 |
|
|
|
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
|
|
Identifying Countries of Origin |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 13,199 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Distra: Quote:
Another problem comes up with the new rule, that you have to give sources...
Today, I uploaded nearly 90 profiles, where I added the CoO. Now, some #§*%&s voted for a "No", because I have not given a "Source" for the information.
I understand it when there are such arguable movies as for example "Dance of the Vampires", that was produced by the US and UK according to imdb.
But some people ask for sources for such obvious movies like "Kalifornia", "Dead Alive", "Bride of Re-Animator", ...
I hope those people who voted "No" read this to let them know, how stupid this is... I am sorry, but if all you say in your notes is some variation of 'added CoO', you will not get a 'yes' vote from me. Looking at the 3 titles you listed, I have no clue who the production companies are. If I don't have that information, I can't tell if your contribution is correct or not. Is it really that hard to give the production company name, and where they are located, as documentation?  | | | 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 |
| | Registered: May 9, 2007 |  Posts: 137 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well... I still say this is complicated when it comes to co-productions and I understand how it can be frustrating. However, sources ARE important, even if I've been guilty myself of only typing in the notes 'added CoO', and that where it was only one single country based on the different production companies involved. Why are they important? Well, perhaps because sometimes things are not as obvious as they would seem at first. Taking a quick look into your submitted profile of 'Kalifornia', you'll see there are four production companies involved: PolyGram Filmed Entertainment, based in London, but no longer in operation. Acquired by Universal Pictures in 1999.Propaganda Films, based in LA and founded, according to reporter Sharon Waxman, by David Fincher. They used to produce tons of music videos, which is where Fincher got his start as well as Kalifornia director, Dominic Sena. I believe they no longer operate.Viacom Productions, presumably based in LA, active until 2004, it was part of Viacom, Inc. They changed names in 2006 to New Viacom and own Paramount, MTV, and others.Kouf/Bigelow Productions. Founded by screenwriter Jim Kouf and spouse Lynn Bigelow. If memory serves well, they used to have their offices at the Disney lot at Touchstone Pictures in Burbank. I'm not sure if they still operate. However, Kouf currently is producing 'The Ghost Whisperer' series, which is produced by ABC AND Touchstone Television, so they may still be there.So, as you can see, there's nothing really obvious here. Technically this could be US/UK and not exclusively US, since there was at least ONE UK production company involved. Others would have a different stance/opinion in this. Which is it then? I'm still at a loss, that's why I believe it's important to have at least 3 different fields for CoO. The tricky part in all of this is providing the actual sources, especially dealing with defunct production companies. There is no website for these many of these. It will do no good if I say 'Oh I just know this info', even if I do, because why would all of the other voters believe me? I mean, I suppose I could provide a scan of an official PolyGram Filmed Entertainment letter but really, that wouldn't be very ethical of me. So, what to do? I'm still thinking about it... And thinking... And thinking...  | | | Funny, these cookies don't taste anything like Girl Scouts.
DVD Collection |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 11 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting Distra:
Quote:
Another problem comes up with the new rule, that you have to give sources...
Today, I uploaded nearly 90 profiles, where I added the CoO. Now, some #§*%&s voted for a "No", because I have not given a "Source" for the information.
I understand it when there are such arguable movies as for example "Dance of the Vampires", that was produced by the US and UK according to imdb.
But some people ask for sources for such obvious movies like "Kalifornia", "Dead Alive", "Bride of Re-Animator", ...
I hope those people who voted "No" read this to let them know, how stupid this is...
I am sorry, but if all you say in your notes is some variation of 'added CoO', you will not get a 'yes' vote from me. Looking at the 3 titles you listed, I have no clue who the production companies are. If I don't have that information, I can't tell if your contribution is correct or not.
Is it really that hard to give the production company name, and where they are located, as documentation? Well... yes! At least when you upload 90 profiles. It takes a lot of time to look up a reliable source for every movie. And for the most movies you can guess where it comes from. Kalifornia is unlikely to be produced by a company from the UK, Dead Alive is not yet a movie where Peter Jackson has had international money, Bride... ok, this could be from an international company since Beyond Re-Animator was produced in Spain. I admit that there are movies, that were shot in different countries and you have to look up about it to not give wrong informations. But if you own a title, you most certainly know SOMETHING about it. If there is any doubt about the CoO (Brother by Takeshi Kitano, Japan or USA?; Once upon a time in the West, Italy or USA?), I agree with you to give some source that proves somehow your decision. But it's not necessary EVERY time. | | | | Last edited: by Distra |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 11 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting SailorRipley: Quote:
So, as you can see, there's nothing really obvious here. Technically this could be US/UK and not exclusively US, since there was at least ONE UK production company involved. Others would have a different stance/opinion in this. Which is it then? I'm still at a loss, that's why I believe it's important to have at least 3 different fields for CoO.
