 |
|
|
|
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 ...6  Previous Next
|
|
Special Make-up Created By |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 18, 2007 |  Posts: 389 |
| | Posted: | | | | While watching a DVD I came accross "Special Make-up Created By" I was wondering if this would be contributable under "Make-up Effects". |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | "Special Make-up Created By" is not listed in the rules. Maybe you can contribute is as a direct translation of "Make-up Effects" or "Make-up Artist" if Invelos supports the interpretation that any role name which describes the same function should be considered a direct translation. But if that is true, I'd like Invelos to clear this up in the rules or at least in an "official" forum posting. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rl3058: Quote:
While watching a DVD I came accross "Special Make-up Created By" I was wondering if this would be contributable under "Make-up Effects". I had a similar credit and included this in my notes: "Michael Mills is credited as 'Charater Make-Ups created by'. I think that is closer to 'Make-up Effects' than 'Make-up Artist'. If you disagree, I will change it." Everyone voted 'yes' and it was approved. If it were me, I would do the same for the credit in question. Out of curiosity, what film is if for? | | | 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 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
"Michael Mills is credited as 'Charater Make-Ups created by'. I think that is closer to 'Make-up Effects' than 'Make-up Artist'.
This is just blatant violation of rules. Nothing in the rules authorizes something "closer"... You perfectly know that, and still contribute instead of using local custom role...  | | | | Images from movies |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rl3058: Quote:
While watching a DVD I came accross "Special Make-up Created By" I was wondering if this would be contributable under "Make-up Effects". I don't see "Special Make-up Created By" anywhere in the crew table, therefore, it should not be entered except as a custom role. Anyone who interprets "direct translation" to mean anything other than translation into another language is simply trying to manipulate the Rule in order to allow them to enter whatever they wish. And, yes, the Queen's English is another language!  | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,722 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
If it were me, I would do the same for the credit in question. Me too. As I said in another thread: I feel the rules already allow "functional equivalents" like this. And for the record, I believe that literally EVERY "make-up effects" credit I have entered thus far, has always been for some kind of label such as the example here - in a wide variety of descriptions of course. I've yet to see the first actual plain "make-up effects" credit, although I'm sure they exist. As is often the case, though, actual credits don't, and will never conform to any "list" of "acceptable" credits that we can maintain, making it a pointless goal to aim for. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Me too. As I said in another thread: I feel the rules already allow "functional equivalents" like this. Can you point me specifically to the language in the Rules that leads you to believe that they "already allow "functional equivalents" like this"? | | | | Hal |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,722 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Me too. As I said in another thread: I feel the rules already allow "functional equivalents" like this.
Can you point me specifically to the language in the Rules that leads you to believe that they "already allow "functional equivalents" like this"? At the risk of causing another batch of pointless posts... You just quoted it yourself: "direct translation". I consider "Special Make-up Created By" a "direct translation" of "make-up effects". Like Unicus just told us, I too have experienced that both the voters and the screeners are perfectly happy to accept this, over and over and over again. So yes, I feel using "functional equivalents" like this is already allowed, or at the very least widely practiced by anyone who's actually after accurate and useful data. IMHO, this is EXACTLY the kind of credit "make-up effects" was meant for... Again: trying to maintain a list of "acceptable" labels is utterly pointless - things just don't work that way in real life. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
...or at the very least widely practiced by anyone who's actually after accurate and useful data... That is what I said two years ago about correcting spelling mistakes in overviews. And everybody here told me to read the rules, that should not be interpreted. You have custom roles, so no need to violate rules just to add anecdotal roles in the online, that probably will not interest many people... | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Special Make-up are not always Make-up Effects. The key is human transformation. Special Make-up may be the addition of artificial wounds or tatoos while make-up effects are prosthetics to really change the appearance of an actor (into a werewolf, zombie, vampire, monster, elf, older or younger version of himself/herself, etc.). | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands | | | | Last edited: by Daddy DVD |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,722 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
You have custom roles, so no need to violate rules just to add anecdotal roles in the online, that probably will not interest many people... To me personally, "make-up effects" in its entirety is "anecdotal", if that's the term you prefer to use, at best. But if we're going to track it, we might as well credit the right people. As RHo so often points out -  - a strict reading of the credits table leads to huge problems for literally ALL of us. Some of us just choose different patches of sand to draw our line in - one user might be willing to go a little bit further than the other. Unfortunately, no matter of how some people try to oppose it, entering crew data needs the user to actually THINK for himself on occasion. It's not something that can be done by checking a few lists. I know that having to think is bound to lead to inconsistencies and problems, and that is indeed unfortunate, but that's just the way it is. It isn't, and never will be an "exact science". It's just not. |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,722 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Daddy DVD: Quote:
Special Make-up are not always Make-up Effects. The key is human transformation. Special Make-up may be the addition of artificial wounds or tatoos while make-up effects are prosthetics to really change the appearance of an actor (into a werewolf, zombie, vampire, monster, elf, older or younger version of himself/herself, etc.). The problem there, as so often, is that our rules don't define the term. If the on-screen credit said "special make-up effects" (hey, it's "allowed"! ), but you knew it to pertain purely to, say, artificial wounds and nothing else, you wouldn't enter it as such? | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Unfortunately, no matter of how some people try to oppose it, entering crew data needs the user to actually THINK for himself on occasion. It's not something that can be done by checking a few lists. That's correct. Sometimes if not often you have to interpret (translate?) the credits to be able to find some important parts. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
but you knew it to pertain purely to, say, artificial wounds and nothing else, you wouldn't enter it as such? No, it's neither Make-up nor Make-up Effects and therefore I wouldn't enter it. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,722 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Daddy DVD: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
but you knew it to pertain purely to, say, artificial wounds and nothing else, you wouldn't enter it as such?
No, it's neither Make-up nor Make-up Effects and therefore I wouldn't enter it. But who says it's not? Where's the definition that tells us when "make-up effects" supposedly ARE "make-up effects", and when they're not? Not in our rules, in any case... |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Daddy DVD:
Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
but you knew it to pertain purely to, say, artificial wounds and nothing else, you wouldn't enter it as such?
No, it's neither Make-up nor Make-up Effects and therefore I wouldn't enter it.
But who says it's not? Where's the definition that tells us when "make-up effects" supposedly ARE "make-up effects", and when they're not? Not in our rules, in any case... Nobody says it's not and by lack of an exact definition I can only work on personal interpretation. Normal is not Special, and Special is not the same as an (Special) Effect IMHO. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 ...6 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |