 |
|
|
|
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->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5  Previous Next
|
|
Method to determine the "production year" |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,678 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
[...] Take a look at ANY movie database, or ANY movie reference guide, and try to find even one that isn't organized around the theatrical release date. It's simply ludicrous to think we are smarter than the entire world on this, especially that part of the world that MAKES the movies!
How about IMDB? Just look up "Cani arrabbiati" by Mario Bava. They list it as "1974" even though it was first released in 1998. Now, I haven't checked the copyright year, but it is patently obvious that IMDB is not fixated on theatrical release year.
You are leaving out important information. While they do list it as Cani arrabbiati (1974), if you look at the profile for the film it clearly states: Release Date:25 February 1998 (USA). As a matter of fact, they have that bit of information on every profile.
I don't know why you would leave that out other than to bolster your claim that they don't care about theatrical release year.  I didn't say that they don't care about it. I said that they're not fixated on it. It's listed as "Cani arrabiati (1974)". So obviously to them it's a film from 1974. Rifter said "try to find even one that isn't organized around the theatrical release date". Well, I found one that isn't organized around the theatrical release date. The biggest movie database there is, I think. It does indeed mention release date, but it's certainly not organized around it. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 |  Posts: 824 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hydr0x: Quote:
What kind of reasoning is that? Yes, the rule contradicts the field name. But that leaves two choices, and not one as you seem to want make us believe. options: You got me... I wasn't trying to state my opinion. I was trying to "make everyone believe" that my opinion is the only one that counts. Damn you for foiling my brainwashing scheme!  Quoting hydr0x: Quote:
1) Change the field name
2) Change the rule for the content
both work, but the question is which is better (in terms of validity AND of ease of use) Pfft... changing the text label for a field is hardly "work." The answer (IN MY **OPINION**) is the field label/name... it makes the data fit the field ("validity") and it means no data has to be changed or entered any differently than it has in the past ("ease of use"). That should be a no brainer!  | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,946 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm in for using the copyright date. This is something you can verify by watching the movie. Just sit through the end credits and one of the last things to appear is the copyright date. Now the theatrical release date is easy to verify for the new movies, but how do you verify the release date for older movies. Here you have to rely on information coming from 3rd parties which may be incorrect anyway. So I'd rather use a correct copyright date then a "maybe correct" release date. | | | View my collection at http://www.chriskepolis.be/home/dvd.htm
Chris |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
I have yet to see a discussion that only concentrates on weighing the pro and con of a suggested rule change or implementation of a new rule and stays away from belittleing other users and calling their points of view inferior.
I'm talking about basic logic and common sense. You either have it or you don't. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Thank you for so elaborately proving my point. Darn, it must be really hard for you to think a sec or two before hitting the keys.... 
Are you trying to be dense on purpose, or is it just an accident of birth? I didn't refer to anybody specifically, did I? If you think I was, then obviously you have a guilty conscience. Facts can be troublesome things, can't they? As much as I like banging heads with people online, this is not one of those occasions. I'm dense on purpose sometimes, no need to be concerned about what happened on my birthday... (btw., another unnecessary snide remark, but it was expected, since I'm talking to you). What I said to begin with does not defy logic or common sense, it's merely the way discussions are usually done, or should be. Don't bother trying to understand that concept, since it actually requires social skills, common sense, the ability to regard other people's POVs and arguments as equally worthy of consideration, and some other things as well. You seem to lack a lot of these requirements, judging from your last posts. If you're quoting me, replying to a comment I made, and connecting a neutral remark about the sad course discussions in these forums all too often take with the challenge of me not being able to apply logic and common sense, then, yes, I do think you're referring to me (apart from maybe everyone else in general). But then again, me not being an American, I'm probably too stupid to catch the finesse you apply to your use of the English language and am just too dumb to follow your thought patterns, due to a lack of background knowledge of American langugae culture. And now you're probably going to back track a few posts again and tell me to wear the shoe if it fits.... don't bother... | | | | Lutz |
| | Registered: April 4, 2007 | | Posts: 883 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting gardibolt: Quote:
I can understand the clarity of the copyright date, but that's not useful information as far as I'm concerned, note: I noticed you are just stating your POV, just trying to point out what the use of a copyright year is to those who don't see it (yet) the production year (=copyright year in general) tells you / allows you to find out: - in which order did a certain director create his movies, in which order did a certain actor participate in his movies - what technical possibilities where there at the time of shooting - what was the political and social situation at the time of production - who was in charge of the studio at that time? - how old were the participating people - what could have influenced the movie, what couldn't contrary to this the release date tells you: - in which order movies of a certain person were released (but what does that tell you???) - what happened after the movie was released, could it have had any influence on society I honestly can't find any other "pros" for theatrical release date, but I'd like to hear about any I'm missing. Currently I see a strong advantage on the production side... | | | | - Jan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Touti: Quote:
With all the post production work done on modern movies, they never come out the year they were shot is always at least a year later and often 2 or even 3. Using copyright year would put almost every Oscar/Golden Globe/Canne winner of the last 15 years in a different year than the one they were rewarded.
Have you actually tested this "theory". I would be quite surprised to find the copyright year different in the ratio that you suggest. It is one of the things that gets added to the film in post-production! | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Telecine: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Booooo, Hissssssss, public domain!!!!!!!!!!!!! Telecine, now go wash your mouth out. 
Skip
I am not a fan of films entering the public domain but it happens, even to decent films. The trouble is that no one wants to look after them once that happens and it is impossible to obtain a restored version of the film. More importantly though, we would not be able to profile them because they were no longer subject to copyright. Are you suggesting that the original copyright date would be removed from the credits of the film if it lapsed? I don't think so. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: April 4, 2007 | | Posts: 883 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Are you suggesting that the original copyright date would be removed from the credits of the film if it lapsed?
I don't think so. Well it would be possible with PD, but it's unlikely. Even more unlikely is the addition of a new copyright year, if not even illegal. Whatever, an exception for those cases could be added. | | | | - Jan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TigiHof: Quote:
Of course it would be, but since I'm only a member of the rules comittee and not the Profiler's programmer, I'm trying to make the best out of what we got. So should you, too. As part of the rules comittee, if I see a program change as the better alternative that is what I am going to suggest. If you want to do it differently, that is your choice but don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing.  Quote:
Btw, even if Ken changed the field's name, it would still be yet another field with information that can only be gathered from third party sites. So what. What does that have to do with anything? Should we change how we handle SRP because it comes from a third party? The simple fact that it has to come from a third party is not a good enough reason to change what we have been doing all this time. Change for the sake of change just doesn't make sense. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | OK, after four pages of this, I have reached a solution different from what I originally supported.
Rather than putting "copyright" date into the current "Produced" field (referred to as "Production Year" in the Rules), it would make more sense to change the name of that field (which is already populated with "Theatrical Release Year" data) to "Theatrical Release Year" and update the Rules accordingly. None of the existing data in 287,000+ profiles would have to be touched.
Then for those who want the actual production date of the film, add a field for "Original Copyright Date". Ken may opt to make this a local field to avoid 287,000 updates to the main database.
And for TV Sets, add an "Airdate" field. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | I second this approach | | | | Lutz |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | Or would an alternative be as a default to populate the "copyright date" field with the same year as is in the production year field, to cover the vast majority of situations, and then people could do updates with verification when they differ---just as a way to cut down on the massive number of updates? | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | I voted for a different method: Leave current production (theatrical) year as it is and introduce a new Year of (first) Copyright field. Which I now see that hal9g has already suggested.  | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 | | | | Last edited: by Nexus the Sixth |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting gardibolt: Quote:
Or would an alternative be as a default to populate the "copyright date" field with the same year as is in the production year field, to cover the vast majority of situations, and then people could do updates with verification when they differ---just as a way to cut down on the massive number of updates? I almost suggested that, but didn't on the same premise used in arguing not to "auto-populate" the CoO field with USA. I really can't support knowingly populating bad data into the main db. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting widescreen forever: Quote:
So let me get this right here.,, : Here is a cut and paste of Trivia of 'Casablanca' from a website-
The Allies invaded Casablanca in real life on 8 November 1942. As the film was not due for release until spring, studio executives suggested it be changed to incorporate the invasion. Warner Bros. chief Jack L. Warner objected, as he thought that an invasion was a subject worth a whole film, not just an epilogue, and that the main story of this film demanded a pre-invasion setting. Eventually he gave in, though, and producer Hal B. Wallis prepared to shoot an epilogue where Humphrey Bogart and Claude Rains hear about the invasion. However, before Rains could travel to the studio for this, David O. Selznick (whose studio owned Bergman's contract) previewed the film and urged Warner to release it unaltered and as fast as possible. Warner agreed and the premiered in New York on November 26. It did not play in Los Angeles until its general release the following January, and hence competed against 1943 films for the Oscars.
So is Casablanca 1942 or 1943 ??? , our data base reflects 1942 . Clearly 1942, in limited release. General release was in 1943. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 467 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
Since we're having this discussion, your statement that "nobody gives a damn about the copyright" is obviously and proven wrong.
While it may be true that YOU only care for the theatrical release date, other's obviously have a different take on this. Calling your preference the ONLY relevant POV is .... nah, I'm sure you got my point.
I have yet to see a discussion that only concentrates on weighing the pro and con of a suggested rule change or implementation of a new rule and stays away from belittleing other users and calling their points of view inferior.
You obviously missed mine. I said only some people here - meaning using Profiler - care about it. The rest of the WORLD uses theatrical dates. Take a look at ANY movie database, or ANY movie reference guide, and try to find even one that isn't organized around the theatrical release date. It's simply ludicrous to think we are smarter than the entire world on this, especially that part of the world that MAKES the movies! Correct me if i'm wrong. But haven't you stated before that you can't trust the people who made the movies???? |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |