Actually, the Teen Wolf / Teen Wolf 2 is a good example.

It's basically laid out the same as The Parent Trap, the only difference being the header. One uses "Double Feature" the other uses "The Parent Trap 2-Movie Collection", then subsequently the movie titles contained within. There really is no difference.

Alternatively, if you want to go by font size, the "Comedy Double Feature" appears to have a bigger font then the subsequent movie titles.

They aren't different circumstances, just different DVDs. Exact same circumstance, just the titles are different.

That said, I don't think they should be resubmitted by any stretch.

Do you have any examples of where a collection's title is simply named one of the movies within? (I'm genuinely curious to see it, not being a smartass.)

(Note: Dawn of the Dead: The Ultimate Collection comes to mind as an almost, but it's the different cuts of the same movie, not different movies.)

No others in my personal collection... but as I said... even if this is the first one to appear I can only go by as it seems to be. And as I said... of the actual voters who has this title a huge majority of them thinks what I put is correct. And this is going by both the votes and the comments... as I have been watching the comments on this one.

Now... if the actual voters where to say they think it should all be in the title field I would go with that (as it could be that only I am looking at it as an edition... even though earlier posts here proves I am not). But to this point none of them is asking for such a change.

Also... the Teen Wolf set is no different then any of the others in that post. None of them has a name for the release over the names of the included movies.

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
I also see the differences Addicted2DVD mentions.

How about this:

Title: Fantastic 4
Edition: 2-Movie Collection

Just because the titles of the two included movies are not written in big letters like on the op movie, we leave them out? (in smaller letters: includes: Fantastic 4 & Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer)

I would always go with 2-Movie Collection or similar in Edition field.
If the "title" on cover matches to both included movies like Parent Trap or Fantastic 4, I would take this as title.

At movies that are just listed separate, I would go with title1 / title2: 2-Movie Collection.

Thanks! Great example, although I feel the same way I do about Parent Trap.

Quote:
But some clarification would be good, because there are many examples like these in database and very much variations. 

   

Ken or Gerri, you reading this?

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
And as I said... of the actual voters who has this title a huge majority of them thinks what I put is correct.

Believe me, I have no problem with this, but I also constantly read time and time again on this forum that popular vote means nothing. 

It doesn't affect me, as I don't own the title, but a ruling for future (and current) titles/changes would be nice because, honestly, what is to stop me from changing the title of the Dirty Harry Collection to Dirty Harry?

Quote:
Also... the Teen Wolf set is no different then any of the others in that post. None of them has a name for the release over the names of the included movies.

You are right, it is no different than any others in the post, but, in comparison to the Parent Trap, it's the same thing, just a different header. That's what I meant by that.

Why must we always resort to hyperbole?  Why can't we just use a little common sense?  Yes, the rule tells us to "use the title from the front cover," but it doesn't tell us we can't use the spine to determine which portions of the text, printed on the front, are the actual title.  While I haven't seen every release, I don't believe I have  seen one that doesn't have the actual title printed on the spine.  To me, that is a good indication as to what the actual title is.

That being said, I can see Alien's point.  The problem is, the rules specifically tell us to use the Edition field "for indicating special versions and collections."  Well, '2-Movie Collection' indicates a collection, so I can see Pete's point as well.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Why must we always resort to hyperbole?  Why can't we just use a little common sense?  Yes, the rule tells us to "use the title from the front cover," but it doesn't tell us we can't use the spine to determine which portions of the text, printed on the front, are the actual title. 

That seems slightly contradictory to me.  We take the Title from the cover.  Period.  We cannot use the spine or the credit block as others have advocated in the past.  Is it possible that because of the size of the spine that the full title simply does not fit?  Maybe that's why it is not a reliable (or permissible) source for the title?

I do not consider a re-statement of the Rules to be hyperbole.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
No.  These titles indicate very clearly that they are COLLECTIONS, so when you see the title you know immediately that they are just that.  Using just 'Parent Trap' in the title field does not tell me it is a collection.  The edition field might, but the title does not.

I am a tad confused by your stance here.  Last I checked, per the rules, it is the edition field, not the title field, that is supposed to indicate special versions and collections.  Yes, on occasion, depending on the actual title of the set, you can determine this by looking at the title, but that isn't what it is designed for.  If is simply there to indicate the title of the DVD.  No more, no less. 

Please read the whole thread.  Pete asked specifically about the release called 'The Dirty Harry Collection' 9and two other similar collections) which contains 5 movies if I'm not mistaken.  The title of the Boxset profile is 'The Dirty Harry Collection'.  'The Dirty Harry Collection' does not go in the Edition field of the boxset profile.  It DOES go in the Edition field of all the child profiles.

I just like you see the Dirty Harry Collection as the title of the release. And that is no different as seeing The Parent Trap being the title of this one... or Fantastic 4 being the title in VirusPil's example. That is why I don't see the titles listed in The Parent Trap as part of the title. And don't see the titles listed in the Fantastic Four as part of the title... just like I don't see the list of the movies being part of the title in Dirty Harry.

So it seems to me you making just as much a difference as you think I am when it comes to stuff like Teen Wolf / Teen Wolf Too.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I just like you see the Dirty Harry Collection as the title of the release. And that is no different as seeing The Parent Trap being the title of this one... or Fantastic 4 being the title in VirusPil's example. That is why I don't see the titles listed in The Parent Trap as part of the title. And don't see the titles listed in the Fantastic Four as part of the title... just like I don't see the list of the movies being part of the title in Dirty Harry.

So it seems to me you making just as much a difference as you think I am when it comes to stuff like Teen Wolf / Teen Wolf Too.

Of course it's different!  The title  'The Dirty Harry Collection' tells you it is a collection.  'The Parent Trap' does not.  'Fantastic 4' does not.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Please read the whole thread.  Pete asked specifically about the release called 'The Dirty Harry Collection' (and two other similar collections) which contains 5 movies if I'm not mistaken.  The title of the Boxset profile is 'The Dirty Harry Collection'.  'The Dirty Harry Collection' does not go in the Edition field of the boxset profile.  It does go in the Edition field of all the child profiles.

Please be so kind as to read my whole post, before telling me to read the whole thread.  I already addressed this point when I said, and I quote, "Yes, on occasion, depending on the actual title of the set, you can determine this by looking at the title, but that isn't what it is designed for."

'The Dirty Harry Collection' would be covered under that portion of my post.