 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6  Previous Next
|
|
Possessory credits - title or not? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting EnryWiki: Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Well it looks like the majority of people are voting that we use external sources to judge whether a possessive is part of the title or not. And that seems a reasonable approach to me.
Well, they are voting to "use the back blurb to judge", not any "external source".  I agree... it is up to vote to use back blurb... I wouldn't vote for using an external source! And I definitely don't agree with changing what you mean by that after the voting already started! That is very bad form in my opinion!  | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
You don't get what I'm trying to say in regards to Hamlet - I'm saying that the very fact that there is no other credit for Shakespeare proves that the possessive is a credit and not part of the title. Had there been a separate credit for him, then the argument that it is part of the title would be more persuasive. I never intended that he be credited in the profile under the current rules, I was saying that his name is a credit, not a title.
As for the old discussions about possessives. Yes, they may have been excluded in the old guidelines and you may have deliberately kept silent about them for the new rules. But I wasn't around for that, and I'm sure there's a lot of other users around either. All we have to go on are the rules. You said yourself that an agreement couldn't be reached - why do you assume now that that means we always put the possessive in the title? What gives you the idea that a possessive can't be part of the title? What law of nature states that? That is a purely arbitrary choice some people are making, in open denial of what is right in front of their eyes. That is why they did nothing with it in the rules first time around, but that doesn't mean it is the correct way to handle it. Nor does it say its incorrect. You guys are so sure its one way and not the other, but nobody has given any real proof that they shouldn't be part of the title. At least we can say that they appear on screen together. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I agree... it is up to vote to use back blurb... I wouldn't vote for using an external source! And I definitely don't agree with changing what you mean by that after the voting already started! That is very bad form in my opinion! Well in that case get Ken to let us edit polls! I made that change only 1/2 an hour after first posting and it's very clear in the first post what I meant - if people are too lazy to read only 1 post before voting on a poll then it's their bad form not mine! And I also said use external sources to help judge not to use instead of the title screen. |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
What gives you the idea that a possessive can't be part of the title? What law of nature states that? That is a purely arbitrary choice some people are making, in open denial of what is right in front of their eyes. That is why they did nothing with it in the rules first time around, but that doesn't mean it is the correct way to handle it. Nor does it say its incorrect. You guys are so sure its one way and not the other, but nobody has given any real proof that they shouldn't be part of the title. At least we can say that they appear on screen together. Except they don't appear on screen together, they appear one after the other. And my comments on Hamlet are not intended to cover every single possessive - of course there are titles that include possessives - I believe I quoted two myself in the early posts. But I am not under the misapprehension that ALL possessives are part of the title. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | North:
Neither am i, that is why I have repeatedly stated that sometimes I am not happy with the end result. However, I also don't believe that there is any way to define this in the Rules. And I am always against attempt at if this then do it this way, if it is that then do it some other way. Yes, this will result in AH's The Birds(for example) but the beauty of our system is that we all have the ability to dela with the data locally in whatever form we desire. I would rather have 1000 AH's The Birds, than to have one example such as Hamlet which winds up with a total misrepresentation. Is it completely false to call it Ah's The Birds, no it is not, it does appear On Screen, we can banter back and forth all day about marketing gimmicks, etc etc, etc, but that all boils down to opinion and being an opinion we are all free to deal with it locally as we choose. In the case of this particular version of Hamlet. it leaves us with data, due to construction of the Credits with data is factually inaccurate or at the very best misleading.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
I agree... it is up to vote to use back blurb... I wouldn't vote for using an external source! And I definitely don't agree with changing what you mean by that after the voting already started! That is very bad form in my opinion!
Well in that case get Ken to let us edit polls! I made that change only 1/2 an hour after first posting and it's very clear in the first post what I meant - if people are too lazy to read only 1 post before voting on a poll then it's their bad form not mine! And I also said use external sources to help judge not to use instead of the title screen. When I voted that edit was not there... and who knows 100% for sure how many people voted before the edit was there.... and there was no other indication to what was meant... other then what the choices were... it all came AFTER my initial vote... not before. Once you put a poll up for vote (once votes can be made) you should not change the meanings of any of the options as that gives you inaccurate results. In my opinion... without being able to say 100% for sure how many people voted with the original opinions in mind... you will have any number of false votes... In my personal opinion this whole poll is tainted. And why would I ask for ken to give the ability to change a poll? That just supports doing what you did... the only way I could see having the ability to change a poll is if when you change a poll all votes are wiped clean... and it starts the poll over again with no votes what so ever. That is the only way to guarantee a complete accurate poll. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 24, 2007 |  Posts: 240 |
| | Posted: | | | | A possessory credit is never part of the title. The only question is if it is a possessory credit. I can't think of an example where it's hard to tell. To borrow from my other post... Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window did not take place in Alfred Hitchcock's house. It's not Alfred Hitchcock's window, it's Alfred Hitchcock's movie, and the movie in this case is "Rear Window". It is a possessory credit. " Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" Bill and Ted are not the directors they are the subjects of the story. It is not a possessory credit. If you had a travel documentary... Mr. Smith's Trip Around the World. Directed by Mr Smith, Staring Mr. Smith, Edited by Mr. Smith, Music by Mr. Smith. It's still not a possessory credit because the subject of the film is Mr. Smith's trip. There are some exceptions, if some one [John Carpenter] creates a film they can call it what ever they like... even if it's really stupid! John Carpenter Presents Vampires: Los Muertos That IS the official title. If you look at the movie rating database, that's what it's listed under. It's " Vampires: Los Muertos" in the DVDProfiler DB. Any one want to update that one?  So if a possessory credit IS part of the official title it's not hard to document, at least for R1. | | | | Tom. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Once again tas and with all due respect your are expressing an opinion and further that opinion is based on desire to eliminate possessives. You are not coming from an unbiased position.
I REPEAT again sometimes I am NOT happy with the results of what I see on screen, BUT I have the ability to fix that for myself. I do not have any need or desire for the Online to reflect my tastes or preferences.
There is one UNDENIABLE FACT, opoinion aside we can argue opinion all day. The possessive when it is used appears ON SCREENPERIOD. One reason I firmly am convinced that I am right is that my comments are based on FACTUAL statements based upon what apeears On Screen, with no bias brought on by any desire one way or the other, nor any opinion based upon ANY other source material...simply and FACTUALLY what is ON SCREEN and the recognition that I can do whatever IO WANT TO locally with the data.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 24, 2007 | | Posts: 240 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Once again tas and with all due respect your are expressing an opinion and further that opinion is based on desire to eliminate possessives. You are not coming from an unbiased position. You can read my mind now? I don't want to eliminate possessive. I want the official title of the film. The field is "TITLE" not "what's on the screen". You say that Possessives should always be included but not other stuff that's on the screen. You call it a red herring. But John Carpenter Presents Vampires: Los Muertos is on the screen, and it really IS the full official title. You don't want to stick "Joe Blow Presents" on everything just because 'it's on the screen" because you know it's NOT PART OF THE TITLE most of the time. This is also as you say, an UNDENIABLE FACT. John Carpenter's The Thing IS the official title and that's what should be in the DB. Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window is NOT the official title. It's Rear Window and that's what should be in the DB. | | | | Tom. |
| | Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tas314: Quote:
A possessory credit is never part of the title.
The only question is if it is a possessory credit. I can't think of an example where it's hard to tell. To borrow from my other post...
Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window did not take place in Alfred Hitchcock's house. It's not Alfred Hitchcock's window, it's Alfred Hitchcock's movie, and the movie in this case is "Rear Window". It is a possessory credit.
"Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" Bill and Ted are not the directors they are the subjects of the story. It is not a possessory credit.
If you had a travel documentary...
Mr. Smith's Trip Around the World. Directed by Mr Smith, Staring Mr. Smith, Edited by Mr. Smith, Music by Mr. Smith. It's still not a possessory credit because the subject of the film is Mr. Smith's trip.
There are some exceptions, if some one [John Carpenter] creates a film they can call it what ever they like... even if it's really stupid!
John Carpenter Presents Vampires: Los Muertos
That IS the official title. If you look at the movie rating database, that's what it's listed under. It's "Vampires: Los Muertos" in the DVDProfiler DB. Any one want to update that one?
So if a possessory credit IS part of the official title it's not hard to document, at least for R1. If I understand correctly what yoy say: if the possessory credit is only the director's name, then it's just a credit, not the title; if, on the contrary, the name is there for some other reason, then it should be considered consider as part of the title. For instance, Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein are the official titles, while Frank Capra is just the director of A Wonderful Life, according to your reasoning. I would be tempted to agree with you, but I wonder: how about the fact that some databases aknowledge Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds and Frank Capra's A Wonderful Life as the "complete" alternate titles? And how about Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds being shown on screen? On the other hand, I've just checked my copy of AH's The Birds and I noticed that Alfred Hitchcock's is shown on screen before The Birds but not in the same frame, as you can see in this cap.   | | | | -- Enry |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Walt Disney Presents: The Moon Spinners is On Screen but i don't talk about it because it's not a possessive. All that does is bring in material that is not germaine to the topic being discussed, and to me only serves to weaken your argument. The topic is possessives not other stuff.
And AH's Rear Window is what appears FACTUALLY on the screen, to reach your conclusion you have to rely something othger than what is ON SCREEN, which the Rules do not call for. Based on the data ON Screen how do YOU deteremine that is NOT a "real"possessive, I submit that based on the screen data...which is what the Rules say...YOU CAN'T. What you can determine as John pointed out by the nature of the 's, AH is inextricably linked to the title.Now as I said, that is consistent with both the credits and the Rules. And I have also said that I am not happy about that, and that the Online does not have to reflect MY preferences or data needs so what do I do...what...do I do. Oh my. I could make MY title Rear Window, I could leave the title alone and make my Sort Title Rear Window, both of which achieve essentially the same objective.
All of this opinion based discussion only makes me conclude that it is based on preference and that you expect the Online to do what you want it to, I really hope I am wrong. But I don't see anybody providing a neutral fact based (on the data) argument. I am also not convinced that ANYBODY truly understand sthe argument I am presenting, that is based on simply on the observation of all the extraneous stuff being drug into the discussion that re not on topic.
My argument is NOT carved in granite, they never are, but my arguments are always well thought out and consistent. I was working on a title just this afternoon and was reminded of argument on the topic where my position was changed because someone finally decided to deal with the argument. I frankly don't see a way in which my mind could be changed on this but who knows....anything is possible, perhaps a different take or whatever.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Enry: William Shakespeare's Hamlet puts the lie to that theoy about possessive credits being Directors. As do all of Neil Simo's works. I MIGHT be wrong...but I don't think the bard ever directed a film, but there are those making the same claim about that film.  But perhaps more importantly, as i have also said. The specific prohibition against possessives was removed over two years ago and many films have them, this was done because users wanted them. So two years from now when another batch of users decides they want it again. Rhetorical question: Where does it end? From what it sounds like here, there are two possibilities it never ends and we are subject to the Whim of the Week or at no user in particular..it ends when i get my way. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,680 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Walt Disney Presents: The Moon Spinners is On Screen but i don't talk about it because it's not a possessive. All that does is bring in material that is not germaine to the topic being discussed, and to me only serves to weaken your argument. The topic is possessives not other stuff. The rules do not say anything about possessives. The only reason that we limit the discussion to possessives is that no one has claimed that things like "Walt Disney Presents" is part of the title. But as far as the rules are concerned, they do not differentiate between possessives and anything else on the title screen. You say we should include possessives because they are there, but you have no support in the rules for that position. This is your opinion. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Once again tas and with all due respect your are expressing an opinion and further that opinion is based on desire to eliminate possessives. You are not coming from an unbiased position. You have no idea where he is coming from. You are making an assumption based on what? Quote:
I REPEAT again sometimes I am NOT happy with the results of what I see on screen, BUT I have the ability to fix that for myself. I do not have any need or desire for the Online to reflect my tastes or preferences. You keep saying this but the voracity in which you defend your position seems to indicate that you are not coming from an unbiased position. | | | 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 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Gunnar:
I think you need to take a course in reading comprehension. How many time must I repeat the same thing over and over?
The OLD Guidelines said NO possessives PERIOD, users wanted them, so we simply removed that prohibition. Is that too difficult for you. I have been over all of this, you argument holds no water. the topic is not about Anybody Presents Anything, it is about possessives. if you want to talk Anybody Presents Anything ythen start another thread, it is not germaine to this topic.
Skip <shakes head> | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Gunnar:
I think you need to take a course in reading comprehension. How many time must I repeat the same thing over and over?
The OLD Guidelines said NO possessives PERIOD, users wanted them, so we simply removed that prohibition. Is that too difficult for you. I have been over all of this, you argument holds no water. the topic is not about Anybody Presents Anything, it is about possessives. if you want to talk Anybody Presents Anything ythen start another thread, it is not germaine to this topic.
Skip <shakes head> You are correct, the old guidelines said no possessives. Now they say nothing about them. They simply say to take the title from the film's credits. They do not tell us what that title is. It is up to us to determine what is and isn't part of the title. You seem to believe that you can do that when something like 'Walt Disney Presents' is on the title screen, but not when something like 'Walt Disney's' is. That makes absolutely no sense at all. | | | 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 |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |