| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 681 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting karstenp: Quote:
The Norwegian version of this title, which probably is the same as the Finnish, except from the cover, is marked, on the cover: "ORIGINALTITTEL: THE LOVER / L'AMANT" ie. BOTH titles as original title... 
The "Norwegian" title, however, is the English version, only.
edit: EAN/UPC: 7090001711442 Same thing with this Finnish release: "The Lover / L'Amant" is printed as title on back-cover, only not specifically naming them as Original title. Of course DVD back-cover couldn't be a valid source for original title anyway - maybe it just shows that the publisher didn't have a favourite one itself... | | | Mika
I hate people who love me, and they hate me. (Bender Bending Rodriguez) |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I know what I originally was posting was off... that is why I changed it. because I couldn't get what I was thinking out correctly. But that does not change the fact that when the rules tells us where to get info for a field from... that is where we need to get the info from... unless Ken and/or Gerri tells us differently. True, but those very same rules also tell us what to enter: the original feature title. So what do you do if the designated source does not provide the required information? I can think of two options: 1) leave the field blank 2) use a different source and explain in your contribution notes why in this particular case it was necessary to get the original feature title from elsewhere and then carry on to document what alternative source you used. I don't think the rules warrant entering anything else than "the original feature title". Meaning that if you can establish that the film's credits do NOT provide the original feature title, but some other title, you should NOT enter that other title. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | The way I see it... in my mind... I would leave it blank before using another source. Since the rules tells us what source to use I wouldn't go off using something else. I am a very strict rules oriented person... when given a set of rules I will follow it as it is written only. Unless of course Ken and/or Gerri tells me otherwise. But hey... that is me. So I just go by that for all my contributions and voting. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | I understand, Pete, and of course I agree the last word belongs to Ken/Gerri.
For me personally, I like to think there is also something like the "spirit" (or "intention") of the rules, and I consider this to be a case where the literal text of the rules, which I think contradicts itself, might not match the "spirit" exactly.
If only the literal text mattered, the implication would be that the whole data entry process is in essence a mechanistic affair. In that case the database would be best served by computerised data entry only.
Just to be clear: none of this means that I will deliberately violate the rules in any way, neither when contributing nor when voting. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't follow the intent of rules. I don't ever go thinking well what was intended when this rule was written. For one I could never know for sure... as I am not a mind reader. Also If you don't spell out exactly what you mean when writing the rules there is no way to know that the intent of what the writers of the rules is the same as the intent of Ken when he posted the rules.
Say for example You write the rules to say XXX while trying to get across XYZ. When it is submitted to Ken for approval he reads XXX... and approves XXX. Now the intent for the writers could very well be XYZ and the intent of Ken could be XXX as that is what he was presented with.
A prime example of this is the old rule of using single quotes for italics and bolds. We were told when originally written it was meant to offset the titles (as they were in bold or italics most the time). But they wrote it to put around bold and italics in overviews. So that is what we had to follow. As that is what was written into the rules.
That is why I go by rules as they are written not as what I believe that they mean. That is how I was taught at least.
And of course... as always if Ken and/or Gerri tells us to do it differently I would always go by what they say over what the rules says.
And I still think that in this case when they reworded the rules to take original title from opening credits they just didn't take time to make everything clear as to what they want. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | The rules don't cover every conceivable situation, and they never will. And that's where the intent or spirit of the rules comes in. So there's no avoiding it, unless by just not entering data (the first option I mentioned in my earlier post).
In this case, the intent of the rules requires no guesswork, interpretation or assumptions at all, because it's spelled out in the rules. Hence the intent is crystal clear - it is to enter "the original feature title".
What probably happened during the rewording of the rule was they assumed the film's credits (please note it doesn't say "opening credits") would always provide the original feature title. If this was their assumption, they were wrong.
I fully agree with you that whenever possible, the rules should be followed as they are written. No argument there. The debate is about what happens if either the rules are inconsistent (as seems to be the case here: the sources allowed by the rules do not fully cover the intent as spelled out in the rules) or don't cover a particular situation. | | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote:
What probably happened during the rewording of the rule was they assumed the film's credits (please note it doesn't say "opening credits") would always provide the original feature title. If this was their assumption, they were wrong. I believe this is possible... but I also believe that since they gave us the source that we are to use... that means that is the source we must use. So until Ken and/or Gerri said otherwises... or updated the rules it is the only source I would use for contributions or voting. And if I believed the credits to be wrong I wouldn't update the field. It really is as simple as that. I believe at this time... the way the rules are worded we must use the credits for the information. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: April 2, 2007 |  Posts: 156 |
| | Posted: | | | | For me the very purpose of this field (Original title) serves as a possibility to a) Look up a DVD with an alternate name, as the local "translation" often can be "confusing" b) Look up a DVD ( and the Movie itself ) in online shops or db's ( eg. "With a name I will not pronounce") Spoiler: (Select to view)IMDB hehe For me an Original Title like: " The Lover / L'Amant" would serve as a good solution, given that the local title was, indeed, localized, as the Finnish version. ( Did I hear " Keep it local" ?  ) | | | | Karsten |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Here's another example: US release of Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone. We have agreed in other threads that this should be considered a UK movie. In the UK, it was called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," yet the title card on the movies says "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone."
It seems to me the original title of a movie shoudl be the same for any release in any locality if the field is to mean much. The purpose of the secondary rule was to deal with films who had their title card, not just the poster title, changed for foreign release. The general rule is that the field shoudl reflect what was on the title card in the original release of the movie in its home country. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
Here's another example: US release of Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone. We have agreed in other threads that this should be considered a UK movie. In the UK, it was called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," yet the title card on the movies says "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone."
It seems to me the original title of a movie shoudl be the same for any release in any locality if the field is to mean much. The purpose of the secondary rule was to deal with films who had their title card, not just the poster title, changed for foreign release. The general rule is that the field shoudl reflect what was on the title card in the original release of the movie in its home country. The problem with this is that the films are different in more than just name. Scenes that mention the stone were shot twice, once with the actors saying 'Philosopher's Stone' and a second time with the actors saying 'Sorceror's Stone'. So the original title for the US version of the film is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. As an aside, this was done because that was the US title of the book. | | | 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 | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
The problem with this is that the films are different in more than just name. Scenes that mention the stone were shot twice, once with the actors saying 'Philosopher's Stone' and a second time with the actors saying 'Sorceror's Stone'. So the original title for the US version of the film is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
As an aside, this was done because that was the US title of the book. I don't see why the fact it's a different cut of the film matters. I was under the impression the original title is the original title of the film, not of this particular version of a film. Otherwise, Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope wouldn't have "Star Wars" as an original title and no movie where they changed the title card would have an original title. |
|