| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
This would seem to indicate that Ken has not made his mind up about how these dividers should be formated It also seems to indicate, at least to me, that he prefers more than just the company name. Because of that, I now enter them that way. | | | 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: May 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't care either way, I just wish there would be a rule clarification.
I have entered a quite a few with "Company Only", but have been keeping a journal of the other.
Soon please |
|
  | Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 |  Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote:
The rules say to enter the company name, not anything else. Uh where? There's no rule that tells us to enter company names only. Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote:
As for mirroring the film credits, that remark is about the grouping, in other words, when to include a divider and when not. But the contents of the divider should be a company name. What should or shouldn't be isn't relevant. Only the rules are relevant for the online. The company part in the rules has been added because otherwise a company couldn't be added in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less. | | | | Cor | | | | Last edited: by Corne |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
It also seems to indicate, at least to me, that he prefers more than just the company name. It clearly says the dividers should mirror the credits where possible, meaning it's not limited to company name only. --------------- |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | This isn't going to be solved by us. We have had an extended discussion before, and nothing was forthcoming from the supreme leader.
I humbly wait for his divine guidance... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting ninehours:
Quote:
This would seem to indicate that Ken has not made his mind up about how these dividers should be formated
It also seems to indicate, at least to me, that he prefers more than just the company name. Because of that, I now enter them that way. I thought his wording indicated that he is open to change his stance, since so many people voted the other way, but needed convincing first. hence his request " I'd like to see some discussion as to why this is preferred over the full entry."...? | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: April 3, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,998 |
| | Posted: | | | | Is there any way both ways could be allowed, I'll try to explain what i mean
if the company divider says "Visual Effects by ILM" and the credits under it say Visual Effects Supervisor or Special Effects you would not use the "Visual Effects by" part of the divider as it adds no context to the credits under it but if the company divider says "Giant squelchy Monster by ILM" then you would use it as it doe's add context to the credits under it because you would know that the people credited under it did the effects for the Giant squelchy Monster |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,245 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
Is there any way both ways could be allowed, I'll try to explain what i mean
if the company divider says "Visual Effects by ILM" and the credits under it say Visual Effects Supervisor or Special Effects you would not use the "Visual Effects by" part of the divider as it adds no context to the credits under it but if the company divider says "Giant squelchy Monster by ILM" then you would use it as it doe's add context to the credits under it because you would know that the people credited under it did the effects for the Giant squelchy Monster That I could support. |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote:
Quoting ninehours:
Quote:
Is there any way both ways could be allowed, I'll try to explain what i mean
if the company divider says "Visual Effects by ILM" and the credits under it say Visual Effects Supervisor or Special Effects you would not use the "Visual Effects by" part of the divider as it adds no context to the credits under it but if the company divider says "Giant squelchy Monster by ILM" then you would use it as it doe's add context to the credits under it because you would know that the people credited under it did the effects for the Giant squelchy Monster
That I could support. As could I. |
|
| Registered: May 12, 2007 | | Posts: 20 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's a bit of a mess isn't it? Adding my two cents worth. My default position is always to keep it as close to the actual credits as possible. The way I see it is that sometimes the header is too long, and in that case one should perhaps just add the company name at least. A case of something is better than nothing. I think I am mostly in line with ninehours: Quote:
"Is there any way both ways could be allowed, I'll try to explain what i mean
if the company divider says "Visual Effects by ILM" and the credits under it say Visual Effects Supervisor or Special Effects you would not use the "Visual Effects by" part of the divider as it adds no context to the credits under it but if the company divider says "Giant squelchy Monster by ILM" then you would use it as it doe's add context to the credits under it because you would know that the people credited under it did the effects for the Giant squelchy Monster" Except adding that when feasible the entire label be included anyway. Only opting for skipping the " Visual Effects by..." part if it gets too long. Or simply allowing either for contribution, just so long as the name is included. But not the replacement of an existing 'complete' contribution by a 'truncated' one (not without good provided reason anyway.) |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | I personally would not like a
Do it this way in this situation, do it this otherwise.
If we are going to include the entire company credit, then we include the entire credit, abbreviating as necessary. Do not go halfway and create another exception to a rule.
If you want it the credit would be
Miniature Effects by ABC Studios
Visual Effects by ILM
Creature Efects by Jim Henson's Creature Shop
Etc. Etc.
If we are not going to include them, because they may be too long, then do not include them at all.
I do not mind abbreviating if necessary VFX, SFX , Special VFX, & the list continues.
So to reiterate
If we are going to include the entire company credit, we do it in all cases, abbreviating where necessary to keep it under 60 characters.
If we are not going to do it, then we never do it.
(For the online of course, what you so in your local is entirely up to you)
Charlie | | | | Last edited: by CharlieM |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with Charlie on that. I would prefer to stay away from the if this do this... if that do that scenarios as much as possible. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I agree with Charlie on that. I would prefer to stay away from the if this do this... if that do that scenarios as much as possible. Me too. | | | 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: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with Charlie as well. If you keep it simple, less debate about it IMO. | | | Reviewer, HorrorTalk.com
"I also refuse to document CLT results and I pay my bills to avoid going to court." - Sam, keeping it real, yo. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | I also like the idea of including the extended info in the dividers, and agree that I see nothing in the rules to prevent this. In line with the poll in the other thread, if you want to change the rules to clarify this I'm happy for that, but what I don't want to start happening is for people to vote "no" on contributions where the contributor has decided not to include this info. I would consider that a partial contribution and I don't think we should start voting "no" just because someone decided not to include "Visual Effects by" in the divider. |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Sometimes looking at these types of situations I can't help but laugh. Yes: 15 No: 22 Not Sure: 20 Other: 1 The poll results are so helpful, aren't they?!?  For what it's worth, I voted "Not Sure". The reason is, I do like the additional data. But, I can not stand when such data is incomplete. If there is not enough room on the divider field for complete and accurate data then I prefer it not be entered. If Ken expands the field to allow all of the extended information then I would like it. Hmmm, does this mean I need to change my vote from "Not Sure" to "Other"?  |
|