Does Howard Berger get a credit and if so what?

His credit is SFX Supervisor. Does that equal Special Effects Supervisor? If so, how does the company credit "SFX Makeup by" above him affect his credit?

Does Berger get a Special Effects or a Makeup Effects credit?
And does the Makeup company get a company credit?

Quoting GreyHulk:

Quote:
[group divider] SFX Make-up by KNB EFX Group
Howard Berger as Make-up Effects

And this would get a sure "No"

SFX Supervisor is not in the list, so no credit.
At least if you stick with the rules.
Sadly this is exactly the kind of job we are after.

Quoting Rizor:

Quote:
SFX is a well known abbreviation of "Special Effects", so it's a direct translation of "Special Effects Supervisor" which is on the list.

I guess the problem is that he's technical credited as special effects supervisor, but may actually be the makeup effects supervisor. Personally, I'd lean towards giving him a visual effects credit as that's what the chart says it'd be according to his credit. Including "SFX Make-up by KNB EFX Group" may help to contextualize it. But it's tricky.

Here's a bio of the guy: https://www.stanwinstonschool.com/artists/special-effects-character-creator-howard-berger

This ^

Quoting Rizor:

Quote:
SFX is a well known abbreviation of "Special Effects", so it's a direct translation of "Special Effects Supervisor" which is on the list.

So you would enter the Make Up Effects man as Visual Effects then?
Because of an (at best) imprecise credit?

Now you really gave me something to laugh about.

EDIT:
Nevertheless the plan of Greyhulk was to use "Make-up Effects" as entry, and I see no way to shoehorn a SFX-Supervisor into this section. So my "No" stands.

But he has never done visual effects like CGI, he has always done FX make-up and is legend in the field.
I'd bend the rules with this because the company credit clearly says make-up, his says special, combine and you have special make-up FX. Don't let common sense go out the window on technical BS. Maybe the chart should include "any reasonable variant thereof" because nit-picking things like this aren't good for the database.
What flick is this, just in case I have it and didn't audit myself (and I have done less and less audits without a blu drive in my computer)?

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
Quoting Rizor:

Quote:
SFX is a well known abbreviation of "Special Effects", so it's a direct translation of "Special Effects Supervisor" which is on the list.

So you would enter the Make Up Effects man as Visual Effects then?
Because of an (at best) imprecise credit?

Now you really gave me something to laugh about.

I know it's silly, but it's what the rules say to do. But I agree that given the evidence, "makeup effects" makes the most sense. I think with the "SFX Make-up by KNB EFX Group" divider, it'd be okay to include him as "make-up effects" with an explanation.

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
Quoting Rizor:

Quote:
SFX is a well known abbreviation of "Special Effects", so it's a direct translation of "Special Effects Supervisor" which is on the list.

So you would enter the Make Up Effects man as Visual Effects then?
Because of an (at best) imprecise credit?

Now you really gave me something to laugh about.

EDIT:
Nevertheless the plan of Greyhulk was to use "Make-up Effects" as entry, and I see no way to shoehorn a SFX-Supervisor into this section. So my "No" stands.

Concur

Do the people at KNB EFX Group do work other than Special Effects Make-Up?  If they do just plain old Special Effects, then the SFX Supervisor could very well be for Special Effects, not Make-Up Effects.