|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/19/2010
Posts: 27
Location: Lewisville, TX, US
Rank:
 (2528)
|
DisclaimerFirst off, I want to apologize if this has been discussed before. I searched, but could not find a previous thread, so I'm starting one. ScopeI'd like to open a thread to discuss the Sort Title rules in the Disc Title Contribution Guide relating to sequels to movies (DVD/Bluray). ReferencesSort Title Rules: http://www.mymovies.dk/how-to/written-documentation.aspx?Page=Contribution%20Guide#_Sort__18Exceptions to Sort Title Rules: http://www.mymovies.dk/how-to/written-documentation.aspx?Page=Contribution%20Guide#_Exceptions__4DiscussionStarting with the Sort Title Rules, they make perfect sense to me. A little tweaking maybe like including "with" in the joining words list and specifically calling out the use of a colon (:) after the two-digit number instead of a hyphen (-), but all-in-all I agree with these. My problem lies with the exceptions to the rules. Regardless of if the movie series name is in the title of the movie, it should be used in the Sort Title. Obviously not the Original or Local Titles since that is not what is printed on the cover, but the Sort Title will maintain continuity of the chronological order of these sequels. Using one of the examples provided, Casino Royale (2006), is the 21st movie in the James Bond series and so the Sort Title should be James Bond 21: Casino Royale. I understand the use of the Personal Data field to override this, but I feel we are removing valuable data from a title and instead requiring each user to re-enter this data manually. Why have an online database if you're going to require me to enter data manually? Data that I feel is valuable to all users. Maybe the answer is to add a new feature that can tie movie sequels together outside of the use of the Sort Title, but to provide the sorting/grouping of the sequels in the interfaces (Collection Management and WMC). I'd like to know if I'm the only one who feels this way and get different views on this.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/19/2010
Posts: 27
Location: Lewisville, TX, US
Rank:
(2528)
|
Notice! Non-public information removed by moderator.
|
|
Groups: Administration
, Member, Moderator
Joined: 11/2/2008
Posts: 4,486
Location: UK
Rank:
 (755050)
|
regardless you will not be tampering with james bond titles, those are not acceptible sorts. boxsets you will see the new rules when ready.
My Movies Head Moderator
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/19/2010
Posts: 27
Location: Lewisville, TX, US
Rank:
(2528)
|
carl2005 wrote:regardless you will not be tampering with james bond titles, those are not acceptible sorts. boxsets you will see the new rules when ready. I understand under the current rules, they are not acceptable sorts. That is why I started this thread: to either 1) modify the current rules, 2) implement a new feature to allow for the synergy of both an acceptable sort and maintaining the continuity of a series of movies, or 3) something yet to be suggested by a community member.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/6/2008
Posts: 69
Location: London
Rank:
 (1033)
|
I'd tend to agree that there ought to be a way to make contiguous and sorted correctly series. Especially episode IV and so on. I added harry potter, star wars and star trek and none are in the right order.
Should also point out that a lot of the time, these are not boxed sets, however bought individually.
Why can the sort title of these not be changed Carl?
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/6/2008
Posts: 69
Location: London
Rank:
(1033)
|
Stand corrected, after a restart my potter and star trek are in order. however I still think that with james bond you should put in. I would tend to think with hannibal and silence of the lambs you would not, as there is no common name to really use.
|
|
Groups: Administration
, Member, Moderator
Joined: 10/20/2010
Posts: 634
Location: North Essex, England
Rank:
(180400)
|
wcndave wrote:Stand corrected, after a restart my potter and star trek are in order. however I still think that with james bond you should put in. I would tend to think with hannibal and silence of the lambs you would not, as there is no common name to really use. You could always use the Personal Sort as found within the Personal Data area. which will override the Sort Title as found within the Main Area. Steve
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/19/2010
Posts: 27
Location: Lewisville, TX, US
Rank:
(2528)
|
snarbo wrote:wcndave wrote:Stand corrected, after a restart my potter and star trek are in order. however I still think that with james bond you should put in. I would tend to think with hannibal and silence of the lambs you would not, as there is no common name to really use. You could always use the Personal Sort as found within the Personal Data area. which will override the Sort Title as found within the Main Area. Steve Hi Steve, I guess my point of starting this thread was because the Personal Sort is just that -- Personal. That means that each person would have put in a sort instead of having the grouping available for everyone.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/19/2010
Posts: 27
Location: Lewisville, TX, US
Rank:
(2528)
|
For example, The Fast and Furious series. Below is the order they came out. MyMovies should group these together and sort them correctly. They *are* sequels and not individual movie releases despite not having a "common name." The Fast and the Furious (2001) 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) Fast & Furious (2009) Fast Five (2011) Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fast_and_the_Furious_%28film_series%29According to this, they are making two more (6 & 7).
