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->Posts by ObiKen Page: 1  Previous   Next
Message Details
Here are two potential remedies gleaned from past forum discussions on the matter:

Option 1:
Right click the DVDP icon and select "Run as Administrator", click YES option.


Option 2:
Double click the DVDP icon and press the CTRL key down and keep it down until a "Selective Startup" box appears.
Select "Diagnostic Startup" and click OK.

Hope that helps.
Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 26
Quoting Lithurge:
Quoting GreyHulk:
Quoting ObiKen:
My understanding is the rule for country of origin states to use the production companies in the order they appear in the credits.

Yet, in this case, they are clearly in the wrong order in the credits.

And hasn't it always been the case we follow the rules regardless?

Clearly the film makers thought this was the correct order, regardless of profiler rules or wikipedia.

This is my understanding:

The multilateral "Co-Production" credit in Casino Royale (2006) was a requirement of Article 12 in the "European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production": https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/502395

Article 2 in the convention states a co-production must comprise of at least three (3) co-production companies from three signatory countries of the convention. In addition, a fourth party that is NOT a signatory country of the convention may be added, as long as their contribution is kept below 30% of the film's production cost.

So when I see the credit "A UK - Czech - Ger - US Co-Production", I see the three signatory countries of the convention listed first followed by the non-signatory country.

On the other hand, the listing of production company names in the film's opening/end credits was the sole responsibility of the producer(s), not the "European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production".

Hope that explains the discrepancy.
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 2049
Quoting Wes Carpenter:
Seriously guys? The end credits make a definite and first hand statement about the countries of origin (see the screenshot above), and you want to change that?

My understanding is the rule for country of origin states to use the production companies in the order they appear in the credits.
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 2049
Based on the sequence of production company names in the opening/end credits and copyright (see NOTES), I would list the companies and country of origin as follows:

Columbia Pictures Industries
Eon Productions

United Kingdom
United States
Czech Republic

Hope that helps.

[1] Film credits and copyright:
02:23:38 > Casino Royale © 2006 Danjaq, LLC, United Artists Corporation and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
02:24:21 > A UK - Czech - Ger - US Co-Production
                Made by Eon Productions Ltd. and Casino Royale Productions Ltd.

[2] Production companies in order of appearance:
• EON PRODUCTIONS LTD. ==> (UK): https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/00697555
• DANJAQ, LLC ==> (USA): https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/199701010026
• STILLKING FILMS ==> (Czech): https://filmcommission.cz/en/director/stillking-films/

• CASINO ROYALE PRODUCTIONS LTD ==> (UK): https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05507180
• CASINO ROYALE US LLC ==> (USA): https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/200528710065
• BABELSBERG FILM GmbH ==> (Germany): https://opencorporates.com/companies/de/G1312_HRB8051

[3] Film copyright displayed full company name for release studio tradename "Columbia Pictures":
    https://uspto.report/TM/72441192 (rules state not to truncate the company name).

[4] Film's copyright registration (https://uspto.report/copyright/12124053) showed Danjaq, LLC, United Artists Corporation and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. were "employers for hire", that is, they were the authors of the film, which makes them production companies as well.
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 2049
My understanding is MGM's "VINTAGE CLASSICS" was a collection of classic films from the (1930s-60s), which was used to differentiate it from MGM's "CONTEMPORARY CLASSICS" collection of classic films from the (1960s-90s): https://dvd.fandom.com/wiki/MGM_Contemporary_Classics

• Here is a MGM VHS promo highlighting the two collections for sale (refer 1:22 mark):

• Here is a MGM "Contemporary Classics" VHS promo (refer 0.55 - 1:02 mark):

  The voiceover stated: "MGM Contemporary Classics. What great movies are all about. Collect them all"

Both VINTAGE CLASSICS and CONTEMPORARY CLASSICS were different collections of classic films from MGM's library, and the rules state collections can be considered for the edition field.

The rules do not state the word "Collection" must be part of the edition name.
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 1718
Quoting GSyren:
Secondly, nowhere on the cover does it actually say "MGM Vintage Classics". There is a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer logo but it doesn't actually say "MGM" and it's clearly separated from "Vintage Classics".

The logo should not be considered as part of the edition.

Some of the earlier VHS tapes that used the same "VINTAGE CLASSICS" title had a MGM/UA logo, for example, "The Apartment":
DVD ==> https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-Jack-Lemmon/dp/B00003CX8V
VHS ==> https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-VHS-Jack-Lemmon/dp/6304308396

Interpreting Metro's "VINTAGE CLASSICS" range is similar to the way we treat STUDIOCANAL's range of "VINTAGE CLASSICS" films: https://vintageclassicsfilm.co.uk/

The only instance I've found where the edition is the logo and text is "20th Century Fox Cinema Archives", not "Cinema Archives". It is actually a registered trademark name: https://uspto.report/TM/85979859
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 1718
Quoting trystero:

Some of the approved profiles specify Paramount Pictures as the Media Company, while others just use Paramount. I'd like to make them all consistent, but I'm not sure which entry to standardise on. The contribution rules suggest using the name from the logo (Paramount) or the credit block (Paramount Pictures), so there's some ambiguity as to which name is correct.

The rules state: "Some companies (using similar but different names) may serve more than one function. List such companies only once, using the name from the logo."

So what were the multiple company names listed on the back cover that triggered this rule?

I could only find one media company listed (copyrights by Paramount Pictures) at the bottom of the back cover.

In addition, isn't "Paramount" a truncation of "Paramount Pictures"?
The rules state: "Do not abbreviate Studio or Media Company names. e.g, use Universal Pictures not just Universal"

Just my two cents in the ambiguity slot machine. Hope it helps.
Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 1441
"48 HRS." is a registered trade mark by Paramount Pictures Corporation: https://uspto.report/TM/74014418

Here is a specimen example from the trademark registration: https://uspto.report/TM/74014418/SPE20110622140520#1

Please note the title for the sequel is displayed as "Another 48 HRS."

Accordingly, I voted "48 HRS." (and likewise for the sequel, "Another 48 HRS.").
Topic Replies: 3, Topic Views: 3928
Quoting deepred:
- If not, maybe you unwillingly answered "no" when the software offered you to add the sub-profiles to your collection. In that case, I admit I'm not sure how you can download them afterwards.

In this case, i would recommend the following solutions:
highlight the parent profile and press CTRL+F12 keys together (that is, hold down the CTRL key and press the F12 function key).

• Alternatively, highlight the parent profile and use the DVD Profiler top menus:
  "Online" ==> "Refresh DVD from Invelos" ==> "Check for Child Profiles"
Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 1996
Quoting ObiKen:
Same here, I have nine (9) new profiles approved on 02-Mar-2024 that have not been released.

I suspect the process for generating the online database file ("OnlineList.dod") is either off-line or broken.

The process for generating the online database file appears to be operational now.

All nine profiles approved on 02-Mar-2024 have now been released. In addition, another two profiles approved on 06-Mar-2024 were released.

I also carried out a complete download of the OnlineList.dod file (CTRL+"Refresh Online Profile List") successfully with no error message. One thing I noted during the download was the higher download speed I was getting from the new server (5Mbps).
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 2020
Quoting GSyren:
I tested renaming my OnlineList.dod and OnlineListSel.dod, and sure enough I could not download new versions of these, and could not add new titles. Renamed back and everything worked.

So it would seem that unless you have uncorrupted versions of these files, you're currently out of luck. 

Hopefully this will soon be fixed.

There is another knock-on effect, any profile submitted that subsequently gets approved, will not get released, because the approved profile changes can no longer be parsed into the non-existent online database file!
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 2268
Same here, I have nine (9) new profiles approved on 02-Mar-2024 that have not been released.

I suspect the process for generating the online database file ("OnlineList.dod") is either off-line or broken.
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 2020
I suspect there is/was an alternate profile in the system.

Once that is released, you should be OK to submit your updates.

Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 2020
I am running Windows 11 Home Edition (Version 23H2, OS Build 22631.3007) on my PC and the "Enable Audio Enhancements" check box is still available as an option. Realtek Audio is my default sound device. I would assume if your default sound device is incapable of supporting audio enhancements, it would be unavailable as an option, and be off by default.
Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 21369
The box set overview rule is an addendum to the standard rule for overviews (re: "The following Clarifications to the standard Rules need to be used:"). The first sentence is not superfluous because the standard rule only covered a simple listing of the collection contents.

The correct process is use the overview from the cover (standard rule), followed by, if applicable, the box set rule.

The end result is what Danae Cassandra described.
Topic Replies: 17, Topic Views: 4309
Added missing title:

Dark of the Sun: André Morell as "Bussier"
Topic Replies: 30, Topic Views: 16825
Added missing film title:

Gidget Gets Married (James Sikking as Mr. Johnson).
Topic Replies: 63, Topic Views: 17005
Quoting bigdaddyhorse:
So, which cut is the Barbarella BD?
It carries that PG rating on back, but everything I see says it is the original "unrated" version.
Has the actual PG version been on home video?

I can only conclude that the PG rating was for the 98 minute film found on the Blu-ray disc, as CARA rules prohibit the distributor from using the PG rating for different versions of the film.

Please remember the film was never rated on its initial theatrical release in the US, so any re-release of the film in the US by a member of the MPA (that is, Paramount) needed to be submitted for a rating. There was no evidence that the film was cut in 1977 in order to get a PG rating from CARA.

Here is an example of a film (The Owl and the Pussycat) that was re-edited in order to get a PG rating:

On the other hand, Barbarella's PG rating was based on it being a re-issue (not a re-edit):

The subsequent home media releases in the USA from 1979 to 2012 for Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy had the same rating (PG) and runtime (98 mins):

1979 Betamax
1980 VHS
1981 Laser disc (Pan & Scan)
1993 Laser disc (Widescreen)
1999 DVD
2012 Blu-ray

Hope that clarified the matter.
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 2851
Quoting The Movieman:
So I was wondering, if the rating on the back is Not Rated but going to filmratings.com (where they have a database of ratings, and is the site recommended by the MPA) has something different (in the case of Barbarella, PG), which do we go with? Just to note, the new 4K release does not have a different cut while the older Blu-ray does have the PG rating on the back.

In the past, like for the profile on The Art of War where it says PG-13 but the actual rating was R, we went with the latter. Would the same go here or do we go with Not Rated?

Barbarella was initially released in the USA on 10-Oct-1968, whilst the MPAA (now MPA) introduced the motion picture rating system on 01-Nov-1968. So, the film on initial release was unrated.

The CARA "PG" rating for Barbarella refers to the 1977 re-issue (https://www.filmratings.com/Search?filmTitle=barbarella). It was marketed as "Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy".

The 4K disc release was based on a 4K scan of the original camera negatives, not the 1977 re-issue print.

As per CARA rules, a rating certified by CARA for a motion picture may not be used in connection with the exhibition (theatrical) or distribution (home media) of any different version of that motion picture."

As per Invelos rules, Not Rated with blank rating descriptor in the 4K profile. Hope that helps.
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 2851
Quoting GSyren:
Just FYI, Kvack, MonoCheck is a good tool for finding out if a two-track encoding is actually mono.

Yes, MonoCheck is a very simple and effective tool for 2.0 audio tracks, however, there is one small caveat when using it.
On Windows 11, make sure "Enable audio enhancements" for the speakers is DISABLED.

To verify the setting on Windows 11, follow the procedure described below:

Press Win + R keys to open the Run Command dialog box.
Type mmsys.cpl and press Enter key.
Select Speakers and click Properties button
Select Advanced tab

In the section titled "Signal Enhancements", make sure "Enable audio enhancements" is DISABLED.

If its enabled then when the audio track is 2.0 mono, MonoCheck may end up displaying false-positives for stereo (that is, the left and right channels may appear non-identical in magnitude and asynchronous in changes).

This is no fault of the MonoCheck program, rather, it accurately reflects the consequences of Microsoft's manipulation of the 2.0 mono track into a pseudo-stereo track.
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 3146
NCIS: The First Season ==> MICHAEL EDWARD ROSE  [.... Walter Richter] in Episode 10 "Left for Dead" end credits.
Topic Replies: 17, Topic Views: 8361
Who Was That Lady?: Harry Stradling @ 00:02:54 (Director of Photography)
Topic Replies: 28, Topic Views: 19568
The rules do not specify just the opening credits, release/production companies can also come from the end credits. In some instances, particularly with more recent films, there are no opening company text credits.
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 13230
Quoting Nosferatu:
... Even so, an edition would be unnecessary because there is no need to distinguish this from other releases of the same name, nor to indicate that this is a special release of this title.

Doesn't the rules for edition also specify collections?, namely:

"The Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs, and for indicating special versions and collections (for example The Criterion Collection, Widescreen, Full-Screen Edition, Director's Cut)."

My understanding is "3-Movie Collection" complies with the edition rule and it is no different to other valid editions such as "Double Feature" or "Triple Feature" and it also tells us there are three DIFFERENT movies in the box set, which adds significant value to the cover titles, particularly when two titles are exactly the same.
Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 7540
Quoting GSyren:
Anyway, the reason for this update is two-fold. First, I realized that the Exclude fix from version 4.4 had somehow been unfixed (or, perish the thought, it was never really fixed at all). Now it is really fixed.

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but the program has not worked for me since version 4.3.

When I run version 4.4 or 4.7 (I did not download 4.5, 4.6), the program displays zero people, but when I run version 4.3, the program displays 888 people.

I have not installed HTTPJollie on my PC and all BYC installations were based on the full installation files.

As a further test, I used the smaller "4.7.0 update" and copied those files (3 in number) to the version 4.3 program files, and the result was negative, zero people displayed.

A penny for your thoughts.
Topic Replies: 66, Topic Views: 23150
Invelos Forums->Posts by ObiKen Page: 1  Previous   Next