| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 21, 2007 |  Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | The following is a conversation I had with someone regarding "A Fish Called Wanda". I would appreciate anyone's views on this:
Me:
Sorry, but I don't think this is clearly a US CoO.
Them:
It was a joint venture, but since we go by theatrical production, it has to go into US. I agree with you, but I am following the rules as written.
Me:
What Rules? I don't believe there are any rules with respect to Country of Origin. However Country of Origin doesn't mean the company that did the distribution in theaters. The companies in this instance who actually produced or originated the film are both Great Britain companies. This is clear.
As an aside, The company that distributes the film in theaters can be a variety of companies throughout the world, therefore I come back to the logical meaning of Country of Origin which means who produced (made) the film originally and from which country do they hail from.
Them:
Production company rules per this:
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=18666
MGM was the primary production company and worldwide distributor. MGM is a US company, so therefore falls under "US" in the database. (note the response from Gerri, Ken's wife)
Me:
Where do you get the information that MGM was the primary production company?
Them:
The film.
Me:
The film states Metro-Goldwynn-Mayer Presents A Michael Shamberg / Prominent Features Production.
This indicates quite strongly that MGM is only presenting NOT producing.
Are you trying to be obtuse?
Them:
Rather than dig up more information that you could certainly do yourself, let's just let your "no" vote stand. One "no" should not stop the correct information from being accepted, despite your arguing simply to argue.
Me:
I thought you would wish to contribute correct information. You must realize that people are just voting yes to the CoO without giving it any real consideration. It is, as I have pointed out, not a U.S. production.
When I bring up an argument and you have nothing to back up your side, your answer is to be dismissive. Well congratulations on this inaccurate contribution.
Them
No, it's accurate. I just dislike arguing pointlessly. | | | | Graham |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting FUBAR: Quote:
The following is a conversation I had with someone regarding "A Fish Called Wanda". I would appreciate anyone's views on this:
Me:
Sorry, but I don't think this is clearly a US CoO.
Them:
It was a joint venture, but since we go by theatrical production, it has to go into US. I agree with you, but I am following the rules as written.
Me:
What Rules? I don't believe there are any rules with respect to Country of Origin. However Country of Origin doesn't mean the company that did the distribution in theaters. The companies in this instance who actually produced or originated the film are both Great Britain companies. This is clear.
As an aside, The company that distributes the film in theaters can be a variety of companies throughout the world, therefore I come back to the logical meaning of Country of Origin which means who produced (made) the film originally and from which country do they hail from.
Them:
Production company rules per this:
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=18666
MGM was the primary production company and worldwide distributor. MGM is a US company, so therefore falls under "US" in the database. (note the response from Gerri, Ken's wife)
Me:
Where do you get the information that MGM was the primary production company?
Them:
The film.
Me:
The film states Metro-Goldwynn-Mayer Presents A Michael Shamberg / Prominent Features Production.
This indicates quite strongly that MGM is only presenting NOT producing.
Are you trying to be obtuse?
Them:
Rather than dig up more information that you could certainly do yourself, let's just let your "no" vote stand. One "no" should not stop the correct information from being accepted, despite your arguing simply to argue.
Me:
I thought you would wish to contribute correct information. You must realize that people are just voting yes to the CoO without giving it any real consideration. It is, as I have pointed out, not a U.S. production.
When I bring up an argument and you have nothing to back up your side, your answer is to be dismissive. Well congratulations on this inaccurate contribution.
Them
No, it's accurate. I just dislike arguing pointlessly. I'm fairly certain MGM owns the distribution rights to this movie. Where it was filmed actually has nothing to do with the country of origin. If it did, filming "on location" would soon cease as a viable option for studios. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
 | johnd | | Evening, poetry lovers. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 298 |
| | Posted: | | | | http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/bd70a36ea6ff328bd8b4868c250f34c0/compdetailsInteresting that IMDB lists this as a US company, when it clearly isn't. I've come across a number of COO submissions where the submitted profile says US when the film clearly isn't a US production. I would guess that some of the confusion would come from the Studio priority list in the contribution rules, which gives a higher priority to the releasing company than the one that actually made the film. This rule obviously requires revision. You are correct in that there is no rules around COO at the moment. At the moment there seems to be a revisionist tendency for US profile contributors to "claim" films as their own, particularly the higher profile films. This is apparent for ones such as the LOTR trilogy, which is clearly a New Zealand production, not a US production. Of course, this may be triggered by the perception that supplying the money, even in retrospect, somehow buys you the artistic integrity of the film. What an interesting notion..... | | | | Last edited: by johnd |
|
| johnd | | Evening, poetry lovers. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 298 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
I'm fairly certain MGM owns the distribution rights to this movie. ...which does not make it a US production. I can buy the distribution rights to Casablanca (with the bucket of money under my desk  ), but it doesn't make it an Australian production. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting johnd: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
I'm fairly certain MGM owns the distribution rights to this movie.
...which does not make it a US production. I can buy the distribution rights to Casablanca (with the bucket of money under my desk ), but it doesn't make it an Australian production. No, of course not. You can't change it after the fact. Wanda was made by an American company - a legal entity of the state of California. It made the movie on location as I recall, at least in part. In any case, if you roll the end credits, at the very end it should tell you what the country of record is production wise. That information has to be in every movie I believe. For example: I have 'Bad Boy II' in the DVD-ROM. From the end credits: Copyright 1995 Columbia Picture Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Columbia Pictures is the author of this film (motion picture) for the purpose of copyright and other laws.This picture made under jurisdiction of IATSE (union logo) affiliated with A.F.L.-C.I.O.-C.L.C.This motion picture photoplay is protected pursuant to the provisions of the laws of the United States of America and other countries. Any unauthorized duplication and/or distribution of this photoplay may result in civil liability and criminal prosecution.All that means that legally, it was made in the US, and any monkeying around will get you hauled into US courts to face prosecution. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 21, 2007 | | Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | Does this mean that since Sony is Japanese that all films owned by Sony are Japanese. I don't think so.
My point is that at the beginning of the movie it states: Metro-Goldwynn-Mayer Presents A Michael Shamberg / Prominent Features Production. This means that MGM presented the movie but didn't make it. The two companies that did make it are British. Therefore CoO is United Kingdom. | | | | Graham |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi Fubar,
I was all ready to come to your defence, unfortunately with the info I've been able to dig up as far as I can tell both Michael Shamberg and Prominent Features are US based, so I'm afraid the coo does turn out to be US in this case.
Had they been UK based I would have agreed with you, it's been stated on other forums that it's the country of the production company that's needed. I think there's quite a few people out there who don't realise all the different kinds of companies involved in making a film. Just because MGM stumped up the cash does not make them the production company, they're the distributor and yes, they may even be the copyright holder of the film, but they're not the production company. |
|
| johnd | | Evening, poetry lovers. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 298 |
| | Posted: | | | | Check the link in my previous post. Prominent Features is certainly a UK company. |
|
| johnd | | Evening, poetry lovers. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 298 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
No, of course not. You can't change it after the fact. Actually, most distibution deals as done after the film is made. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi johnd, my apologies - I missed that link, and most of the google results were about people's faces! In that case - go UK!!!  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting FUBAR: Quote:
Does this mean that since Sony is Japanese that all films owned by Sony are Japanese. I don't think so.
My point is that at the beginning of the movie it states: Metro-Goldwynn-Mayer Presents A Michael Shamberg / Prominent Features Production. This means that MGM presented the movie but didn't make it. The two companies that did make it are British. Therefore CoO is United Kingdom. Did you not read the copyright notice I posted? That makes the ownership clear. What does it say at the end of the 'Wanda' credits? That takes legal precedence over what's shown at the beginning. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | John, it was mentioend by Gerri, that the intent for the field is to use the country where the Production Company is from, not the copyrright holder; not sure, but doesn't that even change over the years, as Studios sell their films and/or can be different for different countries?
Using Bad Boys as an example is basically fine, nut now somebody would need to lookup the A Fish Called Wanda. | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
I'm fairly certain MGM owns the distribution rights to this movie. Are you sure that MGM owns the distribution rights world wide? Or just the rights in the USA? Anyways distribution has nothing to do with production. And in my opinion the country of origin is defined by the first production company credited. |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,738 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ya_shin: Quote:
the intent for the field is to use the country where the Production Company is from, not the copyrright holder Correct! So the CoO for 'A Fish Called Wanda' should be UK. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 188 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Correct! So the CoO for 'A Fish Called Wanda' should be UK. Why's that? A Fish Called Wanda is listed as being produced by two production companies (Shamberg/Prominent). The one listed first is US, and the one listed second is UK. Why would that make it UK? Seems to me that the one listed first should take priority. Why would you prioritize the second one listed? | | | | Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire and you keep him warm the rest of his life. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 793 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHFactor: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Correct! So the CoO for 'A Fish Called Wanda' should be UK.
Why's that? A Fish Called Wanda is listed as being produced by two production companies (Shamberg/Prominent). The one listed first is US, and the one listed second is UK. Why would that make it UK? Seems to me that the one listed first should take priority. Why would you prioritize the second one listed? Isn't there only one production company (Prominent Features)? Michael Shamberg is just the producer isn't he? |
|