Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I don't throw red zingers, Tim. That's a level i don't go to, maybe you do, bu5t not me, so kindly keep your accusations to yourself.

I'll even accept your apology in advance. Thank you.

I have a real hard time believing that - only Ken will be able to see who's telling the truth. To me, especially the one on my edited contribution notes for a "20th" -> "Twentieth" profile update you voted against was a dead giveaway: the vote was 2 vs. 1 before I edited the notes to add a screenshot of the back cover plus a link to this thread (a lot of work for a simple and correct change, but there you go). As it happens, you were away for a few hours at that time. Right when a batch of forum posts showed you were back, I happened to get a negative reputation vote on those edited contribution notes (again: there's nothing even remotely objectionable there!). However, nobody else has voted on that contribution (still hasn't), so if someone other than you felt so strongly about it to give me that "red zinger" on my notes, then why didn't that person bother to actually vote on the contribution as well? I find that hard to believe. Other "red zingers" on regular posts in this thread also seem to occur right after you've posted some fuming replies, and they mostly don't contain anything that anyone but you would find offensive in any way. If I'm mistaken, I'll offer you my apologies, but if you're lying about this, well...  Again: only Ken will be able to see who's telling the truth.

As for the rest, I suggest we end this here. I probably shouldn't have even mentioned the "red zingers" - I'll apologize for that - it's just that I earned quite a few of them over this, most of which I truly felt were completely unfounded in any way. In fact: IMHO only one of them is (slightly!) justified. Strangely, the only "red zingers" I ever get are on posts in which I'm only defending myself, in debates where I turn out to be right in the end... Anyway, the matter has been settled - let's just move on.

Oh, and for the record, just to show that I'm man enough to come clean: though I use negative reputation votes very sparingly, I really don't appreciate you telling me things like "Bugger off, Tim", as you did a few pages ago - that kind of behaviour will get you one every time. I better stop posting now - I see that even this post got me another one...

most likely no updated 3.5 RC program yet.

may be, could be applied in the Invelos Database, if Ken has the time for it, and as he is so busy with the website and the new to be released software, ... who nows?

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Just wait until we get to the hard questions, like what to do with The Criterion Company, which presently is distributed by Image Entertainment, but previously was distributed by Home Vision Entertainment, and who knows who will distribute them after their deal with Image expires.

It is only a hard question if the words, "Distributed by," aren't printed on the case.  We are after the DVD Distributor and, try as some people might, you can't argue with those two words.

Indeed! I've just contributed a BVHE distributor entry for my Criterion Collection DVD of 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zizzou' - as the back cover clearly states: "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment". Is it just me, or is this all really not that hard to grasp? "The Criterion Collection" remains in the "Edition" field, of course - exactly where it belongs, IMHO.

The problem is this can change.  Early Criterions were distributed by HVE.  Now they're distributed by Image.  The UPC is the same, but I believe the name of the distributor is changed on the packaging of newer pressings.  So do we need another rule that the distributor is the one on the original release?  How is anyone supposed to figure that out?  Same thing with MGM discs, that are now distributed by Fox.

And for that matter why does anyone care whether HVE or Image is doing the marketing and order fulfilliment for Criterion?  This should be a field for the DVD production company, not the distributor.  It boggles my mind to think that under 3.5 there will be no field for The Criterion Company at all.  I'll be locking fields like crazy, and it sounds like many others will be.

Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
why does anyone care whether HVE or Image is doing the marketing and order fulfilliment for Criterion?

That's the question I have as well. To me, the producer of the DVD is way more important than what company is responsible for putting the DVDs in the stores.

Tim, since you are one of those arguing strongly for using the distributor, what is your reason for wanting the distributor instead of the company that put the DVD together? It would be interesting to hear your reasons

I'm asking since Ken has stated that he wants to listen to what people want for this new field and Tim still seems to want the distributor. That's why I ask

(And since this is a new field, there are no rules for it yet  ).

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

Actually, there are.  We are working on them, as we speak, in the Rules Forum.

I think what he means is that they aren't final & public yet (in the Rules section. In that way, there is no rule yet.

Quoting reybr:

Quote:
Tim, since you are one of those arguing strongly for using the distributor, what is your reason for wanting the distributor instead of the company that put the DVD together? It would be interesting to hear your reasons

Are you sure you're up for that? It's a rather long read...    I'll paste some stuff from what I wrote elsewhere:

IMHO, the actual DVD distributor is much easier to establish: it's stated clearly on the back of almost every single DVD cover. No room for endless arguments, and easy to enter for everyone - including the average user that doesn't consider himself a "studio buff". Even just in my own collection, I have quite a few DVD's where I'd be completely in the dark as to who the "media producer" would be.

There's also the added problem of switching rights. For instance: overe here in The Nederlands, MGM has (or had: maybe it's changed again) no distributing branch - instead all their titles are/were distributed by "Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment". They started by re-issuing a bunch of old MGM discs with new covers, in Fox's own EAN-range, but with the exact same discs as the previously available "MGM Home Entertainment" releases. Those discs indeed contain "MGM Home Entertainment" animated vignettes, so I'm guessing they'd be the "media producer"? Now those were the re-issues, but for newer releases, things changed a little. The Dutch branch of Fox still got the same source materials as supplied by MGM: in other R2-localities, the stuff would go the local branches of MGM Home Entertainment, over here it would go to Fox. Fox hardly ever tampers with the supplied content - the discs mostly contain the exact same film transfer, the exact same bonus materials, and often even the same audio tracks and subitles as, for instance, their MGM-distributed U.K. counterparts, but they replaced those pesky MGM Home Entertainment trailers/animated vignettes with their own - and who can blame 'em? Who's the "media producer" now? Technically, the source stuff is still from MGM: it doesn't sound right that a DVD with the exact same content would be able to have different "media producers" in different localities. That isn't a problem for "media distributor": of that everybody understands that it can vary from locality to locality. But for "media producer", I can see lots of problems. I'll give another Dutch example: here, the local Warner Home Video branch scrapped about 200 lesser-known (= lesser-selling) archive titles from their catalog, and licensed all of them out to a local distributor, A-Film Home Entertainment, a company that DID still see viable business in these titles. One these new discs, all references to "Warner Home Video" were removed, yet of course the "media" (film transfer + bonus features) was all still "produced" by Warner. Who's the "media producer"? I don't know. I do know what the "media distributor" is, though: it's right there on the cover. There are vast amounts of problematic titles like this - I fail to see how the average user can be trusted to establish the "media distributor" consistently, while everyone can easily find the "distributor". "Distributor" gives us "ease of entry", and virtually no problem cases whatsoever.

I also feel that the request for "media producer" is based on only a few specific issues - I'm referring to "The Criterion Collection" here. That's the main example I've seen from those that prefer "media producer": they want all their Criterion-DVD's to have "The Criterion Collection" in that field. Personally, I feel we already have that by storing "The Criterion Collection" in the very visible "Edition" field for all of them - I don't see the added bonus of listing it twice in all of those profiles. I feel it's nice that I can track TWO pieces of data: I get to have "The Criterion Collection" in the "edition" field, and the actual DVD distributor in the "distributor" field. Seems like a win-win situation to me...    Anyway - if we'd take "The Criterion Collection" out of the equasion for a minute, does it then still sound like a good idea? I don't think so. I'd hate to have to depend on a batch of on-screen DVD menu logo's which may or may not be present (trust me: some of you may not realise what local DVD distributors do with the material they've been given: you might be amazed) to have to decide what the "media producer" may be. Entering the "media distributor" is quick, easy, consistent and less prone to errors. I think it's a lot easier for a few studio buffs to deviate from the standard locally than to expect the entire, world-wide community to establish what the "media producer" is.

As an illustration: yesterday I submitted "The Criterion Collection" as a distributor to one of the R1-discs that they actually DID distribute, and I got a no-vote saying: "Isn't 'The Criterion Collection' an Edition not a Distributor?" Bottom line: while I can understand the desire from the point of view of a few connaisseurs, so to speak, I'm really afraid "media producer" would be making things too complicated for the average user. Using "media distributor" is simple, easy, fool-proof, fail-safe, and for the vast majority of profiles it'll suffice for the studio buffs as well.