That would certainly be a possibility -> if the rules didn't tell us to list Theatrical Distributor first in the studio field.  While that company may also be the production company (often in older films, I've found) for films imported for release in other countries you will have the theatrical release studio for that locality listed in that space (for example, a number of Sony Pictures Classics releases in the US).

I wouldn't be opposed to that idea -> but only if we could separate theatrical distributor from production studio.

I think 3 fields for CoO would be a good thing, right now I always leave the field empty when the film was produced in more than 1 country.

cheers
Donnie

Synner:

I don't hink Ken will go that far. When we were discussing more Studios  I pointed out that there could be as many as TEN different production companies involved in a given film and he gave us two more plus eth MC fields. I will alos say that this beginning to sound to me less like interest in COO,and more about location shooting, plese tell me that's not right, I would hate to see that.

Skip

I understand that Cass, and i pointed that out to Ken, and he decided to give us only TWO additional Studio fields PLUS the MC fields (which like I said I still can't figure out beyond Distributor, that's all I ise) <shrugs> Yet here we are asking for MORE COO than we have Studios  and the Studios can be gotten from the cover and/or Disc (preferably), which we cannot do with COO, the whole thing just makes no sense to , me really,  ut now we seem to going way overboard. And I don't see the value, maybe somebody will try and explain why all that information has any importance. I am sure part of my problem is my knowledge of film, I don't need the Program to tell me that Goldinger is UK, or that some Anime is Japanese or that WETA is based in New Zealand, i already know that. NeverEnding produced in Germany, distributed in US by Warner. There are undoubtedly some that I don't know, but that is not something that I can obtain from the cover or the disc,and the likely possible source is unreliable.<shrugs> So I am left kind of scratching my head and puzzling over this. I hope somneone will be kind enough to try and explain it.

Skip

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
However, I have seen films with production companies from multiple countries.  Esp. from European films.  One film with a blank CoO in my collection has some 11 companies that worked on the film (I would have to do some research to determine what they were responsible for) -> 3 US, 2 French, 2 Italian, 1 each UK, Germany & Romania.  No wonder I left it blank!

I doubt they did any "work" on the film, except providing funds.

I for one could live very well with Danae Cassandra's proposal (even though I would ideally like to see a checkbox implementation like we already have for Subtitles).

Personally, in case of international co-productions, at present I leave the field empty, unless there is very clearly one single primary production company (as in cases where the credits read something like "a ... production in association with ... and ..."). In most cases however, where it's not possible to unequivocally identify a primary production company (as is e.g. the case with many French-Italian co-productions), I just leave the field blank.

I'm well aware this field is not relevant for all DVDP users, especially not those with a Hollywood-only collection, but with a collection like mine (which seems to resemble Danae's in its global nature) it gives me information on the composition of my collection that I value highly.

And the OP is quite right: incorporating the CoO into the Contribution Rules would certainly help avoiding the confusion some users are experiencing. This would also help documenting what needs to be documented.

As long as the current definitions of Studios and CoO stand, this would only work if the Studios field would be subdivided into Theatrical Release studio(s) and Production Companies, as it's only the latter which is decisive for CoO.