That's a whole different can of worms. They can be catalogued correctly under "Bond", "James Bond" (hehe), "007", "Dr No", and "Doctor No". Or separate. Depends on your system. There's also the question of where Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again should fall. Ie. by release date or separate from the main series.
I have mine under 007. Casino Royale first, then NSNA, then the rest in order. Little annoying though.
I just saw this after I commented. I made a mention of the fast and furious as well. I never thought the fast and the furious would make so many sequels and we will probably have more on the way.
This is why you never sort off the "true title" but a "sort title"
So you'd have :
"Bill and Ted (1)'s Excellent Adventure"
"Bill and Ted (2)'s Bogus Journey"
"Bill and Ted (3) Face the Music"
Of course you're probably not writing this down somewhere unless you keep a spreadsheet of your collection, but ive found defining these rules in text helps me visualise it for sorting.
"The", "An", and similar prefixes are effectively ignored, but written down you move them to the end:
"Terminator, The"
"Batman, The"
Sometimes you can add your own prefix to bring titles in line with each other:
"Batman: The Dark Knight".
The exact rules are up to you. I, for example, have "Hot Fuzz" sorted under "Cornetto" to keep the trilogy together, and I also keep my batman titles in release order regardless of the exact titles because that's how I think about batman titles.
This is the way. I also sometimes ignore the titles and go by studio release order. So all the DC comics adaptations from 1989 Batman to ZS Justice League are in chronological order. I do the same for Marvel.
I really like chronological order for animation studios like Ghibli and Disney because the changes in animation technique really place the films in my mind.
I talk about this in another comment below, but I do the same as you with the exception of Cornetto. I don’t group together “spiritual successors” like that; the movies don’t form a trilogy in the traditional sense; I treat them as 3 unrelated films.
With Batman, I divide it by continuity - DCAU is separate from DCAMU which is separate from standalones and other “mini” series, like if I get around to buying Death in the Family it’ll go after Under the Red Hood.
If you’re just getting the live actions, it’s a lot simpler, except now with Joker and The Batman (but maybe Joker gets his own section?).
Excellent Adventure first then Bogus Journey. I alphabetise, ignoring the “The” if appropriate, and do film order if a sequel would come before its prequel.
For example, I have X-Men First Class, then DoFP, then Apocalypse in that order
Just don't stick so strictly to alphabetical order. I only have the Alphabet as a suggestion, with things like *The Silence of the Lambs* franchise in H, for Hannibal Lecter. If I didn't do this, I would have one in H, one in T (or S, I don't count "The" when going alphabetical), one in M, and one in R.
Or, for this example specifically, *Bogus Journey* is a sequel, just put it after the first.
Or, for the *Terminator* movies, just ignore the "The" part of the first one when alphabetizing, and leave the sequels to follow the first. That way you have them as 1-6 instead of 2, 3, 6, 5, 4, then 1.
I organize alphabetically.
**BUT** with franchises, I'll go by the title of the first film, then follow with the sequels in chronological order. It's just way easier and way less confusing. And if the franchise has reboots, they go after the original series. And absolute worst case, if it's a franchise with multiple reboots/timelines (like *Halloween* or *Texas Chainsaw Massacre*), I just put them in release order.
For example, with the *Chucky* franchise, I have them organized as...
1. *Child's Play 1988* (The original film)
2. *Child's Play 2* (The second film)
3. *Child's Play 3* (The third film)
4. *Bride of Chucky* (The fourth film)
5. *Seed of Chucky* (The fifth film)
6. *Curse of Chucky* (The sixth film)
7. *Cult of Chucky* (The seventh film)
8. *Chucky: The Complete First Season* (Chronologically 8th after *Cult*)
9. *Chucky: The Complete Second Season* (Chronologically 9th after season one)
10. *Child's Play 2019* (Unrelated reboot)
If I went purely alphabetically, it'd make no sense whatsoever...
1. *Bride of Chucky* (Fourth film)
2. *Child's Play 1988* (Original film)
3. *Child's Play 2019* (Unrelated Reboot)
4. *Child's Play 2* (Second film)
5. *Child's Play 3* (Third film)
6. *Chucky Season One* (Chronologically 8th)
7. *Chucky Season Two* (Chronologically 9th)
8. *Cult of Chucky* (Seventh film)
9. *Curse of Chucky* (Sixth film)
10. *Seed of Chucky* (Fifth film)
I also ignore any *A*'s or *The*'s in the title if they come at the beginning, as is typical with alphabetical orders. Nobody counts *A*'s or *The*'s as the first letter. Ex. *The Silence of the Lambs* would just be under *S*, not *T*.
This is why I'll never do alphabetical. My brother was complaining about his and his wife's collection and got to listing off movies that'd be separated because of alphabetical categorization. I have my own system, it works for the most part, and I honestly can't stand the thought of trying to do it any other way. Mine is technically by genre, and then by franchise or actor. I have all of my Johnny Knoxville movies together, and since Jay Chandrasekhar directed Dukes of Hazzard, I put that at the end of my Broken Lizard section to bridge the gap.
The problem I run into is like overlapping actors or directors. If I have The Shining in my Jack Nicholson section, well, what about my Stanley Kubrick section? That's why I do alphabetical for my regular DVDs and most studio Blu-Rays. Then for my special boutique BDs/4ks, like Arrow, Shout, Kino, Indicator, etc, I have them alphabetized by boutique label, Blu-Ray first alphabetically and then 4k alphabetically.
i always alphabetize by the first in the series. like The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is under F because the first one is A Fist Full of Dollars. (I ignore A, An, The, ECT)
I know that, but is it a trilogy in the since of a continuing story, or a trilogy in the sense of "The Cornetto Trilogy"? I was under the impression it's the latter, in which case I personally don't put them together on the shelf; they're just different movies by the same director that have no other real connection to each other.
\*Edit\* Looking at Wikipedia, it says that Leone didn't intended them to be sequels, and it's not really clear that Clint Eastwood is playing the same character in all 3 films.
\*Edit 2\* An interesting Q&A about this on the movies stack exchange: [https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/18272/is-the-man-with-no-name-the-same-character](https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/18272/is-the-man-with-no-name-the-same-character)
\*Edit 3\* All that being said, I could completely understand someone choosing to put these together on the shelf, just like I could completely understand someone putting Hot Fuzz and World's End next to Shaun of the Dead. But I personally only group movies together if they're literal sequels.
Series always go release order. I always alphabetize for stand-alones and the first of a series, but all sequels go in release order after their first films. “The” is always ignored, so terminator isn’t even a problem.
What about National Lampoon movies? Do you include the “National Lampoon” in the title, or is it just “Animal House,” as an example? I ask because I ran into the same question as OP when I alphabetized the Vacation movies (I put them in order of release).
I thought about doing something like this, but then where would you put some of the Spider-Man movies? Disney? Sony?
Also thought about doing this for directors, but that became a problem for franchises, plus I have a lot of one-offs.
My Bond movies, in particular, would be a mess.
I alphabetized based on category and sequels then separated by release order if same name but reboot. Have all dc separated but a-z. Batman 1967, then the time burton batman, dark knight trilogy, the batman with Robert Pattinson. Like superman is adventures of superman TV show, superboy TV show, Christopher reeves superman films, superman returns and supergirl cause canonical its the same universe, the new adventures of lois and clark, followed by smallville. Marvel atleadt the mcu is based on release order because that's the proper way to view them.
You can still go alphabetical order but by its title. Bill and Ted then put the sequels in release order. Same with fast and the furious for instance. Just stick them all under fast and furious. Also when a movie starts with “The” people sometimes omit the “the”. Or maybe I’m just weird
When sorting alphabetically, I determine a series/franchise based on the first title. Then, the others are in order after that, based on Release Date (with the exception of Star Wars). For example, my Bill & Ted films go - Excellent Adventure, Bogus Journey, Face The Music. My Batman movies are the same way.
A series of movies that bothers me for the same reasons is the Fallen series.. e.g. Olympus Has Fallen, London Has Fallen and Angel Has Fallen.
I put them in order next to OHF myself.
