See discussion here and here


This is being brought up again, because there are contributions that are removing said crew

The only way you are going to get a definitive ruling on this is if you can get Ken to chime in. Like most issues here you have people in 2 camps that think they are correct per the rules. In these cases there is no consistency for the online. At least not until Ken sees fit to chime in.

For the record... I opt on the side of not adding/removing them.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
The only way you are going to get a definitive ruling on this is if you can get Ken to chime in.

Well, we didn't get Ken, but we got Gerri Cole to chime in. She ruled against including location credits click!), so for now, location crew is out. That's the ruling that I go by as far as the online database is concerned. Locally, there are certain films where I do track batches of location crew, but due to this Invelos ruling, I track them using the "Custom Crew" feature.

Quoting Gerri Cole:

Quote:
As I read the rules, none of the Unit crew should be included. The rules state "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."

That seems pretty clear to me. If I am missing something in the discussion, which is probable, let me know.

-Gerri

This thread, as well as dozens of others extending as far back as intervocative days, discusses Location as well as Unit Crew.

Although the rules and guidelines are clear as far as Unit Crew is concerned, there has never been a definitive statement regarding Location Crew.

As one can see from Gerri's quote above, she specifically uses the term Unit Crew.

One might argue that the rules must be followed exactly as written. Any Credits entered that do not match the Crew chart exactly is allowing for "personal interpretation".

If that is the case then credits such as "Directors" or "Writers" are forbidden since the Crew chart does not allow for plurals.

Or, if the credits supply us with additional information, such as adding "Head Writer" or "Supervising Film Editior", these would also not be allowed because those credits are not specifically listed in the chart.

Personally I believe it is impossible to make a set of rules that will cover every single situation. Ken has stated the exact same sentiment:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:

One-off rulings on individual titles are a waste of time - there is always a new twist available to cast a slightly different shade of gray, and users cannot be expected to scour the forums on a title-by-title basis.  Similarly, refining and complicating the rules to satisfactorily contain each of these new variants is an exercise in futility.

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.

We'll be implementing a global edit for contribution evaluator use.  This will allow us to make a decision on a particular range of titles and standardize them directly.  In this particular case, the titles will be Men in Black, Men in Black II and Men in Black III.  Details on the forthcoming implementation will be posted before we begin making any profile changes.

I am of the belief that Crew members as "Directors" or "Head Writer" these are valid entries per the rules. I see the location credits exactly the same.

Credits do not lose their validity because we are given more information such as a writer being credited as a Head Writer or specifying where their primary Crew filmed.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I can agree with that T!M.. but there is those that feel there is a difference between Location Crew and Unit Crew...

But that is what Gerri's ruling is about. The rules are already clear about unit crew - "Do not enter unit crew", so that was never any question. That thread is not about that, but is instead specifically asking for clarification on location credits. The thread is even called "Location Unit Credits". That's what was asked, and that's the ruling we got.

If you read the thread, including the original poster and several after including yours T!M, uses the term "Unit Crew".

Subsequent posters did express the opinion that there was a need to distinguish between Unit and Location.

A second Primary Location Crew is, in many people's opinion, very different than secondary Unit Crew. Invelos' needs to clarify this because the community is divided.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I can agree with that T!M.. but there is those that feel there is a difference between Location Crew and Unit Crew...

But that is what Gerri's ruling is about. The rules are already clear about unit crew - "Do not enter unit crew", so that was never any question. That thread is not about that, but is instead specifically asking for clarification on location credits. The thread is even called "Location Unit Credits". That's what was asked, and that's the ruling we got.

Again, the person that started that thread was, and I quote: "wondering if I should include the art director (or any other crew member) under something like 'New York Unit'. [...] So, do I include crews in other location units?" After a few pages of back-and-forth, Gerri Cole stepped in, and said no.

And I personally agree with you... but there was a lot of posts afterwards that showed that not all understand it the same way... and the fact that she only mentions Unit Crew (not location Crew) and the fact that she asked if she was missing something don't help that either... so while I agree with you I can see how some would not see it the same way. So I personally think the really get a definitive ruling further clarification is needed to make it so it is undeniable.

Funny I re-read everything in that thread from Geri's post on... and I see no one trying to change her mind. I see a couple posts that are looking for more of a clarification... trying to answer her did she miss something question... but that is all I see. That is why I said her clarification isn't as clear as it could or should have been. And while I personally side with your view I can see why there is still a question mark here for some.

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:

But I guess one will always find those for whom a clarification isn't "clear enough", simply because it collides with (to repeat myself) personal preferences.

BS.  I could care which one wins.  While I did vote option 1, I don't really care either way.  But if her response was saying that location units shouldn't be used then yes, it could have been clearer.