| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting cmaeditor: Quote:
So based on the argument that it's "Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds" and not "The Birds", should we expect the following possesive to be added to these titles as well?
Mel Gibson's Apocalypto
Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles
Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange
Joss Whedon's Firefly
M. Night Shyamaln's Signs Roll the credits!  | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting cmaeditor: Quote:
So based on the argument that it's "Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds" and not "The Birds", should we expect the following possesive to be added to these titles as well?
Mel Gibson's Apocalypto
Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles
Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange
Joss Whedon's Firefly
M. Night Shyamaln's Signs Oh, not necessarily... as that would imply some sort of consistent logic.  | | | Andy 
"Credited as" Names Database |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can't imagine why we would change all those other titles. After all, in over the year since folks had the epiphany on this title, they haven't bothered to go back and fix any of the other reams of Hitchcock titles that are "broken."
Principled stances are to be admired, but when it's on one arbitrary item culled from the herd, it just smacks of pure spite. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 291 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
Forgive my ignorance but.....
As I understood this rule, since it became a rule (remember there was a time when possessives were a no-no) we are to use the title from the film's credits.
A screen shot has been provided that show the film's credits, but it only shows "The Birds"
Are those of you who are against the change to "The Birds" saying the screen shot is not actually of the film? Or are you saying there screen shot that would be before the one posted is also part of the title?
If it's the later I am really I had always been under the impression that there is one and only one screen shot of the title that we concerned ourselves with, the one where the title is actually shown.
Please clarify whether you're saying the screen shot is wrong OR you think that more than one screen shot is required to show the "complete" title.
(My copy is unavailable at the moment so I can't check to see if the screen shot posted is wrong) what you're not being shown is that "ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S" in the same font and size appear on the screen first immediately followed the "THE BIRDS" which is rather a sneaky way of making a point without giving all the info. i checked this personally yesterday when the first change came through. it is there, quite obviously, but some for the point of their view, have ignored it. and they covered her...they covered her... krik  not that i've every seen this movie... | | | | "Vampirism is still not a disease, Julia. Vampires are the living dead...dead...dead..." |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Font size is the same on Psycho, Vertigo and North by Northwest. I can see how we missed those though...minor works that nobody bothers with anymore. Slice it anyway you like, for whatever reason, this title has gotten the special treatment...and yeah, I mean "special" in that bad way.  I forgot to mention, font size only really comes in to play when it's all on the same screen. You see, when it's all on the same screen somebody might make the mistake of thinking it's all part of the title. Like this, for example:  When it's on separate screens, audiences are supposed to be smart enough to know it's not part of the title. Or not, as the case may be.  | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | |    Please prepare for a lot of title changes..... According to this brilliant new logic it is also Charles Dickens A Tale of Two Cities, isn't it? |
|
| Registered: March 17, 2007 | | Posts: 125 |
| | Posted: | | | | And don't forget all the Disney films:
Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Walt Disney's Pinocchio
Walt Disney's Bambi
And all the other great directors
John Ford's My Darling Clementine
Frank Capra's Meet John Doe
Steven Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark
Francois Truffaut's Jules et Jim
I hope someone is saving all our forum fun for posterity. After this program is run into the ground and made unusable by a few runaway members, I'm sure Wired Magazine will do an obituary about DVDP and the importance of policing your community. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Krikarian: Quote:
what you're not being shown is that "ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S" in the same font and size appear on the screen first immediately followed the "THE BIRDS" which is rather a sneaky way of making a point without giving all the info. i checked this personally yesterday when the first change came through. it is there, quite obviously, but some for the point of their view, have ignored it. That is not quite true... There was nothing 'sneaky' about it. A single screen cap has alway been the documentation required for proving what is and isn't part of the title. This is the first time anyone has ever suggested using the entire 'title sequence'. If we are now required to use the entire 'title sequence', instead of a single title screen cap, we are going to open the door to a lot of stupid garbage. I have seen plenty of 'disolves' of this fashion. Most are along the lines of 'Joe Blow presents' disolving into 'film title here'. Following the logic some of you are spouting, 'Joe Blow presents' is now part of the title because it is immediately followed by the title. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
 | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | My thinking is that without an indicator such as an opening quote before the possessive and an end quote at the end of the full title, the possessive should not be included as part of the title.
Example:
"Bram Stoker's Dracula"
and
"Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"
Those possessives are part of the titles.
This is not:
Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds"
I don't think we have to rest this on nothing but quotes and it could be any similar indicator. Without an indicator, the possessive should not be included as part of the title because it's just somebody bragging.
We would look for these indicators or "qualifiers" on the title screen or in the copyright or in the credits section on the back cover. Official websites would also be an acceptable source. | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yeah,
there's no way to come up with an all-encompassing way of dealing with possessives - they have to be considered on a case by case basis. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Just out of curiosity:
which title is printed on the spine of 'The Birds' (025192027529)? |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting sugarjoe: Quote:
Just out of curiosity:
which title is printed on the spine of 'The Birds' (025192027529)? I believe it's shown as Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
My thinking is that without an indicator such as an opening quote before the possessive and an end quote at the end of the full title, the possessive should not be included as part of the title.
Example:
"Bram Stoker's Dracula"
and
"Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"
Those possessives are part of the titles.
This is not:
Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds"
I don't think we have to rest this on nothing but quotes and it could be any similar indicator. Without an indicator, the possessive should not be included as part of the title because it's just somebody bragging.
We would look for these indicators or "qualifiers" on the title screen or in the copyright or in the credits section on the back cover. Official websites would also be an acceptable source. You've convinced me. It's "The Birds". Can I please come in now?...it's cold out here . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 374 |
| |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting sugarjoe: Quote:
Just out of curiosity:
which title is printed on the spine of 'The Birds' (025192027529)? Not that it matters much, but the spine for this particular release has "The Birds" centered in a large font, surrounded by "Collector's Edition" on either side in smaller font. This was, after all, one of those Universal Collector's Editions...from back when they did those sorts of things. No mention of Hitchcock anywhere on the spine, but I wouldn't want to use that as some kind of argument. Huh...all this talk of font size and I never bothered to pay attention to this before. Earlier, it was suggested that the DVD cover art was a justification for the longer title. I just noticed that "Alfred Hitchcock's" on the DVD cover is in a significantly smaller font size, indicating that it is not part of the title. You don't need the disk for that, just look at your profile. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,022 |
| |