| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't much care for this idea.
'Bram Stoker's Dracula' is a prime example of where the possessory credit is in fact part of the title.
'The Birds' is a prime example of where the possessory credit is not part of the title.
The title field should contain just that: the title; not the title minus a possessory credit just so that we don't include inappropriate possessory credits in titles where they don't belong.
There are simply some here that are making the task of determining the title a whole lot more difficult than it really is, and as usual, the rest of us who have common sense are spending WAY too much time trying to convince the unconvincable. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have to change my vote. Again.  Here's my problem. For Frank Miller's Sin City, I would say the title is "Frank Miller's Sin City" and there is no possessory credit. For Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds I would say the title is "The Birds" and "Alfred Hitchcock's" is the possessory credit. The problem I'm having is I would bet there's a large chunk of people who would say it should be Title "Sin City" and possessory credit "Frank Miller's". To me that would be like splitting the title out by nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. The title is the title and I don't want it split up. When I look at my collection, I want to see "Frank Miller's Sin City" and "The Birds". Now if we could agree on exactly what the title is, that would take care of my concerns. As I mentioned before, I'm happy to change things locally to fit my own particular needs. But your other poll clearly illustrates that we can't even agree on that much. So I'm not sure this solves any existing problems and will probably make them even worse. Without a clear and simple method to handle this (when to include possessory credits and when not to), I can't vote yes on this. | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. | | | | Last edited: by Mark Harrison |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,680 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
The title field should contain just that: the title; not the title minus a possessory credit just so that we don't include inappropriate possessory credits in titles where they don't belong.
There are simply some here that are making the task of determining the title a whole lot more difficult than it really is, and as usual, the rest of us who have common sense are spending WAY too much time trying to convince the unconvincable. Amen to that. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I don't much care for this idea.
'Bram Stoker's Dracula' is a prime example of where the possessory credit is in fact part of the title.
'The Birds' is a prime example of where the possessory credit is not part of the title.
The title field should contain just that: the title; not the title minus a possessory credit just so that we don't include inappropriate possessory credits in titles where they don't belong.
There are simply some here that are making the task of determining the title a whole lot more difficult than it really is, and as usual, the rest of us who have common sense are spending WAY too much time trying to convince the unconvincable. But that's what the new field would be for - it seems to be that those fighting to stick every single possessory credit in the title field are doing so because there's nowhere else to put it! If they had this new field, they could put all the possessory credits in there, and we'd only be left with those that truly belong in the title field - like Frank Miller's Sin City and Bram Stoker's Dracula - titles that can be documented as including the PC. If we don't have this field then we are stuck with having to argue the same thing over and over. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Maybe I didn't make things clear to start with - I'm certainly not advocating moving every single possessive into this new field. "Frank Miller's..." and "Bram Stoker's..." and "Lemony Snicket's.." belong in the title field - no doubt about that.
But what I meant is that if there was this new field, then those who believe it's called "Sin City" can move the "Frank Miller's" bit into the new field locally. So they don't have to remove data, just relocate it. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | North:
As I said there are users who believe that they should be able to to do what they are doing. as oppoosed to recognizing that to some users the inforamation may be important. I think your proposal strikes a good middle position that satisfies everybody. Imnstead of just thos that want to say No to your proposal.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 810 |
| | Posted: | | | | So what new data are we adding to the profile?
I see there being three cases;
The director's name
Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds
The original author's name
Bram Stoker's Dracula
A fictional author's name
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
In the first case the title should be "The Birds" with Alfred Hitchcock in the director field.
In the other two cases the possessive is part of the title and should be entered as such for the master database.
pdf | | | Paul Francis
San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | And what about the two that are being argued about now?
William Shakespeare's Hamlet
Rodgers and Hammerstein's The King and I
If we follow your example, they should be included - but a lot of people (myself included) would disagree with you.
It's not about adding new data to the profile, it's being able to organise it in a way that creates more flexibility to the end user. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | It may be too late now, but I'd really like to know from some of the no voters where they think this information should be stored if not in it's own field?
Would you put it in the title field (the other poll suggests not)?
Would you class it as a credit (which the current rules don't allow)?
Would you lose this information completely (which seems a shame)? |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
It may be too late now, but I'd really like to know from some of the no voters where they think this information should be stored if not in it's own field?
Would you put it in the title field (the other poll suggests not)?
Would you class it as a credit (which the current rules don't allow)?
Would you lose this information completely (which seems a shame)? The rules allow for possessory credits to be recorded in the crew credits. The Contribution Rules state that cast credits must come from the end credits, they do state that crew must come from the credits but the end credits are not specified. Therefore, possessory credits can come from any credits, including those above the title. | | | | Last edited: by Telecine |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Telecine: Quote:
The rules allow for possessory credits to be recorded in the crew credits. The Contribution Rules state that cast credits must come from the end credits, they do state that crew must come from the credits but the end credits are not specified. Therefore, possessory credits can come from any credits, including those above the title. I had a look at the rules and the bit that got me was: If someone is not credited with one of these roles, do not include them in the Crew section. That seemed to exclude possessory credits as no role is given. I've got nothing against crediting them, but I couldn't see my way round this. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
The rules allow for possessory credits to be recorded in the crew credits. The Contribution Rules state that cast credits must come from the end credits, they do state that crew must come from the credits but the end credits are not specified. Therefore, possessory credits can come from any credits, including those above the title.
I had a look at the rules and the bit that got me was:
If someone is not credited with one of these roles, do not include them in the Crew section.
That seemed to exclude possessory credits as no role is given.
I've got nothing against crediting them, but I couldn't see my way round this. I don't any insurmountable problem myself. Even if no role is given in the credits, we are permitted to use third-party sources to determine roles where they are not in the credits. Given that anyone given a possessory credit is either a well known Director, author or playwright, it shouldn't be hard to determine the role. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Telecine: Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
It may be too late now, but I'd really like to know from some of the no voters where they think this information should be stored if not in it's own field?
Would you put it in the title field (the other poll suggests not)?
Would you class it as a credit (which the current rules don't allow)?
Would you lose this information completely (which seems a shame)?
The rules allow for possessory credits to be recorded in the crew credits. The Contribution Rules state that cast credits must come from the end credits, they do state that crew must come from the credits but the end credits are not specified. Therefore, possessory credits can come from any credits, including those above the title. We call them possessive's, they are not a credit,. Once again you aretrying to apply a definition that we do NOT use. Wew have NO provision for the use of a possessive as a credit. I repeat what I have said before we are NOT the DGA or any other Guild and we do NOT follow their definitions. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Why do you think they aren't credits? The quotes that Telecine has posted in the past clearly show that Frank Capra and Alfred Hitchcock both considered them as credits. I certainly hope that you're not suggesting you know better than the film-makers?  In the case of Wes Craven - his name is above some film titles to sell more tickets, so I don't know how we'd class that! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
The rules allow for possessory credits to be recorded in the crew credits. The Contribution Rules state that cast credits must come from the end credits, they do state that crew must come from the credits but the end credits are not specified. Therefore, possessory credits can come from any credits, including those above the title.
I had a look at the rules and the bit that got me was:
If someone is not credited with one of these roles, do not include them in the Crew section.
That seemed to exclude possessory credits as no role is given.
I've got nothing against crediting them, but I couldn't see my way round this. When you see a credit such as "Based on Mark Twain's book 'Tom Sawyer', surely you would enter an OMB credit. There is no role listed for Mark Twain in this case!  | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Northbloke,
I did not understand you to originally mean that some possessory credits would go in the "Possessory credit" field and some would not. I interpreted your idea to mean all possessory credits would go in the new field.
I still don;t see how this solves the problem. People will still argue about whether it is part of the title or not. Certain individuals will continue to claim that if it appears on the same screen as the title then it is part of the title, so I don;t see how this will make any difference.
I also agree that we can and should include possessory credits in the crew credits today. | | | | Hal |
|