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->Posts by AlunH Page: 1  Previous   Next
Message Details
No, I'd prefer a country of origin rather than a blank.  If no production company is listed, then hopefully the country is mentioned in the credits somewhere.  If there's no equivalent of "El Produccion Espana" then local knowledge should be applied (unless it's a bizarre Welles-directed Euro-coproduction, most films have a clear country of origin).

But I'd always like to have a country of origin instead of none at all.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 286
I think you're right not to include them, but if you'd wanted to include them, I'd also have agreed with that.  They have role names, so they're cast members.

But none of them is a much easier option.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 156
I've seen this myself (on opening titles, not closing credits - can't think of a single instance except for lists of stunt people and the like) and I tend to go by column, not row, which is how I read a newspaper, I suppose, so it's what I'm used to.

This doesn't help, I know.

I'm with Gamemaster; if there's some sort of clear alphabetical order, I'll follow that.  If not, I'll go column by column.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 15, Topic Views: 493
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Quoting AlunH:
Quote:
So I suppose I'm saying I'd rather you left the credits in, even if you're not sure - as long as the actor's right, that's the most important thing.

That's really not an answer to my question. My local profile will not have any roles if they are not in the credits and they are not documented. The only question is - should I contribute the roleless cast if there are corrections in the cast. You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least not in this case.

And btw, if you get roles from watching the film/episode, that's as good a source as any - if you document it.

Yes, I see what you're saying.  For what it's worth, I'd say submit the roleless cast.  You've done the work, you've checked that the cast are credited correctly.  If the credits don't allocate roles, then at least by uploading what's 100% correct you're giving others the chance to go back, watch the film and correctly identify who's playing whom.
  No one will agree with me, though.

As for having cake and eating it - I'm British.  If the last three years have taught you all anything it's that my countrymen are firmly of the belief that not only can we have cake and eat it, it wasn't necessarily our cake in the first place.  If anything, it was a cake we made as a gift for other people, but dammit we're British and we want it back.  And we want unicorns too.  That's what we voted for, that's what we want.

EDIT: Plus, we've had thirty years of our newspapers telling us that our cake is better than anyone else's, that everyone else has strange rules that they want to apply to our cake for no good reason [although these claims have been proven to be lies, but no one's talking about that any more] and that every time something has gone wrong with the preparation of our cake mixture, it's been the fault of bureaucrats in Brussels, not the people actually preparing the ingredients.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 36, Topic Views: 670
I've just finished watching The Untouchables (great series - surprisingly violent.  How they got away with this in 1960 I have no idea).  The profiles in the database had no cast and crew info, so I've adding these disc by disc.

Crew's fine, they're comprehensive credits for an old series.  The problem is with the cast - the smaller parts are credited perfectly, but the big guest stars are credited by name only - no character names listed. 

When contributing these I could do one of two things:
- Leave some of the actors credited without roles
- Give the characters names.

As the smaller parts have credited roles, I'd prefer the guest stars to have them too.  So I'm giving them names.  But where do I get the names from?  The credits aren't remotely consistent when it comes to the named characters - some have titles, some have surnames, some have two names, some just a first name.  If the proper credits aren't consistent, how do I choose what name to give the guest stars?  If their name is in the title ("The Nero Rankin Story", for example) then that's easy - Will Kuluva gets a credit as "Nero Rankin".  But I could just as easily credit him as Mr. Rankin, Rankin or Nero.  All would be correct.  All would be used within the episode (as this concerns gangsters, it's particularly complicated by the fact that a lot of these people have nicknames like "knives" or "big Jim").

I can't see there being a right or wrong answer to this.  We clearly can't source all our information from elsewhere, partly for copyright reasons, but chiefly because the IMDb is almost always wrong (I have yet to find a single episode of The Untouchables where the IMDb actually matches the on-screen credits).  So this is largely down to personal preference.

