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... 6 7 8 9 10 ...14  Previous   Next
Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ 1925 contribution
Author Message
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorTelecine
Regd: January 22, 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
Australia Posts: 820
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
BTW, I don't know if anyone noticed, but according to the screen cap on the first page, the title's spelling should be:

"Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ" ("The" with a capital "T").

Good catch. I missed it and have contributed the change.


Now Dan...there's something that we can agree on. How about you concede may change now.

Your change wound up being correct but your argument was wrong. If you look back several pages ago you will notice that I said as much. The subtitle argument is what was correct and "A Tale of The Christ" is clearly a subtitle according to the rules.


Thanks Dan but we still have the sticky Edition being "1925 Version" that you are voting no to being removed. BTW, I stand by my reasoning for the subtitle change.

I guess you can go vote against my change then. I still feel the year belongs because there were multiple edits of this film released to the theaters and at least two of those variations are in the db.


I agree with your change but if mine is accepted to remove the Edition: 1925 Version, then I cannot support yours because it would put it back. Let's see how mine goes, it should be resolved one way or the other within about 24 hours. If mine is declined, I will vote for yours.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Telecine:

The outcome is pretty clear.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorTelecine
Regd: January 22, 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
Australia Posts: 820
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Telecine:

The outcome is pretty clear.

Skip


I still have hope that reason will prevail. The voters are not the final arbiters and I might get some more yes votes.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorRHo
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 2,759
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
BTW, I don't know if anyone noticed, but according to the screen cap on the first page, the title's spelling should be:

"Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ" ("The" with a capital "T").

Yes, but the rules tell us not to use the capitalisation from the cover.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantDan W
Registered: May 9, 2002
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 980
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
BTW, I don't know if anyone noticed, but according to the screen cap on the first page, the title's spelling should be:

"Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ" ("The" with a capital "T").

Yes, but the rules tell us not to use the capitalisation from the cover.




I think you missed this earlier post.

Quoting Caroline:
Quote:
I am entering the religious discussion!!

In this instance I would disagree. The title is referring to, IMHO, a name, where that name is "The Christ".
In Christianity, we always refer to Him with capitalisations for everything like "The Lord" etc. Therefore, I would say that for this title it should be "Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ"



How's that for sparking a debate?


And this one....

Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Caroline's right - when I was taught english in school I was taught that when referring to God or Jesus, you would always capitalise, so Him instead of him, or The Son instead of the son, etc..
I don't know if other religions do the same?
Dan
 Last edited: by Dan W
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantDan W
Registered: May 9, 2002
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 980
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
BTW, I don't know if anyone noticed, but according to the screen cap on the first page, the title's spelling should be:

"Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ" ("The" with a capital "T").

Good catch. I missed it and have contributed the change.


Now Dan...there's something that we can agree on. How about you concede may change now.

Your change wound up being correct but your argument was wrong. If you look back several pages ago you will notice that I said as much. The subtitle argument is what was correct and "A Tale of The Christ" is clearly a subtitle according to the rules.


Thanks Dan but we still have the sticky Edition being "1925 Version" that you are voting no to being removed. BTW, I stand by my reasoning for the subtitle change.

I guess you can go vote against my change then. I still feel the year belongs because there were multiple edits of this film released to the theaters and at least two of those variations are in the db.


I agree with your change but if mine is accepted to remove the Edition: 1925 Version, then I cannot support yours because it would put it back. Let's see how mine goes, it should be resolved one way or the other within about 24 hours. If mine is declined, I will vote for yours.

Don't forget, yours has a typo in it.
Dan
 Last edited: by Dan W
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorTelecine
Regd: January 22, 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
Australia Posts: 820
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
BTW, I don't know if anyone noticed, but according to the screen cap on the first page, the title's spelling should be:

"Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ" ("The" with a capital "T").

Good catch. I missed it and have contributed the change.


Now Dan...there's something that we can agree on. How about you concede may change now.

Your change wound up being correct but your argument was wrong. If you look back several pages ago you will notice that I said as much. The subtitle argument is what was correct and "A Tale of The Christ" is clearly a subtitle according to the rules.


Thanks Dan but we still have the sticky Edition being "1925 Version" that you are voting no to being removed. BTW, I stand by my reasoning for the subtitle change.

