I recently contributed updates to 3 films changing Warner Bros. Pictures to Warner Bros. because that's the way it was presented in the film credits.

My understanding was that we contribute what is presented on screen. If that's not true, I have hundreds of profiles that need to be changed.

We don't even use peoples real names as the common name, just the diluted CLT results.

If all Warner Bros. films are supposed to be Warner Bros. Pictures, then Invelos needs to create a filter and change all of them.

A very confused user.      

The only problem with the do not abbr. rule is Warner Bros. is Warner Bros. it is not an abbr. of Warner Bros. Pictures. They are 2 seperate entities. And that is what is credited in the film credits, credited grid on back of case and logo.
Now if people are taking film credits that read Warner Bros. Pictures and just contributing Warner Bros. then that would be incorrect.

It's just like cast and crew credits in the past, make up names and contribute instead of taking the exact data from the film credits. As we all see now, that went well.

Company names change and so are the ways they are written. I'm fine with Warner Bros. if that's how it's presented on screen. It's not an abbreviation imo. In that case Bros. would be an abbreviation too and needs to be spelled out in full.

I'm not fine with just Warner though and I've never seen it credited like that anyway.

According to the rules: "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 cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible."

There is no question in mind that this includes all credits including Studios since we should ..."always verify the information directly from the DVD.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
According to the rules: "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 cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible."

There is no question in mind that this includes all credits including Studios since we should ..."always verify the information directly from the DVD.

This is the way I always understood it. But according to other reputable users, this is wrong. I just want to do the right thing...whatever that is.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
According to the rules: "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 cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible."

There is no question in mind that this includes all credits including Studios since we should ..."always verify the information directly from the DVD.

While this is true for most things, there are exceptions spelled out in the rules.  The studio field is ones of those exceptions.  If it weren't, the studio rule makes no sense.

Quoting mreeder50:

Quote:
I am auditing The Legend of Bagger Vance and after DreamWorks Pictures and Twentieth Century Fox; on the cover and the opening film credits it reads "A Wildwood/Allied Production". Wildwood has been entered in the profile as the 3rd studio. Upon checking the internet, I have found out the company names are actually Wildwood Enterprises and Allied Filmmakers. So the question is should I change the name to Wildwood Enterprises???

Exactly!

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
According to the rules: "The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself...."

There is no question in mind that this includes all credits including Studios since we should ..."always verify the information directly from the DVD.

And what should we do when the studio is listed multiple ways in the credits?  This is not uncommon.  Also, if the studio name appears only as a logo then that's likely an abbreviation of the actual studio name.

---------------

These types of issues crop up all the time in profiler. Whenever they come up I do what the rules and Ken's posts tell us to do.

I take the data from the credits first. I then check the DVD cover. Or, go to the official site. Or, see if Ken has posted a clarification in the fourms. I've even sent the company an email for clarification.

Consistency is the key - I try and contribute the same way for every profile.

At this point there is not one correct answer for many of these issues as even Ken has admitted. But, hopefully these issues will me moot in the future as he further stated in the Men in Black thread:

"One-off rulings on individual titles are a waste of time - there is always a new twist available to cast a slightly different shade of gray, and users cannot be expected to scour the forums on a title-by-title basis.  Similarly, refining and complicating the rules to satisfactorily contain each of these new variants is an exercise in futility.

Local databases can support an infinite variety of variants for title and other fields, and the local locks are available to make those changes permanent.  With this in mind, hopefully the supporters on both sides of this and other similar debates can agree that the direction of a decision here is less important that the fact of a decision.  Consistency for submission to the online is possible and what we should shoot for.  Agreement on how it "should be" is neither possible nor (thankfully) necessary.

We'll be implementing a global edit for contribution evaluator use.  This will allow us to make a decision on a particular range of titles and standardize them directly.  In this particular case, the titles will be Men in Black, Men in Black II and Men in Black III.  Details on the forthcoming implementation will be posted before we begin making any profile changes."