|
|
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 7/18/2007
Posts: 2,865
Location: Virginia
Rank:
(312169)
|
It is impossible to obtain unanimous agreement on this topic, which is why the rule is the way it is.
You can insert a number to make "common name" titles follow release sequence, but you at no time are allowed to add extra words (ie, "James Bond") to force the sort order.
Everyone needs to accept this, and use "Personal Data" for what it was intended for.
Could some other way be created that allows an alternative? I don't know, but I can agree that it might be an option.
My Movies Moderator
|
|
Groups: Administration
, Member, Moderator
Joined: 10/20/2010
Posts: 634
Location: North Essex, England
Rank:
(180400)
|
hossy wrote:For example, The Fast and Furious series. Below is the order they came out. MyMovies should group these together and sort them correctly. They *are* sequels and not individual movie releases despite not having a "common name." The Fast and the Furious (2001) 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) Fast & Furious (2009) Fast Five (2011) Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fast_and_the_Furious_%28film_series%29According to this, they are making two more (6 & 7). Hossy Quite simple to sort these Main Screen in MM, down near the Bottom is the Personal Data section. Personal Data button, click on that. Inside the new window "Edit Personal Information" roughly the middle is "Titles" section. One of which is "Sort Title" inside this box you can put whatever you want for your own Sort Title which overrides the Main Sort Title. Since I have the Fast & Furious Movies as well, which where brought as Individual movies and not as a Box Set, I have used the Personal Sort so as to keep mine together. Main Sort Title: Personal Sort Title Fast and the Furious, The Fast 01: Fast and the Furious, The 2 Fast 2 Furious Fast 02: 2 Fast 2 Furious Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift Fast 03: Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift Fast & Furious Fast 04: Fast & Furious Fast Five Fast 05: Fast Five You can do exactly the same thing with the Bond Movies Dr. No Bond 01: Dr. No From Russia with Love Bond 02: From Russia with Love etc. etc. That way they will sort how you want them in CM when sorting your collection by Film Title, also in Windows Media Center. So your argument that these have to be named according to the film franchise doesn't stand up. Try using the Personal Sort you maybe surprised. Steve
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/19/2010
Posts: 27
Location: Lewisville, TX, US
Rank:
(2528)
|
@snarbo:
I think you keep not reading my posts fully. I've said twice now that I'm aware of the Sort Title in the Personal Data section. My discussion here is why should everyone have to enter the same text in the personal sort title just to group these movies together. Isn't that the point of a central database? -- to prevent the re-entering of data?
I'm asking to either 1) change the rules for the sort title or 2) provide another *shared* data field to enable MyMovies to properly group and sort these non-common name sequels.
I opened this thread to see if anyone agreed or disagreed with me. Who knows -- maybe I'm the only one that cares about grouping/sorting these titles, but then again -- you did it too, so I would think there are others. Is there enough of the MyMovies community that would speak up about wanting this functionality to effect a change to MyMovies? That's what I'm here to find out.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/19/2010
Posts: 27
Location: Lewisville, TX, US
Rank:
(2528)
|
lostinva wrote:It is impossible to obtain unanimous agreement on this topic, which is why the rule is the way it is. That is of course why I started this thread. I'm open to hearing all sides, but no one has posted a reason so far in opposition to my suggestion to make it a non-personal sort (either through the sort title field or a new shared data field).
|
|
Groups: Administration
, Member, Moderator
Joined: 10/20/2010
Posts: 634
Location: North Essex, England
Rank:
(180400)
|
hossy wrote:@snarbo:
I think you keep not reading my posts fully. I've said twice now that I'm aware of the Sort Title in the Personal Data section. My discussion here is why should everyone have to enter the same text in the personal sort title just to group these movies together. Isn't that the point of a central database? -- to prevent the re-entering of data?
