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 MikaLove Page: 1  Previous   Next
Message Details
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
The CLT is not flawed, the data in the profiles is flawed.

This is what I meant, nothing more. But because the data has been mined from 3rd party sources and is not in accordance with this DB, it's unacceptable and it must be fixed, otherwise we're just undermining the DB and the whole idea of DVDProfiler.
Naturally, if we don't know if a name is the common name or not, then we can't do anything about it. But when you may suspect the CLT results are wrong, then we can fix it.

Quoting ninso4:
Quote:
Thanks for your kind words and I agree with lot what you're saying.

You're welcome!
I agree with a broad interpretation of the rules as well, but I'd like to emphasize what I believe is key here: that we should credit after what we know or what we can prove concerning a crew member and his role in a production. If we can't, we must stick to the general rules here.
However, as you also suggest, there might be reasons to question very rigid rules, when we encounter new situations. Not haphazardly of course, but with rational reasoning.

DVDProfiler has always been under change, like everything else in our universe. I don't think it should all come to a halt because the main programmer jumped ship and abandoned us.
I mean, there are other types of changes being done.
There's no reason to be "nostalgic" and old fashioned and vote down suggestions for change, or alternative interpretations.
The above is aimed towards the whole community, not just you, ninso4. As I'm also sure you agree with at least most of my thoughts. 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 48, Topic Views: 10521
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Ken is not here.  The Rules are.  Common name threads are not conclusive because the database is not static.

This, I'd say, is not really up for debate: the sole purpose of the common name threads are to fix the flawed CLT. This has been done since the beginning.
A CLT result will only be regarded as accurate if the documentation is proper.
I mean, we all know a lot of the data here has been mined from invalid 3rd party sites, which is against the rules. So for that reason, to the "rebels" who want to claim the CLT is almighty and trumps anything else, it's not that black and white.
We strive for the highest database integrity here. Right?!
Either we do, or anything goes and is arbitrary. Meaning, an anarchy.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 48, Topic Views: 10521
Quoting Nosferatu:
Quote:
I think that's a key point: a costume supervisor is entered in the credits as a costume designer. As the same can be said for a wardrobe designer, is a costume supervisor very different from a wardrobe director?

I would agree with this as well.
Although IMHO this isn't as much about "semantics" and labels as it is about researching and providing valid documentation.
I'm not the least bit an expert on wardrobe and costume "stuff", but it seems to me there are quite a few ways to credit such crew, as opposed to other crew, but while the wardrobe crew is doing very similar jobs. I'd think the producers just like to credit them in a "fashion" (pun) that suits (pun #2) the crew members, the way they see it.

Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
It's very conceivable to me that multiple people may have designed costumes for a film and that one of those designers may be credited as a Director because they not only designed some of the costumes but directed the entire costume department, so I don't think I'd necessarily want to disqualify a Wardrobe Director just because they weren't the sole costume designer.

This!

Quoting T!M:
Quote:
No, they don't. Instead, per Ken, errors in the CLT may be documented and be taken into account - and that's exactly what common name-finding threads do, why we do them. Conclusive common name-finding threads trump the raw CLT numbers.

And absolutely this!
Coming from one of our uncrowned kings of common name documentation.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 48, Topic Views: 10521
Quoting ninso4:
Quote:
To add to the confusion about the Wardrobe Director credit. Whether we consider Wardrobe Director a valid credit or not, it would change the common name for Charles LeMaire / Charles Le Maire depending on it 

With Wardrobe Director as invalid credit:
Charles Le Maire (3 confirmed, 3 unconfirmed, 64 invalid):
Charles LeMaire (28 confirmed, 5 unconfirmed, 51 invalid):

With Wardrobe Director as valid credit:
Charles Le Maire (71 confirmed, 3 unconfirmed, 7 invalid):
Charles LeMaire (60 confirmed, 5 unconfirmed, 20 invalid):


I think this is quite the indicator that something is up with both his Costume Designer work/credit and this whole debate.

The second scenario looks a heck of a lot more credible, where he isn't removed from being credited.
That's why I definitely think that we must consider "credit based on facts & documentation" (what we know the credit is for) and not "how a person is credited".
Subsequently, that is why I don't necessarily agree with the "sub rule" that if a Costume Designer is credited, any Wardrobe Director credit is rendered invalid, regardless of real world circumstances. (Yeah, I was never a fan of principles if they aren't based on facts or proper explanations.)

