this is an interesting one. Not because I think the rule is unclear, but because of your arguments.

The rule is pretty clear. The cover must come from the front cover. If you want to keep same titles together you can a) change the title locally or b) change the sort title.

Just because it's a sequel it does not mean that the name will just be 'Movie Title 2'. I can think of various titles that don't use a number but are sequels, some of which you wouldn't know are sequels from the title alone.

there are a lot of cases where the cover art is not as text and does not have a direct translation. In some of these cases exceptions are made. But the rule is clear that the title needs to come from the front cover. If this is the best place to get the cover you will probably find many that would say it isn't.

the back cover does show the title as F/X2 but that is the back cover, not the front. By this argument your submission would still be wrong because it doesn't include The Deadly Art of Illusion

for our purposes, as the rule currently stands, the cover does make it right. Because thats where we are supposed to get the title that we enter into DVD Profiler from. In that case F/X2 would then go into the Original Title, similar to how 'There's Something More About Mary' is handled.

additionally, the US release does not include 'The Deadly Art of Illusion' as part of the title. Based on placement of this text it could be seen as a tagline rather than an episode descriptor (I would say that Murder By Illusion from the first title is more clear as a episode descriptor than Deadly Art of Illusion is, and that doesn't seem to be part of the title in dvd profiler either (at least for the US release)

However, I would say minimally the current title is still wrong as the title is currently 'FX: 2 - The Deadly Art of Illusion' which is definitely not what appears on the cover (why the colon between FX and 2? and the - should be A : if that is being included as an episode descriptor)

As for the cover for part one and the title including / i would say that if the beam of light is included as part of the title it should be F|X as that is more accurate since the light beam is vertical not slanted.

-Agrare

Michael, I was one of the no voters and I thought I'd best make my reasons clear.

The contribution stated that the title had been changed to match the copyright box on the rear cover... (i.e. not the front cover).  It also stated that the change was to bring it in line with the first movie... something which is not only incorrect but also completely unnecessary.

The change submitted was "F/X2: The Deadly Art of Illusion".

The front cover shows the title as "FX 2: The Deadly Art of Illusion" (with no '/') which I mentioned against my no vote... in the hope it would be changed to the correct format.

The existing title is currently 'FX: 2 - The Deadly Art of Illusion' (as Agrare states) and I fully agree that this is wrong, and although it is a bit anal, I will not vote yes to a change if it contains incorrect data.

Quoting Agrare:

Quote:
Just because it's a sequel it does not mean that the name will just be 'Movie Title 2'. I can think of various titles that don't use a number but are sequels, some of which you wouldn't know are sequels from the title alone.

Agreed ; and in support of Agrare's argument I quote the "Dirty Harry" series:

Dirty Harry
Magnum Force
The Enforcer
Sudden Impact
The Dead Pool

err, I think that's the right order!!!