 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 6 7 8 9 10  Previous Next
|
|
King and I or Rodgers & Hammerstein's King and I?? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
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. I have no idea what Skip meant. I do, however, know what he said. While you may not like it, it is what it is. You say that we both know what the title is when we look at the screen yet you argue that I don't because, in some cases, I don't want to include the possesive. Please make up your mind. Quote:
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. Oh, well, since you vehemently disagree. I guess that changes everything.  Quote:
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.' Nobody argues against 'Fran Miller's Sin City' because the filmmaker flat out said that it was part of the title. He didn't say it was above the title. Quote:
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. Um, What two line theory? | | | 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 24, 2007 |  Posts: 240 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
real world has absolutely nothing to do it.
You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension. A dimension of sound... a dimension of sight... a dimension of mind. You are moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into... The Skip Zone. | | | | Tom. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 940 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've been watching this pot boil for a few days now and I guess I'll throw in my two bits.
70% of the votes on this particular title don't want the possessive (so far). Even Skip has stated that "I don't always agree with the results" when "dealing with the data on the screen" implying that locally even he does not necessarily keep the possessive in the title.
If 70% of the users have to edit the data locally to fit their perceived needs, then shouldn't the contributed data take the form so only 30% need to do any additional editing? If the online is to be a starting point, should we not strive to make the starting point as accurate as possible while at the same time attempting to fulfil the needs of the largest majority of the ultimate users?
We now return to your regularly scheduled program... | | | | Kevin |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
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! If that is the case, and its documented, then I would accept it that way. I've never seen one like that I can recall, however. Assuming its correct, its another one of those curve balls that Hollywood loves to throw that doesn't follow the established standard. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting antolod: Quote:
I've been watching this pot boil for a few days now and I guess I'll throw in my two bits.
70% of the votes on this particular title don't want the possessive (so far). Even Skip has stated that "I don't always agree with the results" when "dealing with the data on the screen" implying that locally even he does not necessarily keep the possessive in the title.
If 70% of the users have to edit the data locally to fit their perceived needs, then shouldn't the contributed data take the form so only 30% need to do any additional editing? If the online is to be a starting point, should we not strive to make the starting point as accurate as possible while at the same time attempting to fulfil the needs of the largest majority of the ultimate users?
We now return to your regularly scheduled program... No, we shouldn't. This isn't a democracy. The data is what it is, and not subject to the whims of the current crop of users. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 24, 2007 | | Posts: 240 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
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!
If that is the case, and its documented, then I would accept it that way. I've never seen one like that I can recall, however. Assuming its correct, its another one of those curve balls that Hollywood loves to throw that doesn't follow the established standard. Yes it's correct, and you can add John Carpenter Presents Body Bags as well. The titles are listed that way in the Library of Congress, and the Movie Rating DB. So if we look up the following three titles we find... John Carpenter presents Vampires: Los Muertos John Carpenter's Escape from L.A. Rear Window The so called "established standard" only gives the official title for one of the examples. And just to answer the topic question... it's "The King and I" according to the Library of Congress Catalogue (It's the example title in the directions for the search function... ). The title is the Official title that the movie was registered under. It's not subject to the whims of the current crop of users, or an old crop of users, or some silly 'standard'. | | | | Tom. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 19 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quote:
The data is what it is To quote another famous personage, I gues that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. After all, both sides would invoke that statement!  DG | | | | Last edited: by dgpretzel |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
No, we shouldn't. This isn't a democracy. The data is what it is, and not subject to the whims of the current crop of users. Says who? Last time I checked Ken was in charge and he seems to appreciate 'user concensus'. If he doesn't, and decides that this is a dictatorship, perhaps he should say so. Until then, I am going to treat it like a democracy. | | | 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 |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
No, we shouldn't. This isn't a democracy. The data is what it is, and not subject to the whims of the current crop of users. Except this is a user-built database and therefore very much subject to the whims of the current crop of users. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | North:
If that is true and we are subject to the whim of the week. I won't even bother to respond, to the current crop of users my answer is we have Rules, this is the way we do things at Profiler, if you want to Contribute fine, follow the Rules.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | And as has been said time and time before - show us in the rules the bit that mentions possessives.
Until there's something written to cover this then yes, we will be subject to the whims of the majority. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
North:
If that is true and we are subject to the whim of the week. I won't even bother to respond, to the current crop of users my answer is we have Rules, this is the way we do things at Profiler, if you want to Contribute fine, follow the Rules.
Skip Skip, The current rules allow users to contribute a title. What constititutes the title is not defined but I think you are on a hiding to nothing to try to argue that it includes 'possessives' or possessory credits. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Not at all Telecine. In my example, if i chose to provide the the data instead of as I did, you would be somewhat surprised, We are trying to act like we KNOW the answer and I am telling you that is not true. IF for example you look up the Brannagh Hamlet at Amazon you will discover that they list it as William Shakespeare's Hamlet. I never support the idea of trying to make multiple definitions for the same data, for example if it's a director then it is not a possessive, if it is a writer then it is, that makes the whole thing unnecessarily complex. It IS or it is NOT, it was decided two years ago to remove the prohibition against them that was in the Guidelines, we have been doing it for two years this way, now a group of users has decided, it seems, that they want the prohibitoon back, I am simply saying NO we don't play that kind of ping-pong, does the next set of users get reverse your decision two years from now if they want. I am also telling you that, depsite what others might thinkm, there is no universal agreement anywhere that they are correct (not that that is necessarily relevant) other than the fact that users have been bringing in all kiunds of extraneous information information from other places to support their claim and there is just as much extraneous information going the other way as well.
I don't and won't support pingpong data nor will I support ping-pong Rules. This week we are going to do this...next week who knows. Uh-uh it doesn't work that way.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Not at all Telecine. In my example, if i chose to provide the the data instead of as I did, you would be somewhat surprised, We are trying to act like we KNOW the answer and I am telling you that is not true. IF for example you look up the Brannagh Hamlet at Amazon you will discover that they list it as William Shakespeare's Hamlet. I never support the idea of trying to make multiple definitions for the same data, for example if it's a director then it is not a possessive, if it is a writer then it is, that makes the whole thing unnecessarily complex. It IS or it is NOT, it was decided two years ago to remove the prohibition against them that was in the Guidelines, we have been doing it for two years this way, now a group of users has decided, it seems, that they want the prohibitoon back, I am simply saying NO we don't play that kind of ping-pong, does the next set of users get reverse your decision two years from now if they want. I am also telling you that, depsite what others might thinkm, there is no universal agreement anywhere that they are correct (not that that is necessarily relevant) other than the fact that users have been bringing in all kiunds of extraneous information information from other places to support their claim and there is just as much extraneous information going the other way as well.
I don't and won't support pingpong data nor will I support ping-pong Rules. This week we are going to do this...next week who knows. Uh-uh it doesn't work that way.
Skip Skip, Two years ago people thought that they were 'possessives'. We now know that they are possessory credits. That changes the landscape. It may have been arguable two years ago that 'possessives' should be included in the title and the rule relaxed to permit that. Now that we know that they are credits that cannot be permitted to continue. They are not part of the title and never will be. I don't really care what Amazon has to say about things, I don't think that that really takes us anywhere. For what it is worth I have no problem with giving a credit to Shakespeare for Hamlet in the circumsatnces. My argument is not confined to directors. | | | | Last edited: by Telecine |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | You are calling the credits, based on some outside source, telecine. i have told you they are possessives here. . Let me fill one of those examples for you since you persist.
aka-Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (Complete UK Title)
They are possessives and they are allowed under the Rules and have been for Two years. Tough.
You don't get to show up and start redefining things to suit YOU. The Rulkes were developed before you were here, they are what they are and we don't use DGA or any of your other outside soiurces..
I tried being nice about this, buit we are not gong to play this is the Rule this week andnext week we may change it because some new user may come in and decide he wants it his way, and the week after that and so on. Forget it.
LOL, you don't care what Amazon has to say...why? because it doesn't fit YOUR view. Well your vierw is no more valid than is Amazon's or anyone elses's and we have one already. We don't need YOURS.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | All these "possessive" threads are sooo funny when you have "the usual suspects" blocked... you get page after page after page of people agreeing with each other vehemently. Classic Stuff.  It is probably worth noting that the rule change 2 years ago was not a rule change to include possessives as standard, it was to not prohibit it. There is a big difference. Nowhere in the rules does it say that a possessive has to be included in all cases - the rules say to take the title from the screen credits, so if that title includes a possessive then you take it, if the possessive is not part of the title, you don't. Just because a possessive is on screen does not make it part of the title. There we go, one more agreeing post... | | | Andy 
"Credited as" Names Database |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 6 7 8 9 10 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |