long time to clean out these profiles of all these rogue crew members. Gonna be even worse for all the regions that just copy and paste from R1 profiles. Guess we better get started. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
We credit "supervising" anythings, be it editors, art directors, sound mixers or... producers. You constantly say that we credit anything supervising thus claiming that because you (and others) do it, it's the correct thing to do (At least that's how I interpret it) We don't credit 'anything supervising'. You might, but not we, the community as a whole. Some do, some don't. It's not an indisputable fact that we do, so please don't present it as one. We credit supervising art director because that role is mentioned as allowed by the rules. We credit supervising sound editor because it has an own slot in the program. Why is it that we have a slot reserved for supervising sound editor? We could just use sound editor. After all that's what 'we' do with everything else. Could it be because it's not the same job as a regular sound editor? And since Supervising Art Director IS listed in the allowed column, why isn't Supervising Producer listed in the allowed column? (Or supervising film editor for that matter) Quote:
Even worse: there are several profiles in which a "supervising editor" is the only editing credit (the Hammer films as mentioned by midnitoil), there are profiles in which a few "supervising sound mixers" are the only re-recording mixers. Weren't those edited / mixed / produced? Of course they were
Of course they were, but no credit were given for some reason or another. It could be because of guild rules? (Motion Picture Editors Guild does not allow assistants to receive more than one credit) We don't know, but they are not credited and we don't do uncredited crew. In the old Disney shorts, no writing credits were given. It's still a well known fact that Carl Barks wrote many of those stories, but because he isn't credited we don't list him. The story was still written even though no one is credited as the author of the story. Same thing with the film editors/recording mixers in your example. They did the job but weren't credited for doing it for some reason. And to give another example of a credit were we're leaving out important roles but including lesser important roles: The Simpsons: Created by Matt Groening. He created the show, but isn't credited in Profiler (except for those episodes were he actually wrote an episode as well). Why don't we include him? After all he is more important than the writers of the episodes. | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
it's going to take a long time to clean out these profiles of all these rogue crew members. Gonna be even worse for all the regions that just copy and paste from R1 profiles. Guess we better get started. I guess you are sarcastic (please excuse me if I'm mistaken) There are mistakes in a lot of profiles. Still a lot of co-producers out there too. All these mistakes will be fixed with time (and made again because people are copying without giving it a second thought). There are contributions coming through every day that corrects mistakes in the profiles. It will take time and we will prolly never be done, but that doesn't mean we have to give up And now... bedtime | | |
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity | | | | Last edited: by reybr |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | What I'm saying is, since it appears that there are two distinctly different standards at play here, every single profile is now suspect...including ones that have received full audits by very reputable contributors. I gotta say, I'm really just not up to the task right now. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
we credit all kinds of "Supervising" (plug-in-the-role) credits.
This is indeed what it all boils down to. We credit "supervising" anythings, be it editors, art directors, sound mixers or... producers. Um...no, WE don't. You do...Hal seems to...but WE don't. At least I don't. Because the wording in this part of the rules is so bad, my measuring stick has always been the 'Role' and 'Credited As' columns. If the crew credit is listed in one of those two columns, I enter it. If it isn't, I do not. That seems very simple, very straight forward and leaves very little room for personal preference. But, hey, that's just me.  | | | 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 | | Posts: 810 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote:
...
And since Supervising Art Director IS listed in the allowed column, why isn't Supervising Producer listed in the allowed column? (Or supervising film editor for that matter)
... Because whomever made the credits chart left them out. It could have been for a good reason or just an error or even a misunderstanding as to what these roles are. This part of the rules (the crew chart) is in bad need of a rewrite. We need to clean up the notes and add some new allowed roles. Adding story-by to OMB or adding it as its own role would be great! If Ken was willing to give us a clue as to any new roles that he will be adding to 3.5, it would help us know what we should change. pdf | | | Paul Francis
San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Patsa: Quote:
If it's not listed as acceptable, we don't credit them, simple as that. Anything else is against the rules and your personal preference which does not belong in the database. You're busted, dude. So where do you stand on "Theme By", "Created By", "Based on the Novel By", "Based on the Play By", "Based on Characters By", "A Production of", "Story By", "Photographed By", "Lyrics By", "Sung By", "Sound Edited By", "Sound Mixer", "Production Designed By", etc., etc. None of these are listed as acceptable. Are you suggesting that they all be excluded? Where in the Rules does it say to remove your brain before editing a profile?  | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
I hear you, Goblins, they use circular logic and slander and don't even recognize it. Not worth the effort.
Skip 
Something can only be slander if it is untrue, so that term does not apply in this case. I see have no need to comment further. GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!! Skip | | | 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: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
we credit all kinds of "Supervising" (plug-in-the-role) credits.
This is indeed what it all boils down to. We credit "supervising" anythings, be it editors, art directors, sound mixers or... producers.
Um...no, WE don't. You do...Hal seems to...but WE don't. At least I don't.
Because the wording in this part of the rules is so bad, my measuring stick has always been the 'Role' and 'Credited As' columns. If the crew credit is listed in one of those two columns, I enter it. If it isn't, I do not.
That seems very simple, very straight forward and leaves very little room for personal preference. But, hey, that's just me. Unicus: You are wasting your breath. 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: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
So where do you stand on "Theme By", "Created By", "Based on the Novel By", "Based on the Play By", "Based on Characters By", "A Production of", "Story By", "Photographed By", "Lyrics By", "Sung By", "Sound Edited By", "Sound Mixer", "Production Designed By", etc., etc.
None of these are listed as acceptable. Are you suggesting that they all be excluded?
Where in the Rules does it say to remove your brain before editing a profile? The problem with this argument is that this IS (with the exception of created by and sung by which we don't credit) in fact the same jobs as allowed jobs. A supervising producer and a producer does not perform the same job. | | |
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity |
| | Registered: March 31, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,798 |
| |   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,738 |
| | Posted: | | | | Once again, we're faced with about five users trying to ruin things for thousands of others who do all understand the glaringly obvious. Well, I'll just leave you to it. Oh, just more thing: we do enter "created by": it's OCB. There's been a consensus about this for years (see here; even Skip says: "You are right on OCB"). |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Tim: I am sorry, my friend. I have to ask, since when exactly did you become the spokesman for the thousands to which you refer. A rather strange statement it seems to me. BTW, Tim for the record I understand your argument and why you are using it, you are focused on SUPERVISING. But the reality of Supervising in Production is no higher than number three on a given film org chart and depending on the film maybe even lower. A Supervising Producer does NOT oversee Producers and Execs, were that true, I would agree with you. The Super simply oversees those members of the production team for which we do not account at this time, he is not the head of the production section. Unlike the Supervising Sound Editor, Art Director, and Film Editor. So with a very narrow focus on just the word with NO CONTEXT you would be correct, but once you understand the context then the answer becomes very clear. And that is what I have explained for THREE years and we have THOUSANDS of profiles processed on that basis, tim. So I would say you speak for yourself and a handful of other users, not the nysterious thousands. the actual facts do not support your claim. Further the way we have done things for three years, waiting for more program enhancements, and within the last year you have decided that you know better and want to single-handledly want to change various things. What you have done with your comments is put me in a position where i will be forced to vet your Contributions MUCH tighter and that makes me very sad. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
BTW guys I need to help you a little bit. there is no such word as argumentation, it is simply argument. 
Skip Have a look here! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Once again, we're faced with about five users trying to ruin things for thousands of others who do all understand the glaringly obvious. Well, I'll just leave you to it.
The question is if it's the side you're on or the side that I'm on are the five taht are ruining things. So far I can't see more than five users on your side either. And to me it's glaringly obvious that it's you who are wrong and not me Quote:
Oh, just more thing: we do enter "created by": it's OCB. There's been a consensus about this for years (see here; even Skip says: "You are right on OCB"). That a link to a feature request, not to a thread that proves any consensus. | | |
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...14 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |