| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,594 |
| | Posted: | | | | Jesus H. "Jumping" Christ on a pogostick! "The Vampire Chronicles" is a subtitle folks. Possessives have nothing to bear on this title. Quit using a part of one rule to justify screwing up a perfectly good title! The title of this film is "Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles" PERIOD  . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,101 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Jesus H. "Jumping" Christ on a pogostick! "The Vampire Chronicles" is a subtitle folks. Possessives have nothing to bear on this title. Quit using a part of one rule to justify screwing up a perfectly good title!
The title of this film is "Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles" PERIOD . Things which caused confusion: The subtitle does not appear on the back cover. I do not see any colon between the title and the subtitle on the front cover, which was added. The title in quotes on the back cover overview (2x) and credit block (1x) does not use the subtitle. I did not check the real spine or the opening credits. Retailers, Reviewers and everybody on the street is calling the movie simply "Interview with the Vampire". I used the possessives rule to determine whether the subtitle was actually part of the title. With the new proof, I can rewind and Withdraw my title change contribution for this profile. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 445 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Vega: Quote:
The very first line of the Title Rules says "Use the title from the front cover." Yeah and sometimes there is some doubt so going to the credit block would be acceptable I would think. Since the rules say to use the back credit block to determine whether a possessive is part of a title why would it not be acceptable to use it for determining whether a subtitle is part of the title? Quoting Krikarian: Quote:
do we delete Fellowship of the Rings because it comes on separate screen from Lord of the Rings in the movie and is printed in considerably smaller text on the front cover of the dvd? i don't think so.
krik  If you look at the back credit block then the answer is 'no' since the complete title is in quotes along with the subtitle. I'm also not seeing anywhere in the rules where it says take the title from the credits. I see front cover and credit block mentionned. If I have missed it please point it out. | | | | Last edited: by Bodi |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Doombear: Quote:
Things which caused confusion:
The subtitle does not appear on the back cover.
I do not see any colon between the title and the subtitle on the front cover, which was added.
The title in quotes on the back cover overview (2x) and credit block (1x) does not use the subtitle.
I did not check the real spine or the opening credits.
Retailers, Reviewers and everybody on the street is calling the movie simply "Interview with the Vampire".
I used the possessives rule to determine whether the subtitle was actually part of the title.
With the new proof, I can rewind and Withdraw my title change contribution for this profile. Thanks. I was one who voted yed to the change and quoted the new rules. After reading this thread I would have changed my vote to no if you had not withdrawn it. Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Jesus H. "Jumping" Christ on a pogostick! "The Vampire Chronicles" is a subtitle folks. Possessives have nothing to bear on this title. Quit using a part of one rule to justify screwing up a perfectly good title!
The title of this film is "Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles" PERIOD . No need to get angry. There are many of us who can admit to making mistakes and are more than willing to change our point of view if proven incorrect. All mistakes aren't purposely malicious. Sometimes they are simply misunderstandings or misinterpretations and nothing more. More than not would be my guess. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Doombear:
If you don't have the tiltle in hand, then exactly WHAT are you basing your Contribution on. Behemot has already told you what is on the spine and On Screen.
Skip
He said he didn't have the "disc onhand to check the title screen right now..." I am guessing that he is not at the location his DVD is. Perhaps he is at work?  WORK!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!! For those of you too young to remember see Maynard G. Krebs. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Doombear: Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
Jesus H. "Jumping" Christ on a pogostick! "The Vampire Chronicles" is a subtitle folks. Possessives have nothing to bear on this title. Quit using a part of one rule to justify screwing up a perfectly good title!
The title of this film is "Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles" PERIOD .
Things which caused confusion:
The subtitle does not appear on the back cover.
I do not see any colon between the title and the subtitle on the front cover, which was added.
The title in quotes on the back cover overview (2x) and credit block (1x) does not use the subtitle.
I did not check the real spine or the opening credits.
Retailers, Reviewers and everybody on the street is calling the movie simply "Interview with the Vampire".
I used the possessives rule to determine whether the subtitle was actually part of the title.
With the new proof, I can rewind and Withdraw my title change contribution for this profile. As I said pedantic, and this exactly the sort of confusion with much more to come by those who simply REFUSED top accept what is on the front cover. Look here. then look there, thenm look somewhere else. We have taken something very simple and courtesy of a FEW users turned it into a nightmare. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 585 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Bodi: Quote:
I'm also not seeing anywhere in the rules where it says take the title from the credits. I see front cover and credit block mentionned. If I have missed it please point it out. This is mentioned in the "Original Title" part so you are correct it has nothing to do with the "Title". If the film's opening credits did not have the "The Vampire Chronicles" also shown, then you would have had a case where it would be appropriate to have "Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles" for the Title and just "Interview with the Vampire" for the Original Title. But since they match then it should stay the way it is. I think some people forget this is "DVD Profiler" and not "Movie Profiler" and the Title field is intended to be used for the Title of the DVD. In most cases this tends to match the film's title, but in some cases it does not which is then where the Original Title fields comes in. | | | "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - Douglas Bader
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,199 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | 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 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,527 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's not a problem for me either, Gunnar. But here are some....
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hmmm, it's nice to see that obviously a lot of users followed the discussion on possessives thoroughly, for that should account for ample knowledge on that subject regarding future contributions. However, please don't start applying one part of the rules to other submissions not even remotely touching this subject. The title at hand does not have a possesive. So why should any part of the possessive rules be administered? You can only fall back on the explanations regarding the handling of possessives if yu have, well, a possessive at hand. If you don't, just continue doing the entries as we did before. The title is correct as is, no need for a change. And please, don't start looking for other movies carrying a subtitle or such and try to change it quoting a rule (I know the contributor didn't, but some of the voters did) that must not be administered to this part of the field. Stay focused. | | | | Lutz |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 291 |
| | Posted: | | | | right ho... krik by the bye, bodi, i am at work so can't check the back of the dvd. my point was more that the type style on the cover were similiar instances to the case at point. yes, skip, i still have to work...urg and shivers.... | | | | "Vampirism is still not a disease, Julia. Vampires are the living dead...dead...dead..." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | LOL, krik, I am very sorry to hear that, but it gives you something to look forward to. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|