Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Still with the straw man. this discussion is about ONE aspect of the data that apears on screen.

Skip

Yes it is, I never claimed otherwise.  The question was, why do we ignore the rest of the data if all we are supposed to do is deal with the data that we see?  I am still waiting for an answer...though I don't expect one. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Still with the straw man. this discussion is about ONE aspect of the data that apears on screen.

Skip

Yes it is, I never claimed otherwise.  The question was, why do we ignore the rest of the data if all we are supposed to do is deal with the data that we see?  I am still waiting for an answer...though I don't expect one. 

At least you admit it.  I am not ignoring your comments, I anm telling you that is a different argument that has nothing to with possessives.

Skip

As I stated in another thread, this is unnecessary.  Why do we need to enter the same credit twice?

Except for the usual suspects, everyone else seems to understand what is part of the title and what isn't.

If you think that continued debate on the subject is going to change their minds, you are delusional.

Someone should go to the Rules forum, and and put in a request to add verbiage to the Rules to exclude possessory credits, unless it can be proven that they are part of the title.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
But no one has ever suggested that we take the title from anywhere else but the screen.
It's only the decision as to whether the possessive belongs in with it that we need more information.
As has been said repeatedly - there is plenty of other stuff on title screens that we ignore, why shouldn't they be included? Because it's nonsense to include them -  therefore the rule to take the title from the screen does not mean we take everything we see on the screen to be the title.
There has been no formal announcement that we include possessives, there has been no formal announcement that we ignore them. We have to use our best judgement and that means looking to see how it's been done elsewhere.

Nobody said anything about taking everything you see on the screen - that is patent stupidity on its face, and just another red herring being tossed out by those who don't want possessives used.

But, that little apostrophe s at the end of the 'Rodgers and Hammerstein' does a peculiar thing.  It irretrievably connects those name with the title.  It doesn't matter one fig where that possessive appears on screen, it stills connects the two.  That's a simple logical fact that you can't change or argue away, no matter how hard you try.  You can certainly ignore it, but that doesn't make it less true.

tas:

Every database program sets up its definitions to what suits it, real world has absolutely nothing to do it.

And as I have repeatedly noted i understand your argument but i disagree with for all the reasons i have explained, and whlie i understand your argument i believe it is not rooted in anything valid, I have not seen it anybody else's either. First off TWO YEARS ago we had users that were wanting to use the possessive, so the Rules were set up to accomodate that, now a bunch of users DON'T want to use them. In TWO years when another batch comes in and decides they want it, do we change it AGAIN. The thought of that is almost hysterically funny, if I believed anyone understood it, which I don't. You brought up Rear Window, which I already addressed only I used The Birds, and I said we can banter back and forth all day and forever ab0ut AH's ego, marketing, yada, yada, yada, that is all opinion, some of it based upon other information.

There is one undeniable FACT that cannot be argued with AH's Rera Window is what appears ON SCREEN. I have also repeatedly saiid that sometimes the end result would NOIT make me happy, this is one of those, BUT we each have the ability to adjust our data to appear the way we want it to and the database to perform as we want it to. Im ny humble opinon the arguments against it have no merit on their face, they represent nothing more than user opinion versus a FACTUAL representation and none of you have shown an inkling of comprehension of this, with maybe one or two exceptions.

Skip

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Nobody said anything about taking everything you see on the screen - that is patent stupidity on its face, and just another red herring being tossed out by those who don't want possessives used.

Sorry, but Skip's argument to keep the possessives is, "just deal with the data that is on the screen.  Enter exactly what you see."  Well, in a lot of cases I see more than just a possessive and a title.  If we are to 'just deal with the data that is on the screen,' then we must deal with ALL the data.

Quote:
But, that little apostrophe s at the end of the 'Rodgers and Hammerstein' does a peculiar thing.  It irretrievably connects those name with the title.  It doesn't matter one fig where that possessive appears on screen, it stills connects the two.  That's a simple logical fact that you can't change or argue away, no matter how hard you try.  You can certainly ignore it, but that doesn't make it less true.

Again, the people who actually make the films have stated that the possessive is not part of the title.  They have said that it is included above the title.  If they are above the title, they can't be part of the title.  It is quite impossible for something to be above itself. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Nobody said anything about taking everything you see on the screen - that is patent stupidity on its face, and just another red herring being tossed out by those who don't want possessives used.

Sorry, but Skip's argument to keep the possessives is, "just deal with the data that is on the screen.  Enter exactly what you see."  Well, in a lot of cases I see more than just a possessive and a title.  If we are to 'just deal with the data that is on the screen,' then we must deal with ALL the data.

Quote:
But, that little apostrophe s at the end of the 'Rodgers and Hammerstein' does a peculiar thing.  It irretrievably connects those name with the title.  It doesn't matter one fig where that possessive appears on screen, it stills connects the two.  That's a simple logical fact that you can't change or argue away, no matter how hard you try.  You can certainly ignore it, but that doesn't make it less true.

Again, the people who actually make the films have stated that the possessive is not part of the title.  They have said that it is included above the title.  If they are above the title, they can't be part of the title.  It is quite impossible for something to be above itself. 

That's disingenuous at best, and a cop out at worst.  We both know when we look at the screen what the title is, and what is not part of the title, possessive or not.  To say that EVERYTHING on the screen in the title frame is part of the title is simply stupid, and Skip didn't mean that, as you know very well.

As for the statements that possessives are not part of the title based on those quotes, then I vehemently disagree.  I read those quotes, and a lot more over the years as well, and I don't agree that is what they meant.  A possessive can be a credit AND be part of the title just as easily as not, and since you didn't create the title screen, and aren't privy to the producer's thoughts, you can't sit there and say otherwise with any authority.

Nor does it matter if the possessive is above or next to the title, it is still part of the title.  Nobody argues that Sin City should be anything other than 'Frank Miller's Sin City' because Miller himself said so, yet you never see that on screen as anything but above and to the left side above 'Sin City.'  That shoots your two line theory right between the eyes.  Nobody said a title had to be homogenous - all on one line in the same font, etc.  Titles both on screen and in print on one-sheets appear in all sorts of formations and fonts and colors.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

I don't know about anybody else, but I would NOT include "John Carpenter presents" as part of a title, but I have - and would - include "John Carpenter's Vampires."  If you can't see the difference, then you have a serious problem.

Even despite the fact that "John Carpenter presents Vampires: Los Muertos" is actually the proper registered title of the film? That's what the film-makers wanted it to be called, so obviously they're the ones with the serious problem - not us!