Skip,

I think you need to take a course in reading comprehension.

I did not say I wanted to talk about Anybody Presenting Anything. Quite the opposite. I told you why this thread is not about Anybody Presenting Anything.

But as you so often do, you just spout nonsense instead of presenting anything that resembles a coherent argument.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The you are not reading what i am saying Unicus. I repeat YET again, I am not always pleased about a given possessive BUT it is factually On Screen, that is all the Rules say and all I need to know. I do not require that the Online MATCH my preferences and data requirements, there are options i am free to exercise and DO with my Local data.

I am reading what you are saying.  As I said, it isn't what you are saying it is the voracity in which you continue to fight.  That voracity indicates you have a personal stake in the outcome.

Quote:
I defen d my position because I am firmly convinced that within the context of the Rules and what is ON Screen I am correct. You argument comes strictly from removal and introduces all kinds of outside information that are NOT called within the Rules.

And quite a few people are firmly convinced that your are incorrect.  Why is it that you defending your position is somehow altruistic while everbody else has an agenda?

Quote:
We have had users try and argue that possessives are Director credits, with outside information and we have proven that to be factually incorrect. Coime on, Unicus, I know you know what I am saying, come up with an answer that deal swith the context of the Rules as they are right now and whjat is On screen. Yoou want to say NO Director's Possessives, umm OK, not crazy about it and I think there are exceptions to that as well.

How many times have you said, 'Who are we to decide what the filmmaker intended?"  Well, you have been provided proof of what the filmmaker's intended and you discount it.  I trust what the filmmaker's say on the subject, why don't you?  Again, this seems to indicate that you have some sort of agenda here.

And no, I don't want to say 'NO Director's Possessives'.  Each film is different and I want to treat them that way.

I will admit that I have an agenda...that agenda is to get the correct data into the db so that it continues to be a useful program for the vast majority of users.

"Ooh, you are awful...

...but I like you!"

 


(Dick Emery for the non-Brits)

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
And apologies in advance for my forthcoming changes....

Rio Grande amended to 'John Ford and Merian C.Cooper's Rio Grande'

Well I for one will be voting no on this change....

It's obviously 'John Ford and Merian C.Cooper's Rio Grande An Argosy Production'!!!
 

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:


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?

Some database is not good enough (that would include the DVDProfiler DB). It has to be something that would be considered authoritative, like the official movie rating db, the Studio's official web site, or the library of Congress catalogue. 

For Rear Window...


Bram Stoker's Dracula...


So Alfred Hitchcock's is a Possessory credit and not part of the title. But Bram Stoker's is part of the title.

"Possessives are part of the title" will be wrong some of the time.
"Possessives are not part of the title" will also be wrong some of the time.

The only thing that's always correct is the Official title. If in doubt, or you want to change an existing title document it.

Saying that the title, for the purpose of DVDProfiler is defined as  "what ever is on the screen, including possessives, but nothing else" despite knowing that the official title is something different is just priggish.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
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. 

Didn't ol' Willie direct Di Caprio in William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet ?
Or was it Baz Luhrmann? 

Back to serious: nobody said that all possessive credits are Directors. That would be an obvious lie. 

Quote:

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.

Ken has the last word on his own software, not us. If he changed that Rule two years ago, or if he will want to change it again, it's not to us to judge. We can just discuss and express our opinions and suggestions as users.

Quote:
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.

If I understand correctly what you say, your idea is: always use what is on screen, as the Title Rule says. Fair enough. But then, who decides what is part of the "title on screen", and what is not?
"Alfred Hitchcock's" is not in the same line  and not even in the same frame with "The Birds".
They are on screen, yes, but in different moments.
So, it seems to me that according to your definition the title should be The Birds.

Even if they were in the same frame, or even we accept that they are logically related anyway, does that make the possessive *always* part of the title? Why on earth?


Besides, in the same frame we can read:

The Birds
From the story by
Daphne Du Maurier

Is thus the on-screen title
The Birds: From the story by Dahne Du Maurier
?
   

Again, who decides what is part of the "title on screen" and what is not?

I mean, where do we draw the line?
Even if agree with what you say, use the title on screen, that may not be enough to determine what exactly the title is. So maybe we need to discuss it and try find some widely accepted/acceptable criteria.

What criteria?

Many say "use back blurb". I say: that might be a good idea, but I've seen some very badly written, sloppy overviews. Besides, not all overviews cite the title of the movie.
I am not even sure it agrees with DVDP Rules: "Use the title from the film's credits". But then there is the "Modified Titles" Rule...  Hmmm...

Others say "use any external source". The problem is, you often find alternate titles on external sources, so you could document anything and the opposite of anything if you look for it hard enough. 

Another possibility, we might agree on a convention for DVDP purpose. A convention doesn't need to be always "right", as long as we agree to stick with it.
The convention would be the following:
1. If the possessory credit on screen is the name of the Director, then it's NOT part of the title. Example: Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life (title in italics).
2. If the possessive on screen is NOT the name of the Director, then it IS part of the title.  Example: Bram Stoker's Dracula (title in italics)

Maybe this rule would not satisfactory in all circumstances, but I guess it would be satisfactory in most cases, and I like best a simple rule like that than discussing it again on every title or leave it to personal interpretation or to any "external source".

Just my 2 euro cents 

Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
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.

The you are not reading what i am saying Unicus. I repeat YET again, I am not always pleased about a given possessive BUT it is factually On Screen, that is all the Rules say and all I need to know. I do not require that the Online MATCH my preferences and data requirements, there are options i am free to exercise and DO with my Local data.

I defen d my position because I am firmly convinced that within the context of the Rules and what is ON Screen I am correct. You argument comes strictly from removal and introduces all kinds of outside information that are NOT called within the Rules.

We have had users try and argue that possessives are Director credits, with outside information and we have proven that to be factually incorrect. Coime on, Unicus, I know you know what I am saying, come up with an answer that deal swith the context of the Rules as they are right now and whjat is On screen. Yoou want to say NO Director's Possessives, umm OK, not crazy about it and I think there are exceptions to that as well.

Skip<shakes head again>

Skip,

With all due respect, drop the pretence about not liking the outcome when it comes to 'possessives' and doing something else with your local data. Your online collection is chock full of titles with 'possessives'.

You have not proved that they are not possessory credits, on the contrary, it has been established by reference to authoritative material that they are possessory credits. It is the fact that the discussion of a couple of years ago was based on the erroneous belief that these were 'possessives'. We now know that they are in fact possessory credits.

We can deal with credits within the existing system and future enhancements to the application and database could provide a complete answer going forward.

Continuing to call them 'possessives', insisting on slavishly transcribing what is on screen and refusing to accept authoritative sources of information on the subject so that we can move forward is not a statesman like approach to adopt for a senior member of this community and I would ask you to reconsider your position.

Should you decide not to reconsider your position, here is a challenge for you, please provide an authoritative source for why these credits should be called 'possessives'.

I would also like you to provide an authoritative source that supports your view that the title of the following films is as you suggest:

Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds
Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life

Don't tell me that that is the information that appears on screen and that it follows the rules. We disagree on that and I am not interested in a nonsense outcome. Show me two or three third-party sources to support your view.

Telecine:

To bring you up to date, i ahve stated repeatedly that i run parallel databases, one from whicjh I Contribute and one whis is MY reference database , what you see in my Contribution file, i do not upload my reference file and have absolutely no plans or reason to do so.

Skip

Since we are all so fond of dragging in outside sources, I found this in relation to a possessive

aka "XXXXXX's XXXXXXXX" - USA (complete title)
aka "xxxxxxxxxx's xxxxxxxxxxxx"
aka "XXXXXXXX's XXXXXXXXXX" - UK (complete title)
aka "XXXXXXXX's XXXXXXXXXXXX" - USA (complete title)

I find this absolutely fascinating.

Skip