Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
They do seem to have given their name a great deal of prominence on the title screen.
I would say that unless Rodgers and Hammerstein are not credited anywhere else (ie. this is their credit), then it is indeed part of the title.

Correction: seeing the quotes on the back cover and the spine, I would tend to use the title without the possessive, maybe applying the modified title rule and use the possessive in the original title. But actually I don't like the setup with original title, therefore I would tend to ignore the possessive completely except for maybe an original material credit.

So much for the rules.       Whatever the 'Whim of the Week".

Skip

Not to me it wouldn't, ninehours. The Rules are clear and the Cover matches the On Screen Title. But with these people WHO KNOWS, like I said whatever the "Whim of the Week"

Skip

Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
I'm assuming this would be treated the same as the R & H one.

Is there a credit block on the back of the box? If so, how is the title listed?

For 'The King and I', the title screen, front cover, spine and credit block all say "Rodgers & Hammerstein's The King and I".  So, in my opinion, that is the title.

For 'Mysterious Island', the title screen and front cover do not match the credit block on the back of the case.  In the credit block, it is written as 'Mysterious Island'.

This seems to be a perfect comparison of when to include the possesive and when not to...at least for R1 releases.

On a side note, I was fortunate enough to see 'The King and I' at the San Francisco Opera.  It was Yul Brenner's final run as 'The King' and he was fabulous.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Unlike some users around here,ninehours, I do not try and interpret data and twist and turn  to prevent the data from being included just because I might not like it. The data is what it is, the rules do NOT provide for any source other than the On Screen title. All this brilliant plan has done is caused confusion so that users now THINK they are smarter than the data and filmmakers.

Oh please.  You interpret the data all the time.  Here, let me give you some examples:

It's A Wonderful Life: The title screen says, "FRANK CAPRA'S It's A Wonderful Life® ORIGINAL UNCUT VERSION".  Is that what you want to put in the title field?

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington: The title screen says: "COLUMBIA PICTURES CORPORATION PRESENTS Frank Capra's MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON".  Is that what you want to put in the title field?

I could go on but I don't need to.  The fact is we all interpret that data, you included.  It is a fact you can NOT deny.

Quote:
BTW James, just your suggestion is a CLEAR violation of the rules.

Show me the rule that he is violating.  You can't because, unlike the rules for cast and crew, the rule for titles only tells us where to get it.  The rule does not tell us what the title is.  That is something we must determine for ourselves.  I am actually happy that this is the case.  If it weren't, any you actually did what you claim to do, we would have a lot of crap in the title field.

Edit: reading this again I can see how it might come off as antagonistic.  That is not my intent so please don't get offended. 

The issue is POSSESSIVES so all your other stuff is simply a straw man to distract. IF it is ON Screen then it is.

Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life is what appears ON SCREEN, whether I like it or not, it is THERE. There are frequent usage ofpossessive by fimmakers that I do not necessarily like but it IS part of the title. So it is, take AH for example. I also have the ability to do whatever I want I locally, and I sort on the "public use" title Birds, The (for example), so regardless of what the ON SCREEN title says it sorts where I want it to be. I do NOT pretend to know more than the fimmakers or their data, they provided it with the movie. A lot of us these days refer to may shows by abbreviations of various sorts. ST: TNG, this is fairly common place, bu that does NOT make it the title, which remains Star Trek: The Next Generation. We are asking for trouble when we pretend to know more than those who made the film and for proof of that, one needs to go no further than IMDb.

The data is the data is the data. The Rules say where that data is to come from and the Rule has NOT changed, and probably should not, perhaps using the Cover for the title, as has been discussed since that IS what we see on the shelf, but all this song and dance, go here, go there, go somewhere else, only makes data entry more time-consuming and difficult.

Simply follow the Rules, they actually do WORK, and any mods you wish to make locally for your purposes is your business.

Skip

Correct they are not and deliberately so, because they were specifically excluded from the OLD Guidelines,  it was recognized that there were users who wanted the possessives to be used. It is easy to apply the Rule, there is no intrerpretation needed. But the "Whim" for this week is to ignore the Rules and apply all kinds of hurdles to prevent data from being included even when it is VALID. Who know what next week whim will be.

But nice try, Rho as usual

Skip