 |
|
|
|
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 2 3 4 5 6 ...14  Previous Next
|
|
Supervising Producer |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | I probably don't want to get in the middle of this, but if we explicity aren't entering supervisor credits then almost all Hammer films weren't edited. You see James Needs almost always gets supervisor editing credit for most all Hammer films. Mainly because he was their primary editor but had a team of assistants who got their hands dirty. The assistants are rarely credited in Hammer films as Needs would point and say "Splice there", and the assistant would do it. Necessary work, but apparently not credit-worthy.
I bring this up because anybody who knows something about Hammer films knows that James Needs was the editor, more often than not. However his screen credit is usually supervising editor and, according to some, not worthy of inclusion in our credits. I find this disturbing. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
@ Hal can you talk to some of the biggest producers in Hollywood, I do and I can. Sorry if you don't like it but, for example I'll buy what Chris Columbus tells me, or George Lucas.
Skip
I know I should be in awe and totally impressed.
NOT!
If they told you that a Supervising Producer is a "low-level" job and subordinate to Producers, then they are idiots, too. I don't ask for awe and impressed, hal. you asked and i gave you the answer. And i will take what they tell me way beyond you or most anyone else. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | BTW guys I need to help you a little bit. there is no such word as argumentation, it is simply argument.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Quoting goblinsdoitall:
Quote:
So please, read the rules and contribute according to them
I am following the rules! Although I do include "art directors" - hope you don't mind.
Not including "Art Directors" was Hal's idea not mine! 
I always said they should be included (and have the rules as well as the program as backup).
Now a "supervising Producer" is something completely different.  You cannot cite the "Film Credits to Include" column of crew table for excluding "Supervising Producer" and then turn around and say that you can ignore the "Film Credits to Include" column of crew table when it comes to "Art Directors" (or "OMB, or OCB, or Songwriters). At least you cannot do it without seriously compromising your credibility. | | | | Hal |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
I probably don't want to get in the middle of this, but if we explicity aren't entering supervisor credits then almost all Hammer films weren't edited. You see James Needs almost always gets supervisor editing credit for most all Hammer films. Mainly because he was their primary editor but had a team of assistants who got their hands dirty. The assistants are rarely credited in Hammer films as Needs would point and say "Splice there", and the assistant would do it. Necessary work, but apparently not credit-worthy.
I bring this up because anybody who knows something about Hammer films knows that James Needs was the editor, more often than not. However his screen credit is usually supervising editor and, according to some, not worthy of inclusion in our credits. I find this disturbing. Absolutely correct! I was looking for an example of this, but I couldn't think of a good one right of the bat. But I did say all along: we're entering "supervising" credits for almost every crew section - including editing. If these people get their way, it would indeed mean these "supervising editor" credits would also have to go - after all, it's not listed in the "acceptable" column, right?  It's absolutely ridiculous, for all these crew segments, to omit the superviser, yet list those that work under his supervision. It's even worse when the "supervising" credit is indeed the only one, like in most of these Hammer films, or indeed the "supervising sound mixers" in 'Anchorman'. They're valid credits, and they need to be included. Period. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
@ Hal can you talk to some of the biggest producers in Hollywood, I do and I can. Sorry if you don't like it but, for example I'll buy what Chris Columbus tells me, or George Lucas.
Skip
I know I should be in awe and totally impressed.
NOT!
If they told you that a Supervising Producer is a "low-level" job and subordinate to Producers, then they are idiots, too.
I don't ask for awe and impressed, hal. you asked and i gave you the answer. And i will take what they tell me way beyond you or most anyone else.
Skip Problem is, they never told you any such thing. You just made it up! | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Once mor for Hal! Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
Hal,
if your interpretation would be correct, what would the "Art Director" checkbox in the main program be good for?
 EDIT: But possibly you got me there, since the "Art Director" doesn't show up in the second column an " Art Director" is only one if he's credited with "Supervising Art".    You can't be serious, just because the job is only listed in the first column doesn't mean he is not listed. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
@ Hal can you talk to some of the biggest producers in Hollywood, I do and I can. Sorry if you don't like it but, for example I'll buy what Chris Columbus tells me, or George Lucas.
Skip
I know I should be in awe and totally impressed.
NOT!
If they told you that a Supervising Producer is a "low-level" job and subordinate to Producers, then they are idiots, too.
I don't ask for awe and impressed, hal. you asked and i gave you the answer. And i will take what they tell me way beyond you or most anyone else.
Skip
Problem is, they never told you any such thing. You just made it up! Nope i am not going to reply to this useless insult. You aren't worth it, Hal. But i did think about it. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
if your interpretation would be correct, what would the "Art Director" checkbox in the main program be good for? Nobody denies that the credit is there, and we all use it. It's just not allowed by the rules - not by your standards anyway - because it's not in the "accepted column" which you seem to hold in such high regard. But everybody chooses to ignore that - and quite rightly so. Just like we.... Well, you catch my drift. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Tim: Is a line producer something we should credit? After all it's not listed in the 'not acceptable' column and he basically does whatever a producer does (according to the Producers Guild of America)
If not, why not?
Adding Supervising producer is the kind of shoehorning Hal previously has fought so hard against | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity | | | | Last edited: by reybr |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hal, Tim,
I give up!
I'm only glad that I'll most likely never see any of your contributions. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I hear you, Goblins, they use circular logic and slander and don't even recognize it. Not worth the effort. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote:
Tim: Is a line producer something we should credit? After all it's not listed in the 'not acceptable' column and he basically does whatever a producer does (according to the Producers Guild of America)
If not, why not? I've never ever entered a single one, I can assure you as much. Simply because I don't know well enough what "line" exactly means - and I obviously also don't see "line editors" or "line art directors". That's the difference: we ARE entering supervising art directors, and we ARE entering "supervising sound mixers", and we ARE entering "supervising editors". These are all perfectly valid credits, sometimes even the only ones in their segment, and thy really deserve to be entered into DVD Profiler. It seems absolutely logic to extend that practice to producers; it'd seem rather ridiculous not to. I must say, though, that the description on the Producers Guild of America website has me a little puzzled: the "line producer" credit seems to be more important than I thought. Still, since it's purely specific for the producing segment, I wouldn't enter it. I see where you're your going with this, but to me it's entirely different - "supervising" is a general term, used across the various crew segments. "Line" is not. Quote:
Adding Supervising producer is the kind of shoehorning Hal previously has fought so hard against I don't share that opinion - and Hal doesn't seem to as well. It's not "shoehorning": it's entering a producer (a supervising one: all the more reason to include him) as a producer. Again, I see where you're going with the "line producer" comparison, but we don't have a precedent for that. That's entirely different for "supervising" - we've entered these in all crew segments for years (note mdnitoil's comments at the top of this page), and there's no reason, not in the rules nor in real-world definitions, to treat the producing segment any differently. If I can enter both an art director (well, that's what we all do) and a supervising art director, why wouldn't I enter both a producer and a supervising producer? It's the exact same thing. Again: it just doesn't make sense to NOT list the supervisor but only the people that work under him. There's just no reason whatsoever to cripple our data that way. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote:
Tim: Is a line producer something we should credit? After all it's not listed in the 'not acceptable' column and he basically does whatever a producer does (according to the Producers Guild of America)
If not, why not?
Adding Supervising producer is the kind of shoehorning Hal previously has fought so hard against Unlike "line" anything, we credit all kinds of "Supervising" (plug-in-the-role) credits. That's nothing but a red herring. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I hear you, Goblins, they use circular logic and slander and don't even recognize it. Not worth the effort.
Skip Something can only be slander if it is untrue, so that term does not apply in this case. | | | | Hal |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
we credit all kinds of "Supervising" (plug-in-the-role) credits. This is indeed what it all boils down to. We credit "supervising" anythings, be it editors, art directors, sound mixers or... producers. It's as simple as that, and hey: it makes perfect sense. Unlike leaving the supervisor out and just entering the ones working under him, which really would be ridiculous. Even worse: there are several profiles in which a "supervising editor" is the only editing credit (the Hammer films as mentioned by midnitoil), there are profiles in which a few "supervising sound mixers" are the only re-recording mixers ('Anchorman') and there are profiles which have a "supervising producer" as the sole producer credit (certain later 'Columbo'-movies). Weren't those edited / mixed / produced? Of course they were. The "supervising" label is no reason to drop these credits - instead, they're probably the most important ones to enter. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...14 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |