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".

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.

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

Absolutely correct, using cosmetics to hide freckles, tattoos, scars, blemishes, etc. on the head and/or body is makeup, not makeup-effects.

The definitive definition for Makeup comes from the the Makeup Artists & Hair Sylists Guild (http://www.local706.org/rules-regulations/):

"make-up shall be defined as any change in the appearance of a performer’s face or body created by the application of cosmetics, facial hair goods, and/or prosthetic appliances applied directly to the performer’s face or body. Prosthetics are any three-dimensional appliances, including transfers, that have been prepared in advance from a mold and applied to the actors to change his/her appearance and to give character to the make-up.  It could be as small as a scar or wound, or as large as full facial pieces, and/or body parts, or bald caps.  Make-up is NOT changes caused by special lighting, camera lenses, optical effects or computer imaging.  It is not puppets or any device that is not on the performer’s face or body."

Also note in the reference the annual Guild awards for Best Make-up are in three categories:

Best Contemporary Make-up – Outstanding Make-up designed to represent years after 2000 to present day with continuity of application throughout the entry.

Best Period and/or Character Make-up – Outstanding Period Make-up designed to represent years 2000 and prior, or Character Make-up of any period that changes the identity or appearance of an actor with NO use of prosthetics and continuity of application throughout the entry. 

Best Special Make-up Effects – Outstanding Make-up including the application of prosthetics to the performers face and or body, with continuity of application throughout the entry.  No mechanical, computer generated effects, or puppeteering will be considered.

Clearly, the Guild distinguishes Makeup Effects (involving the application of prosthetics to face or body) from Character Makeup (NO use of prosthetics).

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".

Ken has weighed in on these types of debates: http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=667247&messageID=2082773

Per his comments, and the votes, the correct entry is "Make-up Artist".

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!

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:
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!

You were on the wrong side of the issue then (Men in Black discussion), and got so nasty that Ken had to delete your comments. He then addressed the issue which I quoted above. It seems to me that, as in that thread, you keep reiterating your stance while getting more and more upset.

Your opinion on this matter is clear. It is also clear that the majority do NOT agree with you. So, I suggest you not waste you time submitting this data and follow Ken's advice: "...databases can support an infinite variety of variants for title and other fields, and the local locks are available to make those changes permanent."

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

@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.

I have been consistent, you have inferred incorrectly what I implied. What we are discussing is the movie credit "body make-up" and movie makeup artists. My first post highlighted the different work classifications used for movie makeup artists in the link provided previously as follows (note the bolded heading of the section):

"Responsibilities of a Movie Makeup Artist
The responsibilities of a movie make-up artist vary depending on the type of work and level of responsibility that the make-up artist has. Hollywood union regulations, for example, classify movie make-up artists based on the area of the actor's body being made up:

• A make-up artist is allowed to apply cosmetics only from the top of the head to the top of the breastbone, from fingertips to wrists and from toes to ankles.
• A body make-up artist applies cosmetics as required to any other areas of the actor's body. While the regular make-up artist generally works throughout filming, the body make-up artist is hired per day when needed."

Note the wording "apply cosmetics", not prosthetics (which is special effects makeup).

Movie makeup is a single profession with various areas of application/skills (head, body, special effects), and this was confirmed in the Makeup Artists Guild (Local 706) definition that I quoted in my second post.

Additionally, when a movie makeup artist uses both makeup AND prosthetics to alter a performers appearance or character, it is considered by the union as special make-up effects. Please note that prosthetics can be applied to HEAD and or body, NOT just the body.

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.

Quoting MikaLove:
[blockquote

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.

You call me out for bringing up Ken's post that is "EIGHT YEARS OLD", yet you brought up one that was THIRTEEN YEARS OLD: http://invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=37141&PageNum=4.

If I feel I can bring relevant information to a topic, I will add  that information to the forums.

You really think I can't stand you - that is hysterical - I don't know you.

You can always block me if you don't like to hear what I have to say. But, if I want to comment on a post,  will do so whether or not you like it.

From what I can see, you are taking this quite personal - resorting to insults "immature behavior") when confronted with a point of view that differs from you.

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.

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:
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 is irrelevant how old posts are - many of the rules are even older. What IS important are Ken's clarification on the contribution process. You must not have read his posts or you would realize exactly how relevant they are to this thread.

"Local databases can support an infinite variety of variants for title and other fields, and the local locks are available to make those changes permanent.  With this in mind, hopefully the supporters on both sides of this and other similar debates can agree that the direction of a decision here is less important that the fact of a decision.  Consistency for submission to the online is possible and what we should shoot for.  Agreement on how it "should be" is neither possible nor (thankfully) necessary."

Please note his comments are NOT limited to titles as you assert. His post specifically states "...for title and OTHER FIELDS (capitalization by me).

So, unless you are disputing that Make-up/Make-up Effects are not Crew, then Ken's post are completely relevant to this thread.

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

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.

"Agenda"? Give me a break. I am pointing out that the owner of this program has addressed these type of issues. This thread is not the only time I have brought Ken's comments to forum queries.

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

And how is me bringing a 13 years old topic back to life relevant here...?

Ken's rules and his clarification of said rules are completely relevant until they changed or updated - regardless of how old they are.

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

I simply wanted to "finish" it and continue in the footsteps of those passionate for the topic.

I suggest you need to take into consideration that in doing so, you need to take Ken's rules/clarifications and the dissenting majority voters.

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

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."

I couldn't be more clear. If you "have no fricking idea..." what I, and others, are talking about I suggest you read the rules, Ken's clarifications and the posts of others who have tried to explain things to you.
Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:


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

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.

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

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

Obviously. the votes show that. But, they are in the minority and (I am paraphrasing) Ken has stated the the majority rules. And, those who disagree can keep that data local.



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?

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

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.

With few exceptions, outside links are irrelevant as far as contributions are concerned.

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

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.

I see you conveniently leave out the third scenario, Make-up Artist, the one the majority of voters agree is the correct data.
Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:


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.

Once again, read Ken's clarification, he is quite clear on what he wants and expects for HIS database. The problem is you want things entered that goes against his statements.

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

For the record, I didn't insult one single person here and I'm not taking it personal.

I suppose your comment to me "absolutely immature behavior" a compliment?

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

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.

You are adding qualification to the Crew tables well as links that others posted showing Make-up Artist is correct. So, I see your posts as faulty and contradiction.

Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:

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.

I believe that I have addressed this matter as well as I can. You have every right to disagree with me and any of my posts. As I have the right to disagree with you. Nothing personal.