 |
|
|
|
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  Previous Next
|
|
Makeup Supervisor |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | I saw a contribution which included a credit for Makeup Supervisor. I voted no since "Makeup Supervisor" is not in the chart. Another user voted yes and said it's covered by "Department Head" in the chart.
The contribution was accepted.
Is Makeup Supervisor contributable based on the current rules? | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | A very strict reading of the rules says 'no', not contributable. Based on a loose interpretation, maybe.
I see all kinds of 'supervisor' type credits listed...Chief Makeup Artist, Department Head, Head Make-Up Artist, Key Make-Up Artist, Lead Makeup Artist...but no 'Makeup Supervisor'.
Was it an oversight on Ken's part? Maybe, but I probably wouldn't have included it. | | | 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 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Technically no. Anymore than Supervising Producer is permissible.
If I were Ken, I'd add both to the chart. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
I see all kinds of 'supervisor' type credits listed...Chief Makeup Artist, Department Head, Head Make-Up Artist, Key Make-Up Artist, Lead Makeup Artist...but no 'Makeup Supervisor'.
That's the "functional equivalent" argument; isn't it?  I'm confused as to where we stand with these things. The stance that "From a story by" isn't the same as "Story by" based on the chart has really given me pause. Now we have the creature design issue and the fact that other roles don't have roles given at all. It's hard to know what to do. I suspect that the contribution that's the subject of my first post was accepted because other roles were being added, but I can't say for sure. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've contributed a number of Make-up Supervisors and as a rule i include that credited role in my notes.
Every time i've encountered it the role was listed right where the Chief/Lead/Dept. Head/Head Make-up person would be, just ahead of the Make-up Artists.
This is usually about as far as i stray from the reservation when making credit decisions but it just seemed so obvious that with so many synonyms for 'Boss' in the list of make-up alternatives that this fulfilled the intent of that list. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tweeter: Quote:
I've contributed a number of Make-up Supervisors and as a rule i include that credited role in my notes.
Every time i've encountered it the role was listed right where the Chief/Lead/Dept. Head/Head Make-up person would be, just ahead of the Make-up Artists.
This is usually about as far as i stray from the reservation when making credit decisions but it just seemed so obvious that with so many synonyms for 'Boss' in the list of make-up alternatives that this fulfilled the intent of that list. So you support Supervising Producer, as well? | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
I see all kinds of 'supervisor' type credits listed...Chief Makeup Artist, Department Head, Head Make-Up Artist, Key Make-Up Artist, Lead Makeup Artist...but no 'Makeup Supervisor'.
That's the "functional equivalent" argument; isn't it? It is though, in this case, I am not making it. When there is a list of credits in the 'credited as' column, I do not stray from that list...with the notable exception of credits similar to 'Photographed in Technicolor by'. Quote:
I'm confused as to where we stand with these things. The stance that "From a story by" isn't the same as "Story by" based on the chart has really given me pause. Now we have the creature design issue and the fact that other roles don't have roles given at all. It's hard to know what to do. Believe me, you are not alone. As you are well aware, I am a staunch supporter of following the rules. But, in this case, I just can't do it as following the crew chart 'to the letter' would cause a lot of harm and very little, if any, good. This is one area that really bothers me...mainly because I suggested the current wording in the rule. Granted, Ken made the decision to use it. but still...  | | | 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: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
So you support Supervising Producer, as well? After updating so many Star Trek:TNG child profiles the last couple weeks i've got a decent understanding of where they fit in the hierarchy so in principle, yes, i support them. However, given the limited and narrow set of options provided for the current Producing credits i wouldn't feel justified adding Supervising Producer without a Rules update. That's where i draw the line currently between Producers and Make-up. Because the Rules list so many variants for Make-up 'Boss' in that absurdly long list of Role options it is apparent they are trying to capture that role and have made room for it, but the synonym Supervisor is missing. I had actually submitted several Make-up Supervisors before i actually realized Supervisor wasn't among the listed options. I was surprised to not find it among all it's synonyms in the Make-up list. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Bud Westmore, who was in charge of makeup at Paramount during their heyday, is almost exclusively credited as makeup supervisor. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
I saw a contribution which included a credit for Makeup Supervisor. I voted no since "Makeup Supervisor" is not in the chart. Another user voted yes and said it's covered by "Department Head" in the chart.
The contribution was accepted.
Is Makeup Supervisor contributable based on the current rules? I would say that it was documented, was it not, James and the screeners accepted that. As Alfred E. says Nuff said!  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
I saw a contribution which included a credit for Makeup Supervisor. I voted no since "Makeup Supervisor" is not in the chart. Another user voted yes and said it's covered by "Department Head" in the chart.
The contribution was accepted.
Is Makeup Supervisor contributable based on the current rules?
I would say that it was documented, was it not, James and the screeners accepted that. As Alfred E. says Nuff said!
Skip Anything can be documented. But does that make it correct? This seems the opposite of what you just did on Apollo 13. A user had contributed common names using these notes: Quote:
Cast common names, found with the CLT:
James Ritz (110/342), Jim Ritz (11/75)
Jane Jenkins (58/195), J. J. Chaback (20/63). Ms. Jenkins is usually a casting director, but uses this alias when she appears in a movie: http://www.filmreference.com/film/34/Jane-Jenkins.html You removed this data, which was documented and which the screeners had accepted, and your documentation was: Quote:
Restoration of casr data to As Credited, previous Contribution totally misused the CLT to misrepresent the Actual data You didn't prove his information was incorrect. You just declared it so. And the screeners accepted your removal of the common names.  So as I said earlier in this thread, I've very confused how to vote now. Do we vote by what's in the rules? (There's nothing in the rules that says it's ok to remove common names which were determined using the CLT.) Or do we vote by what the screeners accept? | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan | | | | Last edited: by m.cellophane |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | To answer your specific question, I'll be voting "yes" to makeup supervisors. Too many of the "big" names from the golden age simply disappear if I don't. |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Rules : "If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section. " (bold are part of the rules)
This text is perfectly clear, with strictly no ambiguity. And rules do not mention functional equivalent. Makeup supervisor is not listed, so is not contributable.
Those who think this rule is not good may ask Ken to change it. Until then, no escape..., except voluntary breaking of rules and hoping screeners will not see. | | | | Images from movies |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | James:
You have a knack for mixing apples and oranges. Unlike you I do not believe that once data has found its way to the database it becomes sacred. There was no documentation that Jim=James, only an assumption of same. these type of assumptions one day will bite us in the rear. If data is not adequatelu supported then it should be removed, including the cloning of an old profile which contains undocumented (uncredited) and inserting it into a new Profile without verification. The screeners have proven this theory to be correct on more than one occasion. I provide extremely detailed notes for a reason, the good of the overall Community is best served by doing the work to verify the data or making sure that the data has been verified. Sacred cows cause nothing but trouble.
Surfeur all I can do is laugh, because the lack of sincerity on your part based on all of your past posts is all to painfully obvious. Or did you really have an epiphany. Boy would that be cool.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
Unlike you I do not believe that once data has found its way to the database it becomes sacred. But that's exactly what you just said: Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
I would say that it was documented, was it not, James and the screeners accepted that. As Alfred E. says Nuff said! Here you say it was documented and accepted by the screeners. Nuff said. But when you did it, it was ok to remove accepted data because it's not sacred. Which is it? Where's the rule that says removing documented data is ok? Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
There was no documentation that Jim=James, only an assumption of same. these type of assumptions one day will bite us in the rear. There was CLT data. Ken himself has said that CLT data is enough in general while some cases will require more research. His statements do not call for what you demand. You offered nothing in your notes to disprove the CLT results. Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
If data is not adequatelu supported then it should be removed, including the cloning of an old profile which contains undocumented (uncredited) and inserting it into a new Profile without verification. He noted the profile he used; but that doesn't really matter as it has virtually no bearing on the CLT data...certainly not enough to toss out the CLT data. Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
I provide extremely detailed notes for a reason, the good of the overall Community is best served by doing the work to verify the data or making sure that the data has been verified. Sacred cows cause nothing but trouble. I quoted your "detailed notes" in their entirety. Where did you disprove the CLT data? Nowhere. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Still mixing apples and oranges< james. your question has NOTHING to do with undocumented data or even documented data. Your question regards whether the divination of ken's intent was correct. I document the data as i do so that everyone knows exactly what is transpiring voters and users ALIKE. You were the only user who didn't like the interpretation, the other THIRTEEN user agreed with it some of them enough to comment regarding your comment. Sorry, James your interpretation does not always Rule and neither does mine, when it does, it does, when it doesn't that's fine too.
We have been through similar discussions many times and they always come down the same way. You always believe that there is only one possible interpretation and it is yours, your setting up of this poll, in view of what both the screeners and other voters thought about the same topic simply proves that point. Otherwise you would simply accept it and move on, it also demonstrates to me a distinct lack of understanding about the role Wally (Bud) Westmore in Paramount Studios history. If this upsets you, I apologize but, I am not attacking you, I am calling it like I see it. As I have said many, many times aour data is based on experience with the data, Hollywood has an ugly habit of throwing curve balls.
I am not going to discuss this further, James. the topic for me is finished and i have the answer I need going forward.
Skip <shrugs> | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |