Quoting reybr:

Quote:
The question is if it's the side you're on or the side that I'm on are the five taht are ruining things. So far I can't see more than five users on your side either.

Hey, I'm on Tim's side as well here. That makes it 5 against - 6 in favor...

I don't recall that anyone is including Supervising Producers. Has Invelos sanctioned this anywhere informally?

To me, this phrase from the rules prohibits the inclusion of Supervising Producers: "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."

I've seen the argument that following this rule would eliminate the ability to include Art Directors; however, the Art Director thing is an obvious error since the rule contradicts the program itself. Such is not the case with Supervising Producers. The program doesn't call for it nor does the credit table.

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
Funny, that some do not want to include certain supervisors and at the same time they also think principal editors are more important.

It's not a matter of what I want. It's about what the rules say. The rules do not list Supervising Producers in the 'credits to include' column. The rules do specify to only include principal editors.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
It's not a matter of what I want. It's about what the rules say. The rules do not list Supervising Producers in the 'credits to include' column. The rules do specify to only include principal editors.

Again: if you want to be THAT strict, you wouldn't be able to add art directors (not in the column!), you wouldn't be able to enter, say, a "photographed by" credit (not in the column!), and you wouldn't be able to enter ANY crew credit in any other language than English. Yet everyone is doing these things, and rightly so. Things just aren't as simple as that. It would be nice if they were, but they're not. You're declaring the art director thing as an "obvious error", and I agree. I'm just declaring the supervising issue to be a similar "obvious error". You can hardly blame me for doing the exact same thing you're doing. You can't just close your eyes to one aspect you don't like and then be this strict when that suits you: it's either one or the other.

The program includes "Art Director". There's an obvious contradiction between the rule and the program.

That situation does not exist with Supervising Producer.

I don't find it to be in desperate NEED of a rewrite, tim. It could be polished up some, but a rewrite...hardly. But then I don't go looking for trouble either, nor do i need to. I understand the rules...what's the difficulty...don't bother answering i already know.

Skip

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I notice you also didn't address my other examples, like a "photographed by" credit, or anything in another language. By your standards, of which I fully understand how they seem to present a "definite" answer, those could not be entered. I'm sorry, but things just aren't as black and white as you're presenting them. "It's not in the 'credits to include' column, so we don't include it" sounds perfectly nice, I get that, but it's impossible to maintain, and absolutely nobody, including yourself, actually sticks to that (again, think art directors or foreign-language films). We all have to deal with the obvious errors, contradictions, omissions, and the general badly-written-ness of the whole thing, and indeed that's what we all do. In doing so, each of us does what they deem "correct" in spite of the shortcomings of the credits table. You do so, and I do so, and your method isn't better than mine or vice versa. We both don't adhere 100% to "It's not in the 'credits to include' column, so we don't include it", and nobody else does either (again, think art directors or foreign-language films), so it just doesn't fly as the perfect one-stop-solution to this issue.

I feel that you are mixing too many issues which have individual characteristics too difficult to manage in one conversation.

Art Director is in the program. It's not in the rules. That's an obvious error in my opinion. Supervising Producer is not in the program. It's an apple/orange argument to suggest that Supervising Producers have to be included on this basis since the 2 situations have different facts.

For foreign language films, if the translation of a role matches the chart, they are equivalent. Invelos supports translation of the program. The decision to include Supervising Producers is not a translation issue however.

Photographed by can rightfully be voted against and declined. I've advocated in the past that they should be included on the basis of equivalency. But that's not sanctioned by Invelos as far as I know and again, the issue is different with Supervising Producers. Supervising Producer is not equivalent to either of the available roles IMO.

There's no evidence to suggest that Invelos forgot to include Supervising Producer in the chart. It isn't in the program. It's not a translation error. It's not equivalent to an available role. I'm not aware of any go-ahead on this issue that they've given in the forums.

An example of how producer roles change and don't get included when they stray from available roles is that of Kiefer Sutherland for 24. He went from Producer to Co-Executive Producer to Executive Producer. In the interim Co-Executive Producer period, he's not included in DVD Profiler.

Another is Charles H. Joffe, a frequent producer for Woody Allen. He started off as Producer, then Executive Producer and since 1993 is Co-Executive Producer. He seems to have been bumped down below whomever provides the financing for each individual film. He's still producing Woody Allen films, through Allen's latest 2008 release. In DVD Profiler, it looks like Joffe is no longer associated with Woody Allen since his Co-Executive Producer credits are not input.

So if you get Supervising Producer, can I get Co-Executive Producer? 

Quoting reybr:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

So where do you stand on "Theme By", "Created By", "Based on the Novel By", "Based on the Play By", "Based on Characters By", "A Production of", "Story By", "Photographed By", "Lyrics By", "Sung By", "Sound Edited By", "Sound Mixer", "Production Designed By", etc., etc.

None of these are listed as acceptable.  Are you suggesting that they all be excluded?

Where in the Rules does it say to remove your brain before editing a profile? 

The problem with this argument is that this IS (with the exception of created by and sung by which we don't credit) in fact the same jobs as allowed jobs. A supervising producer and a producer does not perform the same job.

But that is not the argument.  The argument is that they are not in the "allowed list".

So which argument are we making now?

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

But that is not the argument.  The argument is that they are not in the "allowed list".

So which argument are we making now?

The argument is that supervising producer is not the same job as a producer. They don't perform the same job function. Crediting a supervising producer as a producer would wrong because they are not equivalent. The other examples you gave are equivalent

Hal, please answer me this: If we include supervising producers what's stopping us from including line producers or consultant producers?