Talk:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saban Properties / BVS Entertainment[edit]

Buena Vista Apparently owns the rights to a great many of the re-dubbed Saban Projects. I wish everyone would call them @ 1-800-477-2811 and request that the Saban Properties be re-released in some form. They Bought Saban Entertainment and now own the rights to the distribution of a great many shows that may never see the light of day again unless someone calls them and says "hey, you guys need to stop being so boneheaded and release this stuff, you could make <insert ridiculously large figure here>".

Per the Saban Article, the wing of Buena Vista that houses what was once Saban Entertainment is called "BVS Entertainment".

I know Maple Town, Maya the Bee, Mysterious Cities of Gold, And Noozles are under the ownership of BVS. I wish I could find out what else has disappeared down the figurative rabbit hole into the dark recesses of the corporate behemoth that is Buena Vista / Disney.

Christ, why did this stuff have to end up in the hands of the corporate jerkwads who will likely never allow it to see the light of day again ;_; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.43.142 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 April 2006

Buena Vista becomes Walt Disney[edit]

Disney changed the name of all Buena Vista business units six months ago. Currently all of BVPD and BVI are divisions of Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, the umbrella name for a number of studio depts under Dick Cook. I'm really surprised that no one has changed this. 69.231.225.204 (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's all set now. jhawkinson (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Franchises Section[edit]

Is the franchises section of this article relevant to explaining what Walt Disney Motion Pictures does? In addition. this section cites no sources. Should this section be deleted?

Of course NOT, besides what is up with removing something if that's the company's main franchises?--DisneyGirlovestacos1995 (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarzan no more?[edit]

I'm so disappointed that Tarzan is no longer in Disney, how did this happen?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.178.57 (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise relevance[edit]

Is a table listing the studio's film franchises relevant?

There's already a section regarding the topic on this talk page, but I've decided to start anew and assess this critical issue. This discussion also applies to the same issue at 20th Century Fox (and any other studio articles for that matter), but I've concentrated the discussion here because of the higher frequency in edit warring and to avoid creating two, separate discussions. For now, I would argue against including the content for the following reasons:

1. Adhering to Policy — The current edits that have added the content have been unreferenced and are therefore unverified, which goes against Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and abstaining from including original research.

2. Arbitrary nature — The information is arbitrary and leads to questions like; What constitutes a media franchise? Do we include every franchise the studio has done, both widely known and less-known, or one over the other? Are dormant/future franchises part of the list too? What about franchises that only have one film but have a larger presence in other forms of media that are unrelated to the studio, like merchandising, television and theme parks? In shorter terms, where do we draw the line in the sand?

3. Notability — Does the content meet notability guidelines or is it irrelevant and trivial?

Please note, that if those problems can be addressed and solved, then I'd support incorporating the content. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I think the list does have a place in the article but only for major partners involved. Don't forget the article is about a distribution company, so films it distributes are an important piece of knowledge. Most of the current list items are notable companies with notable involvement so they can stay. However you can remove the producer/distribution deals, it is getting a bit trivial. There is definitely need for more references on the list itself and finding sources to verify the contents of the list could realistically be done.

So keep to current/former units with more references but remove the producer/distributions deals. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with EvilKeyboardCat. References need to be added to verify the list's contents. It would be ideal to find a reliable source that already has some form of this list, rather than editors putting together a list using references for individual items on the list and potentially creating an original research issue. Eidolonic (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:"Distributed by" v. "Studio"[edit]

Per a request at WP:AN/RFC, this RfC is closed as no consensus. This RfC attracted very little attention or outside input. Though I, as a regular editor, would note that the only solution that does not run afoul of our WP:NOR policy is the one proposed by User:Betty Logan. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please note: I've abbreviated Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures as WDSMP and Buena Vista Pictures Distribution as BVPD for the purposes of brevity.

I feel as though I have to address two issues that are becoming apparent in several Disney film articles, involving the Studio and Distributed by parameters found in the infoboxes for Disney films. I've come across several articles that identity either a film label/imprint/banner (i.e. Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, or Hollywood Pictures etc.) as the film's distributor whereas other articles identify WDSMP or BVPD (depending on the year) as distributor, despite the fact that all of Disney's films are distributed by the latter, as the former ones are imprints/labels/banners. Thus the first key issue is this: Who do we indicate as distributor? WDSMP/BVPD? Or its various labels/imprints/banners? For the sake of argument, if we decide on the former, then where do we list all of the labels/imprints/banners? In the studio parameter? Or do we just double stuff the distributor parameter?

Addressing that concern, brings forth the second issue which is article consistency. If we do decide on what goes in what parameter, then we must enforce that rule-of-thumb on all articles and not just a collective few, which is what I've been noticing. For example, The Nightmare Before Christmas now lists BVPD as distributor and Touchstone as the studio, whereas My Father the Hero (a film from roughly the same timeframe), has Touchstone as distributor and nothing in the studio field, despite that they're both distributed by WDSMP/BVPD. In basic terms, many of the related film articles are just inconsistent with one another.

