| Message |
Details |
Quoting ralf.ramge:
Quote:
Hi,
the affected release is UPC 9-337369-042909, "Tales of Adventure - Collection 4", released on 9/24/2024 by Imprint.
I can't find it online in the pending updates database, and yes, I updated the online profile list using the CTRL key.
Anyone have an idea?
Thanks :-)
I submitted the parent profile for the box set on 11th November, so please be patient. It will probably take 2-3 weeks before it is approved/released. I am also in the process of submitting all seven child profiles (with corresponding bonus feature films). It's a big job, particularly tracking down and verifying all cast role names for each serial (there were no standard cast credits). | Posted: Topic Replies: 3, Topic Views: 980 |
 |
If the Rating Details rule is followed literally then it also includes conjunctions such as [although, before, after, because, how, once, since, that, unless, until, when] as being in lower case because they are all joining words.
Was that the rules intention? | Posted: Topic Replies: 23, Topic Views: 4953 |
|
Here's others to add to the list:
out
per
pro
qua
via
I would also check whether the word is preceded by other characters, such as parenthesis or brackets, as this may result in the capitalization of the words before and after the character. If a comma precedes these special characters then it may only capitalise the following word. That is my observation, for what its worth. | Posted: Topic Replies: 23, Topic Views: 4953 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
I am a bit uncertain of the title capitalization rules that should be followed in DVD Profiler. There seems to be a lot of different rules out there, so it's not entirely clear to me which to apply.
Here is what I am trying to do now (when updating ClipCapitalizer):
- Always capitalize the first and last word.
- Keep the following words in lower case (unless first or last):
a, an, and, as, at, but, by, for, in, nor, of, off, on, or, out, to, the, up, vs
Have I missed anything?
Edit: I see that in the rules it says AP style. That doesn't help me much though. So any thoughts are welcome.
What about these word examples, they stay lower case using the Invelos capitalization tool:
• yet
• aka ("also known as" ) | Posted: Topic Replies: 23, Topic Views: 4953 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
The rules say "enter rating details". These are not rating details. They are rating definitions. So, as I see it, they are not allowed by the rules.
The PG rating definition does not provide information on exactly why a film received a PG rating, rather, it is the content advice (that is, the rating details) provided by the BBFC: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/rating/PG
Under section titled "How can I find out more about a specific film?", BBFC states:
"Please check the content advice for the film or video you are thinking of watching. Content advice is available on this website, on our free App, as well as on film posters, DVD and Blu-ray packaging, and on some listings."
The BBFC Classification Guidelines state content advice includes:
• short description of the issues contained in the film or the episodic content.
• an extended version, designed for people who want a more detailed idea of the issues.
Personally, I would double-check the BBFC web site for the title concerned and confirm whether there was no content advice provided. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 3823 |
|
Just for completeness, there is another variation of the name:
William Mc Caughey ==> The Goodbye Girl, The Chicken Chronicles.
Here is the end credit for "The Goodbye Girl" which show his credit (at 1:31 mark) as "William Mc Caughey, C.A.S.":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3P2mrblZVY&ab_channel=ImmortalityMovieMusicOriginalsoundtrack
In addition, there are five profiles for "The Goodbye Girl" in the online database, with four out of five profiles with "credited as" [William Mc Caughey]:
==> William McCaughey [William Mc Caughey]
5-051893-024180 (Spain)
012569-504820 (United States)
883929-155392 (United States)
888574-453145 (United States)
==> William McCaughey
FC30-8627-022A-0CFB (Canada) | Posted: Topic Replies: 40, Topic Views: 10145 |
|
I have not voted yet because, whilst I agree that the rules do not prohibit the entry of cast extras, I don't want to add potentially 300+ credited cast extras in a profile (for example, a crowd-funded movie with FAN EXTRAS).
And yes, the fan extras did receive group role names, such as:
- Eaten by a Dinosaur
- Killed by Dinosaur in Close-Up
- Killed by a Dinosaur
- Flee from Dinosaur Attack
- Evil Reptilians
and so on.
Or do we exclude FAN EXTRAS from this poll (a fan was just an ordinary citizen, not an actor)? | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 2522 |
|
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
"48 HRS." is a registered trade mark by Paramount Pictures Corporation:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=74014418&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Here is a specimen example from the trademark registration:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn74014418&docId=SPE20110622140520&linkId=7#docIndex=6&page=1
Please note the title for the sequel is displayed as "Another 48 HRS."
Updated the links to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 5909 |
|
Suggest you edit yor contribution and add the following 4K review for verification in the accuracy of your scans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jH9NWyK-ig&ab_channel=TwinFlicks
Key time stamps are:
0:16 (front cover)
0:20 (back cover)
0:26 (front and back cover)
1:00 (back cover)
1:20 (front cover) | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 3870 |
|
I don't own the package (715515-297219), however, here are my thoughts:
Yes, it is frustrating, so I would suggest you protect your work investment by bullet-proofing the submission.
As a double-check, I always view the covers in outdoor lighting to get a proper gauge of the colors and contrast, as indoor lighting can give a false impression.
From my experience, writing "adding front and back covers" is not enough ammunition to support the replacement of existing scans.
If the existing cover(s) is web artwork, state it in the submission, for example:
"Replaced existing web artwork (front and back the same) with high resolution scans of actual covers"
If the color, contrast, black-level, white-level, shadow detail, is wrong, state it in the submission and highlight key deficiencies to make it easier for readers to understand why you made the change, for example:
"Current scans exhibit a green cast with inaccurate skin tones and blacks looking like charcoal. The new scans provide more accurate colors, contrast and black-levels, that remediate these issues."
"Existing scans display inaccurate colours (note the green in the title on the front cover and picture borders on the back cover, it should be a darker Army green). Also note the washed-out shadow detail on the front cover (missing details in background mountain range). New high resolution scans of front and back covers with more accurate colours and contrast remediating these issues are submitted for approval."
Hope that helps. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 3870 |
|
Here are two potential remedies gleaned from past forum discussions on the matter:
Option 1:
Right click the DVDP icon and select "Run as Administrator", click YES option.
OR
Option 2:
Double click the DVDP icon and press the CTRL key down and keep it down until a "Selective Startup" box appears.
Select "Diagnostic Startup" and click OK.
Hope that helps. | Posted: Topic Replies: 10, Topic Views: 6572 |
|
Quoting Lithurge:
Quote:
Quoting GreyHulk:
Quote:
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
My understanding is the rule for country of origin states to use the production companies in the order they appear in the credits.
Yet, in this case, they are clearly in the wrong order in the credits.
And hasn't it always been the case we follow the rules regardless?
Clearly the film makers thought this was the correct order, regardless of profiler rules or wikipedia.
This is my understanding:
The multilateral "Co-Production" credit in Casino Royale (2006) was a requirement of Article 12 in the "European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production": https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/502395
Article 2 in the convention states a co-production must comprise of at least three (3) co-production companies from three signatory countries of the convention. In addition, a fourth party that is NOT a signatory country of the convention may be added, as long as their contribution is kept below 30% of the film's production cost.
So when I see the credit "A UK - Czech - Ger - US Co-Production", I see the three signatory countries of the convention listed first followed by the non-signatory country.
On the other hand, the listing of production company names in the film's opening/end credits was the sole responsibility of the producer(s), not the "European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production".
Hope that explains the discrepancy. | Posted: Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 9330 |
|
Quoting Wes Carpenter:
Quote:
Seriously guys? The end credits make a definite and first hand statement about the countries of origin (see the screenshot above), and you want to change that?
My understanding is the rule for country of origin states to use the production companies in the order they appear in the credits. | Posted: Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 9330 |
|
Based on the sequence of production company names in the opening/end credits and copyright (see NOTES), I would list the companies and country of origin as follows:
STUDIOS
Columbia Pictures Industries
Eon Productions
Danjaq
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
United Kingdom
United States
Czech Republic
Hope that helps.
NOTES:
[1] Film credits and copyright:
00:03:48 > ALBERT R. BROCCOLI'S EON PRODUCTIONS LTD. presents
02:23:38 > Casino Royale © 2006 Danjaq, LLC, United Artists Corporation and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
02:24:21 > A UK - Czech - Ger - US Co-Production
A STILLKING • CASINO ROYALE PRODUCTIONS LTD • CASINO ROYALE US LLC • BABELSBERG FILM CO-PRODUCTION
Made by Eon Productions Ltd. and Casino Royale Productions Ltd.
02:24:27 > RELEASED BY COLUMBIA PICTURES
[2] Production companies in order of appearance:
• EON PRODUCTIONS LTD. ==> (UK): https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/00697555
• DANJAQ, LLC ==> (USA): https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/199701010026
• UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION (USA)
• COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES (USA)
• STILLKING FILMS ==> (Czech): https://filmcommission.cz/en/director/stillking-films/
• CASINO ROYALE PRODUCTIONS LTD ==> (UK): https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05507180
• CASINO ROYALE US LLC ==> (USA): https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/200528710065
• BABELSBERG FILM GmbH ==> (Germany): https://opencorporates.com/companies/de/G1312_HRB8051
[3] Film copyright displayed full company name for release studio tradename "Columbia Pictures":
https://uspto.report/TM/72441192 (rules state not to truncate the company name).
[4] Film's copyright registration (https://uspto.report/copyright/12124053) showed Danjaq, LLC, United Artists Corporation and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. were "employers for hire", that is, they were the authors of the film, which makes them production companies as well. | Posted: Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 9330 |
|
My understanding is MGM's "VINTAGE CLASSICS" was a collection of classic films from the (1930s-60s), which was used to differentiate it from MGM's "CONTEMPORARY CLASSICS" collection of classic films from the (1960s-90s): https://dvd.fandom.com/wiki/MGM_Contemporary_Classics
• Here is a MGM VHS promo highlighting the two collections for sale (refer 1:22 mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st6NUj3AsCQ&ab_channel=VHSTRADERS
• Here is a MGM "Contemporary Classics" VHS promo (refer 0.55 - 1:02 mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mhpb4MpIrU&ab_channel=retroVHStrailers
The voiceover stated: "MGM Contemporary Classics. What great movies are all about. Collect them all"
Both VINTAGE CLASSICS and CONTEMPORARY CLASSICS were different collections of classic films from MGM's library, and the rules state collections can be considered for the edition field.
The rules do not state the word "Collection" must be part of the edition name. | Posted: Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 6109 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
...
Secondly, nowhere on the cover does it actually say "MGM Vintage Classics". There is a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer logo but it doesn't actually say "MGM" and it's clearly separated from "Vintage Classics".
...
The logo should not be considered as part of the edition.
Some of the earlier VHS tapes that used the same "VINTAGE CLASSICS" title had a MGM/UA logo, for example, "The Apartment":
DVD ==> https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-Jack-Lemmon/dp/B00003CX8V
VHS ==> https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-VHS-Jack-Lemmon/dp/6304308396
Interpreting Metro's "VINTAGE CLASSICS" range is similar to the way we treat STUDIOCANAL's range of "VINTAGE CLASSICS" films: https://vintageclassicsfilm.co.uk/
The only instance I've found where the edition is the logo and text is "20th Century Fox Cinema Archives", not "Cinema Archives". It is actually a registered trademark name: https://uspto.report/TM/85979859 | Posted: Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 6109 |
|
Quoting trystero:
Quote:
Some of the approved profiles specify Paramount Pictures as the Media Company, while others just use Paramount. I'd like to make them all consistent, but I'm not sure which entry to standardise on. The contribution rules suggest using the name from the logo (Paramount) or the credit block (Paramount Pictures), so there's some ambiguity as to which name is correct.
The rules state: "Some companies (using similar but different names) may serve more than one function. List such companies only once, using the name from the logo."
So what were the multiple company names listed on the back cover that triggered this rule?
I could only find one media company listed (copyrights by Paramount Pictures) at the bottom of the back cover.
In addition, isn't "Paramount" a truncation of "Paramount Pictures"?
The rules state: "Do not abbreviate Studio or Media Company names. e.g, use Universal Pictures not just Universal"
Just my two cents in the ambiguity slot machine. Hope it helps. | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 4230 |
|
"48 HRS." is a registered trade mark by Paramount Pictures Corporation: https://uspto.report/TM/74014418
Here is a specimen example from the trademark registration: https://uspto.report/TM/74014418/SPE20110622140520#1
Please note the title for the sequel is displayed as "Another 48 HRS."
Accordingly, I voted "48 HRS." (and likewise for the sequel, "Another 48 HRS."). | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 5909 |
|
Quoting deepred:
Quote:
- If not, maybe you unwillingly answered "no" when the software offered you to add the sub-profiles to your collection. In that case, I admit I'm not sure how you can download them afterwards.
In this case, i would recommend the following solutions:
• highlight the parent profile and press CTRL+F12 keys together (that is, hold down the CTRL key and press the F12 function key).
• Alternatively, highlight the parent profile and use the DVD Profiler top menus:
"Online" ==> "Refresh DVD from Invelos" ==> "Check for Child Profiles" | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 5428 |
|
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
Same here, I have nine (9) new profiles approved on 02-Mar-2024 that have not been released.
I suspect the process for generating the online database file ("OnlineList.dod") is either off-line or broken.
The process for generating the online database file appears to be operational now.
All nine profiles approved on 02-Mar-2024 have now been released. In addition, another two profiles approved on 06-Mar-2024 were released.
I also carried out a complete download of the OnlineList.dod file (CTRL+"Refresh Online Profile List") successfully with no error message. One thing I noted during the download was the higher download speed I was getting from the new server (5Mbps). | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 5360 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
I tested renaming my OnlineList.dod and OnlineListSel.dod, and sure enough I could not download new versions of these, and could not add new titles. Renamed back and everything worked.
So it would seem that unless you have uncorrupted versions of these files, you're currently out of luck. 
Hopefully this will soon be fixed.
There is another knock-on effect, any profile submitted that subsequently gets approved, will not get released, because the approved profile changes can no longer be parsed into the non-existent online database file! | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 6144 |
|
Same here, I have nine (9) new profiles approved on 02-Mar-2024 that have not been released.
I suspect the process for generating the online database file ("OnlineList.dod") is either off-line or broken. | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 5360 |
|
I suspect there is/was an alternate profile in the system.
Once that is released, you should be OK to submit your updates.
Cheers. | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 5360 |
|
| I am running Windows 11 Home Edition (Version 23H2, OS Build 22631.3007) on my PC and the "Enable Audio Enhancements" check box is still available as an option. Realtek Audio is my default sound device. I would assume if your default sound device is incapable of supporting audio enhancements, it would be unavailable as an option, and be off by default. | Posted: Topic Replies: 19, Topic Views: 25578 |
|
The box set overview rule is an addendum to the standard rule for overviews (re: "The following Clarifications to the standard Rules need to be used:"). The first sentence is not superfluous because the standard rule only covered a simple listing of the collection contents.
The correct process is use the overview from the cover (standard rule), followed by, if applicable, the box set rule.
The end result is what Danae Cassandra described. | Posted: Topic Replies: 17, Topic Views: 11644 |