I don't know why you all assume that the Taglines I cited came from IMDb as I made no mention of IMDb in my post. The Taglines I cited actually came from Filmsite.org's Great Film Tag Lines.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Nor is there anything to support yours. Just your gobbledygook.No real background

Glad to see that you admit that there is nothing in the Rules to support your assertion that font and color should be used to determine what is or is not part of the Overview.  That's all I was asking for.

Clearly a tagline.

It does not describe the movie or the plot.

It's a tagline that could apply to different movies (with different actors).

Quoting kaput5:

Quote:
It does not describe the movie or the plot.

It's a tagline that could apply to different movies (with different actors).

It most certainly describes the movie.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
I don't know about nitpicking or contradicting Hal, you do pretty well in that too. But your comment that the DIFFERENT typeface and color and even size did not preclude it from being part of the Overview was just silly and specious on its face . That has always been one of the primary discriminators about Overviews.

Ignoring your personal attack.....

According to what section of the Rules?

It's in the invisible implied intent section that only a few select have the power to see.

I would think that instead of majking smartass comments such as this, one just might pay some attention to someone so intimately involved in the Rules development process instead that he probably has a better idea about things involving than someone such as uourself that was NEVER involved at any level. I would listen to such a person were it me, but that's me

I don't care if you were the only person to write the rules, champ. Your actions since have proven you have zero credibility when it comes to the rules and how they should be followed.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
I don't know about nitpicking or contradicting Hal, you do pretty well in that too. But your comment that the DIFFERENT typeface and color and even size did not preclude it from being part of the Overview was just silly and specious on its face . That has always been one of the primary discriminators about Overviews.

Ignoring your personal attack.....

According to what section of the Rules?

It's in the invisible implied intent section that only a few select have the power to see.

I would think that instead of majking smartass comments such as this, one just might pay some attention to someone so intimately involved in the Rules development process instead that he probably has a better idea about things involving than someone such as uourself that was NEVER involved at any level. I would listen to such a person were it me, but that's me

I don't care if you were the only person to write the rules, champ. Your actions since have proven you have zero credibility when it comes to the rules and how they should be followed.

Wropng Alien. The person with zero credibility is you

Quoting Alien Redrum:

I don't care if you were the only person to write the rules, champ. Your actions since have proven you have zero credibility when it comes to the rules and how they should be followed.

I just checked this link. So The Color of Money was originally listed 16x9 because of info from the case. Then changed to 4x3 but with little documentation. So Winston Smith falsified documentation to get it changed back to 16x9 because the previous didn't follow the rules. great big WTF.