Talk:Project Nim (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Why British-American?[edit]

The lede section describes this film as being a British-American production, but I simply can't see why it's classed as being British AND American... The three production companies that made this movie, (BBC Films, Passion Pictures, and Red Box Films) are all British companies. Fiona Morham, who is from the UK Film Council, was the head of production management, the film's producer, (Simon Chinn) and the film's director (James Marsh) are ALL British. All of the executive producers (John Battsek, George Chignell, Nick Fraser, Hugo Grumbar, Jamie Laurenson, and Andrew Ruhemann) are also, without exception, all British; If that were not sufficient, both co-producers are also Brits... Clearly, then, this is a British made film, not a British-American made film... As far as I can see, aside from the actors, the American element is mainly location and subject matter; the latter elements, as important as they are, don't turn the film into a joint production. The production companies, the production itself, direction, management, and the making of this movie, are all British. I'm going to change it, but am willing to be educated in this section, on why the above is wrong and should be changed back. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was also distributed by HBO and Roadside Attractions. PROJECT NIM - DOC NYC Espngeek (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In short, movie distribution is a different kettle of fish to movie making. Essentially, my point stands, that this is a British production. Distribution contracts are often made between the producers (makers of a film) and the distributors, AFTER a movie is made. Distribution is in no real way, part of the movie making process, UNLESS one of the distributors is also the production company... Which in this case, unless you know, and can show, different, they were not. Can you please confirm where it states that this film was made as a joint British and American venture, and also who the film's American production companies are? I won't reverse your edit-revert just yet, as I'm assuming good faith, and acknowledging, that you may be able to show exactly that... As I said earlier, I don't know for sure, I just can't find any evidence that this movie was produced jointly by British and American producers. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back without answering my above post... Those two are merely the distributors (unless you can SHOW otherwise - which I'm entirely open to) not makers, or producers, or even financiers (financers?) of the movie. Even the wiki page of RA lists it a sole distributor (when it was co-distributed with HBO), and your link to the DOC NY website completely erroneously lists it as entirely a US venture... Which I've clearly established it isn't; and I've searched for ANY involvement of non-UK makers and producers, without success. Look, I never reverted your edit to remove US attribution, as I said I wouldn't... Somebody else removed all national attribution, and I mearly resubmitted the UK attribute (I did not include US attribution, because I cannot find any) so why have you changed it without discussing it here? If you have more information to back up your assertion that this movie was a joint venture, I'd really like to see it. Otherwise your edit was entirely arbitrary, wasn't it? I'm REALLY trying to be fair and open-minded, here, and I am absolutely assuming good faith; I'm literally following Wikipedia rules or guidelines! Changing information in the article arbitrarily, without specific information to back it up, when the facts are in dispute and under discussion, just isn't proper. Your assertion needs backing up with facts, surely? And,in the event of no definitive facts, at the bare minimum, consensus is needed. As I said, I'm completely open to either HBO or RA (or any) being involved as recognised makers of this movie, rather than distributors (which doesn't qualify a company as makers of the move). If distributors qualifed as makers, purely because they are local distributors, then every single country with its own distribution company for a movie, would be classed as a co-producer... The Wizard of Oz, is an American-French-Indian-Chinese-Nigerian etc made move... See why distribution is NOT considered production? So, as I keep saying, if those two (or any) company, are producers and not just distributors, then PLEASE, show it. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]