| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
This "title" says nothing about the content. That's a marketing issue, and has nothing to do with DVD Profiler or Invelos' contribution rules. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote:
Title of this upcoming Star Trek blu-ray set? I'm waiting for the actual cover. | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
|
| Registered: June 26, 2013 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbbbb: Quote:
Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
Title of this upcoming Star Trek blu-ray set?
I'm waiting for the actual cover. is here ...  | | | 
the real BirthYear OverView |
|
| Registered: October 30, 2011 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,870 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:
Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
How is 'Star Trek: The Compendium' stupid or impossible to get with a normal search?  This "title" says nothing about the content. Is it about TV series, movies I to X, all movies including new ones, or only new ones?
The title says that it is a Star Trek release. The fact that it doesn't say that it is a movie box set doesn't make it stupid, just limiting.
Quote:
I find CubbyUps' proposal to use the only interesting part of the cover as the only good solution.
'Star Trek + Star Trek into Darkness' is just as limiting. While it does indicate that it includes 'Into Darkness', it says noting about what the first part is. Is it about the TV series, movies I to X, all movies including new ones, or only new ones? In either case, you would have to look at the profile which would answer that question.
Quote:
"Star Trek: The Compendium" is a new example of blind use of rules againt any common sense. Who will buy this boxset ignoring what is inside ? So, please, use the content to be useful...
This is 100% dependent on your perspective. To you it makes no sense, to me it makes perfect sense.
I am still wondering how it is impossible to get with a normal search. I agree as well, it makes perfect sense to me. I googled it and this set contains Star Trek (200) and Star Trek: Into Darkness. It is a freaking box set, the child profiles will have the film titles. I see a lot of chatter over nothing. Box sets have their own unique titles like this all the time. I guess when some look for a soap box to stand on, they will find one. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think people have a perfectly legitimate position thinking that "Star Trek + Star Trek Into Darkness" should be included in the title. Denigrating their opinion does not serve anyone.
The rule says, "Use the title from the front cover". "Star Trek + Star Trek Into Darkness" is clearly on the front cover.
The rules unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) do not tell us how to determine what on the cover should be included in the "Title" to be entered into DVDP.
Arguing that NCC-1701 should be included in just infantile as it is obviously the name of the starship depicted.
It seems that this release is very similar to "Star Wars: Ewok Adventures: Caravan of Courage / The Battle for Endor" which is in the main data base just like that as opposed to "Star Wars: The Ewok Adventures".
Why can't we ever have a debate here without people feeling that the way to "win" their argument is to slam those with an opposing opinion? | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Other examples:
The Steve McQueen Boxset: Baby, the Rain Must Fall / The War Lover
Topper: Topper & Topper Returns | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Other examples:
The Steve McQueen Boxset: Baby, the Rain Must Fall / The War Lover
Topper: Topper & Topper Returns I checked both those box sets, and I would have to say that who ever contributed the titles, got it wrong. But that seems to be the norm. Do it wrong the first time and then vote no when someone wants to correct it. Seriously how can people justify the crap they contributed in the past. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Why can't we ever have a debate here without people feeling that the way to "win" their argument is to slam those with an opposing opinion? Considering you just called scotthm infantile, maybe you could answer the question.  | | | 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 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
I checked both those box sets, and I would have to say that who ever contributed the titles, got it wrong. But that seems to be the norm. Do it wrong the first time and then vote no when someone wants to correct it. Seriously how can people justify the crap they contributed in the past. You're entitled to your opinion, but why is it necessary to say that people have contributed "crap" when they most likely simply contributed data according to THEIR understanding of the Rules. Which BTW, YOU cannot say is wrong! You can only say you disagree. Which is what you SHOULD have said. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Why can't we ever have a debate here without people feeling that the way to "win" their argument is to slam those with an opposing opinion?
Considering you just called scotthm infantile, maybe you could answer the question. Even scottm would admit that his reference to NCC-1701 was a snide, sarcastic reference; thus infantile. If I thought for a minute that he was seriously suggesting that it was part of the title, my response would have been quite different! And just to be perfectly clear, I did not call scottm infantile. I said such an argument would be infantile. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
I checked both those box sets, and I would have to say that who ever contributed the titles, got it wrong. But that seems to be the norm. Do it wrong the first time and then vote no when someone wants to correct it. Seriously how can people justify the crap they contributed in the past.
You're entitled to your opinion, but why is it necessary to say that people have contributed "crap" when they most likely simply contributed data according to THEIR understanding of the Rules. Which BTW, YOU cannot say is wrong! You can only say you disagree. Which is what you SHOULD have said. no. it was wrong. |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Arguing that NCC-1701 should be included in just infantile You might want to read this thread more carefully on your second pass. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Arguing that NCC-1701 should be included in just infantile
You might want to read this thread more carefully on your second pass.
--------------- I love it when people do this. If you have something to say....say it! | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
no. it was wrong. By what standard? | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Even scottm would admit that his reference to NCC-1701 was a snide, sarcastic reference Wrong. It was stated to make the point that not all text on the front cover is necessarily part of the title. The spine (and possibly the rear cover if we could see it) suggests which part of the text on the front cover is the title. --------------- | | | | Last edited: by scotthm |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
You might want to read this thread more carefully on your second pass.
I love it when people do this. If you have something to say....say it! OK. You didn't read very carefully your first time through. --------------- |
|