I guess you can go vote against my change then. I still feel the year belongs because there were multiple edits of this film released to the theaters and at least two of those variations are in the db.


I agree with your change but if mine is accepted to remove the Edition: 1925 Version, then I cannot support yours because it would put it back. Let's see how mine goes, it should be resolved one way or the other within about 24 hours. If mine is declined, I will vote for yours.

Don't forget, yours has a typo in it.


Well if I resubmit it with the title Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ but removed 1925 Version from the edition would you vote yes? I doubt it. You may need some yes votes yet as I suspect you will get plenty of no votes.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantDan W
Registered: May 9, 2002
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 980
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
No, I won't vote yes to yours. The version year should be there.
Dan
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Neither will I, telecine and it appears over half of the voters will vote No as well. Must you be hit in the head with a brick.

SAkip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorTelecine
Regd: January 22, 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
Australia Posts: 820
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Neither will I, telecine and it appears over half of the voters will vote No as well. Must you be hit in the head with a brick.

SAkip


Skip,

That is a rather insulting and unnecessay comment.

The vote count is 5 yes and 6 no. There were more yes than no votes yesterday with the same number of voters. No doubt some lobbying has occurred. The current position hardly makes it an overwhelming result one way or the other.

I pause to note that other than the silent version of The Ten Commandments, it is in a category of one in using the year in the Edition field rather than relying on the Production Year. In my view and that of five other voters, that is not a proper use of that field and is against the current rules.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantDan W
Registered: May 9, 2002
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 980
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
You're forgetting "The Thief of Bagdad".

Multiple versions are available of that film as well.

Just wait until we see "Wings" released in regions 1 & 2.
Dan
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorTelecine
Regd: January 22, 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
Australia Posts: 820
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
You're forgetting "The Thief of Bagdad".

Multiple versions are available of that film as well.

Just wait until we see "Wings" released in regions 1 & 2.


Well someone better change the rules because it makes no sense at present when we have production years.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Well some of your has been pretty insulting as well.

"I still have hope that reason will prevail." For example

Whose sense of reason, YOURS is the only one that counts, I think NOT. I personally think you are being completely irrational. The only thing i have seen you say that does make sense is relative to the Rules. but you also need to recognize that the Rules are addressing a moving target, due to things that we learn that were not considered, tricks Holywood plays on us and so on and this will always be true.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantDan W
Registered: May 9, 2002
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 980
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
You're forgetting "The Thief of Bagdad".

Multiple versions are available of that film as well.

Just wait until we see "Wings" released in regions 1 & 2.


Well someone better change the rules because it makes no sense at present when we have production years.





I think I see what's going on. You are fixating on the production year when this isn't what I'm talking about. Each of these "versions" were "produced" the same year. They were re-released later with some sort of change. These versions are being released to DVD separately. Very much like Star Wars, technically, they are the same film but the modifications make them different.

We went through this a couple of years ago with Star Wars but too many people were against "making a rule for one movie". I mentioned, then, that there were a fair number of films this effects but they didn't seem to believe me. Now that more of the silent era films are being released to DVD, this exact issue will come up more and more.

If we deal with it this way, we don't have to add a new field and we can quickly see the version without having to research the film/DVD or search the profile for elusive indicators.
Dan
 Last edited: by Dan W
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorTelecine
Regd: January 22, 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
Australia Posts: 820
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Well some of your has been pretty insulting as well.

"I still have hope that reason will prevail." For example

Whose sense of reason, YOURS is the only one that counts, I think NOT. I personally think you are being completely irrational. The only thing i have seen you say that does make sense is relative to the Rules. but you also need to recognize that the Rules are addressing a moving target, due to things that we learn that were not considered, tricks Holywood plays on us and so on and this will always be true.

Skip


I can see how you might be insulted by that comment but it wasn't intended that way. Your comment on the other hand well.......
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
BTW you also say that "obviously some lobbying has occurred". Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but you chose to make this a public discussion...did you not. I haven't spoken to anyone other than Dan, who I speak to usually on a daily basis on the phone. So, why do you think lobbying has occurred, are not users capable of reading the informatiuon in this thread and reaching their own conclusions. You won one part, of this discussion, you are losing the second part, and I don't think your persistence is aiding your cause.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1... 6 7 8 9 10 ...14  Previous   Next