Maybe here...
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=76685&PageNum=1

The word "Pictures" can quite easily be part of a company's name, so no we wouldn't automatically remove it unless we can show that it shouldn't be there.

In this specific case, it sounds like the change is right - I've never heard of them referred to as "United Artist Pictures" either.

Edit: it seems their full legal name is United Artists Entertainment LLC, not a Pictures in sight!

Quoting Voltaire53:

Quote:
True; just checked the thread indicated though and it says United Artists and no mention of United Artists Pictures (which is apparently what the credits say)... is this a shortcoming or is United Artists Pictures not a legal studio?

Many studios go through various changes in name.  'Touchstone Pictures', as an example, released...if memory serves...four films under the name 'Touchstone Films'.

If the credits say, 'United Artists Pictures', then that is what should be entered in Profiler.  While it may not be the name of the studio now, it was at the time the film was made.

Keep in mind that the 'studio thread' is, by no means, complete.  What has been entered there is a list of studio names that people knew about.  The credits trump the thread and 'United Artists Pictures' should be added to the list.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
If the credits say, 'United Artists Pictures', then that is what should be entered in Profiler.  While it may not be the name of the studio now, it was at the time the film was made.

Where do you get this? I just re-checked the rules, and the bit that jumps out at me is where the rules use the term "correct names for studios". To me, that certainly doesn't point to simply entering studios "as credited" - quite the opposite, in fact. As far as I'm concerned, it's very similar to how we're currently busy weeding out all those pointless multiple entries/name variants for cast and crew - while there's still huge amounts of work to be done in that department, I can hardly imagine that Ken wants to go in the exact opposite direction for studios. Why should we start introducing lots of multiple entries/name variants for certain studios when it's obvious they refer to the same company? IMHO, that's exactly what the line about "correct names for studios" is all about - and I feel the paragraph about not abbreviating studio names also clearly illustrates that simply "as credited" is NOT what the rules are after...

Quoting reybr:

Quote:
But if we're going for one name for a studio, why does the studio thread give three different allowed variants for [...]

I'm not sure. Some of the more recent posts in that thread seem to advocate entering studios simply "as credited" - in which the entire thread wouldn't be necessary at all anymore, of course.

Quote:
Also note that the rules doesn't mention the thread any longer.

Which, in light of the above, seems like a wise move. At the end of the day, the term "correct names for studios" leads me to believe that's what we're after. So you won't find separate studio entries for 'Twentieth Century Fox', 'Twentieth Century-Fox' and '20th Century Fox' in my database (only the first variant, if you want to know). Just like I also don't have separate cast entries for Robert Downey, Jr. and Robert Downey Jr. 

Fox is the worst as they have to the most variants, and seem to vary them on every disc I own.
Lionsgate is close second all the sudden.
I would be down with one "set-in-the-rules" variant for each, then link all other variants with a credited as. Sounds silly, but it is needed.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I guess it depends on your point of view.  The correct name for the studio, for me at least, is the name the studio used on that film.  Touchstone Pictures did not make 'Splash', Touchstone Films did.

Indeed it all depends on your point of view. I feel that if that was the entire reasoning behind how we enter studios, the paragraph about them could/should have been a lot shorter. The fact that they're not, to me indicates that we're after something more than just "as credited". Case in point: 'Splash'. IMHO, there simply is no such thing as 'Touchstone Films'. I don't consider it to be nothing more than a simple typo or a formatting choice. Hey, if the credits show nothing more than "a UNIVERSAL picture", we also know to enter that as "Universal Pictures", right? It's essentially the same thing. In the end, I just want to be able to filter on 'Touchstone Pictures' and have the program show me all the Touchstone films in my collection, and I'm pretty sure that's what most users are after.

As an aside: if you look at the documentary on the 'Splash' disc, in which the fact that 'Splash' was Touchstone's first release is thoroughly addressed, you'll see that the people involved feel the same way: 'Touchstone Films' and 'Touchstone Pictures' are not considered to be different entities, 'Splash' is clearly presented as the first of many 'Touchstone' pictures. At no point is it indicated that there were actually different companies - it's just about minor credit variations for the same company. Maybe there are certain law- or tax-related circumstances that cause minor "technical" variations in company set-up between films, but for all intent and purposes of DVD Profiler, we're just tracking that 'Splash' is a 'Touchstone' picture, and as such, it should be linked with all other 'Touchstone' pictures. There's absolutely no point in creating double entries for them. Again: if the rules were after "as credited", they'd say so. Instead, Ken went out of his way to allow for/indicate that he's after "correct names for studios" - whatever they may be. I can certainly see how "as credited" would be simpler, but similar to the decision made with regards to cast and crew, it just wouldn't make any sense.