I think. Unless the old version was heavily edited (besides dubbing it) the original English title still remains The Big Risk.

An example where the English title is different is (if i remember correctly, im in mobile now so hard to check) is Naussica of the valley. A Japanese Animation. It (or another movie) got a heavily edited "western" version and lots of the environmental scenes were cut out. Released in US and germany Among others.

With a Very different title and a poster with unrelated characters.

In such cases its a different version. Not the movie. So the title can be added as alternative.

Years later. Disney released a true version. Titled Naussica of the valley.

This movie is also the Reason why Studio Ghibli doesn't allowed edits to their movies.

Another example like the one above it the Korean animated movie Wonderful Days, which got a "western" edited version too: Sky Blue.

Respectfully, I feel like the ideas I raised weren't engaged with in your response. This is a living film that people watch and discuss, and in English it's known as Classe Tous Risques. It has been that way in an official capacity for twelve years. I documented that with journalistic reviews, but I could have also referred to authorities such as IMDb and Wikipedia. The title distributors once used in 1964 has long been out of the conversation and is no longer in use. It is also possible that the world of animation is not the best context in which to view this issue.

We have always preferred to use original titles, even for translated titles. Here the question is if a title used for a few limited theatrical screenings (and later for the Criterion release) can be enough to remove an original theatrical release title? I don't think so. I think we would set a dangerous standard if we decided that a theatrical release title is not good enough for TMDb.

So while I think your argument is very good, my vote is to stick with the old title. This will not in any way stop people (critics, fans, scholars) from using the other title in their communication.

This is a close call so should some other moderator think that the newer title is indeed better, just re-open the discussion and we'll go over it one more round.

(Edit: what could persuade me to go in the other direction is if someone can show that the US theatrical release was very limited or didn't happen at all. There is very little information to be found about that release.)

I recognize I am not owed a coherent counterargument other than an appeal to authority, but — again, respectfully — I'd still like to hear one. All I'm hearing now (especially from your second paragraph) is that TMDb prefers being irrelevant, and surely that can't be your position.

Going through my notes through 1955 (I couldn't bear to go farther, or look too intently), I found several pertinent counterexamples to the policy you described. I'm reluctant to name any of the lesser known titles for fear that actions be taken and they be rendered more obscure. There's a few concerning which I'll hazard a mention.

Rome, Open City (1945) first opened in the States in 1946 under the title Open City; see the Academy Award nomination for best screenplay. But Open City became an obsolete moniker after its initial release, once the title was faithfully rendered. We use these words as a signifier of a foreign object — the dates as well. Rome, Open City (1945) refers to the Italian film Roma città aperta (1945) directed by Roberto Rossellini. It's in English because we're speaking English and that's the English name for it, the way Classe Tous Risques (1960) is the English name of the French crime film Classe tous risques (1960) directed by Claude Sautet. It's the name of the film in English, not the name of its historical release. If you were to revert to the name Open City, would it even make sense to date it to 1945, since that release didn't occur until 1946? The name Open City only makes sense in the context of its 1946 American release. But the movie itself is more than that.

http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/1947

For decades cinephiles have fought for the understanding of the plural title Bicycle Thieves (1948), which is essential to the meaning of the movie. Reverting to the mistranslated title The Bicycle Thief now that the plural has been firmly established would just be stupid (and cruel). You talk about setting a dangerous standard, and so do I — although I have no idea what danger exactly you're concerned about. That a misunderstood label today could be better understood by a future generation?

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9F0CE1DE133CE53ABC4B52DFB4678382659EDE

Akira Kurosawa's Ikiru (1952) was first released in the States as Doomed (1956); see the poster for it. Call it Doomed on TMDb and no one will know what you're doing, nor take the site seriously. Distributors faced challenges selling new, unknown foreign films to American audiences (to pick on my own insular Anglophone country) and not uncommonly misrepresented the works for commercial reasons. The audience's relationship with the film needn't be stuck with that faulty initial introduction. Once its reputation grew (it's truly one of the greatest films ever made) it became possible by 1960 to call the film in English the cryptic but meaningful Ikiru, from the Japanese for 'to live'. I might call a guy Nick when I first meet him because I abbreviate everybody's name. But if I get to know him and learn he only goes by Nicholas, why would I keep insisting on calling him Nick?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FY1Y9o1QAlc/U13tNp9jC_I/AAAAAAAAKZc/5yAQDHyJjtw/s1600/DOOMED+-+American+Poster.jpg http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A0DE1DA143EEF3ABC4850DFB766838B679EDE

Another classic French crime film Touchez pas au Grisbi (1954) was released in the UK in 1956 as Honour among Thieves and in the US in 1959 as Grisbi. Also a Criterion title, it too is commonly known today in English by its idiomatic French name. I think TMDb prefers American titles of non-UK films, but if we're prioritizing what was historically first in English... Ugh, can't we just call the film what it's currently named in English? Is that not how names work? Is that not how language works?

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9802EFD9153CE63BBC4B52DFB1668382649EDE

Those are some excellent examples. I'll take a step back and let someone else decide what to do here. I would be fine with either title.

I'm still waiting for a response here, to whom it may concern.