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->Posts by Merrik Page: 1 2 3 ...10  Previous   Next
Message Details
Quoting perryoakridge:
Quote:
While it is true that Bart Mixon is credited as a Puppeteer in the Cast section for these movies, I was not sure that those credits should be counted and included in his Crew section credits, so I left those out. 


If it's him, it should be counted.

We use the most commonly credited name for a person. It doesn't matter if those credits come from the cast or the crew section, they 100% should be included in your totals.

What if he was credited as Bart Mixon more times as a puppeteer in the cast section, but more times as Bart J. Mixon in various roles in the crew section?

We'd have a common name for the cast of Bart Mixon and a common name for the crew as Bart J. Mixon? Doesn't work like that. Cast and crew are interchangeable when we're trying to figure out a common name.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 16, Topic Views: 114
Looking: The Complete Second Season: Xavier Grobet
Looking: The Complete Series and the Movie: Xavier Grobet


The reason I have what appears to be the same thing listed twice 

There is a Second Season box set in the system currently. A UK release. It does not yet have cast and crew attached to it.

The show was cancelled unexpectedly after the second season. To close off the show, after fans almost rioted because they didn't get a proper ending, a movie, Looking: The Movie, was made. It aired to close off the series. A completely separate movie from the previous two seasons. The ONLY place to get this movie in ANY region is through buying a complete series box set (at least for the time being, maybe it'll get a standalone release one day).

So Season 2 as a single credit. And the movie (which is only available through the series box set) as a single credit.


Just TONIGHT I completed the cast and crew for the whole series and the movie. I've submitted it to the US profile (and submitted new child profiles), and will submit the Second Season cast and crew to the UK profile, just so everything is on the up and up (so-to-speak).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 15, Topic Views: 4861
Constantine: The Complete Series: Lisle Engle (all credited episodes)


(Does Corne still keep up with the common name threads he started?)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 25, Topic Views: 4556
Constantine: The Complete Series: Tom DeGorter (Episode 1)

Submitted to the system tonight (looks like Disc 1 made it in under the wire to be approved but my submission for discs 2/3 and the entire series didn't quite make it for tonight lol and that'll have to wait until tomorrow, but either way, is/will be in the system in the next 24 hours)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 42, Topic Views: 4834
The Munsters: The Closed Casket Collection: Charles Rondeau

(This is a complete series collection of The Munsters. He directs Season 2 Episode 14. I know there are Season 2 sets in the system, but they currently only have cast and not crew in them)


*Edit*

I've submitted full cast and crew for the Series Box Set I own (UPC 025192006005) and all of it's children profiles, which are in the system as The Munsters: Season One and The Munsters: Season Two. So this credit will be listed under Season Two after the contributions are accepted (I guess IF the contributions are accepted I should always say)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 1331
Pawn Shop Chronicles: Kim Ornitz
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 5013
And just a couple of things...

1. I'd LOVE for Sound Effects Editors to be credited  I track them locally. And just as an FYI, Sound Effects Editors ARE being credited. By different people, on MANY MANY different profiles. So much so that I started a topic asking if they're allowed to be credited. So much so that I actually sent a user a private message because I was able to track dozens of profiles back to his early submissions on US based profiles that ALL included Sound Effects Editors as Sound Editors, to tell him that they're not allowed and if he could please stop submitting them (he was super receptive and polite and hopefully he's no longer submitting them as cloning is so prevalent, and people usually clone from the first available source, that I was finding up to 20-30+ profiles of certain films contained these credits and could all be traced back to a single profile). So much so that I've submitted, I'm going to estimate at least 300-500 contributions, to remove Sound Effects Editors credited as Sound Editors from various different films in the system (to the point where I had to stop submitting because my contributions page was taking an insane amount of time to load).

2. I NEVER expected this topic to change or decide anything 100% of the way for EITHER point of view. But it's always good to open up a dialogue about topics that someone has questions about, especially if those questions are about the advancement and progression of a film's credits and if we should follow along or stay where we're at. If topics like this weren't brought up, prosthetics and special effects coordinators would still not be currently allowed as per the contribution rules.

3. I think I've hit all the talking points that I can personally hit... so I might sit the rest of this one out. But I thank everyone for their opinions, even if I didn't agree with them    and thanks for taking part in the discussion. Even if I seemed like a jerk at points (apologies if I did), I totally appreciated everyone taking the time to throw in their two cents.    I'll still keep up with the topic (if it keeps going) but not sure what else I can say that hasn't been said. I don't want to just continually repeat myself over and over.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 543
So I'm looking this up, because once again the waters get muddied. Everything I'm looking up... everything that breaks down the job of a Sound EFFECTS Editor, says that even though they have a very similar job as a Sound Editor... and work closely with the Sound Editor... and that a Sound Editor can and sometimes does do the job of a Sound Effects Editor... the jobs that are performed by a Sound Editor and a Sound Effects Editor are actually different jobs, even if only slightly. And that Sound Effects Editors can specifically be brought onto a film and work under the Sound Editor/Supervising Sound Editor to do that specific job.

Can anyone tell me if this is correct or point me in a direction that disproves this?

Because if this is correct, then Sound Editor =/= Sound Effects Editor, again, even if only slightly. The same way Associate Art Director =/= Art Director. Just because a Sound Editor can and sometimes does do the job of a Sound Effects Editor, does not mean they're the same job.

So if that's the case, we're once again talking about people doing different jobs and that's NOT the topic at hand.

Whereas, everything I've been able to find says that an On Set Art Director does the exact same job as an Art Director, just physically on the set.

So On Set Art Director = Art Director, because they do the exact same job, just one does it in a different location. Is this a direct translation, as the rules allow (we can't ever claim that "if it's not in the crew credits table, we don't enter it" because the rules specifically allow for direct translations).

No one's trying to open the floodgates and allow all sorts of credits that have never been allowed or never been entered before. That misdirection is used every single time someone asks about a credit or a new credit possibly being entered. It's kind of like a fear tactic lol. "Careful, if we do this, then EVERY CREDIT will have to be allowed in!" and no one is even remotely suggesting that. (And if someone does, it can be dealt with on a case by case basis). On Set credits seem to be quite a NEW credit (I've only ever seen them credited on films that were produced in the last couple of years) and as NEW credits appear, the discussion should be opened as to whether they're the same or not.

The credits today that we see in films are not the same that we saw in the nineties. The credits we saw in the nineties are not the same that we saw in the seventies. The seventies were different from the sixties and so on and so on and so on. Job titles have changed and advanced and progressed over time and we might need to discuss every once in awhile specific cases that we might need to progress and advance with, without suggesting it means that all of the sudden every credit ever has to be allowed into the system.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 543
John DiBenedetto (19 confirmed)
Bullets over Broadway (confirmed by railroaded)
Donnie Brasco (confirmed)
Double Platinum (confirmed by chill65)
Find Me Guilty (confirmed by railroaded)
Frequency (confirmed by RAPMAN)
GoodFellas (confirmed)
Juice (Confirmed by Deacon78)
The Killing Floor (confirmed by busterlee)
Law & Order: The Second Year (confirmed by Scooter1836)
Law & Order: The Fourth Year (confirmed)
Law & Order: The Seventh Year (confirmed by Scooter1836)
Law & Order: The Twelfth Year (confirmed by Scooter1836)
Law & Order: The Fourteenth Year (confirmed by Scooter1836)
Law & Order: Criminal Intent: The Eighth Year
Mickey Blue Eyes (confirmed by T!M)
Night Falls on Manhattan (confirmed by Merrik)
NYPD Blue: Season 6
Rounders (confirmed by railroaded)
Sleepers (confirmed by railroaded)
Strapped (confirmed by Pockets)
Third Watch: Season 1 (Confirmed by bbbbb)
Unforgettable: The Third Season

John Di Benedetto (4 confirmed)
Damages: The Complete Fourth Season (confirmed by Merrik)
The Drop (confirmed by Merrik)
The Equalizer: Complete Collection Series 1-4 (Season 4 Episode 8)
The Interpreter (Confirmed by ateo357)
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit Season 5
Renegades (Confirmed by ateo357)
Revenge for Jolly!



