 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2  Previous Next
|
|
Source for original title |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,681 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting the rules regarding original title: Quote:
The Original Title field serves two general purposes, but in both cases allows for the tracking of the original feature title. Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits. In cases where the title is the original title, leave the Original Title field blank.
* Foreign Films: The Original Title field will contain the original title for the main feature in the country of origin. i.e. A German DVD release for a film originally produced in the United States would have the German title in the Title field and the English title in the Original Title Field.
* Modified Titles: The Original Title field will contain the original theatrical title, while the Title field will contain the title of the DVD release. For instance, for the Special Edition rerelease of There's Something About Mary:
o Title: There's Something More About Mary
o Original Title: There's Something About Mary
There was some discussion in the Fifth Element thread about the source for original title that I would like to have cleared up. Some people were of the opinion that the phrase "Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits" applied to all films, domestic or foreign. Others thought that the Foreign Films paragraph was meant to override that sentence. If the former interpretation is correct. then that would mean that a lot of films that have had their original opening credits replaced by English credits (like most Japanese monster movies) can not have an original title (unless said title is in the copyright notice, which in this case is unlikely). I'd hate to see people starting to remove the original title from a lot of profiles, so I would like to have this resolved once and for all. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | The way the Contribution Rules are written suggests that the first paragraph is an overarching rule covering both types of "general purposes", hence the copyright notice/film credits rule applies to both types of cases.
IMHO, your Japanese monster movies example illustrates that these rules need clarification with regard to the sources that can/should be used to identify Original Titles.
The implication of the rules as they are now would indeed be that Japanese monster movies can not have an original title, and that defeats the whole purpose of the Original Title (which is, quoting the rules, "the tracking of the original feature title").
In cases such as the one you mentioned, the DVD itself offers no means to "track the original feature title". IMHO this calls for an addendum to the rules which allows to do that by documenting the original feature title using several external sources. | | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree.
Whilst like GSryen I really don't want to see those original titles start disappearing, the way the rules are written at the moment we only have two sources for the original title: copyright and credits.
Ideally we need to lose the section: "Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits. In cases where the title is the original title, leave the Original Title field blank."
That's the section that's causing the problem, and it's also unnecessary as the two sections below tell us what to use as the original title. |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks, north! Not sure though that losing the section you quoted would resolve the issue, because then people will start quarelling about what to use as a source for Original Title. I'm confident you've been there, done that...  | | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | What deejay? Are you saying this community couldn't use common sense to come to an agreed solution?  |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | I believe the "Foreign Films" section is meant to be an exception to the first paragraph.
Same for the "Modified Titles" section.
Anything else just doesn't make sense. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | That may be what it's meant to be, but the way the rule is written, it's currently set out as an example, not an exemption. |
| | Registered: May 9, 2007 | | Posts: 1,536 |
| | | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
That may be what it's meant to be, but the way the rule is written, it's currently set out as an example, not an exemption. That's not the way I interpret it. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | I's a question of layout, Hal. The sentence "Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits" is in the first paragraph of the Original Title section, which paragraph is followed by two bullets for the two varieties. Most people, including me, will read this as "the first paragraph applies to both varieties".
I fully agree with you that content-wise this does not make much sense. It is however what the rule's layout suggests.
Edit: and in any case, the mere fact that the current setup of the rules allows for various interpretations implies some clarification is in place. | | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | How do you reconcile the first paragraph with "The Original Title field will contain the original title for the main feature in the country of origin" when the "copyright notice" (whatever that is) and the "film's credits" will rarely show the actual "original Title"?
These conditions are most often mutually exclusive. It makes no sense to me to interpret the bullets as examples and makes total sense that they are exceptions.....IMHO. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would argue that in most cases they are not mutually exclusive at all. They're not mutually exclusive when the title has been modified for a DVD release (e.g. There's Something (More) About Mary), and they're not mutually exclusive whenever a film is released in a locality with a different language in its original print, i.e. with the original film credits. Over here in Europe we're quite used to that, but perhaps in the US the situation is different - you'll know better than I possibly could. But apart from that, the mere fact that GSyren, northbloke and I don't find your line of reasoning that obvious - as demonstrated by this thread - provides sufficient evidence that it cannot be assumed to be universally self-evident. If I may quote you: "That's not the way I interpret it." - interpretation obviously DOES come into play here. The bottom line is this. Whereas the purpose of the Original Title field as stated in the Rules ("the tracking of the original feature title") is not questioned by anyone, the means those very same Rules offer to trace the Original Title ("Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits.") are insufficient to accomplish the goal in all cases. May I also point out that the Original Title section of the Rules does NOT mention or validate the use of external sources anywhere? Surely, that would need to be added for all cases (very many, if I understand you correctly) where the sources the rules DO mention cannot provide the information we're after. I think both you and I have been on these forums for long enough to know that without such an explicit statement certain users will keep insisting all information is to come from the DVD itself... | | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I believe the "Foreign Films" section is meant to be an exception to the first paragraph.
Same for the "Modified Titles" section.
Anything else just doesn't make sense. As you know, Hal, you are absolutely correct, I recall that debate...to well.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | If that's the case - I wasn't involved in that debate, but I have absolutely no reason to question you - may I then suggest two amendments to the rules:
1) Simply insert "Exceptions:" before the two bullets;
2) In the text of the bullets mention the sources that are acceptable for DVDP purposes. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote:
I would argue that in most cases they are not mutually exclusive at all. They're not mutually exclusive when the title has been modified for a DVD release (e.g. There's Something (More) About Mary), and they're not mutually exclusive whenever a film is released in a locality with a different language in its original print, i.e. with the original film credits. Over here in Europe we're quite used to that, but perhaps in the US the situation is different - you'll know better than I possibly could.
But apart from that, the mere fact that GSyren, northbloke and I don't find your line of reasoning that obvious - as demonstrated by this thread - provides sufficient evidence that it cannot be assumed to be universally self-evident.
The bottom line is this. Whereas the purpose of the Original Title field as stated in the Rules ("the tracking of the original feature title") is not questioned by anyone, the means those very same Rules offer to trace the Original Title ("Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits.") are insufficient to accomplish the goal in all cases.
May I also point out that the Original Title section of the Rules does NOT mention or validate the use of external sources anywhere? Surely, that would need to be added for all cases (very many, if I understand you correctly) where the sources the rules DO mention cannot provide the information we're after. In the U.S., for many "foreign" films (in my limited experience), the "copyright notice" and "actual film credit" will show the English title not the title from the original country of origin, the "spaghetti westerns" (The Good, the Bad and The Ugly, etc) are among the most recognized but hardly an exception. I would agree that modified titles typically will have the original title in the "copyright notice" and/or film credits, which just further muddies the waters. I am not trying to imply that the Rules are clear if you simply read what they say, but if you have spent any time actually applying them, the "Foreign Films" section does not make sense unless it is viewed as an exception to the first paragraph. I for one have no intention of removing "Il Buono, il brutto, il cattivo" as the original title of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |