Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

No, I was refering to this: "There is further information about correct listings of studios and media companies,..."

Other than the rules and Ken's posts, exactly where is this further information located?

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

"...and the opportunity to ask questions if unsure, in the Contributions forum."

The forums is a great place to get input and gain insight into how people view and understand the rules. But, the forums only represents a very small part of the community and does not represent the view of the majority.

Although I can't know how many contributions/votes dealt specifically with Studios, very few of them raised any red flags.

I have spent a lot of time doing an inventory and updating my collection. On my 9,000+ contributions I can think of only 2 instances in which there was a problem with my Studio contributions (The Hammer Collection and The Criterion Collection data).

I don't remember there being much disagreement on Studios when I've voted either. But, most of the voters are people whose names I have never seen in the forums.

In any case, this thread like so many others, does not seem to be an issue that has a single definitive answer.

Hopefully Ken will stand by his words and implement a global edit for the evaluators that will directly deal with these issues.

TheMadMartian
Posted: March 4, 2012 11:11 AM           



Quoting apltm:

Quote:
The question is relatively simple (although the answer may not be): how do we enter this studio in DVDProfiler?

We should enter it exactly as it appears in the credits.

TMM you state this in a studio question about StudioCanal , why not with Warner Bros.

Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
I personally cannont give WB Pictures credit for a film that they didn't produce or co-produce, such as many of Clint Eastwood's Malpaso produced films that were released by Warner Bros. and Warner Bros. Pictures did not have a hand in producing (maybe why the on-screen credit is Warner Bros.).

First, the first studio field has nothing to do with who produced or co-produced the film.  It is where the studio that released the film goes.  Sometimes that studio produced, or co-produced, the film.  Sometimes all it did was release it to theaters.

Second, the use of 'Warner Bros.' in the credits indicates nothing as far as production involvement is concerned.  It is just the name they chose to use for their credit.  I have researched the studio and, unless I missed something somewhere, there is no film company named 'Warner Bros.'.  Warner Bros. Pictures, yes...since April 4, 1923...but not just 'Warner Bros.'.

Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
TMM you state this in a studio question about StudioCanal , why not with Warner Bros.

I honestly don't remember my thinking back then but, looking at the thread, it might have had something to do with the fact that the name was always a variation of 'StudioCanal', just with different spacing.  In cases like that, I would go with how it was presented in the credits.

I can't give you a better answer than that as my opinions can, and often do, change over time.  What I can say, however, is I am happy to go with 'as credited' if that is what the community wants...and they can get Ken to change the rule.  Until then, I have to go with 'correct studio names'. 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
TMM you state this in a studio question about StudioCanal , why not with Warner Bros.

I honestly don't remember my thinking back then but, looking at the thread, it might have had something to do with the fact that the name was always a variation of 'StudioCanal', just with different spacing.  In cases like that, I would go with how it was presented in the credits.

I can't give you a better answer than that as my opinions can, and often do, change over time.  What I can say, however, is I am happy to go with 'as credited' if that is what the community wants...and they can get Ken to change the rule.  Until then, I have to go with 'correct studio names'. 

I just think if a company is going to spend millions on a movie, they would put the name that they want associated with it in the credits.

It shouldn't be the community that decides. It depends on what data Invelos wants in the database. Data from film credits or not. It's that simple, it's when you add info that isn't there that causes problems (i.e. Theatrical release studios, media company names that do not match the case, original theatrical titles.

Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
I just think if a company is going to spend millions on a movie, they would put the name that they want associated with it in the credits.

That may well be true, but that has nothing to do with Profiler.  The rule says 'correct' names, not 'credited' names, so that is what I go by.

Quote:
It shouldn't be the community that decides. It depends on what data Invelos wants in the database. Data from film credits or not. It's that simple, it's when you add info that isn't there that causes problems (i.e. Theatrical release studios, media company names that do not match the case, original theatrical titles.

Yes, it is that simple and, as I said before, 'as credited' is the method I prefer for contributions.  Unfortunately...or fortunately depending on your point of view...at the request of the community, Invelos chose to go in a different direction.  It is what it is. 

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Isn't it a pretty tall order to ask a normal DVDP user to know what the "correct" name of a studio is? Even the studios themselves don't always seem to know (is it Lions Gate or Lionsgate, for example).

Yes, but, just like with common names, the normal DVDP user can enter the studio 'as credited'.  What they shouldn't do, however, is change it back once the correct name has been entered.  This issue came up because the user was attempting to do just that.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
There is a big difference between this and common names. With common names you can see both the common name and the credited name. But if the entered, "correct", studio doesn't match the credited studio, you don't get any visual clue.

So, unless it is clearly stated in the contribution notes, the average user will think he's doing the right thing. And even if it is stated, it's real easy to overlook, especially if there are lots of contribution notes.

Even with the visual clue for common names, I have seen many people overlook the fact that their contribution is removing a valid common name so, for me, that is a non-issue.

That being said, your argument isn't with me, as I didn't come up with this concept.  This concept was introduced, in the rules, back in 2005/2006, so your argument is with Ken.  If you, the general you not you specifically, can get Ken to change the rule to say, "Enter the studios as credited in the order credited," I won't fight you on it.