Just wanted to update the thread (apologize, I forgot I had taken it over) as I was auditing a profile for Sleepers today with an incorrect credit in it. Used this common name thread for verification purposes but realized it could use an update.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 17, Topic Views: 3793
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
Sorry, did not mean to confuse, just wanted to point out, that a prefix is NOT additional information, but most of the time a limiting factor.

The only example, where the prefix raises the importance, is the personal make-up guy. In all other cases the prefix lowers the importance of the function (additional, assistant, unit, etc.) or completly changes the meaning (still photographer, foley mixer, ...).


No worries. I sounded like a jerk in my response, apologies. I just want to make sure that information that doesn't really have much to do with the topic at hand doesn't become the focal point. I've seen it happen to so so so many conversations around here.

That was all.

I'm not sure your example 100% works though.

Adding Supervisor in front of something seems to raise the importance. Supervising Art Director. Then "just" Art Directors. Just because the "just" Art Directors are maybe of "lower importance" than the Supervising Art Director doesn't mean they don't get entered or credited. On Set is not the equivalent to Assistant or Associate. It means there's an Art Director on set, doing that job, on the set. Why would we not credit that guy?

Again, not trying to invalidate anyone's opinion on the subject, I just haven't seen an argument that convinces me (just me) that these aren't direct translations and therefore that they should be entered. An Assistant Art Director is not a direct translation of an Art Director. An On Set Art Director seems like a 100% direct translation of an Art Director to me.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 543
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
Quoting mreeder50:
Quote:
I voted to allow them because an Art Director is an Art Director whether they have a prefix or not.

I agree with this.  For me, the prefix does not detract from the credit, it just adds additional information.

This a little bit unspecific: Assistant Director, Line Producer, 2nd Unit Director, Associate Producer, Co Producer, Still Photographer, Assistant Art Director, Visual Effects Editor, Foley Mixer ...


No.

Don't try to confuse the issue.

If it was an Assistant Art Director, or a 2nd Unit Art Director, or an Associate Art Director, we wouldn't be having the conversation. Because those are obviously not the same thing as the Art Director and I wouldn't have started the topic.

Assistant Art Director =/= Art Director

If the prefix of On Set were put in front of Assistant Art Director, you'd have more of a valid point, but that's not what we're discussing.

Do the words "On Set" disqualify an Art Director (NOT an Assistant Art Director, not an Associate Art Director, not a 2nd Unit Art Director, but an ART DIRECTOR) from getting a credit in the system?

Leave the rest of the stuff that's only in there to confuse the situation out of it and look at THAT question.

The person is an Art Director. That is their credit. That is their job (according to their credit). They do their job "On Set" instead of where every other Art Director is doing their job. Does that mean they shouldn't get a credit?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 543
Apologies if I seem like I'm shooting anything down with my replies... just throwing out thoughts that come from a different angle... not meaning to try to invalidate in someway, anyone's opinions. And just wanted to say thanks to everyone who replied! 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 543
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting Merrik:
Quote:
Anyone who voted either way want to weigh in with why you feel this way?

I haven't voted, but you've already suggested a good argument for not including them:

Quoting Merrik:
Quote:
I can only speak for this specific case at the moment as even though I've seen quite a few On Set xxxxxxxx credits, since they're not tracked that way in the system (or not in the profiles at all), I wouldn't exactly know which profiles to go back into to look at those specific credits.


---------------


Well, but then again, we don't track makeup credits with "Sandra Bullock's Makeup Artist" either though right? It's just listed as Makeup. Supervising Art Director isn't tracked in our locals as a Supervising Art Director, just Art Director.

I wish I had been keeping track  I would know how many of these credits I've been running into lately. I'd take a guesstimate that in the last few weeks while editing/auditing a few dozen profiles I've run into them maybe 10-12 times? Give or take a few. These credits seem to be getting a little more prevalent.

You absolutely make a good point though! Nobody seems to be tracking them even though some folks are voting that they should be entered and we wouldn't be able to track them exactly as credited (and it is noted in the crew chart that Cast Makeup Artists are to be included etc.)

I dunno.

Appreciate the thoughts and opinion on it! 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 543
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
An art director can be a profession or a function. From my point of view it is not relevant what profession a person is able to fullfill but what function was achieved for the movie in question. If there is one person credited as art director, all others are helping hands to him, maybe very skilled ones, but not the one and only person in charge. For me it would be enough to enter the head and leave out all others.

