Thrilling forum

Again, I have to bring up a question we have discussed yet, but - as far as I remember - came to no general conclusion. I'm not happy with the filmos of (almost exclusively) guys who worked as actors/stuntmen/generici, but also had a career behind the scenes, as stunt coordinator, assistant director, production inspector... whatever. To me, their filmo should be divided in a) acting jobs and b) films where they are credited but don't appear onscreen. (Actual example is Riccardo Petrazzi, who worked as Assistant director and Stunt coordinator in a whole bunch of movies, apparently without appearing). What do you think?

FatmanDan wrote: ↑

18/05/2022, 23:40

Again, I have to bring up a question we have discussed yet, but - as far as I remember - came to no general conclusion. I'm not happy with the filmos of (almost exclusively) guys who worked as actors/stuntmen/generici, but also had a career behind the scenes, as stunt coordinator, assistant director, production inspector... whatever. To me, their filmo should be divided in a) acting jobs and b) films where they are credited but don't appear onscreen. (Actual example is Riccardo Petrazzi, who worked as Assistant director and Stunt coordinator in a whole bunch of movies, apparently without appearing). What do you think?

I think having separate lists for acting and production credits has pros and cons. I would think it's a good idea, I have already done the separate lists for some actors who had separate production careers like Arrigo Peri and Albino Morandin.

The cons would be that in the case of stuntmen who appeared in most of the films where they had production credits, like Franco Pasquetto and Nando Poggi, there would be many repeated titles which would make already very long lists even longer. There would also be the problem of how to define a credit for "stunts" which implies that the stuntman should appear performing stunts, but isn't always the case.

Maybe try one stuntman as a trial case and see how it looks and works as it will be another major re-haul job to do them all

No, I wouldn't suggest listing films twice. Just two lists: 1) Appearing onscreen (documented, with a pic). 2) Getting whatever credit, without appearing (as long we can't find one)

FatmanDan wrote: ↑

18/05/2022, 23:40

Again, I have to bring up a question we have discussed yet, but - as far as I remember - came to no general conclusion. I'm not happy with the filmos of (almost exclusively) guys who worked as actors/stuntmen/generici, but also had a career behind the scenes, as stunt coordinator, assistant director, production inspector... whatever. To me, their filmo should be divided in a) acting jobs and b) films where they are credited but don't appear onscreen. (Actual example is Riccardo Petrazzi, who worked as Assistant director and Stunt coordinator in a whole bunch of movies, apparently without appearing). What do you think?

I agree

FatmanDan wrote: ↑

19/05/2022, 2:14

No, I wouldn't suggest listing films twice. Just two lists: 1) Appearing onscreen (documented, with a pic). 2) Getting whatever credit, without appearing (as long we can't find one)

But then how would we enter the many films where we have the credit screens or poster credits but the films have not been checked yet for whatever reason?

PeplumParadise wrote: ↑

19/05/2022, 10:47

FatmanDan wrote: ↑

19/05/2022, 2:14

No, I wouldn't suggest listing films twice. Just two lists: 1) Appearing onscreen (documented, with a pic). 2) Getting whatever credit, without appearing (as long we can't find one)

But then how would we enter the many films where we have the credit screens or poster credits but the films have not been checked yet for whatever reason?

The same way we do it now? Or maybe I don't get the problem....

FatmanDan wrote: ↑

19/05/2022, 15:58

PeplumParadise wrote: ↑

19/05/2022, 10:47

FatmanDan wrote: ↑

19/05/2022, 2:14

No, I wouldn't suggest listing films twice. Just two lists: 1) Appearing onscreen (documented, with a pic). 2) Getting whatever credit, without appearing (as long we can't find one)

But then how would we enter the many films where we have the credit screens or poster credits but the films have not been checked yet for whatever reason?

The same way we do it now? Or maybe I don't get the problem....

Because if we have the credit but do not know if they appear or not then how would we know which list to put them in? I think it would be better to either list ALL production credits in a separate list (leaving any non-appearing acting credits with the rest of the acting credits), or else leave it as it is, otherwise it will only cause confusion

PeplumParadise wrote: ↑

19/05/2022, 10:47

FatmanDan wrote: ↑

19/05/2022, 2:14

No, I wouldn't suggest listing films twice. Just two lists: 1) Appearing onscreen (documented, with a pic). 2) Getting whatever credit, without appearing (as long we can't find one)

But then how would we enter the many films where we have the credit screens or poster credits but the films have not been checked yet for whatever reason?

In my opinion, ALL acting credits must go in the main filmography, also the ones where and actor is credited but does not appear or cannot be found, or if there is only a poster credit and the actual film hasn't yet been checked. Only titles that haven't been found or checked at all should be in a separate list.

I'm fine with crew credits being listed separately, as there are some people who have quite a large number of crew credits without appearing on-screen (like Goffredo Unger) but maybe it's a good idea as suggested to do a trial case.

Thank you all for your input. Poster credits or credits only or credits-not-checked-yet films belong to the actors' filmo, as long it is a (supposed) actor credit. The others into a "crew credit"section, to me. Of course you're right, we should have a "trial case". I'll do one when I got more time than these days, business-wise...

I would like to ask what is the most correct way to translate "Foto di scena" into English, ie when an actor appears on a poster or fotobusta but not in the same movie.