| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Vittra: Quote:
I think some people get way too hung up on the wording of and strictness of the rules and forget what the rule's and program's goals are. We're here to make the best database for movies (DVDs and Blurays  ) available, and the rules are there to help us get there, not prevent us. There are tons of examples of people asking in the Contributions forums whether one oddball credit or another can be entered. In the vast majority of those cases there is near uniform agreement that if it is not listed in the crew table, it is not to be entered. How is this different? Just because someone has provided documentation that the role is equivalent? The problem with "Rules" is that when you make an exception for one you have essentially destroyed the Rule for anything. How can you support ignoring the Crew Table for these credits and then tomorrow claim that some other role can't be entered because it's not in the table? The only way to maintain any consistency in the data we enter is to adhere to strict standards. Allowing these credits is nothing more than condoning "functional equivalents". If we allow "functional equivalents", over time the data will become useless because we will have no idea how people were actually credited in the film or the job they actually performed. The data will not be trustworthy. At that point it becomes useless. Obviously, I'm in a minority here, but the only way to protect the integrity of the data is to prevent entering anything that is not an exact (with slight variations like "Story Written for TV By") match to the Crew Table and put the pressure on Invelos to update the Crew Table when needed. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Your argument seems to be based on the above definition, that the UK and the U.S speak different "languages". Then using that same definition, New York and Texas also speak different languages?
Is that really your position? It is my position that British English and American English are different languages. While American English is based on British English, they are not the same. In addition, while you may find the though ridiculous, I know quite a few people from Texas who often say that people from Boston, New York and New England...not to mention England and Australia...speak a different language. I know people from Mexico, who will tell you that people from Spain, do not speak the same language they do. I have heard the same from people that come from other Latin American countries. While they are all based on the same language, Spanish from Spain, it is not their language. Call me ridiculous if you like, but that is my opinion and what you think is ridiculous doesn't really matter. | | | 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: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
If that is true, then why can't I add Supervising Producers. Those are legitimate crew that should be tracked!
There are lots of legitimate crew roles that we don't track. Supervising Producer is not a direct translation or equivalent to any crew role that we have in the chart. If TV series had only "Supervising Producers" but did not have either "Executive Producers" or "Producers", a case could be made for that role. I guess I just need to admit that the on-line database is becoming useless for tracking crew and I need to enter (or validate) every one myself. That is a shame. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
....what you think is ridiculous doesn't really matter. It may not matter to you, but yes it does matter.  | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
If that is true, then why can't I add Supervising Producers. Those are legitimate crew that should be tracked!
There are lots of legitimate crew roles that we don't track. Supervising Producer is not a direct translation or equivalent to any crew role that we have in the chart. If TV series had only "Supervising Producers" but did not have either "Executive Producers" or "Producers", a case could be made for that role. I don't agree with that. As I said earlier, the crew chart is Hollywood centric. The crew credits listed are based on credits used in Hollywood. Because of that, allowances had to be made for the equivalent crew credits in other countries. That, at least in my opinion, was why the 'direct translation' clause was put into the rules...to give us the ability to enter the people, who do the exact same job, but with a different title. If we have a feature, made by an American company, the credits have to match what is in the chart in order to get entered. If, however, the feature was made by a British company, we enter the credit that is a direct translation of the Hollywood credit...in this case, dubbing mixer is the direct translation of sound mixer. Just my humble opinion. | | | 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: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I guess I just need to admit that the on-line database is becoming useless for tracking crew and I need to enter (or validate) every one myself. I am guessing that a lot of our UK users, if we went with your interpretation, would feel the same way. Quote:
That is a shame. Indeed. | | | 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 8, 2007 | | Posts: 824 |
| | Posted: | | | | Holy crap. I mean.... hooooly crap.
So "Re-recording mixer" is also called "dubbing mixer" in the UK.
How on earth is this is a 9 page mega-debate? | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Forum Moderator: No personal attacks | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by Forum Moderator |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
If that is true, then why can't I add Supervising Producers. Those are legitimate crew that should be tracked!
There are lots of legitimate crew roles that we don't track. Supervising Producer is not a direct translation or equivalent to any crew role that we have in the chart. If TV series had only "Supervising Producers" but did not have either "Executive Producers" or "Producers", a case could be made for that role. Which is exactly what I have seen, although right now I don't recall the title. At the time the SP debate was going on the fact that SP was the ONLY Producer listed didn't hold any weight with the against crowd. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Vittra: Quote:
I think we all agree that Dubbing Mixer and Re-recording mixer are the same thing in their respective countries as shown by plenty of documentation pointed out by other members here, so where is the problem again? 
Are we going to be that hung up on the wording of a rule to stop legitimate data from making it into the system? We all know and agree that the rules don't get updated near enough (if at all) so hoping that things like this are addressed in the crew table is wishful thinking it seems. So what does the community have to do to get this valid data in the database? Submit with an explanation and let the screener's decide! 
I happen to be part of the group that believes this falls under "direct translation" but even if I believed these two languages were merely dialects, I'd still submit it...it's the same job! Plain and simple.
I think some people get way too hung up on the wording of and strictness of the rules and forget what the rule's and program's goals are. We're here to make the best database for movies (DVDs and Blurays ) available, and the rules are there to help us get there, not prevent us. You'll probably be surprised to hear that I agree with you. My issue is that the forum seem to think they have real power here. We don't. For the thousands of users who DON'T come in the forum these entries should not be allowed - they're not in the crew list; so don't add them. It's the only way for non-forum members to be consistent in their contributions. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I guess I just need to admit that the on-line database is becoming useless for tracking crew and I need to enter (or validate) every one myself.
That is a shame. I do this anyway. I don't trust anyone else's work 100% so I just check everything personally. In all the years I've been using Profiler I have yet to find a single profile that didn't not have mistakes in it. Everyone makes mistakes, it's just a fact of life; so double checking seems to be the only solution. |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Forum Moderator: No Personal Attacks | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by Forum Moderator |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Forum Moderator: No Personal attacks | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by Forum Moderator |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Forum Moderator: No Personal Attacks | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by Forum Moderator |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
There are tons of examples of people asking in the Contributions forums whether one oddball credit or another can be entered. In the vast majority of those cases there is near uniform agreement that if it is not listed in the crew table, it is not to be entered. How is this different? Just because someone has provided documentation that the role is equivalent? That's not my perception. I see it often that forum members tell us to enter a credit even though it is not listed exactly like this in the rules chart. And this not only about OMB and OCB. We have seen variations of almost every crew job. And more often than not a majority of the forum agrees to enter the variation. |
|