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->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1  Previous   Next
Production Company or Releasing Studio? Vol. 2
Author Message
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributorninso4
Registered: January 16, 2010
Reputation: Highest Rating
Germany Posts: 687
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
One year ago I opened a very similar thread here concerning the difference between releasing studios and production companies.
The question there was answered clearly.
And this post sums up the topic really well:

Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
Usually, at least from what I have seen, it goes as follows:
Quote:

Theatrical Release Studio(s)
            present

                A
    Production Company
          production

Theatrical Release Studios almost always present production companies.


No need for further discussion you would think.
So why did I open this thread?
Now, I have a pending contribution and I'm getting no votes for doing exactly as suggest in the mentioned thread.
The studio credits for Mr. Bean's Holiday:
          Universal Pictures & StudioCanal

                          present

        in Association with Motion Picture Alpha Produktionsgesellschaft (english: production company)

                a Working Title production

          in Association with Tiger Aspects Pictures

From my last thread I would assume that Universal Pictures & StudioCanal are releasing studios, so no CoO entry for these studios.
The current profile lists France(StudioCanal), Germany (Motion Picture Alpha) & the UK (Working Title & Tiger Aspect Pictures) as CoO.
I want to change it into Germany (Motion Picture Alpha) & the UK (Working Title & Tiger Aspect Pictures) as CoO.
The no voters say that France still should be a CoO because StudioCanal is a French production company.
But if this is the case why no CoO entry for the USA? Universal Pictures is clearly an American company.
An if we count every listed studio as production company USA (through Universal) should get the first CoO entry.
So what would do you think?
What are the CoOs for this film?
Think different

Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributordee1959jay
Registered: March 19, 2007
Reputation: Great Rating
Netherlands Posts: 5,847
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I think your intended correction is fine.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributorscotthm
Registered: March 20, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 2,444
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I believe I would list Universal Pictures and StudioCanal as distributors and Working Title Films as the production company, and list Great Britain as the CoO.

Per the credits you list,

Universal Pictures & StudioCanal present...

... a Working Title production

Since there are only three slots to fill there's nothing more to add.

---------------
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributoriPatsa
Zzzzzzz
Registered: March 13, 2007
Sweden Posts: 2,939
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
never mind.
Patrik
 Last edited: by iPatsa
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorAiAustria
Registered: May 19, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Austria Posts: 2,933
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Based on the credits Motion Picture Alpha Produktionsgesellschaft is an associated release company. Therefore Germany should be removed from the CoO also. This means, only UK remains as CoO (for both Working Title and Tiger Aspects Pictures).
List of common name threads - Headshots starting point
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorT!M
User since 6 Dec. 2000
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Netherlands Posts: 6,759
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Looking at the preliminary poll results, it seems that the rules on this point (on most points, really) are in dire need of a thorough rewrite... 
 Last edited: by T!M
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributordee1959jay
Registered: March 19, 2007
Reputation: Great Rating
Netherlands Posts: 5,847
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
... or people could start actually reading and applying them... 
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorT!M
User since 6 Dec. 2000
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Netherlands Posts: 6,759
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting dee1959jay:
Quote:
... or people could start actually reading and applying them... 

As is so often the case, it's not even that people don't read them, it's that they don't understand them, or manage to "interpret" them in wildy different ways. Here, the contribution rules only state this:
Quote:
Enter the country or countries in which the main feature's production company/companies are based, in the order they appear in the credits.

Clearly, as the poll results show, that doesn't suffice: various users interpret that differently. That means it needs to be rewritten. Case in point: apparently many users don't agree that "the main feature's production company/companies" for 'Mr. Bean's Holiday' don't include Universal Pictures, StudioCanal and/or Motion Picture Alpha Produktionsgesellschaft. While I'm sure there are a few users who feel that's entirely obvious, both the poll results and the way the CoO fields are filled in the bulk of the database show that most users don't see it that way. If we want to enforce "don't include theatrical release studios as far as the CoO field is concerned", then why not add a line to that effect to that particular section of the rules? It shouldn't be that hard - just add something like:

Do not include the CoO for the theatrical release studio(s).

A simple line like that would make it (a lot!) easier to "correct" thousands and thousands of incorrectly filled CoO fields.
 Last edited: by T!M
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorAiAustria
Registered: May 19, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Austria Posts: 2,933
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Just a view lines down the rules read:


Can the difference between production and release company be made even clearer?
List of common name threads - Headshots starting point
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorAiAustria
Registered: May 19, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Austria Posts: 2,933
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
... until 2013 it was limited to one single company...
List of common name threads - Headshots starting point
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorT!M
User since 6 Dec. 2000
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Netherlands Posts: 6,759
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
Can the difference between production and release company be made even clearer?

It certainly can, yeah - and it should. Again, as these poll results show, it may be clear to you and me, but it isn't so obvious for many, many users. So yes, the rules need to define this much, much better than they do now.
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorTheMadMartian
Alien with an attitude
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United States Posts: 13,119
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
For ease of use, I would say to just allow the CoO to be based on all of the companies involved...it's how IMDb seems to do it.

For me, it's useless information anyway, so why make it more complicated than it needs to be?  In my opinion, it is far more interesting to know where the movie was filmed, rather than where the production company is based.
No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorT!M
User since 6 Dec. 2000
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Netherlands Posts: 6,759
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
For ease of use, I would say to just allow the CoO to be based on all of the companies involved...it's how IMDb seems to do it.

I could go either way (although that approach would, for instance, result in a lot of films that are very obviously very much purely British films having "United States" listed as their first CoO), but if that's what we want, then again, the contribution rules on this point really need to be rewritten to reflect that.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorAce_of_Sevens
Registered: December 10, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
Posts: 2,990
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
For ease of use, I would say to just allow the CoO to be based on all of the companies involved...it's how IMDb seems to do it.

For me, it's useless information anyway, so why make it more complicated than it needs to be?  In my opinion, it is far more interesting to know where the movie was filmed, rather than where the production company is based.


I don't think that's really the salient information in most cases. Would listing Star Wars, which was made by American and British people for a primarily American and British audience as Tunisian really mean much? I think who it was made by and for are the important info here, not where they shot.
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorTheMadMartian
Alien with an attitude
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United States Posts: 13,119
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:
Quote:
I don't think that's really the salient information in most cases. Would listing Star Wars, which was made by American and British people for a primarily American and British audience as Tunisian really mean much? I think who it was made by and for are the important info here, not where they shot.

It depends on your point of view and the movie in question.  Lord of the Rings was made by a New Zealand company, in New Zealand, for a global audience.  It has an American and New Zealand CoO because New Line had editorial control.  That information, for me, is useless.  What's important, to me, is that it was shot in New Zealand.

In my opinion, in todays global film making economy, the CoO of the production company becomes less and less important...assuming it ever was.
No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar
    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1  Previous   Next