No one has denied that "Mister Roberts" appears on screen.

That does not change the fact that the film's title is Mister Roberts.

Please go to the New Features Forum and start a thread for the addition of a "Scape the On-Screen Title display along with before and after frames" field.

I'm certain it will get overwhelming support!

Not!

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

james:

Have you become BLIND. FACT; despite your interpretation which I have said I agree with, "Mister Roberts" is what appears ON SCREEN. That is not arguable or deniable.

Skip

An who here has claimed that "Mister Roberts" isn't what appears on screen?  What we are saying, and you don't seem to be hearing, is the title is Mister Roberts.  That is a fact that is not arguable or deniable.  The rule says, "Use the title from the film's credits."  The only way your position is correct is if the title is, in fact, "Mister Roberts".

As James has pointed out, and you keep ignoring, in some films there are a LOT of things that appear on screen with the title.  If we are to follow your interpretation of the rule, all that junk has to be entered as well. 

Why, oh why, am I continuing forward when my instincts are telling me to crawl back into my hole?  Tin... foil... hat... failing...

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Mark:

Skip:

Quote:
I have only one question. Please define Common Sense.

That's technically not a question, but I'd go with whatever the dictionary has to say on the subject.  I see no point in inventing a new definition.

Quote:
You were absolutely about the Rulkes being designed not allow wiggle room, but we have users who CLAIM to support the Rules  and also worked on them and are wiggling all over the place.

Ok.  So we have 1) users who CLAIM to support the rules.  Next we have 2) these same users worked on the rules.  Finally we have 3) these same users (again), wiggling all over the place. Since we're speaking in generalities here (or are you referring specifically to using quotes in titles?), I can only draw general conclusions from the data presented.

The conclusion I draw from the available evidence is that these users have run into a situation that wasn't considered when the rules were written.  This tells me that we have a rule that needs to be re-examined based on the availability of new evidence.  And in all likelyhood, the rule in question needs to be modified.  I also know (from having worked on the rules), that the rules were never intended to be set in stone.  There was much discussion based around the topic of how to update rules.  So I can't see why an update should be out of the question.

As you yourself have pointed out many, many times, you never know what Hollywood is going to throw at us next.  Even though this isn't something "new", I'd argue that it meets the spirit of your observation.  Clearly when the situation changes, is it not logical to re-examine the rule, making changes where ever neccessary?  Are we now supposed to be robots trying to shove a square peg into a round hold simply because some rule says that's where the peg belongs?  I think not.

Quote:
Here's an example of what i mean by lack of common sense, mark
The central core of the Rules is AS Credited.

That's the central core of the rules for cast and crew.  That's why it's referred to as "As Credited".  Titles aren't credited.  They're titles.  Running time isn't credited.  Audio tracks aren't credited.  Cover images aren't credited.  Overviews aren't credited (although they have similar wording).  People (i.e. cast and crew) are credited.  So I disagree that the central core of the rules is As Credited.

Besides, "as credited" doesn't change the fact that "Mister Roberts" is a square peg and Title is a round hole.  To simply say "as credited" is insulting.  We're not robots and we are able to notice when that peg isn't fitting.  You can't simply apply a little As Credited® lube and tell us to try again.

Quote:
I have recognized the arguments made by bot Hal and james in regards to titling. Unfortunately that does not change what is on screen.

But I'd argue that we're not supposed to enter what is on screen.  What's on screen is "the film's credits".  What we're supposed to enter, according to the rules, is "the title".  Or more specifically, "the title" from "the film's credits".  We're not told to enter "the film's credits".

Quote:
So my very sim-0ple suggestion is to design something, via a new field that will allow the Program to accomodate the issues raised by James and Hal AND stiull accomodate the As credited part of the data as well. I think it is a very reasonable position.

I don't think it's a reasonable position.  The title is Mister Roberts.  What value do I gain from having another field that tells me what it looked like in the movie itself.  If I want to know that (and I can't imagine why I would), I'd pop the film in.  If you tell me you'd like to know that the screen showed quotes around the title, I'll not argue with you.  I'd say put a request in the Feature Requests section asking for that.  But I doubt you'd find many other people who would find that to be a useful peice of data.

I'd also add that Ken has told us in the past that many people already find the program and rules to be more complicated than neccessary, so I can't see him agreeing to add such a trivial piece of data.  But by all means, go ahead and request it.

Quote:
I don't presume to be able to divine what the filmmakers were thinking...assuming they were thinking which might be questionable...when they made whatever choices they made.

I have good news for you! You don't have to divine anything.  Woo-hoo! It's in the copyright notice (and many, many other places) without the quotes.  Unless you want to argue that the filmmakers and/or studio made a mistake when they copyrighted it.  But then you're simply diving what they weren't thinking.

Quote:
I am getting argued with, flamed, insulted and so forth, over WHAT exactly. Please to inform EXACTLY what is unreasonable.

Well, I can't speak for the others with any authority.  But I'd guess what they find unreasonable is being told they have to shove that square peg into the round hole.  They see the round peg just lying there, but they're told that they're not smart enough to make that decision on their own.  They must follow what's in the rules reagardless of the fact that it makes no sense.

It's insulting to be told we don't understand the rules.  It's insulting that we're told we can't do the right thing because it's not "in the rules".  It's insulting to imply that we're not wise enough to recognize when the rules don't work.  It's insulting when we can't change the rules.  It's insulting when you tell us that it will cause you to have to re-do a lot of work if we change the rules.  It's insulting when we're not treated as equals.  It's insulting when 100 people agree on something, but we're expected to make you see the light.