Lastly, I will take this opportunity to apologize to ninso4 for coming at him a bit harshly in his common name thread. I was just lashing out because of the (visually) "outrageous" situation, nothing personal. And I didn't know about at what point/date the "scale tipped over" regarding new findings.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 48, Topic Views: 10521
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Quoting areo357:
Quote:
Responsibilities
Oversees the completion of all costume elements of a production to the Theatre's and Costume Designer's satisfaction.
Supervises staff in all costume/wardrobe areas including, but not limited to: Workroom, Crafts, Dye Shop, Wardrobe, Wig Shop, and Costume Storage.
Determines, interviews and hires staff for all costume/wardrobe areas.
Determines the yearly budgetary needs for all costume/wardrobe areas.
Manages budgets for all costume/wardrobe areas.
Advises and oversees the season schedule for the costume/wardrobe areas including, but not limited to: designer due dates, designer residency, costume staff work dates, wardrobe staff schedule.
Determines and maintains a costume production quality of the highest standard.
Analyzes scripts and creates costume plots.
Participates in the long range planning for the theatre.
Performs other duties as assigned by the Production Manager or Artistic Director.

That description does not seem to include any actual designing, except possibly the last point. Not sure if that matters here.

Yeah.
While it was an interesting read, it is apparent that this doesn't apply in this case for rather obvious reasons. Might there also be a difference between Costume Director vs a Wardrobe Director?
I don't think there's any room for speculation, but what I'm assuming those in favor of including Wardrobe Director are suggesting, is that we can back up with facts and documentation, in all instances where it's brought up and/or where there's any uncertainties.
In general, I think we should stick with the general crediting, but as we're seeing, there are absolute exceptions where we quite literally have to treat things differently.
Omitting crew because the credits are not verbatim with the Invelos rules is too rigid an approach.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 48, Topic Views: 10521
Quoting Danae Cassandra:
Quote:
I guess you still didn't understand what I posted.  So, I'll try to rephrase what I would like to see.  Looking at the credit chart, I realize that the usual roles that are at issue (the person in charge of the costumes rather than the person designing them) are only partly Wardrobe, so I'll phrase accordingly.

Section: Art
Role: Costume Designer
Credited As: Costumes [by], Costume Supervisor, Gowns [by], Wardrobe [by], Wardrobe Designer, Wardrobe Supervisor, Wardrobe Director
Incorrect Roles: (blank)
Notes:  Only use a Supervisor or Director credit when there is no Designer credit.  If a credit exists for Gowns, or costumes for a single actor or character, ignore that credit when determining whether to use a Supervisor or Director credit.

I do think we want the same thing.  I want to credit the designer.  I want to not have the person who's in charge of keeping track of the costumes credited. 

All this is moot anyway.  There is no way to change the rules, because there is no Ken, and every time I've brought up that we take over the rules and run them by consensus, it has been shot down.  I don't know why we're even discussing it, since all we are doing is tilting at windmills.


"Still"?
If you want to remove the credit for Charles LeMaire, then we do not want the same thing even remotely.
IMO the only way to make this DB and site work is if we come to an agreement that the community majority is what matters most.
Things change, but the rules page won't, since there's no one officially in charge. So then we take the rudder.
Let's make a democracy. Screw the rest.
And stop talking about Ken. He barely deserves a mention, if you ask me, and if I can be very straightforward.

EDIT:
As I posted this, I see that the voting has shifted, to something I would not agree with, regardless of majority.
I wonder how that is possible, since we already established that Charles LeMaire received an award for his job as a Costume Designer.
Maybe I'm naive to think this site could work after all...
Posted:
Topic Replies: 48, Topic Views: 10521
Quoting Danae Cassandra:
Quote:
Agreed.  Which is why I would like a rule that says if there is a Costume Designer credited, do not add a Wardrobe credit.  Because that ends up inevitably crediting someone whose job was to wrangle the costumes, rather than design them.  With such a rule, we could include something that would read "Do not consider credits for gowns, or costumes for individual actors/characters when determining whether to include a Wardrobe credit."

I'm not sure we agree, since we don't seem to think alike.

Edith Head is in the above example credited as a Costume Designer, even if the credits don't read verbatim. Thusly, as argued as well, Charles LeMaire would not be entitled a credit, because he's "just" a Wardrobe Director, according to this argument.
That's not credit for what we know they did, but credit rigidly according to made up rules.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 48, Topic Views: 10521
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
This thread raises an interesting question. Do we include people for what we know they did, or for how they are credited?

If we would vote, I would vote for "credit people for what we know they did".
Posted:
Topic Replies: 48, Topic Views: 10521
I wonder, what is this "butchering" of the credits?

@ninso4, did you not pay attention to the replies and votes you got in the thread you both created and link to?

You have written here that the credit for e.g., All About Eve is invalid, when Charles LeMaire received an Academy Award for his work, as a Costume Designer, AKA Wardrobe Director?

I'd say this whole thread is invalid.

There's a community majority that suggest "Wardrobe Director" is a valid credit and interchangeable with Costume Designer.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 68, Topic Views: 13858
Ogifta par ...en film som skiljer sig: Gabor Pasztor

Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5053
Ebba och Didrik: Gabor Pasztor

Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5053
Kronjuvelerna: Gabor Pasztor

Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5053
"Additional" means (to me) outside of main crew per its very own (grammatically) definition.
I haven't encountered this type of attempt to include crew, but in my strict opinion, it should be a definite no-no.
I don't know if there's a "semantic" way around this, much like the (endless?) debate about various make-up "artistry".
Maybe if the crew role is listed under some "additional" section, and not the role per se?

