 |
|
|
|
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... 3 4 5 6 7 ...12  Previous Next
|
|
"Widescreen" not on the cover |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,433 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting FUBAR:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Enry:
Perhaps i have spent too many years in the poltical world of Washington DC, but to me intent is every bit as important as the letter of the law. What was the designer(s) of the law trying to achieve.
Skip
Where does it say anywhere to take the information from the front cover? Surely if the intent was to take the information from the front cover, then the rules would simply say: take it from the front cover.
Where do you get off suggesting that Unicus is bending the rules? Anyone suggesting that it can only come from the front cover is bending the rules to what they would like the rules to be. Unfortunately the front cover isn't mentioned in this regard at all. Period.
Well speaking for the person who conceivced the concept to begin with. little was it imagined that users would play the games with the Rules that they have played and continue to play.
I can't agree with you, Unicus for reasons which you know too well. Its called intent...and i know the persons who conceived the concept on a very personal basis.
Skip Skip, if I remember correctly we discussed this in the rules committe at the time and deliberately did not limit this to the front cover. We found at the time that occasionally the Studios (...we hates Hollywood  ) will put something on the back rather than the front... I beliee one of our example was the Predator Special Edition. If, however, we find now that that rule was a mistake on our site, we can pick up the discussion in the Rules Committee forum and ultimately suggest a change to Ken. | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,554 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
So the consensus is that if it says Widescreen (or Fullscreen) anywhere on the DVD box then it should be put in the "Edition" field even if there is no current release in a different version, but because there might be one in the future and it will help distinguish them when and if the other ever gets released!: No, that was definitely not my interpretation of the rules. My interpretation was that if there are different versions, then it is allowed to put Widescreen (or Fullscreen) in the edition field (if that info is on the box). | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,554 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting VibroCount: Quote:
I think, even if we take the edition from the back cover, the spine, or even the front cover, it should seem obvious to any observer that this describes an edition, not just a feature." So what you are saying is that if a movie is released on DVD in both widescreen and fullscreen versions, these are not different "editions" unless it actually says "Widescreen" and "Fullscreen" on the front cover? Well, we obviously have radically different views on what constitutes an "edition". | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ya_shin: Quote:
Skip, if I remember correctly we discussed this in the rules committe at the time and deliberately did not limit this to the front cover. We found at the time that occasionally the Studios (...we hates Hollywood ) will put something on the back rather than the front... I beliee one of our example was the Predator Special Edition. Funny how different people can remember the same event differently. Another reason why intent should be left out of the equation. Quote:
If, however, we find now that that rule was a mistake on our site, we can pick up the discussion in the Rules Committee forum and ultimately suggest a change to Ken. I don't think the rule was a mistake. I have seen several DVDs that have 'special edition' on the back of the case. Why should those be excluded just because it is on the back and not the front.  | | | 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: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't know what event you are talking about, Unicus. You weren't involved in the conception process. That was TWO users who I am intimately acquainted with. So you have nothing to remember in that regard.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
Quoting VibroCount:
Quote:
I think, even if we take the edition from the back cover, the spine, or even the front cover, it should seem obvious to any observer that this describes an edition, not just a feature."
So what you are saying is that if a movie is released on DVD in both widescreen and fullscreen versions, these are not different "editions" unless it actually says "Widescreen" and "Fullscreen" on the front cover?
Well, we obviously have radically different views on what constitutes an "edition". No, that is not what I was saying. If the casual observer sees different editions, then it becomes worthy of putting in the edition field. But if we put every difference in the edition field (like the DVD vs. HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray) then the edition field becomes something wholy other. I specifically did not limit this to being information only found on the front cover, because that is not what the rule currently is. The information can come from anywhere on the box. Shall we quote the rule? 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.
If the description distinguishes the DVD from other versions, and seems to be an edition, not a simple feature, using it in the edition field is appropriate. Many of the jokes mentioned in a few posts in this thread would be, by my personal interpretation, features, not editions. I really don't understand how my writing could be misinterpreted this badly. | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Gunnar:
Sometimes the Overview can be a distinguishing feature, see the Original and the re-release of batteries not included. The two overviews are different (as are the covers but that's a different issue), so like I said if we are going to invent things that don't exist to make them Edition material, then we need more room to allow for such Overviews.
This is giving me a headache, along with the whole idea of why it has even come up in this form. Look at the back cover, the Edition does NOT exist. And my original comment still stands I would vote NO.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
...
This is giving me a headache, along with the whole idea of why it has even come up in this form. Look at the back cover, the Edition does NOT exist. And my original comment still stands I would vote NO.
Skip  | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff |
| | Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Enry:
Perhaps i have spent too many years in the poltical world of Washington DC, but to me intent is every bit as important as the letter of the law. What was the designer(s) of the law trying to achieve.
Skip That is a slippery road, though, as different people may see a different intent, so I wouldn't be so sure of a No vote based only on what I think the intent is. Anyway, it seems to me that the main goal of that rule is to distinguish DVD #1 from DVD #2 having the same title. To achieve that, you can use relevant built-in Editions or information from the box. Anywhere on the box. In the law, a judge will decide who is right. In our Rules, it's the Screeners. So let them decide.  | | | | -- Enry | | | | Last edited: by White Pongo, Jr. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,554 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Gunnar:
Sometimes the Overview can be a distinguishing feature, see the Original and the re-release of batteries not included. The two overviews are different (as are the covers but that's a different issue), so like I said if we are going to invent things that don't exist to make them Edition material, then we need more room to allow for such Overviews.
This is giving me a headache, along with the whole idea of why it has even come up in this form. Look at the back cover, the Edition does NOT exist. And my original comment still stands I would vote NO.
Skip Well Skip, I think there's a huge difference between differing overviews and Widescreen vs. Fullscreen. I don't think anybody returns a DVD because it's the wrong overview, whereas I know a lot of people who will return their DVD if they get fullscreen instead of widescreen by mistake. I guess it all comes down to how we define what an "edition" is, and what we think the use of the edition field should be. Tracking tag names thought up by the studio PR department is not something that I find particularly useful, but that's just me. For example: I own Sink the Bismarck. Do I care that Fox decided to label it "Fox War Classics"? Not particularly. Would I have cared if there was also a P&S version of it. You bet! But that's a personal opinion. As I said, the important thing is - what constitues an "edition". I guess I could say "This is DVD Profiler, not Front Cover Profiler". But that would be kinda flip, since obviously the program does take a lot of interest in the cover. But... isn't what's actually on the DVD of more importance than what's on the cover - also when it comes to defining the "edition"? | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: [...] Quote:
I guess it all comes down to how we define what an "edition" is, and what we think the use of the edition field should be.
Tracking tag names thought up by the studio PR department is not something that I find particularly useful, but that's just me. For example: I own Sink the Bismarck. Do I care that Fox decided to label it "Fox War Classics"? Not particularly. Would I have cared if there was also a P&S version of it. You bet!
But that's a personal opinion. As I said, the important thing is - what constitues an "edition". I guess I could say "This is DVD Profiler, not Front Cover Profiler". But that would be kinda flip, since obviously the program does take a lot of interest in the cover. But... isn't what's actually on the DVD of more importance than what's on the cover - also when it comes to defining the "edition"? My personal opinion is that an "edition" is such regardless of the labels and banners thought up by the studio PR department. If the same DVD is published in different video formats, that data will distinguish different editions, even if it is just written in the Feature list on the case and already entered in the Video format field in DVDP. I understand that others may have a different take on this topic, but the text of the Rule allows both interpretations, and only the Screeners can decide which interpretation is the right one. | | | | -- Enry |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would venture to guess that if I submitted a change to add "Blu ray" to the Edition field, that it would be declined.
How is that any different than this?
Both are covered by other fields within DVDP, and both are very important when making buying decisions. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 21, 2007 |  Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think the thing that frosts me about Skip's responses is the idea he forwards that he doesn't bend the rules as others do because he goes by intent. What he in reality is saying is: Ignore the rules in this case because they weren't meant to say what they do say. This means he is bending the rules. He just doesn't think he is. Poor misguided Skip. | | | | Graham |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...12 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |