Author |
Message |
Registered: July 15, 2007 | Posts: 159 |
| |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 4,596 |
| Posted: | | | | God, no! Here we go again Opinions differ as to CoO of these films. IMO the CoO is New Zealand. They were all produced by Peter Jackson's production company Wingnut Films , which is a New Zealand company. Let the good times roll...yet again. | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,759 |
| |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 4,596 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote: Read this thread. Now you've done it. After reading that thread he'll be even more confused | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection | | | Last edited: by Bad Father |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,022 |
| Posted: | | | | Its definately New Zealand | | | |
|
Registered: July 15, 2007 | Posts: 159 |
| |
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 585 |
| Posted: | | | | I think it would help if there was something in the rules that officially addressed where to take the CoO from. Usually when something new gets added to DVDP the rules are updated to address it, but in this case it just kind of slipped in there with no guidance at all.
Some people argue it should be the lead production studio, some people argue it should be the lead distribution studio, and I've even seen people argue that it should be the country where the majority of the film was shot.
Reading some of the other threads (like the one linked above) it appears the intent was to use the country of where the main theatrical distribution studio is based out of, but if that's true it would be nice for it to be officially in the rules. | | | "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - Douglas Bader "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams | | | Last edited: by Vega |
|
Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,018 |
| Posted: | | | | Not to mention the fact that the software can't handle multinational co-productions, which can also lead to heated debates about which country should come first (as we have to pick just one, as it stands now). Much debate would become unneccesary if DVDP would deal with CoO's in the form of a list of checkboxes, as we are already using for Subtitles (cf. this thread in Feature Requests). |
|
Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,018 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Dvdjon: Quote: why where fellowship of the ring nominated for 13 oscars in 2002 then? the oscars are for american films whit one measly exception the best foreign film.
Not exactly. It's not "foreign film", but "foreign LANGUAGE film" (you can check here). Which means that all films in English, no matter where they're from, can compete for the "Best Picture" award and other awards. Edit: even the Oscars website mentions LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring as a New Zealand/USA production. | | | Last edited: by dee1959jay |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,120 |
| Posted: | | | | Multiple CoO's, Ken! |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 906 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting dee1959jay: Quote:
Which means that all films in English, no matter where they're from, can compete for the "Best Picture" award and other awards.
That's not exactly correct either. ALL movies, including foreign language films, that have had a cinematic run for longer than seven days in LA are eligible as long as they have English subtitles. You see that if you go to the next page from the one you linked to | | | The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity | | | Last edited: by reybr |
|
Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,459 |
| Posted: | | | | Yeah, it really should be mentioned in the rules somewhere. It's been stated by Gerri that the CoO field is for the country of the primary production company. In the case of the LOTR films, that's Wingnut who are based in New Zealand. It would be a lot easier if multiple CoOs were allowed, but until then we'll just have to keep arguing! And where did you get the idea that the Oscars were only for US films? Oh wait, maybe it's because they only ever nominate their own films! |
|
Registered: March 24, 2007 | Posts: 240 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote:
That's not exactly correct either. ALL movies, including foreign language films, that have had a cinematic run for longer than seven days in LA are eligible as long as they have English subtitles. You see that if you go to the next page from the one you linked to For example Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was nominated for Best Picture in 2000. | | | Tom. |
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 585 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote: Yeah, it really should be mentioned in the rules somewhere. It's been stated by Gerri that the CoO field is for the country of the primary production company. In the case of the LOTR films, that's Wingnut who are based in New Zealand. Maybe I'm missing something and Ken/Gerri changed their mind, but this is the quote from Gerri: 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 | | | "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - Douglas Bader "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams |
|
Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,459 |
| Posted: | | | | This is where the confusion comes from. Gerri says "It is where the production companies are based." but at the same time she says that "LOTR would be US." I think that at the time of posting, Gerri didn't realise that Wingnut was actually an NZ company. Certainly after the subsequent discussion (argument), none of the updates changing the CoO to NZ were declined, at least not on the copies I have. |
|
Registered: March 15, 2007 | Posts: 445 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Doombear: Quote: Multiple CoO's, Ken! Then we'll have people arguing which should be listed 1st...which should be listed 2nd...etc. |
|