Quoting ObiKen:

Quote:
There is one fundamental rule for movie production:
  NO money ==> NO movie

We all get that, obviously. However, your post about Screen Australia also states:

Quote:
For Tier 1 (largest funder): Screen Australia and [other Tier 1 funders] present

There, you're saying that the company/companies that are "Presenting" the movie is/are actually the "largest funder(s)". So on one hand, you're arguing that Company C in "Company A and Company B present, in association with Company C, a Company D production" should be considered a production company, because they've provided funding, yet you're excluding Company A and Company B because they merely "Present" the movie. But at the same time, you provide post stating that the companies listed as "Presents" are actually the largest funders. In that case, why does "providing funding" qualify Company C, but not Company A and Company B? You're saying that the "2nd largest" funder qualifies, but the "largest funder" does not? I don't really understand that.

To, me there's still a difference between "Company A presents, in association with Company B, a Company C production" on one hand, and "Company A presents a Company B production, in association with Company C" on the other hand. You feel they're exactly the same?

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
But "financed in association by" doesn't immediately cut it, IMHO. Thoughts?

You mean that governmental agencies that give tax breaks for filming in their jurisdictions aren't included as production companies?

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

T!M, re your post on 2nd March:

My initial interpretation for CoO was made before finding the Screen Australia screen credit document, and in hindsight, I'm starting to wonder whether some of the theatrical release studios/companies are, in fact, production companies as well.

The point of the Screen Australia document was to illustrate what a particular government film investment agency does to obtain credit for their contribution. I neither stated nor implied it was a reference framework used by other companies.

Using Screen Australia's credit policy to interpret the opening credits would be valid if one of the hypothetical companies in your example was Screen Australia. So if you find a movie with Screen Australia credited as a production company, you have a reference to make some sense of the credits.

But what I found educational from this document was that:
- screen credit billing (pecking order) was based on financial funding levels and,
- different credit attributes were used to signify relative levels of financial contribution.


For those who still find it difficult to accept investment companies as production companies, check out this IMDb help screen on Companies data: (https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/industry-professional/companies-data/GM45NQ429VURNCSG?ref_=helpms_helpart_inline#)

Scroll down till you find the section titled "Production companies" and you will note the following line:
'Production companies include all financing entities. Common variants, like "in association with" or "participating" can be noted as attributes.'


So my revised interpretation for your original example is:
Company A = Theatrical Release Studio (and may or may not be a production company*)
Company B = Theatrical Release Studio (and may or may not be a production company*)
Company C = Production Company
Company D = Production Company

So CoO could potentially be A*, B*, C and D (in that order, as per the rules).

* subject to verification using other screen credits (pre-opening, end) or reputable reference(s).

I'm still thinking about the verification process and I'm open to suggestions.

Quoting ObiKen:

Quote:
Here's a suggestion, can we use the animated company logos before the opening credits to verify the company is a production company?

No.

On one hand the logos are not comprehensive and on the other hand - at least here in Europe - they include distributors (nearly every time) and media distributors (depending on the company). They are completely arbitrary.

From my point of view producing a film and funding a film are different jobs. Therefore I am pretty fine with the current rule set, telling us to use the production companies origin for the CoO (otherwise a significat part of the films today would get China as a CoO, because a Chinese company was involved in funding the production). ... and therefore I would drop any co/associate/affiliate/... companies

Consulting the IMDb is often a good first aproach. But taking in account how often the IMDb data is blatantly wrong, I would not accept the IMDb to prove any fact. Keep in mind how little effort it takes to amend the data in the IMDb - they don't have effective control mechanisms to prevent nonsense from creeping into the data base and they don't even document how the nonsense crept in

Seems to me there is some misconception of what is a film production company?

What is the connection between a film production company and a film investment company?

Historically, a key task performed by an independent production company was securing funds for the movie production. The funds covered all facets of film production, from development, pre-production, production (principal photography), post-production and distribution.  Acquiring finances and trading off components of the film's revenue stream was an on-going and complex task for the producer.

Typically in the past, an independent production company would secure funds using either its own money (from profits earned in previous productions) or obtain funds using debt finance (loans), equity finance (cash) or selling distribution rights (domestic and international). Either way, the company ended up exposing themselves to financial risk.

Over the last twenty to thirty years, film financing has become more complex, with large investment companies targeting movies for investment.

To mitigate risk, the large investment companies would enter a deal with a big studio to fund not just one movie, but a slate of movies of around 10-40 movies over a period of several years. Investors were either PASSIVE (use my money, no questions asked) or ACTIVE (use my money and I will question how it is used).

As a result, studios acquired several production companies as subsidiaries, whose job was to develop ideas, stories and scripts for movies and if green-lit by the studio, be given the funds (from the studio and investment company) to produce it.

So in-house production companies (a subsidiary company to the studio) had a significant advantage over independent production companies because their time spent in securing funds was essentially eliminated, and producers were freed up to focus on other production plans and activities.

Investment company(s) had, in effect, performed a key production company task, and as a consequence, are acknowledged in the credits as a production company with the attribute "in association with" to denote their financial role in the production process.

The Wikipedia link from DJ Doena and the IMDb rule for Production companies link from me, both corroborate companies with the credit attribute "in association with" as production companies.  No one has repudiated these links as invalid.

The significance of not having to secure funds for each movie production was significant for the producers of WORKING TITLE, a subsidiary production company owned by Universal.

In an interview with The Guardian in 2005, both producers (Eric Fellner and Tim Bevan) stated that as independent producers, they spent 5% of their time developing a script, 5% of their time finding a director and then spend 90% of the time juggling deals to finance the film. Read the following interview and note how the quality of their movies improved once their production company was freed of the onerous task of securing funds for each movie:
(https://www.theguardian.com/film/2005/apr/16/business.hayfilmfestival2005).

So if the producers of WORKING TITLE believe that film funding was an important and time-consuming task of the production company when making a movie, how can the point of view that "producing a film and funding a film are different jobs" have any merit?

Applying T!M's interpretation to the opening credits I posted on Feb 24 for First Man (2018) and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) would lead to nonsensical results, namely, no production companies and CoO left blank for both movies.

Appears there are two solutions on offer at the moment, one that is consistent with Wikipedia and IMDb interpretation, and the other based on personal point of view.

T!M, there may not be a perfect solution, but that should not stop us from seeking a better solution and the one you propose is unsubstantiated and leads to erroneous interpretations.