You're our peer, not our parent.

But that's just my guess.

Quote:
Let me say that I agree completely with what both James and hal have said on this and always have.

Ummm.  Ok.  If you say so.

Quote:
So, I see two sets of correct data, the James/Hal version whatever you want to call it, and the data that is ACTUALLKY displayed ON Screen, which is what is it and appears in whatever bizarre form the filmmakers chose (not counting typefaces, colors or logo work).

Ok.  I suppose I can see two sets of data.  I'd even call it two sets of "correct" data.  But they're only "correct" in certain conditions.  If the context is cover image, clearly neither are correct.  If the context is title, then only one is correct.  If the context is what is displayed on the screen, then the other is correct.  The piece of data we're interested in is the Title.  In that case I see one piece of "correct" data.

Again, if you're interested in recording what is on the screen, put in a request for Ken to add a field.  Or add it to the Notes field.  There are even those who would be willing to help you create a new HTML window that displays a screenshot for 100% accuracy.  But that's not the Title.  It's the title displayed in whatever bizarre form the filmmakers chose.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
No one has denied that "Mister Roberts" appears on screen.

That does not change the fact that the film's title is [b]Mister Roberts.[/b]

Please go to the New Features Forum and start a thread for the addition of a "Scape the On-Screen Title display along with before and after frames" field.

I'm certain it will get overwhelming support!

Not!

Hal:

What do you base that on. It is not based on anything from the film credits which is what the Rules say. It is based either on your personal opinion or from third party source both of which are excluded from the Rules.<shrugs>n You can cite Library of Congress if you wish but that is not what the Rules say. So once again, I am merely trying to figure out how to accomodate both what you want and what the film ACTUALLY says.

Skip

Check the copyrighted title!  Simple!

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Well, Hell's Bells, Mark, I would love to not have to go through this every little thing that comes up.

Actually, you don't have to go through this or anything else.  I successfully removed myself from all such discussions many, many months ago.  It was very peaceful and relaxing.  But this is an issue I care about, so I'm choosing to jump back in the pool for a little while.

Quote:
I don't have a problem reading the rules and applying them, but then I'm not one of those who is continually parsing the text to ELIMINATE any possible chance of logic or common sense being applied.

I think if you'll dial it back down a few notches, you'll see that there are no such nefarious plans underway.  Even Skip recognizes the other side of the argument.  You want to see the Title field contain exactly what is on the screen.  As Credited you'd say.  Others feel that that doesn't represent the "Title", but rather the film's credits.

If you can't see that there is another point of view on what constitutes the Title, then there's nothing left to discuss.

Quote:
I'm sure I'll offend somebody with this, but the truth is brutal.

You're certainly not offending me.

Quote:
The rank stupidity of many of those playing this game is appalling.

I don't think you and I have ever agreed more!

Quote:
They just can't put aside their personal foibles and prejudices and do what is correct.

Again, I actually agree with you.  I'll even go a step further and say many can't put aside their foibles and prejudices and deal with Skip directly on the issues at hand.  Things always get side-tracked into petty bickering.  This is something that's been building for years and it won't go away anytime soon.

Since Mark has decided to join in I thought I'd post this from a thread he may have missed.

It illustrates quite nicely what Skip is proposing (and hasn't been addressed yet either)


Personally the Phantasm III one is my favorite 



Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:

I agree. I just hope we can get common sense firmly in place before the other method can take hold and we would have things like:

Ocean'seleven





PhaInItIasm

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I REPEAT I am saying we need to find a way to accomodate both.

Start a feature request for a new field and see what support you can generate. I don't see the need. See if you can find others who do.

Quote:
The Rule is clear

I agree. It worked quite well and no one included the quotes for years...until "Mister Roberts".   

Quote:
if there is anything that is to be excluded it is your interpretation which calls for some from of interpretation which comes from outside the film credits.

Of course it requires interpretation. But so does yours. How do you know the title of the film is not "Best Boy....John Doe"? It's because you looked at the credits and used your intellect to direct you to the title screen. Now you just need to zero in on the actual title and not the quotes that tell you "this is the title".

Quote:
you are adopting a position that is against the Rules

I have no problem taking the title from the film credits as the rules call for.

Quote:
and I am trying to figure out how to do both.

Make a feature request.

Quote:
Why is your interpretation reasonable and mine is NOT.

Mine is in sync with the thousands of titles already in the database where users correctly obtained the title from the film credits. Your interpretation is not representative of what other reasonable people have done in practice. You have no data to support your interpretation other than the fact that there are quotes on the screen. You've not provided any data that suggests anyone in the film industry considers these to be part of the title. That makes your argument unreasonable.

Quote:
Who died and made you the God Interpreter of why Hollywood does what it does?

The previous God of course. 

Quote:
I am not trying to interpret I accept what I see, but am willing to grant your position to the Key Field for all the reasons that have been stated.

OK. Then move along to the Feature Request forum.

Quote:

I do not understand where you are coming from your version of Common Sense to me is TOTALLY unreasonable.

How did thousands of classic film titles get input into the database over the years without quotes? I would say that common sense was involved in those decisions.

Quote:
The On Screen credit field would affect nothing, it would merely reflect the title as it actually appears on the screen

Make a feature request. As long as it doesn't change what's input into the title field, I won't oppose it. I'll just watch. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Maybe I should try some of Mark's patented 'As Credited® lube'.  If I use that, maybe PhaInItIasm would make sense as the title. 

 

Thanks for posting those Rick.  Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.