Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
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.

Actually...for the 50th Anniversary Edition:

The title screen says "Darryl F. Zanuck Presents Rodgers and Hammerstein's The King and I".
The front cover says "50th Anniversary Edition Rodgers & Hammerstein's The King and I".
The spine says "Rodgers & Hammerstein's 50th Anniversary Edition The King and I".
The credit block says "Darryl F. Zanuck Presents Rodgers and Hammerstein's 'The King and I'".

To me:

The absence of "50th Anniversary Edition" from the title screen and credit block removes if from consideration as part of the title.

The absence of "Darryl F. Zanuck Presents" from the cover and spine removes it from consideration as part of the title.

The positioning on the spine of "Rodgers & Hammerstein's" to the left of the title with the words "50th Anniversary Edition" more closely associated with "The King and I" is part one of the reason for not considering "Rodgers & Hammerstein's" as part of the title.

The inclusion of quotes around the title "The King and I" and the presentation of "Darryl F. Zanuck Presents Rodgers and Hammerstein's" together outside of the quotes of "The King and I" is part two of the reason for not considering "Rodgers & Hammerstein's" as part of the title. (Richie Rich's version does not have the quotes around the title in the credit block and I am happy I no longer own that version.  )

The menu which lists just "The King and I" is part 3. Have we ever seen a 7 word title reduced to the last 4 words anywhere? Further justification for dropping "Rodgers & Hammerstein's" from the title.

To sum up: "The King and I" comes from the film credits just like the rules call for. But when there are many other words on the screen that could be confused to be part of the title, we have to look elsewhere for documentation and justification. We are forced in such circumstances to use our judgment. Otherwise, if we interpret the rule to mean "scrape all of the text off of the screen and insert that into the title field" we'll end up with "Darryl F. Zanuck Presents Rodgers and Hammerstein's The King and I".

Quote:
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.

I missed that.    I did see it later in San Francisco with Marie Osmond, which was quite enjoyable.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
To sum up: "The King and I" comes from the film credits just like the rules call for. But when there are many other words on the screen that could be confused to be part of the title, we have to look elsewhere for documentation and justification. We are forced in such circumstances to use our judgment. Otherwise, if we interpret the rule to mean "scrape all of the text off of the screen and insert that into the title field" we'll end up with "Darryl F. Zanuck Presents Rodgers and Hammerstein's The King and I".

Sums it up brilliantly... we have to use judgment (no matter what anyone argues). The documentation to make that judgment in this case is completely clear imo.

Let's look at this from a different angle. The OL Guidelines specifically prohibited possessives which it was determined was not a good idea. The Rule was developed to allow for them though not specifivcally stated.

So what do we have going on here.

We have a CONTRIBUITION that FOLLOWED the Rules let's say R & H's King and I,  it was ACCEPTEDd as part of the database. Now we have another user attempting change that based on HIS PREFERENCE that the possessive should not be used. I consider that an absolute gross violation of the Rule,a dn ssucha Contribution should be declined SUMMARILY regardless of the votes. It's called ping-ponging of data, or put another way "I don't like it this way, I want it that way." Keep your PERSONAL preference local and I don't really care how many people agree with you, it is still insertying of personal preference on a data that has already been ACCEPTED.

Skip

No apology is due, richie. There currently is a user attempting to make exactly this change for reasons of personal preference despite all of his, unsupported by Rule, documenmtation. I did not point a finger at you or anyone else.

The R & H's The King and I has been accepted, he doesn't like it and wants it his way, which as I said I consider a gross violation of the Rules. Personal preferences, keep them locally.

Skip

When can we talk about Rodgers & Hammerstein's  South Pacific ??
I have that waiting here in the wings for Yet Another possessive title as well........

   

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Perhaps this is because you are unable to adequately engage in an intelligent debate and only have the ability to insult.

Skip

Quoting Skipnet50:

Quote:
It is easy to apply the Rule, there is no intrerpretation needed.

But you are making an interpretation.

You are telling us that it belongs in the title because it's on the screen, but only if it's a possessive (not Darryl F. Zanuck presents). And since the rules don't make that distinction it is your interpretation.

You always keep saying that no interpretation is needed. What you totally fail to grasp is that interpretations are always needed. And that you make them yourself all the time.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting Skipnet50:

Quote:
It is easy to apply the Rule, there is no intrerpretation needed.

But you are making an interpretation.

You are telling us that it belongs in the title because it's on the screen, but only if it's a possessive (not Darryl F. Zanuck presents). And since the rules don't make that distinction it is your interpretation.

You always keep saying that no interpretation is needed. What you totally fail to grasp is that interpretations are always needed. And that you make them yourself all the time.

For one thing Gunnar, Possessives were discussed at the time, Presents were not so the answer is NO.

But please...keep trying

Skip