| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,679 |
| | Posted: | | | | I noticed that a recent contribution added "Additional Makeup" as Make-up Artist. I was under the impression that we don't credit "additional" anything in crew. Am I mistaken? | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: November 3, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 523 |
| |
| Registered: May 2, 2009 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 490 |
| | Posted: | | | | "Additional" means (to me) outside of main crew per its very own (grammatically) definition.
I haven't encountered this type of attempt to include crew, but in my strict opinion, it should be a definite no-no.
I don't know if there's a "semantic" way around this, much like the (endless?) debate about various make-up "artistry".
Maybe if the crew role is listed under some "additional" section, and not the role per se?
At the very least, "additional" as a description of a crew role could mean anything. Or nothing.
Regardless of this comment, it seems to me there was a consensus, or aiming at one that "additional crew" shouldn't be entered into our online DB. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,679 |
| | Posted: | | | | The crew table in the rules isn't exactly consistent, but there are several exclusions for co-something, associate something, and an exclusion in Sound for Assistant. In my mind, "additional" falls in the same category, so I would think that Ken didn't mean to allow it, even if it's not explicitly ruled out. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,383 |
| | Posted: | | | | The most additional crew I see is for Special Effects which always annoys me.  |
|