Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
We do not list the parent companies, we list the production arms.

I planned not to post in this thread anymore, but this I've got to object to!! You state this like it's a fact, yet the rules say nothing of the kind - this is nothing more than a personal preference!

I think we all agree that Giga Wizard's example isn't the best one to base this discussion on - I'm starting to feel glad I don't own any of these four titles. Just to make my point a bit clearer, I suggest we use a more generic example, like Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast'. Here's what I feel are the "correct studio names" as they should be entered:

Walt Disney Pictures (from the opening credits, and it's in the preceding logo as well)
Silver Screen Partners IV (from the opening credits)
Buena Vista Home Entertainment (DVD distributor)

That's what I consider 100% correct, and in line with the contribution rules. However, your insistence to use the "production arms" would probably result in you using the name Disney Enterprises, Inc. as shown at the very end of the end credits - that being the actual "production arm" that the movie is copyrighted to.

IMHO, that is exactly why the rules are worded the way they are: here we are not supposed to use the name of whatever little subsidiary company that was set up to deal with a specific production, in this case Disney Enterprises, Inc., but we use the "correct name" Walt Disney Pictures. And that is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. The upside of doing so, as noted before, is that DVD Profiler can show us a list of the Walt Disney Pictures in our collections. Using the "production arm", which is indeed likely to change for each movie, only results in breaking that functionality. Every source in the world lists, say, both 'Sleeping Beauty' and 'Beauty and the Beast' as "Disney"-films - not in the least disney.com itself. Why should we be the only ones to store them under slightly differently named "production arms"? IMHO, this is exactly why the rules are worded the way they are.

I'd have to do some research, but the same could very well apply to your Marvel Entertainment Group / Marvel Entertainment / Marvel Enterprises / Marvel Studios example. As of yet, I can report that I'm certainly using one studio entry for the Marvel movies in my collection. At the very least, it seems appropriate to use one studio entry for the Marvel films listed on www.marvel.com/movies - that's what I feel the rules tell us to do. The upside of which, again, is that DVD Profiler can show me a list of their movies in my collection. Just as the official Marvel-website I linked to does, actually: why should we try to be "holier than the pope"? If the official Marvel-website lists them all together, why shouldn't we? Again, as with Disney, why should we be the only ones to store them under slightly differently named "production arms", while they don't even do so themselves?

Again, the "we list the production arms" comment is not supported at all by the rules, and I feel the phrase "correct names for studios" and the subsequent suggestion to go to the forums if you're unsure actually suggest quite the opposite.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
As with everything else we list what we see

Again, the phrase "correct names for studios", and the fact that we're being referred to the forums if we're unsure, does NOT ring "list what we see". It would have been so easy to have the rules tell us to enter the studios "as we see them", but it seems a conscious decision has been made not to. You may choose to disregard that, but I can't. I repeat: if we were to enter studios exactly as credited under all circumstances, the rules would have said so. But they don't, and quite rightly so. IMHO, the rules are expressly written (or amended by Ken) to prohibit us from using "production arms" like Disney Enterprises in favor of using Walt Disney Pictures.

How do you have 'Beauty and the Beast' listed? The profile in your on-line collection seems to indicate 'Walt Disney Pictures' - I'm glad to see that, although production company 'Silver Screen Partners IV' seems to be missing... The latter is what I find ironic in this entire discussion: here we're heatedly debating the studios field, while in reality this must be the worstly filled-out sections in the entire database: most profiles still just list a DVD distributor and nothing else, or even some abbreviated form of it (just "Disney" or "Universal"). Here again: even this widely-owned Platinum Edition of 'Beauty and the Beast' misses production company 'Silver Screen Partners IV', while it's listed in HUGE letters at the very start of the movie. There obviously is a really long way to go as far studios are concerned, and apparently things are hard enough for the users as it is. The false insinuations that we're to use "production arms" and list everything as we see it without any exceptions doesn't help at all.

I'd venture a guess and say that 98% of the DVD Profiler userbase is not interested at all in eighteen different "production arm" names of various Disney subsidiaries, nor in four slightly differently named Marvel "production arms" as well.