As in many other cases, I think less is more...


If this was the case though, then we would just credit Supervising Art Director, the one in charge, and leave out all other Art Directors... and we don't. We can only go by the onscreen credit, so what profession a person is or what function was achieved for the movie in question is something that unless we worked on the set, we'll never know.

Gotta go by the credit, not what you want to infer from the credit. Right?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 543
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
I would not enter them, if there is a general equivalent (without the On-Set in front). If there is no other special effects guy, art director, etc. credited, then I'd list them...


I totally understand how someone could see these credits that way for sure. It's one of the reasons I started the thread.

To me, just to me personally, I'm not sure that makes sense anymore.

Like, does having the words On Set somehow disqualify the Art Director from being entered? If there's an Art Director working directly on the set, and one that's not, and the one that's not gets credited just as Art Director, why should the one that's working on the set get left out just because the one that's working off set is credited a certain way?

With the exception of the Sound credit under the sound section, and special effects coordinator (I think that's all), we don't have stipulations that say "don't enter xxxxxxx credit if xxxxxxxx is credited". BUT, we do have a note that says "If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles)". And I guess I'm just wondering if these credits, with the words on set (they're still doing the same job they're just doing it in a different place and that's made note of in the credits) would qualify as a direct translation.


I am NOT saying you are incorrect or that what you're saying doesn't make sense... because it TOTALLY does and it's why I've never entered them before, but now I'm just wondering this stuff, ya know?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 543
Quoting dee1959jay:
Quote:
OK, second question: are the on set crew members credited in roughly the same place as their "regular" (without prefix) colleagues or in a different section of the crew credits?

Once again, I'm trying to establish whether or not the film makers see them as main crew or not, which might be a consideration.


Same place.

The order I listed the credits in in my previous post (sorry, I'd take a screenshot but my player doesn't let me screenshot Blu-rays for some reason), that's exactly how they appear in the credits. So exactly the same place (you'll notice for the Visual Effects credit that VFX Producers appear between the VFX Supervisor and the On Set VFX Supervisor).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 543
Quoting Katatonia:
Quote:
I think it first has to be asked if they actually do even fill both roles as Publisher and Distributor.

Arrow Video do not actually distribute their "US" releases, that is handled exclusively by MVD Entertainment Group. I think Arrow may indeed distribute their own "UK" releases however.

Criterion are currently distributed by SPHE in both the US and UK. They extended a multi-year distribution contract back in 2015. Before then Criterion were distributed by Image Entertainment.

Criterion and Arrow generally don't even list anything on their back cover/credit blocks regarding their actual "distribution" studios though, so it's often hazy if that's what they truly are beyond just the publisher.


Good info to have, thank you for sharing it! 

Do you have any additional info on Twilight Time releases? Seems they handle their own distribution from what I've seen.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 267
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
Based on the above, as I see it, companies such as Twilight Time, Arrow Video, Criterion, etc. could be both the Publisher and the Distributor.

1) Do others agree that companies, such as those mentioned above, can fill both roles?
2) If the answer is yes, then would these companies be listed first (as a publisher), before the licensor, rather than last (as the distributor)?


1) When it's broken down that way and I actually sit down and have a look at what the rules actually say, yes, I would agree. Companies such as Twilight Time, Arrow etc. could fill both the role of Publisher and Distributor. They license the product, put it together, market it, create features for it, packaging for it, sometimes new cover art etc. etc. and then release it. Both publisher and distributor requirements are met right there.

2) I don't know... 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 267
12 for entering them.
6 against entering them.

Anyone who voted either way want to weigh in with why you feel this way?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 543
I'll give the topic a few more days to sit and see if anyone responds, but I know the general number of responses has gone down drastically in the last few years around these parts.

Honestly, if no one else throws in their two cents, to me (and at least one other here), Scream Factory meets the criteria set out in the contribution rules as a Publisher, and Publishers are entered into the Media Companies section. So I'm going to start adding it back in.

I'm sure at THAT point there will be lots of opinions  . Maybe I'll do a test run and submit it to one or two of the most popular Scream titles and direct people towards this topic? Might get a bunch of thoughts on the topic that way.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 378
Quoting Mad Rockatansky:
Quote:
@ Merrik

Thanks for the advice, but often for my posts it takes days and days to search ... 

After a while, the post is no longer editable and I must rewrite it ...

The first post, I prefer to leave it unmodified ..
With the later ones, I try to do as much as possible in the best way...




Sounds good to me! Like I said, was just saying it just in case you weren't aware!

Confirm and post away!

And one day, I promise, I will have a movie that needs to be confirmed and I will be able to help out 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 49, Topic Views: 383
Yeah, once I sat down and actually took a look at it, that was my thinking as well.

You just said it in two lines while I took eighty nine paragraphs and a lot of babbling to say it... 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 378
I, in absolutely NO WAY mean this as bad or mean or confrontational or anything of the sort.

You're aware you can edit your posts?

Like, I've noticed in this and other threads you post credits you've confirmed (which is awesome, I wish I could help you more, I apologize that I haven't been able to) in single posts and then re-post the entire credit list over and over again...

You can edit one post to contain all of the credits you've confirmed. You can also edit the first post (for a certain amount of time, a few days usually) to update it as it goes along?

You don't have to, just letting you know in case you didn't.

Posted:
Topic Replies: 49, Topic Views: 383
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:
Quote:
I think the issue is that Scream Factory isn't a company at all. It's a label Shout! uses. It doesn't have employees or offices or a corporate charter or a website. Shout! Factory employees work on things that are given a special label if the genre fits.


So, it's a subsidiary of Shout! Factory, it's not it's own company, it's a label that Shout! Factory uses, but does that disqualify it? Does Eclipse from Criterion have it's own website? It's own corporate charter, offices? Legitimately asking because I don't know... everything I'm looking up for Eclipse is literally coming from Criterion websites and listed everywhere as simply a brand from Criterion, but we use that.

And Scream Factory, although not having it's own employees technically, does have a section of Shout! Factory's employees that work directly for acquiring films to release under the label, they have employees that work specifically for marketing Scream Factory releases. That work specifically towards producing special features for their releases (which specifically credit Scream Factory) such as interviews and documentaries. The logo appears on the beginning of all their releases letting people know it's a Scream Factory release.

If Shout! Factory uses Scream Factory as a sub label to acquire and release a specific set of films, and they have employees that work to acquire these films, they have employees that work to market Scream Factory releases, they place their label and brand on all their releases (packaging and content), they produce their own special features for these releases, they create (from the Scream Factory label itself) the product, they assemble the product and they ultimately, under Shout! Factory, release it as a product of Scream Factory...

Would that AT LEAST count as a secondary publisher? Which WOULD be entered as a Media Company?

It shouldn't matter if they have their own corporate charter, should it? Not if it meets the criteria we have set out: "The company(ies) responsible for the publishing (creating, assembling and ordering of the DVD/HD/BD content) and/or physical distribution of the media."

Which to me... Scream Factory absolutely meets. Am I looking at it wrong?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 378
Quoting The Movieman:
Quote:
Quoting Merrik:
Quote:
I know there was a topic around these parts somewhere at one point that discussed Scream Factory. The label that was created and run by Shout! Factory.


Not sure of the answer myself, but the only time I've seen it referred, doing a Google search, was this thread:

http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=805775&messageID=2527304


I found that one too, but I remember a topic specifically about Scream Factory. There was an opinion that Scream Factory was equivalent to 20th Century Fox Film Noir releases. That it was simply an Edition and should not be entered into the Media Companies section at all.

Subsequently, almost ALL profiles were edited to remove Scream Factory (I myself, again, admittedly removed it from maybe 10-12 as it was being done to all the other profiles so I was following suit and saying "if it's happening to one, it's got to happen to the others for consistency").

And now I can't find the thread....  but it happened. I actually think it was Sam who compared Scream to 20th Century Fox Film Noir (not "calling him out", he's like, one of my favorite people on here and there's nothing to call out, I'm just pretty certain it was him who made the argument that Scream shouldn't be entered because of that reason).

But that thread, if nothing else, would lead one to believe that if Arrow Academy is a sub-label, then Scream would be as well, no?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 378
Invelos Forums->Posts by Merrik Page: 1 2 3 ...10  Previous   Next