 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 8 9 10 11 12 ...14  Previous Next
|
|
Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ 1925 contribution |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
 | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, here are the current rules. Quote:
Edition
The Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs, and for indicating special versions and collections (for example The Criterion Collection, Widescreen, Full-Screen Edition). It's usually safe to use one of the built-in selections if appropriate. If you are using a non-standard description, take it from the DVD box, and ensure it will help distinguish between different releases of the same title. What I am doing, follows that rule. | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
What I am doing, follows that rule. Well...almost.  The best description I see on the box is "The 1925 Silent Version" whereas your contribution is "1925 Version". And if you use "The 1925 Silent Version" as the description wouldn't it make sense to use "The 1959 Movie" as the description, or part of the description, for the main film for consistency?  | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Neither will I, telecine and it appears over half of the voters will vote No as well. Must you be hit in the head with a brick.
SAkip I don't have this, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But, this whole argument is nuts. The name of the movie is "Ben Hur: A Tale of The Christ" (colon per rules, as is capitalizing of The Christ as a proper name). There should be NO version year in the Edition. Production Year is already listed as 1925, and as far as I know there is no other version of this on a legit DVD regardless of region. For the life of me, I can't understand why everybody has to make this stuff so bloody complicated all the time. Just think how much easier it would be if it was just listed as "1925 silent version included in Bonus mat'l" under Other Features!   | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
What I am doing, follows that rule.
Well...almost. The best description I see on the box is "The 1925 Silent Version" whereas your contribution is "1925 Version". And if you use "The 1925 Silent Version" as the description wouldn't it make sense to use "The 1959 Movie" as the description, or part of the description, for the main film for consistency? If you want to re-write the rules for the 1959 version, you go right ahead. That isn't what I'm after and has nothing to do with what I'm doing. I'm only dealing with the 1925 version in this set at the moment. Now, back on topic. There are other versions of the 1925 film on DVD. I am attempting to distinguish this one as the actual 1925 version and my use of the description field follows the rules. | | | | Dan |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Neither will I, telecine and it appears over half of the voters will vote No as well. Must you be hit in the head with a brick.
SAkip
I don't have this, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But, this whole argument is nuts. The name of the movie is "Ben Hur: A Tale of The Christ" (colon per rules, as is capitalizing of The Christ as a proper name).
There should be NO version year in the Edition. Production Year is already listed as 1925, and as far as I know there is no other version of this on a legit DVD regardless of region.
For the life of me, I can't understand why everybody has to make this stuff so bloody complicated all the time.
Just think how much easier it would be if it was just listed as "1925 silent version included in Bonus mat'l" under Other Features! or just allow the note in the description field I have submitted ...... And some of you folks think writing the rules was an easy task. Here we are on the tenth page and the rule has already been written. And it's such a minor thing too. Imagine what the really controversial stuff was like. | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | | Registered: March 10, 2007 | | Posts: 4,282 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've locked the title for this profile. There are two pending contributions; after that there will be no more changes due to the title lock.
Make your votes on the pending contributions to have your voice heard when they're processed.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled HD DVD vs. Blu-ray "discussion". | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative | | | | Last edited: by Ken Cole |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,203 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
I have a stupid question...Does it actually say '1925 Version' on the DVD case? If it doesn't, then it is against the rules. The rules are quite specific on this point.
OK, since you guys are grasping at every conceivable straw, here are the front & back covers and the inside menus. I am not grasping at any straws, I was trying to end the constant back and forth. If you notice, I have not offered my opinion one way or the other. From my PoV, if '1925 Version' was on the case, end of discusion. If it wasn't, again, end of discussion...at least as far as the current rules are concerned since it is spelled out fairly well. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,136 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
I now return you to your regularly scheduled HD DVD vs. Blu-ray "discussion". Made me ROFL and LOL Now, what was it I heard about HD outselling BR? | | | Signature? We don't need no stinking... hang on, this has been done... blast [oooh now in Widescreen]
Ah... well you see.... I thought I'd say something more interesting... but cannot think of anything..... oh well
And to those of you who have disabled viewing of these signature files "hello" (or not) Registered: July 27, 2004 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,911 |
| | Posted: | | | | I tried this befreo with the two versions of The Longest Yard... You all got your underwear in a twist when production year was put in the edition field, now it's okay?
I don't get it, I just don't get it.
What the heck is the Production Year field for then? That was your argument at the IVS site.
*shakes head* | | | | Signature banned: Reason out of date... |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pplchamp: Quote:
I tried this befreo with the two versions of The Longest Yard... You all got your underwear in a twist when production year was put in the edition field, now it's okay?
I don't get it, I just don't get it.
What the heck is the Production Year field for then? That was your argument at the IVS site.
*shakes head* I didn't voice my opinion in that thread. | | | | Dan |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
I've locked the title for this profile. There are two pending contributions; after that there will be no more changes due to the title lock.
