Talk:Universal Pictures/Archive 1

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

Initial comments

is it perhaps time to split off the theme parks into their own article? Catherine\talk 05:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I vote yes Doovinator 15:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Peter S. 14:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course. -- GIR 05:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Focus Features

This article should be linked to Focus Features but I have no idea where to put it. Somebody wanna volunteer? Cornell Rockey 02:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Redundant Article

It seems to me that the Universal Pictures article is a subset of this one. Is someone in the process of splitting the list of films into its own article? Pete 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable Releases?

As the list of Notable Releases approaches the 2000's it seems to morph in to a list of complete releases. I mean are movies like "Bride of Chucky", "Kicking and Screaming", and "2 Fast 2 Furious" all that "notable"? If it's going to be a complete list I think it should be seperated in to a seperate article with a true list of "notable" movies in this article. -- GIR 05:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Films

The list of films section seems to dominate the article. What about creating a separate page for such a long list? Riguy talk/contribs 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean like List of Universal Pictures films? It's been there for quite a while. So, who wants to cut the cord and let the baby go free? I've provided the scissors (in the form of a link to the main article), but whoever cuts it loose should first check to see that all the movies listed in this article are also in the independent list. (I'd do it myself, but just don't have the time now.) Whyaduck 03:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll try to take a look at them sometime in the future, though I'm a little busy right now as well. Riguy talk/contribs 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 is over

what did Vivendi end up doing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.75.180.31 (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Universal's launch

Universal Pictures was incorporated in 1915. Remember, they've celebrated its 75th Anniversary in 1990. King Shadeed 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

They may have said 1912, but on March 15, 1915, it was officially opened. So therefore, it would be 1915 instead of 1912. King Shadeed 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Universal was officially founded in 1912, otherwise it wouldn't be the second oldest studio in Hollywood (Next to Paramount Pictures). Do not state this nonsense again.--B5JH 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

thestudiotour form

Took over the first studio located in Hollywood Studio- other studio existed ion the west coast before nestor -Lasky took over the "Universal Ranch/ nestor ranch" just after the new Universal City Opened in 1915

[Carl Laemmle [THE LIFE & ADVENTURES OF CARL LAEMMLE — John Drinkwater] views Nestor ranch names his universal City

[Carl Laemmle moved his Providencia ranch (Nestor Ranch) assets to the new Universal City 1915 [ Source Motion Picture World article]


Universal Film Manufacturing Company founded in 1912, took over the west coast Nestor Studio operations, studio in hollywood and ranch the valley, see history of Forest lawn (valley site). see Universal archive images at: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/home

Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills)
Motion Picture History Before 1927
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Lawn_Memorial_Park_(Hollywood_Hills)

IMP

Fort Lee

Nestor Studios

Oak Ranch

Universal weekly articles March 27 1915

Universal Brochures 1915

Motion Picture History of Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills (Providencia Ranch)

  • [G.W. Bitzer (as Billy Bitzer). Billy Bitzer: His Story. New York: Farrar Strauss & Giroux, 1973.
  • [Bitzer, a camera man for D.W. Griffith, produced a: Hand drawn location map for Birth Of A Nation (Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills)
  • [Carl Laemmle [THE LIFE & ADVENTURES OF CARL LAEMMLE — John Drinkwater] views Nestor ranch names his universal City
  • [ "Scap it" "Nestor studio and Ranch" Uncle Carl orders a search for larger site for his dream of Universal City . [Source 1915 Universal Tour Brochure]
  • [Carl Laemmle moved his Providencia ranch (Nestor Ranch) assets to the new Universal City 1915 [ Source Motion Picture World article]
  • [The Cowboys, Indians and standing movie on the Nestor where the first assets to be moved to the new Universal City. [Motion Picture World]
  • [1915 Nestor Studio (Universal Studio in Hollywood) ownership transfer to Christie Film Company production unit - Quality Picture production unit
  • [1912 - 1915 Universal City (Nestor Ranch) ownership transfer to Jesse L. Lasky Film Company - Famous Players - Paramount
  • [Ceil B. DeMilles's Hollywood By Robert S.. Birchard - "Sqaw man's Cabin at Universal Ranch"
  • [Hollywood Heritage Newsletter - The Paramount Ranch Story: Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch... by Alice Allen
  • [1916 to 1927 Paramount ranch : LA Times announced on November 20, 1927: “With one gesture a 1,000 acre ranch is being abandoned.” and Paramount Staff news letter

Further References

  • Newspaper articles, Motion Picture World articles, and San Fernando Valley Land companies postcards (advertisements) document the information.
  • D.W. Griffith (Birth of a Nation): David Horsley: Nestor Location Ranch: Carl Laemmle - Universal City 1912, and the transfer of ownership to Jesse L. Lasky.
  • [edit]Other References
  • Books, blogs and websites feature new material sources from Private and Public archives.
  • Universal Archive Collection - Oak ranch
  • Universal Studios - 1915 tour brochure
  • Jerry L. Schneider: Collection
  • Motion Picture World: Articles
  • Hollywood Heritage News letter- Paramount Ranch
  • La Times Nov. 20, 1927 Paramount moves
  • Paramount Staff News Letter - 1927
  • Providencia Ranch Los Angeles Library: Digital Archives
  • California Historical Society: USC Digital Archive

Universalstonecutter

Universal Pictures or Universal Studios?

Which one of the two is correct? There is an official website for both of them[1], [2], and Universal Pictures seems to be credited more in movies.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried moving the page to the name Universal Pictures but it said that there was already a page with that name, even though there isn't. --Samuel James "Spike" Witwicky —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC).

Fire update

I am watching the live broadcast of the press conference regarding the fire. The head and CEO of Universal Studios has announced that it was a VIDEO vault building, not a FILM vault that was destroyed, and that the studio's main film vault is not affected. Furthermore, nothing in the video vault is considered irreplaceable, he says. Presumably a print version that can be cited will be available shortly. 23skidoo (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It might be worth policing studio-related aritcles to make sure false or incorrect information isn't included. I just reverted a change at the article for Wisteria Lane that said the fire occurred there, which of course it did not. 23skidoo (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the photo of this section be both a shot of the fire being fought and also the courthouse square set, the most famous set destroyed? Cs302b (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed a major error - why was this section still saying the FILM vault was destroyed? The head of CEO, quoted on CNN, said it was the video vault, which is a different facility altogether. 23skidoo (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Put off

It's off but the damages are irreparable: 400 firefighters battled the blaze, and at least 5 firemen suffered minor injuries, from heat exhaustion and burns. The second fire since the 1990 blaze was finally out after 12 hours, at 4:45 a.m. on Sunday, after firefighters encountered low water pressure. Destroyed were 40,000 to 50,000 archived videos chronicling Universal's movie and TV classic shows, dating back to the 1920s, including the films “Knocked Up” and “Atonement,” the NBC series “Law & Order,” “The Office,” Miami Vice and I Love Lucy. And they don’t have a backup of the Back to the Future courthouse, the clock tower that enabled Michael J. Fox's character to travel through time.cinemablend.com, Back To The Future Clock Tower Destroyed By Firewww.kcautv.com, Fire finally out at Universal Studiosnytimes.com, Large Fire Strikes Universal Studio Lotap.google.com, Fire at Universal Studios destroys sets, videos Universal Studios' workhorse sets, buildings and rides were lost, however, YouTube stands as de facto memorial to Universal Studios' lost rides and buildings.latimesblogs.latimes.com, YouTube enshrines Universal Studios' lost attractions --Florentino floro (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


HBO Pacific Partners VOF

According to this link...

http://www.spacenewsfeed.co.uk/2004/20June2004_5.html

...Universal Studios is one of a handful of partners in creating the holding company "HBO Pacific Partners VOF." I've been unable to find documentation on when that creation occurred and exact industry specs for it. Does anyone know any info that can be added?

(Here is the text from the link to which I'm referring.)

"Singapore-based HBO Asia brings the best of Hollywood to Asia through its exclusive first-run licensing deals with major Hollywood studios including Columbia Tri/Star, DreamWorks, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios and Warner Bros. In addition to proprietary and award-winning HBO Original programming produced exclusively for its viewers, HBO Asia works with a number of prominent independent studios to secure exclusive rights to a host of quality movies. HBO Pacific Partners, VOF is a joint venture of media giants Paramount Films, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Time Warner and Universal Studios."

HBO Pacific Partners is also stated as the holding company primarily involved in a current (July, 2008) Spider-Man 3 contest for viewers in India.

http://hbo.magnonsolutions.co.in/spiderman3/terms-conditions.html#term

My interest is in expanding the available data on that holding company that can be inserted to all relevant entries. (Time-Warner, HBO Asia, Paramount Films, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Studios, etc.)

(If anyone is keeping score at home, yes, I'm going to the talk pages for each of these companies and pretty much pasting this same request with minor edits in my search for this data. If that's overkill, please accept my apologies. Mea culpa...)

Thank you.

Medleystudios72 (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 Blacklist? Not cited and nonsensical!

Yeah...That information is not pertinent to anything on the page... It looks like the work of some ( very determined) drunken frat boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.3.40 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Universal Pictures

Continued from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Universal Pictures or Studios

There is interest in either creating a section or a separate article for Universal Pictures, which is distinct from Universal Studios (in the sense of being one of its arms). I looked at the databases for the trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, and I could provide some rotating-door history about Universal Pictures (leadership coming and going). We can either start a section in this article now or set up a sandbox to shape the content until we can figure out where to put it. For what it's worth, there are articles like Focus Features and Rogue Pictures, so I am inclined to try for a separate article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. I can also provide some infos to help create the separate article. Hopefully, other people will also come to help. -- Marychan41 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there already a section for Universal Pictures in this article? It appears the first few sub-sections in the History section are devoted to it. MovieMadness (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
But some people think that it isn't enough (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Universal Pictures or Studios). Since Universal Pictures is a division of Universal Studios, its deserve a stand-alone article (like Walt Disney Pictures) -- Marychan41 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
That really shouldn't be a standalone article either. Pointing to bad examples is not a good way to make your case. Instead, show how Universal Pictures has sufficient notability apart from Universal Studios to be able to have a full article, not just a stub. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Many official press releases from Universal states that "Universal Pictures is a division of Universal Studios", like this one[3] Would it be a good source? -- Marychan41 (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The official site of Asian Women In Business (AWIB) also clearly states the relationship between Universal Pictures and Universal Studios. [4] Yahoo and Los Angeles Times also has some infos about it.[5][6] -- Marychan41 (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Official press releases is NOT an indication of notability. Its a reliable source, yes, but not an indicator of notability (i.e. you can't make yourself notable). No one is doubting the relationship, just your desire to have them covered in separate articles. As you noted: "Universal Pictures is a division of Universal Studios" - so there is no reason not to cover in this article as such at this time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Adding other articles can make it notability; I have already found several and I can find more if you like. Did you indicate that I am the only person who want the separate article? If fact, there are some other people agree with with me. By the way, no one complaint the page of Sony Pictures Classics and Destination Films even though they have no source. -- Marychan41 (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Please point out one person who agrees that Universal Pictures should have a standalone article. And please stop trying to point to other articles as a reason for your suggestion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument for continuing bad practices. Thus far, you've yet to produce any reliable sources showing that Universal Pictures is notable by itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
At least, it is Powers who firstly suggested that "a split is in order", not me. (No offend to Powers) Please re-read the previous thread! -- Marychan41 (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, one person quickly made a note. However thus far, there is no consensus for it and nothing to support that is the best way of addressing the issue or topic. He also pointed to the same set of flawed articles that are not good examples to look at. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I am open-minded about the idea of creating a Universal Pictures section in the already existed page. I just don't quite know how to do it.... But I would try to find more infos to bulid the section when we have consensus about what we should do. -- Marychan41 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It should have a separate section as part of a list of divisions, rather than in the history. One person thinks it "deserves" its own article, but unless and until there is evidence of significant coverage by itself that shows it should have one, I see no valid reason to do a split. A separate section seems more than sufficient to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with AnmaFinotera. Walt Disney Pictures isn't much more than a stub, and about half of it is just a "See also" list of links to other articles.

What if following the lead this article was rearranged as follows:

Universal Pictures
Early years
"Oswald" fallout gives rise to "Mickey Mouse" and Disney empire
Keeping leadership of the studio in the family
The Laemmles lose control
Universal-International
MCA takes over
Matsushita and Vivendi
NBC Universal

This would give Universal Pictures a separate section divided into four sub-sections to make reading it easier. Just a suggestion. MovieMadness (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I really think history should be history of the company as a whole. Universal Pictures would then be a descriptive section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the history of Universal Studios begin with the creation of Universal Pictures? I'm not sure what you mean by a "descriptive section" - do you mind elaborating? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think AnmaFinotera means the basic structure of Universal Pictures: how it's the production arm, what kind of organization it has, and subsidiaries of it like Focus Features. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible References

Removed from the "references" section of the article after they have been tagged for over 2 months as not actually being cited:

  • Bruck, Connie. When Hollywood Had a King. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.
  • Drinkwater, John. The Life and Adventures of Carl Laemmle. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1931, illustrated.
  • Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills - map Providencial and Water Development
  • Los Angeles Library Photo Collection "Bird-Eye View of Universal City" 1911
  • Los Angeles Library Photo Collection "Nestor Studios" .
  • Mordden, Ethan. The Hollywood Studios. New York: Fireside, 1989.
  • McDougal, Dennis. The Last Mogul: Lew Wasserman, MCA and the Hidden History of Hollywood. New York: Crown Publishers, 1998.
  • Schatz, Thomas. The Genius of the System. New York: Pantheon Books, 1989.
  • Sklar, Robert. Movie-Made America. New York: Vintage, 1994.

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oldest

This wiki page : "Founded in 1912 by Carl Laemmle,it is the oldest movie studio in the United States of America. It is also the second oldest in the world that is still in continuous production; the first being Gaumont Pictures, the next oldest is Paramount Pictures.[4] "

Missing :

  • Pathé from France which was founded on September 28th, 1896.
  • Babelsberg from Germany (February 12th, 1912). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.166.253 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the locations link to wikipedia pages rather than the company websites? I believe wikipedia pages would be more informative and useful than the company location or park websites. Ihafez (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Intro needs a source?

Do we need a source here?? "Three of Universal Studios' films—Jaws (1975), E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982), and Jurassic Park (1993), all of which were directed by Steven Spielberg—achieved box office records, each becoming the highest-grossing film at the time." Cody.berdinis (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Pictures/Archive_1&oldid=1137286507"