Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I'm just pointing out that it doesn't cover everything.

Do you think there can be a rule that will 

I'll have to go home and check, but perhaps spine is some indication of the true title?  Since there's less real estate on the spine, companies can't get fancy, yet I thought they were obligated to always print the proper title.  Just a thought and I certainly haven't put it to the test.

LOL, North, I understand. We thought the BY was a good idea and it too users 5 seconds to expose the weakness there. This is the kind of thing that I try very hard to avoid. I like Dan's idea, but based upon your comment it may not work all of the time, resulting in  errant data. Now some users here would argue so what, NOBODY callws it Frank Miller's Sin City, it's Sin City and then they would drag in all sorts of side data, including various Hollywood sources such as AFI to support their case. Talk about varieties of fish.

If this is correct, north then using the Original title is probably the best bet.

Note for all, just in case you don't get it and most of you don't seem to, you seem to be all hung up on ONE very narrow point while ignoring the BROADER topic, a very common occurrence here. Sometimes things have to be done. This is a good example, am I particularly with Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds or MANY other possesives. However I don't make the films. You people like to focus on small pieces and dissect it and turn it inside out, few of you look at the BIGGER pcture. Is there a difference between marketing and a "real" possessive...absolutely. Do I know them when I see them? Yes, I do? Is it possible to define them in a way that is comprehensible to ALL users, (without causing these oh so stupid arguments), I really don't think so. What does that mean? In any CASE we will wind up with something wrong, we might wind up with legitimate possessives being eliminated, or wind up with some possessives that are marketing hype. I think the latter choice is the better choice, better that way than run the risk of eliminating perfectly good data, in your zeal to eliminate the marketing hype.

Skip

Whew, glad to see that, Dan. I hope it holds TRUE all the time, but if it doesn't, we're screwed, and then here we go again. And i will have to watch more BS and insults.

Skip

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Or perhaps we can have reasoned discussions about obvious mistakes instead of going nuts and screaming "rules violation!!!!" at the drop of a hat.  Just a thought.

Depnds on your viewpoint, mdnitoil, which is why we have a LOCAL database where you can exercise your supposed expertise to your hearts content and nobody will argue with you. Unlike you I am not willing to argue with those that make the film or pretend that my judgement is better than theirs. There are places on the Web that specialize in that belief, and they like us were not involved in the process of making any of the film product that is our hobby. You chose a narrow focus as I said, and to make matters worse you chose it based on your BIAS, you could just as easily said hey, the rest of the hitch films need to look like The Birds, somebody screwed up and it should be Alfred Hictcock's Rear Window or whatever. I try very hard NEVER to argue from a viewpoint of personal bias, but only fom a viewpoint of DATA, therefore while I might NOT be personally happy with the result, it is nearly always the correct result nonetheless.

Skip

I suppose skip.  But all the evidence brought to bear on this topic, including statements by the director himself, have supported my "bias."  You know, since we're talking about data and such.

Just be gracious and accept when your wrong, for goodness sakes.

You are also taking a narrow focus and NOT looking at the big picture. If you think this is a new subject, you are wrong. It is one which I have personally grappled with for three years and more. The problem with calling someone WRONG is that you are not recognizing the viewpoint or taking into axccount all the possible factors which might be involve. I disagree with your opinion, but i will NOT say you are wrong because I understand your viewpoint.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You are also taking a narrow focus and NOT looking at the big picture. If you think this is a new subject, you are wrong. It is one which I have personally grappled with for three years and more. The problem with calling someone WRONG is that you are not recognizing the viewpoint or taking into axccount all the possible factors which might be involve. I disagree with your opinion, but i will NOT say you are wrong because I understand your viewpoint.

Skip

But you just said he was wrong in your previous post

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am wrong in your view, you are wrong in my view.For goodness sake.