Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
The OMB credit has always been wide open to interpretation because of the way it was worded....and still is.

Unlike other crew credits, it is not restricted to just what appears in the crew table in the Rules (there is nothing listed under the "Credited As" column).

If you have an issue with that, I suggest you take it up with Ken.

I agree with this.  While I don't like it, this is one of the few credits that leaves the door wide open for user interpretation.

Books, poems, songs, and premises are all written down too. There's no evidence to suggest that someone gets a premise credit (which is a writing credit) when they didn't actually write something down. Do you have any evidence to suggest that a movie has ever been financed and made on the basis of a verbal-only premise? No, you don't. You are arguing from your understanding and usage of the word "premise" and not from what it means as a writing credit.

And it can't be OCB because a premise is more than just characters.

@ James:

A premise CAN be written down, it can also not move beyond oral communication.. Your presumption is flawed from the start.

@ Hal:

Your logic too is flaweed. First off, I never said the list in the program was exhaustive or complete it obviously. I merely looked at the definition and the list and figured out what, if anything they had in common and what they had incommon was that they were all PUBLISHED, premises as noted by Kathy can be published, but that is not a GIVEN, contrary to James'belief.

There is no way that a universal claim about Premise By can be made ansd supported Hal, especially by you. I remeber the battles you and i had, which is why I am so surp[rised at your spinning to try and support a fallacious claim, which can only be said to be a possible OMB credit depending. I an also envision possibilities where Premise could be OCB or even a Story Credit, but a universal claim based on essentially nOTHING but hot air...NOPE. I will say though Hal, that your current sopin on this against previous stands leads to me to some interesting conclusions....relating to your takin stands when it suits you., which also means you are inconsistent.

Gotta run now, ta, ta

Skip

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
The simple fact that the film makers decided to put a "Based on a premise by" credit in the film's credits, tells me that they felt that this individual's contribution to the production of the film was significant enough to warrant a credit.  Because it appears on screen, I have to believe the contribution was something more than a simple idea like, "a small boy befriends an alien".  The fact that it is rare tells me that there is something "special" about what this individual did in developing the film concept and they wanted to acknowledge that.

Given that interpretation, which admittedly is MY interpretation, I believe an OMB credit is perfectly appropriate and is covered in the Rules under the "etc." contained in the program description of what constitutes OMB.

I would agree with the first part of this.  But if the "premise" were written down by this person, it'd be a story credit.  Since it doesn't have that, it looks like he just piped up in a meeting with an idea that everyone thought was sellable.  That ain't OMB, and it ain't OCB either.  It's no credit in DVDP.

Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
I would agree with the first part of this.  But if the "premise" were written down by this person, it'd be a story credit.  Since it doesn't have that, it looks like he just piped up in a meeting with an idea that everyone thought was sellable.  That ain't OMB, and it ain't OCB either.  It's no credit in DVDP.

You are surmising about how this credit came about.  That is a waste of time.  We will never know why the film makers decided to give the credit.  We only know that they did.  It seems highly unlikely to me that they would have done so because he "piped up in a meeting with an idea".  If that were the basis of a credit like this, I would have to believe that we would see it all the time.

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
I don't think either you or james paid any attention to what i have said

I know the feeling. Don't you just hate it when that happens?   

Martian:

Even you have not addressed the points that I FIRST raised, you completely igniored it, in fact. I understand how you are coming to that conclusion. But you have not addressed the simple point that the trtee items that are listed share something in common that is not shared by a Premise By  necessarily, in this case it does happen to share that one featute that the others do as well. You just blow completely past what i have said, because ....I don't know why,  this kind of thing happensfrequently. But when the core argument is not addressed then your  idea has about as much validity as some believe I have...that si to say ZERO. So answer the point. I understand your point and how you come to it.

You just prattle on about your interpretation without ever once addressing what was raised by myself long before you...or James...or even Hal, had anything to say on the topic. While you posted before i did to this thread, Martian, your posts for this thread have changed 180 degrees from where they were, I understood your previous position, I also understand this one, BUT I doon't understand the shift, you started out saying that it was not OMB, now it is,and I don't see the logic for  the point of you that you and James are espousing, in fact to me iot is fatally flawsed., as it makes assumptions which simply do not exist relative to Premise By.

