 |
|
|
|
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: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1 2 3  Previous Next
|
 Media Companies (Locked) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
A slap to everyone, the slap is to everyone that understands that there is no clear definition and one canot be achieved and so what we have is GIGO...BIG TIME garbage. If a clear definition could be achieved then we would not be having this discussion after almost TWO years. I don't see a general user uprising. I see the same advocates of DVD Distributor wanting this field to be distributor. I think the field and rule works for general users and the anguish is with a select few. Quote:
As noted Ken has fallen for this all too often, even making a ridiculous edit to the Rules now that has very nasty ramifications, but one user suggested it without considering the ramification and Kern bought it AGAIN. So there will be more combat and more stupid data. I have addressed this point in the other thread. | | | ...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 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | And those same advocates , James, are incapable of coming up with a rational definition that can be applied by ALL users in ALL cases.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Rick:
I refuse to comment on you utterly useless and insulting remark. You who admiits that this is all greek to you. That you don't know as much as many others.
Skip  I was simply point out that the term publisher is no longer defined as it was back in the day. 5 years ago when I had to I had to publish my work it was expensive and with shipping was time consuming. Now, to publish something I hit a button and send an email. Some of these things are Greek to me yes, that doesn't mean I go through life staring into nothingness or bumping into walls and it doesn't make me Simple Jack (Tropic Thunder reference). Apparently the definition of what publishing is is Greek to you. DVDs can and ARE published every day. At least I can admit when I am unfamiliar with something. You really need to learn some humility.  | | | | Last edited: by lyonsden5 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
And those same advocates , James, are incapable of coming up with a rational definition that can be applied by ALL users in ALL cases.
Skip Ken has provided a definition. It works except for those that want "publisher" to equate to "distributor". | | | ...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 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ninehours: Quote:
Get ride of the media companies Fields and just have six Studio fields and change the rule to state that the DVD distributor should be the last one entered after the studios from the films credits I'm sorry, but I think this is a bad idea, mixing up companies involved in the release and production of the movie and the release of the DVD. I'd like to keep the two categories separated. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
And those same advocates , James, are incapable of coming up with a rational definition that can be applied by ALL users in ALL cases.
Skip
Ken has provided a definition. It works except for those that want "publisher" to equate to "distributor". Yes, James, it works,,,very well. that's why we are still having the same discussion we had two years ago, and why nearly 50% think the fields should be eliminated. Yeah, i think that's clear to everyone., that it doesn't work. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,738 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Ken has provided a definition. Where? I see that he refers to them as "DVD publishing companies" and that he refers to where they "are usually found", but surely that's not a definition? How does that "definition" help us with regards to "Distributed by Warner Home Video, a division of Warner Bros. Entertainment"? What does it mean for packaging designers, or for license and/or copyright holders - will I be able to remove those from profiles referring to the clear-cut "definition" in the rules? Because that's the kind of definition I'm looking for. |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,853 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Ken has provided a definition.
Where? With all the confusion about what a "Media Company" is, maybe it is best just to stop tracking it online. I'm quite convinced that "CBS DVD" and "Disney DVD" are not companies, yet many people seem to want to track this in the MC field. If the data cannot be well defined it should be confined to the local db and not be stored in the online database. --------------- |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | CBS DVD and Disney DVD are branding that have a consistent look across their line. That's good enough for me. |
| | Registered: May 26, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,879 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'll disagree with that, Ace. It may be good enough for you, but I don't think the field should be used to capture what brand line the DVD is part of. I firmly believe it should be used for Company names only.
I certainly do not want the field eliminated, however. I like being able to filter my Criterion Collection. I do think we should have a better definition for the field and I'll see what I can do with that and get back to ya'll.
Like synner_man, I would love to see the studios expanded. With only 3 options there are a lot of films that end up without their production companies being listed (listing companies in order of list on film ... Company A presents in association with Company B & Company C a Company D production ... list A, B & C since they're first listed, but poor D is left out in the cold). | | | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
-- Thorin Oakenshield |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Danae Cassandra: Quote:
I firmly believe it should be used for Company names only. There's one of the Disney company names, I'm not sure which, but perhaps it's Walt Disney Home Entertainment, where I've seen users say it's not a real company even though it looks like one. | | | ...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 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Ken has provided a definition.
Where? I see that he refers to them as "DVD publishing companies" and that he refers to where they "are usually found", but surely that's not a definition? How does that "definition" help us with regards to "Distributed by Warner Home Video, a division of Warner Bros. Entertainment"? What does it mean for packaging designers, or for license and/or copyright holders - will I be able to remove those from profiles referring to the clear-cut "definition" in the rules? Because that's the kind of definition I'm looking for.  Ken's definition is as clear as mud. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Danae Cassandra:
Quote:
I firmly believe it should be used for Company names only.
There's one of the Disney company names, I'm not sure which, but perhaps it's Walt Disney Home Entertainment, where I've seen users say it's not a real company even though it looks like one. Well here's what we know about WDSHE, James, we know that at least, I thnik, Finland, WDSHE has replaced BVHE as Distributor. it has not done that here in the states, were I to guess I would say it probably won't due to the history behind BV, but that's only a guess. So that leaves us with what in 9876 is WDSHE, we know that ALL Disney Company films are Distributed by BVHE, we have no idea what WDSHE is, they are not a Distributor, and who or what is DisneyDVD again we don't know. I am not saying they aren't real they clearly are, but what and how they fit in the scheme of things I have no idea. I would say that PERHAPS DisneyDVD is a label and PERHAPS WDSHE is a manufacturere who hands off to BVHE for Distribution. BUT, big BUT, that logic come unglued elsewhere with in the Disney film empire, there is Touchstone Home Video but there is NO TouchstoneDVD and once you cross out of "family-friendly" fare WDSHE is not a part of the picture at all. I don't have the answers to what they are, and without definitive information they are meaningless data, simply put in as a placeholder without meaning.<shrugs> I've never been very good at darts, so throwing darts at a board in hopes of scoring a bullseye with the data is simply useless to this user and makes the program both less functional and less usable when such games are allowed to be played. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | That level of knowledge should not be required to enter a media company. If I see Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment on the back of the box where I'm directed to look, I will enter it as an MC and not give a second thought as to whether it's a real company, a real distributor, who they contract with or if it's just the name of the petty cash fund at Disneyland. | | | ...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: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | In a lot of cases, do we not have a "Distributor" and a "Publisher".
I know that BV distributes DVD's, but do they "Publish" the content. Or does WDHE "Publish" the content.
I ask. Why can a person not come up with a definition. There must be one someplace.
MC - The company(ies) that are responsible for the "Publishing" (creating, assembling and ordering the content of the DVD) And or the company(ies) that are responsible for the physical distribution of the disc.
This may not be perfect, but can we work from here?
Charlie |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Quoting synner_man:
Quote:
Hell no. I want the media fields so I can keep track of DVD companies and distributors. I would rather expand the studios' field. I've seen films with as many as 10 production companies and we can unfortunately capture only 3.
Synner:
Then i ask you as one of the more rational users, how do we decide what the data is and is not. My point is that a cohesive definition cannot be achieved,therefore at the very best, if these fields are left they need to be local where each user can make his own choices and his own definitions for his /her own consistency. I ceratainly see no way to resolve this for the Online as long as users persist in rather arcane and bizzare definitions which make no sense.
Skip Here's how I see it: we have three fields, so outside of a few rare cases, we can handle nearly any issue regarding the field. Some people feel it is for the distributor, some for the licensee and some for the publishing studio and/or sublabel. We can usually capture everything and that's what I personally try to do. For example, with a recent Disney example, I use: Field 1: Buena Vista Home Entertainment Field 2: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment Field 3: Disney DVD (or Blu-ray) For a company like Criterion with a sublabel like Eclipse: Field 1: Janus Films (the license holder) Field 2: The Criterion Collection Field 3: Eclipse I agree that the rule could use some modification. There should be an order listed as well as what belongs and what doesn't. But I am always in favor of capturing more information than less. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1 2 3 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |