Quote:
It doesn't matter WHY it is included.  What's important is that it IS included.  Who are we to second guess why the director put that possessive in place in the movie?  It doesn't matter one fig whether it is all on one screen or part of a sequence.  The fact is, it's there.  We should default to that fact and not try to ascribe some ulterior motive to why it should or should not be there.

Quote:
Just as a side not.  Those who say "only in a single frame" referring to a movie simply don't understand how film works.  That single "frame" or "picture" we see on screen is most likely dozens or hundreds of frames, not just one.  In fact, at 24 frames per second, a title on screen for 5 seconds contains 120 frames, not just one.  That is a film sequence.

Quote:
  Again, I ask why the obsessive insistence by some to remove what has obviously been deliberately put there by the director?

Quote:
For our purposes in DVDProfiler, I would suggest we define when to include possessives a little differently though. My post above is, in my view, probably the best approach.

Quote:
Prior to today, I didn't believe it had to be spelled out.  I had thought it was quite obvious when to use them and when not to.  My opinion on that has now changed.  We need to figure out a way to determine these.

Quote:

Quote:
Prior to today, I didn't believe it had to be spelled out.  I had thought it was quite obvious when to use them and when not to.  My opinion on that has now changed.  We need to figure out a way to determine these.

You're right.  We have the director's own words on how to read his titles, but that isn't good enough because of some half-second dissolve.



It's like being in the world of Bizzaro Superman (apologies to Superman fans.)

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Outstanding detective work.  Hitchcock is not the only director, by any means, to understand and make use of the value of his name being associated with the title of a film.  Frank Miller has made similar remarks about his work, and the heirs of both Edgar Rice Burroughs and J. R. R. Tolkien have acknowledged that same idea in marketing the work of their predecessors. 

Once again, well done.

I think I see the answer in your post above...  You mention, and it appears to be your own words, not  a quote, that Hitchcock understood the value of having his name associated with the title of a film.  You didn't say included in the title of the film.


There are times when the possessives are part of the title, but those seem to be the exception rather than the rule.  What seems very odd to me is that it is the same people who are now adamantly arguing FOR the inclusion of the possessives that were arguing AGAINST them a few short years ago.

It appears that, once again, we are trying to come up with a rule that has absolutely no room for interpretation.  And, when there is no room left for interpretation, we WILL end up with bad data in the online database.  I, and many others, don't want consistent data, we want accurate data.

I don't know what it will take, but somewhere along the line we have to come to the realization that there are no absolutes in this world.  We can never come up with a set of all encompassing rules that will make it possible to profile both the DVD and the movie it contains without some human thought behind it.  We have the screeners and the voting process.  If the screeners let it through, and a significant majority of the voters agree, then it is probably the right way to go.

Quote:
Midntoil:

I am so tired of user's like you trying to nitpick things to get yourinterpretation and manipulate the database to suit yourself. If you want it to be The Birds...fine...do so...LOCALLY  It is what it is and that is all there is to it. Like I said from an Onliune Point of View LIVE WITH IT.

Skip

Quote:
All bow.The GREAT manipulator has weighed in with his opinion.

Quote:
Come back and talk to me when you are prepared to follow the Rules. Ther interpretation HAS BEEN correctly applied, i don't think you have a clue.

Quote:

Now does it surprise me that you have the position you have, NOT AT ALL! You have already demonstrated your total disregard for the Rules AND your willingness to encourage others to do the same by stuffing the votes, yet another violation of the Rules. .

Quote:
SHEESH!!!!!!!!! Waht you people won't say or do to tryt to invalidate the Rules.

Quote:
The Rule is simple and not unclear, please tell me I am not crediting people with having too much intelligence.

Quote:
It doesn't make me happy, but I am fed up with the likes of Lopek and his minions, that aree willing to allow users to vioalte the Rules whist they CLAIM to back them, which is a blatant LIE.

Quote:
And you are the Bizarro. I can agree to disagree, but your comment was totally unnecessary and insulting to the user. Just who do you think you are sir? I could make some comments on what precisely I think of your interpretation, but I won't out of respect, i think you owe someone an apology. And thge same goes for some of our other denizens who have made some equally unnecessary and insulting remarks. Are we trying to solve a problem or get into another mudf-slinging match.

Skip