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 2 3 ...5  Previous   Next
Message Details
So, always Make-Up and never Make-Up Effects then, even when prosthetics are involved?

Also as you/we have argued, there are many other types of "makeup" in making a movie. Should all those as well only translate to Make-Up because they are the same profession?
Isn't this directly against contribution rules, and logic?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
I have done my best to really read through the comments from the beginning.
I read some things wrong, because to be honest I have a hard time concentrating and reading lots of text. (Or sometimes even short texts....) Resulting in that every now and then I miss important details.
On top of that this whole thing was quite confusing.

But I figured I had to dig deep, because I want to make things right and act responsibly.

So two posts here that say we should enter it as Make-Up Artist:

Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
So if the film credits displays "Body Makeup" then it is "Makeup" as defined by the Makeup Artists & Hair Sylists Guild. There was no reference to Prosthetics or Effects in "Body Makeup", so it cannot be interpreted as "Make-up Effects".

Whilst there is no literal match for "Body Make-up" in the Invelos credits rule, the operative work is "Makeup" and it was confirmed using a reputable reference (Makeup Artists & Hair Sylists Guild - Local 706).

That is why I voted YES to "Make-up Artist".

Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
So if one interprets "Body Make-up" as being Makeup Effects, what happens when prosthetics are applied to the head? A body make-up artist can't work on the head in movies, that's against union rules, so does that make Make-up Artists as Make-up Effects as well?

The answer is some Make-up Artists and some Body Make-up artists will have additional skills in special Make-Up effects and if used, be credited/paid for performing those special make-up effects.


I would rather hope and think we should at least figure out the "extent and intent of the make-up and what is said in the credits" as is said below.

Quoting Nosferatu:
Quote:
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
The work and responsibilities of a movie makeup artist are constrained by film production contracts and union rules.

A movie makeup artist applies cosmetics from the top of the head to the top of the breastbone, from fingertips to wrists and from toes to ankles. A movie body makeup artist applies cosmetics to any area of the body that a regular movie makeup artist cannot:
https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-make-up-artist1.htm

On the other hand, Makeup Effects is makeup including the application of prosthetics to the performers face and/or body.

That seems fairly straightforward: make-up is make-up, regardless of which cheeks it's being applied to! The only question is the extent and intent of the make-up and what is said in the credits.

If someone is applying make-up, I'd classify them as a make-up artist. If they are credited as doing make-up effects or special effects make-up, then that would be the other category.

We can at least not question a "Make-Up Artist" credit, even if they in fact applied prosthetics and would qualify as Make-Up Effects.
The contribution rules don't allow that.

If we can't come to an agreement on this, then why should we proceed?
Are the contribution rules not clear enough?
Ken left it like they are;
Quote:
If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section.

Is a community vote really enough to bend the rules?

That would basically mean Ken saying "you have these rules that you must follow, but if you make a vote you can do it another way".

It's quite clear that with no one to steer this ship, problems such as this arise.
I also note in another thread about common names that there's a confusion because of "how to interpret what Ken wanted".
It's like hunting a ghost, quite literally!

The rules will never be updated and I think more and more problems will arise and more and more confusion will cause conflicts and arguments and with that the ship will sink for real.

Following the result of the vote would bypass differing between prosthetics applied or not and several people here who have discussed and voted think that should be done. Including me.

That would mean that a Body Make-Up credit can be either Make-Up Artist or Make-Up Effects.

However I lean much more towards "invalid credit".

I think this is my final assessment.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
@Kathy

Your absolute ranting about me is unwarranted, unfair and does not at all reflect reality.

Also, are you threatening me...?
Quote:
Since this tread makes me question YOUR "agenda", I will carefully assess any/all of your contributions to be sure that they are in fact following Ken's rules/clarifications.


I just wonder what kind of person you are. This is some nasty stuff.

Despite me having been so adamant about my take on the issue in this thread, I am definitely willing to reevaluate it all if I am proven wrong. I'm not ignoring the posts here, that provide information.

It's absolutely not true that I want to go totally rogue on this forum and with the DB.
I am 100% relying on the contribution rules, which is what we are immediately bound by. Anything else, such as even trying to locate whatever the jumped-ship Ken has written outside of that, is not required to be at all aware of.
Because if it was important, it would be in the rules or there would at least be something to point at his posts or to note there is an addendum.
And also, we use outside sources all the time for documentation. If we weren't allowed to do that, we'd be lost.

I'm also relying on that those who approve changes know what they're doing and I always try to provide accurate notes and proper documentation.
Whenever I make contribution, I take the utmost care that they are correct, or I withdraw them.
And in addition, I have gotten many spontaneous thanks lately and even a star rating.

Pointing out what I have done or have I have acted way in the past is making it personal, unnecessary and I think only serves to make me feel bad. Which it also did, to say the least.
So, what you write here is in stark contrast to how things have been around here lately.

I will definitely ignore you if you continue bashing me and you have no right to.
I try my absolute hardest here to follow the contribution rules and to take great care in my contributions while listening to forum members' advice, complaints and so on.

You however are going far beyond that.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
Quoting Nosferatu:
Quote:
The CLT is often outdated and incorrect, with the forums being the source of data which has been thoroughly checked and compiled to remove any confusion about common names.

As GSyren mentioned, the rules don't reflect this and now give undue weight to the CLT. It would be better if they were updated and rewritten to give birth year and common name threads priority status for contributing that information.

Exactly my thoughts as well.
Unfortunately (but not really), the CLT needs to be reworked and updated, which is why we find common names and BY's. The goal is to have a fully reliable CLT.
I think that is more achievable than expecting rules to be re-written or even getting a heads-up regarding the CLT flaws.
It's so bad that often enough, the CLT isn't truly a definitive source of documentation, regardless of what the contribution rules say.
Instead, we risk making things worse or undoing the work of documentation. Or rather, reversing the effect.
For that reason it's rather important to research the forum before consulting the CLT and contributing.

I like OP's idea of having a "centralized" DB for crew and cast and then link titles to it. So much more effective.
Maybe in the next life of DVDProfiler, if there is one.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 1858
You say you have "relevant information". How is bringing an 8 years old post up about "Men in Black II" and what its title is relevant for a topic where we discuss make-up and how to credit it, if there are alternative credits?

It's also very transparent what your agenda is for chosing that thread, especially reminding me I had posts removed in it for losing my temper.

And how is me bringing a 13 years old topic back to life relevant here...?
I simply wanted to "finish" it and continue in the footsteps of those passionate for the topic.

I have no fricking idea what you mean by telling me "Contributions need to comply with the rules and Ken's posts that clarify those rules. Since your stance and contributions are NOT based on either of those, you need to keep those changes local."

Like, really. I have gotten a truckload of contributions approved lately and all of them were based on facts and have followed the rules.

I know for a fact that I have forum members on my side regarding this topic and what I'm stating here.

The original post here was short:
Quote:
Simple question: does a "Body Make-up" credit qualify for a "Make-up Artist" entry, or for a "Make-up Effects" entry, or for no entry at all?


Two links were posted that described the professions quite clearly. Yet still we are debating this.
I have gone back numerous times to check sources and contribution rules but I can't for my life see how I could be wrong.

We are facing but one or two scenarios, as a reply to the OP:
Either we don't enter it into the DB (or if we do we keep it local) or it may get entered but as a Make-Up Effects credit.
Because of the description of the professions and what you are allowed to do within respective profession. Combined with the rules here and how we treat credits.
We don't guess, we don't enter something that's not there.

If there are indeed other options I'm open to discussing them and looking closer at them, but so far nothing that supports an alternative (that doesn't break contribution rules) has been said.

For the record, I didn't insult one single person here and I'm not taking it personal.
I'm not fighting any opponents either or consider them "not agreeing", but I see that the logic behind many statements are faulty and contradicting.

Anyway, this is getting quite ridiculous and takes so much of my mental energy.

I wish I didn't have to pull all the weight alone in this thread.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
OK. So I can agree to that this topic may not be fully clear and set in stone.

But I absolutely advice people contributing to look up "body make-up" before they contribute it as either.

What I believe I have been citing that are absolute facts, are the two sites that have in detail explained what these people do. What their profession is.
I am no expert myself in this, so I have to check the sites and what is written there.
Most of all, I am not sure "how often" a make-up artist can also do actual make-up effects.
This is however rather irrelevant, since we are supposed to enter exactly what is credited.

What does become a clear issue though is if people would haphazardly start to enter "body make-up" into the database, and especially as make-up artist.
First of all, the rules does not allow it, and secondly the distinction has been 100% clear about that they are NOT make-up artists.
On the two official sites.
If we can't agree that those sites are in fact authoritative and beyond any sort of opinion, then we are lost.

I understood everything that the two sites wrote.
But what I also do is to consider the contribution rules.
What they are and have done in the movie is, again, not relevant. It's how the credits appear.
But once again, for a body make-up credit, we'd have to know pretty much exactly what they did in the movie, to be allowed to enter it. And then it'd have to be for effects, as I see it and this is based on what they are allowed to do and that they are not make-up artists.
I would hope that you could understand my train of thoughts here, because at least to me, they make absolute sense, with all facts at hand.

Also, if you say "movie makeup is a single profession", then why do we differ between them here?


@scotthm:
I think there's a rebellion against facts.
Or in other words it seems like some are quite thickheaded and don't want to accept what is stated about two different professions.

And finally, Kathy...
I can't believe your absolutely immature behavior to bring a topic up that is EIGHT YEARS OLD.
It feels like you were waiting for me to have a "heated discussion" here so you could jump in and call me out.
If anything was and is irrelevant, it's for you to bring that up.
The two topics has absolutely nothing in common.
Why don't you just ignore my posts if you can't stand me?

This isn't about me. I am only trying my hardest to make things clear and bring facts together.
Despite this, it's clear that more and more are considering the option to enter this as "Effects".
But again, the poll isn't facts and I wish this thread wasn't made as a poll.
It's at the very least clear that we aren't united. And so, a "majority vote" can't decide this.
If so, then keep "body make-up" local, because the credit doesn't exist here.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting MikaLove:
Quote:
The conclusion is that this credit should not be entered into the database, unless it is (indeed!) Make-Up Effects.

Should Make-Up Effects work be entered into the database as "Make-Up Artist"?

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

You know, this is actually exactly the point. Which I'm not trying to make, but those in opposition are.
Because when a "body make-up" credit does belong in the DB, it's only if it's given the credit "Make-Up Effects".

And Kathy, that doesn't help the least bit and you're even making things worse and derailing this even more. That makes me really annoyed, as I'm working really hard here and I'm super serious about this issue.

First of all, Ken is a ghost and isn't around anymore, because he jumped ship.
Secondly, I don't think even he would have opposed official sources of information and disregard it as "one-off ruling" or whatever.

We already have the official information we need to come to a conclusion. Information that I consider absolutely authoritative on this matter.
I have consistently pointed to sheer facts, not opinions.

I can honestly not understand the resistance. It's like a rebellion.

PS. The poll isn't facts!
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
One tree hill: Season 6
BJ BRITT (among "Guest Starring")

(Episode 13, @0:08:30 – way to put a credit late making it hard to locate...)


Also checked the other 3 episodes for this season and the credit was the same (BJ BRITT).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 1302
One tree hill: Season 1
BJ BRITT

Posted:
Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 1302
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days
CAMERON MITCHELL, JR.

Posted:
Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 789
21 Jump Street: The Complete Fifth Season
CHANNING MITCHELL (among "Guest Stars")

Posted:
Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 789
@scotthm:

I considered this to be "effects" because I used the exclusion method that it at the very least could not be "Make-Up Artist".
So in effect, I imagined it should be either of the two. In this last regard I didn't think completely straight. I realized this after a while. Read on, however.

Since carefully reading the information on the two sites linked to [1], [2], I am fully educated in that a body make-up credit is not "Make-Up Artist", because of the absolute distinction, and I have done my best to quote this to emphasize it. (Yet another quote below from the first of the sites.)

