 |
|
|
|
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 2 3 4 5  Previous Next
|
|
CoO of American Werewolf in London |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lopek: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
'May also' is inclusive, not exclusive. It means that a production company can wear many hats at the same time as it deems necessary. And THAT means you can't exclude New Line from being the production company for LOTR, etc.
I don't believe anyone ever has. But WingNut remain the main production company of the films. Baloney. Wingnut just showed up for work. They didn't put up any of the money or take any of the risk, New Line did all that. They were contractors, nothing more. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
The problem we have is the field doesn't allow for joint production credit.
I completely agree. I have never denied that of course it should be "NZ/US" as CoO. The problem is we can't and I'm of the opinion that it's the company that did the bulk of the production work that gets the credit.
And of course there are a lot of European co-productions out there that are going to get even more complicated!
PS I have to admit I read the Wikipedia quote differently. To me it reads that a production company "may also" raise the money for a film, but that it's not necessary for them to do that to be a production company.
And as for all the meetings with New Line, if you'd given a bloke $300 million wouldn't you keep tabs on what he was spending it on? I've worked with commissioning editors from tv channels who have been very hands-on (ie. interfering!) but it still didn't make the tv channel a production company.
To put it briefly (too late), yes New Line should be listed in the CoO, but alongside WingNut, not instead of. Except that without New Line and its money, Wingnut wouldn't even be there at all. That puts them beholden to New Line and in second place. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Baloney. Wingnut just showed up for work. They didn't put up any of the money or take any of the risk, New Line did all that. They were contractors, nothing more. Did you even bother to read the history of the production that Unicus69 kindly contributed? WingNut were involved long before New Line. WingNut did all the work, New Line were a glorified piggy bank! To use your analogy, if I put loads of money into a building firm, would I suddenly become a builder? Who would you trust to build your house, me or the firm? |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,328 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Baloney. Wingnut just showed up for work. They didn't put up any of the money or take any of the risk, New Line did all that. They were contractors, nothing more. John, By your reasoning, is CoO for Spider-Man 3, Japan? Columbia Pictures and Marvel Entertainment is making the picture, but Sony owns Columbia Pictures and is putting up the money for the picture. | | | | My Home Theater | | | | Last edited: by xradman |
|  | JonM | | Registered 28 Dec 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 343 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Baloney. Wingnut just showed up for work. They didn't put up any of the money or take any of the risk, New Line did all that. They were contractors, nothing more. Each LoTR film was well over three hours. That alone tells you it was a financiers nightmare. I bet Wingnut fought them constantly to keep it the way they wanted, and I also bet that if they rolled over, each film would have been under two hours and we would still be waiting for part 3. Allow me to be flippant and loose with the facts for a moment!  History has shown that if producers had their way every time: Citizen Kane wouldn't have been completed. The Godfather would have had pure American actors. Toy Story 2 would have gone straight to video. Peter Jackson wouldn't be directing The Hobbitt. Oh, hold on...  And if only the creative forces had more clout: Alien 3 would have been good. Touch of Evil would not have been mangled. Hitchcock wouldn't have been in a stranglehold for so many years. Disney animators would have a job for life. John Woo might have made American films without being castrated. I know it's not as black and white as all this, but you want to credit the accountants whose decisions are dictated by money, not art? Add thousands of miles into the equation and you can pretty much guarantee the local creative production side is in full control and should therefore be credited in CoO. | | | Jon
"When Mister Safety Catch Is Not On, Mister Crossbow Is Not Your Friend."
 | | | | Last edited: by JonM |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting xradman: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
Baloney. Wingnut just showed up for work. They didn't put up any of the money or take any of the risk, New Line did all that. They were contractors, nothing more.
John,
By your reasoning, is CoO for Spider-Man 3, Japan? Columbia Pictures and Marvel Entertainment is making the picture, but Sony owns Columbia Pictures and is putting up the money for the picture. No, Sony didn't put up an money. They may own Columbia, but Columbia still operates autonomously, and they put up the money. Sony isn't even a production company, its a giant holding company. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,328 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
No, Sony didn't put up an money. They may own Columbia, but Columbia still operates autonomously, and they put up the money. Sony isn't even a production company, its a giant holding company. Are you sure about that? As I understand it, Columbia Pictures is not an independent entity, but more like a brand for Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc (SPEI). Head of Columbia Pictures, Jeff Blake is a vice chairman of SPEI and reports directly to the chairman of SPEI, Michael Lynton. Now you may want to say that SPEI is an American company, since it's headquartered in Culver City, CA, but it's a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony conglomerate, and any and all profits go back to Japan. So, anyway you cut it, it's Japanese money that funded Spider-Man movie franchise and any corporate profits from these movies headed back to Japan. | | | | My Home Theater |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting xradman: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
No, Sony didn't put up an money. They may own Columbia, but Columbia still operates autonomously, and they put up the money. Sony isn't even a production company, its a giant holding company.
Are you sure about that? As I understand it, Columbia Pictures is not an independent entity, but more like a brand for Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc (SPEI). Head of Columbia Pictures, Jeff Blake is a vice chairman of SPEI and reports directly to the chairman of SPEI, Michael Lynton.
Now you may want to say that SPEI is an American company, since it's headquartered in Culver City, CA, but it's a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony conglomerate, and any and all profits go back to Japan.
So, anyway you cut it, it's Japanese money that funded Spider-Man movie franchise and any corporate profits from these movies headed back to Japan. I don't what world you guys live in, but in the world *I* live in, legalities matter. Sometimes, the path to enlightenment is convoluted and obscure, but legalities ultimately rule, nonetheless. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | JonM | | Registered 28 Dec 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 343 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
I don't what world you guys live in, but in the world *I* live in, legalities matter. Sometimes, the path to enlightenment is convoluted and obscure, but legalities ultimately rule, nonetheless. No, you're right. Legalities do matter when the copyright ownership is threatened in some manner. I'm threatening nothing; I own the DVD and wish to track it in the best way possible. That means interpreting the data, not repeating it verbatim. | | | Jon
"When Mister Safety Catch Is Not On, Mister Crossbow Is Not Your Friend."
|
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting JonM: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
I don't what world you guys live in, but in the world *I* live in, legalities matter. Sometimes, the path to enlightenment is convoluted and obscure, but legalities ultimately rule, nonetheless.
No, you're right. Legalities do matter when the copyright ownership is threatened in some manner. I'm threatening nothing; I own the DVD and wish to track it in the best way possible. That means interpreting the data, not repeating it verbatim. And interpretation invites, no... compells personal preference to raise its ugly head. If there's anything you guys should've learned by now, it's that nothing is writ in stone in Hollywood. Just because it doesn't fit in some nice little box of a definition, doesn't mean that some company should be given credit or not given credit. All kinds of weird configurations, one time shots, cooperatives, conveniences take place that muddy the waters for miles around. Because of that, absent an ironclad definition of CoO, this field is useless because it is subject to personal preference at every turn. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | JonM | | Registered 28 Dec 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 343 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
And interpretation invites, no... compells personal preference to raise its ugly head. If there's anything you guys should've learned by now, it's that nothing is writ in stone in Hollywood. Just because it doesn't fit in some nice little box of a definition, doesn't mean that some company should be given credit or not given credit. All kinds of weird configurations, one time shots, cooperatives, conveniences take place that muddy the waters for miles around.
Because of that, absent an ironclad definition of CoO, this field is useless because it is subject to personal preference at every turn. That's where the pedantic nature of this community can go too far. We spend hours ensuring the data is as 'accurate' as possible and for what? Who are we pleasing if the data means nothing at the local end? I would use CoO for a quick interpretation of my local data to see how many films I have of a particular nationality. I can't think of any time I would be interested in knowing who owns the copyright. How geeky would I look if a mate came round and I offered him a report sorted by "those who own the legal rights to the presentation"?  Personal preference is not ugly. It's what drove you to buy the DVD and choose to catalogue it. I recognise that there have to be strict rules to ensure the master db is uniform, but this is ridiculous! This problem will usually only affect non-US films and ironically, that's why it should be a useful field! | | | Jon
"When Mister Safety Catch Is Not On, Mister Crossbow Is Not Your Friend."
|
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,594 |
| | Posted: | | | | Here is my 2 cents regarding CoO: WHO GIVES A RAT'S A$$ Either make CoO a local/Non-Contibutable field or better yet scrap it. Just my 2 cents  . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 278 |
| | Posted: | | | | Already it's proving to be more trouble than it's worth. The only way it's going to work is if multiple countries can be accepted. | | | | Guns don't kill people. Hammers do. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 940 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Here is my 2 cents regarding CoO:
WHO GIVES A RAT'S A$$
Either make CoO a local/Non-Contibutable field or better yet scrap it. Just my 2 cents . I think that looks more like $2 worth to me Max. | | | | Kevin |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kevin Coed: Quote:
Already it's proving to be more trouble than it's worth. The only way it's going to work is if multiple countries can be accepted. I don't think the situation and disagreement is that bad, and certainly not enough to make it more trouble than it's worth... yet. From what I can see there is a pretty strong concensus that the CoO should be that of the principal production company that made the film. There only seems to be one person who thinks that money should define everything. Clearly we still need to find a way to define the principal production company in a consistant way, but from what I have seen that discussion has not really happened - as we are constantly dragged back to the copyright vs production company discussion. | | | Andy 
"Credited as" Names Database |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kevin Coed: Quote:
Already it's proving to be more trouble than it's worth. The only way it's going to work is if multiple countries can be accepted. They way it stands now, I completely agree. The field is far too inflexible to be of any use. We definitely need multiple countries! Here's an example of why: The film "Bathory" has 4 production companies involved: one in Slovakia, one in Hungary, one in the UK and one in the Czech Republic! Who do we use for CoO? (Don't worry, it's not out on DVD yet, so we have time! ) |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |