 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
| Invelos Forums->Posts by ObiKen |
Page:
1 2  Previous Next
|
| Message |
Details |
I don't own the package (715515-297219), however, here are my thoughts:
Yes, it is frustrating, so I would suggest you protect your work investment by bullet-proofing the submission.
As a double-check, I always view the covers in outdoor lighting to get a proper gauge of the colors and contrast, as indoor lighting can give a false impression.
From my experience, writing "adding front and back covers" is not enough ammunition to support the replacement of existing scans.
If the existing cover(s) is web artwork, state it in the submission, for example:
"Replaced existing web artwork (front and back the same) with high resolution scans of actual covers"
If the color, contrast, black-level, white-level, shadow detail, is wrong, state it in the submission and highlight key deficiencies to make it easier for readers to understand why you made the change, for example:
"Current scans exhibit a green cast with inaccurate skin tones and blacks looking like charcoal. The new scans provide more accurate colors, contrast and black-levels, that remediate these issues."
"Existing scans display inaccurate colours (note the green in the title on the front cover and picture borders on the back cover, it should be a darker Army green). Also note the washed-out shadow detail on the front cover (missing details in background mountain range). New high resolution scans of front and back covers with more accurate colours and contrast remediating these issues are submitted for approval."
Hope that helps. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5961 |  | Here are two potential remedies gleaned from past forum discussions on the matter:
Option 1:
Right click the DVDP icon and select "Run as Administrator", click YES option.
OR
Option 2:
Double click the DVDP icon and press the CTRL key down and keep it down until a "Selective Startup" box appears.
Select "Diagnostic Startup" and click OK.
Hope that helps. | Posted: Topic Replies: 10, Topic Views: 9853 | | Quoting Lithurge:
Quote:
Quoting GreyHulk:
Quote:
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
My understanding is the rule for country of origin states to use the production companies in the order they appear in the credits.
Yet, in this case, they are clearly in the wrong order in the credits.
And hasn't it always been the case we follow the rules regardless?
Clearly the film makers thought this was the correct order, regardless of profiler rules or wikipedia.
This is my understanding:
The multilateral "Co-Production" credit in Casino Royale (2006) was a requirement of Article 12 in the "European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production": https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/502395
Article 2 in the convention states a co-production must comprise of at least three (3) co-production companies from three signatory countries of the convention. In addition, a fourth party that is NOT a signatory country of the convention may be added, as long as their contribution is kept below 30% of the film's production cost.
So when I see the credit "A UK - Czech - Ger - US Co-Production", I see the three signatory countries of the convention listed first followed by the non-signatory country.
On the other hand, the listing of production company names in the film's opening/end credits was the sole responsibility of the producer(s), not the "European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production".
Hope that explains the discrepancy. | Posted: Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 13405 | | Quoting Wes Carpenter:
Quote:
Seriously guys? The end credits make a definite and first hand statement about the countries of origin (see the screenshot above), and you want to change that?
My understanding is the rule for country of origin states to use the production companies in the order they appear in the credits. | Posted: Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 13405 | | Based on the sequence of production company names in the opening/end credits and copyright (see NOTES), I would list the companies and country of origin as follows:
STUDIOS
Columbia Pictures Industries
Eon Productions
Danjaq
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
United Kingdom
United States
Czech Republic
Hope that helps.
NOTES:
[1] Film credits and copyright:
00:03:48 > ALBERT R. BROCCOLI'S EON PRODUCTIONS LTD. presents
02:23:38 > Casino Royale © 2006 Danjaq, LLC, United Artists Corporation and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
02:24:21 > A UK - Czech - Ger - US Co-Production
A STILLKING • CASINO ROYALE PRODUCTIONS LTD • CASINO ROYALE US LLC • BABELSBERG FILM CO-PRODUCTION
Made by Eon Productions Ltd. and Casino Royale Productions Ltd.
02:24:27 > RELEASED BY COLUMBIA PICTURES
[2] Production companies in order of appearance:
• EON PRODUCTIONS LTD. ==> (UK): https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/00697555
• DANJAQ, LLC ==> (USA): https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/199701010026
• UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION (USA)
• COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES (USA)
• STILLKING FILMS ==> (Czech): https://filmcommission.cz/en/director/stillking-films/
• CASINO ROYALE PRODUCTIONS LTD ==> (UK): https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05507180
• CASINO ROYALE US LLC ==> (USA): https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/200528710065
• BABELSBERG FILM GmbH ==> (Germany): https://opencorporates.com/companies/de/G1312_HRB8051
[3] Film copyright displayed full company name for release studio tradename "Columbia Pictures":
https://uspto.report/TM/72441192 (rules state not to truncate the company name).
[4] Film's copyright registration (https://uspto.report/copyright/12124053) showed Danjaq, LLC, United Artists Corporation and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. were "employers for hire", that is, they were the authors of the film, which makes them production companies as well. | Posted: Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 13405 | | My understanding is MGM's "VINTAGE CLASSICS" was a collection of classic films from the (1930s-60s), which was used to differentiate it from MGM's "CONTEMPORARY CLASSICS" collection of classic films from the (1960s-90s): https://dvd.fandom.com/wiki/MGM_Contemporary_Classics
• Here is a MGM VHS promo highlighting the two collections for sale (refer 1:22 mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st6NUj3AsCQ&ab_channel=VHSTRADERS
• Here is a MGM "Contemporary Classics" VHS promo (refer 0.55 - 1:02 mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mhpb4MpIrU&ab_channel=retroVHStrailers
The voiceover stated: "MGM Contemporary Classics. What great movies are all about. Collect them all"
Both VINTAGE CLASSICS and CONTEMPORARY CLASSICS were different collections of classic films from MGM's library, and the rules state collections can be considered for the edition field.
The rules do not state the word "Collection" must be part of the edition name. | Posted: Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 8771 | | Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
...
Secondly, nowhere on the cover does it actually say "MGM Vintage Classics". There is a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer logo but it doesn't actually say "MGM" and it's clearly separated from "Vintage Classics".
...
The logo should not be considered as part of the edition.
Some of the earlier VHS tapes that used the same "VINTAGE CLASSICS" title had a MGM/UA logo, for example, "The Apartment":
DVD ==> https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-Jack-Lemmon/dp/B00003CX8V
VHS ==> https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-VHS-Jack-Lemmon/dp/6304308396
Interpreting Metro's "VINTAGE CLASSICS" range is similar to the way we treat STUDIOCANAL's range of "VINTAGE CLASSICS" films: https://vintageclassicsfilm.co.uk/
The only instance I've found where the edition is the logo and text is "20th Century Fox Cinema Archives", not "Cinema Archives". It is actually a registered trademark name: https://uspto.report/TM/85979859 | Posted: Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 8771 | | Quoting trystero:
Quote:
Some of the approved profiles specify Paramount Pictures as the Media Company, while others just use Paramount. I'd like to make them all consistent, but I'm not sure which entry to standardise on. The contribution rules suggest using the name from the logo (Paramount) or the credit block (Paramount Pictures), so there's some ambiguity as to which name is correct.
The rules state: "Some companies (using similar but different names) may serve more than one function. List such companies only once, using the name from the logo."
So what were the multiple company names listed on the back cover that triggered this rule?
I could only find one media company listed (copyrights by Paramount Pictures) at the bottom of the back cover.
In addition, isn't "Paramount" a truncation of "Paramount Pictures"?
The rules state: "Do not abbreviate Studio or Media Company names. e.g, use Universal Pictures not just Universal"
Just my two cents in the ambiguity slot machine. Hope it helps. | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 5915 | |
|
| Invelos Forums->Posts by ObiKen |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |