"Premise" is part of the writing process, like "story" or "created by". For our purposes (due to the credit chart), it's not either of those but could be OMB in my opinion.

Here are a couple of pages from the Writers Guild which mention premise, although not as a separate credit, in terms of TV series credits:

Determining Separated Rights on a Television Series

Television Credits Manual

The Writers Guild determines the credits that we see on-screen (in American films at least). It is helpful to know the background and process that establishes these credits.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
"Premise" is part of the writing process, like "story" or "created by". For our purposes (due to the credit chart), it's not either of those but could be OMB in my opinion.

Here are a couple of pages from the Writers Guild which mention premise, although not as a separate credit, in terms of TV series credits:

Determining Separated Rights on a Television Series

Television Credits Manual

I don't know anything about writing credits - which was why "premise" threw me. I found these articles to be very interesting. Thank you for sharing them.

One more tiime, gunnar. your comment was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT and unnecessary  once Kathy provided her documentation. You ASSUME the premise was written down, Kathy provided documentation. I did not attack you at all, Gunnar, quite the contrary, in fact since Kathy posted her documentation prior to your post and I had not posted after her documentation as there was NO NEED to go further. So if there was an attack it was in the form of your utterly useless, were you doing as some other users do, you were attracted because I posted a comment nd you did not bother to review the remainder of the thread. Please, Gunnar, give all of us a break, do you really believe that i am stupid. No more attacks, gunnar, I won't tolerate themm from YOU or anyone else....do I make myself clear, Yes you fired frrst, compadre.

BTW since you claim that a premise does not have to published., allow me to refer you to the program itself  which lists OMB as book, poem, song, etc.. Now what do those things have in common, Gunnar, they are all PUBLISHED, there is NOTHING in either the program or the Rules which supports your contention. So in yet another case you attempt to create an argument which is not consistent with the rules or the Program with faulty logic, sopmething that happens all too frequently. I am very glad that Kathy provided such completely and FACTUAL data to back up OMB for this credit.

Your post as happens all to frequently reveals a personal agenda and because of this you present poor logic. Now please Gunnar, this not necessary to go any further, Kathy ended in perfect way, yet for reasons known factually only to yourself, you derailed the thread with an assault on another user and you want to continue it. You leave me scratching my head, Gunnar.

Now Gunnar let me take apart you supposition. Claiming that any given premise HAS to be written down. You and i go out to dinner, over dinner I drop this plot idea on you, you go back and write a screenplay from that idea and credit Skip with the premise. Yet nothing was written down for the premise, it was merely an idea. This is why prior to Kathy's documentation we were saying that it could not be credited as OMB , there was no proof what the MEDIUM was or that it was anymore than an idea, according to you if it had been written down on a napkin that is a medium. Once again I point you at the Program and that there is nothing there to support such a claim, everything in the program is PUBLISHED and the that coupled with the Rules re: OMB certainly implies that we are looking for something that has been published, a novella is published, a short story is published, a musical is published, a premise cannot be assumed to have been published on its own merit, without documentation.

Again Kathy, let me thank you for your excellent research.

Skip

Gunnar:

Thuis discussion is over, I will only add that in MY view, you fired the first shot. The discussion ended with Kathy's documentation. yet you decided to not only derail the thread and continue an eneded discussion but you chose to direct it at  myself, for whtever motive, then your logic made absolutely no sense at all, but that is alos fairly normal. Can a premise be something that IS published...yes indeed; can a premise be something that is NOT published...once again yes indeed it can. Therefore without documentation such as provided by Kathy we simply cannot know the answer to whether it was published or not. So while your description was correct as far as it goes, it was only half the story and not enough upon which a decision could be made, except that Peremise by is not covered anywhere in the Rules on its own merit.

It was you gunnar who chose to come at me with weak logic, making claims which simply were nothing but an outlandish assumption with absolutely no logical basis in thought...not I. You even tried to blame me for firing upon you FIRST, Gunnar, when my viewpoint it was you who fired first, and with a weak argument at that. I am sorry , my friend, I repeat that once Kathy provided documentation the discussion was over...why?...because by and large this is an exceptionally rare find, and if another is found, the answer that Kathy's documentation provided here, may NOT hold up the next time. Your assertoion was simply that premise is a medium and apparently you believe that it should be allowed in all cases, that does not recommend the whole of what a premise could be, in this case it was a published novella, but in the next case it may be nothing more than an idea which was discussed, or even simply an unpublished outline. Your logic that a premise does NOT have to published in order to qualify as OMB, simply ignores the evidence to the contrary, Gunnar. Somethin written on a napkin hardly qualifies as OMB, an idea discussed over a dinner does not qualify. As I pointed out the examples given in the Program for OMB have one thing in common, they ARE published, not vague ideas or something scrawled on a napkin but actual published material, be it a book, a poem or even a song.

Perhaps you do have the powers of a medium and are able to mystically determine exactly what premise means in a given credit application, I don't have those powers, I can only say that is possible that it could be but without documentation we cannot assume that to be the case, since it coukld just as easily be something very different.

Now what you need to know is to walk in my shoes and try to comprehend how I view your initial post as an attack upon me. I understand you, but you make it very clear that you do not understand me, and that could be my fault.

You know Gunnar, yesterday we had auser make a post that settled something that had long been a burr under my saddle. He used two very simple words and/phrases, which were different and very simple form what anyone had tried to throw at me in previous discussion, instead they of discussing they wanted to talk at me. Thus I left that situation with a very unsatisfying feeling relative to many of my colleagues, months later someone used a couple of very simple concepts and I was able to see that I was coming at it from a completely different direction, not wrong...different. Now that I understand where this was coming from, I still don't know if I like it necessarily, but at least I know understand the rationale and the difference in the two viewpoints. A discussion was gracefully closed by a user providing documentation and you decide that it needs to go on for some strange reason, by attacking something I had said and using rather lame logic in the process, a comment by me that was made irrelevant by the introduction of Kathy's documentation.

Now will please let this thread fade into Profiler history. There is nothing more to said by anyone on this, the situation has been resolved. We cannot create a universal interpretation of premise by that would hold water in ALL cases. IF it is ever seen again, we will see what that one might mean or whether documentation can be had to verify that it had been a published piece of work. I am just very happy that these oddities are so rare.

SKip

Skip

Hal, you are the last person on the planet i would expect that from, you who very strictly has interpreted the Rules in the past, and has refused to allow any kind of wiggle room. What happened to the hal  that would have simply said there is no such credit in our data set...NO!!. <falls in a dead faint>


Skip

Skip,

I wasn't firing any shot. I just presented an opinion that was different from yours. I realize that you find that irritating, but it's certainly not a shot.

My take on the rule "adapted from a different medium" is that different is the key word. Other than film, that is. So if it is written on a napkin it's different. A napkin is not film.

The fact that it's not relevant re the case that Kathy brought up is true. You seemed to be making a general statement regarding what premise was. I argued against it.

There was nothing in this that warranted either the insulting insinuation or the long tirade that followed in the ensuing post from you.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
The simple fact that the film makers decided to put a "Based on a premise by" credit in the film's credits, tells me that they felt that this individual's contribution to the production of the film was significant enough to warrant a credit.  Because it appears on screen, I have to believe the contribution was something more than a simple idea like, "a small boy befriends an alien".  The fact that it is rare tells me that there is something "special" about what this individual did in developing the film concept and they wanted to acknowledge that.

Given that interpretation, which admittedly is MY interpretation, I believe an OMG credit is perfectly appropriate and is covered in the Rules under the "etc." contained in the program description of what constitutes OMB.

Agreed on all counts!