Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Touti:I did, and unless I'm missing something it doesn't answer my question.

It is considered a 'modified box set'.  It is done the same way TV Series sets are.  Main profile contains all the information, child profile for the extra film for those that want it.  And yes, both are contributable.

Thanks, I have a few like that but never bothered to create child profiles before and since the rules don't explain that I didn't realize that's what Mark meant.

I think Brazil has always been a weird exception to the rule.  And we've never found a good way to write the rules to handle this case.  And since it existed in the database before the rules were rules, it has always just been left alone.

It might have to do with the fact that a long, long time ago, the Guidelines (as the rules were original called) said that to be a box set, the films had to be packaged in individual keep cases.  And way back then, they almost always were.  Then we got Back to the Future and I think that was the breaking point.  Since they were in one tripple keep case (here in the States), soom didn't feel it was a box set and didn't want the individual films profiled.  Others thought it was quite silly that we couldn't have profiles for the individual movies.  So when the first Rules were formed, we did away with the "separate keep case" thing.

Anyway, I wouldn't swear to it, but I think that's why Brazil is the way it is.

Quoting Graveworm:

Quote:
I kind of think this is desirable. Otherwise how do you know if you have a film in your collection? Richard Pryor live in concert came with Stir crazy on another disk. If I didn't treat it as box set, I might have bought stir crazy by mistake or others might not know I had it when picking a film.

Sorry, I don't buy the thing about not knowing what's in your collection.  That isn't a valid reason to add it into the online DB. 

I have no problem with anybody wanting it locally. 

But, fundamentally, I can't understand the disconnect in understanding that when the studio calls it Bonus Material, some people can't seem to get that.  I guess I'm just a Ludite.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

Sorry, I don't buy the thing about not knowing what's in your collection.  That isn't a valid reason to add it into the online DB. 

I have no problem with anybody wanting it locally. 

But, fundamentally, I can't understand the disconnect in understanding that when the studio calls it Bonus Material, some people can't seem to get that.  I guess I'm just a Ludite.

They called it bonus material. I wonder if it is a box set hmm Lets look
Quoting The Rules:

Quote:

The term "Box Set" is used to define any release that includes more than one film.

Well looks like it is.

If only there was some way of know what to do ?? 
Quoting The Rules:

Quote:

Create individual profiles for each movie in these Box Sets. Use individual UPCs if they are available or use Disc ID (read on a DVD-ROM) if not. Create each of these individual profiles in line with the standard Contribution Rules with one exception - Cover Images. If a film is individually packaged, use the cover images from that packaging.

Not sure about being a luddite but I can just about work out what to do from these really complex instructions.

I was worried that I'd have to get a degree in Rocket Science to figure it out .

To be honest, I think John makes a valid point.  What is a box set really?  Isn't it a collection of films, usually a film and it's sequels or like themed films, that are normally available as stand-alone releases?  If a film is released to DVD and the discs contain previous versions of the same film, or even a different film that was never released...could that really be considered a "box set" in the traditional sense?  I'm leaning towards no, especially if the additional film/s are included on bonus discs or listed with the "bonus Features" on the packaging.  I'm kinda sea-sawing on this issue now.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
That's a specious argument at best.  What constitutes a film?  You'll get different definitions on that from most people you ask.  Are TV episodes films?  How about cartoons.  What's a Short Film?  Nobody can agree on these definitions.  The studio that produced that disc called it Bonus material.  They weren't selling the 1925 version, they were selling the 1959 version with extras.  If you have to have a profile for the 1925 version, I suppose you can.  But it sure as hell isn't a box set, by intention or by design.  To call it one is purely arbitrary on the part of certain people using this program.

Ah now I understand you are unsure if a film is film.
I don't know if there could be a definitive answer to if any of your examples constitute a film. No doubt it would be one to debate on a case by case basis. However in this case we are discussing if a film constitutes a film I am pretty sure it does.

John,

How you keep coming back with this "packaging" argument is beyond me. You have lost this argument (if you can call it that) now, for the third time and you're just repeating yourself.

You still haven't justified how you consider it as being marketed as bonus material. Is it because the 1925 film is on disc 3 instead of discs 1 & 2? You should keep in mind that the 1959 version is too long to put on one disc. I don't see where it calls the 1925 version "Bonus Material" anywhere on the package. As a matter of fact, disc 4 is titled "About the Movies". Notice the plural reference without preference to either of the two films in the set. You will see, if you take the time to look, that the credits for both films are included on the back cover. You will also find that both films are mentioned in the video formats. Wow, they are both mentioned in the copyright too. I find it strange that the documentaries are not listed here. Both films are listed in the ratings as well. Again, no mention of the documentaries.

Now, as far as graphics on the cover are concerned, I'll grant that there are no images from the 1925 version. Then again, we're talking commercialism here and what better way to promote the set than to use a stylized reprint of the highly successful 1959 one-sheet for the films release to theatres? Wonderful and effective image (not to mention familiar).

Hmmm, let's open the package and see if we find anything inside which supports your assertions.
Nope, not there either. We see a repeat of the credits for both films again. We also see chapter menus for each film and the documentaries.

Sorry John, I just don't find anything which supports your opinion. To the contrary, this is packaged just like any other Digipak set. Since both films have the same basic title, there really is no reason to list it twice. What would you have them do, call it the Ben-Hur Ben-Hur Collection?


Just for kicks, here is an image of the 1959 one-sheet.


Here is the front cover


edited to remove an unnecessary comment