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->Posts by Danae Cassandra Page: 1 2  Previous   Next
Message Details
I guess you still didn't understand what I posted.  So, I'll try to rephrase what I would like to see.  Looking at the credit chart, I realize that the usual roles that are at issue (the person in charge of the costumes rather than the person designing them) are only partly Wardrobe, so I'll phrase accordingly.

Section: Art
Role: Costume Designer
Credited As: Costumes [by], Costume Supervisor, Gowns [by], Wardrobe [by], Wardrobe Designer, Wardrobe Supervisor, Wardrobe Director
Incorrect Roles: (blank)
Notes:  Only use a Supervisor or Director credit when there is no Designer credit.  If a credit exists for Gowns, or costumes for a single actor or character, ignore that credit when determining whether to use a Supervisor or Director credit.

I do think we want the same thing.  I want to credit the designer.  I want to not have the person who's in charge of keeping track of the costumes credited. 

All this is moot anyway.  There is no way to change the rules, because there is no Ken, and every time I've brought up that we take over the rules and run them by consensus, it has been shot down.  I don't know why we're even discussing it, since all we are doing is tilting at windmills.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2865
Quote:
Quoting Nosferatu:
If Ms Head designed costumes for Bette Davis, wasn't she a costume designer? 


It almost seems like you're deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying.  Yes, she is a costume designer.  However her credit does not read "Costume Designer" it reads "Costumes for Miss Bette Davis designed by."  Yes, that makes her a costume designer.  But it does not mean she was the costume designer for the whole film, it means she was the costume designer for Bette Davis.  Therefore, with no credit that reads simply "Costume Designer/Costumes Designed by" that encompasses the whole film, the way I would like to word things would give the credit to LeMaire.

Quote:

Quoting MikaLove:
If we would vote, I would vote for "credit people for what we know they did".

Agreed.  Which is why I would like a rule that says if there is a Costume Designer credited, do not add a Wardrobe credit.  Because that ends up inevitably crediting someone whose job was to wrangle the costumes, rather than design them.  With such a rule, we could include something that would read "Do not consider credits for gowns, or costumes for individual actors/characters when determining whether to include a Wardrobe credit."
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2865
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Quoting Nosferatu:
Quote:
In the case of All About Eve, that would deprive Edith Head of her credit in a film for which she won an Oscar.

Unless I missunderstand what Danae wrote, it would  deprive Charles LeMaire of his credit.

Would it?  The credits that are shown do not list someone as "Costume Designer."  The credits say "Costumes for Miss Bette Davis designed by Edith Head" = this equals specific costumes for a single actress.  Unless there is another general "Costume Designer" credit somewhere in those credits, that would give LeMaire that credit for wardrobe. 

In other words, we could tweak my phrasing to exclude credits for specific costuming (like Gowns or costumes for specific actors credits) when considering whether "Wardrobe" gets a Costume Designer credit.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2865
Personally, what I would like to see with a Costume Design credit in the rules would be a note like there is in the Sound credits.

So, to refresh memory, under Sound there is a note "Only use when there's no production sound mixing credit"

What I would like to see would be Wardrobe / Wardrobe by / Wardrobe Supervisor / Wardrobe Director note "Only use when there is no costume design credit."  This seems like it should keep the valid wardrobe credits, but might eliminate the ones where that's the person in charge of keeping up with costumes, rather than the designer.

Of course, even if we wanted to go that direction, we can't since Ken isn't active any more.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2865
Quoting Oliver K:
Quote:
Has there ever been talk about selling DVD Profiler and/or moving over to a subscription service or alternatively to a policy of paid upgrades?

It is still my number one movie collection program where everything comes together but the iOS and especially android apps are quite limited compared to the very powerful desktop program.


Ken has not weighed in on anything like subscription/paid upgrades.  Various members have from time to time voiced support for these sorts of things.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 84, Topic Views: 20211
I see where you're going, marcelb7.  I also see scotthm's point about bad data, likely IMDB scrapes.  I had that problem when I was trying to establish common name for Gabby Hayes (common name should have "Gabby" but CLT had 'Gabby' because IMDB uses single quotes for nicknames).

What I'm guessing you would like to see marcelb7, is a rule for what goes in the original title field for seasons/disc level profiles.  Something like "In the original title field, enter the name of the show only (without season or disc numbers)."
Posted:
Topic Replies: 24, Topic Views: 739
Quoting marcelb7:
Quote:
Quoting Danae Cassandra:
Quote:
I agree.  I used to have all sorts of manual profiles for the individual films, so the alt ID profiles have been awesome.

For films, it's a great feature. For TV series... Let's just say I'm not a fan.

That's fair.  I'm a film person, not much of a TV person, so I don't have the perspective on that level.

Admittedly, thinking about it, the only issue I can come up with is the complete sets that have all the discs in them being unable to profile by season.  If that isn't the issue, what differs with TV in the child profiles that makes you not a fan of the alt-IDs for TV? (if you don't mind me asking)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 24, Topic Views: 739
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
I was never a fan of the new rule to create all these separate alternate disc IDs for multiple movies on a disc since it splits the movies into separate profiles and creates more clutter.

That's one of the most useful and appreciated features added to the program since I started using it in 2007.

I agree.  I used to have all sorts of manual profiles for the individual films, so the alt ID profiles have been awesome.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 24, Topic Views: 739
Quoting Magmadrag:
Quote:

And: I am not sure if the Alt. Version was established in the rules in 2016 or before. So waht about all the profiles which were correct before and became wrong by establishing this new rule?


You're correct - this is a newer rule, and the older style was to use the UPC for the parent, and then the disc IDs for each disc, dividing each movie on the disc with episode dividers.  After the introduction of the alternate ID profile option, this was changed so that each movie had its own profile via alternate ID.

In this case, the previously correct profiles should be altered to the currently correct profiles.  So, for example, King of the Cowboys: The Ultimate Roy Rogers Collection, which I originally created with 5 disc level child profiles in 2010, now has 25 child profiles as of 2018.

Quote:

And destroying work is not acceptable months and years later!


What it seems you're arguing here is that because someone did the work of making a profile, it should remain as is, untouched, simply because someone put work into it.  If that was the case, common names, birth years, any auditing of profiles should not be done.  The profile stands as a monument to its creator.

That's not feasible.  The database is a constantly evolving thing, the work of many people, used by many people.  The rules have changed, the abilities of the program have changed, in many cases for the better.

As for the screeners, they often take profiles that have mistakes.  They don't have the discs in front of them, and the kind of profile described would still be a correct style for a disc of short films (which don't get their own alternate-ID profiles).  So a UPC/disc-level/disc-level could be correct, and they wouldn't know, because they don't have the disc.  They rely on notes and votes, I believe.

I can't claim to know anything about the screeners, but given Ken's lack of involvement, I personally think it's one or two people volunteering a bit of time to keep Profiler going for us.  If they accept profiles that have to be changed/corrected later, I see it as a small price to pay for the continued operation of the online section of the program.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 24, Topic Views: 739
From the contribution rules:

Quote:

Note: Do not create and contribute a disc ID profile with multiple movies:
UPC Entry: (Movie 1/Movie 2) data
Disc ID A: (Movie 1/Movie 2) data
Disc ID A Entry (Variant ID #1): Movie 1 data
Disc ID A Entry (Variant ID #2): Movie 2 data
Posted:
Topic Replies: 24, Topic Views: 739
If Ken was still involved it would be nice if we could have a separate field for collections/labels.  Sigh.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 424
I'll admit to voting no.  I thought The Pianist was a slippery slope one that could go either way, but since Nighthawks already clearly had an edition ("Collector's Edition") putting the label next to it seems wrong to me, so having already voted against the one it seemed wrong to vote for the other. 

But if the majority agree that it is correct, I'll abstain if you want to resubmit.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 424
Quoting Magmadrag:
Quote:

But if there would be any kind of a "test" to make sure that all contributers know not only the rules but also the technical possibilities like the "Alternative Version", this would avoid soooo much unneccessary work to be done.


I actually remember taking a test to qualify for contributing, perhaps back in the Intervocative days.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 546
If you're entering the DVD by UPC, you will need to use the outer case with the UPC.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 1, Topic Views: 262
Ultimately, the rules are fairly simple to remember
- a disc ID profile can be a disc or a movie on the disc
- a UPC profile can be a case/box or a movie inside it
- season profiles, per rules, are to only use UPCs
--- this is because the disc ID should only be used as disc level profiles

It doesn't matter how you bought them secondhand.  It only matters how they were originally released. 

If you go to add the discs separately, there's probably a good chance that disc level profiles may already exist (because a lot of people like them) and you'll simply have to add the box from the box art that gets downloaded with the disc ID profile.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 1489
Character Design(er) is a credit I've only ever seen in animation, whereas Creature Design I usually see in live-action films.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 3, Topic Views: 564
I see it regularly where I work, mostly in Xbox 360 games.  We also see old rental DVDs come in with hub stickers, so if you want to save the disc that's probably your best option. 

At work we just destroy any discs that we end up with that have hub cracks, though we try not to buy them in the first place, but sometimes something slips by.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 750
The 5-disc Blade Runner set also has profiles for each disc, done as a box set, for another example of this phenomenon.  But two of those discs are documentaries, so might not be the best template.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 708
"The Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs, and for indicating special versions and collections"

Are the SPC releases the only release of the film(s) in question?  If that is the case, then its use in the edition field does not apply.

The Criterion Collection is also a media company, and it gets put in the edition field every time.  But, Criterion distinguishes from other releases of the same film by other media companies.  So it makes sense to put it there.  I'm not sure SPC falls in a similar category.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 3039
Quoting judas_the_fallen:
Quote:
Have a feeling that if i was a new customer that buying the key would be a waste on a program that feels like it is being updated by the consumer rather than by the company that owns it.

It's always been the users building the database.  While Ken has done the programming work, we have always been the ones who add all the movie releases and everything that goes with that.

Quote:
I may have it missed it but is there any way to add additional online dvd databases to the profiler? IMDB and a few others are there but i noticed that newer databases are not on the profiler.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Do you mean to add data from other databases to the profiles?  The only source should be the disc, not IMDB or other online databases.  Do you mean as a source for info such as birthyears or such?  That's always been acceptable to cite as one of the sources for that kind of info.  Or do you mean to add to the link pages?  Anything can be added there.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 90, Topic Views: 19541
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
Quoting Danae Cassandra:
Quote:
The Rules Committee section of the forum still exists at least.  The last post in it was in 2019.


But who is on the rules committee, that is who are the voting members? Are there other individuals that are on the contribution approval committee too?


Back in the day, anyone could request access to that section of the forum, and Ken/Gerri would grant it.  I don't know who all has access to it.  As far as the voting process, to quote Ken's post from 2012 there:

Quote:
To get a rule changed or added:

- Start a dedicated thread in this forum, state the problem and proposed solution.
- Discuss and build a consensus, modifying the solution as required.
- When a consensus is built, the op restates the final proposal, including proposed wording for the change
- The op opens a support ticket and links to the thread.

Note: The consensus need not be universal, but it should be as broad as possible.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 4932
The Rules Committee section of the forum still exists at least.  The last post in it was in 2019.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 4932
For my part, I'm not trying to attack anyone.  After reading this thread, I went over to the common name threads and read up on the issues going on over there.  I can see both sides of the argument, and I certainly understand the frustration of not being able to have any kind of official (i.e. Ken) ruling on the interpretation of the disputed rule in question.

Personally, I try stay out of the realm of common names because it's too much to keep up with anymore.  I've noticed a few recently that I don't know if they've been established or not, and I haven't gone forward with doing anything about them because it's a pain in the rear.

Since I'm convinced Ken will never be involved again, the only way I see us moving forward is to either all agree to run the contribution rules by consensus or we're going to continue to lose users over these sorts of frustrations.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 4932
Quoting DarklyNoon:
Quote:
Thanks for all your hard work, maybe you will reconsider your decision over time.

I agree with mediadogg, you should at least let us now who that user is.


Just go look through the recent common name threads, its not hard to figure out.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 4932
Also before creating an alternate version, verify that your copy isn't a bootleg, as it seems many of the titles you've been inquiring about seem to likely be bootleg.  Sharing a UPC with a different title is generally a sign to be wary of.

I will say that bootlegs are getting more and more sophisticated.  I work in a store that buys/sells used DVDs and BRs.  My boss bought an entire run of bootleg Sons of Anarchy seasons about a month ago.  He's been managing the store for 25 years and they slipped by him.  He thought they looked a bit off, but not enough to pass on them.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 2239
Invelos Forums->Posts by Danae Cassandra Page: 1 2  Previous   Next