Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Double
If tim eantedd to do what you say, there is a forum for exactly that purpose. This us a forum to seek clarity of the rule. Not to debate a rule, debate of a particular rule for change of any kind is done elsewhere. That is why this forum turns do bad do often.  It is not the place.

Per the forum page: "Discuss contributions, the contribution rules, and how best to apply them in specific circumstances."

This forum is called "Contribution Discussion" and is exactly where the community is supposed to bring their questions.

We are allowed to debate, disagree and discuss various sides of a situation.

These discussions can even include issues related to the rules and even whether or not they need updating or changing.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Double
If tim eantedd to do what you say, there is a forum for exactly that purpose. This us a forum to seek clarity of the rule. Not to debate a rule, debate of a particular rule for change of any kind is done elsewhere. That is why this forum turns do bad do often.  It is not the place.

I'm confused Skip, I believe that is exactly what T!M was doing.  That is also what I said what I thought he was doing...

Quoting DoubleDownAgain:

Quote:
I believe T!m is asking for a consensus about the rule.  While you maintain it is clear, it's obvious others aren't so clear according to the poll results.  Please let me know if I am wrong T!M, but I assume you were asking for a consensus on the interpretation of the rules, not for a rule change.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
There can be more than one theatrical release studio hence the s in parentheses but it is rare. As for being the first slot, it is and that was done for data consistency as I  hexplained. Had last been chosen, it would have been for the same reason and we would have had the same discussion.

How can a movie have two different theatrical release studios?  Do you have an example?  I think this is a case that your expertise could come in handy.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
IF and its a big if, one knows how to read credits the distributor/release studio will typically be the first thing you see, but that is not a guarantee, you have to know what you are looking at.

Maybe you could teach a class on how to read credits.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Dealing the way I am currently forced to on a very personal level, all I can tell you is that I have seen them once or twice, I assume its some sort of partnership arrangement. More common is a US distributor and a worldwide distributor for the same film.

I'm sure it happens very frequently in this case.  I know Alliance films distribute many different titles in Canada from the states such as Looper, Safe, Lockout and many more.  They also deal with home distribution, so these titles are often different releases than the US.  From what I've seen many of these do not have Alliance in the credits.  So when I have contributed credits for these I only list under MC and not Studios.  I will go back to a few of these and check the end credits to make sure and see if they listed.

But they also produce content under Alliance Films and sometimes have credits in the film.

But in the case of this why would a US profile list a studio if it was distributed internationally?  It has nothing to do with the US Profile, hence my question how there would ever be more than one  theatrical release studios

Quoting DoubleDownAgain:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Dealing the way I am currently forced to on a very personal level, all I can tell you is that I have seen them once or twice, I assume its some sort of partnership arrangement. More common is a US distributor and a worldwide distributor for the same film.

I'm sure it happens very frequently in this case.  I know Alliance films distribute many different titles in Canada from the states such as Looper, Safe, Lockout and many more.  They also deal with home distribution, so these titles are often different releases than the US.  From what I've seen many of these do not have Alliance in the credits.  So when I have contributed credits for these I only list under MC and not Studios.  I will go back to a few of these and check the end credits to make sure and see if they listed.

But they also produce content under Alliance Films and sometimes have credits in the film.

But in the case of this why would a US profile list a studio if it was distributed internationally?  It has nothing to do with the US Profile, hence my question how there would ever be more than one  theatrical release studios

I've come across Sony and Columbia as theatrical release studios/distributors for the same film in the U.S. Don't know if it was a west coast and east coast split.

Quoting DoubleDownAgain:

Quote:
Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
I've come across Sony and Columbia as theatrical release studios/distributors for the same film in the U.S. Don't know if it was a west coast and east coast split.

What year was the film?  Sony Pictures Entertainment owns Columbia since 1989.

It was a film I audited maybe a year ago. There have been so many since then, All I can remember was The existing profile had 1 and Mojo Box office had both listed, Checking the web I found some sites had 1 and other sites had the other. I'll see if I can locate it in my collection.

Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
In my search to find the movie I was talking about. I came across Red Heat 1988 (Arnold & Belushi) Released by Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures. Not the 1 I was thinking of but serves the same purpose.

That makes sense. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TriStar_Pictures

Quote:
The concept for TriStar Pictures came about in 1982 when Columbia Pictures (then a subsidiary of Coca-Cola), HBO, and CBS decided to pool resources to split the ever-growing costs of making movies, creating a new joint venture. On May 16, 1983, it was given the name Tri-Star Pictures (when the new company was formed and did not have an official name, the press used the code-name "Nova," but the name could not be obtained as it was being used as the title for the PBS science series[1][2]). It was the first new major Hollywood studio to be established since RKO Pictures was founded over 50 years earlier.[3]
Their first production, released in 1984, was The Natural, starring Robert Redford. During this venture, many of Tri-Star's releases were released on VHS by either RCA-Columbia Pictures Home Video (now Sony Pictures Home Entertainment), CBS/FOX Video (now CBS Home Entertainment and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment), or HBO Video. In addition, HBO would gain exclusive cable distribution rights to these films, and broadcast television licenses would go to CBS.[4]
CBS dropped out of the venture in 1985,[5] though they still distributed some of TriStar's films on home video until at least 1992. In 1986, Tri-Star entered into the television business as Tri-Star Television. In 1987, HBO dropped out of the Tri-Star venture as well and on September 7, Columbia Pictures bought their venture shares and merged Columbia and Tri-Star into Columbia Pictures Entertainment, also creating Columbia/Tri-Star. Both companies continued to produce and distribute films under their separate names.

Sony era

In 1989, all of Coke's entertainment holdings were acquired by Sony Corporation of Japan, who merged Columbia and Tri-Star, but continued to use the separate labels. Sony Pictures Entertainment later revived TriStar Television as a television production banner in 1991 and merged with its sister television studio Columbia Pictures Television to form Columbia TriStar Television on February 21, 1994.[6][7] Both studios continued to operate separately until TriStar folded in 1999 and CPT until 2001.
TriStar was the theatrical distributor for many films produced by Carolco Pictures (the rights to only one of their films, Cliffhanger, has been retained by TriStar).
Around summer 1998, Sony Pictures Entertainment merged Columbia and TriStar to form Columbia TriStar Pictures (or Columbia TriStar Entertainment, Inc. or the Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group) but just like Columbia Pictures Entertainment, both divisions continued producing and distributing films under their own names.
TriStar was relaunched in 2004 as a marketing and acquisitions unit that will have a "particular emphasis on genre films."

By the time Red Heat was released Columbia was known as Columbia/Tri-star, the same company.  Sony bought it from Coke in 89, so owns all the rights to Columbia's & Tri-stars library.  Well I assume they own of Tri-stars, The Natural was the first released and the recent Blu-ray has Sony's logo on it as well.

But there still would only be one studio who actually released the film.

I always thought Studios/MCs could use some revamping to make it easy for the average contributor, I still feel this way.

But, I'm done reading about this topic because, for me, this thread has done nothing to help clarify the situation.

I'm just going to contribute the way I always have because I always felt pretty comfortable contributing this data...until I started reading this thread.