Personally, if someone has put the work in to accurately submit the cast and crew, I'm less worried that they have the character names credited correctly - the most important part is that the actors are right, and I'm grateful that someone's put the time and work in to doing this.  If the names are on screen then fine, use that.  If they're not, then stick down whatever you want.  I'd rather a character name than a blank.  I don't care if you credit Sean Connery as 007, Bond, James, Commander Bond, Cmdr James Bond or simply James Bond.  All are correct.  The most important thing is that the credit for Sean Connery is there.  (Unless, obviously, you have no idea what the credit should be - in which case I'd rather have the actor credited correctly without a role than not be sure if the credits are correct or not.)

So I suppose I'm saying I'd rather you left the credits in, even if you're not sure - as long as the actor's right, that's the most important thing.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 36, Topic Views: 670
I've read the discussion and changed my vote accordingly.  It makes sense for the parent to have "The Complete Legacy Collection" as part of the title, but not for the individual titles.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 907
I don't understand the insistence some people have on entering every word on the front cover as a title.

If we're not willing to go the whole way and call it "Blu-rayDisc Dracula Complete Legacy Collection All 6 films from the original legacy 1931-1948" then I don't see how we can call it anything other than "Dracula", with "Complete Legacy Collection" as the edition.

I'm sure someone will disagree with me, though.  And it's not as if it's a major issue: just amend the title to whatever you like, lock it, and then leave it alone in your collection.  You don't have to upload it, after all.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 14, Topic Views: 907
I'm currently watching The Untouchables (great series - surprisingly violent.  How they got away with this in 1960 I have no idea).  The profiles in the database have no cast and crew info, so I'm adding these disc by disc.

Crew's fine, they're comprehensive credits for an old series.  The problem is with the cast - the smaller parts are credited perfectly, but the big guest stars are credited by name only - no character names listed. 

When contributing these I could do one of two things:
- Leave some of the actors credited without roles
- Give the characters names.

As the smaller parts have credited roles, I'd prefer the guest stars to have them too.  So I'm giving them names.  But where do I get the names from?  The credits aren't remotely consistent when it comes to the named characters - some have titles, some have surnames, some have two names, some just a first name.  If the proper credits aren't consistent, how do I choose what name to give the guest stars?  If their name is in the title ("The Nero Rankin Story", for example) then that's easy - Will Kuluva gets a credit as "Nero Rankin".  But I could just as easily credit him as Mr. Rankin, Rankin or Nero.  All would be correct.  All would be used within the episode (as this concerns gangsters, it's particularly complicated by the fact that a lot of these people have nicknames like "knives" or "big Jim").

I can't see there being a right or wrong answer to this.  We clearly can't source all our information from elsewhere, partly for copyright reasons, but chiefly because the IMDb is almost always wrong (I have yet to find a single episode of The Untouchables where the IMDb actually matches the on-screen credits).  So this is largely down to personal preference.

Personally, if someone has put the work in to accurately submit the cast and crew, I'm less worried that they have the character names credited correctly - the most important part is that the actors are right, and I'm grateful that someone's put the time and work in to doing this.  If the names are on screen then fine, use that.  If they're not, then stick down whatever you want.  I'd rather a character name than a blank.  I don't care if you credit Sean Connery as 007, Bond, James, Commander Bond, Cmdr James Bond or simply James Bond.  All are correct.  The most important thing is that the credit for Sean Connery is there.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 23, Topic Views: 1139
Hi Paul

I'm with both you and Cubby - it should be possible to reject some aspects of an update, and let others go through (particularly if you can see that something has been accidentally keyed incorrectly).

Sorry if I sounded confrontational.  I just find it frustrating when people don't use the actual credits for a cast.  I'd rather it was left blank than copied from somewhere else - at least then I know which films need adding correctly.  Other than that, any update you keyed (particularly if you're stating the source of your information) would be welcome and appreciated.