I'm asking to either 1) change the rules for the sort title or 2) provide another *shared* data field to enable MyMovies to properly group and sort these non-common name sequels.
I opened this thread to see if anyone agreed or disagreed with me. Who knows -- maybe I'm the only one that cares about grouping/sorting these titles, but then again -- you did it too, so I would think there are others. Is there enough of the MyMovies community that would speak up about wanting this functionality to effect a change to MyMovies? That's what I'm here to find out. No I think that is you who cannot understand. You tell me Where in the Credit Block that any of the Bond films are named as such. You can't because they are not titled so. The Franchise maybe related to the Ian Fleming Books but not one single Bond film is called James Bond in xyz as part of the Credit Block. So why not do just like the rest of us user's have to do and use the Sort Title as per the Rules and if we want them sorted differently then use the Personal Data area. As for why the My Movies database doesn't use personal preferences. Simple you might call them Bond. Joe Bloggs down the road might call them James Bond, so who is right. Answer neither as they are not the Official Titles. So technically if the Officials at My Movies wanted to be pedantic they could just take out the ability to have a Personal Sort and then you would only be able to have the Official Sort as per the WebService. Steve
|
|
Groups: Administration
, Member, Moderator
Joined: 11/2/2008
Posts: 4,486
Location: UK
Rank:
(755050)
|
hossy the rules are not changing for that.
the bond films for example do not have a together name, they are not called "james bond...."
they are called "the living daylights" "the world is not enough"
james bond is not part of the title and its not proper to group them together. for everyone who asks for that rubbish there are many more who don't.
they may be a part of a series of films but they are not named that way and should not be sorted like that, the personal field was designed and put in to deal with people who wanted that situation, if its too much like hard work for them to set something which is stored in records and synced up so unlikely to be lost.. oh well.
Giving people the option for a personal sort has been made as easy as humanly possible.
the rules are the title must match the front cover, thats the guidelines, the sort follows the same guidelines with a allowance for adjustment for sorting when they carry a common name on the title. putting a artificial sort in is not done and will always be something people will have views on.
our rule makes it very simple and the personal sort choice removes any excuse for complaint as the users can have their pie and eat it at the same time.
My Movies Head Moderator
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/19/2010
Posts: 27
Location: Lewisville, TX, US
Rank:
(2528)
|
carl2005 wrote:hossy the rules are not changing for that.
the bond films for example do not have a together name, they are not called "james bond...."
they are called "the living daylights" "the world is not enough"
james bond is not part of the title and its not proper to group them together. for everyone who asks for that rubbish there are many more who don't.
they may be a part of a series of films but they are not named that way and should not be sorted like that, the personal field was designed and put in to deal with people who wanted that situation, if its too much like hard work for them to set something which is stored in records and synced up so unlikely to be lost.. oh well.
Giving people the option for a personal sort has been made as easy as humanly possible.
the rules are the title must match the front cover, thats the guidelines, the sort follows the same guidelines with a allowance for adjustment for sorting when they carry a common name on the title. putting a artificial sort in is not done and will always be something people will have views on.
our rule makes it very simple and the personal sort choice removes any excuse for complaint as the users can have their pie and eat it at the same time. Carl, I can see your point. Then why not add a new shared data field for series/sequels without a common name? Maybe something similar to how TV series are tied together -- you put in all the title data then associate it with something common. The MyMovies software can give the option for grouping/sorting based on this group or not for those that would prefer not to group all of the, for example, James Bond, films together. Adding this option, however, would make the management of the movie collection easier for those who'd like to see this feature without impacting those who don't want it.
|
|
Groups: Administration
, Member, Moderator
Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 951
Rank:
(58568)
|
I understnad the desire to have film series sort in order.
However MM needs the data on the service (unlike personal data) to be accurate and while adjusting the sort of something like a James Bond movie or any other movie series where the titles don't follow a nice sort order seems reasonable, this same issue has come up before with the likes of Live Free or Die Hard (Die Hard 4), the film's title is what it is and as such that is what should appear in the sort for the standalone title for accuracy without the additions of something that wasn't in the title.
Yes even adding things like 01, 02 etc in some cases represents a small change but it is relatively easy to standardise, it's easy to say it's common sense to add James Bond bt do it for one and users start doing ti for everything and it becomes a nightmare for the mods to enforce and keep consistent, one persons idea for the sort is not anothers and it causes all sorts of problems.
It might be possible to add functionaltiy like that with backdrops where users could contribute a recomended non standard sort that others could download but that would require a very large amount of work and there are far more important things unfortunately.
|
|
Groups: Administration
, Member, Moderator
Joined: 10/20/2010
Posts: 634
Location: North Essex, England
Rank:
(180400)
|
hossy wrote:carl2005 wrote:hossy the rules are not changing for that.
the bond films for example do not have a together name, they are not called "james bond...."
they are called "the living daylights" "the world is not enough"
james bond is not part of the title and its not proper to group them together. for everyone who asks for that rubbish there are many more who don't.
they may be a part of a series of films but they are not named that way and should not be sorted like that, the personal field was designed and put in to deal with people who wanted that situation, if its too much like hard work for them to set something which is stored in records and synced up so unlikely to be lost.. oh well.
Giving people the option for a personal sort has been made as easy as humanly possible.
the rules are the title must match the front cover, thats the guidelines, the sort follows the same guidelines with a allowance for adjustment for sorting when they carry a common name on the title. putting a artificial sort in is not done and will always be something people will have views on.
our rule makes it very simple and the personal sort choice removes any excuse for complaint as the users can have their pie and eat it at the same time. Carl, I can see your point. Then why not add a new shared data field for series/sequels without a common name? Maybe something similar to how TV series are tied together -- you put in all the title data then associate it with something common. The MyMovies software can give the option for grouping/sorting based on this group or not for those that would prefer not to group all of the, for example, James Bond, films together. Adding this option, however, would make the management of the movie collection easier for those who'd like to see this feature without impacting those who don't want it. Hossy, if you are unsatified with the way My Movies allows the Sorting you always have the choice of either Don't Use My Movies, or go and write your own Database. Steve
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/6/2008
Posts: 69
Location: London
Rank:
(1033)
|
I am not sure why people are getting so upset over this. Seems rather simple to me.
the point Hossy was making is that why does EVERY user have to enter data, however they choose to enter it, eg Bond 00X, or James Bond 00X.
Repeated effort is unecessary effort.
as far as i can see, he is NOT suggesting changing the official title, we are all aware that the films did not have "Bond" in the title, however putting this in the SORT title seems totally fair.
you have:
1. Movie Title: The official released title of the movie.
2. Sort Title: A sensible way to sort these that can be shared by the community to avoid data entry.
3. Personal: in case you want to do something on your own...
The rule that you can put "mission impossible XX" in the sort field, cos it's in the title, and not do the same with "2 fast 2 furious" cos they decided to make a [sic] clever title, seems a bit arbitrary. Personally I would put "Fast & the Furious 02: 2 fast 2 furious" in the sort field, knowing i never have to look at that piece of data, and if > 70% of people agree they would do, or like to have the same thing, then why not do it?
I would agree that some movies you just cannot do anything with, eg "Westworld", "Futureworld", there is no common name to use, however where there is, picking something sensible to populate a hidden field, to prevent data entry, seems like the right thing to do.
responding to Hossy making a "suggestion", that he should just stop using it or shut up does not seem very constructive.
Dave
|
|
Groups: Administration
Joined: 2/1/2005
Posts: 35,535
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Rank:
(65799)
|
I think that it have been been mentioned nicely that there will not be changes to the sort titles on this basis.
It is a valid request, but it ís also very valid of us to decline it.
I am sorry, but that is the way it is - there is no need to further discuss it.
Even if users do not agree with the contribution rules, they have the option to either follow them, or not contribute.
|
|
|
guest |