 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2  Previous Next
|
|
Do we take the title ' Se7en' from 'on Screen' or from rear Jacket Credits ? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,494 |
| | Posted: | | | | This has probably been bashed about before (i.e. "Mr Roberts" ).. but the movie with Brad Pitt/ Morgan Freeman called SE7EN is titled on screen as Se7en,, but the original Jacket Art from 1997 (upc-794043438127) is titled Seven and the New Line Platinum Series (2000) is titled Se7en .
Now the disc ID and the rear text between quotes is titled Seven.., and I did not wish to Change the title only to contribute it as Original title.- Seven .
I have 10 No's and 55 Yes's on this.., . Now I may be wrong on this., What about the previous version from 1997? Wouldn't that DVD title of Seven , should it be changed to Se7en as the opening credits reveal ?? | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry | | | | Last edited: by widescreenforever |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 585 |
| | Posted: | | | | You and I already talked about it privately, but just to put my 2 cents in... The rules: Quote:
The Original Title field serves two general purposes, but in both cases allows for the tracking of the original feature title. Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits. In cases where the title is the original title, leave the Original Title field blank. The way I see it the "DVD Title" is the title on the outside cover of the DVD box. In the original 1997 release this would be "Seven" and on the newer releases it would be "Se7en". In both versions of the film however the film's title displayed in the opening credits is "Se7en". So for the newer releases since both the DVD title and the "Original Title" match, I think it should be left blank. For the older release, I think someone should go back and actually fix the Original Title as "Se7en" since it differs from the title on the DVD box. There's actually many Region 2 profiles for this movie that did exactly that, but none of the Region 1 profiles have this correctly. The title in the credit block (what it seems some people are mistakenly thinking is the "copyright notice", which it is not) is only mentioned in the rules to be used to determine possessives, not the title of the movies in general. The copyright notice, which is the teeny tiny print usually somewhere underneath the credit block, according to the rules can be used, but there is no mention of the title in the copyright notice on this particular title. | | | "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - Douglas Bader
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | the title now comes from the front cover... not the credits. The rule was changed a little bit ago... so if Seven is on the front cover... then title has to be Seven. but since the movie credits say Se7en... I believe that can be put in the Original Title field. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Example 1:Front cover title: Seven Film credit title: Seven DVD Profiler Title: Seven DVD Profiler Original Title: [blank] Example 2:Front cover title: Se7en Film credit title: Seven DVD Profiler Title: Se7en DVD Profiler Original Title: Seven Yes, two titles in the database because those are the DVD titles, since [shall we all chant our mantra in unison] "this is DVD Profiler, not film profiler".  Not my favorite rule, but it is what it is.  | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Example 3:
Front Cover: Se7en
Film Title: Se7en
DVD Profiler Title: Se7en
DVD Profiler Original Title: Blank
BTW, this describes the copy that I have.
Nowhere does it say to take the title from the "credit block", unless we are trying to determine if a possessive belongs in the title. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | In unison, James? I want four-part harmony. Sorry it was too easy. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
the title now comes from the front cover... not the credits. The rule was changed a little bit ago... so if Seven is on the front cover... then title has to be Seven. but since the movie credits say Se7en... I believe that can be put in the Original Title field. This is my understanding, too | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Voltaire53: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
the title now comes from the front cover... not the credits. The rule was changed a little bit ago... so if Seven is on the front cover... then title has to be Seven. but since the movie credits say Se7en... I believe that can be put in the Original Title field.
This is my understanding, too That's how I've been doing it for years now as well: the "title" comes from the front cover, the "original title" from the DVD credits. Unfortunately, several of my updates following that line of reasoning have been declined, as the rules on "original title" say: Quote:
Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits. Since "title from the copyright notice" (people interpret this as the "credits block" on the back cover) is given priority, the rule essentially boils down to: take the "title" from the front cover, and the "original title" from the back cover (meaning: from the "credits block"). It's absolutely ridiculous, and I have already pointed this out several times, but no-one seems to care. But I can assure you that there are users that actually vote this way, and by doing so, have succeeded in keeping correct "original titles", taken from the film credits, out of the database. I've just locked them locally, but I just don't get it. If both the front cover and the "credits block" state the title to be XXX, while the credits indentify the film as YYY, the current rules actually prohibit us from tracking YYY. I can only guess as to why so few people actually protest against this policy: maybe it's just that most people simply choose to ignore that rule and most updates get through because no-one notices. But in the cases that someone DOES vote against it referring to this rule, I've really had such updates being declined every time, as it really is what the rules say. I just don't get it. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Since "title from the copyright notice" (people interpret this as the "credits block" on the back cover) Actually they are not the same  | | | | -- Enry | | | | Last edited: by White Pongo, Jr. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting EnryWiki: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Since "title from the copyright notice" (people interpret this as the "credits block" on the back cover)
Actually they are not the same Agreed. The copyright notice is in the film itself. | | | | Hal |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting EnryWiki:
Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Since "title from the copyright notice" (people interpret this as the "credits block" on the back cover)
Actually they are not the same
Agreed. The copyright notice is in the film itself. Okay - you know that, and I know that. But most voters don't. Especially not those for which English isn't their first language. I suspect this problem exists mostly outside region 1, where as a result of translations, the title fields get a bit more important. Anyway: I'm still sticking with the way I've always been entering titles since the moment we got the "original title" field: the title from the cover goes into the "title" field, and the title from the film's credits (only if it's different) goes into the "original title" field. These are the only two title variantions I'm after, and I frankly don't care at all what the credits block and copyright notice say. I still cannot comprehend that when both the front cover and the "copyright notice" state the title to be XXX, while the opening credits show the title to be YYY, the current rules actually prohibit us from tracking YYY. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Locally, I do exactly the same thing, Tim. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Fully agree with you, Tim. |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Locally, I do exactly the same thing, Tim. I think most users do. Those are really the only two title variants that are in any way significant to me, and we have two separate title fields to track them in. IMHO things couldn't be simpler, but apparently that was a bit too optimistic. Why new and unexplained definitions like "copyright notice" had to be dragged in to this, I'll never understand. Although I do have a feeling where it came from: IMHO it was a result by the whole debate on possessives. Ken apparently tried to incorporate little possessives-related bits into the general title rules, which now mess up the entire section. I'd much rather have a simple rule that said: take the "title" from the front cover, and the "original title" from the film's credits, and then devote a separate paragraph on how to deal with possessives. That particular section could draw on "credits block", "copyright notice" or whatever else, but for "normal" titles, they just muddy the waters. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Locally, I do exactly the same thing, Tim.
I think most users do. Those are really the only two title variants that are in any way significant to me, and we have two separate title fields to track them in. IMHO things couldn't be simpler, but apparently that was a bit too optimistic. Why new and unexplained definitions like "copyright notice" had to be dragged in to this, I'll never understand.
Although I do have a feeling where it came from: IMHO it was a result by the whole debate on possessives. Ken apparently tried to incorporate little possessives-related bits into the general title rules, which now mess up the entire section. I'd much rather have a simple rule that said: take the "title" from the front cover, and the "original title" from the film's credits, and then devote a separate paragraph on how to deal with possessives. That particular section could draw on "credits block", "copyright notice" or whatever else, but for "normal" titles, they just muddy the waters. There are cases when "original title" is not the "film screen title". The Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns jump to mind. These have the English title both on the cover and in the film credits, but in the case of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" the original title is "Il Buono, il brutto, il cattivo". | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can see that. But trying to deal with that kind of exceptions, and also with stuff like possessives, have lead to the mess that we're currently stuck with. I'd rather have a simple, general rule that can be applied to 90-95% of the entire database, followed by a separate paragraph on how to deal with certain exceptions. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |