Talk:Major film studios/Archives/2018

A&E Networks

Disney owns 50% of A&E Networks. Shouldn't their divisions, A&E IndieFilms and A&E Films be listed under The Walt Disney Company? LegerPrime 18:31, 10 November 2017‎

The article is about major film studios, thus in the theatrical film production category. Thus other unit should be limited to the theatrical film production as to not bloat the table up with additional units. I don't think or know that those A&E divisions do theatrical or DTV films, but make TV films. I gone back and forth on Lucas Animation (1 theatrical movie) and Marvel Animation (7 Marvel Animated Features and 5 other DTV, but seems to have dropped production of them) as they haven't steadily produced them. Spshu (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A&E IndieFilms was involved in City of Ghosts[1].

The standings?

I cut a couple recent random sentences of cruft that had been appended to the bottom of "The standings" section. But I wonder if the section belongs in the article at all. The data starts in 2004, without any explanation of why that's an encyclopedically valid starting point and, obviously ends in 2010. Is anyone really prepared to (a) fill in all the missing years from 2011 to today? and (b) either explain to readers—in the article—why 2004 is a valid starting point, or build out the data all the way back to...when exactly?

Do you see where I'm going with this? This is supposedly an article on the nature and history of the major film studio. The mini-majors section should be fairly brief. No one coming to learn about major film studios will miss this mini-major standings section if it's not there. And then there's that laundry list of former mini-majors. Isn't that exactly the sort of thing we try to eliminate from proper articles? DocKino (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried having it removed before as it looks like we are using it to make the determination of what is and isn't a mini-major as if it was a horse race. And that as you say that it doesn't add much since the article is about the majors. We should be removing them, but completionist generally have run around here. But on the other hand, one major studio dropped down to mini-major status (MG) and a mini-major studio reached major studio status (Disney). Lionsgate is on the cusp of making the jump. Spshu (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that, your insistence that Amblin Partners be included in the list of current mini-majors is all the more confounding. The practical definition of "mini-major", that appears in the beginning of the article, is "leading independent producer/distributor," and it is really only those that are relevant to a discussion of the title topic: major film studios. There are many production houses, large and small, that do not distribute and it is very hard to see how they are relevant to an article on major film studios. Amblin Partners is one of those non-distributing production houses and a reference to "majors and mini-majors" two paragraphs away in a single article hardly qualifies it as something this article needs to focus on. DocKino (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I toiled to gather the data for this section, but...sigh...I guess I see your point. The broader issue I was trying to get actually relates to (I can't believe I'm saying this) what Spshu observes about the fluctuating fortunes of studios at the mini-major level, and the fact that they can—once in a blue moon—make the leap. Maybe integrate some of the data into the "Studios" section immediately above? — DCGeist (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A24 as mini-major

Here is an article from this past year surveying the fortunes of the various studios in 2016: Box Office: The Winners & Losers Of 2016. You will note that A24 is listed as mini-major; you will notice that the survey entirely ignores Amblin and Gaumont—because, presumably, they don't qualify for consideration. Here is a source from just one month ago that, again, explicitly describes A24 as a mini-major: What Exactly Would Happen If Disney buys Fox?. I could go on, but I shouldn't have to. I trust that Spshu will now stop edit warring and allow the inclusion of A24, and we can move on to see if he can offer anything like a similarly compelling defense for the retention of Amblin and Gaumont. — DCGeist (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Gamount's source was right in the article and includes the quote labeling it a mini-major. You just have not look. Amblin assumed (as successor to) DreamWorks spot as a mini-major. Yes, DreamWorks has been sourced as a mini-major after Speilberg's split with Paramount when all his films were distributed by some one else. What is a Mini-Major Studio? Paramount Pictures secures financing from Chinese investors for film slate: "Many major and mini-major film companies have secured financing agreements with investors from China." "Alibaba Pictures, the entertainment arm of Jack Ma’s e-commerce giant, recently announced a deal to co-produce and co-finance movies with Steven Spielberg’s entertainment company, Amblin Partners."

• MGM source - Peter Bart: A Resurgent MGM Builds Clout For New Film & TV Acquisitions "So where is Barber taking MGM? Will the major mini become a major major?" (Assuming error as a major mini is a major just a lesser major.) "MGM to Buy Premium Cable Network Epix in $1 Billion Deal" (from the Wrap): Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer will become the sole owner of premium cable network Epix, after the mini-major studio bought out partners Paramount Pictures and Lionsgate, the company announced Wednesday."
• Birth.Movies.Death. bills by description indicates that it is a fan site. Spshu (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, Birth.Movies.Death. is not a "fan site." It's obviously a professionally operated, for-profit website that happens to be run by Alamo Drafthouse Cinema, one of the leading independent exhibitors in the North American market. — DCGeist (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I know who runs it, which is immaterial. The description I was talking about is its "about" page which states: "Springing from the movie-loving culture of the Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, Birth.Movies.Death. is putting the fun back in being a nerd." So, what if it is "professionally operated, for-profit website" it can still be a fan site. It doesn't hold itself out as any type of news site as news site sure isn't out there for this "putting the fun back in being a nerd." as is a WP:BIASED. Spshu (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Spshu. "Who runs it" is entirely material. Birth.Movies.Death. is a professional site, not a fan site. A "fan site" is an amateur website operated by one or more fans. Birth.Movies.Death. definitely meets our standard for a reliable source. For example, the current Featured Article candidate Planet of the Apes was recently subjected to a rigorous sources review in which no question was raised about its citation of Birth.Movies.Death. And that's because there's no question it meets our standards. DocKino (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

STX Family

Spshu? Did YOU not bother looking up for other information for the name of STX's family division? Which I know you didn't. From the source I put in the edit note (which is seen [http://deadline.com/2017/03/elton-john-andrew-lloyd-webber-tim-rice-joseph-and-the-amazing-technicolor-dreamcoat-film-stx-cinemacon-1202053721/ here), you can see that STX's family division is named "STX Family". You're talking about that the division is "unnamed" from the source I've provided last night. But did you bother looking up on Deadline, Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter for the name "STX Family"? King Shadeed March 9, 2018 15:12 EST

Yes, I did check other sources ((even STX's website), but the source given did not have a name. All you had to do was use that source in the article and this would be done as I pointed out in my edit summary in doing so. How about actually checking your source instead of lashing out at me at your inability to provide one with the name. Per WP:PROVEIT the onus is on you: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". Spshu (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. So? Did you bother adding it in the first place???? King Shadeed March 10, 2018 00:44 EST

Major film studio

• Go to the about link.

Oh and here, use this too.2606:A000:ED84:5200:A8E5:4DD3:BFC0:BD3C (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the sources confirm the 1918/1924 format. --Ebyabe (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

1918 is CBC. 1924 is Columbia Pictures. You can't use both because it's redundancy. You have to go by Columbia's founding year. If you do that, then you have to go by the year Warner Bros. Pictures and Fox were founded. Even when Paramount took on the name "Paramount" in 1914. Incorporations count. Columbia: 1924, WB: 1923, Fox: 1935, Paramount: 1912, Universal: 1912, and Disney: 1923. Columbia Pictures would be celebrating their 100th anniversary if they count 1918 as their year, right? So. They're not. In 1999, Columbia celebrated their 75th anniversary. 80 years in 2004 and 90 in 2014. Think about that.2606:A000:ED84:5200:84F3:1FD2:D975:7850 (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ebyabe:

Columbia Pictures

Some of you keep saying that Columbia Pictures was founded in 1918. They would be 100 years old this year, right? Well. Columbia was known as C.B.C. Film Sales. It was renamed as Columbia Pictures Corporation in 1924. So the company took on its 1924 founding year as Columbia not 1918 as C.B.C. Read what I've found. 2606:A000:ED84:5200:35FF:50FE:9D4A:CCFF (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

And look at this. That's from 1999 when Columbia turned 75. I even found this. So it's safe to say that Columbia was founded in 1924 and not 1918.2606:A000:ED84:5200:95E2:3ED2:2FBC:10A6 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)