| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 940 |
| | Posted: | | | | There are several threads dealing with this but no poll, so here we go. The question is: How do we determine the correct Country of Origin within the current limitation that there is only one field. Please don't turn this in to a huge discussion, use one of the other threads for that. The two most popular: Hereor Here | | | | Kevin |
|
 | JonM | | Registered 28 Dec 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 343 |
| | Posted: | | | | Oh my, I was so tempted to pick a "10 to 50 page thread" and I see others already have!  | | | Jon
"When Mister Safety Catch Is Not On, Mister Crossbow Is Not Your Friend."
 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 940 |
| | Posted: | | | | It looks like the 10 to 50 page thread option is running a very close second to Actual Filming Company. Looks like Ken is going to need a lot more server space to run the forums if that ends up being our decision.  | | | | Kevin |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | One possible solution for co-productions would be to leave the field empty whenever studios from more than one country are involved.  Actually I favour the first production credit solution. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,022 |
| | Posted: | | | | The International Federation of Film Archives defines the country of origin as the country of the principal offices of the production company or individual by whom the moving image work was made
As this is the global accepted method of determining CoO, then country of the main production company should be good for DVDP.
My preference is to be able to select not to have this field locally. | | |  |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't think the debate has ever been about what we use to determine CoO (production company), I think the problem is working out who the primary production company is. |
|
| Registered: March 21, 2007 |  Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | I chose other. For me the only solution is to get rid of it. Everything else is problematic with the exception of everything being of US origin. Only that is clear cut. | | | | Graham | | | | Last edited: by FUBAR |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't quite understand the commotion over CoO. Probably 98% of the titles are easy enough to determine with minimal research. It's only that tiny 2% that needs to be debated. Maybe we need a Country of Origin Court to argue out the disputed titles.  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting antolod: Quote:
There are several threads dealing with this but no poll, so here we go.
The question is: How do we determine the correct Country of Origin within the current limitation that there is only one field.
Please don't turn this in to a huge discussion, use one of the other threads for that. The two most popular:
Here
or
Here Come on, if you're going to have a poll, let's have a serious poll, and not this comedic version. The company that puts up the money (whether or not they actually participate in the filming) should determine the country of origin, because while it is nice to give artistic credit, that is a subjective call, and the movie wouldn't even exist if somebody hadn't stepped up and provided the money. That said, this is a field that should be either eliminated altogether because it leads to endless arguments, or made totally local. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! | | | | Last edited: by Rifter |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
That said, this is a field that should be either eliminated altogether because it leads to endless arguments, or made totally local. Then we should also eliminate studios, crew, cast and every other category available, since endless arguments abound there as well. To those of you who don't like it, don't use it. I would rather have more options than less. |
|
| JonM | | Registered 28 Dec 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 343 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
The company that puts up the money (whether or not they actually participate in the filming) should determine the country of origin, because while it is nice to give artistic credit, that is a subjective call, and the movie wouldn't even exist if somebody hadn't stepped up and provided the money. John, it isn't remotely subjective. Establishing if a financial producer had any useful creative input, now that's subjective! I think we should just follow our nose. The person who creates a profile will more than likely get it right because it's so obvious and you can take it as read that as they bought the DVD and more than likely understand a little of it's conception. If they don't, it'll get sorted in no time once everyone understands the intention of the field. What has frustrated me about this debate, is even now we've established most people want to follow the heart of a film rather than the brain, yet still there's suggestions it's too hard. It isn't hard. For instance, A Fish Called Wanda is quite obviously French, what with all the subtitles. And Volver? A Russian film if ever I saw one...  | | | Jon
"When Mister Safety Catch Is Not On, Mister Crossbow Is Not Your Friend."
|
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting JonM: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
The company that puts up the money (whether or not they actually participate in the filming) should determine the country of origin, because while it is nice to give artistic credit, that is a subjective call, and the movie wouldn't even exist if somebody hadn't stepped up and provided the money.
John, it isn't remotely subjective. Establishing if a financial producer had any useful creative input, now that's subjective!
I think we should just follow our nose. The person who creates a profile will more than likely get it right because it's so obvious and you can take it as read that as they bought the DVD and more than likely understand a little of it's conception. If they don't, it'll get sorted in no time once everyone understands the intention of the field.
What has frustrated me about this debate, is even now we've established most people want to follow the heart of a film rather than the brain, yet still there's suggestions it's too hard. It isn't hard.
For instance, A Fish Called Wanda is quite obviously French, what with all the subtitles. And Volver? A Russian film if ever I saw one... I thought Volvo were Swedish?  Steve |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 188 |
| | Posted: | | | | I voted other. I think the best solution would be to have the field contain multiple countries of origin, representing all the production companies involved. | | | | Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire and you keep him warm the rest of his life. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Use the International Federation of Film Archives definition:
"The country of origin as the country of the principal offices of the production company or individual by whom the moving image work was made"
Where there is more than one production company involved in a joint venture, leave it blank unless DVDP is modified so that multiple countries can be selected. That is what I am doing for joint venture productions at present. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 811 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 55 |
| | Posted: | | | | I vote 'other', because we Brits have official measures of 'Britishness' that jolly well ought to be taken into consideration dear chaps/old boys.  Films made after 1985 are officially British Films if 70% or more of the total production costs were spent in the UK ( Films Act 1985) and the lesser of '70% of total labour costs'/'75% of the total labour costs after taking out 2 non-UK/EU/Commonwealth employees at least one of whom was an actor/actress' were for UK/EU/Commonwealth citizens. * For films after April 1st 2006, there is an official points-based test laid down in UK law for determining if they are 'British' or not. The test was revised for films made after Jan 1st 2007. For films made 1957-1985, their 'Britishness' is apparently determined by The Cinematograph Films Act 1957, but I can't find a copy of the act online, so I don't what the test is/was. Tally Ho! *That makes my head hurt too | | | Doug
DougWeb.org - my personal site.
TWSNBN.com
Unofficial DVD Profiler Resource Centre - serving hundreds of users every month!
DVD Profiler Wiki | | | | Last edited: by dvdoug |
|