OK, before I start I want to point out there will always be exceptions to rules. For example, in this case I know of two films where the possessory credit is definitely part of the title: Frank Miller's Sin City and Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.
I'm talking about all the films where it's not so clear.
So do we put the credit in with the title? Do we ignore it like we do other text on the title screen?
I've also started a poll in the Feature Request forum asking whether we need a separate field for this information, regardless of whether you class it as part of the title or not.

EDIT: As I can't change the poll part, please note where I say BACK BLURB, please read it as OTHER SOURCES

Apologies, and thanks to RHo for pointing it out.

For those of you who MIGHT thiink the black blurb is the answer let me offer two pieces of evidence from the back, which if you are familiar with English and how such things work will be understood.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World"
William Shakespeare's "Hamlet"

They are as demonstrated on ONE single line, not one above, below or in any position other that indicated. These possessives are indeed part of the overall title of the titles. but they do not follow the proposed standard of putting everything in quotes and in fact this is the proper way to handle possessives from the standpoint of the Poster data.

Skip

Skip,
Just where do I find the definition of title that says "everything that is on the same line"?

So I guess the reverse must be equally true - if it's not on the same line, it's not part of the title?

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Gunnar:

I learned it in school, back when the world and i were a whole lot younger.

Skip

Wait, wait, wait.  I thought you said, in a discussion about quotes in the overview, that the quotes were to set the title apart from the rest of the sentence. 

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I'd like to see them get Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 hours 11 minutes on one line... 

"Swept Away by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August". 
German Title:
"Hingerissen von einem ungewöhnlichen Schicksal im azurblauen Meer im August".

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
For those of you who MIGHT thiink the black blurb is the answer let me offer two pieces of evidence from the back, which if you are familiar with English and how such things work will be understood.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World"
William Shakespeare's "Hamlet"

They are as demonstrated on ONE single line, not one above, below or in any position other that indicated. These possessives are indeed part of the overall title of the titles. but they do not follow the proposed standard of putting everything in quotes and in fact this is the proper way to handle possessives from the standpoint of the Poster data.

Skip

Allow me to add another wrinkle here:  in many cases, the title that is shown on a movie one-sheet, or the cover of the DVD is a graphical illustration.  You can't apply rules of grammar to a graphic, because it isn't straight text.  For example:  there is no question that Sin City is listed as "Frank Miller's Sin City" because Miller himself said it is supposed to be that way.  But, you never see it listed on one line.  It is always shown as Miller's name above the Sin City part. 

There are dozens of other examples where the graphic title is shown the same way as Sin City, yet some people are trying to remove what is obviously part of the title because they are following rules that don't apply to a graphic in the first place.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Allow me to add another wrinkle here:  in many cases, the title that is shown on a movie one-sheet, or the cover of the DVD is a graphical illustration.  You can't apply rules of grammar to a graphic, because it isn't straight text.  For example:  there is no question that Sin City is listed as "Frank Miller's Sin City" because Miller himself said it is supposed to be that way.  But, you never see it listed on one line.  It is always shown as Miller's name above the Sin City part. 

There are dozens of other examples where the graphic title is shown the same way as Sin City, yet some people are trying to remove what is obviously part of the title because they are following rules that don't apply to a graphic in the first place.

But we're not talking about the graphic representation of the title, we're talking about the text usually found on the back of the DVD cover or at the bottom of the film poster. And in the example stated it does say "Frank Miller's Sin City" on the back cover, whereas on the one being currently discussed it says Rodgers and Hammerstein's "The King and I", on the 50th Anniversary edition anyway.
To me this seems a very good way of differentiating between the two types of possessives.