Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
But this discussion has never been about artistic production, nor did the comment from Gerri address that.  It is about the 'production company of record.'  Take LOTR, for example.  I greatly admire Peter Jackson's talent and artistic sense - LOTR and Kong are two of my favorites.  But without New Line, his artistic talent would be worth didly, and those movies would never have been made.  New Line "produced"  Lord of the Rings by 'producing' the money that enabled Peter Jackson and Wingnut to do the work.

The discussion for me has always been about whether or not CoO should be the artistic source or the copyright owner.

If it's the copyright owner, I would find the data ultimately useless. As I said in the thread I started, it may so often be US ownership of many worldwide productions, simply because they are willing to pay for them. Which is a good thing, but look at this list (I've added a couple of obvious US to beef it up):

Taxi Driver - US
An American Werewolf in London - US
Godfather - US
A Fish Called Wanda - US
LoTR - US

What's the point? Boring data just listing copyright owners. Most of the list will have "US". IMO, this version is far more interesting and relevant to the content:

Taxi Driver - US
An American Werewolf in London - UK
Godfather - US
A Fish Called Wanda - UK
LoTR - New Zealand

Quote:

The company that paid the freight by ponying up the cash, whether or not it actually did any of the filming, is the company of record, and that means country of origin.  Everything else is nothing but personal preference, prejudice, whatever you want to call it.

Quote:

Good call on Sony, Xradman! That'll be Spider-Man as well, won't it?

Quote:
Except that somebody also posted a definition of 'production company' that said it could ALSO be the company in charge of causing that to happen.  There is no rule I'm aware of that restricts a prod. co. to ONLY filming.

Quote:

Production company refers to a company responsible for the development and physical production of performing arts, film, radio or a television program. The company may also be directly responsible for the raising of funding for the production or may do so through an intermediary. The production company may be a small company, selling its product to a film studio or presenting it at a theatrical venue, or, in the case of film and television, it may be the studio itself.

Quote:
So some clarification and common sense needs to be applied at times.

Quote:

OK I'm assuming you're referring to this quote from Wikipedia:

Quote:

Production company refers to a company responsible for the development and physical production of performing arts, film, radio or a television program. The company may also be directly responsible for the raising of funding for the production or may do so through an intermediary. The production company may be a small company, selling its product to a film studio or presenting it at a theatrical venue, or, in the case of film and television, it may be the studio itself.

Using this definition I can't see how New Line can be classed as the production company. Yes they were responsible "for the raising of funding", but note the words may also in that sentence.
In order for New Line to be the production company, they also need to match the criteria in the first sentence: "the development and physical production" which they don't, WingNut did that bit.

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Except that somebody also posted a definition of 'production company' that said it could ALSO be the company in charge of causing that to happen.  There is no rule I'm aware of that restricts a prod. co. to ONLY filming.

OK I'm assuming you're referring to this quote from Wikipedia:

Quote:

Production company refers to a company responsible for the development and physical production of performing arts, film, radio or a television program. The company may also be directly responsible for the raising of funding for the production or may do so through an intermediary. The production company may be a small company, selling its product to a film studio or presenting it at a theatrical venue, or, in the case of film and television, it may be the studio itself.

Using this definition I can't see how New Line can be classed as the production company. Yes they were responsible "for the raising of funding", but note the words may also in that sentence.
In order for New Line to be the production company, they also need to match the criteria in the first sentence: "the development and physical production" which they don't, WingNut did that bit.

And on a different track, if we take the copyright holder as the basis for CoO, what happens if New Line decided to sell their copyright? If they sold the films to a French company, would that make them French films? We can't use the copyright holder because that can change, we use production company because that can't change.

Quote:
Quoting ya_shin:

Quote:
I thought it was already established earlier in this thread, that in fact it was Peter Jackson and WingNut film being the driving force behind the project and if New Line hadn't bought the rights for him, somebody else might have...

But I may have misunderstood that part of the discussion.

I will give you the basic...very basic...history.

Jackson and his wife wanted to make the LotR films.  Miramax helped them get the license to make them from Saul Zaentz...note I say 'license' because Saul Zaentz still claims the movie rights on his website.

The trilogy was originally going to be two films but Miramax, citing budget concerns, decided to turn it into a single film.  Jackson refused and, after some back and forth, Miramax decided to sell the entire project to New Line.

New Line did put up the money and they did do some production work so, at least in my opinion, they are a production company.  The question then becomes, which of the two production companies takes precedence?