| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,684 |
| | Posted: | | | | There are currently different opinions regarding the title of this boxset:  Bond 50: Celebrating Five Decades of Bond 007Is "007" part of the title or not? I admit that it is debateable, but one user refers to Gerri's decision here. I believe, however, that Gerri is refering to the titles for the individual movies, which rightfully should not include "007". I don't believe it is applicable to other products, like this boxset. The titles for such products should be decided on a per product basis. So, there are really two questions here. 1) Is Gerri's ruling applicable? 2) If not, is "007" part of the title in this specific case? | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I look at that case and I have a whole other opinion. It looks like to me the title should just be Bond 50. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | In the Titles section, the rules say: "The title for a Box Set should be the title listed on the Front Cover; for example Alien Quadrilogy."
While I agree that 007 does not belong in the titles of individual movies, given the rule I quoted above the question becomes whether or not the final part of Gerri's decision applies:
"It is just a symbol on the cover of the DVD/BluRay". So is this stylized representation of 007 a symbol or not? I reckon it can be argued both ways... |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | As always, I'm all for consistency. If we don't want the 007-symbol/logo on the cover to be listed as part of the title of the individual films, then it shouldn't be part of the title here either. Either the symbol/logo is something we include in the title, or it's not. "Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't" is always a really bad idea.
Furthermore, I'm actually with Pete on this: to me, the title is simply 'Bond 50', nothing more. Not only is the 007-symbol/logo not part of the title, but I consider "Celebrating Five Decades of Bond" a tagline that shouldn't be included either. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm with Pete and T!M on this. The portion above'Bond 50' is a tag line and not part of the title...whic makes the original question moot. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I look at that case and I have a whole other opinion. It looks like to me the title should just be Bond 50. Correct. The title is Bond 50. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,684 |
| |
| Eagle | | Registered: Oct 31, 2001 |
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 563 |
| | Posted: | | | | Let me jump on the bandwagon...I also see this title as simply Bond 50. Everything above it is simply a tagline and is not part of the title. | | | | My phpDVDprofiler collection |
|
| Registered: December 13, 2008 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 334 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Exactly... I see the line above as no more then a tag line. Not title and not edition. | | | | Pete |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | So, much support for 'Bond 50', it seems - except when it's put to a vote:  To be fair, there are two "yes"-voters as well, but still... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | First thing I notice is I do not recognize the names of the no votes. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
So, much support for 'Bond 50', it seems - except when it's put to a vote:
To be fair, there are two "yes"-voters as well, but still... Contribute what you believe is correct and let the screeners decide. Lock your local title and move on to the next profile. Too many people seem to feel that the online profile must match exactly what they choose to do locally. --------------- |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
First thing I notice is I do not recognize the names of the no votes. Why would it make a difference whether you recognize the no voters names? Does that make their vote have less meaning then someone you know? Should they be disqualified for being unknown to you? Would you change you position on the OP if it was someone like T!M or TheMadMartian that had voted no on the contribution? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | My point was only that he was talking about how so much agreement here.... but all no votes are people that I never noticed at the forum before. In other words... not everyone reads the forums was my point. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
My point was only that he was talking about how so much agreement here.... but all no votes are people that I never noticed at the forum before. In other words... not everyone reads the forums was my point. My mistake. I took it as condescending. |
|