Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Clarification added to the rules.

Nicely done Ken.  That should clear up the confusion.  I also agree with Max, you might want to ammend the 'Original Title' section as well.  You just have to know it will come up again there. 

While I'm happy with the clarification to the possessives part of the rules, I'm still confused by the fact that we're to get the "original title" from the credits block as well. Basically, what this all boils down to, is "take the title from the front cover, and the original title from the back cover". We are now completely disregarding the actual title from the credits...    I have many DVD's where the title on the front cover and in the credits block on the back match, but where the film credits show a different one. In those cases, it seems logical to me to use the title from the film's credits as "original title". Unfortunately, this is no longer allowed by the rules. I really don't get that. Ken should realize that the "credits block" may be a trustworthy source on DVD's from the major distributors, in the bigger localities, but over here in region 2, I see lots of DVD's from smaller distributors on which the "credits block" seems hand-made by someone who had a three-hour-PhotoShop-course, and as such, often contains the wrong data. The bottom line: while I certainly like the fact that we use the title from the front cover in the "title" field, I don't see why we shouldn't use the title from the credits as "original title". Apart from checking for possessives, I personally really see no use for the credits block at all...

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
The bottom line: while I certainly like the fact that we use the title from the front cover in the "title" field, I don't see why we shouldn't use the title from the credits as "original title".

I agree. It seems a shame to have been using the film credits for 2 years for the title field and then to change course and use the cover instead. This gives a mixture of data sources between existing data and future updates.  But I do understand Ken's reasoning in bringing the source for all titles in line with taking the title from the cover for situations liike There's Something (More) About Mary, yet I do support being able to record the on-screen title in the Original Title field (real title data and not quotes). That's what I intend to use the field for myself in my local db.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
While I'm happy with the clarification to the possessives part of the rules, I'm still confused by the fact that we're to get the "original title" from the credits block as well. Basically, what this all boils down to, is "take the title from the front cover, and the original title from the back cover". We are now completely disregarding the actual title from the credits... 

My fault for not making myself clearer.  I was not saying we should take the original title from the credit block.  I was saying we need clarification so that we don't end up with things like:

Title: The Thing
Original Title: John Carpenter's The Thing

Title: Mister Roberts
Original Title: "Mister Roberts"

I hope that helps to clear up what I meant.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
While I'm happy with the clarification to the possessives part of the rules, I'm still confused by the fact that we're to get the "original title" from the credits block as well. Basically, what this all boils down to, is "take the title from the front cover, and the original title from the back cover". We are now completely disregarding the actual title from the credits... 

My fault for not making myself clearer.  I was not saying we should take the original title from the credit block.  I was saying we need clarification so that we don't end up with things like:

Title: The Thing
Original Title: John Carpenter's The Thing

Title: Mister Roberts
Original Title: "Mister Roberts"

I hope that helps to clear up what I meant.

Not too worry: I understood what you meant. You wasn't saying that, but unfortunately, the rules do. It's just that I noticed that people really understand the current rules to read: take the "title" from the front cover, and the "original title" from the back (from the "credits block", that is). People are already actually voting this way! Again, while I agree this is DVD Profiler, and that we therefore should track the DVD Title in the "title" field, I do want to retain the actual title from the credits in the "original title" field. I've done it that way for years, and I'm still doing it that way now. But now that the rules point to the credits block as primary source, the actual title from the film credits is entirely disregarded. I really don't understand why...

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:

Wait a minute...that only leaves ass hanging out there  

Quoting Tracer:

Quote:
I am wondering since this rule is being applied to Box Sets as well.  This is the contribution notes for the box set for Clive Barker's Hellraiser and Clive Barker's Hellraiser II.

Quote:
removed "clive barker's" from title as small print doesn't even include this possessive. Also it's much smaller than the title of the film.

There is no copyright notice title on the back cover to go by, so should the font size be enough?

Also, like Tim I'm wondering about the original title field, if we determine that the DVD title is "The Thing" yet the film's original title is "John Carpenter's The Thing" should we be using that for the original title?

I don't know the anwer, but the last bullet point for helping to determine the title is:

The title for a Box Set should be the title listed on the Front Cover; for example Alien Quadrilogy.

To me it implies that the previous bullet points are not in play for box sets.  After all, no movie was ever released with the name of the box set.  Maybe I'm wrong on this, but that's my take.

Of course, if this is simply a double feature where the title is derived by simply appending the two together with a slash, then each individual title would be subject to checking the possessive.

This really has not been a good week for the Skipster...wrong on the whole quotes thing and now wrong again on this credit block thing...it's a shame!

Quoting Tracer:

Quote:
I am wondering since this rule is being applied to Box Sets as well.  This is the contribution notes for the box set for Clive Barker's Hellraiser and Clive Barker's Hellraiser II.

Quote:
removed "clive barker's" from title as small print doesn't even include this possessive. Also it's much smaller than the title of the film.

There is no copyright notice title on the back cover to go by, so should the font size be enough?

Also, like Tim I'm wondering about the original title field, if we determine that the DVD title is "The Thing" yet the film's original title is "John Carpenter's The Thing" should we be using that for the original title?

That's why I started this thread before submitting, as I wasn't 100% sure it was the right thing to do.
It hasn't gone to the screener stage yet, so no decision has been made.

Edit: however, the change to both child profiles have been accepted.