We currently have two separate threads dealing with a similar issue and I hope people don't think I'm needlessly creating more, but with respect to the original posters I didn't want to send them off-topic. They do after all deal with specific titles and the votes therein.

The issue as I see it so far is that two films, that have always been clearly thought of as a product of the British film industry, are likely to have 'US' as country of origin. I think this is absurd and sets a precedent that should be avoided before it is applied to more countries. I just can't see the point.

The US is the biggest and most influential film industry in the English speaking world. The UK is on a much smaller scale. For every Harry Potter or Bond, the US can throw in a Spider-Man, a Batman and a couple of pirates. Plus produce multiple sequels and remakes seemingly on a whim. Which I love by the way, but the UK doesn't have that sort of freedom even if our producers wanted to make "Grandchildren of Men". Which I hope they don't!

It's even harder for other countries that want big budget shoot 'em ups, but English isn't their first language. The point I'm trying to make is that if a UK producer wants to make a Harry Potter spin off, "The Full Monty 2", or even a sure thing like Bond, and release it worldwide, he's going to need dollars at some point. Which instantly makes it a joint 'US / UK' production. In other words, there's no longer any such thing as a truly, independent British film. Or very few anyway.

So the question for me is, do we follow the money? Those who paid for it, own it. IMO, that makes CoO pointless because a huge amount of entries may end up as 'US' and offer no useful data. I mean, why bother with something so obvious?

Or do we follow the contents theme? That makes the data more useful to someone like me, but is potentially misleading when considering legalities. If we don't have a clear meaning behind the field, some will see the entry as a downright lie.

I wouldn't want to see a joint option as there would be too many 'US', 'US and UK', and not enough 'UK' to be worth anything. And the theme theory isn't always an obvious choice. "United 93" would be an interesting discussion, for instance. But I just want it clarified that we should be following the theme, or the money.

Thank you for listening. I now return you to our regularly scheduled punch-up. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

You will have to explain what you mean by 'the contents theme'.  I have an idea but want to make sure I understand before I comment. 

Fair enough!

I simply mean that by watching "Get Carter", it's unmistakeably British. I haven't looked. Maybe it was paid for by the US, or even elsewhere, but what I'm suggesting is, it doesn't matter. It's set in Newcastle with a Cockney gangster. I don't need to look further for it's origin.

Where it gets murky is with a film like "Braveheart" or "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves". They look British, but clearly aren't!

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I could be wrong... but it sounds like you are saying if the movie itself takes place in for example the UK... then the CoO should be UK?

If that is the case... I very much disagree... just because a movie is about a certain country don't mean the Country of Origin is of the country the movie plot is set in.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Otherwise "The Third Man" would get lost. Nevermind genre films like sci-fi, that defy location.

I've used broad examples, but I think about who had the initial idea and who wrote it. I briefly mentioned "United 93". American tragedy, story, actors, but recently voted Best British Film in Empire magazine, because it was a British director and writer. 

For me, origin is where it was conceived, not set. And certainly not filmed.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Here is what Gerri said in another thread about the CoO...

Quoting Gerri Cole:

Quote:
Yes, that is the intention, Lord of the Rings would be US. It is where the production companies are based.

Elwood Blues is right.

-Gerri

So the intent of the field is where the Production Company is based. So basically... unless they decide to change it... where the original idea comes from don't matter. what matters is the company that produces the film.

EDIT:
HERE is a Link to that Thread

Ah, I hadn't seen that thread at all. Thanks, Pete.

If that is the intention of the field, then I think it's a shame. One more field I'll have to lock for local only. Currently it's only going to be accurate (in my sense of the data) for non-english speaking films. 

Quoting JonM:

Quote:
I've used broad examples, but I think about who had the initial idea and who wrote it. I briefly mentioned "United 93". American tragedy, story, actors, but recently voted Best British Film in Empire magazine, because it was a British director and writer. 

And also a British production company: WORKING TITLE FILMS.

Quote:
Working Title Films is a company registered in England and Wales under registration number: 2755827.

Business Address:
Oxford House
76 Oxford Street
London
W1D 1BS

Registered Offices:
Prospect House
80-110 New Oxford Street
London
WC1A 1HB

http://www.workingtitlefilms.com/terms.htm

If we are using production companies, as Gerri has indicated, then the Country of Origin for UNITED 93 is UK.

Agreed. LoTR are definately New Zealand imo.

Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
Agreed. LoTR are definately New Zealand imo.

Try again.

Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
Agreed. LoTR are definately New Zealand imo.

Try again.

Agreed. LoTR are definately New Zealand imo.

Better?

Definitely, not definately. Try again.