Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
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.

Skip

Skip,

You have stated on many occassions that you object to users who THINK that they are smarter than the filmmakers. This is what the filmmakers have to say about the use of possessory credits:

DGA Article on "A Film by" Credit

See: http://www.dga.org/thedga/cr_gi_wga.php3

"Director Norman Jewison vividly remembers what Frank Capra told him at the historic May 1967 meeting of 53 directors who met to address the subject. "This possessory credit should be important to every director. Once you've earned it, it's more important than anything," Jewison recalled Capra telling him. "I remember Mr. Capra saying, 'My name above the title is more important than anything to me.' And then, of course, he wrote his autobiography called Frank Capra: The Name Above the Title.""

DGA Timeline on Possessory Credits battle wtih WGA

See: http://www.dga.org/news/v28_6/news_pc-timeline.php3

DGA Article on WGA Proposals

See: http://www.dga.org/news/v25_4/news_WGA_proposals.php3

The last article includes this quote from Alfred Hitchcock:

"I consider the possessory use of my name above the title of a film as of extraordinary value to the producing company as well as to myself. Every producing company has informed me that my name has 'box office value' and part of the benefit received by such producing company is the right to use, advertise and exploit my name."

- Alfred Hitchcock

The Directors Guild of America represents the filmmakers. The filmakers say that possessory credits are above the title. Capra's biography was even entitled "Frank Capra: The Name Above the Title".

This has been quoted before, and some people used it to imply that because they said 'above the title' that somehow implies it is separate from the title.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  There is a clear hierarchy in the credit world.  Credits above the title (referring to positioning only) are of much greater value than those below the title.  You see the same thing in the text at the bottom of a one-sheet where they list something akin to:  A Malpaso Film  Actor A  Actor B  FILM TITLE  Actor C  Actor D    and so on.  Actors A & B are 'above' the title, C & D are below it.  The title is nothing more than a point of reference vis a vis the credit position, and reference to the credit has no bearing on what is actually IN the title itself.

It is abundantly clear, however, from the context of the quotes that they considered that possessory to be part of the title.  Why else would it be there?  It can't stand alone without an object to possess, and in fact, makes no sense UNLESS you include the title WITH the possessory.

A possessory credit is just that, a credit. It is not part of the title, it is above the title. The object that it possesses is the title.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:


I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but whatever happened to common sense?  Who, in their right mind, would include an introductory phrase like "Daryl Zanuck presents" as part of the actual title?  No, don't answer, that was rhetorical.

As far as the possessive part goes, it seems to me, if the people who made the movie didn't want to include possessives, they wouldn't have put them on the screen in the first place.  But, they did, so obviously it should be part of the title.  Simple common sense, simple logic. 

I don't take that sort of thing as 'interpretation' of the title.  It is, instead, normal cognitive recognition of something that is plain and simple and obvious as the nose on one's face.  Interpretation is what you do when you translate from one language to another, or divine the meaning of a painting, etc.  Simply reading a title from the screen does not require interpretation of anything.

John, as you do talk sense most of the time  , can I ask whether you agree with this;

Back to the original question of the thread. 

Do you agree the FILM is called 'The King and I'
Do you agree this particular DVD is called 'Rodgers and Hammerstein's The King and I'

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:


I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but whatever happened to common sense?  Who, in their right mind, would include an introductory phrase like "Daryl Zanuck presents" as part of the actual title?  No, don't answer, that was rhetorical.

As far as the possessive part goes, it seems to me, if the people who made the movie didn't want to include possessives, they wouldn't have put them on the screen in the first place.  But, they did, so obviously it should be part of the title.  Simple common sense, simple logic. 

I don't take that sort of thing as 'interpretation' of the title.  It is, instead, normal cognitive recognition of something that is plain and simple and obvious as the nose on one's face.  Interpretation is what you do when you translate from one language to another, or divine the meaning of a painting, etc.  Simply reading a title from the screen does not require interpretation of anything.

John, as you do talk sense most of the time  , can I ask whether you agree with this;

Back to the original question of the thread. 

Do you agree the FILM is called 'The King and I'
Do you agree this particular DVD is called 'Rodgers and Hammerstein's The King and I'

I think that 99% of the people call a Chevrolet a Chevy, but that doesn't make the actual name any different.  Same as this film.  It is commonly called "The King and I" but I think the correct name is "Rodgers and Hammerstein's The King and I."  And, yes, I actually think of it that way in my head, same as I do for "Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds" or "Frank Miller's Sin City" and so on.

This is about more than that, however.  There are some people who apparently have some problem with possessives, almost to the point of being rabid about it.  Why?  Why do they insist that you can't have them in the title when it should be patently obvious that the producer's put it there for a reason. I don't get it.

Telecine:

Did you make the film, any film, that is a very bold statement, my friend. You think it's a credit and I think it is part of the title. I don't pretend to know what was going on in the mnind of the filmmaker absent some evidence to the contrary. And I agree with John, because we call a Chevrolet; Chevy does not make  Chevy the name of the car.

That does not mean I am always happy about seeing possessives, quite the contrary. However, there are occassions when a possessive relays valuable information and without the film effectively is misrepresented.

Skip

All well and good, Telecine but we do not use that definition, nor anyone else's. We aren't the DGA, the WGA, ASC, we are DVDProfiler.

Skip

I don't have the problem you and others do, Achim. We did this TWO years ago to allow for possessives, which if I recall correctly I was neutral on. Users wanted it, we have done it for TWO years and now some users want to CHANGE direction...my comment...TOUGH...keep it locally. We are NOT going to change direction every other week just because someone wants to. Especially when some of the morevocal of those involved don't Contribute anything or next to nothing to the database, I have no desire to change the way things are done and have been done on this basis. Are you guyts going to start sending me checks for MY work, my total bill at this point is something close to $150,000 for the editing I have already done. And now a pack of users says we want to do it this way NOW, so throw out what you HAVE already doen and go this way....NO!!!!!!!!!!!

Changfs demanded by the program and clarifications is one thing, changes in direction is something else entirely. User preference has no place in the Online, it belongs in everybody's local, that is true of my data as well which is substantially different from that which I contribute.

Skip

No, actually I apply ONE very basic standard which is technically against the Rules, assuming the On Screen and Cover match in that regard, then I use the possessive, I have run into situations where they do not match. But if they match I presume that was the filmmaker's intent, at that point what I might think of it becomes totally irrelevant, Achim. I did not participate in the Production and I have no mind-reading powers. Very simple, I am not smarter than the data or the filmmaker, HE(They) made the choice NOT me.

I am glad you possess such mental powers that i do not and have the ability to divine such information.  

Skip  

If the front coiver mnatches the On Screen then I go with it, simple process. I do not engage in gymnastics or wrestling matches that best 3 out of 5. I have two sets of data that I deal with and even that is not provided for in the Rules. What is provided for in the Rules is ONLY what appears On Screen. I may not like it and I may handle it differently in my local which is as I should, but I do not pretend to know more than what is presented On Screen, this would also include Documentary material which might indicate something else...that is currently not allowed either.

And I agree with you on the edition that you mentioned, that is an example, as I discussed where what is ON Screen does NOT match THAT cover. So that should have an answer of it's own spearate from the subsequent release where the cover does match the On Screen title. Does it cause a problem...not for me I have them BOTH sorted as King and I, The, so they appear in their proper place for MY purposes and I have the information for both titles.

Skip