| Registered: July 16, 2010 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 527 |
| | Posted: | | | | Several times in the past month I’ve submitted contributions for creature credits, where the credits didn’t exactly say “creature designer” but instead referred to specific creatures. In all cases I put notes to this effect in with the contribution. Examples: Quote:
All the Creature Design credits are taken from the end credits. Each person has been credited with the design of a different creature; there are no other Creature Design credits anywhere. Rock ‘n’ Roll Nightmare 4 yes votes, 0 no votes. Approved by screeners Quote:
Carlo Rambaldi credited as “Special Effects for the Creature” so have given him a Creature Design credit. La Posesión No one voted but approved but screeners Quote:
A number of crew added, taken from the end credits. I’ve used the following interpretations for the ones that weren’t straightforward. I’m happy to change or remove any of these if many people disagree.
[contributed credit = wording of credit from end credits]
Creature Design = Necroborg Design
Visual Effects = Creature & Special Effects Director Meatball Machine 6 yes votes, 0 no votes. Approved by screeners On a similar subject, I’ve also submitted the following: Quote:
Mia Gyzander added as Costume Designer, as she credited in the end credits as “Demon Costume Designer”; she’s also high up in the credits on her own in a large type face, so appears to have a relatively important role Farmhouse 2 yes votes, 0 no votes. Voting till open. This is of course a small number of samples, but rightly or wrongly the reality of what happens in the real world is quite clear. Any changes to the Rules have to make them easier to apply. They are already too complicated and open to too many interpretations, which is why so much time goes into discussing them here and then in most cases no official decision is forthcoming, each individual discussion peters out (not infrequently after a great deal of annoyance and frustration), to be followed by a new discussion which follows the same general pattern. I’ve no idea how many people use DVD Profiler or how many of those people contribute submissions, but I’m sure it’s a lot more than the 30-40 people who regularly post in the contributions forum. Even if everyone who does the latter agreed on everything (unlikely as that might be), everyone else would still contribute based on their own interpretations of the Rules, which would still mean we’d end up with a range of opinions, (such as there is here on the creature designer credit). If you want a system where lots of people can contribute information in a consistent way, then it has to be made ‘idiot proof’. (And I’m quite happy to include myself in with the idiots, as I have limited time to spend researching every little thing that the Rules don’t quite seem to explain, which I’d expect is true for most people. If you’ve ‘grown’ up using the system for years then that’s perhaps fine, but for everyone else it’s a steep learning curve and a frustrating experience at times, not helped by the attitude of a small minority who doesn’t appear to realise or case what impact their words have when responding to peoples’ questions). Does anyone wonder why so few new people submit profiles, or if they do why they don’t do so for long? How you ‘idiot proof’ the system is the key here, but adding more and more and more instructions probably isn’t the way to do it. Paul | | | | Do you ever find yourself striving for perfection with an almost worthless attempt at it? Guttermouth "Lemon Water". Also, I include in my Profiler database VHS tapes, audio DVDs, audio books (digital, cassette and CD), video games (digital, DVD and CD) and 'enhanced' CDs with video tracks on them, as well as films and TV I've bought digitally. So I'm an anarchist, deal with it. Just be thankful I don't include most of my records and CDs etc in it too; don't think I haven't been tempted... | | | | Last edited: by SpikyCactus |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Paul: I agree with your approach. It's a great pity though that with the current system all these real world credits are buried in the notes and never seen by the people who only view the actual profile. That's why I want them to be contributable so that everyone can see why these people were added and how they were originally credited by anyone who are simply looking at the profile, maybe several years later. Because right now we are fabricating "false" data by giving them a credit they never received. This makes the data a lot less useful than what it has the potential to be. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: June 21, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
I don't agree with that interpretation at all. If anything the designers who work on real creatures have to work harder than those creating fantasy creatures as they'll know the audience will already have a point of reference as to what the creature looks like so they need to make extra sure the creature comes across as lifelike and believable.
Nobody would have noticed if Giger had changed the shape of the alien head or body, but get the shape of a whale wrong and everyone will notice. Dude has a huge point, like how those horrid cgi deer in 'I Am Legend' took me right out of any groove I had going. Had it been some kinda mutant possessed deer, then mess-ups wouldn't be so obvious and probably not even noticable. |
|