Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Two side, two movies, title is irrelevant according to what i am seeing so far. Two sides have UNIQUE Disc IDs and they are nothing more than TWO discs glued together. I am only echoing the pro arguments i have seen and trying to show how utterly nuts it is. Dan you know me I don't care how many stand against me, I have gotten used to it, I am right and I have more expertise than my own on this.

Skip

No, Skip, you are wrong. Your main complaint is that people are contributing disc ID profiles at every chance they get. That isn't even close to being true. It hasn't even been proposed by anybody but you in your wild-eyed hypothetical.

Even if you did decide to contribute all of them, you would be on your own in doing so and most of us would be voting against them.

Your "consistency" argument is weak as well. You say it revolves on the fact that it's a side of a disc. Those in this thread (except you) have said that they should be done for films. A few have suggested it should be done for TV series in order to keep the profiles from becoming an unusable mess.

Sometimes you go too far and this is one of them.

I disagree, hal. The Ben-Hur prototype was set up for films an a stand alone Disc, not for this. The Rules spell out the Runtime to use for this release and it is the longer version, Mole.

Skip

Not sure i follow the question, will have to call you in a few.

Skip

"Packaging" should be irrelevant to how we profile something.

Quoting Mole:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I disagree, hal. The Ben-Hur prototype was set up for films an a stand alone Disc, not for this. The Rules spell out the Runtime to use for this release and it is the longer version, Mole.

Skip

I've only been following the Ben-Hur thread in passing (I don't have it), but I am I right in thinking that that particular scenario covers completely different movies, i.e. the older (nineteen twenties?) version, tacked on as a bonus to the Charlton Heston version in a box set? Is this correct?

OK, back to VP. Yup, I can see the logic in using the longer run-time, as it's a variant on the same film.
so this leads on to:

a) a second Jack Daniels.........don't go away now

OK, I'm back



b) the current online profile states that the run-time is 106 minutes (OK we've established that that's the one to use). However, the "additional features" states "Also includes 105 minute UK version". Notwithstanding the 1 minute discrepancy, the additional features appears to be saying that this DVD includes the 105/6 minute version...which is the one already noted in the run time.....FWIW, the US version is 98 minutes. So should be additional features state "Also includes 98 minute US version".......confusing for a R1 release....

c) what to do with the delectable Miss Rampling......the online has her credited as "Charlotte Rampling as Hitchhiker (Scenes Deleted)"......but she is "deleted" only in the US version.......in the UK version she's there (or is she "inserted" in the UK release ?).

d) Edit: I forgot the say that the audio tracks are different between the US and UK versions. So DVD wise, I suppose one could make a case for them being two different releases.

time for a third JD, I feel!


Ah, that's better.....and I'd just like to say that the Misses Mole bought me a very fine 3D jigsaw for Father's Day. It's a rather nice 8" globe, based upon a seventeeth century world globe....I had an enjoyable day putting it together in the conservatory, fueled by some excellent bottles of Shepherd Neame......I just thought you should know          

Trying to figure this out is enough to drive one to drink, or is as good as an excuse as any!! 

Quoting Mole:

Quote:
Unicus,

a small diversion...

Firstly, I'm in agreement with your thoughts above. Something that's been giving me a lot of thought....what's your take on the R1 version of Vanishing Point (0 24543 11040 8), where the US version is on side A and the UK version (with the additional scene with the uncredited Charlotte Rampling) on side B?

Do you consider this to be a box set or is the UK variant a Bonus Feature?

I've posted before on this topic....and I'm still not sure what it should be!

Two versions of the same film so, for me, I would treat it as a Bonus Feature.  HOWEVER, I would not be against using the modified box set format for this.

OK, I spent the last hour and a half + on the phone with Skip so I know where he's coming from. i still feel he's wrong but he knows that.

I'l try to make this brief.

He feels that Ken is going to change the way we profile our sets and we will be using tabs, "soon" and several of us know this is, in fact, an idea Ken is exploring. Well, we have all heard "soon" from Ken in the past so that could mean anywhere from a couple of hours to several years. For me, "soon" falls on deaf ears and I say, leave what we have alone until the "new tab system" is released.

What Skip seemed to not understand is that nobody really cares what side of a disc a film is on, other than the convenience of knowing where to find the movie. How a disc is attached to a profile really doesn't matter to most of us as long as we have the data and can find any movie in our collection and see the profile for it. Of course, we all want to track our purchases.

All this boils down to being able to run a search in DVD Profiler to find any movie in our collection and have it tell us where it is with all of it's information, including what disc and side if it's in a set. How the program does it is beside the point so long as we can track our purchases and the movies in those purchases. Programming isn't our problem, it's Ken's. I am not, and I don't think anyone else is, trying to tell Ken how to write his program. Well, some of us do once in a while but it's usually to complain that the current system is too complicated to do something simple and it takes too much work to achieve the goal.

Anyway, Skip thinks we should dump all of these multi-title profiles that are separated into more than one profile per disc because the "tab system" is "in the works" and we have dividers now.

I very much disagree. I feel we should continue doing it the way we have been doing it for the past 5+ years because we loose too much data. Once the "new system" is in place, then we can change things. Not until then.

In essence we still disagree.

Then we finally got down to what I think is really bugging Skip about this whole thing. Skip feels he will be the one who will be resetting and re-contributing all of these "corrected" profiles. I told him not to worry about it and the ones in his collection are the only one's he should be concerned with. No good, he is still bothered by the fact that we will still have so many of these "phantom profiles" in the DB and so few will be making the corrections. We all have to admit that he does more profile work than any four of us combined so I see where he's coming from but to feel he's the only one isn't correct either.

I said I was going to be brief and there was a great deal more that was argued about but that covers the main points.

So, ....... even though I won't change any of these profiles now and will oppose any change currently; if Ken actually gives us the tabs, I am willing put in some extra effort to help redo some of these profiles after the new "tab" system is in place. I'm sure I'm not alone.

Hey, I'm fine with changing our profiling habits to accommodate a future program feature, but if it's that important to Ken, he should change the rules or make some kind of announcement.  I just think it's ridiculous that this particular title has sat blank for over three years.  I know...there are plenty of incomplete profiles in the database!  Personally, my goal is the get all the ones in mine cleaned up.  When the data format changes in the future, I'll make the adjustments required because, at the end of the day, I want a database that I can use.