The title of this movie is wrong. - Two Weeks Notice (2002) Discussion

[–] ainsunzahth 20 years ago

why should it be that? it would be that if sandra bullocks character name was actually two weeks and she was giving him a notice. i'm not tryin to disrespect you at all but as far as i know, you put the apostrophe on the outside of the s only if the S is apart of their name and it's a possessive statement. like if my name was andy matthews, if i wanted to say that's my stapler it'd be like that's andy matthews' staper not andy matthew's, cuz then that would just be a typo. but either way, weeks' with an apostrophe wouldn't be correct cuz it's not possessive. there's no reason for the apostrophe unless weeks was a name, know what i mean? so the original title should be correct

reply

[–] tinkerbella 20 years ago

? That's Andy Matthews's stapler. I thought you put an apostrophe after the s if and only if there is more than one Matthew? Like if the stapler is for two brothers, "Andy and Angel Matthew". Then you wouldn't you say, "That's the Matthews' stapler."

?

Can someone clarify? Not that it matters...movie sucked anyway

You'll Come for the Religous Freedom, You'll Stay for the Capitalism

reply

[–] ainsunzahth 20 years ago

i see what you're sayin, but i believe what i said was right though. no you don't put an s after someone whose name ends in s because that would just be bad grammer. think about it, when you say it's gonna sound like "matthewssess." Let's refer back to the 'andy matthews' example. since matthews ends in s, you put the apostrophe after the s when you're saying something is his, like the stapler.

"That's Andy Matthews' stapler."

i'm pretty sure that's the right way. so as i said, unless two weeks was bullock's name, then you don't need the ' at the end of weeks. When you said "that's the matthews' stapler" yes that also works because it is 2 people, but it works right because the ' is after the s. when you say "that's the matthews' stapler" it's pretty much implied you're talking about 2 or more people because the word "the." but if you were just to talk about andy, it would "that's andy matthews' stapler" and you pronounce "matthews' " the same as if it were spelled matthew's. sorry that's so confusing but that's the easiest way i can explain it. *beep* english, why does it have to be so retarded hehe.

but yeah if anyway can clarify or correct me if i'm wrong please do becuz i'm 99.9% positive that's how it would be, not ' at the end of weeks. and by the way, this movie wasn't bad! haha, for some reason i didn't like it at first but then it grew on me. it isn't the best movie out there, but it's not the worst. i'd say it's mediocre. if there's nothing on tv, i usually watch this movie all the time, when it's on that is.

reply

[–] snow_betty03 20 years ago

yes you explained it correctly. the original title "two weeks notice" is correct becuase it implies the length of time the notice is in effect which is two weeks. unless, as mentioned by the previous poster, bullock's character name is two weeks, then the ' should be present after weeks to show possession =D. hope i did not make it more confusing..hehehehehe. peace!

reply

[–] martin_billany_1987 20 years ago

No, the title is not wrong!

It's Two Weeks Notice!

Two Weeks' Notice would imply that "Two Weeks" owns the notice... Which is just... Wrong...

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] saint_45_ 20 years ago

ohh sweet, I am glad to see you here! punctuation sticklers unite.

reply

[–] JuliaM87 20 years ago

The proper way to write this would actually be Two Weeks' Notice. The apostrophe in this case does not imply possession but it is supposed to be there. Its simply grammar and it looks right to me.

If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JuliaM87 19 years ago

Well I'm not an english teacher but I am an english student(among other things) and I remember a few years ago we were learning about this kind of thing. I think the "technical" term is "sneaky" because it is supposed to be there but few people actually realise it: the example we used was an establishment that had been open for 50 years. We write: 50 years' history. Same kind of thing. To some people it may not look right but it is.

"On her way to the shops the other day a man came over and killed her and stole her pen."-Mrs Doyle

reply

[–] rizdek 19 years ago

Lots of traffic on this. I checked another web site on the use of apostrophes. The site said an apostrophe is only used to substitute for one or more letters in a contraction (which this obviously isn't) or to show possession. The rule goes like this:

"If you can substitute the use of "of" then you use the apostrophe.

e.g. This is Marmaduke's house ... it is the house of Marmaduke.

The children's mother phoned ... the mother of the children phoned.

Three months' work ... the work of three months."

So, does the last one apply? The last one is not unlike the example of "50 years' history" Or the history of 50 years. But would you logically say, "The notice of two weeks?" If so, that indicates an apostrophe is needed. Think of it this way. Let's say she gave a notice of one month. Would the title be "One Month's Notice" or "One Month Notice"?

The meaning of the word "weeks" in two weeks notice, is not the same as the "weeks" in two weeks' work or the work of two weeks. So, bottom line, I think the title is correct, but who knows.

reply