Well, the whole thing just gets stupid, especially when you deal with Hollywood during it's heyday.  Rarely would people go to a movie because of a director, but there were those few who's name alone could generate business.  As a result you saw a lot of this "Howard Hawks'" or "John Ford's" or "Frank Kapra's."  It was purely a marketing gimic.  Must have worked great because here we are decades later still buying into it.

Next I'll be waiting for all the musicals to be re-titled "Lerner and Lowe's...."  You can just go on and on with this crap.

WOW! 10 pages in just over 24 hours! Not a record I know but pretty good 

The creators name belongs in the crew section. Not in the tittle. This calls for a new data field that can be user controled. Possessives hidden or appended to the tittle. I'd like to hide the possessives for a clean tittle.

jstrandl

Quoting jstrandl:

Quote:
The creators name belongs in the crew section. Not in the tittle. This calls for a new data field that can be user controled. Possessives hidden or appended to the tittle. I'd like to hide the possessives for a clean tittle.

jstrandl

Sez you.  It belongs exactly where they put it when they made the movie.  If that is in the title sequence, then that's where it goes.  Period.

Too much spin in here....I'm getting dizzy

Forgive my ignorance but.....

As I understood this rule, since it became a rule (remember there was a time when possessives were a no-no) we are to use the title from the film's credits.

A screen shot has been provided that show the film's credits, but it only shows "The Birds"

Are those of you who are against the change to "The Birds" saying the screen shot is not actually of the film? Or are you saying there screen shot that would be before the one posted is also part of the title?

If it's the later I am really    I had always been under the impression that there is one and only one screen shot of the title that we concerned ourselves with, the one where the title is actually shown.

Please clarify whether you're saying the screen shot is wrong OR you think that more than one screen shot is required to show the "complete" title. 


(My copy is unavailable at the moment so I can't check to see if the screen shot posted is wrong)

Be careful what you guys wish for titles like "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" could simply become "Guide to the Galaxy".

I'm not sure why there is such a reluctance to use the modified title rule, it has worked in the past to solve such issues where the DVD cover doesn't match the film credits title.  Plus DVD Profiler gives you the ablity to display the Title field, original title field, or both.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Or are you saying there screen shot that would be before the one posted is also part of the title?

That is what they are saying.  My understanding is there is a screen shot that says 'Alfred Hitchcock's' which disolves into another screen shot that says 'The Birds'.

Skip, and those that agree with him, is saying both screen shots make up the entire title.  Like I said, back on page 4, they are trying to redefine what constitutes a 'title credit'.