Have we ever reached any consensus about what exactly qualifies as "Bonus Feature Film"? I remember a discussion about it back from 2011, in which one of my posts included the following question:

Quoting myself:

Quote:
It may be an interesting discussion, though, what the cut-off point is: at what point does something stop being a "short film" and becomes a "bonus feature film" instead? At a running time of how many minutes? And where exactly do the rules specify that particular cut-off point, ensuring that we all make the exact same distinction?

If I'm not mistaken, this was never settled, and different users are still handling this differently. If you want, you can pretty much get *anything* accepted into the database as a "Bonus Feature Film" child profile. The rules actually give examples of what qualifies:

Quote:
- Previous movie versions, example "Ben-Hur: Four-Disc Collector's Edition" which includes the 1925 version.
- Companion movie bonuses, example "Season of the Witch" which includes "There's Always Vanilla" from the same director.

The latter is interesting: I have several discs which include a short film by the same director. They fit that description exactly, yet they usually only run for ten or fifteen minutes. Does such a short film, by the same director, warrant a "bonus feature film" disc-ID-based child profile? If not, why not? If it's based on length, then what's the cut-off point, exactly?

Similar question: does a "bonus TV episode" qualify as a "bonus feature film"? They're again, they're often included as some kind of "companion" to the main feature, because they share the same director, the same writer, or the same lead actor. If a film included for those same reasons qualifies for a disc-ID-based child profile, then why wouldn't the same apply to a TV episode?

All in all, I think it would be good if the constraints for contributing "bonus feature film" child profiles were explained a little better then they are now...

My answer, from the original discussion, is still the same...

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I don't know if this helps but...

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences defines a Short Film as an original motion picture that has a running time of 40 minutes or less, including all credits.  A feature film would be anything longer.

The American Film Institute follows the internationally used archival rule that a feature film is at least four reels or 4,000 feet in length or 40 minutes long.

Wikipedia claims that the BFI uses the same standard, but I couldn't find it on their wibsite.  They also claim that the Centre National de la Cinématographie in France defines it as a 35 mm film longer than 1,600 metres, which is exactly 58 minutes and 29 seconds for sound films, and the Screen Actors Guild gives a minimum running time of at least 80 minutes. 

The only difference is I would use the 40 minute standard.

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
I don't think we should limit to any type or length of film. Either we allow add on films or we don't.

We already limit it to a specific type of film.  Per the rules, it must be a 'Feature Film' in order to get a profile.  The only problem, and it really isn't a problem if someone takes the time to do a quick Google search, is what the definition of a feature film is.  The industry standard, as ninso4 pointed out today, and I pointed out 6 years ago, is any film longer than 40 minutes.

Other than adding that definition to the rules, I see no need to make any changes.

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
I don't see a big difference between them, not a big difference if a film is 2 minutes longer or not, not a big difference if it is a short film, a feature film or a documentary. Further more, we don't limit the main features to feature films (we profile films, series, TV shows, music shows, documentaries, etc.); therefore it feels arbitrary to me to limit the bonus features...

We actually do. Shorts in general don't get their own profiles. The 40 min rule wasn't made up by Invelos. It's what the Academy and multiple other professional orgs use to determine the difference between a short and a feature.

I don't think the intention of this thread is to get a big change in the handling of child profiles for bonus features. At least that's what I have read in the starting post.
Allowing child profiles for every short film or documentary a main feature has as bonus features would be exactly that. The biggest rule change in years. It would allow thousands of possible new child profiles.
And it's (in my opinion) a solution for a problem that's not really existing.
We have a clear rule. The only bonus feature which should get a child profile is a bonus feature film.
And we have a definition for a feature film from some of the most important and influential film institutions of the world.
So we can make things easy and adopt this clear definition. Any bonus feature film longer than 40 minutes is allowed to get a child profile. Or we can make things complicated and discuss a big change of the child profile system.
The 40 minutes rule could easily be implemented into the current rules by the next rule update.

I don't think that in a world of declining sales for physical media this community is being helped by creating an entire new handling of profiles. The number of contributions and contributors will not get any higher in the future. And it certainly will not get a boost by adding new complicated rules.
But what we can do and what (in my opinion) should be done is clarifying rules where it's needed.
This could be the case here. But as I wrote in my first posting I never came across such a case so I don't know how common this question (child profile for bonus feature allowed or not?) is.

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Shorts in general don't get their own profiles.

Multiple shorts on one disc don't. A single short on a single disc does.

Quote:
The 40 min rule wasn't made up by Invelos. It's what the Academy and multiple other professional orgs use to determine the difference between a short and a feature.

But there are literally thousands of profiles in the database for "Main Features" that run for less than 40 minutes. I've just filtered my own collection on running time: I have 28 DVD's that have a "Main Feature" running time below 40 minutes. Those 28 profiles are varying in length from 6 minutes to 39 minutes. After that, I've got four 40-minute DVD's, two 41-minutes ones, and so on. They're all perfectly valid profiles - why would they suddenly become less valid if the same content is included somewhere as a "Bonus Feature Film"? If we feel 40 minutes is the cut-off point, fine, then let's add that to the rules. But it feels a bit arbitrary when the same or similar content *can* get it's own profile as a "Main Feature".

For the record: ninso4 is right in that the intention of this thread is *not* that I want what he calls "the biggest rule change in years". I just notice, as I also noticed and pointed out six years ago, that the current rule is too vague, allowing pretty much anything. And I do see "Bonus Feature Film" child profiles being accepted into the database of which clearly not everyone here feels they actually qualify for that. So I just think it would be good if the rules better described what to use these "Bonus Feature Film" profiles for, and also what not to use them for. If that isn't explicitly spelled out in the rules, these profiles will keep making their way into the database, impacting the CLT, impacting common names, and so on. That's what I wanted to address. Personally, I can go either way: I have a lot of manual child profiles that I'm perfectly happy to keep local, yet I'm also perfectly happy to submit them if that's what's preferred. What I don't like is inconsistency, that some are being submitted into the database and being approved, while similar ones (even the exact same ones, in different localities) are kept local. It should be either one or the other.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
They're all perfectly valid profiles - why would they suddenly become less valid if the same content is included somewhere as a "Bonus Feature Film"? If we feel 40 minutes is the cut-off point, fine, then let's add that to the rules. But it feels a bit arbitrary when the same or similar content *can* get it's own profile as a "Main Feature".

I would say the current rules explain why a film can be treated differently whether it's a main or a bonus feature.
We track documentaries, films, short films, series & more when it's the main feature of a disc. The rules do not state that one of them is forbidden to be tracked with the Profiler.
But when it comes to bonus features there is clear restriction what to track with a child profile:
The term "Bonus Feature Film" is used to define any feature film that is included as part of the bonus material for a single release.
The crucial word, for me, is feature film. It doesn't say film, movie or something similar. It states to track Feature Films. This is not common speech. This is a established term. Feature Films are films running for more than 40 minutes. That is the definition given by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or the British Film Institute. It's the most common definition as far as I know (there are other definitions I admit) so I think that's what we should use.
It would clarify the rules adding the Academy definitions for short and feature films somewhere in the suitable sections.
But in my opinion all existing child profiles not matching the definition of a feature film are invalid according to current rules because they aren't feature films (no matter which definition you choose).

I agree with ninso4.  This is one rule I was around for and, if memory serves, it was written specifically for the purpose of tracking Bonus Feature Films.  I, personally, do not need a profile for every Pixar short added to one of their releases so, my preference, would be to clarify the rule, but not change the intent.