| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
True! My argument has always been that you have to look how the title is used in text form before you can recognise the title from its graphical form on the cover or in the film's credit. The credit block is just the text form which is mostly available and somehow also official. However, it may not be the "DVD Title"! | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,911 |
| | Posted: | | | | Question, don't bite my head off..
If the title was taken from the DVD Case Spine, backed up by film title and Credits block (for possessives)... would that solve most of these issues that are coming up? | | | | Signature banned: Reason out of date... |
|
| Registered: April 14, 2007 | | Posts: 433 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pplchamp: Quote:
Question, don't bite my head off..
If the title was taken from the DVD Case Spine, backed up by film title and Credits block (for possessives)... would that solve most of these issues that are coming up? A quick look through my DVD collection on the spine for the specific examples that hal9g contributed and recently withdrawn to make his point about the rule, and most of them would still be using the new changed titles All Star Wars would not have Episode Men in Black would have the MIB Terminator 2 would be correct though. | | | | Chris | | | | Last edited: by cmaeditor |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,911 |
| | Posted: | | | | As all my SW titles are burried at the momnent, does the credits block solve the issue of the word Episode? Just curious. | | | | Signature banned: Reason out of date... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pplchamp: Quote:
As all my SW titles are burried at the momnent, does the credits block solve the issue of the word Episode? Just curious. Glancing at the back covers in DVD profiler, yes. There are no quotes around the titles, but it reads (for example) STAR WARS EPISODE II ATTACK OF THE CLONES. No colons, but there are inferred by the large gaps in between (IMHO). |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting synner_man: Quote:
Quoting pplchamp:
Quote:
As all my SW titles are burried at the momnent, does the credits block solve the issue of the word Episode? Just curious.
Glancing at the back covers in DVD profiler, yes. There are no quotes around the titles, but it reads (for example) STAR WARS EPISODE II ATTACK OF THE CLONES. No colons, but there are inferred by the large gaps in between (IMHO). Oh, boy. More inference! Good stuff!  | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
True! My argument has always been that you have to look how the title is used in text form before you can recognise the title from its graphical form on the cover or in the film's credit. The credit block is just the text form which is mostly available and somehow also official.
However, it may not be the "DVD Title"! Depends on the definition of DVD title! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting VibroCount:
Quote:
Not neccessarily.
The "Front Cover" is one thing, and it reasonably could be argued that the "Front Cover" is never the "Slip Cover", nor is any part of the "Slip Cover" the "Front Cover".
Hmmmmm....talk about splitting hairs. Yes, it is splitting hairs, but it could be parsed that way...especially if you call it a slip 'case' and not a slip 'cover'...which the rules do. Quote:
Again, it was "what you see on the shelf" which was the main argument that people had proffered to get the Rule changed irrelevant. While some people made that argument, not everybody did. In addition, we don't know what Ken was thinking when he decided on the cover instead of the film credits. Since we don't know, we must go strictly by what the rule says. And, as I pointed out, it can be parsed so as not to use the slipe case. | | | 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 | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Since we don't know, we must go strictly by what the rule says. And, as I pointed out, it can be parsed so as not to use the slipe case. Great. Just what we need. More ambiguity.  | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 467 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting cmaeditor: Quote:
Having gone through my collection and used the latest arguments over what is the title or not. We've had people argue about possessives (John Carpenter, Alfred Hitchcock), logos as part of the title (T2, MIB), Secondary Titles (Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles) and the dropping of Episode from the Stars Wars DVDs since they are not on the front cover. If we want to be too literal here are a few changes that I have no intention of submitting, but according a parsing of the rules would probably be correct:
Casino Royale: 2-Disc Widescreen Edition
Should now be
007: Casino Royale: 2-Disc Widescreen Edition Wrong, since there ar 007 nowhere on the cover. Casino Royale: 2-Disc Widescreen Edition is already right. |
|
| Registered: April 14, 2007 | | Posts: 433 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pompel9: Quote:
Quoting cmaeditor:
Quote:
Having gone through my collection and used the latest arguments over what is the title or not. We've had people argue about possessives (John Carpenter, Alfred Hitchcock), logos as part of the title (T2, MIB), Secondary Titles (Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles) and the dropping of Episode from the Stars Wars DVDs since they are not on the front cover. If we want to be too literal here are a few changes that I have no intention of submitting, but according a parsing of the rules would probably be correct:
Casino Royale: 2-Disc Widescreen Edition
Should now be
007: Casino Royale: 2-Disc Widescreen Edition
Wrong, since there ar 007 nowhere on the cover. Casino Royale: 2-Disc Widescreen Edition is already right. Actually there is a 007 on the cover. Casin 0 R 0yale 7 I have no intention of suggestion that the title change be made, just bringing up the absurdity of adding the logo to the title like was done in the now withdrawn MIB: Men in Black and MIIB: Men in Black II title changes. | | | | Chris |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | <shakes head>Unbelievable
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting cmaeditor: Quote:
Casin0 R0yale 7  Ha! Good one! Absurd indeed. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands | | | | Last edited: by Daddy DVD |
|
| Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting cmaeditor: Quote:
Having gone through my collection and used the latest arguments over what is the title or not.  Kinsey (Locality: Italy) should now be Kinsey: E ora Parliamo di Sesso... Sex  Methinx we definitely need a grain of salt. | | | | -- Enry |
|