| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. | | | | Last edited: by ? |
|
  | Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 |  Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | If the back cover says Universal Studios Home Entertainment, then this is what goes into the Publisher field. No simplifaction needed - enter as credited. | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Universal Pictures is not a simplified version of Universal Studios Home Entertainment. It is an incorrect entry. | | | 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: March 29, 2007 | | Posts: 281 |
| | Posted: | | | | If it states Universal Studios Home Entertainment then that is what is entered. I also agree with Unicus69 on this. There is no simplified version of Universal Studios Home Entertainment. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'll go a tad further than my friend, Unicus. it is not merely an Incorrect entry, it's pure idiocy.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 |  Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I'll go a tad further than my friend, Unicus. it is not merely an Incorrect entry, it's pure idiocy Agreed. Removing the end of a company's name just for simplification purposes does indeed seem to be idiotic. But... How come everyone can immediately acknowledge the lunacy of this, but not of the locality-specific suffix rule? It's really exactly the same thing - profiling one company to be exactly the same as another related company when in fact there is a clear distinction between them. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,195 |
| | Posted: | | | | However you want to put it, Studios Home Entertainment is not a locality suffix, and if it were, the result of removing it would be simply Universal, not Universal Pictures. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm not claiming it's a locality suffix. I'm saying that removing locality suffixes is stupid in exactly the same way as removing "Home Entertainment" etc is stupid. Both make the company name something it's not, and portray it as being the same entity as another related company, which it isn't. | | | | Last edited: by TheFly |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | I for one credit what I see. So would anyone of those who say that Universal or Universal Pictures is incorrect, tell me where the "Home Entertainment" should be taken from??  | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | This is why I think it was a big mistake to remove the locality suffix from the studio names.
People are confusing Universal Pictures Germany - a distributor, with Universal Pictures USA - a film studio.
I'm with you Michael, based on that image (and I can't read the small print) I'd use Universal Pictures Germany as the publisher. Unfortunately that now becomes Universal Pictures. |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Posts: 281 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
This is why I think it was a big mistake to remove the locality suffix from the studio names.
People are confusing Universal Pictures Germany - a distributor, with Universal Pictures USA - a film studio.
I'm with you Michael, based on that image (and I can't read the small print) I'd use Universal Pictures Germany as the publisher. Unfortunately that now becomes Universal Pictures. I don't buy or own any other region but 1 but I have been reading all of the post on this matter and I do agree that we need to add the locality suffix back in. They should not have been removed in the first place. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
I for one credit what I see.
So would anyone of those who say that Universal or Universal Pictures is incorrect, tell me where the "Home Entertainment" should be taken from??
Goblins: I can't be much help about Universal as it relates outside the US, but what I can do is give you the history of it IN DVD and you can compare it to what you have. Maybe it will help, I don't know. to 1999 Universal Home Video 2000-t0 2004 Universal Home Entertainment 2004 Universal Studios Home Video, in the states this a part of the UPC code 2005 to present USHE, this is the current logo used on the back cover. BTW Fly I was aginst the remove the locality, such as Warner Bros. (UK) concept, I thought it was yet another idea which was not thought out properly.<shrugs> Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Berak: Quote:
If the back cover says Universal Studios Home Entertainment, then this is what goes into the Publisher field. No simplifaction needed - enter as credited. I'd like to think that info from the cover would be used, but unfortunately imaginary data is being contributed, passed by the voters, and approved by the screeners. How else can you explain a change of MP to "Paramount Home Video" with the only 'evidence' of such being the text "www.paramount.com/homevideo" on the back cover, and the contributor of same telling me that it's a "logo"? --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | If we could filter on locality we wouldn't need a locality suffix. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
 | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,722 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
People are confusing Universal Pictures Germany - a distributor, with Universal Pictures USA - a film studio. Yes, there's a film studio called "Universal Pictures" and a distributor called "Universal Pictures", but there's no confusion whatsoever: we list them in separate fields, and we can do a separate filter on them. I for one am not confused. |
|