Talk:Major film studios/Archives/2019

20th Century Fox ceasing to be a major studio after the Disney acquisition?

"When the deal between Disney and Fox is closed, the number of the major film studios will be reduced to 5, thus ending the era of the "Big Six" studios."

I'm not sure about this. 20th Century Fox would have to either be demoted to a mini-major or shut down completely for that to be possible. I bet Disney will be shutting down Fox Searchlight Pictures and other Fox production units while keeping the main studio intact. How come this can't be seen as two major film studios owned by the same conglomerate rather than the end of the current era of the "Big Six" major studios? It's not like 20th Century Fox itself is actually being shut down by the Disney Company. Plus, 20th Century Fox's own studio in Century City will still exist, because I haven't heard any reports of that being gotten rid of, either.

And now it's being reported today that Disney's acquisition of the 21st Century Fox assets is scheduled to close on March 20. Jim856796 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Dinsey's CEO has indicated that Fox Searchlight and the other production units will continue. I assume this is to evaluate which of the secondary film units would be assigned to the direct-to-consumer arm to feed Hulu and/or Disney+. "How come this can't be seen as two major film studios owned by the same conglomerate rather than the end of the current era of the "Big Six" major studios?" Because this is how the industry sees it; they have to be independent of of other major studios. We have to go with the sources say, as does your quoted sentence. When Miramax was acquired by Disney, Miramax, while considered as Disney's indie/Mini-major arm and operated independently for the most part during Disney's ownership, was dropped in industry media as a mini-major studio. While not being shut down, 20th Century Fox is being placed within Walt Disney Studios. The physical studio lot is were the production company designation of studio came from, but are not the same. Ownership of a studio lot may (or may not) factor in the production company designation. New Fox Corporation will retain ownership of the studio lot. Spshu (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

But what if the sources (specifically those who act like 20th Century Fox is getting shut down, like Peter Bart at Deadline.com) are wrong, and it, technically, really is two major studios being owned by the same conglomerate? Where did you hear about the New Fox Corporation retaining ownership of the 20th Century Fox studio lot? I'm worried that there'll be edit wars on this page over this issue over the end of the current "Big Six Major Studios" era and the whole "one conglomerate owning two major studios" thing. The Disney Company's acquisition of Fox raises questions like these: Are Walt Disney Pictures and 20th Century Fox going to be a unified major studio after the Disney Company acquisition? Will either studio be allowed by the New Fox Corporation to use the studio lot at Century City? And if no, which productions from other companies will use it? Jim856796 (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Disney CEO Bob Iger said that all 20th Century Productions will be under the control of Allen Horn and that 20th Century Fox will only be a banner for the studios edgier content.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Other units and other issues

TV, comic book, low ownership, defunct business units units like the previously discussed A&E Networks are to be excluded as this about major film studios (and the related, mini-major studios). The continually readded have been removed: (added to unified list below) Spshu (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

To clarify why these are not appropriate, this is about the theatrical film business and there is an article for Media_conglomerate that has a table for the highest unit in a media/entertainment category. Thus TV and other units don't belong. Spshu (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure the point in removing major units that hold the film studio, but are not the media conglomerate? There absence many cause additional edit wars in editors attempt to show that they know alot and it might be what some think is the studio. It also might hold other film units in the table thus sparing most cause of removal. Spshu (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Dates over Years - Years are preferable as dates can be at the individual major studios' article and the dates invites vandals that just like to change dates to see if they can introduce an error that won't be corrected, since most editors would not know if it is a correct. more latter. Spshu (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• TV: Rede Telecine , DreamWorks Classics (TV IP holder), Rooster Teeth, Animax tv channels, Starz Digital Media, Starz Distribution
• streaming/VOD TV: DreamWorks New Media, Hulu (this is low % equity stake), DirecTV Cinema (Video on Demand), PictureBox Films
• defunct: United Artists (not active and not a JV - two other units use its name and are listed), Culver Entertainment (DTV unit seeming defunct only Spectacular Spider-Man produced by it)
• TV animation studio: Ellation Studios, Cartoon Network Studios (yes it did 1 theatrical film but over a decade ago)
• Codeblack Films, Lionsgate dropped out of the JV.
• minority stakes: Amblin Partners (at Universal),Makeready (eOne has a larger interest than Universal [1]), Spyglass Media, Toei Animation (1.8%)
• defunct/inactive (atleast as film units): Big Idea Entertainment, Bullwinkle Studios, High Top Releasing
• ?: Integrated Media Group
• print unit: Vertigo Comics|Vertigo Films Spshu (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Walt Disney Studios Sony Pictures Releasing is sourced for multiple countries, so stop removing it. Spshu (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Toho Co, Ltd doesn't have any source as a mini-major, opening an office in the US doesn't qualify them for that status. We do not grant status. Spshu (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Walt Disney Studios Sony Pictures Releasing logo found

https://news.myseldon.com/ru/news/index/209739037

Might need translation to understand what it says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Within and near the city limits?

That doesn't really work as a logical distinction; so are Warner Bros. and Universal. The better choice is to go back to the former phrasing. Paramount is the only major film studio still within the Los Angeles city limits. Enough said. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Concur. I inserted the original text years ago which identified Paramount and Fox as the only ones within Los Angeles city limits. Now that Fox is merely part of the Disney conglomerate, that leaves Paramount as the last major film studio inside the city of Los Angeles.--Coolcaesar (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No evidence that Amblin Partners is regarded as a mini-major

The article-cum-press release supposedly cited to support the claim that Amblin Partners is a mini-major does nothing of the kind: it describes the business as a "content creation partner". Nowhere does it use the term "mini-major" or the often roughly synonymous "indie distributor". Unless clear and recent evidence is provided to support the claim that Amblin is a mini-major, it will be removed from the list 24 hours from now. — DCGeist (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

See above as it is clearly DreamWorks's successor and DreamWorks when being distributed by Disney has been indicated as a mini-major then and after (per above sources). Indie distributor is no way equivalent with mini-major. Spshu (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Amblin Partners is indeed a successor to Dreamworks; it is not the same company and it does not have the same capacities. There is currently no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Amblin Partners is a "mini-major". You have 24 hours to produce some, or it's getting cut.

In addition, it is highly improper to merge or in any way alter Talk sections, as you just did. Try it again, and it will go in your edit-warring report, which seems inevitable now. — DCGeist (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Spshu, you are the one who has long insisted that we cite sources that explicitly refer to listed companies as "mini-majors." Amblin Partners has now been in existence for two years—plenty of time for it to be identified as a "mini-major" if anyone other than you thought of it as such. Can you show us any evidence of the sort you've demanded in other cases? Because, for the moment, your claim that this new company must be accorded the same status as a former company sounds a lot like your dreaded "original research." — DCGeist (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you read. I gave it above in the previous section as I expanded the title of the section as little as possible to cover the full extent of the argument over the article. And I pointed out to you it the above post (23:44, 10 January 2018). As far as Wikipedia is considered they consider successors the same as the original organization as DreamWorks doesn't have three articles, with DreamWorks (II - reconstituted post-Paramount) no different then DreamWorks (I - now DW Studios, LLC owned by Paramount) or DreamWorks (III), the Amblin Partners label. And given the greater investment over and above DreamWorks (II) it could have more capacities. If you apply your standard to Amblin then CBS and MGM would be removed as Lionsgate distributions CBS's films now and MGM for a while relied on majors for distribution, but of course recently got back into distribution (Onion Pictures and Mirror joint venture.

Here are the sources again provided at 23:44, 10 January 2018 -- 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."

No, I expand the talk section title again to address the full issue in play in the argument as you brought up, so a second section would not be needed. There for, I complied with WP:TALKNEW as the section title did not "Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed" as you limited it to A24 and more was in play per your post: ("...compelling defense for the retention of Amblin and Gaumont.") So, effectively you have no talk page violation. Oh, no, I am quaking in my boots. Go ahead and report me. The counter report will indicated clearly that you are now being pointy about sourcing after having edit warred to own the article by ignoring sourcing in the article. And that I did add/revert A24 when a source were provided.

Duh, I am the one that insisted, I have already pointed that out to you in the edit summary to which then you continued to place your original research over sourcing in adding or removing the companies you wish. You were the one I was in discussions then about sourcing, so you already knew that you should not have edit warred or added mini-majors with out sourcing. Like removing Gaumount which was sourced. And you know that I added back A24 when you finally gave a source for it. So, don't come at me about original research. Spshu (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Per our discussion, Amblin Partners has been removed from the list of mini-majors. The standard for inclusion that you have long insisted on, and which I have accepted, is that companies may be included on the list only when there are authoritative sources that explicitly identify them as "mini-majors." You reference two sources above—one mentions Amblin Partners without calling it a mini-major; the other, from 2013, mentions Dreamworks, a different entity, and does not mention Amblin Partners at all. You have been given every opportunity to find even one source that identifies Amblin Partners as a mini-major and have failed to do so. Case closed. — DCGeist (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed the arguments on both sides and the evidence provided, and it is clear that no one in the industry considers Amblin Partners to be a mini-major. At one time, DreamWorks was a mini-major, but its successor is not. Things change.

On that note, three other entires on the list should be reconsidered:

CBS Films: Should be cut. CBS tried to create a mini-major, and failed. Has anyone in the industry considered CBS Films as a "mini-major" in recent years? I doubt it.

MGM: Used to be a major, then a mini-major, now not even that. It may bounce back, it may not. I gather people still do keep calling it a "mini-major" for legacy reasons, but it probably doesn't belong on this list anymore.

Gaumont: May well be considered a mini-major, but in an entirely different context from the North American producer/distributors that occupy the rest of the list. I propose the list be split between North American and overseas companies—then see if any other studios beside Gaumont qualify for the latter. DocKino (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

DCGiest, you have not discussed anything, so no you cannot act like I agreed to it "Per our discussion,". Just issued ultimatum, which doesn't give you the right to cut off discussions. Again, WP doesn't not consider DreamWorks to be a separate entity as point out above, but of course you are good at ignoring what you don't like. Case is not closed.

a) you do not issue order, you do not OWN this page, DocKino. You need to convince others including me. Not issue edicts. b) The source does clear indicate "Many major and mini-major film companies have secured financing agreements with investors from China." This sets up what they are covering in the next paragraphs. So, which is the US mini-major and majors in those paragraphs that are getting Chinese financing: Sony Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Universal Pictures, Amblin Partners (Dick Clark Prod. is TV prodco). Two know majors and a co-financing partner (Legendary). Who is the mini-major in the paragraph then? Spshu (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Spshu,

• (1) As anyone can see, DCGeist has discussed the matter at length. By lying about that, you only embarrass yourself.

• (2) You should know better than to base your case on how another Wikipedia article is currently arranged. That does not meet our test of WP:Verifiability, and it never has.

• (3) As I noted in an edit summary, the article is suggestive—but given the relevant terms are two paragraphs apart, we could also conclude that the journalist was using journalistic shorthand, and didn't see the need to belabor the point by writing "majors, mini-majors, and independent production companies." Furthermore, we have the facts that (a) it appears in the course of two years, not a single other reputable source has described Amblin as a "mini-major" and (b) it is, without argument, not a distributor, thus falling short of that part of the basic definition.

So, do you have anything new to add, or do you just wish to go on screaming about other people "OWN-ing" and "ordering" because you happen to be losing an argument? The case that Amblin Partners is a "mini-major" is very weak on multiple levels. Do you have anything else to contribute? DocKino (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

MGM now has two distribution units, Orion Pictures and Mirror joint venture with Annapurna Films.

Constantin Films has been mention as a mini-major. Film or Sports? German Mini-Major Constantin at Crossroads: "Strong second-quarter figures from Constantin Medien, announced Thursday, couldn't distract from the ongoing battle behind the scenes for the future of the German mini-major."

• (1) No, DCGeist setting deadlines that isn't discussion. Or pointing out that an ownership source doesn't support its mini-major status? Of course, an ownership source would not show that. Wow, what discussion. He then sets there like a full discussion has occur do to his deadline setting. I am not embarrass. You should be.
• (2) Where are you getting this from? I am not basing any argument on how WP article is currently arranged. I have point out that business form or change in name do not factor into having separate articles (There isn't a separate article for Disney Enterprise and Disney Company). A name change and additional investments should not factor into stripping DreamWorks/Amblin Partners' of the mini-major status. Some how Amblin Partners go it own article, thus DCGiest is arguing it is a separate entity and with increased investment should be dropped in status.
• (3) Better, actually giving a reason instead of fiat. Distributor requirements seem to have been dropped as DreamWorks Studios (then distributed by Disney/Touchstone), DreamWorks Animation and MGM (Mixed) have all been considered mini-majors when they did not have distribution capabilities. (a) I have not gone through all the sources there were 5 pages of search indexes just on Deadline.com in a search on Amblin and mini-major. (b) With other making min-major status per sources with out distribution capabilities, it isn't for you to apply. http://variety.com/static-pages/slanguage-dictionary/#m Variety's mini-major definition states: "Big film production companies that are supposedly smaller than the majors although such companies as Miramax, Polygram and New Line compete directly with the big studios; 'The producers are in talks with several studios, including the mini-major New Line.'" No mention of distribution there. So, thus Amblin does not fall short with out distribution.

You were not arguing any thing until *(3) above. You did not contribute until then. So, I was not loosing the argument for that you actually would have to be arguing. Given the quoted first sentence was the whole paragraph thus did not cover which mini-major the author was refering to, the sentence clearly pivots the article to a new section discussion the industry trend. Lengendary is a different production company thus yes, it is short hand for other production companies. But if the author brings up mini-major for this section of the article, that the author should at least actually mentions a mini-major. By process of elimination, we get Amblin Partners. Spshu (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Im not sure what the inclusion criteria is but I feel studio should be for the purpose of this list considered mini-major if it has sizable out put of films and TV as other studios that are defined as mini-majors. Whether the studio defines it self as such or some notable entertainment papers/Websites do. But for me Mini-major is probably studio that is not as big as major studio i.e doesn'T have as many releses and yet doesn'T have to few releases to be considered a minor studio. DoctorHver (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)