Talk:Major film studios/Archives/2020

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Must have a quote that the listed studios are a mini-major, we can not make said judgment as that is original research. Just looking at box office take is not enough as even minor studios (Lucasfilms and Amblin) hit it big at the box office once in a while (Star Wars and ET, respectively). In the case of DreamWorks Studios, this is the second incarnation of DW as the original DreamWorks Studios is still owned by Paramount/Viacom as DW Studios. DreamWorks Animation owns the DreamWorks name that is why when Spielberg left DW Studios, he could start a new production company/studio, DW Distribution II, using the DreamWorks Studios name. But the odd way that WP handles corporate situations like this by treating them as the same company. So there would have to be a new source indicating that the new DreamWorks Studio, because it became a part of the Viacom/Paramount major studio and is thus newly independent (given WP's view) and must re-achieve that level again. Spshu (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, we don't need quotes in each case that literally state "Studio X is a mid-major". As for DreamWorks, the article does not definitively state that DreamWorks 2.0 is a "mid-major"; the paragraph in question also gives background on the company's earlier incarnation, when it unquestionably had that status--both in terms of market share and media treatment. Whether the new iteration rises to that level or not remains to be seen, but they do belong in the same summary paragraph.—DCGeist (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do need quotes, other wise it is original research, which isn't what WP is about. Yes, it did definitively state that DreamWorks is a mid-major since it was listed with the mini-majors. Spshu (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

DreamWorks isn't owned by Viacom anymore, remember?? They broke apart from them in 2008.King Shadeed 13:47, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

RE:DreamWorks, yes it is still owned by Viacom and no it isn't. There are 2 DreamWorks Studios. The original DW is owned by Viacom, but no longer can use the DreamWorks name. Spielberg and co. started up a new one, DW Distribution, which took over the license (from DreamWorks Animiation) to use the DreamWorks Studio name. Spshu (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, no it's not. And you can see it for youself:

• http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/06/business/fi-dream6

Second, DreamWorks' name isn't listed under the Paramount Motion Pictures Group. Third, Reliance owns part of DW.

• http://www.screendigest.com/news/2012_04_reliance_increases_dreamworks_investment/view.html

And fourth, DreamWorks Animation is a separate entity of DreamWorks LLC, but the animation films are distributed by Paramount, which is expected to end sometime this year. And the DreamWorks films are distributed by Touchstone Pictures. So please check behind yourself before you make any unnecessary changes that'll result in vandalism. King Shadeed 14:27, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Read your own sources: "agreement paves the way for Spielberg and his team of executives to form an independent studio backed by one of India's biggest conglomerates, Reliance ADA Group..." and from the same article "The agreement means that the new DreamWorks will not have to start from scratch and acquire rights to new movies or those owned by Paramount." "As part of the deal, Spielberg will be taking more than two-thirds of the 150 current DreamWorks employees with him to the new company."

Also check out Talk:DreamWorks#Spshu.27s_major_changes which gives more sources for the new DreamWorks. Spshu (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Lionsgate is not a Major Studio yet as only one source is indicating that it is a major. Webpages at Lionsgate is a primary source and should not be allowed in this stituation. Seeking Alpha also a source that you,King Shadeed, are using does not say that Lionsgate is a Major studio just that its a top 7 studio. That could mean that it is still a mini-major as one would have to be the next largest. Secondly, Seeking Alpha is an investment advice website not a news site, so is not a reliable source. Variety is the only source for Lionsgate being a major, while months later The Holywood Reporter is still reporting as not a major. Either find an another reliable main stream source or stop pushing this. Spshu (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that this was once a controversy. From every practical aspect, Lionsgate is now indeed a major, having actually outgrossed Paramount from 2012 through 2015 (in terms of distribution, but like the majors Lionsgate produces the vast majority of what it distributes), $3735M to $3613M (figures from BoxOfficeMojo). In that time period Lionsgate averaged $934M a year while the 6 majors averaged $1,546M and the mini-majors other than Lionsgate (including Relativity) averaged $171 -- but that figures include many films only distributed by Weinstein. So it's 60% the size of an average major and 6 times as large as the average mini-major. But the Hollywood Reporter, as I note below, still does not regard them as a major; they are looking at corporate resources rather than success, which is defensible. Emvan (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Deadline have included Lionsgate as a major:

• http://deadline.com/2017/12/disney-fox-2017-domestic-box-office-major-studios-year-end-1202233892/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by My7thsecret (talk • contribs) 10:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that I've just fully protected the article in response to the edit warring today. Please seek consensus for controversial changes here on the talk page, and keep our WP:NPOV guideline in mind. Also, you may want to consider WP:DR. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Universal and Columbia used to be mini-majors as they were among the Little Three Studios during The Golden Age of Hollywood just like United Artists as they didn't own any theater chains. They started out as distribution companies that released films from independent producers. They have improved during the fall of the studio system after the Big Studios had to sell their movie theater chains. Evope (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal

Not exactly, Universal, Columbia and United Artist were the Little Three Studios, or Major Mini Studios, a subgroup of Major Studios (as were the Big Five, see Major film studio#The majors during the Golden Age), Mini-Major Studios is a separate designation.Spshu (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It is part of Disney now but is there a source saying it is a secondary studio? It probably has higher revenue than Universal or Paramount even 2A0A:A543:F68:0:848F:4328:1A85:B22C (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No source, except for those that previously designating as a major studio, but with the standard being that it looses it major or mini-major status (Miramax for example after being purchased by Disney) after being purchased by another studio. It was a way to knowledge another large general purpose film production unit, former major or mini-major studios, instead of hiding in "Other division or brands". Spshu (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this page should be moved/renamed to American major film studios? As noted at the top of the page, "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." As this appears to be a popular and hotly debated article, I wanted to get the input of others before making this move myself. Thoughts?

However it may be a world view as the American dominate the market. As we do list foreign (mostly European) Mini-majors studios, Gaumont Film Company, Nordisk Film and Constantin Film. Spshu (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Of the hundreds of film studios mentioned in the article, you mention in your post the 4 that are non-American. The vast majority of film studios listed on this page are based in the United States, which is why the move should be made.

You were opposed previous and yet you still move the article!? The vast number are not direct subjects of the article. Some were on trajectory to be considered major or mini-major or some are other units of the majors or mini-majors studios. Spshu (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Concur with User:Spshu's frustration on this. The move was an incredibly stupid idea and needs to be reversed immediately. People who add the systemic bias tag to this article are profoundly ignorant of how the entertainment industry works and need to either get a clue (by spending a few hours reading up on how the film business works) or shut up.

Wikipedia:Article titles says we name things by their most common names. The common name is major film studio, as noted by the sources cited in the article. It's really that simple. The fact that they are all located in the United States is irrelevant to the article title. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I posted a request to Requested moves and User:Anthony Appleyard took care of fixing this mess. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)