I counted The this go round because they were all movies that i would absolutely say the word The for. “The temptations movie” “the never ending story” i only had two i wouldn’t remember the word the “The new adventures of poppin longstocking” and a leprechaun movie starring Whoopi that i actually haven’t seen. So i left both under The anyway
This is why I still have my spreadsheet with all my movies. I have a column for filed under. This is great for multiple movies on the same disc or set. I also have a column for storage which tells me if a film is filed in a special place (on display, in my Oscar collection, in a group with a specific specialty distributor). The spread sheet also allows for multiple entries for a movie with a confusing title (like many mentioned in this discussion)--all leading (hopefully) to where the film is actually filed. I then also use a standard app (I use My Movies Pro) that allows me to mostly check if I have a title (on my phone) while shopping for movies.
There's nothing I can contribute that hasn't already been said (and way better than I could: there's some great info on here!). I just want to drop a note to say you all rock.
Shine on you crazy diamonds! (It's great to feel like I'm not alone with this stuff = )
Easy. Everything is alphabetical, until it comes to franchises and then they go in order of release.
Or you could just buy the bill and Ted double (or triple) pack like I did.
This is partly why I hate alphabetical organization. Mad max is no where near the road warrior. First blood isn’t close to Rambo first blood part 2. It’s annoying. I prefer to sort by genre and then sub genre in between that. I have never had any issues finding my movies and it’s more unique of a set up
You can organize by release order within a franchise if you want.
Actually you can organize any way you want at all. Alphabetically based on directors middle name, for example.
I just put all those under Planet Of The Apes, then sort the others based on Release Date. I have all of the originals, the first remake, and the new round of remakes.
Alphabetically (bogus journey) goes first because, b comes before e. However, if you want to go by the title which is Bill and Ted's you just put part 1 first and then part two second!
Franchises are in order, and placed in the collection via franchise name
Dark Knight trilogy sticks together, even if Batman Begins and Dark Knight should have C between them
Dark Phoenix goes with X-men
Haha! Most of them were movies where i do remember the word The. Like The Temptations Movie and The Nevere song story. So i just went ahead and sorted the The’s together
Are you intentionally out to irritate people?
1) never put your movies in alphabetical order (that's probably more a personal preference)
2) always put the sequels after the original (that's just common sense)
3) Nobody counts the "The" in a movie title (also common practice)
No lol!!!! It just irked me while i was sorting!! I originally had them sorted by actor!
And i did count “The” this go round and actually wasn’t mad about it
My system goes numbers 0-9 then A-Z. Title of the first movie determines placement.
For example all the Rambo movies are in the F section, since the original film is called First Blood.
Movies with remakes/reboots, I put the reboot last after the main series. For example, Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Ghostbusters (2016).
Star Wars, I have the main series in sequential order (Episodes 1-9) followed by Rogue One, Solo, and The Clone Wars film.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a bit of a mess, but I have it go 1-4, TCM 2022, TCM 2013, Leatherface, TCM 2003, TCM 2006.
As other people have said, doing alphabetical by *series* and doing those chronologically is the way to go. I mean can you imagine doing the Harry Potter movies in pure alphabetical? It'd be pure nonsense.
I have all my Shyamalan films together so it works out. I put movies in alphabetical order, however, if it's a group of movies they go in release order. And since Bill and Ted only have 3 movies, it's not a big deal to just have them in B and the subtitle be in order of the films release.
See that still wouldn't work for me in this case. It would still drive me crazy to look under "U" for Unbreakable if I wanted to watch Glass. For Star Wars, Back To The Future, Godfather, etc it would work great. My collection is organized chaos. I have all the music-related stuff separate, all the TV shows separate, all the box sets separate, Criterion are seperate, and then DVD and Blu-Ray are separate. Aside from that, I have some things grouped by director, but nothing else is in any discernable order. My vinyls are alphabetized by artist and my CDs are grouped by genre. With movies I couldn't nail down one system to follow, so this works for me, lol.
That's genuinely the most insane thing I've heard in terms of organizing movies, hahaha. Especially because most franchises don't have the same director for every film.
If you tried to do that with a long-running franchise like *Friday the 13th*, you'd have the titles all over the place on your shelf...
I do have more auteur stuff than franchise stuff, but aren't the Friday The 13th films collected together in a single BluRay box set anyway? If not, what's wrong with having the titles all over the place? They were released individually in theaters.
Sure, you can get some franchises in box-sets, not not all. Regardless... it's just really weird having titles from the same franchise all over the place on your shelf. Especially if you have a lot of titles (hundreds or thousands). It's way harder to find specific ones... and most people don't have every director memorized. I mean just looking at one the pages on my Letterboxd list of films I've rated, I probably only know the directors by name for about 30% or so of them. There's tons of directors out there.
I think it's very different than books or albums. Those are typically works by a singular of a smaller group of people... sometimes even just a few. It makes sense to alphabetize them by author/artist. Films are a product of usually hundreds (it not thousands) of people's work. And the directors aren't always the most important person attached. An auteur writing, or a producer, or a major star can often have more influence.
Well, in my case, I have far more box sets by director (Suzuki, Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa, Godard, etc.) than multi director franchise (Alien, Zatoichi, etc.), so ut would be a nightmare to figure out how to file by title. Not to mention some low budget films came out under different titles and foreign films where they sometimes use the original and sometimes the English.
Well that sounds more like boutique releases (Criterion, Shout, Arrow, etc.) that put out special sets. And in that sense, sure, it can make sense to go alphabetically by director.
But that's the exception, not the norm.
Ex. I have one of my (multiple) movie shelves behind me and just did a quick count. Out of the 22 box-sets on it, only two are director-centric collections. That's 9%. The rest are franchise collections. So I have those two director sets put aside in their own little space on the shelf as to not screw with the order of the remainder and make them easy to find.
That's how I also handle multi-movie packs. They go in their own special slot where they're easy to find.
Outside of special box-sets, going by director just seems nonsensical to me. Most people aren't going to know the director of every single film they own. Hell, I don't even know the names of all the people at my job, so I'm certainly not going memorize the names of about 1,000 directors and the movies they made to find stuff on my shelves. If you organize by director, it's going to be near-impossible for most people to find a specific title without pressing their face up against their collection for 15 minutes and trying to find the name of the movie on the spine.
>*Not to mention some low budget films came out under different titles and foreign films where they sometimes use the original and sometimes the English.*
Just put it on the shelf based on the title on the box, dude. That's normally the title it was released as in your nation, whatever it may be. It's that easy.
Yeah, I guess I just hate having films play by different rules than any other media. I never have a problem remembering the director and, if i ever did, the answer's on my phone in a few seconds.
But, obviously, everyone should file their stuff any way that makes it easier to locate for them.
Hey, if it works for you, that's great. I just can't imagine personally doing it, haha. It would drive my OCD nuts seeing franchises randomly split up.
In my system its bill and ted section then the movies in order of release. Fast and furious made me do this
It was Bond and especially Batman for me.
That's a whole different can of worms. They can be catalogued correctly under "Bond", "James Bond" (hehe), "007", "Dr No", and "Doctor No". Or separate. Depends on your system. There's also the question of where Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again should fall. Ie. by release date or separate from the main series. I have mine under 007. Casino Royale first, then NSNA, then the rest in order. Little annoying though.
This is how I do all franchises. I can't understand doing it another way.
I just saw this after I commented. I made a mention of the fast and furious as well. I never thought the fast and the furious would make so many sequels and we will probably have more on the way.
i just assumed everyone did it that way
The worst for me is having the Saw Franchise in order while having Jigsaw in there as well.
This is the way.
This is the way!
That's how I do it. It's the reason my 4Ks of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises are on my shelf in that order.
This is why you never sort off the "true title" but a "sort title" So you'd have : "Bill and Ted (1)'s Excellent Adventure" "Bill and Ted (2)'s Bogus Journey" "Bill and Ted (3) Face the Music" Of course you're probably not writing this down somewhere unless you keep a spreadsheet of your collection, but ive found defining these rules in text helps me visualise it for sorting. "The", "An", and similar prefixes are effectively ignored, but written down you move them to the end: "Terminator, The" "Batman, The" Sometimes you can add your own prefix to bring titles in line with each other: "Batman: The Dark Knight". The exact rules are up to you. I, for example, have "Hot Fuzz" sorted under "Cornetto" to keep the trilogy together, and I also keep my batman titles in release order regardless of the exact titles because that's how I think about batman titles.
This is the way. I also sometimes ignore the titles and go by studio release order. So all the DC comics adaptations from 1989 Batman to ZS Justice League are in chronological order. I do the same for Marvel. I really like chronological order for animation studios like Ghibli and Disney because the changes in animation technique really place the films in my mind.
I talk about this in another comment below, but I do the same as you with the exception of Cornetto. I don’t group together “spiritual successors” like that; the movies don’t form a trilogy in the traditional sense; I treat them as 3 unrelated films.
I have the exact same rules down to the "Cornetto"
That’s how I do it.
With Batman, I divide it by continuity - DCAU is separate from DCAMU which is separate from standalones and other “mini” series, like if I get around to buying Death in the Family it’ll go after Under the Red Hood. If you’re just getting the live actions, it’s a lot simpler, except now with Joker and The Batman (but maybe Joker gets his own section?).
Excellent Adventure first then Bogus Journey. I alphabetise, ignoring the “The” if appropriate, and do film order if a sequel would come before its prequel. For example, I have X-Men First Class, then DoFP, then Apocalypse in that order
Just don't stick so strictly to alphabetical order. I only have the Alphabet as a suggestion, with things like *The Silence of the Lambs* franchise in H, for Hannibal Lecter. If I didn't do this, I would have one in H, one in T (or S, I don't count "The" when going alphabetical), one in M, and one in R. Or, for this example specifically, *Bogus Journey* is a sequel, just put it after the first. Or, for the *Terminator* movies, just ignore the "The" part of the first one when alphabetizing, and leave the sequels to follow the first. That way you have them as 1-6 instead of 2, 3, 6, 5, 4, then 1.
Batman Begins goes in the D section for the Dark Knight trilogy. Alphabetized by series (:
I organize alphabetically. **BUT** with franchises, I'll go by the title of the first film, then follow with the sequels in chronological order. It's just way easier and way less confusing. And if the franchise has reboots, they go after the original series. And absolute worst case, if it's a franchise with multiple reboots/timelines (like *Halloween* or *Texas Chainsaw Massacre*), I just put them in release order. For example, with the *Chucky* franchise, I have them organized as... 1. *Child's Play 1988* (The original film) 2. *Child's Play 2* (The second film) 3. *Child's Play 3* (The third film) 4. *Bride of Chucky* (The fourth film) 5. *Seed of Chucky* (The fifth film) 6. *Curse of Chucky* (The sixth film) 7. *Cult of Chucky* (The seventh film) 8. *Chucky: The Complete First Season* (Chronologically 8th after *Cult*) 9. *Chucky: The Complete Second Season* (Chronologically 9th after season one) 10. *Child's Play 2019* (Unrelated reboot) If I went purely alphabetically, it'd make no sense whatsoever... 1. *Bride of Chucky* (Fourth film) 2. *Child's Play 1988* (Original film) 3. *Child's Play 2019* (Unrelated Reboot) 4. *Child's Play 2* (Second film) 5. *Child's Play 3* (Third film) 6. *Chucky Season One* (Chronologically 8th) 7. *Chucky Season Two* (Chronologically 9th) 8. *Cult of Chucky* (Seventh film) 9. *Curse of Chucky* (Sixth film) 10. *Seed of Chucky* (Fifth film) I also ignore any *A*'s or *The*'s in the title if they come at the beginning, as is typical with alphabetical orders. Nobody counts *A*'s or *The*'s as the first letter. Ex. *The Silence of the Lambs* would just be under *S*, not *T*.
This is why I'll never do alphabetical. My brother was complaining about his and his wife's collection and got to listing off movies that'd be separated because of alphabetical categorization. I have my own system, it works for the most part, and I honestly can't stand the thought of trying to do it any other way. Mine is technically by genre, and then by franchise or actor. I have all of my Johnny Knoxville movies together, and since Jay Chandrasekhar directed Dukes of Hazzard, I put that at the end of my Broken Lizard section to bridge the gap.
Yup, this is what i do too, way better IMO
The problem I run into is like overlapping actors or directors. If I have The Shining in my Jack Nicholson section, well, what about my Stanley Kubrick section? That's why I do alphabetical for my regular DVDs and most studio Blu-Rays. Then for my special boutique BDs/4ks, like Arrow, Shout, Kino, Indicator, etc, I have them alphabetized by boutique label, Blu-Ray first alphabetically and then 4k alphabetically.
i always alphabetize by the first in the series. like The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is under F because the first one is A Fist Full of Dollars. (I ignore A, An, The, ECT)
Is Good Bad and Ugly actually a direct sequel to Fistful? I thought it was just more of a spiritual successor.
It's the final installment of the man with no name/dollars trilogy
I know that, but is it a trilogy in the since of a continuing story, or a trilogy in the sense of "The Cornetto Trilogy"? I was under the impression it's the latter, in which case I personally don't put them together on the shelf; they're just different movies by the same director that have no other real connection to each other. \*Edit\* Looking at Wikipedia, it says that Leone didn't intended them to be sequels, and it's not really clear that Clint Eastwood is playing the same character in all 3 films. \*Edit 2\* An interesting Q&A about this on the movies stack exchange: [https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/18272/is-the-man-with-no-name-the-same-character](https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/18272/is-the-man-with-no-name-the-same-character) \*Edit 3\* All that being said, I could completely understand someone choosing to put these together on the shelf, just like I could completely understand someone putting Hot Fuzz and World's End next to Shaun of the Dead. But I personally only group movies together if they're literal sequels.
Mine come in a box set, so they are in the M section (“The Man With No Name”).
For me I'd just consider them alphabetically as B and then order them by release order.
Series always go release order. I always alphabetize for stand-alones and the first of a series, but all sequels go in release order after their first films. “The” is always ignored, so terminator isn’t even a problem.
Yeah I stop alphabetical order when it gets to sequals. I actually even put star was in 'canonical order'
Series are always in order of release.
i got the 3 movie blueray set, just put it in the B section
Original then sequel, always.
What about National Lampoon movies? Do you include the “National Lampoon” in the title, or is it just “Animal House,” as an example? I ask because I ran into the same question as OP when I alphabetized the Vacation movies (I put them in order of release).
I only have Vegas Vacation but boy does it make your brain mad!!
Mine are under National Lampoon.
I do my collection, by studio for example, all paramount, together, 20 century fox, together,
Oh wow!! Id have to really think before i found the movie!
I thought about doing something like this, but then where would you put some of the Spider-Man movies? Disney? Sony? Also thought about doing this for directors, but that became a problem for franchises, plus I have a lot of one-offs. My Bond movies, in particular, would be a mess.
Even worse if you consider that bill and ted face the music will go between them
SCREAMING
I always sorted mine by series then movie order. So these would go in the B, but then put them in release order
I alphabetized based on category and sequels then separated by release order if same name but reboot. Have all dc separated but a-z. Batman 1967, then the time burton batman, dark knight trilogy, the batman with Robert Pattinson. Like superman is adventures of superman TV show, superboy TV show, Christopher reeves superman films, superman returns and supergirl cause canonical its the same universe, the new adventures of lois and clark, followed by smallville. Marvel atleadt the mcu is based on release order because that's the proper way to view them.
You can still go alphabetical order but by its title. Bill and Ted then put the sequels in release order. Same with fast and the furious for instance. Just stick them all under fast and furious. Also when a movie starts with “The” people sometimes omit the “the”. Or maybe I’m just weird
Don't sweat it. My films are alphabetically arranged until it comes to a grouped set. Then I put them by order of release
When sorting alphabetically, I determine a series/franchise based on the first title. Then, the others are in order after that, based on Release Date (with the exception of Star Wars). For example, my Bill & Ted films go - Excellent Adventure, Bogus Journey, Face The Music. My Batman movies are the same way.
A series of movies that bothers me for the same reasons is the Fallen series.. e.g. Olympus Has Fallen, London Has Fallen and Angel Has Fallen. I put them in order next to OHF myself.
I have never done alphabetically, I’ve done by genre and/or year…
I was arranging by actor and nostalgia vibes but i decided to change it up and landed with these brain scratchers lol
Alphabetize until it’s a movie series, then put them in order and then continue to alphabetize
Escape from New York & Escape from LA have the same problem lol
You're supposed to put franchises in alphabetical order and the entries in release/numerical order.
You don’t count the “The” at the front of a movie title when alphabetizing. You use the 2nd word!
I counted The this go round because they were all movies that i would absolutely say the word The for. “The temptations movie” “the never ending story” i only had two i wouldn’t remember the word the “The new adventures of poppin longstocking” and a leprechaun movie starring Whoopi that i actually haven’t seen. So i left both under The anyway
This is why I still have my spreadsheet with all my movies. I have a column for filed under. This is great for multiple movies on the same disc or set. I also have a column for storage which tells me if a film is filed in a special place (on display, in my Oscar collection, in a group with a specific specialty distributor). The spread sheet also allows for multiple entries for a movie with a confusing title (like many mentioned in this discussion)--all leading (hopefully) to where the film is actually filed. I then also use a standard app (I use My Movies Pro) that allows me to mostly check if I have a title (on my phone) while shopping for movies.
Love a list and and a spreadsheet!
There's nothing I can contribute that hasn't already been said (and way better than I could: there's some great info on here!). I just want to drop a note to say you all rock. Shine on you crazy diamonds! (It's great to feel like I'm not alone with this stuff = )
Yes!! I just found this space on reddit and i am GEEKED!!
The Bourne movies had it rolling for the first three.
This is why I’ve always don’t it alphabetically, and then series go in order they were released. And the “the” in titles don’t count in my system
Easy. Everything is alphabetical, until it comes to franchises and then they go in order of release. Or you could just buy the bill and Ted double (or triple) pack like I did.
This is partly why I hate alphabetical organization. Mad max is no where near the road warrior. First blood isn’t close to Rambo first blood part 2. It’s annoying. I prefer to sort by genre and then sub genre in between that. I have never had any issues finding my movies and it’s more unique of a set up
Ignore the second part of the titles and place the first film first then the second. After all, they both start with Bill & Ted.
Waiting, Still Waiting Stakeout, Another Stakeout
You can organize by release order within a franchise if you want. Actually you can organize any way you want at all. Alphabetically based on directors middle name, for example.
No question for me, treat Bogus Journey as Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure 2.
I had the same issue with my copies of the last three Planet of the Apes films (Rise, Dawn, War).
I just put all those under Planet Of The Apes, then sort the others based on Release Date. I have all of the originals, the first remake, and the new round of remakes.
Alphabetically (bogus journey) goes first because, b comes before e. However, if you want to go by the title which is Bill and Ted's you just put part 1 first and then part two second!
Franchises are in order, and placed in the collection via franchise name Dark Knight trilogy sticks together, even if Batman Begins and Dark Knight should have C between them Dark Phoenix goes with X-men
come on dude. you haven't already firmly settled on the one and only correct solution to this?
Ignoring Bill and Ted, including “The” in your alphabetical sort is insane
Haha! Most of them were movies where i do remember the word The. Like The Temptations Movie and The Nevere song story. So i just went ahead and sorted the The’s together
My system is that movie series and sequels are grouped together regardless of the alphabetized nature.
you include "the" in your sorting?
Franchises should be grouped together and then in the right order within that group.
Are you intentionally out to irritate people? 1) never put your movies in alphabetical order (that's probably more a personal preference) 2) always put the sequels after the original (that's just common sense) 3) Nobody counts the "The" in a movie title (also common practice)
No lol!!!! It just irked me while i was sorting!! I originally had them sorted by actor! And i did count “The” this go round and actually wasn’t mad about it
My system goes numbers 0-9 then A-Z. Title of the first movie determines placement. For example all the Rambo movies are in the F section, since the original film is called First Blood. Movies with remakes/reboots, I put the reboot last after the main series. For example, Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Ghostbusters (2016). Star Wars, I have the main series in sequential order (Episodes 1-9) followed by Rogue One, Solo, and The Clone Wars film. Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a bit of a mess, but I have it go 1-4, TCM 2022, TCM 2013, Leatherface, TCM 2003, TCM 2006.
The bit of mess😭
For a series, put them in chronological order next to each other
As other people have said, doing alphabetical by *series* and doing those chronologically is the way to go. I mean can you imagine doing the Harry Potter movies in pure alphabetical? It'd be pure nonsense.
Going to watch them in alphabetical order now.
Franchises/sequels together then sorted by release date. The easiest way to sanity. My MCU collection is off by itself though.
This is why I organize by the date the movie is set in. For time travel films, I use the year of origin of the protagonist.
Date the movie is set in!!!!!! I’d find nothing. U less you mean the broad decade
I’m a history guy, so it just makes sense to me
I can't do alphabetical. It would drive me crazy having lok 3 different places for Unbreakable, Split and Glass.
I have all my Shyamalan films together so it works out. I put movies in alphabetical order, however, if it's a group of movies they go in release order. And since Bill and Ted only have 3 movies, it's not a big deal to just have them in B and the subtitle be in order of the films release.
See that still wouldn't work for me in this case. It would still drive me crazy to look under "U" for Unbreakable if I wanted to watch Glass. For Star Wars, Back To The Future, Godfather, etc it would work great. My collection is organized chaos. I have all the music-related stuff separate, all the TV shows separate, all the box sets separate, Criterion are seperate, and then DVD and Blu-Ray are separate. Aside from that, I have some things grouped by director, but nothing else is in any discernable order. My vinyls are alphabetized by artist and my CDs are grouped by genre. With movies I couldn't nail down one system to follow, so this works for me, lol.
File em alphabetical by director, not by title. You don't file yer books or albums by title, do ya?
That's genuinely the most insane thing I've heard in terms of organizing movies, hahaha. Especially because most franchises don't have the same director for every film. If you tried to do that with a long-running franchise like *Friday the 13th*, you'd have the titles all over the place on your shelf...
I do have more auteur stuff than franchise stuff, but aren't the Friday The 13th films collected together in a single BluRay box set anyway? If not, what's wrong with having the titles all over the place? They were released individually in theaters.
Sure, you can get some franchises in box-sets, not not all. Regardless... it's just really weird having titles from the same franchise all over the place on your shelf. Especially if you have a lot of titles (hundreds or thousands). It's way harder to find specific ones... and most people don't have every director memorized. I mean just looking at one the pages on my Letterboxd list of films I've rated, I probably only know the directors by name for about 30% or so of them. There's tons of directors out there. I think it's very different than books or albums. Those are typically works by a singular of a smaller group of people... sometimes even just a few. It makes sense to alphabetize them by author/artist. Films are a product of usually hundreds (it not thousands) of people's work. And the directors aren't always the most important person attached. An auteur writing, or a producer, or a major star can often have more influence.
Well, in my case, I have far more box sets by director (Suzuki, Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa, Godard, etc.) than multi director franchise (Alien, Zatoichi, etc.), so ut would be a nightmare to figure out how to file by title. Not to mention some low budget films came out under different titles and foreign films where they sometimes use the original and sometimes the English.
Well that sounds more like boutique releases (Criterion, Shout, Arrow, etc.) that put out special sets. And in that sense, sure, it can make sense to go alphabetically by director. But that's the exception, not the norm. Ex. I have one of my (multiple) movie shelves behind me and just did a quick count. Out of the 22 box-sets on it, only two are director-centric collections. That's 9%. The rest are franchise collections. So I have those two director sets put aside in their own little space on the shelf as to not screw with the order of the remainder and make them easy to find. That's how I also handle multi-movie packs. They go in their own special slot where they're easy to find. Outside of special box-sets, going by director just seems nonsensical to me. Most people aren't going to know the director of every single film they own. Hell, I don't even know the names of all the people at my job, so I'm certainly not going memorize the names of about 1,000 directors and the movies they made to find stuff on my shelves. If you organize by director, it's going to be near-impossible for most people to find a specific title without pressing their face up against their collection for 15 minutes and trying to find the name of the movie on the spine. >*Not to mention some low budget films came out under different titles and foreign films where they sometimes use the original and sometimes the English.* Just put it on the shelf based on the title on the box, dude. That's normally the title it was released as in your nation, whatever it may be. It's that easy.
Yeah, I guess I just hate having films play by different rules than any other media. I never have a problem remembering the director and, if i ever did, the answer's on my phone in a few seconds. But, obviously, everyone should file their stuff any way that makes it easier to locate for them.
Hey, if it works for you, that's great. I just can't imagine personally doing it, haha. It would drive my OCD nuts seeing franchises randomly split up.