Forum:BBC Video vs. BBC DVD: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
If you look at the articles for [[BBC Video]] and [[BBC DVD]], you get the distinct impression from both that DVDs were/are handled by an entity known as BBC DVD, while VHS copies of episodes were the responsibility of an entity named BBC Video. | If you look at the articles for [[BBC Video]] and [[BBC DVD]], you get the distinct impression from both that DVDs were/are handled by an entity known as BBC DVD, while VHS copies of episodes were the responsibility of an entity named BBC Video. | ||
Now, as an American, I'm looking at all this through the filter of importation, but on all my DVDs and VHS copies, there's a singular BBC entity. It's '''all'' BBC Video. I've never seen a BBC DVD logo, whereas BBC Video's mark is everywhere. For instance, look [http://media.movieweb.com/news/11.2007/bbc.jpg at this advertisement] for a selection of modern BBC DVDs. The official name of the corporate entity certainly seems to be "BBC Video". | Now, as an American, I'm looking at all this through the filter of importation, but on all my DVDs and VHS copies, there's a singular BBC entity. It's '''all''' BBC Video. I've never seen a BBC DVD logo, whereas BBC Video's mark is everywhere. For instance, look [http://media.movieweb.com/news/11.2007/bbc.jpg at this advertisement] for a selection of modern BBC DVDs. The official name of the corporate entity certainly seems to be "BBC Video". | ||
Is it possible we've gotten the wrong end of the stick at both these articles? Is there actual proof somewhere of a corporate brand known as "BBC DVD"? If not, we need to rethink the language. I don't think we should necessarily delete [[BBC DVD]], because it's still a useful term for "an officially released DVD from the BBC", but it shouldn't be portrayed as a unique "division" of the BBC. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 16:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | Is it possible we've gotten the wrong end of the stick at both these articles? Is there actual proof somewhere of a corporate brand known as "BBC DVD"? If not, we need to rethink the language. I don't think we should necessarily delete [[BBC DVD]], because it's still a useful term for "an officially released DVD from the BBC", but it shouldn't be portrayed as a unique "division" of the BBC. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 16:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:11, 7 May 2009
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If you look at the articles for BBC Video and BBC DVD, you get the distinct impression from both that DVDs were/are handled by an entity known as BBC DVD, while VHS copies of episodes were the responsibility of an entity named BBC Video.
Now, as an American, I'm looking at all this through the filter of importation, but on all my DVDs and VHS copies, there's a singular BBC entity. It's all BBC Video. I've never seen a BBC DVD logo, whereas BBC Video's mark is everywhere. For instance, look at this advertisement for a selection of modern BBC DVDs. The official name of the corporate entity certainly seems to be "BBC Video".
Is it possible we've gotten the wrong end of the stick at both these articles? Is there actual proof somewhere of a corporate brand known as "BBC DVD"? If not, we need to rethink the language. I don't think we should necessarily delete BBC DVD, because it's still a useful term for "an officially released DVD from the BBC", but it shouldn't be portrayed as a unique "division" of the BBC. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
