| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | MGM almost always inserts their logo on DVD and Blu-ray releases in the opening of films that they did not originally release theatrically. These are usually other studio's films that MGM obtained later through company acquistions. You can often easily tell because it's a newer logo which has their www.mgm.com beneath it.
Since the rules state to only add the Theatrical Release Studio(s) & Production Company(s), is it a valid addition to add these to the main studios? I'd say not, if they can be proven not to have had anything to do with the film's original release.
Thoughts? | | | | Corey | | | | Last edited: by Katatonia |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agree with you 100%. If they didn't release, or produce the film, they should not be listed. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Katatonia: Quote:
Since the rules state to only add the Theatrical Release Studio(s) & Production Company(s), is it a valid addition to add these to the main studios? No, it's not. Unfortunately, many people just enter what they see - no questions asked. |
|
| Registered: September 30, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,805 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have seen the contribution this references, and I agree. Threw in another no vote for the addition of MGM to be entered as a studio. | | | | The night is calling. And it whispers to me soflty come and play. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,328 |
| | Posted: | | | | However, they should be included as DVD distributing studio since they are the copyright holder. | | | | My Home Theater |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Locally, I've lost count of the number of times I've had to remove MGM as a production studio. I don't even bother submitting them anymore because of the lack of film education amongst the voters. The same goes for Universal whenever they put out a title in their Paramount library. Universal will bumper their logo on everything as well. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting xradman: Quote:
However, they should be included as DVD distributing studio since they are the copyright holder. As MGM Home Entertainment then, I assume. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer doesn't distribute any DVDs afaik. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting KinoNiki: Quote:
As MGM Home Entertainment then, I assume. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer doesn't distribute any DVDs afaik. One would hope so. Unfortunately, studios have the tendency to slightly re-jig the exact wording in the fine print on the back cover, resulting in many media company entries for "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios" recently... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | True, Tim. But they are a legitimate film distributor as previously mentioned. For example, until recently, they were the theatrical distributor of James Bond films. produced by UA and originally distributed b UA, now, unless it's changed again, at least some portion of the 007 catalog is distributed by TCFHE. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|