| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Do these individuasl get a Visual Effects credit in DVDP?  | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,005 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TomGaines: Quote:
According to rules all of them would get a credit.
(Personally I would probably only list the supervisor if any at all.) I had a feeling they would. Yeah, that's pretty much my feeling as well. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TomGaines: Quote:
(Personally I would probably only list the supervisor if any at all.) That's what i would do. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 940 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TomGaines: Quote:
According to rules all of them would get a credit.
(Personally I would probably only list the supervisor if any at all.) That what I have been doing as well. Can't really vote no to these, but I don't add them. | | | | Kevin |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Do these individuasl get a Visual Effects credit in DVDP? Neither SFX Supervisor nor SFX is listed in the rules. Therefore not to be entered in profiler. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,005 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
Do these individuasl get a Visual Effects credit in DVDP?
Neither SFX Supervisor nor SFX is listed in the rules. Therefore not to be entered in profiler. Rules state as acceptable roles "Visual/Digital/Special/Special Visual Effects, including Designer, Supervisor, and Director", so "Special Effects" is listed. Are you really arguing now, that SFX is not Special Effects? I know, we are not allowed to use common sense  | | | 
 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
Do these individuasl get a Visual Effects credit in DVDP?
Neither SFX Supervisor nor SFX is listed in the rules. Therefore not to be entered in profiler. When folks tell their kids not to get hit by a car it's a wonder some of these kids don't end up getting nailed by trucks.  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TomGaines: Quote:
Are you really arguing now, that SFX is not Special Effects? I know, we are not allowed to use common sense SFX is a functional equivalent or even a spelling variant to Special Effects. But the rules do neither allow functional equivalents nor spelling variants. IMO the rules should be changed to allow both of them. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting TomGaines:
Quote:
Are you really arguing now, that SFX is not Special Effects? I know, we are not allowed to use common sense
SFX is a functional equivalent or even a spelling variant to Special Effects. But the rules do neither allow functional equivalents nor spelling variants. IMO the rules should be changed to allow both of them. While I see the point you are making RHo...is there really any need to complicate matters further? Most users of this program will realise that SFX means Special Effects. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Quoting TomGaines:
Quote:
Are you really arguing now, that SFX is not Special Effects? I know, we are not allowed to use common sense
SFX is a functional equivalent or even a spelling variant to Special Effects. But the rules do neither allow functional equivalents nor spelling variants. IMO the rules should be changed to allow both of them.
While I see the point you are making RHo...is there really any need to complicate matters further? Most users of this program will realise that SFX means Special Effects. I agree and want to make the rules simpler by allowing functional equivalents. There would be no need anymore to list every single variant of every possible role name in the rules. BTW I would not vote against any SFX contribution, even though the contribution would be against the current rules. But there is something wrong with the rules, if everybody agrees in violating them. |
|