Quoting Merrik:

Quote:
Yes of course it can, my apologies if I implied otherwise (which I think I kind of did although I'm not sure I meant to lol). Using online information of course can be of valuable help when contributing.

And I do appreciate that link very much! 

Thanks for providing it. Always trying to be as in the know as possible about stuff to make the contributions I submit as good as possible.


I hope you don't think I'm being purposely obtuse or argumentative, I'm not trying to be...

The credits say, in multiple places, Presented/Produced/Released by Twentieth Century Fox. If someone wasn't to go literally through every single inch of the credits... how would they know that it could possibly be anything else? They'd look at the opening credits, see Twentieth Century Fox and enter that. And that looks like that's what's been happening since, well... as long as I've been here. Like I said, this is the first time I've ever seen it called into question either on someone else's contribution or mine.

You're welcome Merrik!  And not at all... it's a good discussion to have.

In most cases the theatrical release studio can be found toward the very end of the film credits near the MPAA certificate number.  For example:

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Actually, in most cases, the theatrical release studio can be found in the opening credits, followed by the word 'presents'.  For example, "Twentieth Century Fox presents".

What is found towards the very end of the film credits, near the MPAA certificate number, is the copyright holder which may, or may not, be the same as the theatrical release studio.

So it sounds like there isn't a perfect way to always distinguish the theatrical release studio and production company from the film credits?

What about a Disney film which may state Walt Disney Pictures presents?  Walt Disney Pictures is considered a production company where as Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is considered the distributor.

My apologies to scotthm and rdodolak

I responded to both of you guys in one post on the first page, mixing my response to both of your guys' responses in one single reply.

I don't know what I was reading, but I thought that both replies were from rdodolak.

Even after quoting scotthm and replying to that I didn't see it wasn't rdodolak that had responded. Must have been tired last night.

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
Following the rules it should be sufficient to use the names from the logos.

What name should I use for this studio?



---------------

*edit*

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
Following the rules it should be sufficient to use the names from the logos.

What name should I use for this studio?



---------------

I can't see, why we should use tricky excemptions, to complicate the majority of standard cases.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
I would conclude just the opposite, that most logos are abbreviations of studio names and this fits right in with that model.

That's lovely, except that the contribution rules actually contain the exact opposite model, in which they prioritize "the name from the logo". And yet they also say not to abbreviate studio names. All in all, the rules on the subject are a mess, and it can pretty much be interpreted any way any user wants.

I think no matter how you look at this, the rules on studios really need to redone from the ground up. To do so, we need to know what we want. Unfortunately, we don't all want the same thing. I, personally, have no need for multiple entries for the same studio. I shudder when I look at ateo357's post:

Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
checked my collection - over 300 TCF and less thasn 30 for the other variants (TC-F, TCFFC, TC-FFC, TCFF, TC-FF).

I have one: just Twentieth Century Fox. As such, I can use the "Studios" tab to filter on "Twentieth Century Fox", and it shows me all my "Twentieth Century Fox" films in one fell swoop - without having to check five other name variants. That's how I like it. I also have no problem dealing with that WB-logo: I wouldn't think twice and list that as "Warner Bros. Pictures". Again, that's how I like it, and that's how I intend to keep things in my local database. To each his own, though, which is why I'm guessing it'll be hard to find any kind of consensus on this matter.

Quoting rdodolak:

Quote:
So it sounds like there isn't a perfect way to always distinguish the theatrical release studio and production company from the film credits?

No, there is no perfect way so, if memory serves, it was decided, way back during the Intervocative days, to just copy them in the order they are presented in the credits.  The main reason was for ease of entry as the average user won't want to research, nor do they really care about, the corporate structure of film studios.

Quote:
What about a Disney film which may state Walt Disney Pictures presents?  Walt Disney Pictures is considered a production company where as Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is considered the distributor.

This is actually a good example for the above.  Until recently, most...if not all...films produced by Disney were distributed by a variation of Buena Vista Distribution.  Some users argued, successfully I might add, that because it wasn't a 'studio', it couldn't be entered.  So, again, for ease of entry, and to end the bickering, it was agreed upon to just enter them as listed.

Is it perfect?  No.  Does it convey the information?  I think so.  I mean, honestly, how many people really care that films produced by Twentieth Century Fox are actually released by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation?