Look, everyone involved in the film industry: the Director's Guild, the Writer's Guild, the production studios, the producers themselves, etc., all refer to the director's (or the producer's) possessive before the title of a film as a "possessory credit". The noun is "credit", and all (except three people on this forum, none of whom appear to have worked in the film industry) agree that this possessive is not considered as part of the title of the film.

I might be willing to say this is like "Something More About Mary" where the DVD changes the title for that DVD only, but the original film name and the sort name should not include the possessory credit. It is, after all, just a credit.

Oh this is beyond ridiculous.  Only in DVD Profiler can a movie's title not be a movie's title.  If we get new users to purchase this program, it will be in spite of the data, not because of it.

noobie: "Hey I just got this new DVD program, but when I entered all my disks it came up with all these weird titles that I've never heard of."

tech support: "Yeah, you have to change all that stuff yourself.  It's a feature."

As I have tried to explain, mdnitoil, there is a BIGGER picture involved here. And unless that can be addressed adequately, then we have no real choice, I don't care how much to try to rationalize your position This is NOT about ONE SINGLE film. And if you have read what I have said, even I don't like Hicth's The Birds, this is true of NUMEROUS area of the database do you comprehend that, but the data MUST be handled in a consistent manner. Surely you aren't proposing leaving the Rule as is, but including an accompanying list stating that THESE films are not use possessives, it would be HUGE, probably PAGES.

There have been two possibilities put on the table, which you seem to have totally ignored. One of which I think is more workable that the other, or at the very least easier.

Sheesh, get off The Birds and LOOK at the BIG picture, and you guys wonder why I get annoyed. The stupidity here is sometimes beyond belief.


Skip

Skip,

could you please keep your 'bigger picture' local? 

Peabody:

The old Guidelines specifically addressed possessives and said NOT to include them. Whe the Rules were developed it was determined that such a blanket statement was unworkable, there ARE instances when possessive use is valid, and we could NOT come up with a system that we were certain could be used 100% of the time, so it was deliberately removed from the Guidelines, thereby allowing their usage. Obviously if one thinks about this, this thread graphically demonstrates the problem, we can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

As I have said

1) It has to be easy for users to comprehend and implement
2) It has to work every time (that could result in sucking it in and accepting things like The Birds" or Rear Window, or The Thing)
Let's take this for an example andlet's give the argument over subsequent screens, validity just for grins. Now how about Rear Window, it doesn't suffer from that particular malady, or any of hundreds of other films.

I REALLY want Dan's proposal to work but I am not certain that it will and i have learned to try to avoid getting stuck into a corner...because the exception to Dan's rule is somehwere out there.

I think, perhaps the BEST answer is to make use of the Original Title to resolve this, it's fairly easy to comprehend (I hope, although with this bunch I have my doubts) It should be immediately implementable and would solve the problem.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Red Herring. WHERE in the Rules is that provided for, mdnitoil. It's not and it is irrelevant to this discussion as is DGA, AFI or anything else..<shakes head>

Stop throwing fish.

The rules are silent on possessory credits. The rules refer only to the title. The possessory credit is not part of the title. External research is relevant and helpful in making that determination.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
This is NOT about ONE SINGLE film. And if you have read what I have said, even I don't like Hicth's The Birds, this is true of NUMEROUS area of the database do you comprehend that, but the data MUST be handled in a consistent manner

Thankfully, the rules don't mandate this type of 'consistency' at the expense of usability.

On a case by case basis, we may be able to determine that a possessory credit has been formalized into the title. If someone can document that, I'm sure the voters will approve that. It's ok to allow for documented exceptions to what constitutes the title. But to include all names that appear near or precedent to a title in the name of consistency is a nightmare.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Red Herring. WHERE in the Rules is that provided for, mdnitoil. It's not and it is irrelevant to this discussion as is DGA, AFI or anything else..<shakes head>

Stop throwing fish.

The rules are silent on possessory credits. The rules refer only to the title. The possessory credit is not part of the title. External research is relevant and helpful in making that determination.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
This is NOT about ONE SINGLE film. And if you have read what I have said, even I don't like Hicth's The Birds, this is true of NUMEROUS area of the database do you comprehend that, but the data MUST be handled in a consistent manner

Thankfully, the rules don't mandate this type of 'consistency' at the expense of usability.

On a case by case basis, we may be able to determine that a possessory credit has been formalized into the title. If someone can document that, I'm sure the voters will approve that. It's ok to allow for documented exceptions to what constitutes the title. But to include all names that appear near or precedent to a title in the name of consistency is a nightmare.

James:

Do you REALLY read and comprehend what I say, I sometimes don't think so. I agree with you on the nightmare and if you recall THIS nightmare we have been through this and could not reach an appropriate resolution. Take titles on a case by case basis?? Oh God based on this thread that would be a BIGGER nightmare.

I REPEAT there are TWO possible suggestions for solving this. One which I WANT to be able to work but I am not certain that it WILL, and the other one which may not be a perfect answer....it will work.

Skip

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:

Ken: 20 bucks they get to 20 pages by noon tomorrow.

11:54 am PST...come on guys 6 minutes to go...you can do it!