The conclusion is that this credit should not be entered into the database, unless it is (indeed!) Make-Up Effects.

A body make-up is make-up effects, when they use prosthetics;
Quote:
Some body makeup artists also skilled in special effects makeup, and are responsible for applying physical features such as a sternum, added limbs, or other features of the body that a character may not naturally already have.


@ObiKen:

I am a bit surprised that you are taking this direction after your first post, as you are completely contradicting both it, and the very information you linked to.
While I agree that covering a tattoo does not constitute a makeup effect, that does not sincerely and completely describe the work of a body make-up artist. Not that the body make-up artist is a make-up artist. Since this is dismissed on the site that we/I am basing the knowledge on.
The notion that "covering a tattoo" can be relevant in a production was – as I see it and no offense – brought up as a loose piece of argument, which was grasping at straws. It was not the whole picture nor the correct understanding of given information.

No offense here either, but you are off track, ObiKen, and in fact incorrect. You are comparing apples and pears, by introducing the quotes from the Makeup Artists & Hair Stylists Guild. (And to be blunt you are now doing a little bit of misquoting as well.)
Most of all, the Guild does not say anything whatsoever to imply body make-up is "regular make-up" nor do they "dismiss" this profession or call it something else. Frankly, they don't specifically mention body make-up at all.

To clarify what the Makeup Artists & Hair Stylists Guild says:
It does not define the work of a body make-up artist, but much rather it seems that they will indeed award such an artist for their work, including make-up applied to the body of a cast member.


We have already been properly informed from two official sites and sources, that these are two distinct professions that mustn't be confused, so why should we, and on top of that break contribution rules?

In short: "body make-up" can never get a "Make-Up Artist" credit, but it can get a "Make-Up Effects" credit.
I would fight to my last breath if there are "Make-Up Artist" credits in the DB when the credits have said "body make-up".
We must consider that the facts are facts and obey by the contribution rules. Because nothing is speaking in our favor to enter it as Make-Up Artist.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
You do realize that "head make-up artist" means "principal" make-up artist and not "head" make-up artist?

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

You honestly, actually think that's the way I interpret it?
It's like you're only reading half of my messages and half of what it says on that site, and half of the contribution rules.

@Nosferatu:
For "Make-Up Artists" there are only credits listed for crew that do the make-up that ObiKen described, i.e. for, indeed, the actual head/face/hair, down to the breastbone (and including hands and feet, yada, yada).
Everything else is ruled out, and must therefore either be disregarded, as in not in the DB, or considered to be Make-Up Effects.

You're wrong about that some or even one of them are make-up artists;
Quote:
A body makeup artist is much like a makeup artist [...] but the makeup that is applied by the body makeup artist is applied to various parts of the body rather than solely to the face and neck.

After this quote, read the credit types in the contribution rules and you need to come to the conclusion that we are not ever talking about a Make-Up Artist credit.

To break it down:
Chief Makeup Artist, (A make-up artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Department Head, (Make-Up for the Head, as specified)
Make-Up Artist, (A make-up artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Head Make-Up Artist, (A make-up artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Key Make-Up, (Still implies a Make-Up Artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Key Make-Up Artist, (A make-up artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Key Makeup Artist & Hairstylist, (A make-up artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Lead Makeup Artist, (Still implies a Make-Up Artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Make-up, (Still implies a Make-Up Artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Makeup and Hair Designer, (A make-up artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Makeup Artist, (Still implies a Make-Up Artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Make-Up Designer, (Still implies a Make-Up Artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Makeup Artist & Hair to [Cast Name], (A make-up artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)
Makeup for [Cast Name], (Still implies a Make-Up Artist – by the definition of the site =/= body make-up)

Ultimately and finally, if body make-up does not equal our credit "Make-Up Effects", it is even less "Make-Up Artist".
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting MikaLove:
Quote:
To try and make it absolutely clear, look again at the rules here: they differ between head (make-up) and rest of body (effects).

I don't see a distinction between head and body in the Invelos crew table.

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

Put two and two together?

It's definitely there. And there and there.

