Quoting huskersports:

Quote:
Sorry about that.  I didn't see the TM after Digital Copy.  I'll resubmit.

Why?  By a, more than, two to one margin, the forum users believe it shouldn't be an edition at all.  Based on that, why not keep it local?

Quoting MtnMike:

Quote:
Perhaps outside of the scope of this debate, but I'd personally like to see the Edition field ONLY contain information that isn't already clearly established through any of the other fields we all have that describe the characteristics of a particular release.

For example, I don't need a banner to tell me it's a Widescreen Edition, but I would need one that stated it was the "Director's Cut Edition". So for the BR Monsters, Inc. title being discussed here, I don't believe this content description on the banner constitutes a useful edition descriptor.

LOL, personally I agree with you, mike. But let me point what i see as a flaw  in that argument. Ahh the famed Paramount Widescreen Collection, now by and large the WC designates nothing in relation to the Rules, however there are a FEW titles which have WC and a Full Screen Collection for the same film, thus we have a differentiator. I would argue that , much as I HATE it, that the WC should then be used if only for data consistency and to minimize user confusion...do I use it or don't I. So while i am not fond of it I have come to understand a certain level logic that does make sense to include it, at least in one particular set of instances.

Skip

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
Just a point of interset on this topic, let's remember that when Disney released Snow White, in no less than 5 different versions...maybe more. But two of them were quite entertaining. They were BOTH Diamond Editions, one was DVD + Blu-Ray, the other....Blu-Ray + DVD, the only other differentiator was that Disney used two different covers. <EEEEEk>

Skip

Also, I believe (since I don't own it) one is profiled as a Blu-ray and the other a DVD (and in the appropriate cases). That was an odd release, lol.

hahaha, that's consumerism for you. I forgot about that (IMO) lame gift set or w/e that was.

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
Just a point of interset on this topic, let's remember that when Disney released Snow White, in no less than 5 different versions...maybe more. But two of them were quite entertaining. They were BOTH Diamond Editions, one was DVD + Blu-Ray, the other....Blu-Ray + DVD, the only other differentiator was that Disney used two different covers. <EEEEEk>

Yes, they were both identical, except for the cover. They both included 2 Blu-rays plus disc 1 from the 2-disc DVD set which was released a couple of days ago.

Remember that this was an experiment to see if they could sell more Blu-rays by delaying the DVD-release (6 weeks, I believe). Releasing it in a DVD-cover too was a way to "trick" customers into buying the movie on Blu-ray.

Quoting MtnMike:

Quote:
Perhaps outside of the scope of this debate, but I'd personally like to see the Edition field ONLY contain information that isn't already clearly established through any of the other fields we all have that describe the characteristics of a particular release.

I disagree. When I'm adding to my wish list, I don't want to have to look at every profile to find the correct release. In fact, I can't think of any case where the edition field would be used by this standard. The purpose is so we can distinguish editions in the list without seeing the whole profile.