Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
I'm happy to see that in that example, reality of movie is more important than DVD (or blu-ray) credits. But why just in this case, and not in other cases (typos in credit, for example...) ?

Must every thread be derailed at some point?

---------------

With this him standing on his soapbox i think you probably already know the answer to this question 

Again and again ad infinitum

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
I'm happy to see that in that example, reality of movie is more important than DVD (or blu-ray) credits.

And back on topic...

The screen captures above do not contradict RKO Radio Pictures as the theatrical distributor, there are merely silent on the matter.  However there is ample evidence (e.g. vintage movie posters) to the fact that RKO was indeed the original theatrical release studio and so they should be kept in the profile as such.

---------------

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
You just change the credits, with documentation, thing that you reproach me on other subjects.

Please explain to me how the screen credits (or information contained within the credits) have been changed by listing RKO Radio Pictures as the theatrical release studio.

---------------

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
@ scotthm
Don't try to convince me. I agree with you that correct data with proper documentation should be used even if it does not match exactly with credits or cover. Just you agree here, and disagree when I say the same thing as you.

You're not saying the same thing.  It is not necessarily against the rules to supplement the credits (e.g. adding uncredited studios or cast), but it is against the rules to correct "spelling errors" in the credits.

---------------

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
@ scotthm
Don't try to convince me. I agree with you that correct data with proper documentation should be used even if it does not match exactly with credits or cover. Just you agree here, and disagree when I say the same thing as you.

You're not saying the same thing.  It is not necessarily against the rules to supplement the credits (e.g. adding uncredited studios or cast), but it is against the rules to correct "spelling errors" in the credits.

---------------

Absolutely 100% correct

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
And the movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was initially theatrically released by RKO Radio Pictures, no matter what the revisionists at Disney would like you to believe.  It's an historical fact, and no expurgation of the film credits can change that.

While you are correct, I have to point out that it has nothing to to with revisionist history...at least not in this case.  All Disney films released after, I believe, 1953, were distributed by BVFD.  That means, when Snow White was re-released in theaters, RKO was no longer invloved.  Since they werent', they were no longer listed in the credits.

CORRECT

The rules don't say, but they do say to "Enter the year of the original theatrical release." for the production year, which as least to me offers a clue to what should go first into the studio field...

Just to throw my 2 cents in, I think the information should come from the release itself. And as always, only from the original, on the day of it's release meaning if other releases use the same UPC, then it should not replace the original. If a new release has it's own UPC, then it should stand on it's own. I think this is how we do it now unless I'm very much mistaken.