Thanks,
Alun.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 16, Topic Views: 3162
Paul - the thing is, you're ignoring the rules.  The cast/crew info can only be taken from the credits of the film (or TV series, etc) itself.  That's it.  You can't just copy it from Wikipedia because it's more convenient than putting a bit of effort in.

I contribute quite a bit.  I have yet to find a single entry on the IMDb which is accurate to the credits I'm looking at.  Wikipedia is even worse.  IMDb's bad, but Wikipedia's a joke.  I'd rather you didn't bother at all than have you contributing inaccurate information.

Others may disagree, of course, and that's their right.  But complaining that that your contributions aren't welcome so you'll stop making them is plain silly.  Your contributions aren't welcome because they're wrong.

And it's alright saying that the cast and crew info may be wrong, but everything else is okay so it should be accepted.  How does anyone know it's right?  You've already admitted that your cast and crew info is sourced elsewhere.  Why should anything else you contribute be any different?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 16, Topic Views: 3162
I also have a problem with the formatting, and I'm the one that added the cast.

I agree with you; I think they should have their own dividers.  But the film itself pre-empted this by listing Danny Trejo and Cheech Marin within the cast for Planet Terror (the Machete trailer came just before Planet Terror).  Using the film's own logic the trailers for Don't and Werewolf Women of the SS came just before Deathproof, so I added the uncredited cast to the Deathproof section.  I'd far rather they had their own dividers, but as the main credits had set the precedent I could see people voting the dividers down, which is why I didn't try submitting them.  What's particularly annoying is that the Trejo and Marin credits don't even acknowledge Machete, making them even less clear.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 1, Topic Views: 327
Thriller - Jim Smilie

Prisoner Cell Block H - Jim Smillie
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 661
In the example you've given I'd say that as Universal and StudioCanal (in association with Perfect World Pictures) are presenting a film, they're clearly the distributors, and as the film they're presenting is by Working Title (because it's a Working Title production) then clearly Working Title are the production company, and the film's country of origin is therefore the UK.

Arrow (and their sub-label Nordic Noir) release a lot of European TV here in the UK, and the credits for a lot of them have many, many production companies (including the BBC), but that doesn't make (say) Engrenages anything other than French.

But this is academic because I'm usually in agreement with you over the rules.  Generally I find that there are a small group of contributors (you among them) who are exceptionally good at contributing profiles, but beyond that I don't have much faith at all.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 2103
You could also copy and paste the cast into a Word document, edit it from there, then re-copy and paste back into profiler.  Which is just as fiddly as AiAustria's suggestion, but equally possible.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 579
I've just finished updating EAN 5027626370749 with full cast and crew.  When I try to submit it I get the following message:

"Thank you for your contribution. Please complete this page to finalize your submission.

Once your contribution is complete, you can check the status from the  My Profiler section of this site.


Contribution Not Found

No contribution for this DVD was located under your account. Please make sure the registration information entered in DVD Profiler matches your current registration.

To view your current registration, visit the Registration section of this site.

To check your registration in DVD Profiler, select Tools->Registration from DVD Profiler's main menu."

What am I doing wrong?
Posted:
Topic Replies: 0, Topic Views: 566
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
Quote:

The rules tell us "Use the date when the DVD was first released for sale in its specific locality."

It does NOT tell us to use the date the DVD was first DELIVERED to someone.

WB changed the release date at the last minute and some pre-orders shipped on the original release date.  The fact that WB now has a new (i.e. revised) release date doesn't mean there wasn't an earlier "original release date" where product was released.

---------------

I don't understand why you can't see that you've answered your own question: you agree that WB have changed the release date.  So you agree that there is a new release date.  That is the release date.  There is no other release date.  Any earlier dates are irrelevant.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 26, Topic Views: 4205
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
Quote:
The rules tell us "Use the date when the DVD was first released for sale in its specific locality."

In the example above would you agree that the disc is being sold and shipped as of 10/30/2018?

The "release date" of 11/13/2018 is no more real that that "list price" of $22.97 is.

