Topic: DVD Profiler contribution question

[Taro]

Since I’m no longer posting at Invelos and a lot of DVDP users are here, I thought I could ask my question here.

A contribution of mine got declined and I’d like to know your opinion on how I should handle this. The profile is Ghost in the Shell 2.0 Blu-ray (UPC 013138309587).

The situation:
The disc contains Ghost in the Shell 2.0 OAV with end credit in Japanese only. In the opening, there are only a handful of crew members credited in English, which are also credited in the much more complete Japanese end credits.
As a bonus, the original Ghost in the Shell is also included which features only English credits for the English voice actors.

First problem:
In the opening credits, the screenwriter is credited as “Kazunori Ito”. However, the Japanese end credits have him as 伊藤和典, which romanizes to Itou Kazunori / Itô Kazunori / Itō Kazunori depending on the Romanization method used. So I entered him has “Kazunori Itou” when adapting the profile.
Ito is incorrect because even though it looks very similar in English, it’s written with completely different characters in Japanese:
Itou = 伊藤
Ito = 伊戸 or 伊都
Strictly speaking Ito is a possible romanization but not according to any romanization method (Hepburn, Kunrei-shiki, Waapuro) accepted in academic circles.
I included extensive notes in my contribution to explain this difference by adding the writer’s official blog site and a conversion table at a university website to explain this difference in Romanization. This was turned down by some users because it didn’t match the English credits. One user even stated my submission would negatively impact the CLT results (which means the current CLT results have an incorrect name as most common). Should I have handled that differently? How are such issues usually handled when there are two credits (in a different language) included contradicting each other? I would assume the original credits have precedence over the translated ones but evidently not everyone thinks so. Any ideas?

Second problem:
Now the profile online has only credits for the English voice actors, which aren’t actually credited in the main feature, only in the bonus feature. Contribution notes read that since there are virtually no English (romanized) credits on the main feature, that contributor did the next best thing and added the credits for the bonus feature (the same contributor voted no on my submission by the way).
I thought that bonus features/episodes were not profiled. For example, all the DC animated features have bonus cartoon episodes with credits but those are never profiled. I can understand that due to lack of the possibility to enter the main feature’s credits, but now that I have submitted complete romanized cast and crew credits of the main feature, shouldn’t these bonus feature credits have to go?

On my contribution I had mostly positive votes, some stating they were happy to finally have the original credits of the main feature in the profile, but due to a limited number of no votes (stating the Itou problem as well as removal of the English actor credits), this got declined.

I haven’t resubmitted since. Any idea how to handle this? I’m even thinking of not submitting this anymore and just upload the profile on my website for profile sharing and leaving the online as it is. What do the more experienced DVDP users think? From my point of view, my submission is the closest you can get to entering a WYSIWYT input, baring the possibility to enter Japanese text. I can understand that it’s hard for voters who don’t read Japanese to verify this but even with extensive contribution notes, it got declined.

Thanks in advance for any feedback and sorry for the long post

[Kathy]

Oh how frustrating. Did you happen to send a pm to the person(s) who voted "no" before the contribution got declined? Did the screeners mentioned why they declined it?

Since your data is correct, I would resubmit the profile again with the information you wrote here. The screeners might have just messed up - that has happened to me.

If the screeners are just not getting it, I would also send a pm to Ken or Gerri and let them know because their online database is wrong.

If, after all this invelos rejects the contribution...well I don't want to write what I am thinking.

[Taro]

Thanks for your input, Kathy. I'm absolutely not made or frustrated about this as I understand it's not an easy matter due to the language barrier.
I was under the impression that there were multiple misunderstandings or misconceptions, causing more than one person to vote no:
- the fact that I removed the English cast credits of the bonus feature
- the fact that the change of Ito to Itou might eventually affect CLT results
- I think most no-voters also didn't bother to check the external websites I've posted
I tried PM'ing the no-voters but they were mostly hung-up about the following the English (partly romanized) opening credits instead of the original credits.

Perhaps I'll do as you suggested, resubmit once more and upload a document on a server they can download to get full contribution notes (as I can't write Japanese on the Invelos website: it changes to grabled text). Then, if still declined I'll PM Ken/Gerri. If still no go, then at least I'll probably know exactly why and I'll upload the profile to my personal websites (currently under construction).

Again, thanks for your helpful suggestions! I'm very happy to be able to get friendly advice regarding DVDP here, without fear of being bombarded with agressive language and automatic assumptions that I have a hidden agenda. So thanks a lot  

[northbloke]

Just one thing, and I may have this wrong - could you maybe mark the english cast as uncredited instead of removing them?
I'm guessing that the reason the person used the bonus cast was because they used the same cast to dub the main feature?

[Najemikon]

Slightly off-topic, sort of! But what did you think of the 2.0 version? I thought it was barely watchable. The original consistent animation is far better than that horrible CGIed rubbish that looks like a video game sequence. They should have left it alone.

[Achim]

Slightly off-topic, sort of! But what did you think of the 2.0 version? I thought it was barely watchable. The original consistent animation is far better than that horrible CGIed rubbish that looks like a video game sequence. They should have left it alone.

:heat:You scared me there for a second... but it seems the Blu-ray, which I want to upgrade to, has both versions.

[Najemikon]

It does, but only in DVD quality, possibly less. Definitely not Blu-Ray quality and the subs are inconsistent. I was looking to sell off my original boxset, but I've been forced to double-dip!

[Achim]

What do you mean...? The whole Blu-ray is a bad transfer or the original version is in 480P while only the 2.0 version is in 1080P?

[Najemikon]

The latter. GITS 2.0 is an excellent transfer and very sharp, even if the new bits of CGI are horribly misjudged and spoil the film.

In the extras, you will find the original GITS and they've clearly stuck with the 480P version, which is a shame, but obviously they believe in the new version (it has taken a lot of work after all), so they've only put it on as an afterthought for comparison sake. The opening title subs are missing where my R2 has them.

This is not a "Pick your version" menu, not even branching. 

[Taro]

Slightly off-topic, sort of! But what did you think of the 2.0 version? I thought it was barely watchable. The original consistent animation is far better than that horrible CGIed rubbish that looks like a video game sequence. They should have left it alone.

I agree with you that the CGI stuck out as a sore thumb in this case. I don't mind a re-imagining or retelling of an existing story (as long as it's done in a good way, with respect to the original intent and spirit) but here they missed the ball a bit. It's indeed also a pity that the included original version is just a 480p copy-paste from the DVD version. Would've loved to have seen it in a remastered 1080p form.

Going further off topic but I found that Evangelion 1:11 on the other hand managed to integrate CGI well with the existing anime sequences. It really shows that a lot of time, effort and thought was put into the re-imagining of this series and even though a theatrical release per definition needs to cut down on the content, I found the story still held up very well.

[Kathy]

Off topic

Taro - I butted in on your forum posting  but I did defend you!

[Najemikon]

Slightly off-topic, sort of! But what did you think of the 2.0 version? I thought it was barely watchable. The original consistent animation is far better than that horrible CGIed rubbish that looks like a video game sequence. They should have left it alone.

I agree with you that the CGI stuck out as a sore thumb in this case. I don't mind a re-imagining or retelling of an existing story (as long as it's done in a good way, with respect to the original intent and spirit) but here they missed the ball a bit. It's indeed also a pity that the included original version is just a 480p copy-paste from the DVD version. Would've loved to have seen it in a remastered 1080p form.

Going further off topic but I found that Evangelion 1:11 on the other hand managed to integrate CGI well with the existing anime sequences. It really shows that a lot of time, effort and thought was put into the re-imagining of this series and even though a theatrical release per definition needs to cut down on the content, I found the story still held up very well.

I thought Innocence did a very good mix of traditional and CGI too. It helps that it was done as such from the start.

[Taro]

Off topic

Taro - I butted in on your forum posting  but I did defend you!

Thanks a lot Kathy, I really do appreciate it. I see that Skip posted a message after yours stating I'm whiney, highly insulting and my question doesn't deserve an answer from Ken. That basically closes the door for me. If Invelos won't answer my question and doesn't intervene when a user like Skip posts uncalled for aggression like this, then I feel it's OK for me to stop contributing audio and subtitle changes. When I posted my question on the Invelos forums there was a tiny voice in my head that said "this won't end well" and lo and behold. If only the atmosphere over there was more like the atmosphere here . Oh well ...

I thought Innocence did a very good mix of traditional and CGI too. It helps that it was done as such from the start.

Coincidence has it that I've just ordered Innocence on Blu-ray and it should arrive next week. Looking forward to watching that! I've seen some people complaining about the PQ not being up to snuff but from what I understand, there are some soft scenes that are actually made soft on purpose by the director, Oshii Mamoru, to help reinforce his story telling.

[Najemikon]

What were we saying in the other thread? There's the danger of looking to closely at the technicalities of the transfer. I saw nothing that didn't seem to fit the story, so I agree, there are some soft scenes, but it suited, so I thought nothing of it.

[Achim]

The latter. GITS 2.0 is an excellent transfer and very sharp, even if the new bits of CGI are horribly misjudged and spoil the film.

In the extras, you will find the original GITS and they've clearly stuck with the 480P version, which is a shame, but obviously they believe in the new version (it has taken a lot of work after all), so they've only put it on as an afterthought for comparison sake. The opening title subs are missing where my R2 has them.

This is not a "Pick your version" menu, not even branching. 

I looked up some videos on YouTube and I do entirely agree with you. Knowing what should be there and to see what is there instead makes it almost unbearable. I'll stick with my DVDs until they release the proper version on Blu. Thanks a lot for saving me from wasting money.