 |
|
|
|
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... 9 10 11 12 13 14  Previous Next
|
|
Supervising Producer |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Berak: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting Berak:
Quote:
You can't seriously debate that when screeners approve what's in your mind wrong contributions, they are simply "slipping up". While in the same breath advocate that when they approve what is to others a wrong contribution (but in your mind right), they do the right thing? Or can you?! 
Approval by the screener is meaningless on any contribution.
Fortunately they have you to tell them what's right and what's wrong... 
I give up - keep corrupting the database with your meaningless additions and interpretations - I will continue contributiong what I feel conform to the rules (fortunately you don't own many of my titles), and I will continue to vote NO if I feel the rules are being broken (even by your standards).
But by all means - if you feel there are so many of us not conforming to your standards, why don't you send a job application to Invelos - maybe you could get a job as Screener Extraordinaire....   If you are able to get out of the gutter for just one little minute, perhaps you can explain what the meaning of this part of the Rules is: Quoting the Rules: Quote:
The table below gives each of the crew roles available within DVD Profiler. For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Film Credits to Include" column. If someone is not credited with one of these roles, do not include them in the Crew section. Everyone seems to want to conveniently ignore this statement in the Rules. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Exec Producer>>>>Co-Exec
Producer>>>Co_prod
SP
Assitant P
Associate P
Line P
And in some films depending on the film and the EP, SP may rank below the Assistant P. In short, we don't list SP...yet.
Skip
This hierarchy is dead wrong according to all other documentation cited in this thread! Your assertions aside. Seeing as how the data which has been poisted to support this claim wasa false and misleading at best, Hal and the PGA does NOT recognize SP outside of Television. What is that you don't comprehend? Dreamland must be a nice place. To paraphrase another of my friends...Reality...what a concept.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Intevocative threads:
Poll: Do we enter 'Supervising Producer'? by T!M.
Results: Yes = 6; No = 16
Thread which asked the same question and no one said 'yes'.
So T!M was correct, there was a concensus...but it was a concensus to leave them out, not enter them.
Thanks for the link James. Unicus: You know how this works. If you don't like poll results poll and poll again until you get the result you want. Hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Damn, and here I thought you were not going to converse with me anymore. I knew it had to be to good to be true!  | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Seeing as how the data which has been poisted to support this claim wasa false and misleading at best, Hal and the PGA does NOT recognize SP outside of Television. What is that you don't comprehend?
Since when do you espouse using the rules of the PGA for DVDP? Oh, of course. Only when you think it supports your argument!  Merri D. Howard (and others) career speaks for itself. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Nope I don't espouse that at all, Hal, I was dismantling its use in fact for our purposes. The information from the PGA film side however does match up fairly well with what I have been told by my sources. I do find it interesting that SP is NOT a reconized FILM credit by the PGA in spite of its use in FILM. But the bottom line is you now have nothing upon which to base your argument to support SP, but by all means poll and pol and poll and keep on polling, al. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'll make a deal with you Skip.
I'll quit entering Supervising Producers for TV shows as soon as you quit entering "Theme By" as "Composer".
What'd'ya say? | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Intevocative threads:
Poll: Do we enter 'Supervising Producer'? by T!M.
Results: Yes = 6; No = 16
Thread which asked the same question and no one said 'yes'.
So T!M was correct, there was a concensus...but it was a concensus to leave them out, not enter them.
Thanks for the link James.
Unicus:
You know how this works. If you don't like poll results poll and poll again until you get the result you want. Hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar.
Skip I'm not seeking a different result. I recreated the poll here so we didn't have to hunt for the old IVS version again. And I had a hunch the results would be the same actually, and that's how it's currently playing out.  | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | What is it, Hal, that you don't understand when I have said I am not Contributing any longer, and at the present time have absolutely no intention to do so. The reasons are my own and it does not cause me any pleasure to say it. There are now several hundred titles in my collection which are not available in the Online.<shrugs> So your comment is amusing..but academic.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
If you are able to get out of the gutter for just one little minute, perhaps you can explain what the meaning of this part of the Rules is:
Quoting the Rules:
Quote:
The table below gives each of the crew roles available within DVD Profiler. For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Film Credits to Include" column. If someone is not credited with one of these roles, do not include them in the Crew section.
Everyone seems to want to conveniently ignore this statement in the Rules. There is nothing convenient about it. The problem is we can NOT follow that statement in the rules. If we do, there wouldn't be a single crew credit in profiler. I don't think anybody wants that. Since we can not follow that rule, we have to look at the chart...the entire chart. With the exception of 'writer', it is very easy to do. Why people want to make it more complicated is beyond me. | | | 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 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Here's what I posted in the other thread: I always enter SP as Producer.
I'm sure I remember the rules committee making a statement to the fact that the rules should have mentioned Supervisiing Producer in the same way that Supervising Art Producer is mentioned and that is was an error on the part of Invelos that resulted in this being omitted in the rules.
I also remember querying this with certain prominent members of the community who also assured me that SP should be added.
Much like others here who don't want to go over their profiles adding SP, I don't want to go over them removing SP either!
Here's my problem:
I don't have the time to continually re-read the forum threads because people change their minds on issues. I also don't have the time (or the inclination) to search the internet for definitions of job roles for crew (and I'm not even remotely interested to be honest).
I just know that when the new rules came out and it was noted that Art Director had been missed out of the 'accepted' column that it was catergorically stated as a mistake. I also remember a discussion regarding 'supervising' roles (specifically because the supervising Art director was listed) and that it was agreed that Supervising Producer not being listed was also an error.
Now - most users will know that I follow the rules and have absolutely no desire to shape the online database to my own personal preference. So answer me this:
Why would I be entering Supervising Producer credits if I hadn't been reliably informed that it was correct to do so? What would I gain other than more work editing profiles?
More annoying is that I can't remember specifically who would have told me that it was correct - but it must have been someone with weight for me to even consider taking them at their word.
So - I'm with Hal and Tim in that if we enter Supervising roles for other credits then, for the sake of uniformity (if nothing else) we should enter Supervising Producer too.
Personally I don't give a hoot one way or another - except for having to re-edit profiles I had locked. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
If you are able to get out of the gutter for just one little minute, perhaps you can explain what the meaning of this part of the Rules is:
Quoting the Rules:
Quote:
The table below gives each of the crew roles available within DVD Profiler. For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Film Credits to Include" column. If someone is not credited with one of these roles, do not include them in the Crew section.
Everyone seems to want to conveniently ignore this statement in the Rules.
There is nothing convenient about it. The problem is we can NOT follow that statement in the rules. If we do, there wouldn't be a single crew credit in profiler. I don't think anybody wants that. Since we can not follow that rule, we have to look at the chart...the entire chart. With the exception of 'writer', it is very easy to do. Why people want to make it more complicated is beyond me. There are more options than "looking at the whole chart". The other option is: Do a logical analysis of the intent of this part of the Rule. Obviously, the title of the column in the statement was not updated at the same time the actual column title was changed. So, which column do you suppose was being referred to. Well let's see. The first column is called "Section". This would refer to the "Section" of the crew credits as they are set up in DVDP. That could not be the column the statement is refferring to. The second Column is called "Role". This is the role that has been assigned in DVDP, not the "Film Credits", so that cannot be the column being referred to. The fourth and fifth columns (Incorrect Roles and Notes) are obviously not the columns being referred to in the statement in the Rules. Even you have to admit that. That only leaves the third column, "Credited As". Gee, that's the same term we use in other parts of the Rules to refer to how people are actual credited in the Film's Credits. You've got to admit that using just a small amount of logic, it is fairly simple to conclude that the statement "For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Film Credits to Include" column" is referring to the "Credited As" column and the wording was not updated when the column name was changed. Now the next argument will be that OMB, OCB and Song Writer are all blank in this column. It is not a long stretch to "assume" that this was merely an oversight when the Rules got published. So, whatever should we do? We could go strictly by the Rule and say no entries can be made for these roles, but does that really make sense? I didn't think you would think so. So, we agree that these roles can be entered. Because there is nothing listed there, it kind of leaves things pretty wide open FOR THOSE ROLES. However, that should not have any impact on any other role which does have an entry in the "Credited As" column. For those roles, data entry should be restricted to only the roles listed in the "Credited As" column. Not really all that hard. Again, I concede that if everyone agreed to the above, Supervising Producer would not be allowed. But neither would Created by or Story By or any number of other credits that have been shoehorned in for years. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well Hal, unlike when we have to try and determint the intent of the law because the people that wrote it are dead. We do can quite easily determine the intent, but you don't like the answer. You don't have to "logically" determine it, everytime I have seen that tried the result has been WRONG.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Well Hal, unlike when we have to try and determint the intent of the law because the people that wrote it are dead. We do can quite easily determine the intent, but you don't like the answer. You don't have to "logically" determine it, everytime I have seen that tried the result has been WRONG.
Skip So tell me where my logic fails. | | | | Hal |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 9 10 11 12 13 14 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |