Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
It has already been done.  The people contributing them call it a '4 page booklet'.

And I always vote No to those.

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
Are you publicly saying that you boycott the rules, and thus our community, by denying incoherent Trailers being Features?

Are you daft?

You are asking several questions at once. First, I do not 'boycott' the rules though I tend not to agree with every interpretation put forward. Second, I have never been much of a socialiser, I believe in the wisdom of the individual over swarm intelligence [swarm intelligence is nothing but a fancy term for probability distribution].

The point of evaluations is to sort out differences in perception/interpretation, sometimes by stretching the written rules. Rules can be and have been amended. If our rules were as clear-cut as some claim them, we didn't need the community to help the screeners, we didn't even need screeners - it could all be done by algorithms.

As for 'incoherent trailers', yes, if I could just throw them away without sacrificing the actual features of the movie, I'd junk them. In this case I would never contribute them as features, though would probably stay neutral on evaluations. While the trailer[s] for the feature included, possibly even for a closely related movie - i.e. Airplane! has a trailer for Airplane " - are of real informational value in regard of the DVD purchased, unrelated trailers do not. this includes movie trailers as well as the dreaded "piracy" shorts. Can't say I've ever seen these or the Dolby or the THX shows submitted.


[Edit]
There's a minor typo in the third-last line, it should read 'Airplane 2' instead of 'Airplane "'. Sorry.

Quoting Evo2Me:

Quote:
As for 'incoherent trailers', yes, if I could just throw them away without sacrificing the actual features of the movie, I'd junk them. In this case I would never contribute them as features, though would probably stay neutral on evaluations. While the trailer[s] for the feature included, possibly even for a closely related movie - i.e. Airplane! has a trailer for Airplane " - are of real informational value in regard of the DVD purchased, unrelated trailers do not.

Although the rules don't support this, I fully agree with you. I couldn't care less about "promotional junk" - I want to know whether there's a trailer for the feature itself. Using "trailers" to cover any cross-promotional trailer effectively renders it meaningless to me. So locally, I only use it when there's actually a trailer for the film itself. Myself, and others, have asked for separation between trailers and cross-promotional trailers many, many times before, but to no avail just yet.

Back on topic: I would NEVER include a promotional flyer of some kind, nor a simple leaflet with just a chapter list. A real "booklet" with actual information about the film does generally seem to be accepted as an "other feature", though.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
Now I'm waiting til someone refers to a single sheet of paper as a small book, because the sheet has been folded in half before.

It has already been done.  The people contributing them call it a '4 page booklet'.

Actually it IS a 4-page booklet, just like two sheets of paper folded in half would be an 8-page booklet.  That's how books and booklets are made, by folding larger sheets of paper.

As far as whether booklets should be included as "other features" goes, to me it depends on what information is contained in the booklet.  If it's merely advertising, then I'd say no.  But if it includes a cast list, or articles about the making of the feature, or the kind of information like they used to call liner notes for records or CDs, then I would argue that they are other features.  My bottom line on booklets is that all are not created equal.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Actually it IS a 4-page booklet, just like two sheets of paper folded in half would be an 8-page booklet.  That's how books and booklets are made, by folding larger sheets of paper.

One important feature of books and booklets is the binding. Therefore a booklet has to be made of at least of two sheets of folded paper, which makes at least 8 pages.

Quoting Evo2Me:

Quote:
Technically one sheet of paper folded over is a folder or a 4-page flyer, depending on the page layout. As RHo says, to be a booklet [= a book with relatively few pages] it needs to be bound in some way, i.e. stitched, lumbecked, stapled.

No, not according to the dictionary.  By definition, a booket is:

Quote:
a little book; esp PAMPHLET

and a pamphlet is defined as:

Quote:
an unbound printed publication with no cover or with a paper cover

no mention of the number of pages

a flyer [flier] is:

Quote:
an advertising circular

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Evo2Me:

Quote:
As for 'incoherent trailers', yes, if I could just throw them away without sacrificing the actual features of the movie, I'd junk them. In this case I would never contribute them as features, though would probably stay neutral on evaluations. While the trailer[s] for the feature included, possibly even for a closely related movie - i.e. Airplane! has a trailer for Airplane " - are of real informational value in regard of the DVD purchased, unrelated trailers do not.

Although the rules don't support this, I fully agree with you. I couldn't care less about "promotional junk" - I want to know whether there's a trailer for the feature itself. Using "trailers" to cover any cross-promotional trailer effectively renders it meaningless to me. So locally, I only use it when there's actually a trailer for the film itself. Myself, and others, have asked for separation between trailers and cross-promotional trailers many, many times before, but to no avail just yet.

Back on topic: I would NEVER include a promotional flyer of some kind, nor a simple leaflet with just a chapter list. A real "booklet" with actual information about the film does generally seem to be accepted as an "other feature", though.

I disagree with the inlay part with only a chapterlisting. I find that interesting information for two reasons:

- Only the early editions of older titles have one. Re-issues lack these in 99% of the cases. they come with sturdier keepcases aswell.
- It is part of the packaging, just as a slipcover is. So it should be a CASING option, not a "feature" in my opinion.

Printed Promotional material is not to be considered a feature of the DVD. A very simple reason is that the same flyer will be used for more titles then the one you found it in (RCV here puts the same flyers in all their DVD's. I must have tossed a hundred of those over time). It therefore does not say anything about the DVD release but about the company which sells it and that is not interesting from a DVD profiler's point of view.

Promotional Trailers I also do find a nice addition to any DVD, provided they are for films in the same genre. These trailers can be informative as what to buy or watch next. Mind you, not everyone scavenges the internet for inspiration as to what to purchase / rent!!
These trailers make a nice alternative. I dare even say I find them more interesting then the trailer for the main feature.
Splitting them up would be a wonderful idea all the same.

-

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting Evo2Me:

Quote:
Which dictionary?

Miriam Webster New Collegiate (don't have the (c) date, though).  It was the one I could put my hands on readily.  The OED probably trumps mine, except maybe for US usage.

OED may consider pamphlet usage rare, but it isn't so in the real world. As far as I know, it's still in common usage -- at least around here (Eastern USA).

Regardless of what you call it, I think it can be considered an "other feature" if it contains information (other than advertising) of interest, such as role names, episode synopses, articles about the program material, etc.

That's what we in Holland usually refer to as an INLAY.