I'm in the process of doing a complete overhaul of this title, but the credits are a bit dumb.

The movie begins with the animated Universal logo, meaning it could be either "Universal Studios" or "Universal Pictures" (or just "Universal", of course). However on the back cover it says "Universal Pictures".

Apart from that, this is the only studio that is credited, yet still most profiles have studios entered that are probably from a third party site.
Looking like this:
Universal Pictures
Carpathian Pictures
The Sommers Company

IMDb lists:
Production Companies:
Universal Pictures (presents)
The Sommers Company
Stillking Films
Carpathian Pictures (uncredited)

There is actually a credit for "Stillking Films" in the end credits.
"Production services in the Czech Republic provided by"



Does it go into the database? I'm not sure how to interpret "production services".
And if the studio gets a credit, then it also means adding Czech Republic to CoO.
Regardless, I'm sure we don't give credit to studios that don't appear at start or end titles. Or are even listed on the cover.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I would leave this one at "Universal Pictures" only.

Ditto

So would I.

I would *still* leave it at "Universal Pictures".

MikaLove: Totally agree with you, the film's text credits have more credence than the credit blocks on the back cover that was composed by some package designer years, if not decades, after the film was released.

No one has provided verifiable evidence to substantiate that "Universal Pictures" was the Studio involved in 2004.

As per the rules: The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.

So, what's the verdict, peeps?

I think I shall go ahead (when I get more time) and submit "Universal Studios" as the sole production/theatrical release company for this movie and cite the end credits as the source, while of course mentioning that movie credits have precedence over what is written on a cover (since this info can often be incorrect as well, about e.g. audio format, AR, subtitles... anything). Then see where we end up.
or 

Quoting ObiKen:

Quote:
Quoting MikaLove:

Quote:
However formulating the rules to say "should be the DVD itself" can cause confusion. Since some may argue that the case the disc comes in is also "the DVD". Better to phrase it "should be the movie/feature itself".

I should have quoted in my previous message the whole paragraph from 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.

The above paragraph quite clearly distinguishes "the DVD" from the covers/case the DVD comes in, so there should be no confusion. Basing your submission using the film's screen credits from "the DVD", instead of the back cover's film credit specification, is a valid and accurate implementation of the rule.

I formulated my notes quite well yesterday, ready for my contribution. There should be no doubts about it eventually being approved.
Using the actual movie credits is also the only way to put an end to any confusing or contradicting information. I mean, you could look at the covers for all editions, "research" the Internet about what the studio is or was called, but the movie credits are still the same.
It could be like trying to find out rumors and gossip about what is right or what is wrong. But also having the presumed incident fully documented as it happened as all the evidence you could need. With "the incident" referring to the movie credits.
Etc, etc. In all honesty, after all these years, I don't know why this is even a discussion. It should be crystal clear.