Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Corne:

Quote:
There's also a reason why the credit is 'Based on an Original Story By' and not just 'Story By'.

No, there is not. Those labels are completely interchangeable.

No, they are not.  They might be for this film.  But they are not universally interchangeable.

Indeed.  Thanks to the WGA, the two terms are definitely not completely interchangeable...at least not for Hollywood films.  If we are being honest, we don't even know, for a fact, that they are interchangeable for this film.  While the story may have been written for the film, we don't know that the end result is anything like the original story.  If it isn't, then 'story by' is not an appropriate credit.

We can do all the research we want but, in the end, it is just a guess.  The only way to know for sure is to ask the people who made the film.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
at least not for Hollywood films.

Which this isn't.

I don't believe I said it was, but you are speaking in absolutes.  You said, "Those labels are completely interchangeable," which isn't true.  I was simply pointing that fact out.

Quote:

Quote:
The only way to know for sure is to ask the people who made the film.

What if I have? What if I can supply you with undeniable proof that this should be "Story By" - would it matter? I'm afraid it won't, right? If it doesn't, that line of reasoning is pretty much moot...

My guess is you can't but, you are correct, it is fairly moot.  The point I was making, however, was that nobody should have to go to that length in order to enter credits into Profiler.

Quote:
Once again: I understand the wish not to burden the user with research, the wish to take guesses out of the equasion, and the wish to generally keep things (relatively) easy. I'm not arguing any of that.

If you understand it, what was the point of the statement above? 

Quote:
The one and only point I'm trying to make here is that all that has resulted in our "Story By" credit becoming pretty much meaningless. Just an observation - nothing more.

Meaningless to you, perhaps, but not meaningless to everybody.  Speaking for myself, I don't want the 'Based on' credits mixed in with the actual credit.  Speaking for myself, 'Based on a Story by' is not the same as 'Story by'.  Speaking for myself, 'Based on Star Trek Created by' is not the same as 'Created by'.  Speaking for myself, I am glad that Ken decided to split them up.

The simple fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter whether this particular "based on a story by" credit actually means "story by". According to the current rules "based on a story by" gets OMB, plain and simple, regardless of what research has been done. So the change that's currently up for vote is still wrong.
You can have "story by" in your local, but the online has to take what's in the credits and the credits say "based on...", that makes it OMB.

Quoting Corne:

Quote:
It's too bad that there are 6 YES votes who have blindly voted without questioning. I'm the only who even bothered to check (and the only NO vote). In the contribution notes there's even a false note that says that these two guys are credited as Story By but they are not credited as such.

That is unfortunate.  One can only hope that the screeners take your 'no' vote into consideration.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
This indicates to me that "Story by", "Screen Story by", and "Based on a Story by" are not the same thing:
Link

Are Peter Lord and Nick Park members of the WGA? Unfortunately there are no global rules for those credits.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
But fortunately there are rules for how we enter data into the database.

---------------

Even more fortunately, we can change that stuff locally when the rules just end up creating junk. 

Not really a comment on this particular title, just a general observation.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Yes, as I have said, unfortunately we go by label instead of function.

Things are complicated enough just trying to translate movie credits to DVDP.  If we instead tried to contribute everyone's actual "function" independent of the film credits we might as well have no rules at all for the contribution of data.

I personally think it's fortunate that we track what's in/on the product rather than what we think may have gone on in the real world during the production of the contents of the product.  And I'm very glad that those who believe otherwise may enter whatever data they desire into their local databases.

---------------

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Yes, as I have said, unfortunately we go by label instead of function.

Things are complicated enough just trying to translate movie credits to DVDP.  If we instead tried to contribute everyone's actual "function" independent of the film credits we might as well have no rules at all for the contribution of data.

Nobody suggests that we should enter the crew independent of the credits. But IMO it would be better if the rules would allow documented deviation of a crew's function. The key is documentation here.

BTW we have to go by function every time for non-English credits anyway because the rules do allow direct translations. Those translations are made by function because a translation by word would not work. Actually we even do this for English credits if they do not follow Hollywood standards (e.g. UK credits).