Quoting mreeder50:
Quote:
Based on what I have read here from the links, I have changed my vote to "shouldn't be entered at all". Body Makeup is not one of the credits that we track. Would I like to track it, yes, but until it's qualified...I'm out.

Yeah. Since we can't seem to agree here, for whatever reason ( ) and IMO despite it's all laid up in front of us, at the very least a body make-up credit is better to be agreed should not be entered at all than to willingly, erroneously be entered as Make-Up Artist.
I'd go to great lengths to make such contributions be declined.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting MikaLove:
Quote:
I disagree with the above.

I disagree with you.  A body makeup artist may be doing something as simple as covering a tattoo, and I don't consider that a makeup effect.

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


To try and make it absolutely clear, look again at the rules here: they differ between head (make-up) and rest of body (effects).
That's absolutely how I understand it and it's how the website explains it.
We don't have that much room to debate it, because of how our rules and the profession are being defined (and not by me).
If a body make-up artist happens to cover a scar, their profession is still not that of a make-up artist and here we don't define them as such either.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
I disagree with the above.

Again, in the text TheMadMartian linked, it explicitly says that a Make-Up Artist deals with the head (and hands and feet) of an actor/extra/whatever, but a Body Make-Up artist does more than that. This is what ObiKen said – and nothing else (I think it's rude to misquote someone). A Body Make-Up artist do the special make-up that is not involved in the job or is allowed per the union rules for a regular Make-Up Artist.

So it's irrelevant how, when or where the credit "Body Make-Up" appears in any feature.

Again, we are all bound to abide by the contribution rules;
Make-up Artist
Basically all credits here point to the head and around it.

Make-up Effects
The definitions of credits here don't list a "Body Make-Up" credit per se, but they do indicate that it's other than the make-up for a cast member's head but also another kind of make-up.
I.e.;
Quote:
Make-up Effects,
Special Make-up Effects [by]
Prosthetic Make-Up


Another quote to help differ between the both and that one has to do more about head make-up and the other about desired bodily effects;
Quote:
Body makeup artists work on areas of the body other than the face to apply many of the same makeup products that a standard makeup artist would use but they may also apply latex or other cosmetics to the body.


The underlined part here completely suggests to me that we're talking about Make-Up Effects.
Otherwise this category of credit would lose its meaning, and "everything" would plain and simply be "make-up".
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
Quoting Rutan:
Quote:
The Petrov Affair (1987): Phil Eagles Wardrobe Supervisor.

Thanks!
I found this title on vimeo, but I didn't feel like paying for streaming it, just to confirm the credit.

We definitely have a common name now.

In the words of thread creator, Mad Rockatansky;

Common name found:


Phil Eagles
Posted:
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 1383
We also have to consider what the credits rules say, and what they include for respective credit (Make-up Artist vs. Make-up Effects).

Reading what it says on the site TheMadMartian linked, it rather clearly defines the difference between what a Make-up Artist does and does not, but what a body makeup do. In this sense, a body makeup credit should not be entered as Make-Up Artist, because that would be wrong.

I specifically quote:
Quote:
Body makeup artists work on areas of the body other than the face to apply many of the same makeup products that a standard makeup artist would use but they may also apply latex or other cosmetics to the body.


So, ultimately, I say the only valid credit for a body makeup one is as Make-up Effects.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
Kokoda (2006)
Phill Eagles

Posted:
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 1383
I need more info. What title are we talking about and how do the credits look besides this...?

I must say I don't think I have seen this credit before, so because it sounded so weird to me I voted that it shouldn't be entered.
Trying to Google it didn't work so well.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 37, Topic Views: 2096
Tunnel Vision (1995)
Phil Eagles

Posted:
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 1383
Celia (1989)
Phil Eagles

Posted:
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 1383
Sanctum (2011)
Phil Eagles

Posted:
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 1383
Aquamarine (2006)
Phill Eagles

Posted:
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 1383
Jungle (2017)
Phill Eagles

(use a magnifying glass, LOL...)
Posted:
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 1383
Invelos Forums->Posts by MikaLove Page: 1 2 3 ...5  Previous   Next