At the very least, "additional" as a description of a crew role could mean anything. Or nothing.

Regardless of this comment, it seems to me there was a consensus, or aiming at one that "additional crew" shouldn't be entered into our online DB.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 2907
Hellboy (2019)
Jesper Kjolsrud
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 6673
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
The screen credit "Goldstein & Steinberg, S.L." is an erroneous credit


That's merely anecdotal. If anything, it tells us that these credits are even less trustworthy.
Both movies came out around the same time, so that's another warning sign.

Please just let's agree to not include things we can't verify or know for sure.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 16, Topic Views: 10463
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
You will find both Daniel Goldstein and Ricardo Steinberg won the GOYA Award for Best Sound in the film Tesis.


No room to argue that the two people head of their company are the ones collecting the prize?
For one thing, Goldstein and Steinberg were not the only ones receiving the award, but also the sound mixer, Alfonso Pino.

I wouldn't say award ceremonies are enough source of documentation.

I found a whole book on the work on Thesis, in Spanish.
"Cómo hacer cine: Tesis, de Alejandro Amenábar".
Maybe there's information in there...

Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
According to IMDB records for Daniel Goldstein (I) and Ricardo Steinberg, the last use of the credit "Goldstein & Steinberg" was in 1998. From that point on they used individual credits.

IMDb as (only) source... Are we cherry picking?
Anyway, the argument is contradictory, since if they stopped using Goldstein & Steinberg and started to use individual credits, that may very well mean that their company ceased to exist, or simply that they worked alone, as opposed to working in a team.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 16, Topic Views: 10463
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
Quoting ninso4:
Quote:
But there is another question whether this credit should be entered into the database at all.
In another Spanish film Abre los ojos this credit appears:



The S.L. at the and indicates that Goldstein & Steinberg isn't just those two sound editor but a company. We do not credit companies in the crew section (apart from group dividers).
The credit in Tesis doesn't have the S.L. at the end but it also could be a credit for the company.


You forgot to mention there was another SOUND credit for "Goldstein & Steinberg" (no S.L. suffix) in Abre los ojos.

So we have these credits in the one film:
Sound ==> Goldstein & Steinberg
Sound Editor ==> Goldstein & Steinberg, S.L.

The film's credits clearly distinguished which one is a company name, and that is reflected in both BFI and IMDB records for Daniel Goldstein and Ricardo Steinberg (sound credit but NO sound editor credit (the actual sound editors were Nacho Royo and Pelayo Gutiérrez).

Option 4 is not a valid option because there was no basis for connecting the company name ("Goldstein & Steinberg, S.L.") with the individual credit ("Goldstein & Steinberg") to begin with, had the full facts about the film's credits been provided.

I treat "Goldstein & Steinberg" no differently to say, Rodgers & Hammerstein" or "Boyce & Hart" or "Scott and Dyer", it is a credit for individuals.

The film Tesis (aka "Thesis) used the same credits for sound as Abre los ojos, and that is why I voted for option 1.


I'm not swayed.

If anything, ninso4 argues for the uncertainty of the credit. For the credit to possibly be invalid.
Like GSyren wrote below, we can't simply know.

To take the credits from one film as "proof" for the credits in another, is simply outrageous. And naturally against the rules.

We don't have "Sound Editor ==> Goldstein & Steinberg, S.L." in Tesis, which is the movie in question.

For those voting for option 1, where's your proof?
Or do you vote 1 just because it looks neat and/or you don't want to omit the credit?

It's not at all "clear" that just because the credits for Tesis doesn't include the company suffix, that it isn't a company. At the very least, documentation is needed.

Perhaps if there's anyone with more time on their hands they could do some digging.
It's a quite well-known movie so I don't think it would be impossible.
If we just look at the current situation though, I think there's more reason to assume it's a company rather than not. Since we don't know. And, the poll for option 4 is in majority anyway.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 16, Topic Views: 10463
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Quoting Nosferatu:
Quote:
I would treat it the same as The Matrix, which is 'written and directed by The Wachowski Brothers'.


There's an important difference. The Wachowski Brothers is afaik not a company name. We know who the two are. When they are credited as such they both worked on the movie.

Goldstein & Steinberg on the other hand does seem to be a company name. We don't know for sure who worked under that credit; both of them, one of them, or someone else. In fact, for the 1996 movie Thesis, IMDb lists Ricardo Steinberg as Goldstein & Steinberg.  Of course, IMDb is far from always correct, but still ...

Given that, I would go for option 4.

I fully agree with this.

Trying to Google "Goldstein & Steinberg" didn't reveal anything further.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 16, Topic Views: 10463
Invelos Forums->Posts by MikaLove Page: 1  Previous   Next