 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...11  Previous Next
|
|
Puppeteers |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't see any confusion in the words , vittra.
:For the purposes of this section we define "standard" film credits as those where all credited actors involved are listed together in a single section at the end of the film - defined here as the "end credits". The section details both the actor’s Name and the Role that they played in the film. The credits may be listed "in order of appearance", "alphabetical order" or in an order of importance decided by the filmmakers. Some actors may be credited a second time in either credits at either the opening or
Together has a definite meaning, as does single section. There is a Cast section, then a Stunt Section, then a Puppeteer section, the cast and puppeteers are nither together nor are they in a SINGLE section.
Following what seems to be your logic, there is NO definition of cast data.
Similarly the both the cast and Crew use the same terminol;ogy.
For any film with standard credits, take the actor information from the end credits only, with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits and in exactly the same order credited. Exception: If the credit information is entirely capitalized, use standard capitalization rules instead.
Exactly has meaning, with the allowance for standard cap Rules
I simply cannot construct any kind of argument that allows for Hal's rather free-wheeling interpretation, I can't even construct an illogical argument because the Ruiles are tight and leave no wiggle room. I have also said that if hal chooses to FIX his Contribution, I will happily withdraw the Corrected Contribution. I am very good at constructing arguments, vittra, it is part of my life, but there just is not one that can constructed in this case.
The words that were chosen were precise and done so for a reason and that was to prevent exactly this kind of discussion, and WORSE yet, hal was a participant in tat writing.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 810 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Woola: Quote:
I don't see any confusion in the words , vittra.
:For the purposes of this section we define "standard" film credits as those where all credited actors involved are listed together in a single section at the end of the film - defined here as the "end credits". The section details both the actor’s Name and the Role that they played in the film. The credits may be listed "in order of appearance", "alphabetical order" or in an order of importance decided by the filmmakers. Some actors may be credited a second time in either credits at either the opening or
Together has a definite meaning, as does single section. There is a Cast section, then a Stunt Section, then a Puppeteer section, the cast and puppeteers are nither together nor are they in a SINGLE section.
Following what seems to be your logic, there is NO definition of cast data.
Similarly the both the cast and Crew use the same terminol;ogy.
For any film with standard credits, take the actor information from the end credits only, with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits and in exactly the same order credited. Exception: If the credit information is entirely capitalized, use standard capitalization rules instead.
Exactly has meaning, with the allowance for standard cap Rules
I simply cannot construct any kind of argument that allows for Hal's rather free-wheeling interpretation, I can't even construct an illogical argument because the Ruiles are tight and leave no wiggle room. I have also said that if hal chooses to FIX his Contribution, I will happily withdraw the Corrected Contribution. I am very good at constructing arguments, vittra, it is part of my life, but there just is not one that can constructed in this case.
The words that were chosen were precise and done so for a reason and that was to prevent exactly this kind of discussion, and WORSE yet, hal was a participant in tat writing.
Skip But if some of the cast and the puppeteers (which are cast) are not listed together, then we don't have 'standard credits' and then the 'standard credits' rules don't apply.  pdf | | | Paul Francis
San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | How can you determine whether they are casty or not...answer you can't. This movie does employ standard credits, Paul. Again by your assertion there is no definition of cast, anything can be Cast, including Stunts, Accountants, gaffers, even Sound People, everybody in the movie is Cast by YOUR logic.
This movie has a specific section that is labeled CAST, that y definition is a Standard credit. IF the Puppeteers immediately followed the Cast data ven IF there was a space I would say YES, but this is not the case.
The only way that I can make your argument work, Paul is to ignore not only the Rules but the Dictionary as well.
Interesting approach, Paul, but it doesn't fly. It is an attempt to ignore the Rules in order to allow user-interpretation into the dataset. Sorry, my friend.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | This interesting debate between rules "specialists" (4 pages of "It's white", "No, it's black", "You are blind, it's white", "You are a jerk, it's black"), clearly shows what consistancy we may expect for online data... | | | | Images from movies |
| | Registered: September 18, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,650 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
This interesting debate between rules "specialists" (4 pages of "It's white", "No, it's black", "You are blind, it's white", "You are a jerk, it's black"), clearly shows what consistancy we may expect for online data... If you don't like the program why do you use it? Huh Mr Frenchy? HUH?!?!?   |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | | Registered: May 26, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 599 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting huskersports: Quote:
Can Ken create a permanent thread called "Bitching, Moaning, Name-Calling and Insulting of Others"? Shouldn't that be, "Bitching, Moaning, Name-Calling and Insulting of Others over Inane Subjects Because I Can't Get Laid"???? | | | | Last edited: by Antares |
| | Registered: May 26, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 599 |
| | | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pdf256: Quote:
But if some of the cast and the puppeteers (which are cast) are not listed together, then we don't have 'standard credits' and then the 'standard credits' rules don't apply.
pdf Precisely. The verbiage in the cast section gives a definition of "Standard Credits" which essentially says that if the cast are all together within the "Ending Credits" (that is, those credits that appear at the end of the film) then use those "Standard Credits" when entering cast into DVDP. The only purpose for this definition of "Standard Credits" was to make it clear that if cast appeared in BOTH the opening credits AND the film has the cast in the "Standard Credits", then we are to take the cast from the "Standard Credits" at the end of the film rather than using those in the opening credits. If the cast are not all together in the end credits, then we have non-standard credits, as in this film. To interpret it differently, as the Martian suggests, you would have to believe that "ending credits" has one meaning when applied to cast and a totally different meaning when applied to crew. That makes absolutely no sense. The "Ending Credits" by any interpretation are the credits at the end of the film, as opposed to the beginning of the film, and include both cast and crew. As pointed out by ACES, the bulleted list is preceded by the phrase "In addition to the above..." and one of the bullets says: Quote:
If puppeteers are included in the end credits include them and append (puppeteer) at the end of the role Puppeteers are most definitely included in the end credits of Terminator: Salvation. So in addition to everything stated in the first section of the cast rules, we are clearly instructed to add puppeteers if they appear in the end credits. The very fact that puppeteers are specifically listed in the cast section of the Rules is a clear and definitive statement that they are to be treated as CAST. Now Skip wants to toss in red herrings about gaffers or stuntmen or other crew. The problem with this is that there is no mention in the bulleted list of gaffers, stuntmen or any other crew role. The ONLY role that is mentioned in the bulleted list is "puppeteers" which makes it clear to me that it was to be treated differently than any other credit in that it was to be included in the cast regardless of where in the end credits it appeared. Why else would it be specifically and uniquely singled out? On the subject of the credit for Jadagrace Berry. Her credit in the "Standard Credits" of the actual film is listed as "JADAGRACE berry". She has no other DVDP credits except for this film. As you can see, her name is not "entirely capitalized", therefore standard capitalization rules do not apply. If you try to enter her name in DVDP (the Common Name field) as "JADAGRACE berry", it works fine in your local database. However, when you contribute this, the system automatically changes the name to "JADAGRACE Berry"; it automatically capitalizes the first letter of the last name. What Skip is submitting is "Jadagrace Berry [Jadagrace berry]". The Rules say the following regarding use of "Credited As": Quote:
Use the "Credited As" field where the actor's name differs from the credited name. This is the ONLY reference to "Credited As" anywhere in the Rules. In this case the actor's name is "JADAGRACE berry". The credited name is "JADAGRACE berry". Since they are the same, the "Credited As" field should not be used.. The Rule does not say that if the system does not allow you to capitalize the actor's name the same way that it appears on screen, then use the "Credited As" field. If, however, I were to accept the argument that it is appropriate to use "Credited As" because we cannot exactly duplicate the actor's name in the "Common Name" field then the credit should be listed thus: "JADAGRACE Berry [JADAGRACE berry] In any case, Skip's current contribution is wrong. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hal:
I have one very simple question. Since there is a STANDARD list of people which is called CAST. Just exactly how are you are able to asccertain that some random set of people from a completely separate section are Cast, simply because they are called Puppeteers. That's ummm, well to uise your own words absurd. The rules define Cast and your Puppeteers fail the test completely. They are listed TOGETHER with the DEFINED Cast Section and they are not listed within the Single section called for in the Rules. You have, in effect, completely thrown out the Rules and decided that YOU have the ability to determine what is Cast regardless of what the rules say. Keep them Local if you want them so badly.
Just because Puppeteers can be allowed Hal, does not mean they can be in all instances, they do have a test to meet that has been quoted and explained many times here. These Puppeteers do not meet the criteria and therefore are not part of the cast. You believe that simply because Puppeteers is included as a possibility that automatically makes them part of the cast and the rest of Rule is irrelevant. They are not together nor in a single section, UNLESS all the Stunt People are also Cast, that is the ONLY possibility. I have seen some bizarre interpretations but yours takes it, there is this one word and because of that ONE word the rest of the rule does not count and you can determine them to be cast.<shivers>
In any case Hal, your Contribution completely and totally violates the Rules and should be completely and totally declined, but i won't go that far, I will simply FIX your personally interpreted data that is direct violation of the rules in ALL aspects
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 810 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Woola: Quote:
...
The rules define Cast and your Puppeteers fail the test completely. They are listed TOGETHER with the DEFINED Cast Section and they are not listed within the Single section called for in the Rules. There is no test listed in the rules. The rules state that is all the cast is listed together that we can that 'standard credits' and take our data from there. The rules also state that in some cases all of the cast is not listed together and then list some rules for dealing with this case. Quote:
...
Just because Puppeteers can be allowed Hal, does not mean they can be in all instances, they do have a test to meet that has been quoted and explained many times here. These Puppeteers do not meet the criteria and therefore are not part of the cast. You believe that simply because Puppeteers is included as a possibility that automatically makes them part of the cast and the rest of Rule is irrelevant. They are not together nor in a single section, UNLESS all the Stunt People are also Cast, that is the ONLY possibility.
...
Skip You may have intended there to be a test in the rules, but it is not there. This is one of the many reasons that the rules need a good going over. pdf | | | Paul Francis
San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Paul, I respect you but if you can't see it, then i don't know what to say. Everything is in the Rules to tell you that Puppeteers are not automatically part of the cast. Your logic is just way too twisted, to make any sense of, it is based on ONE word while IGNORING everything else. <shakes head> Way too weird.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,723 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Woola: Quote:
Just because Puppeteers can be allowed Hal, does not mean they can be in all instances Here we have, once again, the difference between collecting data the sake of collecting data on one side and collecting data which is actually meaningful (to some of us, at least) on the other. In order for the data to be useful, it has to be consistent. So we really shouldn't ever base basic decisions like "do we track puppeteers or don't we?" on a random bit of formatting that we know changes from film to film. That would render the data absolutely useless. Either we track them, or we don't, but please, not this nonsensical "if...then" approach. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Woola:
Quote:
Just because Puppeteers can be allowed Hal, does not mean they can be in all instances
Here we have, once again, the difference between collecting data the sake of collecting data on one side and collecting data which is actually meaningful (to some of us, at least) on the other. In order for the data to be useful, it has to be consistent. So we really shouldn't ever base basic decisions like "do we track puppeteers or don't we?" on a random bit of formatting that'll change from film to film. That would render the data absolutely useless. Either we track them, or we don't, but please, not this nonsensical "if...then" approach. OTOH, Tim, what makes you believe that you have the ability to determine what is or is not castm, for anyone but yourself, when it is clearly not defined as such by those who made the film. What is your basis for that determination, just theuse of the word puppeteer. We have all seen enough movies where Puppeteers are very clearly part of the cast as determined by the filmmakers. As noted the rules are clear and very specific, this does not mean that are Cast simply based opn the word., they must be listed within the same section and together. If the data is important to you, you can always include it locally.I, for one, do not, like some, pretend to know more than the filmmakers. You arguer about the importance of Puppeteers, i do not see you making the same argument about Stunt People are they not performers as well, in fact some filmmakers refer to them as stunt PERFORMERS, since they stand between the CAST section as defined by the Rules and the alleged Puppeteer cast, should they not likewise be included in the cast list. You want to allow random data of your choice and yet exclude otther data...which to some users is similarly important. Come on, tim. You can present a better argument than that. This simply does not comply with the Rules, not without some major changes to the Rules that currently do not exist.<shrugs> IF you want to include this data I think, instead of skirting or ignoring the Rules, we need to have a discussion to permit such things as Stunt people, as oposed to having a few users skirt the Rules and impose their OWN determination of what Cast is or is not...while ignoring the Rules. It's a fun game, i suppose, but not one i am willing to play when the Rule is so clear. So if you wnat to be able to include that data we need to have discussion to determine under what circumstances they are cast members. IF the Puppeteers were at the very end of the credits would they still be considered Cast and why. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Here we have, once again, the difference between collecting data the sake of collecting data on one side and collecting data which is actually meaningful (to some of us, at least) on the other. In order for the data to be useful, it has to be consistent. So we really shouldn't ever base basic decisions like "do we track puppeteers or don't we?" on a random bit of formatting that'll change from film to film. That would render the data absolutely useless. Either we track them, or we don't, but please, not this nonsensical "if...then" approach. I think character puppetteers vs effects puppetteers isn't a random bit of formatting. One is part of the cast, the other isn't. There's a big difference between Frank Oz and the guy flapping the wings in Dogma. I assumed that was the purpose of this whole thing. I do agree we need to think about what data is useful (big problem in writing credits now). |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...11 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |