by kenichiku » Fri May 04, 2007 8:44 pm
From what I know about this, most of the Taiwanese output all had to register their charters in HK if they wanted HK (& beyond) to be the port of call for launch distribution as they didn't and still don't have that kind of distribution muscle at home (esp. before state sponsorship) besides, the HK charters allowed for Taiwanese companies to favorably cloak/shelter their arbitrage profits away from Taiwan as their homeland has a more restrictive tariff system for sheltering funds (think Japan's Toyota of America, France's Canal+Group Netherlands, Microsoft UK, etc). When smaller Indies attached themselves to a larger studio like GH or SB, they faced a 'Catch 22' of having a larger 'umbrella' to put the word out for their films and help shelter their profits while at the same time allow the majors to take the lion's share of the cut (& therefore brand the titles easier for you guys to ID) but when it's a short-lived one hit venture, the HK 'company' for some upstart Taiwan producer was usually some tiny 12 square meter office with a desk & a phone in some Kowloon basement on Nathan next to a hawker's stand, rented short term like for 3-6 months during the distribution life of the film.
Whenever I come across such ambiguities while editing, it's the staff, producer & production values that usually tip me off. Whenever I'm in doubt for these types of titles that I'm mopping up over at the IMDB, you'll see that I include both territories i.e. HK/Taiwan as to a title's origin.