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 3  Previous   Next
William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist III
Author Message
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantVega
Registered: May 19, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 585
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
There's a contribution up for vote (not mine) to change this title from "William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist III" to just "The Exorcist III".  It is being overwhelmingly voted No on (14 no votes) with comments like "See rules and credit block" and "please read the rules on possessives", etc.

Well, so far I'm the only Yes vote and I'm a little confused.

Here's the rule:
Quote:
Include possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title. If quotes surround the title in the credit block (generally on the back cover), check whether the possessive is within the quotes. In the absence of quotes to verify, 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.


Now first, here's the title as displayed on the front cover:



And here's the credit block from the back cover:




Now, I'm not sure why so many of the comments mention the title having quotes around it in the credit block, but mine doesn't have any (nor the one in the database).  I also checked every scanned cover I could find on the internet for this movie and could not find any version that had quotes.  So, according to the rule, with the absense of quotes, you then check the font size of the possessive which to me this one sure is significantly smaller then the title itself.

So, what am I missing? 
"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
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile Registranttarantino
Registered: March 15, 2007
Canada Posts: 131
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Vega:
Quote:

So, what am I missing? 


I had to vote no mostly because to contribution notes weren't clear on the motive for the change and didn't address "How" it met the rules for possessive removal.
But, I do agree, with the current rules on possessive, the title should be "The Exorcist III".

It's just a matter of documenting the change appropriately the make sure we won't be getting a ping pong on this.
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorBad Father
Registered: July 23, 2001
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 4,596
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I'm wondering if everyone has the same cover .
My WebGenDVD online Collection
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
ROFLMAO, I am surprised it took this long. So much for the quotation marks theory. I would list it WPB's The Exorcist III. That is consistent with the Rules.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
 Last edited: by Winston Smith
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorm.cellophane
tonight's the night...
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 3,480
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
To me, the part of the rule I've highlighted would make the title The Exorcist III for Profiler purposes:
Quote:
Include possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title. If quotes surround the title in the credit block (generally on the back cover), check whether the possessive is within the quotes. In the absence of quotes to verify, 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.

We don't have quotes in this example, so we follow the next rule, which concerns font size. We have a clear font-size distinction here, so I believe it's safe to say that The Exorcist III is the title.
...James

"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
You missed a keyword, James. Generally. Generally does not equal always. In short, you are trying to read more into it than is actually there. The Font style is the same, so I stand by my argument. Should I check the copyrighted title.

And BTW I already know the ACTUAL answer based on FACT. Not supposition nor a misinterpretation of the Rule.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
 Last edited: by Winston Smith
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorm.cellophane
tonight's the night...
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 3,480
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
You missed a keyword, James. Generally. Generally does not equal always. In short, you are trying to read more into it than is actually there. The Font style is the same, so I stand by my argument. Should I check the copyrighted title.

And BTW I already know the ACTUAL answer based on FACT. Not supposition nor a misinterpretation of the Rule.

Skip

Font style isn't mentioned in the rule. Font size is. The fonts are very different sizes. My reading of "generally" is that the word is used to allow for exceptional situations in which the font size would be smaller, yet the possessive would still be part of the title based on quotes.

Whatever the copyrighted title is has no bearing on what we use. The word "generally" is not an escape hatch to use the lookup at the copyright office, which has been proven to have errors.
...James

"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
You should not try and apply a false definition to the word GENERALLY, James. Words have meaning and generally does not mean ALWAYS. At best it means MOST OF THE TIME and we have no basis for how to define most of the time, other than your attempt to change the deinition of Generally.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
You missed a keyword, James. Generally. Generally does not equal always. In short, you are trying to read more into it than is actually there. The Font style is the same, so I stand by my argument. Should I check the copyrighted title.

And BTW I already know the ACTUAL answer based on FACT. Not supposition nor a misinterpretation of the Rule.

Skip

Font style isn't mentioned in the rule. Font size is. The fonts are very different sizes. My reading of "generally" is that the word is used to allow for exceptional situations in which the font size would be smaller, yet the possessive would still be part of the title based on quotes.

Whatever the copyrighted title is has no bearing on what we use. The word "generally" is not an escape hatch to use the lookup at the copyright office, which has been proven to have errors.


As has your system, James, numerous times, which still has no basis in FACTS or data, but ONLY in the wants of the user.

The argument you have always used, just like here, James is not based on data or anything real. it is simply based onyour conclusion that you don't THINK that possessives are part of the title. I didn't put them there, the filmmakers did, why I don't know nor do I care, it's the data, stupid.(I have to thank Bill Clinton for something) You wanted to exclude based on NOTHING more than preference, so now we have to improvise in order to support your premise or preclude it as the case may be. In this case, the Rule is not helpful,Generally is too broad), the back cover is not helpful, the front cover uses the SAME font style throughout. So, what are we to do, James, I do NOT accept your reading of the Rules since youy are trying to apply a definition to a word that simply does not exist.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
 Last edited: by Winston Smith
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantVega
Registered: May 19, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 585
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
You missed a keyword, James. Generally. Generally does not equal always. In short, you are trying to read more into it than is actually there. The Font style is the same, so I stand by my argument. Should I check the copyrighted title.

And BTW I already know the ACTUAL answer based on FACT. Not supposition nor a misinterpretation of the Rule.

Skip


Okay, as admitted the word "Generally" does not equal "always", but it does mean "most of the time".  So that would mean there needs to be some proof as to this being an exception to "most of the time".  I see none.

The font style may be the same, but the size is significantly different.  I'll quote the rule again:

Quote:

In the absence of quotes to verify, 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.


I'm not sure how there can be any argument as to a "misinterpretation of the Rule".  Perhaps the rule should say "font style AND font size" if that is the intention, but that's not what it says.

If you want to turn to the copyrighted title, well a lookup at the Copyright Office yields nothing.

There are 58 entries found.  Only one contains the title of "William Peter Blatty's the Exorcist III" and that is for a "commercial print : movie poster".  All 57 other entries contain the title "The Exorcist III", "Exorcist III: 1990", or "Exorcist 1990".  Not that the Copyright Office proves anything one way or the other as we've seen in the past.  But it certainly shows there is no "FACT"ual answer there.  Atleast, not from that source.

So then I wonder what is the ACTUAL answer based on FACT?  If it's that easy then a simple post of this source solves everything and we move on.
"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
 Last edited: by Vega
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorm.cellophane
tonight's the night...
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 3,480
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
You should not try and apply a false definition to the word GENERALLY, James. Words have meaning and generally does not mean ALWAYS. At best it means MOST OF THE TIME and we have no basis for how to define most of the time, other than your attempt to change the deinition of Generally.

Skip

I didn't say that "generally" equals "always". I said that "generally" allows for exceptional situations. If there is a DVD where quotes surround the possessive and the title in the credit block AND the fonts of the possessive and title were of different sizes, that would be an exceptional situation. He had to allow for that possibility in the rule; hence, the use of the word "generally". It's pretty easy reading.

Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
You missed a keyword, James. Generally. Generally does not equal always. In short, you are trying to read more into it than is actually there. The Font style is the same, so I stand by my argument. Should I check the copyrighted title.

And BTW I already know the ACTUAL answer based on FACT. Not supposition nor a misinterpretation of the Rule.

Skip

Font style isn't mentioned in the rule. Font size is. The fonts are very different sizes. My reading of "generally" is that the word is used to allow for exceptional situations in which the font size would be smaller, yet the possessive would still be part of the title based on quotes.

Whatever the copyrighted title is has no bearing on what we use. The word "generally" is not an escape hatch to use the lookup at the copyright office, which has been proven to have errors.


As has your system, James, numerous times, which still has no basis in FACTS or data, but ONLY in the wants of the user.

I'm just reading the words, Skip.

Quote:
The argument you have always used, just like here, James is not based on data or anything real.

This is not about me or what you think I "always" do.

Quote:
it is simply based onyour conclusion that you don't THINK that possessives are part of the title. I didn't put them there, the filmmakers did, why I don't know nor do I care, it's the data, stupid.(I have to thank Bill Clinton for something) You wanted to exclude based on NOTHING more than preference, so now we have to improvise in order to support your premise or preclude it as the case may be.

