| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I understand what you are saying... but I read over the rules many times... and while they use The Criterion Collection as one possible example... they just don't make that distinction to being the only type of collection. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
If the Dirty Harry title said "Dirty Harry 5-Movie Collection" instead of just "Dirty Harry Collection", would you change the title to:
Title: Dirty Harry
Edition: 5-Movie Collection
I wouldn't. It really depends on how it is formatted. Whether we like it or not they do some crazy things with the titles and title/edition combination. And as it seems... sometimes it is not always easy to distinguish one from the other. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | I just don't know how to explain it any differently. 2-Movie Collection is a description of and part of the title, to me. This DVD is not a member of a collection of movies which all have "2-Movie Collection" listed on the cover, like the Criterion Collection, or the others I've mentioned. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
It really depends on how it is formatted. Whether we like it or not they do some crazy things with the titles and title/edition combination. And as it seems... sometimes it is not always easy to distinguish one from the other. Now, see, I don't think formatting should have anything to do with it. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Don't think it should... but in reality... it is really the only way. With every title you have to decide what is and what isn't part of the title or part of the edition. Placement is no good for this as the edition can he anywhere... we seen times it was only on the spine or back cover. And format and presentation is one of the most obvious things you have to look at. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: May 26, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,878 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I do not see "2-Movie Collection" as a "collection", in the same sense as The Criterion Collection or the Fox Studio Classics, or the Universal Cinema Classics.
"2-Movie Collection" in this case is a description of this DVD release, not of a collection of releases.
If the Dirty Harry title said "Dirty Harry 5-Movie Collection" instead of just "Dirty Harry Collection", would you change the title to:
Title: Dirty Harry
Edition: 5-Movie Collection
I wouldn't. In this I agree with Hal. To my reading, what they are talking about with collections going in the edition field is for a group of films with the same label - like The Criterion Collection or Fox Film Noir - rather than for something like this, that indicates part of this specific release rather than a collection of releases. | | | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
-- Thorin Oakenshield | | | | Last edited: by Danae Cassandra |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | If the rules said Collection of Releases I would agree in a heartbeat. But it just says collections Since the examples don't cover all situations I can't say that by the examples either.
So going by what the rules actually says (and not what I assume them to mean)... As far as I know it could mean a situation like this as well. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | As I said many times in this thread that I could see 2 - Movie Collection going either way it could be part of the title... even though it looks like an edition. And it seems most people here believe that part is part of the title. So I went ahead and resubmitted once again (This is the 3rd or 4th time I resubmitted this title so hopefully the voters not getting too angry about that!)  This time with it all in the title and no edition. We will see if the voters agree or disagree. Hal... Once again... I apologize as pretty much this whole time I thought I was arguing against The Parent Trap / The Parent Trap II for the title. Which means most of this thread wasn't needed.  | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Hal...
Once again... I apologize as pretty much this whole time I thought I was arguing against The Parent Trap / The Parent Trap II for the title. Which means most of this thread wasn't needed. No apology needed. Can I pull a "Skip", though. Please,....pretty, please!  I was the person who asked Ken to add the "collection" phrase to the Rules for the Edition field, so I know what I intended!  As with too many of the Rules, the wording often leaves way too much room for interpretation! | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | You know how it is Hal... no one can know...
1. What the author intended when he/she wrote it
2. What Ken intended when he approved it
3. #2 overrides #1
so all we can do is go by how it actually reads. And unfortunately there is many MANY things that can be read more then one way so you have to be sure you write EXACTLY what you mean... completely clear. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
You know how it is Hal... no one can know...
1. What the author intended when he/she wrote it
2. What Ken intended when he approved it
3. #2 overrides #1
so all we can do is go by how it actually reads. And unfortunately there is many MANY things that can be read more then one way so you have to be sure you write EXACTLY what you mean... completely clear. Hmmmm...if only the English language permitted that! Yes, I know exactly what you mean...and my previous post was entirely tongue-in-cheek! | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Watching the votes... while they are all yes votes... 2 out of 3 votes says that they think it is more of an edition then part of the title. the 3rd just a yes vote with no comment. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,652 |
| | Posted: | | | | Oh, long debate! I must confess I got bored about two thirds of the way, so if what I'm about to say has already been said, I apologize.
My impression is that the rules have not taken into account the possibility that a box set might be named the same as one of the films contained within.
When we are faced with a situation that isn't covered by the rules we should - in my opinion - find a useful solution and let the screeners decide, rather than try to fit a square peg into a round hole, as it were.
In this case, I would go for "The Parent Trap 2 Movie Collection", but I wouldn't vote No to "The Parent Trap / The Parent Trap II". | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar | | | | Last edited: by GSyren |
|