---------------

No, I disagree.  The discs have been sent out erroneously by Amazon.  If Warners had the guts to take on Amazon, they could do - Amazon are most likely in breach of their contract with Warners.

Amazon charging people has absolutely nothing to do with it.  There are plenty of firms that charge you on ordering when you pre-order a title months before it's released.  We don't use the date your credit card or debit card are charged as the date of release, do we?  And if they happen to send the discs out early by a few days we don't use that date either - we use the official release date. 

You've confirmed that the publisher's own site has an official release date.  That's the release date.  There's no ambiguity of any kind here - I have no idea why you're questioning this.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 4165
Quoting The Movieman:
Quote:
So, I have a question about the release for 2001: A Space Odyssey 4K UHD. It was initially to be released on October 30 and then delayed to November 20 for some unknown reason (the press release from Warner did not specify why). However, some copies were shipped out from Amazon (unsure if any other sites did or if any copies showed up in brick and mortar stores either). So, question is, should the release date be changed to November 20 or stay October 30?

I do have links from Blu-ray.com and thedigitalbits as 11/20 and have the press release itself noting this change. But curious if copies sent on 10/30 count as that the date should be kept or not. IMO, it would appear Amazon sent them out prior to receiving word it was delayed, but the rules don't really specify in a case like this, do they (or maybe Ken had made a statement in the past?)

Links:
Blu-ray.com

The Digital Bits

High Def Digest

The way I see it, the rules already cover this: the release date is the 20th of November.  So that's what the release date should be.  The fact that the release date has been delayed is irrelevant - the release date is 11/20/18 (or 20/11/18 if you're European).
Posted:
Topic Replies: 26, Topic Views: 4205
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting AlunH:
Quote:
I don't see any point in trying to confuse things by ignoring two perfectly good answers.

I haven't ignored anything here, including your non-answer.

There have been instances where DVDs were sold exclusively by one retailer for a period (often 30 days or so) before being widely available.  I don't remember us having to enter the general release release date in those cases, but instead used the initial "limited release" date.  Why should this be different?

---------------

I'd suggest that the general release date should have been used in those instances anyway.

I really don't see what there is to question here.  A DVD/BD has an official release date.  That's the release date.  We don't use the date you received the DVD (if you pre-ordered it) or the date you picked it up in a store.  We don't use the date the distributor sent out the discs.  We don't use the date the distributor received the discs.  We use the release date.

Sometimes discs are sent out early.  If you're lucky enough to receive one of them, that's a bonus.  It doesn't change the release date.  Sometimes discs are sent out late.  Bummer.  Life's like that.  It doesn't mean the release date changes to three days later.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 4165
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Note that if "the earliest date that anyone first got their hands on it" became the official approach to this field, then any time a review copy was sent out before the official releasedate, then that would be our date right there.

I don't see any point in trying to confuse things by bringing up review copies.  The Rule clearly states, "Use the date when the DVD was first released for sale in its specific locality. "  My understanding is that these copies being released on October 30 have been sold to customers.

---------------

I don't see any point in trying to confuse things by ignoring two perfectly good answers, but you're still trying.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 4165
The Outer Limits 2.7 - Mike Mikler
The Outer Limits 1.14 - definitely uncredited
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 1912
The Fugitive: 4.23 - Michael Mikler
Posted:
Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 1912
There's also the fact that every submission has the option of being voted on.  If there's a problem with the data, people vote no.

I submit a great deal.  It's very occasionally rejected, and that's always my error - usually because I've forgotten to tick (or un-tick) a box (T!m quite rightly voted down a submission of mine the other week because I'd accidentally deleted the disc profiles whilst submitting full cast and crew), but that's why we all have the chance to vote on submitted amendments.

I notice, wolfman6, that you haven't made a single vote.  It's all very well complaining, but if you're not willing to do the work to fix the mistakes, I'm not sure you have much of a right to complain at all.
Posted:
Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 1085
Invelos Forums->Posts by AlunH Page: 1  Previous   Next