Ok, Kalifornia wasn't a good example then although imdb only lists US as production country. edit: Polygram Filmed Entertainment only distributed the movie under the label of Gramercy Pictures in the US according to wikipedia, but produced it according to all movie guide, so whats a good source then?But what you say is exactly the problem, there really should be three different fields for CoO. But then some people will still argue about the order in which the countries are listed...  | | | | Last edited: by Distra |
| | Registered: May 9, 2007 | | Posts: 137 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Distra: Quote:
But then some people will still argue about the order in which the countries are listed... Naaah... That's easy.  ;) | | | Funny, these cookies don't taste anything like Girl Scouts.
DVD Collection | | | | Last edited: by SailorRipley |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 11 |
| | Posted: | | | | But didn't Elmo pay more money than Bert?  | | | | Last edited: by Distra |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Distra: Quote:
... although imdb only lists US as production country. And we all know how accurate IMDB is.  | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 78 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Distra: Quote:
Another problem comes up with the new rule, that you have to give sources...
Today, I uploaded nearly 90 profiles, where I added the CoO. Now, some #§*%&s voted for a "No", because I have not given a "Source" for the information.
I understand it when there are such arguable movies as for example "Dance of the Vampires", that was produced by the US and UK according to imdb.
But some people ask for sources for such obvious movies like "Kalifornia", "Dead Alive", "Bride of Re-Animator", ... I am the (one of these?) #§*%&s who voted with "No" and the reason is simple: You must give a source for every little bit of contribution ( read this). And I must check every contribution before I vote. No source given means a lot of more work for me and in your case suddenly five contributions showed up in my "unvoted pending updates list", all adding a CoO. It's not relevant what imdb or wikipedia says, it's relevant what is shown in the film credits. And there are cases where it's difficult to say, there are cases where it's better to leave the field blank. And I think if you did the research for yourself (looking at the start and end credits, researching where the studios are located, etc.) there would be no problem to give a source for your contributions . Quoting Distra: Quote:
I hope those people who voted "No" read this to let them know how stupid this is... Is it stupid to ask for the source? Especially when you must add it in your contribution notes? Is a "mass upload" of 90 contributions only adding the CoO when some or perhaps even a lot of these profiles need a full audit a sensible behaviour? schizzzo | | | | Last edited: by schizzzo |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 11 |
| | Posted: | | | | At least it is some contribution to the database... I went through my collection and filled this info when it wasn't there. Of course, some profiles may need a full audit. But I don't have the time for it and I think even a small contribution helps. As User richierich said, in the Thread you refered to, right on the frst page: Quote:
Ken/Geri, are we still okay putting just CoO for new country of origin entries, and some form of reasoning/documentation if we are changing existing?
There are still many many CoO's needed to be filled, and i am doing my best adding them especially for non-region 1 releases, but if we were to have to put a lot of documentation for each one then I would have to stop simply for the time factor. | | | | Last edited: by Distra |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | yes... that question was asked... and as far as I can tell.. never answered. So I personally would have to go by the statement Ken made that sources must be added to the contribution notes. I believe if Ken wanted an exception to this he would have said so.
I haven't seen any of your contributions myself. but going by what is said here and going by what ken said.. I too would have voted no if you don't supply sources for your contribution. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,022 |
| | Posted: | | | | I will still stick to what I have been doing, not to be difficult but purely a time factor. On CoO's, there are 'obvious' ones that do not need documentation IMO, but I agree there are plenty that are not clear. It is these which I either keep local now or if there is time add some form of sourcing which i have used. Of course the source can be questioned also Please vote no if you disagree with any of my contributions, I don't jump up and down and fret about the vote (except once when I did apologise later) My aim is simply to help contribute and improve the database, I get it wrong sometimes and have found most users are very helpful in pointing me right when necessary. RR | | |  |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm still convinced that for an international co-production the country of origin should be left blank as long as we do not have a better system. Therefore giving a source for the country of origin is in most cases reasonable. |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 11 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have withdrawn some of my contributions where it is not really that clear. So I apologise calling the "no"-voters "#§*%&s" Yesterday evening I was upset by what we call in Germany "Erbsenzähler" (literal translation: bean counter, but nitpicker seems to be the adequate translation). But you were right. But I also am of the same opinion as richierich, that it is not necessary EVERY time. | | | | Last edited: by Distra |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 78 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Distra: Quote:
I have withdrawn some of my contributions where it is not really that clear.
So I apologise calling the "no"-voters "#§*%&s" No problem  Quote:
Yesterday evening I was upset by what we call in Germany "Erbsenzähler" (literal translation: bean counter, but nitpicker seems to be the adequate translation). But you were right. Yeah I know this feeling very well, but sometimes "Erbsenzählerei" (nitpicking?) is inevitable  And in this case it starts a useful discussion. Quote:
But I also am of the same opinion as richierich, that it is not necessary EVERY time. For me it's not a question to discuss about, it's a thing Ken Cole demand (and I think it's a good thing, even it means more work for us) |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have to agree with schizzzo...
Not a matter of it being obvious... Ken did say he wanted sources for the contributions... it was asked about CoO and not answered... so his previous statement is what we have to go by... so CoO (all CoO) just like everything else must be sourced... at least until Ken says otherwise. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's also worth noting, your contribution notes don't have to be that detailed.
For example, I was adding the coo to the Buffy TV series and all I put was:
"added coo (used Mutant Enemy)"
That to me gives the voters enough info to decide if I used the right company or not. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |