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 TheMadMartian Page: 1 2 3 ...5  Previous   Next
Message Details
I am going to disagree with you and say that the rules are absolutely clear on this.

For individual film releases the rule is:
Quote:
For DVDs with more than one rating shown (e.g. a DVD which includes an R and Unrated version), use the highest applicable rating with the following scale...

That rule does NOT apply to Box Sets.  We know this because, in the introduction, the rules say that "there are two special cases where the rules need clarifications.  Where you see the icons shown below, refer to the special instructions at the end of this document. These are titled Movie Box sets and TV Series on DVD."

Based on that, for Box Sets, we must refer to the Box Set special instructions:
Quote:
If the Box Set has a rating, use it in the profile. If it does not, use NR as the rating. Exception: If any disc in the set is rated Adult, list the set as Adult

So, based on that rule, the only time a Box Set gets a rating, other than NR, is if the set itself has a rating OR if one of the films is rated Adult.

Again, it seems pretty clear to me.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 35, Topic Views: 1201
Quoting nuoyaxin:
Quote:
I think one factor for a Musical is, that he songs are plot related, almost replacing dialog for 5 minutes. So, things like Blues Brothers are not Musical (although Music could be argued here) and neither is Dirty Dancing (to my knowledge, I have never seen it).

So, if it was me, I would classify as follows:

Dirty Dancing neither
Moulin Rouge! Musical
Walk the Line maybe Music, nit Musical
The Blues Brothers not Musical, but maybe Music
Blues Brothers 2000 not Musical, but maybe Music
Ray Music
The Blues Brothers Double Feature not Musical, but maybe Music
American Dreamz don't know about this one
A Mighty Wind don't know about this one
Footloose neither
The Wedding Singer neither (just a guy singing at weddings doesn't make a Musical)
Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit: don't know about this one

I agree with all of this, though I will add that Sister Act 2 is similar to The Wedding Singer.  The movie is about a choir and the singing is them performing, not replacing dialogue.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 17, Topic Views: 412
If everything Kattonia says is true, then the non-slipcover release should be contributed using the alternate version rules.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 248
Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote:
What about cases where the DVD of the film has all the extras and the bluray is barebones?

I treat it the same way I do sets where the film is on one disc and all the special features are on a separate disc...list them all in the main profile and move on.  I don't need Profiler to list which disc contains the special features, just what the special features are.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 18, Topic Views: 517
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
Sorry, did not mean to confuse, just wanted to point out, that a prefix is NOT additional information, but most of the time a limiting factor.

I assumed that my post would be taken in the context of the thread it was posted in.  My mistake.

Quote:
The only example, where the prefix raises the importance, is the personal make-up guy. In all other cases the prefix lowers the importance of the function (additional, assistant, unit, etc.) or completly changes the meaning (still photographer, foley mixer, ...).

This seems like a reasonable statement when you limit it to the prefixes you list.  It is not, however, a reasonable state3ment when we include other types of credits that are out there...Zombie Make-up, Robotic Special Effects, Miniature Special Effects Supervisor, etc.  Those credits, which I have seen, add additional information to the credit without lowering the importance of the function.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 649
There is not enough information in the first post to answer this question.  Did they repackage each season or take the existing seasons and put them in a larger set?

The answer to that question determines how whether or not you use alternate profiles.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 16, Topic Views: 675
Quoting mreeder50:
Quote:
I voted to allow them because an Art Director is an Art Director whether they have a prefix or not.

I agree with this.  For me, the prefix does not detract from the credit, it just adds additional information.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 32, Topic Views: 649
Personally, I like it just the way it is.  When I purchase a specific release, I do so based on the Blu-ray.  The DVD, much like the digital copy, is just a bonus and I do not profile it.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 18, Topic Views: 517
Unfortunately, this is not an easy question to answer.  Per the rules, because it is a set "where multiple complete TV seasons/series (each with distinct UPC/EAN) are packaged together, the Box-set rules are applied, treating each season/series like a single film - applying the TV Series rules for its individual profile."

Per the Box Set Rules, you can only create child profiles for bonus discs if they apply to the entire set.  If they are only for a specific season, then they can't be profiled.

However, if they can be profiled, you can't profile the box, just each individual disc and they would be attached to the main box parent profile.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 163
The answer to this question depends on what your definition of 'feature film' is.  While I might consider a TV movie, a feature film, I would not consider a one hour episode, from an anthology series, a feature film.  But that's just me.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 478
Quoting Merrik:
Quote:
I would agree that this would fall under these parts of the rules. Thanks for putting them here Kathy. The rules really don't tell us to use the title from the front cover, not the back cover, period at all really. There's many instances where we refer to different areas to get the title we end up entering.

I have to disagree, this is not covered by any of the rules that Kathy listed as there is no possessive nor is there a period, dash, or other symbol on the cover.

Subtitles are not specifically covered by the rules, though most people seem to be handling them the same way they would an episode descriptor.  For the record, I am fine with that.  It would, however, be nice if it were added to the rules.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 17, Topic Views: 1362
It seems that these discs are being used in multiple sets.  In order to not mess up the previous set, you need to create an alternate version of the profile for your set.  The instructions, and rules, can be found here.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 394
Quoting Merrik:
Quote:
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
I think it really depends on who owns the title and is voting.  I hate to admit it, but I've gotten the sense over the years, whether right or wrong, that most people just vote yes unless it's something they blatantly know is wrong.


100% agree, without question.

Indeed, that has been the trend for quite a few years now.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 41, Topic Views: 1006
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
So it sounds like there isn't a perfect way to always distinguish the theatrical release studio and production company from the film credits?

No, there is no perfect way so, if memory serves, it was decided, way back during the Intervocative days, to just copy them in the order they are presented in the credits.  The main reason was for ease of entry as the average user won't want to research, nor do they really care about, the corporate structure of film studios.

Quote:
What about a Disney film which may state Walt Disney Pictures presents?  Walt Disney Pictures is considered a production company where as Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is considered the distributor.

This is actually a good example for the above.  Until recently, most...if not all...films produced by Disney were distributed by a variation of Buena Vista Distribution.  Some users argued, successfully I might add, that because it wasn't a 'studio', it couldn't be entered.  So, again, for ease of entry, and to end the bickering, it was agreed upon to just enter them as listed.

Is it perfect?  No.  Does it convey the information?  I think so.  I mean, honestly, how many people really care that films produced by Twentieth Century Fox are actually released by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation? 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 41, Topic Views: 1006
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
In most cases the theatrical release studio can be found toward the very end of the film credits near the MPAA certificate number.

Actually, in most cases, the theatrical release studio can be found in the opening credits, followed by the word 'presents'.  For example, "Twentieth Century Fox presents".

What is found towards the very end of the film credits, near the MPAA certificate number, is the copyright holder which may, or may not, be the same as the theatrical release studio.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 41, Topic Views: 1006
Quoting scooterberwyn:
Quote:
Because the Contribution Rules specify that we are to "use the title from the front cover," I vote for "Kong Skull Island" without the colon.  If we allow punctuation that isn't there to be added, then why a colon and not a hyphen or some other mark?

Perhaps that section of the Rules needs to be changed, but until it is, the rules should be followed as is. If we don't, what's the point of having them?

The rules say to "use" the title from the front cover, not "copy" the title from the front cover.  It is a long standing practice to add the colon for subtitles.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 17, Topic Views: 1362
I would go with the published release date.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 480
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:
Quote:
I don't think that's really the salient information in most cases. Would listing Star Wars, which was made by American and British people for a primarily American and British audience as Tunisian really mean much? I think who it was made by and for are the important info here, not where they shot.

It depends on your point of view and the movie in question.  Lord of the Rings was made by a New Zealand company, in New Zealand, for a global audience.  It has an American and New Zealand CoO because New Line had editorial control.  That information, for me, is useless.  What's important, to me, is that it was shot in New Zealand.

In my opinion, in todays global film making economy, the CoO of the production company becomes less and less important...assuming it ever was.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 1099
For ease of use, I would say to just allow the CoO to be based on all of the companies involved...it's how IMDb seems to do it.

For me, it's useless information anyway, so why make it more complicated than it needs to be?  In my opinion, it is far more interesting to know where the movie was filmed, rather than where the production company is based.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 1099
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
Because it is a boxset. The fact, that the children are optional, does not affect the fact, that it is a box set.

Except the rules specifically state that they are to be entered as a normal profile.  That being the case, Box Set rules do not apply.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 1123
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:
Quote:
The rule on this says

Quote:
Sets containing the same film on multiple media types (such as a Blu-ray/DVD combo pack) are to be entered as a normal profile for the main media type (Blu-ray in this example)


It's been since established that the 3D Blu-ray is the main media type in these sets.

While that may be true, it does not trump the rating rule.

Let's take the example that prompted my 'no' vote, which in turn prompted you to PM me asking me to add my opinion to this thread, which I am now regretting: The Wolverine: Unleashed Extended Edition.

It is sold as an unrated, extended edition so should have an NR rating in the only profile that is required.

I feel I should also point out the fact that it has also been established that 3D is not a media type at all, there is no '3D Blu-ray' media check box, so what we really have here are two Blu-rays with different 'video formats'. 
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 1123
Quoting Floorwalker:
Quote:
When you give a positive or negative vote, is the person receiving it aware of it?  Or, is it something tracked only by the website? 

I'm a little late to the party, but if I remember correctly, you used to be able to see negative votes just like you can for positive ones.

If memory serves, it caused more problems than it resolved, so that function was removed and now you can only see positive votes and only Invelos sees the negative.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 10, Topic Views: 1047
Unlike run time, there is no specific requirement that the different versions be on the same disc for the rating.  The rule simply states:

For localities which offer it as a choice, enter "Unrated" for DVDs which: Contain an alternate version of a film which received a theatrical rating, and which have no rating or are marked "NR" or "Not Rated"

If a set is released as an 'Unrated' edition, because the child profiles are optional, that is the rating the set should receive.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 1123
The R1 Blu-ray has a different cover so should have a different title...unfortunately.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 600
Quoting scooterberwyn:
Quote:
I would have sworn that the Contribution Rules used to state that in the case of 20th Century-Fox, "20th" should always be spelled out as "Twentieth" instead.  It wasn't too long ago either.  Was I imagining it?  I can't find that instruction now.

The credit that indicates the copyright studio is always "Twentieth", not "20th", so that's what I always use for the Studio name.

I do not believe that was ever in the rules...at least not that I can remember.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 28, Topic Views: 2503
Invelos Forums->Posts by TheMadMartian Page: 1 2 3 ...5  Previous   Next