No red arrow from me: I use them very sparingly. Look: the problem is very simple. All this talk of yours about entering studios "as credited" leads to people entering "Disney Enterprises" because that's what the actual copyright says - I've seen it happen time and time again, and I've pointed to the rules (use "correct names for studios") to convince them to change/correct/witdraw their contribution. Successfully, I might add. Again: I blame posts like yours in this thread for this, and that's why I feel the need to counter them. Maybe it got a bit too specific allowing you to get me on on a technicality, but that's really besides the point. The problem still stands: if a few users keep repeating that we're to enter what we see, than people will indeed enter Disney Enterprises. I'l happily stay out of these things as long as I don't see you making blanket statements of which I know from frequent experience that they will lead to problems.

I don't care which is the parent and which is the subsidiary, as long as we all agree that we're just to use "Walt Disney Pictures" in DVD Profiler, even though Disney Enterprises is (also) seen on screen. It's clear that you and I agree on this one, and I'm glad about that, but again: there are quite a few users that would have used your posts in this thread to justify entering Disney Enterprises - and that's what I have a problem with. That's why I keep countering such posts.

Again, I'm perfectly happy with the rules as they are: we use the "correct name" studio name, disregarding minor credit variations. Mostly, that "correct name" will be listed in the opening credits, but sometimes the "correct name" will only be seen with the preceding logo, or at the very end of the end credits. In certain cases, it may be even be necessary to use outside sources to determine that "correct name", and we can go to the forums if we're unsure.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
No red arrow from me: I use them very sparingly. Look: the problem is very simple. All this talk of yours about entering studios "as credited" leads to people entering "Disney Enterprises" because that's what the actual copyright says - I've seen it happen time and time again, and I've pointed to the rules (use "correct names for studios") to convince them to change/correct/witdraw their contribution. Successfully, I might add. Again: I blame posts like yours in this thread for this, and that's why I feel the need to counter them. Maybe it got a bit too specific allowing you to get me on on a technicality, but that's really besides the point. The problem still stands: if a few users keep repeating that we're to enter what we see, than people will indeed enter Disney Enterprises. I'l happily stay out of these things as long as I don't see you making blanket statements of which I know from frequent experience that they will lead to problems.

If people are entering the name from the copyright notice, then they doing it wrong and don't understand what 'as credited' means.

When I say to enter the studo 'as credited' I mean to enter the name as it is seen in, either, the opening or closing credits.  In the vast majority of cases, the correct production and distribution companies are listed there.

Quote:
I don't care which is the parent and which is the subsidiary, as long as we all agree that we're just to use "Walt Disney Pictures" in DVD Profiler, even though Disney Enterprises is (also) seen on screen. And the same goes for many other studio name variants as well: the rules tell us to use the "correct name" studio name, disregarding minor credit variations.

Please show me where, in the rules, it says to disregard minor credit variations?  I have read that rule more times than I can count and have yet to see it.  This is your interpretation that seems to be based on the fact that you don't like name variations.

Quote:
Mostly, that "correct name" will be listed in the opening credits, but sometimes the "correct name" will only be seen with the preceding logo, or at the very end of the end credits. In certain cases, it may be even be necessary to use outside sources to determine that "correct name".

And in those rare cases, someone who is unsure should come to the forums to find out.  For everything else, minor name variations included, they should enter them 'as credited'.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Then I had it backwards.  I am a studio buff.  The farther up you go in the corporate structure, the less interested I become.  Sorry for the mistake. 

Then you already noticed that Cine Grande Corporation aka Muraglia/Sladek Films are not studios but producer credits, it seems that Cine Grande Corporation also is the copyright holder of the 4 movies.

I wouldn't call it a mistake, Unicus, as much as a slight change in terminology for clarity. In the case of Disney I would hate to have to try and draw an org chart for them, they have so many fingers in literally everything, including Reedy Creek Construction. They are all over the place and in everything, this was done by Walt many years ago. When he went out on his own, he learned the hard way to control everything himself, this was because Universal retained ownership of Oswald after he left the Studio, and then his disagreement with RKO over distribution led to the creation Buena Vista Distribution. I am almost surprised the Disney didn't buy Bombardier, so that they would also totally control the Monorail system.

Skip

I would not enter them.  The copyright holder is not the same as the studio.  As an example, every film put out by Universal Pictures has a copyright for Universal Studios.  We don't enter Universal Studios because it is not the studio.

I would, however, enter the full name 'Rhombus Media'...assuming this is the same company.