 |
|
|
|
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... 11 12 13 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: | | | | Quoting Telecine: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
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.
Dan,
If you read my post again, I think that you will find that you are quoting yourself with the "beyond you" bit. I haven't suggested any such thing. Actually, I'm quoting you. Quoting Telecine: Quote:
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.
No, I'm quoting you.
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. | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
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.
No, I'm quoting you.
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. Dan, Saying it is beyond me to understand why anyone would want to do it is very different to suggesting that it was beyond you to understand my argument. It is a figure of speach Dan, no more, no less and was not directed at you as a personal attack. As you said, we have kept it civil until now, let's not change that. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 951 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks Dan for posting a pic of the Disc in question, had I got off my a** and looked at my copy I would have noticed the "1925 Version". I can say I was leaning to Telecine's reasoning because 1925 wasn't on the DVD cover.
However, since this is basically a box set just modified to keep both groups happy those who want this to be a box set and those who don't. I can see the usage of "1925 Version". There are many times where we have to take title and edition information from the discs themselves when dealling with box sets. Since not all box sets child discs are packaged individually in keep cases.
In this case you would not be setting a presidence having the Production year become an edition. | | | Are you local?
This is a local shop the strangers you would bring would not understand us, our customs, our local ways. | | | | Last edited: by Tracer |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks for that, Tracer. | | | | Dan |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Telecine,
You have misunderstood me but it is my fault because I put the end quote in the wrong place. I should have placed it like this: "beyond" but instead I put it this way: "beyond you". I never thought that you were saying that it was beyond me and understood that you were referring to yourself. | | | | Dan |
| | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | In an attempt to get this discussion back on track, here is the post Tracer made reference to and his reply. 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. Quoting Tracer: Quote:
Thanks Dan for posting a pic of the Disc in question, had I got off my a** and looked at my copy I would have noticed the "1925 Version". I can say I was leaning to Telecine's reasoning because 1925 wasn't on the DVD cover.
However, since this is basically a box set just modified to keep both groups happy those who want this to be a box set and those who don't. I can see the usage of "1925 Version". There are many times where we have to take title and edition information from the discs themselves when dealling with box sets. Since not all box sets child discs are packaged individually in keep cases.
In this case you would not be setting a presidence having the Production year become an edition. | | | | Dan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | How about the point that there is no OTHER version on DVD that is legitimate and legal of this 1925 silent epic? Both of you guys just blew right on by that.
There is no need to put '1925 Version' in the Edition slot because there is only ONE version in existence. | | | 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 Rifter: Quote:
How about the point that there is no OTHER version on DVD that is legitimate and legal of this 1925 silent epic? Both of you guys just blew right on by that.
There is no need to put '1925 Version' in the Edition slot because there is only ONE version in existence. Well, a few say it's a bootleg and others are saying that it isn't. Truthfully, I don't know because Buddha Video is known to sell legitimate DVDs. | | | | Dan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 951 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
How about the point that there is no OTHER version on DVD that is legitimate and legal of this 1925 silent epic? Both of you guys just blew right on by that.
There is no need to put '1925 Version' in the Edition slot because there is only ONE version in existence. I'm not dismissing that, I said I can see where the usage for "1925 Version" comes from. How about all the Paramount "Widescreen Collection" editions when there was no Full Screen release. This wouldn't be the first time a contribution had something in the edition field when there was no other editions released. | | | Are you local?
This is a local shop the strangers you would bring would not understand us, our customs, our local ways. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Don't EVEN get me started on THAT Tracy.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Tracer: Quote:
This wouldn't be the first time a contribution had something in the edition field when there was no other editions released. Like The Criterion Collection or Fox Studio Classics for example? I know those descriptors are put there for other reasons (to mark it as part of a collection), but we certainly do have precedence for using that field for something other than to simply distinguish it from another version in the database. I can't say with 100% certainty that 1925 Version should be there. My vote (for Dan) was based solely on the correct capitalization of "The". I'd rather have the title correct than the edition. Having 1925 Version there doesn't really bother me so much. | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Tracer: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
How about the point that there is no OTHER version on DVD that is legitimate and legal of this 1925 silent epic? Both of you guys just blew right on by that.
There is no need to put '1925 Version' in the Edition slot because there is only ONE version in existence.
I'm not dismissing that, I said I can see where the usage for "1925 Version" comes from. How about all the Paramount "Widescreen Collection" editions when there was no Full Screen release. This wouldn't be the first time a contribution had something in the edition field when there was no other editions released. There is a difference between a descriptor of the movie itself, ie. the format, and another entirely different version. At least when it says "Widescreen Edition" we can point to that actual disc and say definitively that it is indeed widescreen. Such appelations deal with what's on the disc in your hand. Putting a version year in there is saying something entirely different. In any case, we already have an established procedure for differentiating between different versions, and it doesn't involve the Edition field. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 211 |
| | Posted: | | | | It is pretty clear that when this set was released the "1925 Version" was mentioned on the box and disc art to differentiate this "Ben-Hur" movie from the primary (1959) "Ben-Hur" on the set. It is the same reason that they mention "The 1959 Movie" and put "Part One" and "Part Two" on the other discs. Three discs that only said "Ben-Hur" on them would be pretty confusing if you were holding them in your hand. They could just as easily (though grammatically awkwardly) written "Production Year: 1925" and accomplished the exact same thing, but there wouldn't be much discussion on this board about where to place the information I'd wager.
Putting "1925 Version" in the edition field -- while hardly heinous -- is unnecessary, non-standard (compared to other titles with similar situations), and dubiously within the rules at best. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
How about the point that there is no OTHER version on DVD that is legitimate and legal of this 1925 silent epic? Both of you guys just blew right on by that.
There is no need to put '1925 Version' in the Edition slot because there is only ONE version in existence.
Well, a few say it's a bootleg and others are saying that it isn't.
Truthfully, I don't know because Buddha Video is known to sell legitimate DVDs. Well, I would invite those who say it isn't to provide proof that there IS a legiitimate edition on DVD different than the 1925 one. I certainly couldn't find any indication of one. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 17, 2007 | | Posts: 125 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dano: Quote:
It is pretty clear that when this set was released the "1925 Version" was mentioned on the box and disc art to differentiate this "Ben-Hur" movie from the primary (1959) "Ben-Hur" on the set. It is the same reason that they mention "The 1959 Movie" and put "Part One" and "Part Two" on the other discs. Three discs that only said "Ben-Hur" on them would be pretty confusing if you were holding them in your hand. They could just as easily (though grammatically awkwardly) written "Production Year: 1925" and accomplished the exact same thing, but there wouldn't be much discussion on this board about where to place the information I'd wager.
Putting "1925 Version" in the edition field -- while hardly heinous -- is unnecessary, non-standard (compared to other titles with similar situations), and dubiously within the rules at best. I concur with your reasoning on the issue, Dano. BTW, I see the profile for the 1923 version of The Ten Commandments on the 50th Anniversary Collection is in the database in the following way: TITLE: The Ten Commandments: 1923 Epic Silent Film EDITION: (blank) Who wants to take a crack at resubmitting that one for 13 more pages of forum fun?  |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting djskyler: Quote:
Quoting Dano:
Quote:
It is pretty clear that when this set was released the "1925 Version" was mentioned on the box and disc art to differentiate this "Ben-Hur" movie from the primary (1959) "Ben-Hur" on the set. It is the same reason that they mention "The 1959 Movie" and put "Part One" and "Part Two" on the other discs. Three discs that only said "Ben-Hur" on them would be pretty confusing if you were holding them in your hand. They could just as easily (though grammatically awkwardly) written "Production Year: 1925" and accomplished the exact same thing, but there wouldn't be much discussion on this board about where to place the information I'd wager.
Putting "1925 Version" in the edition field -- while hardly heinous -- is unnecessary, non-standard (compared to other titles with similar situations), and dubiously within the rules at best.
I concur with your reasoning on the issue, Dano.
BTW, I see the profile for the 1923 version of The Ten Commandments on the 50th Anniversary Collection is in the database in the following way:
TITLE: The Ten Commandments: 1923 Epic Silent Film
EDITION: (blank)
Who wants to take a crack at resubmitting that one for 13 more pages of forum fun? My view is that The Ten Commandments: 1923 Epic Silent Film contribution is incorrect as well because 1923 Epic Silent Film is not a subtitle. On the opther hand however, I think that it is more correct than Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ with an Edition of 1925 Version because at least with The Ten Commandments, the subtitle field relates to the film whereas in the case of Ben-Hur, the Edition field relates to the DVD. To sum up my view, The Ten Commandments: 1923 Epic Silent Film represents a 1923 version of the film whereas the Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ with an Edition of 1925 Version represents a 1925 edition of the DVD. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 11 12 13 14 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |