Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Tim:

This is simply about a desire on the part of a cadre of users to EXCLUDE anything which THEY in their wisdom do not deem to be the title, even if it does not affect anything else, like the bogus Sort argument. In that desire they have gummed up the Rules BUT GOOD.

Skip

Aspersions aside, this does not explain why Gerri is declining these submissions.  They seem perfectly reasonable under the modified title rule.

Paul:

How many time must I tell you, I don't judge the data, nor am I smarter than the filmmakers.
The Rule is a MESS now.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

The Rule is a MESS now.

Skip

     

I feel this whole "title" went wrong because of possessives - something I never ever had problems with, by the way. I can see how the "credits block" (or "copyright notice", depending on where in the rules you're looking) can be helpful in determining when a possessive is part of the title, but overall I can't help but noticing that the rule change has a negative effect on "normal" titles. The rules simply do not refer to "the title from the film's credits" anymore. The closest thing is the "modified title" rule, that refers to the "original theatrical title", but it's not specified where to get this, and judging the last few threads on the subject, the community doesn't seem to be able to come to a consensus on this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm perfectly happy tracking the "DVD Title" (from the front cover), but I also really want to track the title from the film's credits. IMHO, that belongs in the "original title" field. Assuming that the title from the film's credits is different from the one in the credits block, this should be possible using the "modified title" rule, but since that's so vague (there's no consensus on how to determine the "original theatrical title"), people tend to vote against such a change, quoting that pesky line from the rules on the original title: "Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits." That gives the copyrights notice (= credits block) preference over the title from the film's credits. There are just too many inconsistencies in the new rules on titles: "credits block" is fairly clear, "copyright notice" is already a bit more problematic, but referring to the "original theatrical title" without stating where to get that from is definitely a mistake. Even if we were able to come to a consensus here, then it would still be quite hard to explain that to the "silent majority" - as I've experienced firsthand...

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I feel this whole "title" went wrong because of possessives - something I never ever had problems with, by the way. I can see how the "credits block" (or "copyright notice", depending on where in the rules you're looking) can be helpful in determining when a possessive is part of the title, but overall I can't help but noticing that the rule change has a negative effect on "normal" titles. The rules simply do not refer to "the title from the film's credits" anymore. The closest thing is the "modified title" rule, that refers to the "original theatrical title", but it's not specified where to get this, and judging the last few threads on the subject, the community doesn't seem to be able to come to a consensus on this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm perfectly happy tracking the "DVD Title" (from the front cover), but I also really want to track the title from the film's credits. IMHO, that belongs in the "original title" field. Assuming that the title from the film's credits is different from the one in the credits block, this should be possible using the "modified title" rule, but since that's so vague (there's no consensus on how to determine the "original theatrical title"), people tend to vote against such a change, quoting that pesky line from the rules on the original title: "Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits." That gives the copyrights notice (= credits block) preference over the title from the film's credits. There are just too many inconsistencies in the new rules on titles: "credits block" is fairly clear, "copyright notice" is already a bit more problematic, but referring to the "original theatrical title" without stating where to get that from is definitely a mistake. Even if we were able to come to a consensus here, then it would still be quite hard to explain that to the "silent majority" - as I've experienced firsthand...

You are correct.  The rule needs to be clarified slightly to get rid of this confusion.  One or two sentences should do the trick.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
As usual you demonstrate a total lack of understanding, amigo. I don't know where it is, but its there.

Skip

Actually, I demonstrated a unique understanding of the situation.  Well, it isn't actually 'unique' as, just about, everybody sees it for what it is.  You go ahead and keep pretending otherwise though.  It seems to make you happy. 

Unicus:

I will agree your understanding is unique...but still wrong. There is only ONE person inside my head, I think, but I know you aren't up there with me.

Skip

Ahhh but you are wrong my friend, on all counts. However i will say that based on the amount of confusion over the whole title issue the last couple of e of weeks, as borne out by numerous threads on the topic, it would seem that the correctness of position has been PROVEN correct. While the position that was followed has been proven to be a total MESS.

I find it truly sad that people believe that can properly determine much about anyone based on nothing more than what in my case is usually stream of consciousness writings on a forum. Trust me, it reveals next to nothing.

My personality and intellect (or lack thereof  ) i s closer to my College course in Micro Economics. I spent many years in the natural sciences where 2+2=4, my Econ professor would ask that question and of course, I would say I know, Iknow, its 4 and he wopuld say NO IT'S SEVEN,m y7ou forgot to allow the elasticity of the demand and yada yada yada. 2+2 does not equal 4, amigos, and 2+2 is all you have.  The human psyche is NOT that simple, but keep trying, I enjoy watching it.

Skip