Stop ignoring for a change...that goes for you as well, James. All you did, James awas verify exactly what I said, you have addressed NOTHING. In short, I see your position and I see an argument, but I have yet to see anything that explains why your position is more valid than the one that I oposit, which i believe is far stronger than the argument posited by you, Hal and james. I did not starty with a conclusion in mind, which it appears tome that this other scheme does, and the reason that Isay that was taking into account the Rule Table and what the items in the Program have in commo, it was not designed to allow or eliminate any piece of data, but they share PUBLICATION in common and Premise By CAN share publication (as noted by the documentation) and which allows this particualr credit to be OMB,it does NOT follow the Premise By will be universally held in the same light,because a Premise simply represenets an idea or a concept and as such CAN be reppresented in many ways...some which would allow for an OMB credit, somewhich would allow for an OCB cr4edit,, some may allow for a Story Credit and still others may not allow for any sort of profiler credit.

James says "A credit is still a credit and if it says "Based on..." it goes in OMB unless someone can prove that it shouldn't. And that would be difficult since that's the nature of OMB: It's a catch-all for whatever the film is based on..." I understand the argument but based on what i have seen in the Rules, the Program and the data, this is simply a fallacious statement that is not evenremotely backeup factually. I want to represent the data as accurately as we can, when we can and IF we can. But James claim of universality tries to bestow upon Premuise By something that simply is not factual. As I explained in my sampkle, James and I could go out and have dinner, and over that dinner I could share with James a plot premise I have been noodling around with, nothing is written down or published in any form, it's just a dinner discussion, but james takes this idea and plays wit it and turns it into a screenplay and winds giving me creditfor the Premise of his screenplay, while this is a legitimate Premise By credit, this Premis By would NOT as I see it, in any way, qualify for OMB credit, I suppose it might be able to qualify for OCB, though I doubt it, this type of Credit might come closer to a Story by credit...yet it uses exactly the same termuinology as the fiklm that started this thread. So, as I have said Premise By cannot be universally concluded to represent ANY single Credit in Profiler, it will depend on the documentation which can be dug up, and this ONE doers qualify for OMB, the next one might not, it might be something else or NOTHING, it is also highly likely that it wll be a LONG time before another such credit is seen (if ever) and as such there may in the intervening period be changes in Program, Rules or Both which would change the entire data picture.

See I addressed the entitre idea behind this argument and dismanteld it, piece by piece,several times islightly different language. And the best I see is "no, you are wrong this is right:", I see no exoplanation that explains to me why Premise By represents an OMB all the time, I have demonstrated that this is not possible. I can support OMB for THIS film, gladly, but I can't support the same idea for any future Premise...maybe and maybe not. And why this is something thatyou James and Hal even deem worthy of discussion is more than I get, let alone the one-eyed approach that is being used, we may NEVER see this again, which makes all of your thin claims academic, and mine as well, it coukld be YEARS, or it could be tomorrow. The only thing I say is that we cannopt treat such a credit under the Rules and the program with a UNIVERSAL meaning, because the very nature of the credit is not UNIVERSAL.

Stop telling me you are right, I believe that you think you are right. I think I am right as well. I have taken your premise apart and all you can do is sayyou are right. Perhaps you can convince me that you are right, but not by ignoring what I have said and you just keep coming back with "No, this is right". I have explained why it is NOT right, it is finef for this instance but may not be for the next. TYour argumentis weak and unsupported, it's only support as near as I can see is that " i am right". For once, just this ONE time, explain wjhy what I have said is wrong, I do you that honor. stop talking AT me and repeating "i Am right". I have given a very detailed explanation why you are NOT right.

Skip

Rho:

Yet another person who makes no attempt to address ANY of the points i have raised. You simply state that OMB is a valid functional equivalent. You present no argument to support your claim, and ignore everything that says it is not ALWAYS a valid OMB claim. Yet I am supposed to grant credibility to your unsupported claim....NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Skip