Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
An art director can be a profession or a function. From my point of view it is not relevant what profession a person is able to fullfill but what function was achieved for the movie in question. If there is one person credited as art director, all others are helping hands to him, maybe very skilled ones, but not the one and only person in charge. For me it would be enough to enter the head and leave out all others.

As in many other cases, I think less is more...

If this was the case though, then we would just credit Supervising Art Director, the one in charge, and leave out all other Art Directors... and we don't. We can only go by the onscreen credit, so what profession a person is or what function was achieved for the movie in question is something that unless we worked on the set, we'll never know.

Gotta go by the credit, not what you want to infer from the credit. Right?

Apologies if I seem like I'm shooting anything down with my replies... just throwing out thoughts that come from a different angle... not meaning to try to invalidate in someway, anyone's opinions. And just wanted to say thanks to everyone who replied! 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:
I voted to allow them because an Art Director is an Art Director whether they have a prefix or not.

I agree with this.  For me, the prefix does not detract from the credit, it just adds additional information.

This a little bit unspecific: Assistant Director, Line Producer, 2nd Unit Director, Associate Producer, Co Producer, Still Photographer, Assistant Art Director, Visual Effects Editor, Foley Mixer ...

Sorry, did not mean to confuse, just wanted to point out, that a prefix is NOT additional information, but most of the time a limiting factor.

The only example, where the prefix raises the importance, is the personal make-up guy. In all other cases the prefix lowers the importance of the function (additional, assistant, unit, etc.) or completly changes the meaning (still photographer, foley mixer, ...).

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
Sorry, did not mean to confuse, just wanted to point out, that a prefix is NOT additional information, but most of the time a limiting factor.

I assumed that my post would be taken in the context of the thread it was posted in.  My mistake.

Quote:
The only example, where the prefix raises the importance, is the personal make-up guy. In all other cases the prefix lowers the importance of the function (additional, assistant, unit, etc.) or completly changes the meaning (still photographer, foley mixer, ...).

This seems like a reasonable statement when you limit it to the prefixes you list.  It is not, however, a reasonable state3ment when we include other types of credits that are out there...Zombie Make-up, Robotic Special Effects, Miniature Special Effects Supervisor, etc.  Those credits, which I have seen, add additional information to the credit without lowering the importance of the function.

Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:
an Art Director is an Art Director whether they have a prefix or not.

Similarly, we could also say that a "sound effects editor" is still a "sound editor", just one whose job is defined in a specific way. Same for "On-Set Art Director": still an art director, but one whose job is defined in a specific way. No matter what the outcome of this debate is, I really don't see how you can accept one and not the other. If we want to open up crew credits like this, then we shouldn't be surprised if users will apply that premise accross the board. If an "On-Set Art Director" is deemed valid, I don't see why a "Sound Effects Editor" wouldn't be valid either.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:
an Art Director is an Art Director whether they have a prefix or not.

Similarly, we could also say that a "sound effects editor" is still a "sound editor", just one whose job is defined in a specific way. Same for "On-Set Art Director": still an art director, but one whose job is defined in a specific way. No matter what the outcome of this debate is, I really don't see how you can accept one and not the other. If we want to open up crew credits like this, then we shouldn't be surprised if users will apply that premise accross the board. If an "On-Set Art Director" is deemed valid, I don't see why a "Sound Effects Editor" wouldn't be valid either.

I disagree.

One is a job description the other is a location.

In the case of a sound effects editor it's clearly an editor that deals only with sound effects.
Whereas an on set special effects supervisor is special effects supervisor who does their work on set.

So, based upon that the special effects supervisor is location based I'd say include them.

Edit: I see it's about art director. Still think they should be included as explained above.

So I'm looking this up, because once again the waters get muddied. Everything I'm looking up... everything that breaks down the job of a Sound EFFECTS Editor, says that even though they have a very similar job as a Sound Editor... and work closely with the Sound Editor... and that a Sound Editor can and sometimes does do the job of a Sound Effects Editor... the jobs that are performed by a Sound Editor and a Sound Effects Editor are actually different jobs, even if only slightly. And that Sound Effects Editors can specifically be brought onto a film and work under the Sound Editor/Supervising Sound Editor to do that specific job.

Can anyone tell me if this is correct or point me in a direction that disproves this?

Because if this is correct, then Sound Editor =/= Sound Effects Editor, again, even if only slightly. The same way Associate Art Director =/= Art Director. Just because a Sound Editor can and sometimes does do the job of a Sound Effects Editor, does not mean they're the same job.

So if that's the case, we're once again talking about people doing different jobs and that's NOT the topic at hand.

Whereas, everything I've been able to find says that an On Set Art Director does the exact same job as an Art Director, just physically on the set.

So On Set Art Director = Art Director, because they do the exact same job, just one does it in a different location. Is this a direct translation, as the rules allow (we can't ever claim that "if it's not in the crew credits table, we don't enter it" because the rules specifically allow for direct translations).

No one's trying to open the floodgates and allow all sorts of credits that have never been allowed or never been entered before. That misdirection is used every single time someone asks about a credit or a new credit possibly being entered. It's kind of like a fear tactic lol. "Careful, if we do this, then EVERY CREDIT will have to be allowed in!" and no one is even remotely suggesting that. (And if someone does, it can be dealt with on a case by case basis). On Set credits seem to be quite a NEW credit (I've only ever seen them credited on films that were produced in the last couple of years) and as NEW credits appear, the discussion should be opened as to whether they're the same or not.

The credits today that we see in films are not the same that we saw in the nineties. The credits we saw in the nineties are not the same that we saw in the seventies. The seventies were different from the sixties and so on and so on and so on. Job titles have changed and advanced and progressed over time and we might need to discuss every once in awhile specific cases that we might need to progress and advance with, without suggesting it means that all of the sudden every credit ever has to be allowed into the system.