Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
The DGA calls "Alfred Hitchcock's", "Frank Capra's", etc. possessory credits, and states that they are above the title of the film. This specifically refers to them as credits, and specifically separates them from the title.

Not title in my opinion.

Sorry. We have three opinions to the contrary, but, none are more important than any other opinion.

No, it doesn't specifically separate anything.  It merely says that possessives are above the title.  Where else WOULD you put them, Vibro?  Eh?  At the end of the closing credits maybe?  Some things are simply a case of stating the obvious; just like some things can't be overridden by personal preference.  The rules of grammar is one of those.

Quoting djskyler:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
we might wind up with legitimate possessives being eliminated, or wind up with some possessives that are marketing hype. I think the latter choice is the better choice, better that way than run the risk of eliminating perfectly good data, in your zeal to eliminate the marketing hype.

I think you are saying excessive data is better than incomplete data.

You know, that system is great if the program is only to be used by us super film geeks who frequent this forum and have the energy to meticulously prune every individual profile to our liking.  Excessive data is great because when you edit you have more to work with.

But it will make things more difficult for the average Joe user, like my brother, who also purchased this program and will never edit a profile in his database.  He will enter UPC and disc numbers and take whatever comes from Invelos and leave it that way.  He certainly won't change any sort titles.  And one day he'll be at the Virgin Records store and see "The Birds" on sale and check his mobile phone to see if he already has that title...and when he comes home with it he'll see another copy already on his shelf and exclaim "what the hell?"

My position is we can nearly perfect the data for average Joe using common sense and consistency.

Quoting Addicted2DVD

Quote:
all it says is If the title on the dvd is different then the theatrical title.

In the post you are quoting from, I said "I honestly do not believe Universal Home Video is changing the original title."  That was in reference to the cover.  Your logical response would be better framed as: you agree with northbloke, the design of the DVD cover suggests to you that the Universal Home Video Marketing Department changed the title of this 1963 film, thus qualifying it under the modified title rules.
So if I understood your stance, that's fine.  I say they didn't, you say they did.

So, what is this?  Are we now reduced to doing things based on the lowest common denominator?  Who cares if Joe Blow doesn't edit his local database?  That isn't the point and never has been.  The point is that he CAN IF HE WISHES TO.  In order for that to happen, the data in the online must be accurate and consistent.  And why do so many presume to know better than the studio/director what the name of the film is?  It is what it is, and that is what you see on the screen and that's the end of it.

Quote:
And why do so many presume to know better than the studio/director what the name of the film is?  It is what it is, and that is what you see on the screen and that's the end of it.

Funny, we've produced a number of quotes from the director referencing his own film AND his crediting style.  The only one presuming to know better seems to be you, in this particular case.

The man came right out and said "Above the title."  Perhaps English wasn't his first language and he really meant "Included in the title," but who are we to decide that?  Frankly, as a aknowledged master filmmaker, you can get good odds on whether Alfred knew what the heck was included in his own film titles.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Serious question here:  Please explain to me what the difference is between "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and "Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo"?  Or between "John Carpenter's The Thing" and "Frank Miller's Sin City"?  Why do you consider some valid and the others not?  Keep in mind that rules of grammar prohibit the presence of a possessive without a corresponding object.

My own take on this:

Francis Ford Coppola decided he wanted to make a film that was very faithful to the book Dracula.  To emphasis his intentions, he actually titled the film "Bram Stoker's Dracula."  Some people here might think it should have been called "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula."  But the director used the title to state his desired intention to deliver the book author's vision.

Likewise with Rodriguez, naming his film "Frank Miller's Sin City" to explicitly state that he attempted to produce a film that delivered the vision of Frank Miller.  If he only used a storyline from Frank Miller, it would have been "Sin City" directed by Robert Rodriguez.  But this title was intended as the director's promise to stay original not only to the story but also the look of Frank Miller's original artwork.

John Carpenter was at a high point in his career when he made "John Carpenter's The Thing."  That title not only separates it from the popular title of the original, but it also seems to reflect Carpenter's ambitions that this one would be his masterpiece (and some say it was).

Alfred Hitchcock is not only a film director, but he is also a well-recognized celebrity. Promoters, no doubt spending a lot of money to engage Hitchcock's multi-level talents, placed his name directly above the title of most of his productions to insure they received maximum profit for their investment.

Does this help differentiate your examples?  Two directors put somebody else's name in the title to demonstrate where their inspiration is coming from.  One puts his own name in the title to proclaim this would be his greatest film.  And one allows producers to put his name over the title because they paid him enough and its good publicity back on him anyway, but of course his understanding is his name is not in the title.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:

Quote:
And why do so many presume to know better than the studio/director what the name of the film is?  It is what it is, and that is what you see on the screen and that's the end of it.

Funny, we've produced a number of quotes from the director referencing his own film AND his crediting style.  The only one presuming to know better seems to be you, in this particular case.

The man came right out and said "Above the title."  Perhaps English wasn't his first language and he really meant "Included in the title," but who are we to decide that?  Frankly, as a aknowledged master filmmaker, you can get good odds on whether Alfred knew what the heck was included in his own film titles.

Moving on to the studio, we've domonstrated that Universal has registered copyright with the United States for a film called "The Birds."  Not, "Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds," but simply "The Birds."  It would appear that when it comes to being legal, Universal knows what the title of their movie is.  It should come as no surprise that the studio's version of the title exactly matches the director's version of the title.  So who's doing the interpretation here?

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Who cares if Joe Blow doesn't edit his local database?  That isn't the point and never has been.  The point is that he CAN IF HE WISHES TO.

My point is to make it so he doesn't have to in order to make it fundamentally functional.

Quote:
In order for that to happen, the data in the online must be accurate and consistent.

I'm all for consistent.  It's what is "accurate" that's carried us to page 18.

Quote:
And why do so many presume to know better than the studio/director what the name of the film is?  It is what it is, and that is what you see on the screen and that's the end of it.

Director > "The Birds"
On Screen > Alfred's Hitchcock's > screen dissolve > The Birds from the Story by Daphne Du Maurier
Studio > 1-818-777-4315 (who wants to make the call?)

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:

Quote:
And why do so many presume to know better than the studio/director what the name of the film is?  It is what it is, and that is what you see on the screen and that's the end of it.

Funny, we've produced a number of quotes from the director referencing his own film AND his crediting style.  The only one presuming to know better seems to be you, in this particular case.

The man came right out and said "Above the title."  Perhaps English wasn't his first language and he really meant "Included in the title," but who are we to decide that?  Frankly, as a aknowledged master filmmaker, you can get good odds on whether Alfred knew what the heck was included in his own film titles.

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.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting djskyler:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Who cares if Joe Blow doesn't edit his local database?  That isn't the point and never has been.  The point is that he CAN IF HE WISHES TO.

My point is to make it so he doesn't have to in order to make it fundamentally functional.

Quote:
In order for that to happen, the data in the online must be accurate and consistent.

I'm all for consistent.  It's what is "accurate" that's carried us to page 18.

Quote:
And why do so many presume to know better than the studio/director what the name of the film is?  It is what it is, and that is what you see on the screen and that's the end of it.

Director > "The Birds"
On Screen > Alfred's Hitchcock's > screen dissolve > The Birds from the Story by Daphne Du Maurier
Studio > 1-818-777-4315 (who wants to make the call?)

COMPLETELY Irrelevannt.

Skip

Only because you say so.

Many others of us, with equally as valid opinions, say it is.

And you "typoed" the spelling.