| Message |
Details |
Just for completeness, there is another variation of the name:
William Mc Caughey ==> The Goodbye Girl, The Chicken Chronicles.
Here is the end credit for "The Goodbye Girl" which show his credit (at 1:31 mark) as "William Mc Caughey, C.A.S.":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3P2mrblZVY&ab_channel=ImmortalityMovieMusicOriginalsoundtrack
In addition, there are five profiles for "The Goodbye Girl" in the online database, with four out of five profiles with "credited as" [William Mc Caughey]:
==> William McCaughey [William Mc Caughey]
5-051893-024180 (Spain)
012569-504820 (United States)
883929-155392 (United States)
888574-453145 (United States)
==> William McCaughey
FC30-8627-022A-0CFB (Canada) | Posted: Topic Replies: 40, Topic Views: 11851 |
 |
I have not voted yet because, whilst I agree that the rules do not prohibit the entry of cast extras, I don't want to add potentially 300+ credited cast extras in a profile (for example, a crowd-funded movie with FAN EXTRAS).
And yes, the fan extras did receive group role names, such as:
- Eaten by a Dinosaur
- Killed by Dinosaur in Close-Up
- Killed by a Dinosaur
- Flee from Dinosaur Attack
- Evil Reptilians
and so on.
Or do we exclude FAN EXTRAS from this poll (a fan was just an ordinary citizen, not an actor)? | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 5083 |
|
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
"48 HRS." is a registered trade mark by Paramount Pictures Corporation:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=74014418&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Here is a specimen example from the trademark registration:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn74014418&docId=SPE20110622140520&linkId=7#docIndex=6&page=1
Please note the title for the sequel is displayed as "Another 48 HRS."
Updated the links to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 7172 |
|
Suggest you edit yor contribution and add the following 4K review for verification in the accuracy of your scans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jH9NWyK-ig&ab_channel=TwinFlicks
Key time stamps are:
0:16 (front cover)
0:20 (back cover)
0:26 (front and back cover)
1:00 (back cover)
1:20 (front cover) | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 6628 |
|
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: 6628 |
|
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: 10906 |
|
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: 14602 |
|
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: 14602 |
|
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: 14602 |
|
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: 9356 |
|