Quoting pplchamp:

Quote:
I'm just waiting for someone to add 1974 and 2005 somewhere in the edition field for the two "The Longest Yard" movies.

Yes, I'm waiting to see the can of worms pop open to never be closed again


Edit:

Or the 2 "The Chase" movies or the 2 "Fever Pitch" movies.

Those films wouldn't be affected as they are originals and remakes. Dan isn't trying to differentiate between the 1925 Ben-Hur and the "remake" of 1959 Ben-Hur. He's trying to differentiate between different editions of the 1925 Ben-Hur.

An equivalent example would be any film that was released in a theatrical version and then was subsequently released in a different version, such as Donnie Darko which was in theaters in 2 forms and was released on DVD in 2 forms. The original version in R1 (I didn't check elsewhere) has no edition name (with a 2001 production year) whereas the later version is the Director's Cut (with a 2004 production year). It's my contention that the labeling of the 1925 Ben-Hur points us in the direction of subsequently relabeling things like the "2001 Version" of Donnie Darko.

Donnie Darko is an example where the 2nd version is actually on DVD. In the 1925 Ben-Hur situation, the later (1931) version is possibly on DVD (some say it is, but it isn't in the DVDP database yet). So the labeling of the 1925 Version is sort of insurance now against the possibility that we'll need to differentiate it from a 1931 version that might be released some day.

That's my understanding of where things are here on page 11. 

EDIT: And so begins page 12. 

Since it has hit twelve pages I thought I share with you all my front cover for this child profile re:
Ben Hur 4 Disc Collectors Edition (-  Ben-Hur : A Tale of The Christ 1925 edition )

I would NOT interpret that as a precedent, James. This set is an oddball, and i would advise considering as such. There are only two other such freaks I am aware of the present time, one was the Wizard of Oz released after Ben-Hur and which includes a silent version of the film, and the other is the Maltese Falcon set which included the 1931 Original  film of the same title.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I would NOT interpret that as a precedent, James. This set is an oddball, and i would advise considering as such. There are only two other such freaks I am aware of the present time, one was the Wizard of Oz released after Ben-Hur and which includes a silent version of the film, and the other is the Maltese Falcon set which included the 1931 Original  film of the same title.

Skip

I hope you are right.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
The shame of it is that neither contribution is correct.

Dan has the Title field correct but the Edition wrong; Telecine has the Edition field correct but the Title wrong!

Would have been nice if a correct contribution could have been submitted before the title field got locked! 

I actually tried to do that, but ran into that locked wall. 

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
The only thing I can add to this is to point out one more thing from the packaging.

As is shown in the images on page 10, the 1925 version is only mentioned by title in the credits section and in the copyright notice. The 1959 version is mentioned on the front cover in addition to these. When we look at the menu both are identified by the year they were produced.

But, when you look at the disc you see "Ben-Hur 1925 Version".



So, technically, what I put in the profile does come from the packaging.

Without wanting to re-open this can of worms...there are two things being profiled in the database, films and DVDs. Versions such as "1925 Version" clealry relates to the film. Edition clearly relates to the DVD. For example, Directors' Cut.

Whilst I realise that what is being entered is free text in the instant case and therefore ultimately of little value for anything, why anyone would want to mix this data in the one field is beyond me.

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
The only thing I can add to this is to point out one more thing from the packaging.

As is shown in the images on page 10, the 1925 version is only mentioned by title in the credits section and in the copyright notice. The 1959 version is mentioned on the front cover in addition to these. When we look at the menu both are identified by the year they were produced.

But, when you look at the disc you see "Ben-Hur 1925 Version".



So, technically, what I put in the profile does come from the packaging. I still feel "1925 Version" belongs in the description field because it distinguishes this version from any of the other re-edits, be it from 1926 or 1931 or any other year.

But this is the only 1925 version DVD - legitimate one - that is available.  Why do we need to differentiate from something that doesn't exist?

Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
If, after reading all of my posts, it is still beyond you, it always will be. I can't help but to believe this is a choice you have and not a lack of understanding.

I will make it clear then. What you have done in my view by putting "1925 Version" in the edition field is say that it is a 1925 edition of the DVD. Doesn't make much sense does it if you look at it that way. The field is for information about the DVD, not the film. At least that is what anyone would have thought up until now.

I understand you reasons for wanting the information somewhere. I don't happen to agree with them. If there was a film version field, that would be another matter but there isn't so I can't agree with just plonking it in there as free text.

If at some point in time in the future one tab was created for film information and another for DVD information so that we could have more details recorded but a convention had been established to use this field for both, there will be a very messy data cleansing exercise that would need to be undertaken.

I hope that you can see my point of view.

Contrary to your assertions of it being "beyond you" I have understood your point from the start and at no point have I claimed otherwise. So, please refrain from introducing condescension into an otherwise civil argument.

When you stated the two sentences above (highlighted in bold print), you confirmed what I said in my last post. You have simply made a choice for it to be "beyond you". Don't insult my intelligence and yours by attempting to make it less than that.