The Movie Database 支持
支持 → 一般问题
Crew Job Request
Torq00STAFFMOD 发布于 2014 年 06 月 20 日 8:26上午
Hi Travis,
Wondered whether we could add the following jobs :
Carpenter
Casting Associate
Hair Department Head
Thx
Mod edit:
You can request missing crew jobs in this topic. The new crew jobs have to be English and free of spelling mistakes. Please specify in which of the following departments each new job should be created: Directing, Writing, Editing, Camera, Production, Art, Costume & Make-Up, Visual Effects, Sound, Lighting, or Crew.
Kindly try to avoid making duplicates job requests (search the last few pages), or requesting crew jobs that are already added to TMDb.
Sixties Holdout 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 21 日 8:36下午
I don't think PT 100 was suggesting that they be added _without _ the (uncredited) notation. Couldn't they be added somewhere (e.g., under full cast & crew, but not on the main movie page) _with _ the (uncredited) notation?
I have no idea how Letterboxd works, or how it works in conjunction w/TMDb. But if TMDb has to do things a particular way because it has to accommodate Letterboxd, that's unfortunate. That's also a reason to use TMDb for forums but IMDb for more complete data. Currently I use TMDb only for forums, but I always use IMDb for data. Alas, it sounds like such will always be the case--at least for me.
Travis is so busy, I wonder if he'll ever address this issue. I guess we'll see.
lineker 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 21 日 8:43下午
I was just explaining how it works now. The example with directors is of course valid for users on TMDb as well.
(Edit: There are many possible solutions for how to resolve this, but again not something I can decide.)
Zürich Gnome 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 23 日 12:17上午
It's sort of ironic that this policy leads to Alan Smithee getting 58 directing/writing credits, even though he doesn't actually exist; while real but uncredited directors/writers don't get listed. Oh well . . . .
Banana 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 23 日 10:49下午
If anyone is looking for something to do...
janar 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 24 日 4:46上午
@banana_girl said:
Haha, I just had to laugh about this - why didn't you write so in the first place and posted this screencap?!? You let me search for and watch another bad Lifetime movie just so I can look for the credits - but it wasn't even about this guy?!? How could you do that to me ...
I'm just kidding - this new screencap is proof enough that we should add this new label.
I can imagine - those are a lot of credits for this show!
Anyway, I just updated the list of new suggestions and will post it in a second under this very post. A few things before:
1.) I don't know what to do with these:
Nobody answered to what I wrote about it earlier here in this thread - so I don't know what to do with them?!? I would leave them out - on the other hand, we could try to find a solution for it now and for all ...
2.) I removed a lot of entries that are most likely alternatives instead of genuine new labels. If anyone disagrees, please yell at me:
ART
CREW
EDITING
PRODUCTION
VISUAL EFFECTS
3.) There's some confusion with "Set Dressing". These 6 are all in ART:
vs.
These 8 are all in COSTUME & MAKE-UP:
Any ideas how to solve this? Do they belong into different sections or into one of them?
4.) There's also some confusion with every specific "Production Assistant" - do they all belong into the section of PRODUCTION or should they be put into their specific departments? These 8 new suggestions are currently all in PRODUCTION (no already existing label is currently in this section):
These 10 are not in PRODUCTION:
I would suggest to put them in the according sections, to be honest.
5.) There's also some confusion with the following 4 labels:
Question 1: Are these possibly the same - alternatives of one another? PT 100 linked the Wikipedia article for this job in this thread before which begins:
"The weapons master, sometimes credited as the armorer, weapons specialist, weapons handler, weapons wrangler, or weapons coordinator, is a film crew specialist that works with the property master, director, actors, stunt coordinator and script supervisor. The weapons master is specifically responsible for maintaining control of any weapon props (including firearms, knives, swords, bows, and staff weapons)."
Question 2: In which section does it belong? ART or CREW?
That's all for today - it's exhausting and boring to think about this for more than an hour ...
janar 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 24 日 4:47上午
Crew Job Requests - Last Update: April 21st 2018
ART
CAMERA
COSTUME & MAKE-UP
CREW
DIRECTING
EDITING
LIGHTING
PRODUCTION
SOUND
VISUAL EFFECTS
WRITING
Banana 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 24 日 10:29上午
I agree with at your changes except for these two (I don't disagree per see, I just don't know for sure they are the same job):
fyi: I just took a screencap of the latest episode. (I'm not risking it. I'll feel really bad if you have to watch another bad Lifetime movie for me.
)
I think the ones in Art are okay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_dresser
And these one are most propably (costume) dressers: "Dresser" + "Extras Dresser" + "Key Dresser" + "On Set Dresser" (all 4 new suggestions)
But some please google these to make sure (sorry, I only have a few minutes): "Set Dressing Artist" + "Set Dressing Supervisor" + "Set Dressing Manager" + "Set Dressing Production Assistant" (all 4 already existing)
All I can say is that I don't think they belong in production. At least, I'm pretty sure the one I saw weren't.
There one I researched a few days ago seems to always be in crew on that other website. Maybe armorer should be moved?
( I think I vote against merging them. A bit too complicated.)
Thanks for all your work janar!
EDIT:
I think you are right, "Set Dressing Artist" + "Set Dressing Supervisor" + "Set Dressing Manager" + "Set Dressing Production Assistant" were incorrectly added to Costume & Make-Up. "Set Dressing" literally means dressing the set (not people). I updated the masterlist.
I think "Post Production Assistant" is the only production assistant job that could be moved. IMDb seems to put it and Post Production Coordinator in Editing?
(Crew appears to be right for "Set Production Assistant", it's an odd job.)
PT 100 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 24 日 5:42下午
I don't mean to meddle, but it sounds like there may be some definitional confusion about various departments and where jobs should go. The weapons area is just one example, but there are others. So, just a humble suggestion. It might be helpful to look at this Wikipedia article about Film Crew. The crew covers everyone except the actors and producers.
Also, just as an example, the Art Dept. is by far the largest dept., and it includes the Property Dept. as one of its sub-departments. Here's a potentially useful article detailing the breakdown of the Art Dept.
Maybe using a single, widely accepted hierarchical scheme such as this would clarify some things and at least settle some disagreements.
Viktor 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 25 日 12:00下午
I found Lead Creature Designer in the Star Trek: Discovery credits, could we add that to the list?
I also found Lighting Design but IMDb has the same person listed as gaffer, is this the same job or is IMDb wrong?
janar 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 25 日 1:46下午
@banana_girl said:
Maybe someone else could bring in more expertise? I personally think both terms refer to the same job, but I'm an amateur.
That's not what I meant. My reluctance has nothing to do with whether these credits exists or not? These credits in your screen cap refer to 2 specific companies: Sphere Media and Echo Media. That's why I think these credits are job positions in a hierarchy within those specific (network/production/distribution/whatever) companies - not jobs directly related to the specific show/movie. I repeat my general question from my earlier post:
Do we want/need to credit people like [those in your screencap] that work for companies that are [only] associated with movies/shows in [this] way?
I'm not sure how to answer that question? And how to credit them?
I'm pretty sure "On Set Dresser" doesn't refer to costumes: http://getinmedia.com/careers/on-set-dresser.
The general problem with "Dresser" and "Key Dresser": They can appear as a shortened credit for both "[Key] Costume Dresser" AND "[Key] Set Dresser" at the same time. I've seen both in different movies, which makes it impossible to decide in which category it belongs. I don't know were to put them. "Extras Dresser" is easier, that's referring to costumes.
So, why do we put all the other 8 new suggestions into PRODUCTION and not into the other specific sections like those 10? I don't understand that.
Why should "Armorer" be moved from CREW to ART? That would make even less sense to me, because I think "Armorer" and "Weapons Master" practically mean the same thing - and then they would be in 2 different sections ... I don't understand that.
Okay.
Again, why do we put the 8 new suggestions all into PRODUCTION? Honestly, I would put "Set Production Assistant" into ART, because it's primarily related to the set per it's name. That's why we put "Camera Department Production Assistant" into CAMERA - no? I don't understand the general logic behind those production assistant jobs.
janar 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 25 日 2:46下午
@pt100 said:
There's actually a lot of confusion with the departments and jobs, which is why everyone is invited to make it better by contributing to this discussion. Banana had the idea to start the other thread for exactly this purpose - so, meddle on and participate!
Okay, that last sentence is certainly true, but I think that the TMDb department/section title CREW is not used in this general meaning of the phrase "film crew". After reading your post, I even thought it might be better to rename this section to something other than CREW to avoid any possible misinterpretation - because the word is not fully adequate for what it represents. Also, I'm not sure from which source Travis got the list of jobs/departments when he started TMDb, but I'm sure that the section CREW was used as the area in which every job/label was thrown in that was uncertain along the way. There are so many entries in it that could be moved to other sections, and it might happen that all jobs could potentially be moved at the end? Whatever happens, section CREW does not stand for "film crew", in my opinion - it's more like OTHERS or NOT-PART-OF-ANY-OTHER-SECTION.
And that's how it is right now: design, construction, decor and props are all in section ART. Or, should be - because some of them are not. To come back to the weapons area: Right now, the "Gun Wrangler" is in ART, the "Armorer" is not, and 1 of the 2 new suggestions was also made for section CREW. The article clearly says ART - so we should move the wrong one's.
Well, if you ever find a "single, widely accepted hierarchical scheme" - that would be really nice! I'm not sure to what you're referring by writing such as this? The Wikipedia article you linked lacks citations, which is why I wouldn't trust it entirely (like all Wikipedia articles in general). And the article about the art department is very good structured and helpful - but did you read the single comment under the article? The commentator claims that the article includes several mistakes she/he never experienced while working in the industry - so, could we rely entirely on this article?
In other words, it would be good to sort out all the mistakes within the current job list and within the new suggestions by as many reliable sources as possible and with as many different voices as possible. Which is what we're trying to do here and in the other thread, and any opinion/contribution helps in this discussion.
