| Author |
Message |
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | For another example: Villisca: Living With a Mystery. I saw this on the festival circuit in 2006. Some people saw it two years earlier. It didn't hit DVD until 2007. | | | | Last edited: by Ace_of_Sevens |
|
| Registered: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Blood, Boobs & Beast would be another example. It had its DVD release in 2009, but hit the Maryland Film Fest in 2007. I personally saw it twice at screenings open to the public in 2008. | | | Reviewer, HorrorTalk.com
"I also refuse to document CLT results and I pay my bills to avoid going to court." - Sam, keeping it real, yo. |
|
| Registered: March 28, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's my understanding that when there's a long time lapse like the cases you've quoted, Skip prefers to use the copyright year. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
Personally I prefer not to have rules with if/then scenarios, where we do it one way most of the time, but sometimes do it some other way. But I could very easily get behind a change to use the copyright year, as long as we always use the copyright year. If there's no change to the rule, I'm obviously in favour of using the year of the first theatrical screening to the public. | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote:
So Skip, what do you think should be the production year for Prozac Nation? 2000? 2001 when it was showed at festivals? 2001 when Miramax had planned for it to get a theatrical release? 2002 when it was shown on TV? Or 2003 when it was first released theatricaly?
I used this title as an example as this is one of those titles with extreme differences in how and when it was released (and it's always nice to have some real examples to work with, not just theory). To me it's absolutely wrong to have it with a production year of 2003 when it had it's theatrical release. I believe, reybr, I have explained at least twice how i would approach you case. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Then you have to point it out to me, cause I can't find your answer.
EDIT: Found it. You would use the copyright year. But that would go against the rules. So why not just consider a film festival a theatrical release? Would make things so much simpler and not require a rule change. | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity | | | | Last edited: by reybr |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | This seems to be something that needs to be looked at carefully and the rules modified. As written, there is simply too much data that can not be accurately entered. |
|
| Registered: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
This seems to be something that needs to be looked at carefully and the rules modified. As written, there is simply too much data that can not be accurately entered. Agreed. My personal preferences aside, there seems to be a need for on consistent rule, as opposed to X movie should have this year, but Y movie needs to have this. Although I prefer to use the wide release date as production year, for Profiler's needs it seems to make the most sense for theatrical release date, regardless if it was wide, as to avoid confusion. (Personal preference again here, of course.) | | | Reviewer, HorrorTalk.com
"I also refuse to document CLT results and I pay my bills to avoid going to court." - Sam, keeping it real, yo. |
|
| Registered: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,087 |
| | Posted: | | | | Imho using the copyright year for such cases (such as Skip said) has a big advantage: The copyright year can be found on the cover, so that everyone has the chance to fill in the matching information. If we use some other dates there's always a search, when the movie first time was shown. But as sometimes the making of a film and the DVD release has longer times betwen, a "Production Year" near the original making is better. If I have a movie wich was made 1990 and but as production year I've 2000, this is irritating. You'll always expect something differrent of a movie from 1990 or 2000. (for example) There are always two sides of a medal.  | | | | Last edited: by VirusPil |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting VirusPil: Quote:
Imho using the copyright year for such cases (such as Skip said) has a big advantage: The copyright year can be found on the cover, so that everyone has the chance to fill in the matching information. That may be so, but the rules do not allow for the use of the copyright date in any case. | | | 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: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,087 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting VirusPil:
Quote:
Imho using the copyright year for such cases (such as Skip said) has a big advantage: The copyright year can be found on the cover, so that everyone has the chance to fill in the matching information.
That may be so, but the rules do not allow for the use of the copyright date in any case. Of course I agree to that. (Never said something else) If I remember right, this was the suggestion for titles just came out on DVD and had in this case no theatrical release. (So imho not clearly ruled, or did I miss something?) | | | | Last edited: by VirusPil |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,491 |
| | Posted: | | | | Here is some interesting Triva about Casblanca (1942) that most know about:
The Allies invaded Casablanca in real life on 8 November 1942. As the film was not due for release until spring, studio executives suggested it be changed to incorporate the invasion. Warner Bros. chief Jack L. Warner objected, as he thought that an invasion was a subject worth a whole film, not just an epilogue, and that the main story of this film demanded a pre-invasion setting. Eventually he gave in, though, and producer Hal B. Wallis prepared to shoot an epilogue where Humphrey Bogart and Claude Rains hear about the invasion. However, before Rains could travel to the studio for this, David O. Selznick (whose studio owned Bergman's contract) previewed the film and urged Warner to release it unaltered and as fast as possible. Warner agreed and the premiered in New York on November 26 1942. It did not play in Los Angeles until its general release the following January, and hence competed against 1943 films for the Oscars. | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry | | | | Last edited: by widescreenforever |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | As I recall, the biggest discussion of film festivals/limited releases etc. was related to Fantasia 2000, which had limited release on December 31, 1999 but Skip argued then as now that a limited release did not qualify. It would be a thread on the Intervocative site, I'm pretty sure, as it was quite a while ago. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,491 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry | | | | Last edited: by widescreenforever |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting the Rules: Quote:
Enter the year of the original theatrical release. The Rule clearly states that we are to use the theatrical release. For me, that means when the film was released to theaters, as in movie theaters which are open to the general public. Films that are shown at Film Festivals are not shown in movie theaters open to the general public. You have to first have access to the Festival itself, either by invitation or through the purchase of admittance. This whole issue could be resolved by changing the name of the field to "Public Release Date" and clarify the Rules to include Film Festivals/Limited Releases AND add a new field called Production Year which would be the copyright date from the film credits. Then we could capture all pertinent information. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Films that are shown at Film Festivals are not shown in movie theaters open to the general public. Yes, they are. It's a theater that shows movies and it's a rare festival that's invitation only. | | | | Last edited: by Ace_of_Sevens |
|
  | Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | This is just insane. Ken - please amend the rule to what the wording actually says : "PRODUCTION YEAR". That way we could get the correct year from the credits and never have to discuss anything similar again!  | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! |
|