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
Van Helsing (2004): Production studio(s) help
Author Message
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorMikaLove
Knowledge is Power
Registered: May 2, 2009
Reputation: High Rating
Posts: 490
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I'm in the process of doing a complete overhaul of this title, but the credits are a bit dumb.

The movie begins with the animated Universal logo, meaning it could be either "Universal Studios" or "Universal Pictures" (or just "Universal", of course). However on the back cover it says "Universal Pictures".

Apart from that, this is the only studio that is credited, yet still most profiles have studios entered that are probably from a third party site.
Looking like this:
Universal Pictures
Carpathian Pictures
The Sommers Company

IMDb lists:
Production Companies:
Universal Pictures (presents)
The Sommers Company
Stillking Films
Carpathian Pictures (uncredited)

There is actually a credit for "Stillking Films" in the end credits.
"Production services in the Czech Republic provided by"



Does it go into the database? I'm not sure how to interpret "production services".
And if the studio gets a credit, then it also means adding Czech Republic to CoO.
Regardless, I'm sure we don't give credit to studios that don't appear at start or end titles. Or are even listed on the cover.
 Last edited: by MikaLove
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorT!M
Profiling since Dec. 2000
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Netherlands Posts: 8,665
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
I would leave this one at "Universal Pictures" only.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorGSyren
Profiling since 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Sweden Posts: 4,509
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
I would leave this one at "Universal Pictures" only.

Ditto
My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorKluge
Registered: August 4, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Italy Posts: 2,419
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
I would leave this one at "Universal Pictures" only.

Agree
Updated List of Accepted Birth Years
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributordee1959jay
Registered: March 19, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Netherlands Posts: 6,014
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
So would I.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorObiKen
Registered: October 22, 2015
Reputation: Superior Rating
Australia Posts: 257
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Agree that "production services" credit should be ignored.

As this film was made in 2004, the correct studio/production company was Universal Studios, for the following reasons:

1. Film's copyright in end credits at 02:11:19 displayed:
_________________________________________
    COPYRIGHT © 2004 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS
                ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
_________________________________________

2. Film's PG-13 rating listed distributor as Universal Studios:
    https://www.filmratings.com/Search?filmTitle=van+helsing&x=0&y=0
 Last edited: by ObiKen
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorT!M
Profiling since Dec. 2000
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Netherlands Posts: 8,665
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
I would *still* leave it at "Universal Pictures".
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorMikaLove
Knowledge is Power
Registered: May 2, 2009
Reputation: High Rating
Posts: 490
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I can't say I'm convinced why we should have the credit as "Universal Pictures" and not "Universal Studios", since in a way that's what the credits suggest. What's written on the cover always comes second.
Would in this case "distributor" mean "theatrical release company"? In that case it's clear that the credit must be "Universal Studios". It's a huge contradiction to not write what's in the credits.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorObiKen
Registered: October 22, 2015
Reputation: Superior Rating
Australia Posts: 257
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
MikaLove: Totally agree with you, the film's text credits have more credence than the credit blocks on the back cover that was composed by some package designer years, if not decades, after the film was released.

No one has provided verifiable evidence to substantiate that "Universal Pictures" was the Studio involved in 2004.

As per the rules: The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorMikaLove
Knowledge is Power
Registered: May 2, 2009
Reputation: High Rating
Posts: 490
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
While it's absolutely true that "the film's text credits have more credence than the credit blocks on the back cover", the fact is actually in this case, the DVD in hand was released only 4 months (Sept. 29, 2004) after the theatrical premiere (May 7, 2004). So in this case one can assume the studio was in fact called "Universal Pictures", based on that notion. However it's not an argument per se, since... well, the rules that the actual in-movie credits take precedence over written text on the artwork.
However formulating the rules to say "should be the DVD itself" can cause confusion. Since some may argue that the case the disc comes in is also "the DVD". Better to phrase it "should be the movie/feature itself".
Anyway. It seems we haven't reached a consensus and that submitting "Universal Studios" would generate more "no" votes than "yes" votes.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorMikaLove
Knowledge is Power
Registered: May 2, 2009
Reputation: High Rating
Posts: 490
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
So, what's the verdict, peeps?

I think I shall go ahead (when I get more time) and submit "Universal Studios" as the sole production/theatrical release company for this movie and cite the end credits as the source, while of course mentioning that movie credits have precedence over what is written on a cover (since this info can often be incorrect as well, about e.g. audio format, AR, subtitles... anything). Then see where we end up.
or 
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorObiKen
Registered: October 22, 2015
Reputation: Superior Rating
Australia Posts: 257
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting MikaLove:
Quote:
However formulating the rules to say "should be the DVD itself" can cause confusion. Since some may argue that the case the disc comes in is also "the DVD". Better to phrase it "should be the movie/feature itself".


I should have quoted in my previous message the whole paragraph from the rules:
The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.  Please don't submit content from a third party database, and always verify the specifications printed on the cover. In both cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible.

The above paragraph quite clearly distinguishes "the DVD" from the covers/case the DVD comes in, so there should be no confusion. Basing your submission using the film's screen credits from "the DVD", instead of the back cover's film credit specification, is a valid and accurate implementation of the rule.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorMikaLove
Knowledge is Power
Registered: May 2, 2009
Reputation: High Rating
Posts: 490
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
Quoting MikaLove:
Quote:
However formulating the rules to say "should be the DVD itself" can cause confusion. Since some may argue that the case the disc comes in is also "the DVD". Better to phrase it "should be the movie/feature itself".


I should have quoted in my previous message the whole paragraph from the rules:
The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.  Please don't submit content from a third party database, and always verify the specifications printed on the cover. In both cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible.

The above paragraph quite clearly distinguishes "the DVD" from the covers/case the DVD comes in, so there should be no confusion. Basing your submission using the film's screen credits from "the DVD", instead of the back cover's film credit specification, is a valid and accurate implementation of the rule.


I formulated my notes quite well yesterday, ready for my contribution. There should be no doubts about it eventually being approved.
Using the actual movie credits is also the only way to put an end to any confusing or contradicting information. I mean, you could look at the covers for all editions, "research" the Internet about what the studio is or was called, but the movie credits are still the same.
It could be like trying to find out rumors and gossip about what is right or what is wrong. But also having the presumed incident fully documented as it happened as all the evidence you could need. With "the incident" referring to the movie credits.
Etc, etc. In all honesty, after all these years, I don't know why this is even a discussion. It should be crystal clear.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorMikaLove
Knowledge is Power
Registered: May 2, 2009
Reputation: High Rating
Posts: 490
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
As this film was made in 2004, the correct studio/production company was Universal Studios, for the following reasons:

1. Film's copyright in end credits at 02:11:19 displayed:
_________________________________________
    COPYRIGHT © 2004 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS
                ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
_________________________________________


Big oof. I think. I should definitely have included this in my original post! Maybe that could have lessened all the confusion and debate here.
I mean, having looked at the credits so intently and so many times, I knew it was there. Don't remember if I forgot about it or omitted it anyway, but regardless, it's there and that's what matters.
 Last edited: by MikaLove
    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1  Previous   Next