Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
I want a ruling on this!!!!   

Get a lawyer and go to court!!!!!!

   

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Skip, can you please quote the part of the "bonus film" rule where you see that different cuts of a movie are not allowed. I don't think anybody in this thread was able to do that yet.

Dirk

There is only one specific example in that particular rule, dark, just one. It refers to the Ben-Hur (1925), it does not add any additional examples which might lead to your interpretation. It's very simple but in order to correctly interpret the Rule it musty be read in its entirety to have the proper context.

The rule states (bolding mine):

Quote:
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. These are not the same as Double Features or Anthology Collections which are a collection of films grouped together which require the "Box Set" contribution rules. Do not confuse "Bonus Feature Films" with "Any video documentary material regarding the film, or those associated with it." Those are Featurettes. Some examples of Bonus Feature Films are:

The problem is, the examples shown in this thread aren't single releases.

When the Blade Runner set came out, the single release of Blade Runner: The Final Cut came out. Just before the Dawn of the Dead set came out, the single release of the theatrical edition came out.

The rules obviously need an update to address these cases and cases like them, and "the one specific example" in no way addresses this situation. It's just one specific example. That's it.

Quote:
That is now. My question is should we allow something else? I haven't seen a persuasive or compelling discussion point on that yet.

And I still haven't seen you show a persuasive or compelling discussion point on why it shouldn't be allowed. The only people it would affect would be those who would want it, not those who don't, as those who don't will not have to download the child profile if they don't wish. That is enough reason why it wouldn't hurt anything to allow them. In fact it only makes more people happier.

Skip, there are 2 examples given in the rules, not just one and those 2 are called "some" not "specific" examples. My problem here is that you are talking about interpreting the rule. I don't think that is necessary here. What's there to be interpreted? The rules give 2 examples and calls them "some" examples. Now the word "some" means that there will be "other" examples and I think you are interpreting the rule here by saying that "director's cuts or different cuts" aren't allowed. I read the rules again and can't find this anywhere. Please point me directly to the part that I am interpreting.

Again Dark, you are selectively reading the Rule to create your interpretation and you are not reading the Rule in its entirety. there are indeed SOME films which meet the criteria outlined by the Rule. Blade runner is not one of them, nor is CE3K, Alien or whatever.

Skip

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Again Dark, you are selectively reading the Rule to create your interpretation and you are not reading the Rule in its entirety. there are indeed SOME films which meet the criteria outlined by the Rule. Blade runner is not one of them, nor is CE3K, Alien or whatever.

Skip

Skip, please quote the part of the rules that I am not reading here. I have asked you many times and you are not supplying me with that information which leaves me with only one conclusion. You can't show what's not there.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Again Dark, you are selectively reading the Rule to create your interpretation and you are not reading the Rule in its entirety. there are indeed SOM films which meet the criteria outlined by the Rule. Blade runner is not one of them, nor is CE3K, Alien or whatever.

Skip

Now you are just spinning. As I've said, you say yourself this is not addressed in the rules.

Not spinning they aren't, should they be? I don't know. I keep wondering why we would want whatever number of essentially duplicate listings. There is no media differenece, like a Combo set, the differences at least in the case of Blade Runner seem rather insignificant., unlike Legend and Dawn of the Dead, but should they be a Bonus Film or just a Boxset. the latter would require a Rules change, if they are treated as Boxsets (except for seamless branching disc in Blade Runner), then nothing needs to be changed. But they do not meet the current criteria of Bonus feature Film. There are not a large number of these, thank God, but Hollywood did release a number of these sets in a short period of time making it appaear to be a new trend, including some of the Universal Legacy Series, The Maltese Falcon, The Wizard of Oz and The Ten Commandments. What is the best way to handle them, I think I am beginning to lean towards just an ordinary Boxset because no changes are required...it's a simple answer and done.

Skip

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
All you have to do is READ the entire Rule, Hal. The attitude in your comment is ummmmmm pretty combative, at the least.

ummmmmm, and accusing people of 'selective reading' and 'looking for loopholes' isn't? 

Quote:
Such a comment is not only not productive and argumentative.

And comments such as, "you are selectively reading the Rule to create your interpretation," are? 

Quote:
You are not in a position to make such a definitive comment. Why must you turn every discussion into a war by making comments like this?

Neither are you and I could ask you the same exact question. 

As I am sure you are aware, Martian, there are comment s that i could add. For example, it was myself that designed the bonus Feature Film prototype that Ken accepted to begin with so I think I know what I am talking about.....hmmmmm.Hal did not design it.

I don't consider "selective reading" to be insulting or in any way attacking. It is a statement of FACT, and the only way you can achieve such an interpretation is through slectively readingh what it is that you wish to interpret, while ignoring the whole, you as a parser par excellence should undferstand that concept. <shrugs>

Skip

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
As I am sure you are aware, Martian, there are comment s that i could add. For example, it was myself that designed the bonus Feature Film prototype that Ken accepted to begin with so I think I know what I am talking about.....hmmmmm.Hal did not design it.

I know my memory isn't what it used to be, but I could have sworn that it was Dan. 

Not that it really matters.  You, or Dan, set up a profile that Invelos accepted.  Ken wrote a rule to accomidate it.  You have no idea what Ken intended when he wrote the rule.  Neither do I.  What I do know is the meaning of the words he used.  Had he wanted it to be what you claim it is, he should have used different wording.

Quote:
I don't consider "selective reading" to be insulting or in any way attacking. It is a statement of FACT, and the only way you can achieve such an interpretation is through slectively readingh what it is that you wish to interpret, while ignoring the whole, you as a parser par excellence should undferstand that concept. <shrugs>

Why is it you seem to be the only one who gets to decide what is and isn't insulting or an attack?  Seems quite convenient to me. 

Beyond that, it is not a statement of fact, it is your opinion.  No more, no less.