| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,750 |
| | Posted: | | | | The Blu-ray UPC043396426696 double feature Black Hawk Down/Tears of the Sun was originally released on 1-16-2007 per the download I did when I bought it and was changed and approved to the re-release date of 7-3-2016. Per the rules the original release date never should be changed. I don't want to start a ping-pong match but I bought mine used in 2015, which is before it was released, so should I change it back or leave it alone? | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,550 |
| | Posted: | | | | Seems like whoever changed it used Amazon. Do you have a source for the 1/16/2007 date? |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,750 |
| | Posted: | | | | I checked all over the place, but the only source I have is when I downloaded it from invelos originally this is what came with it. | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | The version of Black Hawk Down that I have has a UPC of 043396150232. I preordered this version which has a 1/16/2007 release date. Not sure about the set with a UPC of 043396426696, but I'm guessing the release date is much later given the much higher numbering of the UPC.
Edit: According to pictures, the back cover has a (c) of 2013 for the design and layout which means this was released in 2013 (most likely). | | | | Last edited: by rdodolak |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,639 |
| |
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,750 |
| | Posted: | | | | Outstanding, I got it used from MovieStop before they when out of business. Mine does have the (c) of 2013, so I'm guessing that's it. I will make the changes to 4-29-2013 and resubmit. Which means the new changes to 7-3-2016 needs to be an alternate version. | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | Just curious, but why would there be an alternate version? |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,750 |
| | Posted: | | | | I thought that's how you handle re-releases of the same UPC with different information. | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | Are the two releases vastly different; I was under the impression the only difference was the price drop and the date of said price drop? Unless something has changed I don't recall a price drop being reason for an alternate version.
Alternate versions are supposed to be for releases of the same title with largely different cover images or with significantly different content. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | yup... other then that you still keep the minor differences local. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,750 |
| | Posted: | | | | So your saying I should have accepted the release date that was later than the date I bought my version. If not, why was the release date accepted by the screener(s)? | | | | Marty - Registered July 10, 2004, User since 2002. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | No it should never have been accepted. I would submit a correction with the info you gave here. The other submitter should have kept it local and locked it. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | As Addicted2DVD stated, submitting the original release date is correct. The date of the price drop shouldn't have been approved; do you know if that contribution received a majority of yes votes? |
|