Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

And so what if they do appear one after the other?  The possessive is DEPENDENT on the title to make any sense at all.  If they don't go together, why in hell did the producers put them in the film? You can't parse a film frame by frame and expect things to make any sense.  That's why they call it the 'title sequence.'  Once again, apply simple logic.

Yes, the possessive is dependent on the TITLE.  The title, however, is not dependent on the possessive.  They put it there to show that it is the director's film called 'whatever the title is'.

Wrong again, Unicus. Name ANY film that I an Fleming, Mark Twain or William Shakespeare EVER directed. Particularly Shakespeare.                 

Skip

That is one for you Skip...poor choice of words on my part as I was refering strictly to the director's possessory credit. 

And trust me you don't want to know, you won't like the answer.
I would suggest that the plain aka could be handled under Original Title, but the others are QUITE amusing....to me.

Skip

Even if it were IMDb, Telecine, and you know what I think of them, I find the information to very amusing.

Skip

Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Yes it is amusing but it still has no credibility. Interestingly enough, I think that the working title field is IMDB's way of dealing with possessory credits.

IMDb uses the "complete title" for possessory titles

The King and I (1956)
Also Known As: Rodgers and Hammerstein's The King and I (USA) (complete title)

Hamlet (1996)
Also Known As: William Shakespeare's Hamlet

The Birds (1963)
Also Known As: Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (UK) (complete title)

...only missing the fourth of Skip's examples now. It's not The Lost World, as there is no aka for The Lost World at IMDb...

Achim:


<whispers> Try ummm Rear Window.

You were not right about the King and I but that is also a good example. 

As I said, you know what I think about them, but for this that is not relevant. This is people trying to drag various forms of documentation to support their claim, including definitions that have NOTHING to do with Profiler. Even trying to claim that Director's Possessives are not, which number one MANY possessive do not involve director's at all, they can be Producers, Writers, Musicians, Iaven't seen a DOP's....yet...ooops I shouldn't have said that now I am cursed, I will find a DOP's within the nxt few films.          

I merely am pointing that their conclusiuon is THEIR conclusion and is NOT universally recognized as a correct conclusion by ANYONE.

I have also repeatedly said that we have been doing this for TWO years and there are many that have been voted on AND previously approved. I am sorry, to all but I refuse to play the Rule of the Week game, just because one or more users wantb to ignore what has been established for a long time and now wants to do it some other way, for the only reason being he/they WANT it, when we all have the ability to do whatever we want locally. What you don't understand about me, is that I do understand THAT and MY rules for MY parallel local are established and the only person I listen to is ME...usually...but when I fight with me it's a doozy.       .

This is about keeping the Rules consistent, which includes seeing where we have been and stable. If we start playinmg the Rule of the week game, we will only drive away Contributors or potential Contributors, hoiw can they Contribute when they don't know how the game is played, and keeping the Rules simple.

Which means. "The title comes from the film or as we tried to do in the never-released revision the Front Cover. Not be suer and check the Copyright title or go here, or go there, oh and don't forget to consult the DGA and the Academy.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
As I said, you know what I think about them, but for this that is not relevant. This is people trying to drag various forms of documentation to support their claim, including definitions that have NOTHING to do with Profiler.

This is where you get it wrong...

"They" are not trying to drag random sources to support a claim. "They" are trying to explain to you why you are wrong, which you don't want to see. That is of course, your choice, but is is really just an attempt to show you that in the real world (well, movie world, Hollywood land) not everything that is on the screen at the same time (let alone at separate times) is necessarily part of the Title of the film.

Yes, some possessives are indeed part of the Title, but some are not. As we are supposed to enter the Title, we have the task to find out what it is. The closest we have come was Dan's idea of using the "back blurb" on the cover (a source on hand), which you have dismissed.

What is sad is, is that you seem to agree at heart, but are just giving everybody a hard time, then saying locally you also do it different. I appeal to you, as you also see the problem, let's find the solution together and stop this endless discussion back and forth.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
"They" are trying to explain why I am wrong.

...and you are defending your position like it's impossible you could possibly wrong; you almost feel offended for people possibly think you are wrong.

Quote:
Where in the Rules for titles does it say to start trying to drag in outside references, I can't find it.

They do indeed not say so for the Title.

Quote:
They do say to use the film's title and there seems to me to be a lot of people who SIMPLY do NOT comprehend the significance of 's and its ramifications.

Everybody understands that the film's title is to be used.

Quote:
I am not the one who chooses to use the pssessive,

Yes you are.

Quote:
I only deal with what is On Screen how many times must i explain this.

You are making a conscious what to use from all the things you see on the screen. You see "...presents" and do deliberately not use it. You see some possessive and use it, regardless if it's part of the title or not. So, yes, it is understood that you deal with what is on the screen.

Quote:
That is what the Rules say to do, they don't say to go look at the Academy or the DGA, IMDb or anywhere else.

As I said above, it has previously been suggested to use the cover, which is not a third-party reference, it's first-hand. You have dismissed this tool.

Quote:
You are only dealing with that part of my comments you wish to deal with and ignoring the majority of what I say.

I have followed this discussion rather closely. Other people previously dealt with your other points, I dealt with the current issues at hand.

Quote:
We are all free to set our local data ANYWAY we want, you want to call The Birds...The Rhinos, good that's your business and if Birds=Rhinos to you who am I to tell you No, but that is your local.

You know, I could say the same thing in reverse... But I won't.

Quote:
I have also said I am opposed to sometimes it's a possessive and sometimes it is NOT, that unnecessarily complicates the issue and ultimately reduces Contributions.

It is no different to Stunt people within cast lists; sometimes we credit them and sometimes we don't. I don't think having correct data will reduce contributions. having consistent data for consistencies sake would.

Quote:
Wht does the Online have to reflect your preferences, it certainly doesn't reflect mine My reference database is far different from my Contribution database.

It is not about this at all.

Quote:
I also will NEVER support The Rule of the Week.