PT 100 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 25 日 7:27下午
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that we have to use the Wikipedia article or the one on Art Dept. specifically. I just think it would make a lot of sense to formulate a single, hierarchical schema, perhaps by taking pieces of existing sources; and get that set up and agreed upon. Then it will be easier to put jobs where they belong instead of going around and around endlessly arguing about where something should go. Sort of analogous to a biological classification schema, where we have the schema first and then can fit each thing into it in its proper place. The final schema might be totally unique to TMDb, but at least it would allow for consistency within the TMDb site and save everyone a lot of time rehashing definitional issues endlessly.
For example, we know that props are anything handled by an actor during a scene, and are distinct from sets, etc. If we can agree that props are in the property dept. that is part of the art dept., then it's easy to see that weapons, among other things, fit in the property dept., which is within the art dept.
Also, by agreeing on a schema into which to put any new examples of jobs, we can decide ahead of time how granular we want the schema to be. E.g., is Property Dept. a lowest level in the schema (probably), or do we want a Weapons category within the Property Dept. (probably not)?
And I agree that the use of the word Crew as a catch-all is misleading. There should be an Unclassified section that exists to put things in until it is decided where they should go.
Banana 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 25 日 8:02下午
No, meddle away! We are trying to figure this crew thing out and we (obviously) need all the help we can get.
I completely agree! And it seems that for many jobs there is not a "right" department, different productions puts them in different department.
That's what I'm confused about. As you can see from my screencap, there are two associate producers and many job that we/I also requested (Human Resources, Controller, Business Affairs Coordinator, Contract Manager) and others that I think are already in the system (Finance, Legal Services). And sometimes the producer credits are only listed under their respective production companies.
You are right! I forgot to google that one.
Well, I checked and I need them in Costume.
I don't think we really need a shortened "Dresser" for "Set Dresser", but we could add a "Key Set Dresser" in Art if you are certain it's a real credit. 
Sorry Janar, I meant to write "Gun Wrangler". I agree with the logic of treating them as "regular" props jobs and moving them to Art. (edit: But I still think they should be in Crew. )
I think job names can be very misleading. From what I read, they do no work on the set (the physical thing), but on the set (i.e. during filming) assisting folks from various departments.
janar 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 27 日 2:52下午
@pt100 said:
Thanks a lot for explaining it to me - now it's clear!
Yes, that would be the ideal way to go forward - I completely agree with you. However, there's one big (!!!) problem: TMDb already has a schema that exists for a few years now (I'm not sure how long, exactly) and we have to deal with this one in some way. I would love to set up a new, better schema that makes sense while ignoring the already existing one - but I'm almost certain we can't do that. It's already hard to make changes on an operating system, but replace one schema with another one will be a lot of work for - Travis, especially. I'm not sure he's up for it? But, of course, only he can answer that ...
So, the only solution I see right now is to take the existing system and try to make it better - the way Banana suggested in the other thread. That's a huge task, and I don't really agree with what you wrote here about how we should do it:
I really don't think that we should and can avoid those discussions at all - no matter which way we go forward. You might not like the endless discussions, and it's messy to follow them, but I think that's the only way to get a better schema. Only if many people bring in their expertise into this, it will lead to more clarity. And I don't mean amateurs like me - for example, when you write:
I didn't know this - that's the level of (non-)knowledge I have, actually. I'm happy to help arranging/adding the new suggestions and to search for job titles any time. But I'm not a film expert and have difficulties to build a proper schema from my knowledge. Which is where other people should join the discussion to help.
So, what should we do now? At this point, I'm not sure how to go on - it's a bit frustrating. Maybe we should go on and try to understand the current schema better? The way Banana asked for / suggested in the other thread here:
https://www.themoviedb.org/talk/598c3a70925141080100e601?page=2#59c3699bc3a368143000d7df
Perhaps, if we boil down all the existing sections/departments and jobs into a schema that's easier to understand, more people will be able to help and join the discussion? I would love that, but I'm not sure if it will work ...
Yes, I agree. Also, 2 other points I thought about:
janar 的回复
于 2017 年 09 月 27 日 3:13下午
@banana_girl said:
I'm confused, too.
Haha, you need it that much?!?
My idea was: Why don't we leave "Dresser" out completely as a new primary name - and only add it as an alternative to both "Costume Dresser" AND "Set Dresser"? Because it can - potentially - refer to both in any given movie/show. I've seen both the credit "Dresser" in the sense of "Costume Dresser" and "Set Dresser" - and only in the context of all the other credits of the movie/show it was clear to me what was meant in this specific instance. I think that would be the best way to deal with this; otherwise contributors will just use the label "Dresser" without thinking about the difference. That's my opinion.
I think they all belong in section ART. About the Crew - I begin to hate this word, because it's complicating all our discussions; I never know what is meant, the word or the TMDb section?
Yes, you're right. By the way you explained it, now I understand the difference. Thanks!