Not true. I'm just reading the rule and making the mistake of having a different opinion than you. It's really frustrating trying to participate in this forum when one is not allowed to state an opinion without being accused of heresy.

Quote:
In this case, the Rule is not helpful,Generally is too broad),

Well, it's the word he picked. We can't toss it out if we don't like it. It's there.

Quote:
the back cover is not helpful,

The back cover has an extra wide space between the possessive and the title, which I believe bolsters the argument to exclude the possessive, but that's not covered in the rules unfortunately.

Quote:
the front cover uses the SAME font style throughout.

Font style is irrelevant. Show us where font style is mentioned in the rules.

Quote:
So, what are we to do, James, I do NOT accept your reading of the Rules since youy are trying to apply a definition to a word that simply does not exist.

I never said "generally" equals "always". You've stated it several times, but it's not true. I never said that. I said that "generally" allows for exceptions. That's not "always". On that, we agree.
...James

"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantAstrakan
Registered: Feb 12, 2000
Registered: March 28, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
Canada Posts: 1,299
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
The fonts used are not the same. They're similar, but not the same.

Compare the letters existing in both and you'll see that 1) the serifs are comparatively longer in the possessive than in the title, and 2) the bowl of the R is more elongated in the title than the possessive.

So that, along with the fact that the rule doesn't even mention the font style, makes me side with Vega on this one.

Too bad I can't vote on the contribution, since I don't own the movie. 

KM
Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
LOL, James, so now you are into interpreting data as well.. why am I NOT surprised. Like I said I simp;ly do not buy your definition of Generally and how you and Vega think ity should be. Come up with something more data based and not built around your simple desire to exclude based on your like or dislike.

Dismantling what i say into bits and pieces gets me NOT to read what you say James.
.Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorTheMadMartian
Alien with an attitude
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United States Posts: 13,202
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
I didn't say that "generally" equals "always". I said that "generally" allows for exceptional situations. If there is a DVD where quotes surround the possessive and the title in the credit block AND the fonts of the possessive and title were of different sizes, that would be an exceptional situation. He had to allow for that possibility in the rule; hence, the use of the word "generally". It's pretty easy reading.


I have to disagree with you here James.  If there are quotes around the possessive and the title in the credit block, we don't care whether or not the fonts of the possessive and title are of different sizes.

The font size portion of the rule only comes into play when there are no quotes in the credit block.
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
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorm.cellophane
tonight's the night...
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 3,480
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
I didn't say that "generally" equals "always". I said that "generally" allows for exceptional situations. If there is a DVD where quotes surround the possessive and the title in the credit block AND the fonts of the possessive and title were of different sizes, that would be an exceptional situation. He had to allow for that possibility in the rule; hence, the use of the word "generally". It's pretty easy reading.


I have to disagree with you here James.  If there are quotes around the possessive and the title in the credit block, we don't care whether or not the fonts of the possessive and title are of different sizes.

The font size portion of the rule only comes into play when there are no quotes in the credit block.

I agree that if the 1st part of the rule is true, then for contribution purposes, one stops there and nothing that follows matters.

However, my statement was not meant to change the order in which one applies the rule. I was trying to point out that the use of the word "generally" allows the two parts to work together where one part doesn't appear in conflict with the other.

Again, I do agree that for contribution purposes, if the result of the 1st part is true, then the 2nd part is not considered.
...James

"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Now contrary to James apparent belief, I have not revealed any position on this title. Nor do i intend, i took exception to James misinterpretation of the Rule to fit his position. In terms of the quotes, there are NONE of any kind, not even around The Exorcist III...what does this mean. I think we have title that has fallen through the cracks, and we are forced to improvise an answer. As I said I am well aware of what of what that is, but sadly the Rule in this case seems to be not very helpful in resolving the situation.

This is the kind of thing that happens when you write Rule based upon "I don't like it" (user preference), instead of data. This in all likelihhod will not be the last of these weirdos.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
 Last edited: by Winston Smith
    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1 2 3  Previous   Next