Talk:PolyGram Filmed Entertainment
 | Film: British / Filmmaking Start‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Production Company for Batman, other films
@Gothicfilm, I saw your comment on Batman. You are right, the chart does say films "directly" by. But by that logic, shouldn't all the movies listed as co-productions be removed? A co-production with Warner Bros. on Batman is no different than a co-production with Paramount on Clue or Flash Dance or with any other studio for many of the other films on the list. We could just alter the intro sentence to say films that Polygram has involvement with and remove "directly". What do you think? Foodles42 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- They are different. Just because someone listed all those titles on WP as co-productions does not mean they were the same. Batman does not list PolyGram in its opening credits or on its poster. It has "Produced in association with PolyGram" in the end credits. As the article says, by the time the film was made, it was not involved in the production. In other cases PolyGram does have production credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- As someone who spends too many hours negotiating credits on the theatrical print posters, I can assure you the information there is far from inclusive and not meant to be the authoritative source for individuals and companies involved. The credits on the film (regardless of opening or closing) are, but even they are not all inclusive. That said, the fact "produced in association with Polygram" is in the credits unambiguously means it was a production company on the film. Ditto for Clue, Flashdance and many others in the lists. Unless the word "directly" is removed, it's hard to justify their remaining as well. We could remove the word "directly" and then also add the "in association with" language for the films like Flashdance and Batman where applicable. What do you think? Foodles42 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- PolyGram was more involved in those other co-productions where they did have a prominent credit. If a company is not on the poster or the opening credits, it's very unlikely it was a main production company for the film. In this case we know it was not involved in the production of the film in question, it was involved in its development years earlier. This is mentioned in the second paragraph of the article. There are probably other films that shouldn't be in the table either, but I am less familiar with their history. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, can you address my proposed solution? We can take out the word "directly" and include films like Batman (and keep others already on the list) by noting the "in association with" language in the table. For Batman, you can also footnote it all you want for clarification purposes. These changes would make the article more inclusive and covey much more nuance than simply excluding some films and leaving other in because editors might be "less familiar" with them. And again, I urge you to take priority off of what is on the poster. It literally has no priority and the trend is moving towards no billing on many campaigns other than leads. I do this for a living. Foodles42 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- If the poster has a full billing block and a company is excluded, that means something. But the priority is on what happened. In this case we know it was not involved in the production of the film in question, it was involved in its development years earlier. Someone earlier seems to have decided the table should not be as broad as you are suggesting. You might want to let your proposal to broaden it sit on the Talk page here for a while and see if anybody has input. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- If something is excluded from the extremely limited space on a theatrical print, it means the inclusion or exclusion was part of the negotiation for what to include. That's it. A key company involved may elect to not have credit on the print for many reasons (the actors want a bigger font and there is not room, a subsidiary is getting its start on the film and the parent wants to help the branding by keeping its own name off to focus on the subsidiary and so on). As I have said, this is literally what I do for a living. I understand credits on posters are important to you personally, but that does not mean they are the main authority or source of information. Does wikipedia have some sort of rule that says posters are a primary source for this? If so, can you give me the link? The credit roll really fills that function (and its placement before or after the feature literally does not matter--it can be either). As for the proposal made above, I agree with you that we can and should let it sit here for a while (say a couple of weeks?) for further input. While we wait, can you weigh in on it? You seem to tilt against my idea, but you have not explicitly said one way or the other. If the goal is consensus, it would be nice if the two of us could build some while we wait, agreed? Another idea would be to add an entirely separate table for films like the Batman franchise. Foodles42 (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Again, in this case we know PolyGram was not involved in the production of the film in question, it was involved in its development years earlier. A little research will show that. I would lean toward leaving it off the table as the intention seemed to be to limit it to films in which the company was involved in their production. - Gothicfilm (talk)
- Development is part of the production process. The fact they got almost 10% of the profit and are mentioned in the credits as one of the production companies really does belie your claim. A little research shows substantial involvement, in my view. But since this is a sticking point for you, I suggest adding a new table that lacks the "directly" language. It could say films where they were involved, but not as a primary. This idea sidesteps all of your objections. Agreed? Foodles42 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- See what others say. Many people believe "Produced in association with" in the end credits means not a production company on that film. It all depends on how you define it. You obviously have a more broad definition. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- And I could say many people do believe produced in association with means it was a production company. But neither of us could prove our respective statements, because we can only speak for ourselves. I am not trying to be rude, but you are not responding to much of what I have said. Regarding movie posters, is there a wikipedia rule you can point me to? And regarding a new table for more informal films Polygram was involved with, are you opposed to that? It would not change anything, it would simply be a new addition. Wikipedia rules are clear about being bold with making edits, so I think we are well within our rights to make such an addition. Foodles42 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- See what others say. Many people believe "Produced in association with" in the end credits means not a production company on that film. It all depends on how you define it. You obviously have a more broad definition. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Development is part of the production process. The fact they got almost 10% of the profit and are mentioned in the credits as one of the production companies really does belie your claim. A little research shows substantial involvement, in my view. But since this is a sticking point for you, I suggest adding a new table that lacks the "directly" language. It could say films where they were involved, but not as a primary. This idea sidesteps all of your objections. Agreed? Foodles42 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Again, in this case we know PolyGram was not involved in the production of the film in question, it was involved in its development years earlier. A little research will show that. I would lean toward leaving it off the table as the intention seemed to be to limit it to films in which the company was involved in their production. - Gothicfilm (talk)
- If something is excluded from the extremely limited space on a theatrical print, it means the inclusion or exclusion was part of the negotiation for what to include. That's it. A key company involved may elect to not have credit on the print for many reasons (the actors want a bigger font and there is not room, a subsidiary is getting its start on the film and the parent wants to help the branding by keeping its own name off to focus on the subsidiary and so on). As I have said, this is literally what I do for a living. I understand credits on posters are important to you personally, but that does not mean they are the main authority or source of information. Does wikipedia have some sort of rule that says posters are a primary source for this? If so, can you give me the link? The credit roll really fills that function (and its placement before or after the feature literally does not matter--it can be either). As for the proposal made above, I agree with you that we can and should let it sit here for a while (say a couple of weeks?) for further input. While we wait, can you weigh in on it? You seem to tilt against my idea, but you have not explicitly said one way or the other. If the goal is consensus, it would be nice if the two of us could build some while we wait, agreed? Another idea would be to add an entirely separate table for films like the Batman franchise. Foodles42 (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- If the poster has a full billing block and a company is excluded, that means something. But the priority is on what happened. In this case we know it was not involved in the production of the film in question, it was involved in its development years earlier. Someone earlier seems to have decided the table should not be as broad as you are suggesting. You might want to let your proposal to broaden it sit on the Talk page here for a while and see if anybody has input. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, can you address my proposed solution? We can take out the word "directly" and include films like Batman (and keep others already on the list) by noting the "in association with" language in the table. For Batman, you can also footnote it all you want for clarification purposes. These changes would make the article more inclusive and covey much more nuance than simply excluding some films and leaving other in because editors might be "less familiar" with them. And again, I urge you to take priority off of what is on the poster. It literally has no priority and the trend is moving towards no billing on many campaigns other than leads. I do this for a living. Foodles42 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- PolyGram was more involved in those other co-productions where they did have a prominent credit. If a company is not on the poster or the opening credits, it's very unlikely it was a main production company for the film. In this case we know it was not involved in the production of the film in question, it was involved in its development years earlier. This is mentioned in the second paragraph of the article. There are probably other films that shouldn't be in the table either, but I am less familiar with their history. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- As someone who spends too many hours negotiating credits on the theatrical print posters, I can assure you the information there is far from inclusive and not meant to be the authoritative source for individuals and companies involved. The credits on the film (regardless of opening or closing) are, but even they are not all inclusive. That said, the fact "produced in association with Polygram" is in the credits unambiguously means it was a production company on the film. Ditto for Clue, Flashdance and many others in the lists. Unless the word "directly" is removed, it's hard to justify their remaining as well. We could remove the word "directly" and then also add the "in association with" language for the films like Flashdance and Batman where applicable. What do you think? Foodles42 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Ghost in the Shell
I added the film to the release list because Manga Entertainment was a production partner on the film, and at the time the film was made Manga was owned by PolyGram--specifically, its Island division. I’m not sure if the PolyGram logo appeared on Island films as it did on Gramercy films, but though PolyGram no longer owns any rights to the film, I'm pretty sure PolyGram was involved in production through its Island subsidiary's Manga Entertainment division. --2600:6C5D:5B00:7C0B:BDDD:5049:4A09:4A14 (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Library ownership
Only 2/3 of the library are owned by MGM, Universal owns the PolyGram Pictures library and some of the PFE titles like Drop Dead Fred 2001:5B0:253B:4958:195D:1728:51CB:D1A7 (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
1997 PolyGram Filmed Entertainment print logo HQ version on Logopedia
There's a better HQ version of the 1997 PolyGram Filmed Entertainment print logo on Logopedia, here's the link: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/PolyGram_Filmed_Entertainment 82.69.56.206 (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)