| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,550 |
| | Posted: | | | | Simple question (yes or no): Do "Additional Re-Recording Mixers" qualify under Re-Recording Mixers or is this considered like co-producer or co-executive producer. In the profile I'm working on, two people are under this but they're also credted as Supervising Sound Editor and Sound Designer... |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would say yes. It reads as "additional" which means the same to me as if "additional" wasn't even included. Of course, I could be wrong.  | | | | Last edited: by Dr. Killpatient |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | I treat them the same as I do 'co-'. 'Additional' means 'extra', so I don't enter them. | | | 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 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think yes, because additional means more of the same or further. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands | | | | Last edited: by Daddy DVD |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | If you have Additional Re-Recording Mixers then just plain old Re-Recording Mixers probably precede them in the credits. If the didn't qualify as just Re-Recording Mixers they probably shouldn't be included. I concur with Unicus. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|
| Registered: June 21, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
I treat them the same as I do 'co-'. 'Additional' means 'extra', so I don't enter them. This has always been my interpetation as well. Can't recall if it said that in the rules or I just connected the dots in my head, but it feels the same as "co" and doesn't go into my audits. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can't remember when it was, but I seem to recall a discussion ages ago about this where it was decided that 'additional' under any category was not to be included.
I think this was the same discussion that decided that 'supervising' people should be added. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
I treat them the same as I do 'co-'. 'Additional' means 'extra', so I don't enter them. That's been my view as well. | | | | Corey |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Both Neill and Unicus have it right. And Kat, and a few I missed
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tweeter: Quote:
If you have Additional Re-Recording Mixers then just plain old Re-Recording Mixers probably precede them in the credits. If the didn't qualify as just Re-Recording Mixers they probably shouldn't be included. I concur with Unicus. I agree with this line of reasoning. | | | | -- Enry |
|