Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Adding a DVD distributor field would seem to be the best bang for the buck.  Would this be best linked to the existing studio database or a distinct list?

If you ask me, I would say a distinct list. And as the DVD distributor has nothing to do with creating the content itself, I think adding them next to the DVD Release Date in the General Info window would be best.

So it would look like this:

This would be great! Very clear as to what it is for. Two lists would help to keep people from using the wrong studio is the two sets of fields.

pdf

I agree... I would prefer to see it on a separate line as well.

I am in favor of a distinct list, near the DVD Release date, in the Release Information section (and maybe move Run Time to Basic Information).

Quoting goodguy:

Quote:

Please do not confuse the placement of the information in a profile view with the data table that provides the entries. Ken asked if the new DVD distributors should come from the same table as the existing studios or from a separate table. Arguments can be made for both solutions (as I did on page 1).

You are right, let's be clear on this.

Question 1 (Ken's):
Would the new Distributor field be best linked to the existing studio database or a distinct list?

My answer to Q1:
I am for a distinct list, like I said. The reason for that is that using the existing table would populate the new list with lots of "incorrect" data, while I'd like better a brand new empty table.

Question 2:
Where should the new Distribution field be materially placed?

My answer to Q2:
In the Release Information section, as it's related to it.

Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:

If you ask me, I would say a distinct list. And as the DVD distributor has nothing to do with creating the content itself, I think adding them next to the DVD Release Date in the General Info window would be best.

So it would look like this:

This is a fantastic idea!

I personally wouldn't require a separate line and think this placement is perfect.

As for the data, I would prefer a distinct list

Ditto with the answers so far. Definately need a Distributor field, and it should be a seperate list. It should go with the release info, similarly to what's already been posted, although a seperate line might be nice.
Do we really need two fields? If it's released by Eclipse then it's released by Eclipse not Criterion isn't it?
I don't think that this needs to be made too complicated.

Or maybe include the parent company in brackets so we would have in the distributor list:

Criterion
Eclipse (Criterion)
Media Blasters
Tokyo Shocki (Media Blasters)
Shriek Show (Media Blasters)

While a Distributor field is badly needed I do question whether we really need a Producer field. I can't say it's something which I would find particularly useful. Plus where would the information come from for the majority of titles? AFAIK very few DVDs actually list the Producer. Unless the information is available somewhere for the majority of DVDs then I don't see the point of it.

Quoting goodguy:

Quote:
Also, FHarlock made a valid point regarding DVD production/distribution. We should carefully consider what we want to show up here, or allow for multiple entries.

I would call the field "DVD label". Example: On the spine and back cover of "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" we find the logo of "Touchstone Home Entertainment" which is the relevant name IMO for the DVD label. Whereas the DVD distribution company is "Buena Vista Home Entertainment".

In my eyes this is a "Touchstone" DVD.

Why can't anything be easy! 

I think it just needs to be the Distributor and that's it.