| Author |
Message |
 | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip, Telecine hasn't won any part of this discussion/debate. It was Squirrel's argument that proved correct. Quoting Squirrelecto: Quote:
Very often, subtitles are displayed on a separate line or in a different position to the main title, hence they don't have a colon, but they would require a colon (or hyphen) if placed on a single line.
You can see from the screen grab that "A Tale of the Christ" is displayed in a completely different font. In the book (very cool owning that Dan), it is placed several lines below the main title and in smaller sized font. Both confirm that it is a subtitle rather than a continuation of the main title.
Since we tend to favour the colon, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ would be the correct title to have in the profile.
ALMOST FAMOUS does the same thing:
As does THE EVIL DEAD:
There are many more examples. | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: 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. You are correct to a degree. Most of these so called versions are minor variations in the cutting of the film. I don't see any need to distinguish most of them. If they were significant, I believe that they would have some distinguishing trait that could use the Edition field to describe them. In the instant case, I could live with Restored Edition for example but it certainly isn't the version that was released to the public in 1925 is it? | | | | Last edited: by Telecine |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Skip,
Telecine hasn't won any part of this discussion/debate. It was Squirrel's argument that proved correct.
Quoting Squirrelecto:
Quote:
Very often, subtitles are displayed on a separate line or in a different position to the main title, hence they don't have a colon, but they would require a colon (or hyphen) if placed on a single line.
You can see from the screen grab that "A Tale of the Christ" is displayed in a completely different font. In the book (very cool owning that Dan), it is placed several lines below the main title and in smaller sized font. Both confirm that it is a subtitle rather than a continuation of the main title.
Since we tend to favour the colon, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ would be the correct title to have in the profile.
ALMOST FAMOUS does the same thing:
As does THE EVIL DEAD:
There are many more examples. Perhaps not in your mind but if you re-read page one of the thread I made the point several times that A Tale of The Christ was a subtitle, you just chose not to listen or didn't get it. |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | The copy of "Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ" included in the 4-Disc Collector's Edition is the 1925 version. It is the subsequent "versions" which had the scenes deleted, color scenes converted to b/w and/or had the sound changes.
Wings was originally released to theaters as a "silent" film in April 1927. Later, in 1927, it was released with sound effects and music. The later release was even re-marketed as a "sound" movie complete with a new 1-sheet.
It wasn't until the 1927 release of 1924's "The Thief of Bagdad" that the music from Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade was added.
Now, you may consider these changes as "minor variations" but when you see each version you realize they have a profound effect. | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Telecine: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Skip,
Telecine hasn't won any part of this discussion/debate. It was Squirrel's argument that proved correct.
Quoting Squirrelecto:
Quote:
Very often, subtitles are displayed on a separate line or in a different position to the main title, hence they don't have a colon, but they would require a colon (or hyphen) if placed on a single line.
You can see from the screen grab that "A Tale of the Christ" is displayed in a completely different font. In the book (very cool owning that Dan), it is placed several lines below the main title and in smaller sized font. Both confirm that it is a subtitle rather than a continuation of the main title.
Since we tend to favour the colon, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ would be the correct title to have in the profile.
ALMOST FAMOUS does the same thing:
As does THE EVIL DEAD:
There are many more examples.
Perhaps not in your mind but if you re-read page one of the thread I made the point several times that A Tale of The Christ was a subtitle, you just chose not to listen or didn't get it. Your argument was very different. I have read it several times. You were arguing that the colon should be added because it was listed as such on several websites and a library catalog. A very poor argument in my opinion. | | | | Dan |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | I take that back, your original argument was to remove "A Tale of The Christ" completely. Then you changed to add the colon because those websites and library catalog had it that way. | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm concerned that the precedence of retaining "1925 Version" here will have system-wide ramifications for adding "versions" to any film that has been released in more than one edition.
Earthquake (1974 Version) [there's a longer TV version]
Midway (1976 Version) or (1976 Version: Collector's Edition) or (1976 Version: Widescreen: Collector's Edition) [there's a longer TV version]
Gone With the Wind (1998 Version) [there have been many edits and aspect ratios over the years]
Saturday Night Fever (1977 Version) or (1977 R-Rated Version) or (1977 Version: 25th Anniversary Edition) [there's the PG version that was in theaters and there are different TV cuts]
Grease (1998 Version) [which blurs Coke symbols, and there are other versions with music edits]
Many TV shows are released to DVD in their syndicated (shorter) versions. Should all of those be noted in the Edition field? Should films that have been edited for television anywhere in the world be marked as original versions in case these edited versions are released to DVD somewhere?
If "1925 Version" is retained on Ben-Hur: A Tale of (t/T)he Christ", you won't be able to deny others to record specific version information in the edition fields of their favorite profiles. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
I'm concerned that the precedence of retaining "1925 Version" here will have system-wide ramifications for adding "versions" to any film that has been released in more than one edition.
Earthquake (1974 Version) [there's a longer TV version]
Midway (1976 Version) or (1976 Version: Collector's Edition) or (1976 Version: Widescreen: Collector's Edition) [there's a longer TV version]
Gone With the Wind (1998 Version) [there have been many edits and aspect ratios over the years]
Saturday Night Fever (1977 Version) or (1977 R-Rated Version) or (1977 Version: 25th Anniversary Edition) [there's the PG version that was in theaters and there are different TV cuts]
Grease (1998 Version) [which blurs Coke symbols, and there are other versions with music edits]
Many TV shows are released to DVD in their syndicated (shorter) versions. Should all of those be noted in the Edition field? Should films that have been edited for television anywhere in the world be marked as original versions in case these edited versions are released to DVD somewhere?
If "1925 Version" is retained on Ben-Hur: A Tale of (t/T)he Christ", you won't be able to deny others to record specific version information in the edition fields of their favorite profiles. Why is that a concern? We are seeing differences such as you mentioned, released and marketed separately. Does "Lord of the Rings" ring any bells? We are notating them with things such as "Extended Version". | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 211 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Does "Lord of the Rings" ring any bells? We are notating them with things such as "Extended Version". "Special Extended DVD Edition" is on the box cover, and as you say is how it was released and marketed. When another edition of the 1925 silent is released and marketed as a different version than the original it can be denoted in the edition field of that release. Heck, if anything, the 1959 version should have "1959 Version" in the edition field being such a Johnny-come-lately and all.  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Why is that a concern? We are seeing differences such as you mentioned, released and marketed separately.
Does "Lord of the Rings" ring any bells? We are notating them with things such as "Extended Version". We note them with the labels with which they are marketed. We don't add custom version names to initial releases in anticipation of later releases. I own the extended LOTR versions and they're noted as such in my db, but I would guess that the original versions are labeled either Widescreen or Full Screen and not The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001 Version: Widescreen Edition). | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have a stupid question...Does it actually say '1925 Version' on the DVD case? If it doesn't, then it is against the rules. The rules are quite specific on this point.  | | | 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 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Gone with the Wind has never been marketed in Video land since the days of the Videotape release in 1985 ( I think) as any particular kind of releaese related to year, not has Earthquake, this is used very UNCOMMONLY in the industry,. OTOH this cut of Ben-Hur is clearly delineated as 1925 Silent Version, James. So I don't see a very broad issue here, indeed at this particular point in time it is an extremely narrow issue and does not even have a direct impact on the Star Wars debate.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Simple Answer yes it does, Unicus.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
I have a stupid question...Does it actually say '1925 Version' on the DVD case? If it doesn't, then it is against the rules. The rules are quite specific on this point. OK, since you guys are grasping at every conceivable straw, here are the front & back covers and the inside menus. Front Cover  Back Cover  Inside Menu Disc 1  Inside Menu Disc 2  Inside Menu Discs 3 & 4  | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Why is that a concern? We are seeing differences such as you mentioned, released and marketed separately.
Does "Lord of the Rings" ring any bells? We are notating them with things such as "Extended Version".
We note them with the labels with which they are marketed. We don't add custom version names to initial releases in anticipation of later releases. I own the extended LOTR versions and they're noted as such in my db, but I would guess that the original versions are labeled either Widescreen or Full Screen and not The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001 Version: Widescreen Edition). As you can see by the images above, this one is not marketed much at all. It's simply listed but neither are listed by title Except in the copyright note and the credits. | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
Why is that a concern? We are seeing differences such as you mentioned, released and marketed separately.
Does "Lord of the Rings" ring any bells? We are notating them with things such as "Extended Version".
We note them with the labels with which they are marketed. We don't add custom version names to initial releases in anticipation of later releases. I own the extended LOTR versions and they're noted as such in my db, but I would guess that the original versions are labeled either Widescreen or Full Screen and not The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001 Version: Widescreen Edition).
As you can see by the images above, this one is not marketed much at all. It's simply listed but neither are listed by title Except in the copyright note. I also note the title of the 1925 film in the title block on the back cover is "BEN-HUR" "A TALE OF THE CHRIST". Now there's a style I don't think we've debated.   The only reason I'm trying to grasp at every conceivable straw is to try to think outside the specifics of this example toward how this could be extrapolated...by some users...  There. I said it.  It's not something I ever thought about before. But once this thread brought it to my attention, it seems to me that we're treating this one film differently than we do other films with similar histories. Here's a thread from IVS that was just before we went from the guidelines to the rules. This user would input the distributor name into the description field since he owned multiple copies of films that were public domain and released by different distributors. He also would input the production year for remakes and such. It's this slippery slope that I'm concerned with. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|