Talk:Major film studio/Archives/2015

This article is only true for English movie markets

This article fails to address thoroughly any major film studio outside the USA, let alone non-English film studios.

I will tag the article with a POV template until this is sorted. I am sure that 'major' film studios also exist in Europe (StudioCanal), Asia, and South America... I am also fairly certain that the term 'major' would have been used to describe dominant film studios in regional markets.

Please remember that in most of Asia, and parts of Europe, local media still dominates over Hollywood, so the term 'major studios' would either need to be applied globally, or have some phrase affixed to say where it's considered 'major'("Major film studios of USA"). Weewaterasia (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamount is the only outside the US film studio has been label as either a major or mini-major that I have been able to find. Disney also owns the UTV which build a good size film business in India before being purchased by Disney. With no supporting news articles it is hard to place any others in the article. As far as I can tell foreign markets are more fragmented production company wise. Also, Hollywood box office now are tracked global and the movies are launched overseas first.

Regarding StudioCanal, I found one source that is conflicted stating in regards to the company at one point:

• "... which the Euro major fully financed, ..."
• "Arguably, it also marks the most concerted attempt by a European independent company to launch an international multi-quadrant franchise outside of the studio system."

Another Deadline article calls the firm "Euro major" while The Hollywood Reporter places them on their way to building a major: "For the French giant, the Tandem acquisition marks stage two of its plans to set up a European version of the Hollywood major studio." Spshu (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Weewaterasia's fallacious argument from ignorance (as signaled by the use of the term "I am sure..."). Try visiting every inhabited continent some time (I have) and pay attention to the films that are being advertised. No other studio outside North America can match the sheer marketing power of the major film studios and the mini-majors like Lionsgate and Weinstein. If you read the trade papers regularly like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The Wrap, Deadline, and so on, you will soon realize that studios outside North America often must pair up with a major film studio or a mini-major for North American distribution in order to be taken seriously. In other words, the United States exports lots of movies to other countries but very few movies are exported from other countries to the United States (and it is extraordinarily rare for them to go into wide release). This is why everyone complains about American cultural hegemony.

Also, notice how the American major film studios overwhelmingly dominate the list of the highest-grossing films of all time. In turn, as many commentators have pointed out, their established first-mover advantage means they have the money and power to keep raising the bar on what is a properly-made film. Australian and Canadian writers in particular love to complain about this; the Wikipedia article on Television in Australia explains this problem in the television context. As a result, other countries can't catch up, which is why most Americans dislike foreign films because they seem so amateurish compared to those written, produced, and directed by Americans. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I found and added a source on this via Google Books. Pulled the Globalize tag again. Until StudioCanal or Gaumont are capable of independently releasing billion-dollar films on their own into the North American market without pairing up with one of the major U.S. film studios, they won't be taken seriously as major studios in their own right by the North American media. For example, Disney didn't make it into the big leagues until it had its own distribution division and started reliably producing hits at both Touchstone and Feature Animation.--Coolcaesar (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

About Walt Disney Pictures in the "current majors" table...

Spshu & myself are currently engaged in a bit of a dispute. I am arguing that the studio parent for Walt Disney Pictures is Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, which even the articles for Walt Disney Pictures & The Walt Disney Studios themselves confirm, whereas Spshu is, from my point of view, incorrectly claiming that the studio parent would be The Walt Disney Studios (which the articles for the film studio & Walt Disney Studios state is incorrect). If anything, The Walt Disney Studios would be nothing more than a division of The Walt Disney Company, similar to Disney Media Networks (TV properties), Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (theme/amusement parks), & such. If anything, seeing as how Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group is the film studio division of The Walt Disney Studios & Walt Disney Pictures is one of the studios within Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, that would prove the film studio's parent IS Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, NOT The Walt Disney Studios.

Not only that, Spshu is stating that he created the table & so is implying that "studio parent" means what he wants it to mean, not what it would legally mean (which would be the entity that owns Walt Disney Pictures, which, in this case, would be Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, NOT The Walt Disney Studios). In my opinion, his statement of being the creator of the table sounds pretty much like someone claiming ownership of content; a claim which Wikipedia itself strongly argues against in WP:OWN. In fact, I wold argue Spshu's statement of creating the "current majors" table definitively falls under WP:OWN.

So, I am asking for/requesting help in resolving this dispute between myself & Spshu. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

One, I set up the table. Two, the Disney Studios & Pictures articled confirms that Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group is WD Pictures grouping within Walt Disney Studios. 248.47 is confusing "direct parent" with "studio parent". There is no "legal" meaning to studio and if there was it would have to include the distribution arm which is Walt Disney Pictures Distribution (formerly Buena Vista Distribution) which is not a part of the current Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, but a part of Walt Disney Studios per Alan Bergman President, The Walt Disney Studios: "As President, The Walt Disney Studios, Alan Bergman is responsible for the distribution of the Studios' motion pictures across theatrical exhibition, home entertainment, pay TV, digital, and other new media windows."

Implying that I OWN the article because I stated the facts that I created the table is ridicules. I pointed it out so you understand that you are misinterpreting it. That just means I know what the intent of the table is and I can explain its meaning. I am not the only one that has reversed similar edits that claim Disney Motion Pictures Group as "studio parent". Spshu (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Again, stating you set up/created the table is sounding similar, if not pretty darn close, to someone claiming ownership of content, which is strongly advised against by Wikipedia itself, due to Wikipedia's open-editing nature. You notice, I NEVER said ANYTHING about you implying ownership of the article. So, I would appreciate you NOT putting words in my mouth.

2) If you look at the article for WD Pictures, in the infobox, it CLEARLY states for "parent" Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group. In the legal sense, "parent" would be the entity that owns a property, in this case WDMPG, NOT Walt Disney Studios, being the one who owns WD Pictures. Plus, as far as the distribution arm, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, I don't know what "genius" at Disney placed it in WD Studios rather than the film studios group, as WD Studios wouldn't be distributing anything other than films. Then again, Disney also refuses to merge Marvel's production units (Marvel Studios & its TV production subsdiary) with its own existing facilities, so I'm just going to ignore Disney's actions for reasons of stupidity.

3) Again, I would argue it is YOU who is misinterpreting it, as the parent of a company is entity that owns a company, not the company that owns the entity that owns a company. And, if anything, that is simply YOUR interpretation of the table, not necessarily what the agreed-on consensus is. And, as far as pointing out you aren't the only one who has reverted an edit, Wikipedia tends to have an issue as far as some articles here & there containing incorrect information.

But, in the end, I see this dispute not ending peacefully, or even ending at all, so I am deciding to end my involvement in it right here & now. If you want to be stubborn & pig-headed about utilizing YOUR interpretation of content you ARE claiming to own (again, strongly advised against according to WP:OWN), rather than trying to reach a consensus (what Wikipedia advises), then I'm not going to continue a battle that's not worth being fought. Do NOT take this as me backing down from my stance, but moreso as me walking away from a fight that probably is never going to end. So, you can continue to have this article state incorrect information. It isn't the first article on here to do so & it certainly won't be the last. If anything, that's why most academic institutions will NOT accept work produced using this website (something any legitimate/credible organization would do).

So, with having said that, my involvement here is over & I will now walk away, but not before making 2 statements: 1) if YOU, Spshu, continue this thread, I will report you to Wikipedia for harassment & 2) enjoy utilizing the bastard cousin of Encyclopedia Britannica. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

1. I am not putting words in your mouth, you made a charge of OWN ("In fact, I wold argue Spshu's statement of creating the "current majors" table definitively falls under WP:OWN.") and I counter argued.
2. By your argument here, you indicate that you can not grasp the difference between a "direct parent" and the "studio parent" which is by what is common recognized. There is the "ultimate parent" term used for the corporation on the top of the parent-subsidiary tiers. In the table, the term "conglomerate" is used instead of "ultimate parent" to reduce confusion that you are having now. The studio parent may be the direct parent or it may not it depends. You point to in the case of WD Pictures that its direct parent is correctly WDMP Group. But given the "Studio" in the name and the remainder of other film units including distribution, marketing and home video (which at one point was WDMPG, while the production units were grouped as Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group: "The studio chairmanship was not fill at the time leaving the studio's major units, Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group chair Dick Cook, Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group chair Nina Jacobson and Walt Disney Feature Animation president Schumacher in charge."[38]) By the way, Marvel Studios report lines were move to Disney Studios recently, while the TV unit was left behind. Disney a while back decided that production should be tied to the outlet involved thus Disney TV Animation is a part of Disney Channels Worldwide, while the Touchstone/BV TV unit is now ABC Studios. The table has ignored odd structures to include various other film production companies (like Marvel Studio's previous position of still being a part of Marvel Ent.) thus the need/want to include the parent column (studio parent/conglomerate).
3. The term parent was modified with the term "studio" thus I am not "misinterpreting". The Walt Disney Company recognizes The Walt Disney Studios as the conglomerate's studio unit.

I continued this thread in case any one else wishes to comment. Discussion an issue does not constituent harassment. This is standard operating procedures. Spshu (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes, you ARE putting words in 76.235.248.47's mouth. You are claiming 76.235.248.47 said you are claiming ownership of the ARTICLE by 76.235.248.47 invoking WP:OWN. THAT is NOT what 76.235.248.47 stated. What 76.235.248.47 DID state, by invoking WP:OWN, is that you are claiming ownership of CONTENT (something completely different than claiming ownership of an article) through your statement that you created the table used in the "major" section. And, after looking at what you've said so far, what 76.235.248.47 stated IS exactly what you're doing. And, by you CONTINUING to mention how you made the table, you have NOT counter-argued AT ALL; in fact, if anything, you are actually PROVING 76.235.248.47 to be true. So, you have in fact LOST that argument.

According to YOUR logic then, the "studio parent" for the film studios SHOULD be: Paramount-Viacom (not Paramount MPG), Warner Bros.-Time Warner (not Warner Bros. Entertainment), 20th Century Fox-21st Century Fox (not Fox Filmed Entertainment), etc. The fact is, the studio parent for a film studio IS the entity that owns said studio ("studio parent" being akin to the parent company of a film studio). In the case of Walt Disney, the studio parent, or parent company of the studio (if you prefer), has generally been known to be Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, NOT The Walt Disney Studios. Walt Disney's article itself states Walt Disney MPG (the film studio group division of WD Studios) being Walt Disney's parent company. WD Studios's article places Walt Disney within Walt Disney MPG.

However, after looking through current information (on Disney's website, on WD Studios's website), I myself am unable to find ANY mention of Walt Disney MPG on the websites for Disney or WD Studios. So, I'm not sure exactly what that means, but at least from MY point of view, Disney is no longer acknowledging the existence of Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, even though Bloomberg Business has profile on WDMPG which implies its existence, as well as its active status (of course, BB seems to have articles for companies that don't exist at all). So, from the looks of it, Wikipedia impling that WDMPG exists, that it's active, or that it is the parent entity for Walt Disney might actually be wrong.

So, I am requesting that someone attempt to find out if Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group still exists. Should nothing come up for WDMPG, it may be necessary to edit the articles for Walt Disney & WD Studios to possibly indicate that WDMPG no longer exists (maybe WDMPG was merged into WD Studios). 2602:304:CEBF:82F0:EC62:DA70:B92A:235E (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Even though I said I was walking away from this thread, I decided, just for the hell of it, to check this page to see what's been said since my response & read 2602's comment. After checking the websites for Disney & WD Studios myself, I can indeed verify/confirm 2602's comment that neither website has any reference to Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, nor could I find any news articles that reference WDMPG. So, after finding that out, I have changed my mind & am backing down from my stance of WDMPG being Walt Disney's studio parent, as it would seem WDMPG doesn't even exist anymore. So, I would like to apologize to Spshu, as well as the other editor that reverted my contribution, for my mistake, as I had been operating off what apparently now seems to be outdated information for my push to have WDMPG recognized as Walt Disney's studio parent.

And, by the looks of it, 2602 has already proceeded to edit the relevant articles to reflect the current structure of Walt Disney Studios. As a result of now possessing up-to-date information, I am supporting 2602's edits, as they now make the relevant articles correct. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)