I have two solutions that I'd like to bring to the table.
A. We identify the distributor as one of the film labels/imprints/banners and disregard WDSMP/BVPD completely, since its role in distribution is already implied with the film label (exempting Disney's Marvel Studios releases).
B. We only include WDSMP/BVPD in the distribution parameter and all the various film labels/imprints/banners would fall under the studio parameter alongside any other production companies.

What are your thoughts on addressing this issue? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, each of BV, Touchstone, Hollywood and Miramax had their own distribution capability (not sure about Disney Pictures). Later the film units were force to operate closer and unified their distribution arm under BVPD (except for Miramax until near the end of its Disney ownership). Spshu (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So...what do we do about it? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support Jedi94's statements and I think "Solution A" would work best for me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there are two separate issues here. You have to separate "imprints" from revisionism i.e. the purpose of the infobox is to record the bibliographic information about the film. For instance, United Artists used to distribute the James Bond films, and then it was taken over by MGM but that doesn't mean we should start adding MGM to all the James Bond film articles i.e. Dr No was distributed by United Artists, so that is what it should say, regardless of who owns it now. Then you have imprints, which are when a company makes or releases a film under a different division/branding, for example "Touchstone Pictures". It is common in book publishing to list both the publisher and the imprint (see MLA example), so that analogy could be used in film articles i.e. Touchstone (The Walt Disney Company) — incidentally this is how the AFI present the information for The Nightmare Before Christmas. But you have to be careful to avoid original research in these cases, because apart from the most highly publicised cases such as Disney's Touchstone or Buena Vista labels, in many cases it will be often unclear when something is a branding or a subsidiary, and if something is a subsidiary then it is not an imprint. The easiest way to approach this I think is to simply follow what the sources say: the AFI list Touchstone as the production company and Buena Vista as the distributor for both The Nightmare Before Christmas, and this is also the case for My Father the Hero. The Nightmare Before Christmas was also submitted to the MPAA by Disney using its Buena Vista arm for its MPAA rating. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I realized that I forgot to mention that I'm also inclined towards "Solution A" as being the best option. In regard to Betty Logan's comment - if we follow that route, then what would do for the studio and distributor parameters for such films from, let's say, Pixar? (While still staying true to Disney's film labels, that is.) ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the AFI always supply a list of the production companies and the distributor so in what sense is that not sufficient for what we need? If you take the Toy Story films for example, the AFI, MPAA and BBFC state that Buena Vista is the distributor for the first two films, while for the third they all state it is WDSMP (AFO, MPAA, BBFC). For the production companies, the AFI lists Pixar Animation Studios and Walt Disney Pictures ([1]) for the first two and just Pixar for the third one ([2]). There are plenty of sources around that list the production companies and distributors and all we should be doing is following them. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Solution A is the best course of action. It feels more inclusive and overall makes more sense to me. Celestial Reader (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The core principal of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability. That means editors shouldn't be determining which companies/brands are credited with producing/distributing the film from their own personal knowledge or research of corporate infrastructure. If secondary sources credit a particular company then that is what Wikipedia should be doing. Betty Logan (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. However, this isn't conjecture, we know exactly what the studio is, and who the distributor is. The issue is how we are going to list it, correct? I feel like Solution A just makes more sense than solution B. It's not like solution A will have false information, It's a more specific route than just listing WDSMP or BVPD. Celestial Reader (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither solution is really acceptable if it puts us at odds with other secondary sources and database entries, and both are entirely acceptable if they are consistent with them. In the case of A Nightmare Before Christmas, sources credit the production company as Touchstone and Buena Vista as the distributor, so why would we need to deviate from that? In the case of the Toy Story films what is the problem with simply emulating the AFI? This is a solution without a problem IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both solutions are the same since they just serve in different contexts and both can be feasible, provided that we're not misinforming readers with original research or anything of the sort. As of now, Solution A seems to be the majority though. But, I do want to dignify Betty's point that we can enact Solution B only if we can find consistent sources for all of Disney's films. For instance, the AFI/Toy Story example seems a bit dodgy since we know Walt Disney Pictures was involved in some sort of capacity with the third film (despite no mention of it by the AFI), but AFI isn't the only source out there and if we can find other reputable ones we might be home free. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What about Disney's Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas?[edit]

Disney's Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas is not a feature film theatrically release, it's a direct-to-video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actors and actress in invidual movies distributed by Buena Vista and W.D.S.M.P.[edit]

What is the actors and actress in invidual movies distributed by Buena Vista and W.D.S.M.P.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.17.15 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about R-rated Disney film by the MPAA?[edit]

All those R-rated Disney films by the MPAA are produced by Touchstone Pictures banner.

No children without their parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.84.128 (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Fox Box Office[edit]

Can we now include Fox's films in the Highest-grossing films? RigorImpossible (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were not distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures/Buena Vista distribution. Spshu (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Spshu said. Much like older Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios films, they were not originally distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures/Buena Vista Distribution. However, any new future Fox films distributed by Disney can be included from now onwards. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Box office NOTNEWS[edit]

The box office grosses should not be updated like we are some sort of film newspaper (NOTNEWS). Small increments, relatively speaking, are not encyclopedic. Thus I suggest that only after the weekend box office closes that they be updated. Spshu (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- I’m disappointed that I’m having to argue with you again, articles should be updated to reflect recent events, where is your idea of this “newspaper” thing even coming from? I need another reason on how NOTNEWS applies here. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disappointment too to argue with you over something over very basic logic. "....where is your idea of this “newspaper” thing even coming from?" Straight from NOTNEWS: "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." A million is not much money any more; there are 1 millionaire per thousand people. The box office table is cut to the millions to keep even lesser transaction from being reported. Even most media outlets don't even report box office information with most after the weekend boost, thus an daily up dater of a few million in box office sales is being Anal retentiveness. So, asking to match what news outlets usually report this info not much. This is all a volunteer effort, we shouldn't want "make work" in daily updates and the then expect the page watchers to have to verify these small updates. Spshu (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – While the numbers don't have to be up-to-date... that doesn't mean an up-to-date number is incorrect. If a user makes a correct updated box-office number, it shouldn't be reverted to an outdated, week-old version just because a "page watcher" doesn't have the time to verify from Box Office Mojo. We probably don't want small changes; but changes that involve millions or change in chart positions should be welcomed when they occur. Starforce13 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree with Starforce13's reasoning. Although I agree that box office numbers don't need to be updated every minute of every day, that doesn't mean any new and accurate updates should be reverted for an old gross. If a dedicated user should provide us with any newer, accurate grosses, then they should be kept. No harm done with that. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The harm is the box office updates can hide incorrect changes or removal of information intentional or not from watchlist(s) as it only shows the last edit on a day. It becomes harder to just revert as each succeeding edit occurs. Spshu (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can configure your Watchlist to show all the changes instead of just the recent ones. If you go to "Preferences", there's a "Watchlist" tab where you'll find an "Advanced Options" section. There's a checkbox that says "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent." Check it and save. So, all changes will be displayed by default and none will slip away. After that, it should be easy to see all the changes unless you only look at the comment and someone intentionally uses "BOM update" comment to hide a vandalism (which they can still do with any other edit/comment). Starforce13 20:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merger of Walt Disney Studios (division) and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures[edit]

Indicated by Ajax Coleman in this edit at 04:49, 19 September 2019. Nardog (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"NOT FOR MERGE. WDS is the umbrella studio; WDS Motion Pictures is the distribution unit of WDS. Not the same." – Starforce13, in the edit summary of this edit at 05:19, 19 September 2019. Nardog (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Against. Walt Disney Studios (division) is the segment division of The Walt Disney Studios that includes more than just Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures including Disney Music Group and Disney Theatrical Group plus all the production and facility units. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures also has a history as Buena Vista Distribution and is the distribution arm of the Studio. Spshu (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two incarnations of Buena Vista Pictures Distribution. The original incarnation was an actual entity merged into ABC, Inc. while the current incarnation now called Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures was formed right after but did not result in a formation of a new entity, instead the current incarnation is a division/label of Walt Disney Studios and Walt Disney Studios is an actual company called Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group.Granthew (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group co-existed with and was over Buena Vista Distribution, Buena Vista Home Entertainment and Disney studio marketing (and possibly international units plus Touchstone distribution as at one point I read, but cannot refind, where most of the production companies had distribution units - which I doubt for Hollywood which was mostly attached to Touchstone) from 1996 to 2001 (along with 2001-2006 Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group which grouped the production companies - Hollywood, Disney, Touchstone, Caravan). Spshu (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow - I don't even think there's use continuing this discussion. It's based on an incorrect assumption that WDS and WDSMP are the same entity. And also, both articles are already too large on their own... which would have resulted in a SPLIT had they been one article. So, this is a clear WP:SNOW null discussion. — Starforce13 21:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group was formed in 1991 as Mixed Berry Corporation and the original Buena Vista Pictures Distribution was merged into ABC, Inc. in 1997, this can be found in the California Corporations Online Database.Granthew (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite aware, as I add the fact that I added that Buena Vista Pictures Distribution (BVPD) merged into ABC, Inc. But that would make the current WDSMP a division of ABC, Inc. Or this could have been how they transferred Buena Vista Television, Inc. to the ABC Group part of the conglomerate while transferring the BVPD assets else where like possibly to Disney Enterprise, Inc., Buena Vista International, Inc. (Registration 04/04/1961 and still active), international distribution arm and Disney Pictures, Inc. So, what you have turned up doesn't prove any thing. Spshu (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2020 (
Well it doesn’t make sense for Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures to be a division of ABC, Inc. Are you suggesting Buena Vista Pictures Distribution was the parent company of Buena Vista Television? I don’t know what other purpose Disney Enterprises (Disney Enterprises, Inc.) serves for the Disney mass media conglomerate, the only thing that is known about Disney Enterprises is that it is the copyright holder and trademark owner of the Disney brand and intellectual properties around the brand and that it is the second business entity called “The Walt Disney Company”. I don’t think there is a business entity called Disney Pictures, Inc. In reply to “what I turned up doesn’t mean anything”, I was just making the case that the Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures article should not be merged into the Walt Disney Studios article.Granthew (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution to TCF[edit]

If 20th Century Fox is still distributing its own films according to its sources, how come it's still listed on the film unit list of studios being distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures regardless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSMan2016 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably due to the assumption that 2CF distribution operations (2CFD) is a unit or label of WDSMP. Which is logical given that the top 2CFD executives have been dismissed. But it still could be reporting to the 2CF vice chair thus not a part of WDSMP. Spshu (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in the paragraph of the Walt Disney Studios article, "Under the Walt Disney Studios division are notable film production companies including Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios. Films produced by these studios are released and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures." --XSMan2016 (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, according to this source, You can find these three letters "FSL", "DIS", and "FOX" behind their respective movie titles on Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures' release schedule. I found out that they're the names of WDSMP's production companies that are producing said respective films; "FSL" stands for Fox Searchlight, "DIS" stands for Walt Disney Pictures, and "FOX" stands for 20th Century Fox; therefore Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is behind distribution, and Fox Searchlight and 20th Century Fox are behind producing. XSMan2016 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searchlight Pictures[edit]

Anyone have idea if we should remove Searchlight Pictures or put a disclaimers saying They distribute their own films autonously from Disney? Because if we say Disney Studios Motion Pictures distrubutes the following studios and we last that, that technically means Disney doenst distrbute Searchlight Pictures films, acordding to this: "Following the reorganization and renaming of the acquired film units, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures began distributing 20th Century Studios films, while Searchlight Pictures continued to operate their autonomous distribution unit".[ NakhlaMan (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

management at Buena Vista Pictures[edit]

Who headed Buena Vista Pictures before Dick Cook became president of it in 1994? Who were the people that ran the distribution company from its founding until then? --Evope (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star Distribution the successor to Buena Vista International in Latin America and Brazil[edit]

Well, since Buena Vista brand was officialy dropped in the Latin American region as of February 11, 2022, the Latin American branch of Buena Vista International is now Star Distribution as seen in the YouTube Channel and his Facebook page that the logo of Star Distribution first seen as a profile photo, the last film to use the BVI name was Today We Fix The World (2022) and the first film to use his current name was Noche Americana (2022) and the Argentine print of Official Competition (2022) and also on November 3, 2022, the Brazilian branch of Buena Vista International was renamed to Star Distribution as his YouTube Channel and his Facebook page the logo is the same with the Star Distribution logo, the last film to use the BVI name in Brazil was Abestalhados 2 (2022) and the first film to use his current name will be Fervo (2023) and yeah Star Distribution didn't have a on-screen logo in his films and is unknown if Las Fiestas (2023) would have a official on-screen logo (as in style of Star Original logo or in style of Star Studios logo). XboxFan2006 (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:The Walt Disney Company § Disney Entertainment[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Walt Disney Company § Disney Entertainment. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Inc.[edit]

[3] from SF Chronicle:

ABC Inc. d/b/a Walt Disney Motion Pictures ("Disney") or one of its affiliates ...

Wait, what? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap: [4] [5] [6] InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's impossible? SolshineBenie (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fake to me and sus if WDSMP had a d/b/a to ABC, Inc. TCFFanmade2006YT (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that and thus it may confirm ABC Inc has a trade name for Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures for which I believe it had left unconfirmed until at least 2019. So there's not a problem with that though. SolshineBenie (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem real, considering that two of the three sources listed for this name in this article are from Disney itself. However, while the database OpenCorporates lists multiple entities under the legal name ABC, Inc. (or ABC Communications, Inc.) trading as WDSMP, Dun & Bradstreet lists the company's trade name as simply ABC. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (Converse here) 11:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And rumour has it that Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is a trade name for ABC Inc according to some source. I guess it's like Amblin Partners being the trade name for Storytelling Distribution LLC after all!! SolshineBenie (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walt_Disney_Studios_Motion_Pictures&oldid=1220745375"