Well from what I see in your description, lassiter. It appears to me to be a direct-to-video release. Which means there is no Theatrical distributor, at least i never heard of it and the data seems to explain why.

From what you are describing I see the following data from the credits, no logo splash
Capitol Films
Itasca Pictures
Two Drivers

Media Companies
Lions Gate HE

Skip

Since we usually enter the studios according to the credits and not to the logo splashs, it would probably be:
Studios:
1) Capitol Films
2) Itasca Pictures
3) Two Drivers (eventually with the appendix "Productions", depending on the actual company's name)

Media companies:
1) Lions Gate Home Entertainment (if, and only if the backcover of your DVD doesn't say something different, otherwise move LGHE to 2) and enter the MC from the backcover in 1) )

Quoting Woola:

Quote:

From what you are describing I see the following data from the credits, no logo splash
Capitol Films
Itasca Pictures
Two Drivers

Media Companies
Lions Gate HE

From the information provided, I agree with this.

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
Lassuiter:

Back cover is irrelevant relative to Studio data, the only time they have any value is perhaps determining MC. We are creating a profile of the movie on the disc, not the cover.

Skip

The back cover is not irrelevent. The rules give no directive for the studio source. It's common practice to look at the non-logo credits, but it's not in the rules that way.

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
"The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.  Please don't submit content from a third party database, and always verify the specifications printed on the cover.  In both case

Facts are so hard for some tyo deal with.

Skip

That still doesn't make the back cover irrelevent, nor does it eliminate logos as a possible source. It certainly doesn't dictate that the non-logo credits are the only source. Also remember that public domain titles often have their credits clipped, eliminating both logo and non-logo credits.

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
James just ONCE i would like to see you clarify something, instead of always throwing in a handful mud. Just ONE time.

I did clarify something. I clarified what the rules actually say or don't say on the subject rather than what common practice is.

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
James please take note that at least two other users also said the same thing I did, before you came in with your mud pie. In that regard, since you only quoted me and NEVER mentioned the others, I can only view your comment as a direct and personal attack on me. Sorry, pal, but it don't wash.

I saw your comment in the "Today's Active" view and that's what drew me to this thread. Responding with a clarification about what the rules actually say or don't say has nothing to do with you personally, nor is it an attack.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Woola:

Quote:
James just ONCE i would like to see you clarify something, instead of always throwing in a handful mud. Just ONE time.

I did clarify something. I clarified what the rules actually say or don't say on the subject rather than what common practice is.

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
James please take note that at least two other users also said the same thing I did, before you came in with your mud pie. In that regard, since you only quoted me and NEVER mentioned the others, I can only view your comment as a direct and personal attack on me. Sorry, pal, but it don't wash.

I saw your comment in the "Today's Active" view and that's what drew me to this thread. Responding with a clarification about what the rules actually say or don't say has nothing to do with you personally, nor is it an attack.

Your opinion is merely YOUR opinion and NOT  astatement of fact, James. the FACT remnaisn that there are THREE other users whomade the same comment I did. Yet you made a comment which was merely designed to disparage my opinion, that sir, is an attack. That is also fact.

As I said James, this discussion was had long ago and that is the conclusion that was reached at that time. You are so good a cataloging past discuyssions I am sure you will have no problem in finding it. The Rules are not the Gospel According to James, sir.

As I said james, unlike you, I have one goal and that is to have everyone on the same page, not look for opportunities to undermine and disparage the Rules or other users, and create opportunities for user-interpretation, incorrect data and ping-ponging of the same. One page works to the benefit of all, your way leads to the kind of mess this database used to be in, with every user submitiing whatever he damn well pleases abnd results in the kind of situations that saw ONE SINGLE title getting footballed back and forth over 900 times over the course of FIVE years. So yse, James, i view comments as not only an attack upon myself, but also on the very fundamentals of both the program and the Rules, this something you have done for a very long time and it makes me very sad to see it. I don't much care what exciuse you offer "I saw your comment in the "Today's Active" view", that does not change the FACT that you attacked ME and three other user had already made the same comment, and until your "almighty" remark, those other three users and myself were the sole responders. So you psted a minority view, that is fine, but the manner in  which you did so was NOT, and ignoring the FACT that a total of FOUR users had made precisely the same comment yet you ignored that FACT does not speak well of you. Perhaps you were absent when the discussion was had, James, I don't know, not could I tell you what position i took when the discussion was had, I can only tell what the result of the discussion was and that result was what was cited by myself and three others. About the only thin I can remember specifically is our friend Martian formerly known as Unicus,, I believe, made the wise observatiion that logos are NOT credits. If we follow logos then it would be 20 Century Fox, while the Actual credit says Twentieth Century For or Twentieth Century-Fox depending on the time frame the film was made.

James while you claim that you did not attack me, let me again quote YOU "
I saw your comment in the "Today's Active" view and that's what drew me to this thread." What you are saying to me and I suspect others is that you have an agenda relative to comments by Skip, you did not bother to actually read the thread, you simply responded to that which drew you to the thread...me. That is an attack. I have to believe, James that had you actually read the thread prior to responding to me, your comment would have had a completely different tone.<shrugs>

Now seems to be a good point to interject your own inconsistency. Here you want to follow the logos, but it was YOU who did not wish to follow the logos for Distribtuion hence it is not 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment per the LOGO but Twentieth century Fox Home Entertainment because you claim with SOME justification that is ACTUAL data. Whci way do you want it, James, you can't have it both ways.

The failure and the hypocrisy in your logic staggers the mind.<shakes head>

BTW, James allow me to add that it is not my intent to attack you, but i will not tolerate attacks from you or anyone else either. Nor will I allow your bad logic and hypocrisy to go unchallenged. Had you taken notice that your position represented a minority view at the time, we would not be having this discussion, but you did not take notice of that, you8 singled ME out as if I were the one holding the minority view, and your tone, in view of your ignoring the posts of the other tree users, was patronizing at best. Sorry, laddy, that is my view of what you have had to say thus far.

Skip

Don't think for a second that I take ANY pleasure in this back and forth, Alien...I don't.

Skip