| Author |
Message |
| Registered: June 8, 2007 |  Posts: 151 |
| | Posted: | | | | Maltese Falcon
This Dvd is a slip case with two Thinpaks.
In this set it has the 1941 version the one with Bogart, and the two bonus films are
Maltese Falcon (1931)/ Satan met a lady. One film on one disc and the two bonus films on one disc together and the third disc has bonus features
On the Cover of one of the bonus films
On the case with the bonus films it has Maltese Falcon (1931) on the cover, So would this be the title since as per rules take the title from the front cover.
How should the title of this child profile be
A. The Maltese Falcon/Satan Met a Lady
B. The Maltese Falcon (1931)/Satan Met a Lady (this is what the Cover Shows)
C. The Maltese Falcon: (1931)/Satan Met a Lady
D. The Maltese Falcon 1931/Satan Met a Lady
E. The Maltese Falcon: 1931/Satan Met a Lady | | | | Last edited: by Darknite |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | The Maltese Falcon / Satan Met a Lady
I think it should be pointed out that the "(1931)" is in a different font and about 1/4 the size of the title font and is, IMO, not part of the title.
On a related note, should the other disc in that box be titled "Plus Bonus Features"?
--------------- | | | | Last edited: by scotthm |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Darknite: Quote:
On the case with the bonus films it has Maltese Falcon (1931) on the cover, So would this be the title since as per rules take the title from the front cover. No. 1931 is not part of the title. It's the production year. If you insist on taking everything from the cover, why not call it "The Maltese Falcon (1931) Satan Met a Lady Plus Bonus Features DVD Video"? The rule is to take the title from the front cover, not to take all of the text that appears on the front cover. Perusing a sample of front covers will show the horror that will result from taking all of the text from the front cover. | | | ...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 | | | | Last edited: by m.cellophane |
|
  | Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 |  Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Darknite:
Quote:
On the case with the bonus films it has Maltese Falcon (1931) on the cover, So would this be the title since as per rules take the title from the front cover.
No. 1931 is not part of the title. It's the production year. If you insist on taking everything from the cover, why not call it "The Maltese Falcon (1931) Satan Met a Lady Plus Bonus Features DVD Video"?
The rule is to take the title from the front cover, not to take all of the text that appears on the front cover. Perusing a sample of front covers will show the horror that will result from taking all of the text from the front cover. I agree...  | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | I was against this at first, but upon reflection:
IMO (1931) is given as a Modified (film) Title and the Title of the DVD. To fulfill the letter of the Modified Title Rule, I would put "The Maltese Falcon" in Original Title field, although it would be of no effect.
Maltese Falcon (1931) / Satan Met a Lady |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with the others, it is niot needed as part of the title, we ALREADY have that data in the production Year field, If it were a separate title from the better known Maltese Falcon it MIGHT be useful locally, but from an Online point of view, since it is a child to Bogie's Falcon and coupled Satan Met a Lady already tells me that something is afoot with this title. Not necessary, redundant and if it has value it is on a local level.
Skp | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Berak: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Quoting Darknite:
Quote:
On the case with the bonus films it has Maltese Falcon (1931) on the cover, So would this be the title since as per rules take the title from the front cover.
No. 1931 is not part of the title. It's the production year. If you insist on taking everything from the cover, why not call it "The Maltese Falcon (1931) Satan Met a Lady Plus Bonus Features DVD Video"?
The rule is to take the title from the front cover, not to take all of the text that appears on the front cover. Perusing a sample of front covers will show the horror that will result from taking all of the text from the front cover.
I agree... Me too. | | | 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: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Darknite:
Quote:
On the case with the bonus films it has Maltese Falcon (1931) on the cover, So would this be the title since as per rules take the title from the front cover.
No. 1931 is not part of the title. It's the production year. Yes, it is the production year that Warner Bros. saw fit to add to the title of the film to clarify. (Or at least to the title of the DVD--in either case, it belongs.) Note that the production year of Satan Met a Lady is not likewise added. Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
If you insist on taking everything from the cover, why not call it "The Maltese Falcon (1931) Satan Met a Lady Plus Bonus Features DVD Video"?
The rule is to take the title from the front cover, not to take all of the text that appears on the front cover. Perusing a sample of front covers will show the horror that will result from taking all of the text from the front cover. That's a straw man; no one is advocating that. | | | | Last edited: by CalebAndCo |
|
| Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Woola: Quote:
I agree with the others, it is niot needed as part of the title, we ALREADY have that data in the production Year field, If it were a separate title from the better known Maltese Falcon it MIGHT be useful locally, but from an Online point of view, since it is a child to Bogie's Falcon and coupled Satan Met a Lady already tells me that something is afoot with this title. Not necessary, redundant and if it has value it is on a local level.
Skp Since when does the value of a title need to be assessed. Data is data. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CalebAndCo: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Quoting Darknite:
Quote:
On the case with the bonus films it has Maltese Falcon (1931) on the cover, So would this be the title since as per rules take the title from the front cover.
No. 1931 is not part of the title. It's the production year.
Yes, it is the production year that Warner Bros. saw fit to add to the title of the film to clarify. (Or at least to the title of the DVD--in either case, it belongs.) Note that the production year of Satan Met a Lady is not likewise added. Adding it to the cover to clarify doesn't make it part of the title. Quoting CalebAndCo: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
If you insist on taking everything from the cover, why not call it "The Maltese Falcon (1931) Satan Met a Lady Plus Bonus Features DVD Video"?
The rule is to take the title from the front cover, not to take all of the text that appears on the front cover. Perusing a sample of front covers will show the horror that will result from taking all of the text from the front cover.
That's a straw man; no one is advocating that. No one is advocating that because they are able to discern that "Plus Bonus Features DVD Video" is not part of the title. That same discernment should be used to determine that 1931 is a production year and isn't part of the title either. Such discernment comes into play with possessives that appear with titles, for example. | | | ...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 | | | | Last edited: by m.cellophane |
|
| Registered: June 8, 2007 | | Posts: 151 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can't see your understanding on that its not part of the title since its plain as day on the cover right under Maltese Falcon title and before Satan Met a Lady.
Also everytime this film is mentioned on the Cover on the Back of case, on the back of the parent case and even on the disc itself, It is Labeled The Maltese Falcon (1931)
You say there already a place for the production date well there is also a place for Format and Ratings as well be there are still added in titles and edition.
We need to go by the rules at face value. |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Darknite: Quote:
Also everytime this film is mentioned on the Cover on the Back of case, on the back of the parent case and even on the disc itself, It is Labeled The Maltese Falcon (1931) That's not quite true. It's listed as "The Maltese Falcon" in the credits on the back of the case:  --------------- |
|
| Registered: June 8, 2007 | | Posts: 151 |
| | Posted: | | | | Wow the one place I missed, you fail to mention the 5 other places it is mentioned with date on the cases and including disc |
|
| Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Darknite: Quote:
Wow the one place I missed, you fail to mention the 5 other places it is mentioned with date on the cases and including disc Well, the one place you missed seems to be the one place where the rules tell you to look... Are you pulling our legs, or are you serious?  | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! | | | | Last edited: by Berak |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't like the change, but to be fair, the rules only tell us to look at the credit block if there are possessives on the cover. | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity | | | | Last edited: by reybr |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote:
I don't like the change, but to be fair, the rules only tell us to look at the credit block if there are possessives on the cover. What the rules tell us is "Never add distinguishing factors to the title". "(1931)" is being used in this case to distinguish this movie from the 1941 version. This use seems to me to be expressly forbidden by the rules. --------------- |
|