Author |
Message |
| T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | The response to my contribution to 043396-062504 (Canadian locality), trying to change the title "Ghosts of Mars" to the full "John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars", has met with less-than-enthusiastic replies... I knew possessives are a tricky thing around here, but I felt I was safe in this case, as the rules on when to include possessives as part of the title say: "If quotes surround the title in the credit block (generally on the back cover), check whether the possessive is within the quotes." And indeed, that's the case here: The way the title is shown in the overview (" JOHN CARPENTER'S GHOSTS OF MARS is an intergalactic terror fest like you've never seen.") also seems like a big hint. Anyway: I thought that the credits block settled this beyond any doubt, but lo and behold, as of yet I'm faced with two no-votes and not a single yes-vote. Is my proposed change correct, or am I sorely mistaken and do I need to start stripping all other possessives that are included within the quotes in the credits block from my profiles? Currently, I'm very much confused... Note that the same possessive, submitted by someone else a long time ago, was effortlessly accepted into the American profile for this same disc (same UPC), and an attempt by someone else to remove it later on was declined. For the record - before the whole debate on possessives gets into full swing again - I'm just asking what the title for this profile should be under the current rules, not so much about what I or anyone else feels the title should ideally be... I really have no opinion on that - I just want a rule that I can follow consistently. I though we had that here, that this case was settled by the simple fact that the possessive is included between the quotes in the credits block. Am I mistaken? |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | You are absolutely correct... I would vote yes... to your change... but I have the US release of the title. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,946 |
| |
| Berak | Bibamus morieundum est! |
Registered: May 10, 2007 | Posts: 1,059 |
| Posted: | | | | I don't own the copy in question either, but would say that your assessment is correct. | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away! True love conquers all! |
|
Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,934 |
| Posted: | | | | I also do not have that movie, but from appearances, I would say that you are correct. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 906 |
| Posted: | | | | What does the front cover look like? The way I read the rules is that we use possessives IF they are included on the front cover AND they are verifiable part of the title. The line in the rules about the credit block points back to the verify part and should not be read on it's own
If the possessive isn't on the front cover it shouldn't be in the title IMO | | | The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity | | | Last edited: by reybr |
|
Registered: June 12, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,665 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote: What does the front cover look like? The way I read the rules is that we use possessives IF they are included on the front cover AND they are verifiable part of the title. I had the same question and understanding. | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,022 |
| Posted: | | | | According to the UPC on the net the front looks like below, which supports your change Tim (IMO) | | | |
|
| T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote: What does the front cover look like? Here you go: It's small, but it's there. Based on that alone, I could have understood the confusion. But coupled with the credits block, I though it was a slam dunk. Current voting balance still "Yes: 0 No: 2", though... |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 906 |
| Posted: | | | | Then I agree with your change | | | The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity |
|
Registered: May 8, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,945 |
| Posted: | | | | agree too!
Donnie | | | www.tvmaze.com |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,635 |
| Posted: | | | | The rules are the rules.
Having written that, I don't care what the rules are (but I will not submit a profile with a possessive), I dislike possessives in titles, and I remove them locally and lock the title. The only possessives I allow in are ones which refer to the book author's name (Bram Stoker's Dracula, etc.), rather than the filmmaker's.
Please, follow the rules as you submit (as do I), and let me have my local database in my own world. | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff | | | Last edited: by VibroCount |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,744 |
| Posted: | | | | Technically you are correct, T!M. Technically it's "John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars". But since I don't like possessives in general and since the "John Caprenter's" is so blantantly different from "Ghosts of Mars" I (I = me, DJ Doena) would not try to force the technically correct title upon the DVD owners.
If someone would hold this DVD under my nose and asked me for the title I would answer with the text in the big white shiny letters.
But that's just me. | | | Karsten DVD Collectors Online
| | | Last edited: by DJ Doena |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,293 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote: Then I agree with your change Me too - though like VibroCount and DJ Doena personally dislike them with a passion, unless it's a writer (the excellent example of Bram Stoker's Dracula has already been given) rather than a film maker just announcing his 'ownership' - as John Carpenter seems in the habit of doing! The only bit that would go against the change is "... check the font size used for the title on the front cover. Generally, possessives which use a significantly smaller font are not part of the title." BUT the rules state to only use that if there are no quotes on the credit block, which in this case there are so, by the Rules, you are correct IMO. | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | Right... the rules states that the info is to come from the credit block unless there is no quotes around the title in the credit block... then that is when you use size of font on front cover and such. As the first post shows there is quotes in the credit block so that is what is used per Rules. So John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars is the correct title in this case. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,018 |
| |