Kishiro and I have a difference of opinion as to how to profile studios and CoO for "So Sweet... So Perverse" in the Lenzi/Baker boxset. I would like to hear what others think.

I chose to profile it strictly based on the credits. There are only two companies credited; Variety Film as theatrical distributor and Tritone Filmindustria as production studio. I have entered only those two, and since they are both Italian companies I have only Italy as Country of Origin.

Kishiro, on the other hand, bases his profile on a poster, and on his general knowledge of the film, and has entered Tritone Filmindustria (Italy), Cedic (France) and Rapid Film (Germany) (and has left out Variety Film), and has Italy, France and Germany as CoO.

I don't dispute that the details that Kishiro mentions are correct, however I maintain that we profile the movie as is. We don't enter uncredited studios (unless they are mentioned in the credit block or elsewhere on the cover).

I base my opinion on two statements in the rules.
1) The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.
2) [For CoO] Enter the country or countries in which the main feature's production company/companies are based, in the order they appear in the credits.

Kishiro's argument is basically this:
- The intention of rules are that the information supplied to the database are relevant and factually accurate.

Opinions anyone?

I agree with GSyren that the film is the sole source for release studio/production company information, as per the rules, but since IMDB lists those companies mentioned by Kishiro as production companies, can you double-check the end credits to the very end (including copyright info) and rule them out?

Also, my understanding is we don't use theatrical release companies for CoO, unless they were also a production company.

I'll preface this by saying my knowledge of international films like this one is spotty at best. Having said that, I would think it strange for a production company of a given film to not be listed anywhere within the credits of said film. If those extra production companies truly are nowhere in the credits, I would be inclined to leave them off. I may consider adding them if a reliable source could be found to verify they were indeed involved in the production of the film...IMDB is not a reliable source. This is my two cents.

Ah hah! Now I got it. Old 'Dogg bites too soon as usual. 

Oh boy, I'm way out on a limb here ...

But based on the discussion, my opinion would be to lean towards the Invelos rules. Not for any philosophical reason, but for a practical one. If the rule is "copy exactly what you see," then the determination of what is right or wrong to be in the profile is clear. No need to ask any opinion, or make someone justify the difference. If an actor trusted that to be the case, he(she) could even use that information in a legal proceeding to reconcile a royalty dispute. But if anybody could just change the reading of the credits to suit their own view of correctness (regardless of whether it is actually correct), then you basically erode the standard of reference.

Back on topic: I see some space for interpretion for media companies (especially because they are locality dependent), but according to the rules and the fact that contributed data has to be controllable, I can't imagine a valid studio credit without any justification in the credits of the movie.

When it comes to contributions to the Invelos database, Invelos rules apply. Whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant. Whether the information is factually wrong or not is irrelevant, as long as Invelos rules are met.

Hence I agree with Gunnar’s initial stance. Only credited production companies are decisive for CoO. Theatrical release studios don’t count.

I also agree with Yves’ position that if you want accurate information, you cannot rely on the Invelos database.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
Only credited production companies are decisive for CoO. Theatrical release studios don’t count.

This, indeed.

Fine, but that wasn't the question.