Make your votes on the pending contributions to have your voice heard when they're processed.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled HD DVD vs. Blu-ray "discussion". Folks, Keep in mind that if you vote for Telecine's contribution, you are also voting to keep the typo. | | | | Dan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
BTW you also say that "obviously some lobbying has occurred". Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but you chose to make this a public discussion...did you not. I haven't spoken to anyone other than Dan, who I speak to usually on a daily basis on the phone. So, why do you think lobbying has occurred, are not users capable of reading the informatiuon in this thread and reaching their own conclusions. You won one part, of this discussion, you are losing the second part, and I don't think your persistence is aiding your cause.
Skip I am one voter who changed his vote. I was originally voting FOR Dan's and AGAINST Telecine's. Now I have neutralized both of my votes. I rethought my support for "A Tale of The Christ" as being part of the title and agreed that it was a subtitle, ergo the colon is appropriate. I have no opinion on whether or not including the 1925 version as an edition violates the rules or not. Personally, I prefer to leave it as an edition (which I will do locally and lock the title) but I don't feel I know enough to vote one way or another. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
BTW you also say that "obviously some lobbying has occurred". Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but you chose to make this a public discussion...did you not. I haven't spoken to anyone other than Dan, who I speak to usually on a daily basis on the phone. So, why do you think lobbying has occurred, are not users capable of reading the informatiuon in this thread and reaching their own conclusions. You won one part, of this discussion, you are losing the second part, and I don't think your persistence is aiding your cause.
Skip
I am one voter who changed his vote. I was originally voting FOR Dan's and AGAINST Telecine's. Now I have neutralized both of my votes. I rethought my support for "A Tale of The Christ" as being part of the title and agreed that it was a subtitle, ergo the colon is appropriate. I have no opinion on whether or not including the 1925 version as an edition violates the rules or not. Personally, I prefer to leave it as an edition (which I will do locally and lock the title) but I don't feel I know enough to vote one way or another. My contribution has the colon. | | | | Dan |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
BTW you also say that "obviously some lobbying has occurred". Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but you chose to make this a public discussion...did you not. I haven't spoken to anyone other than Dan, who I speak to usually on a daily basis on the phone. So, why do you think lobbying has occurred, are not users capable of reading the informatiuon in this thread and reaching their own conclusions. You won one part, of this discussion, you are losing the second part, and I don't think your persistence is aiding your cause.
Skip
I am one voter who changed his vote. I was originally voting FOR Dan's and AGAINST Telecine's. Now I have neutralized both of my votes. I rethought my support for "A Tale of The Christ" as being part of the title and agreed that it was a subtitle, ergo the colon is appropriate. I have no opinion on whether or not including the 1925 version as an edition violates the rules or not. Personally, I prefer to leave it as an edition (which I will do locally and lock the title) but I don't feel I know enough to vote one way or another.
My contribution has the colon. Dan W/Skip, You may have gloated too soon. The vote is now 7 yes and 6 no for my submission. Your contribution has 6 yes and 3 no and I haven't voted yet or a number of others. Want to do a deal given what Ken has had to say? I would like to see Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ with the Edition Field empty. I could live with Restored Edition or Thames Television Restored Edition in the edition field or something similar. Movie restorations are often named after the group that did the restorations. Example: Martin Koerber definitive restoration of Fritz Lang's M What do you say to some middle ground now? |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Telecine: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
BTW you also say that "obviously some lobbying has occurred". Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but you chose to make this a public discussion...did you not. I haven't spoken to anyone other than Dan, who I speak to usually on a daily basis on the phone. So, why do you think lobbying has occurred, are not users capable of reading the informatiuon in this thread and reaching their own conclusions. You won one part, of this discussion, you are losing the second part, and I don't think your persistence is aiding your cause.
Skip
I am one voter who changed his vote. I was originally voting FOR Dan's and AGAINST Telecine's. Now I have neutralized both of my votes. I rethought my support for "A Tale of The Christ" as being part of the title and agreed that it was a subtitle, ergo the colon is appropriate. I have no opinion on whether or not including the 1925 version as an edition violates the rules or not. Personally, I prefer to leave it as an edition (which I will do locally and lock the title) but I don't feel I know enough to vote one way or another.
My contribution has the colon.
Dan W/Skip,
You may have gloated too soon. The vote is now 7 yes and 6 no for my submission. Your contribution has 6 yes and 3 no and I haven't voted yet or a number of others. Want to do a deal given what Ken has had to say?
I would like to see Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ with the Edition Field empty. I could live with Restored Edition or Thames Television Restored Edition in the edition field or something similar. Movie restorations are often named after the group that did the restorations. Example:
Martin Koerber definitive restoration of Fritz Lang's M
What do you say to some middle ground now? Gloated??? Who are you talking to? If there was any gloating it was not done by me. | | | | Dan |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 8 9 10 11 12 ...14 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |