Yes, we should have a rule for determining CoO...unfortunately, we don't.  The owners of the company have, however, told us how to use it.  I don't have the time to find the post, so will give you the basics.

CoO is the country where the primary production company is located.  In the case of co-productions, there are many schools of thought, but I have chosen to use the first company listed.

YES, Invelos is monitoring the forums

cheers
Donnie

Please no more COOs, one is quite enough thank you. I fill it in but to be honest, I am not sure what value it adds.

I can think of some things that could be added to the program that would bring a lot of value for everybody...but...more COOs. Sounds like more arguments and fights to me.

Skip

Quoting Oggi:

Quote:
As I see it, we either have to be able to give in something correct (and well defined), or the COO should be removed all together.

The way it is done today, it has no value since different contributors understand the value diffrently.
It is only one more thing that may result in negative votes and declined contributions.

Agreed.

In addition I see COO far to often as being a guessing game, and a guessing game that is not resolvable by the DVD/BD. I would much prefer to see better definiton of the Special Features to be found on a given disc as defined, typically by the menus, this could include specifics relating to Commentaries, Featurettes etc. The one part of this that I am undecided about would be as follows , should this be handled as we do now, by that I mean Special Features as related to the Title OR in the case of Bonus Discs tied to the title should we be able to track those "separately" and is Cast?Crew data really an important issue for those instances...I don't know, but I tend to think tracking special features per title is probably ultimately more usefukl than breaking out the extra discs, but not sure. I would also like to be able to track multiple run times, though I can see complications here as well. Two other things that I think would be useful to be able to track, in terms of being able to perhaps minimize conflicts caused by  the infamous duplicate UPC#'s would be tracking of ISBN # when we have it AND the Distributors catalog number (this should be alpha-numeric) All of this coupled with the Disc ID should be able to isolate a specific title regardless of whether there is a dupe UPC or not.

I would see this functioning something along these lines
UPC #097363531944
ISBN 1-4157-4588-9
Catalog # 35319

The combination of these three numbers should be able to categorically define this title as The Duchess even IF there was a dupe UPC the other two numbers would not be likely to duped as well. Once you throw in the DiscID I would think you would be able to create an undeniable match, regardless. Oh well, just me daydreaming.

Skip

Just thought of something. I know how I would implement the Special Features, if it were me doing it would we also want to beable capture featurette runtimes.

Skip

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
I always leave co-productions blank.  Since I can't list all of them it only seems fair.

I think a good way to word an addition to the rules for CoO - as it stands now - would be the following:

Quote:
Country of Origin:
For country of origin, enter the home country of the film's primary production company. 

In the case of international co-productions, or for films whose home country is not currently listed, leave this field blank.

That sounds rather contradictory. The first line says to use the country of the primary production company which suggests that it may have other companies from other countries as well. Then the next line says to leave it blank if co-produced.

Also how would you determine primary? Amount spent? Number of people? Where would this info come from?

I also would certainly never agree to leaving it blank. There would be a vast number of entries where we would have to leave it blank or even remove existing info.

I understood, Cass. Similar problem with James Bond films, much of the funding came from United Artists, which is based in Hollywood, the actual production company Eon Productions or sometimes Danjaq is based in the UK. There are many movies like this, then there are movies, and this gets real ugly, that are produced somewhere and a Hollywood Studio either licennses are simply distributes the filmand sometimes these relationships are not only NOT clear, they are cannot be resolved by the disc. Thiat is the biggest problem that i have with the COO it is the single data field which cannot be resolved by the case or the film itself. We are forced to something else or somewhere else and how does that work. I think the fact that it is the one piece of data which is not based on the cover data or film data makes the Rule writing problematic and  will always plague that field. I personally have no idea where I would go if I were forced to document COO or how I would find multiple sources to back it up, this is something that has worried me from Day One and I suppose always will. I do know that someone relying on a single source for this field is asking for trouble, but beyond that....I don't know.

Skip

This is just done roughly but would something like this be better?

Get rid of the CoO field at the top and have them for each studio instead