Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting Skipnet50:

Quote:
It is easy to apply the Rule, there is no intrerpretation needed.

But you are making an interpretation.

You are telling us that it belongs in the title because it's on the screen, but only if it's a possessive (not Darryl F. Zanuck presents). And since the rules don't make that distinction it is your interpretation.

You always keep saying that no interpretation is needed. What you totally fail to grasp is that interpretations are always needed. And that you make them yourself all the time.

For one thing Gunnar, Possessives were discussed at the time, Presents were not so the answer is NO.

But please...keep trying

Skip

It was discussed, but it didn't make it into the rules. Therefore - an interpretation. You can spin it any way you like. I think everyone else sees it for what it is.

Indeed and I have NOT been persuaded. I can present as much evidence in support of ppssesives as others can opposed. For example , the FIRST edition of what we commonly call "The Lost World" is in fact Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World by Sir Artur Conan Doyle. I think perhaps a fine proposal has been made in which everybody wins.

Skip

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
You do realise you have posted on this thread 14 seperate times?

Well that explains the short pages I am seeing. 

Just to point out this is in the database as Oklahoma!

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The issue is POSSESSIVES so all your other stuff is simply a straw man to distract. IF it is ON Screen then it is.

No, the issue is are the possessives part of the title.  You arguement is, if it is on the title screen it is part of the title.  You also say that you do not interpret the data.  Well, if you are ignoring some of the data that is appears on the title screen, you are interpreting the data and entering what you believe is the title.  Spin it any way you like, but that is what you are doing.

Quote:
Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life is what appears ON SCREEN, whether I like it or not, it is THERE.

So is all the other stuff I mentioned.  If you aren't interpreting the data, why is that not part of the title? 

Quote:
The data is the data is the data. The Rules say where that data is to come from and the Rule has NOT changed, and probably should not, perhaps using the Cover for the title, as has been discussed since that IS what we see on the shelf, but all this song and dance, go here, go there, go somewhere else, only makes data entry more time-consuming and difficult.

Simply follow the Rules, they actually do WORK, and any mods you wish to make locally for your purposes is your business.

Skip

If that is what you truly believe, then everything that appears on the title screen must be entered into the title field.  You can't have it both ways.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Unlike some users around here,ninehours, I do not try and interpret data and twist and turn  to prevent the data from being included just because I might not like it. The data is what it is, the rules do NOT provide for any source other than the On Screen title. All this brilliant plan has done is caused confusion so that users now THINK they are smarter than the data and filmmakers.

Skip

Skip,

You have stated on many occassions that you object to users who THINK that they are smarter than the filmmakers. This is what the filmmakers have to say about the use of possessory credits:

DGA Article on "A Film by" Credit

See: http://www.dga.org/thedga/cr_gi_wga.php3

"Director Norman Jewison vividly remembers what Frank Capra told him at the historic May 1967 meeting of 53 directors who met to address the subject. "This possessory credit should be important to every director. Once you've earned it, it's more important than anything," Jewison recalled Capra telling him. "I remember Mr. Capra saying, 'My name above the title is more important than anything to me.' And then, of course, he wrote his autobiography called Frank Capra: The Name Above the Title.""

DGA Timeline on Possessory Credits battle wtih WGA

See: http://www.dga.org/news/v28_6/news_pc-timeline.php3

DGA Article on WGA Proposals

See: http://www.dga.org/news/v25_4/news_WGA_proposals.php3

The last article includes this quote from Alfred Hitchcock:

"I consider the possessory use of my name above the title of a film as of extraordinary value to the producing company as well as to myself. Every producing company has informed me that my name has 'box office value' and part of the benefit received by such producing company is the right to use, advertise and exploit my name."

- Alfred Hitchcock

The Directors Guild of America represents the filmmakers. The filmakers say that possessory credits are above the title. Capra's biography was even entitled "Frank Capra: The Name Above the Title".

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
Just to point out this is in the database as Oklahoma!
(edit  )

This one has the possessive:
Fortunately, the credit block says RODGERS AND HAMMERSTEIN present "OKLAHOMA!", so this should be an easy one to fix.   

Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Unlike some users around here,ninehours, I do not try and interpret data and twist and turn  to prevent the data from being included just because I might not like it. The data is what it is, the rules do NOT provide for any source other than the On Screen title. All this brilliant plan has done is caused confusion so that users now THINK they are smarter than the data and filmmakers.

Skip

Skip,

You have stated on many occassions that you object to users who THINK that they are smarter than the filmmakers. This is what the filmmakers have to say about the use of possessory credits:

DGA Article on "A Film by" Credit

See: http://www.dga.org/thedga/cr_gi_wga.php3

"Director Norman Jewison vividly remembers what Frank Capra told him at the historic May 1967 meeting of 53 directors who met to address the subject. "This possessory credit should be important to every director. Once you've earned it, it's more important than anything," Jewison recalled Capra telling him. "I remember Mr. Capra saying, 'My name above the title is more important than anything to me.' And then, of course, he wrote his autobiography called Frank Capra: The Name Above the Title.""

DGA Timeline on Possessory Credits battle wtih WGA

See: http://www.dga.org/news/v28_6/news_pc-timeline.php3

DGA Article on WGA Proposals

See: http://www.dga.org/news/v25_4/news_WGA_proposals.php3

The last article includes this quote from Alfred Hitchcock:

"I consider the possessory use of my name above the title of a film as of extraordinary value to the producing company as well as to myself. Every producing company has informed me that my name has 'box office value' and part of the benefit received by such producing company is the right to use, advertise and exploit my name."

- Alfred Hitchcock

The Directors Guild of America represents the filmmakers. The filmakers say that possessory credits are above the title. Capra's biography was even entitled "Frank Capra: The Name Above the Title".

This has been quoted before, and some people used it to imply that because they said 'above the title' that somehow implies it is separate from the title.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  There is a clear hierarchy in the credit world.  Credits above the title (referring to positioning only) are of much greater value than those below the title.  You see the same thing in the text at the bottom of a one-sheet where they list something akin to:  A Malpaso Film  Actor A  Actor B  FILM TITLE  Actor C  Actor D    and so on.  Actors A & B are 'above' the title, C & D are below it.  The title is nothing more than a point of reference vis a vis the credit position, and reference to the credit has no bearing on what is actually IN the title itself.

It is abundantly clear, however, from the context of the quotes that they considered that possessory to be part of the title.  Why else would it be there?  It can't stand alone without an object to possess, and in fact, makes no sense UNLESS you include the title WITH the possessory.