Talk:Major film studios

1. Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Unisouth 06:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

to see past conversations on why this is called Big Ten (movie studios) and not just Big Ten, see Talk:Big Ten

No longer valid

merge with List of Hollywood movie studios

... because this article is out of date and false. And yes, I can change it to make it 'correct' but I will be only copying what's already at the above list... examples how it's out of date... Universal is no longer around (part of NBC - GE).. MGM is not a major, plus it's (part of Sony)... Miramax is not a mojor (part of Disney)... DreamWorks is a contender, not a major. New Line Cinema has nothing to do with this list... You can't have sub-studios of the same company competing against each other!

.............OR............

move to Big Six (movie studios)

... because it still it still derserves the right to name the BIG players, thus it should be called: the big six (Disney, Fox, Warner, Sony, Paramount..and Universal as NBC Universal) ... + plus the upcoming players... (DreamWorks..but NOT Miramax, or MGM!)

Yikes, hopes this makes sense... PEACE ~ RoboAction 06:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard the term "Big Ten" used to refer to movie studios, and I've been reading Variety off and on for the last 15 years. Can anyone cite some references to show that this term is in common use in the movie industry? --Metropolitan90 04:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cut-and-pasted from my (User:Lowellian's) user talk page:

Hi, I see that you were the editor who started the article on the Big Ten (movie studios). I haven't been able to find any references in outside sources describing the major studios as the Big Ten. (See Talk:Big Ten (movie studios); see also the second paragraph of Talk:Big Ten.) Do you know where one could find some references to the term?

--Metropolitan90 July 6, 2005 05:05 (UTC)

I always thought it was one of those pop culture things that everyone knows without it ever actually being put into print. I also recall reading an article on Hollywood.com that actually used the term. However, Googling the term now, I'm having a hard time wading through the numerous other definitions of Big Ten as well as the many Wikipedia mirrors to find legitimate hits. However, I did find these following somewhat-related links:

• [1]
• from The Nation: [2] and [3]
• list of citations at [4]

It should be noted that these links are about media conglomerates, showing considerable overlap with the movie studios, though not quite exactly the same thing.

So what does this mean? Clearly, there is the term independent studio, which refers to one of the studios which is not affiliated with one of the major studios. My inclination is to merge this article, as well as the Big Six article, into list of Hollywood movie studios, while noting that a small handful of the studios (and noting exactly which ones) are much, much larger than others and are known as the "majors", while others are often called "independents".

—Lowellian (talk) July 6, 2005 06:03 (UTC)

This needs to be deleted. There is no such thing as the Big 10 movie studios. There are only 6 major ones.

Big Six, Big Nine, or just Major Movie Studios insted of Big Ten

This article should be renamed either the big six (NBC Universal, Buena Vista, Parmount, Warner Brothers, Fox, and Sony) or Big Nine (including the Weinstein Co., Lions Gate, and New Line). However the best situation would be making the Major Movie Sudios page in which all nine and any others (in the future) could be listed, because the term has never been used. In reality only the nine listed are major studios. Live Action Dreamworks is owned by Paramount and that would make SKG an independent because it makes few movies per year (at most 2 or 3). Miramax now being fully owned by Disney would also make only a few per year. MGM is also owned by Sony, thus making few movies per year. The only other studio I could see as a possibility would be Focus, but they are owned by Universal Studios.Casey14 21:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is also the page Big Six (movie studio corporations). Qutezuce 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objection I will rename the page to Major Movie Studios. Casey14 17:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

One studio is missing from the list; Republic Pictures. King Shadeed 14:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Columbia and MGM must leave list

They are not major film studios. MGM only distributes films, it is not a major film studio, and should go under past. Columbia, should go under Sony Pictures, and not as Columbia. This is Major Film Studios for a reason, not subsidiaries, and not the larger forms (Viacom, etc).

The previous anonymous commenter makes an excellent point. I don't like the idea of fewer media companies (NewsCorp) owning everything either, but here we are. And now to sign my name tilde, tilde tilde :) --MathewBrooks 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamWorks & TWC?!

How is DreamWorks a "past" major studio?! And don't say becuase it's owned by Viacom now because New Line is owned by Time Warner and is still on the list. And The Weinstein COmpany?! Hardly major. They may have major backers but they are far from a major studio. Can this be addresed please?!

Dreamworks dosn't release any films any longer, besides animated films, which is 2 or 3 year, hardly constituting it for major status.Casey14 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orion Pictures

Does Orion count as a past major film studio? Casey14 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Major" status

On the general issue of what constitutes a "major studio" today and how independent companies like Lionsgate and the Weinstein Company just don't qualify (at least at their current dimensions), I highly recommend Edward Jay Epstein's The Big Picture: The New Logic of Money and Power in Hollywood (Random House, 2005). It's a great read. Here are a few pertinent articles available online: "Lions Gate: A Small Studio That Could Sell Big" (New York Times, 2006); "Crash plus cash equals Oscar" (Guardian, 2006); and an older, but conceptually very helpful piece, "'Mini-Major' Studios Coming of Age" (Los Angeles Business Journal, 2001). Admittedly, in certain colloquial or shorthand contexts, Lionsgate and/or The W.C. is lumped in with the "majors," but in most professional, focused reports--like those above--a distinction is drawn.

Note that at the end of this recent interview—"Lions Gate’s Jon Feltheimer"—Lions Gate Entertainment's CEO accepts and adopts the distinction the interviewer makes between Lionsgate and "the studios." Note in this recent New York Times article on the Weinstein Company—"Films From the Weinsteins Falter, but the Brothers Stay Focused"—the reference to it as a "ministudio" as well as this passage: "Genius, said Mr. Weinstein, distributes the company’s movies at half the 10 percent fee he would pay a major studio for the service." Here's one crucial report--its ideological bent aside, the analysis and, particularly, the data is invaluable: "Industry Brief: The Movies" (Oligopoly Watch). [On closer inspection, I see the author did not in fact drill down to include the market share of many of the smaller conglomerate units he names, and thus understates the actual percentages. I've included the complete data in our article]. Note that, in 2005, of the six majors, the strongest--Time Warner--had 20.4% of the market and the weakest--Universal--nonetheless had 11.4%. Both Lionsgate and The W.C. were below 3%. I'll continue to gather material that can help us sharpen and refine the article. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 05:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying and providing insightful references. Casey14 16:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review

• "A major film studio is a movie production and distribution company that releases a substantial number of films annually and consistently commands a significant share of box-office revenues in a given market." - i think the sentence needs clarity. If you are talking of "any given market", i dont see studios from non-western world in this article. Hence, can you limit the definition to US and allied regions
• "In the North American, Western, and global markets, the major film studios, often simply known as the majors, are commonly regarded as the six diversified media conglomerates whose various movie production and distribution subsidiaries command approximately 90 percent of the U.S. and Canadian box office." - copyedit required. also, i think that the six media houses constitute the"majors" but the sentence construction shows it the other way around
• "The "Big Six" majors, whose movie operations are based in or around Hollywood, are all centered in film studios active during Hollywood's Golden Age of the 1930s and 1940s. In three cases—20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and Paramount—the studios were one of the "Big Five" majors during that era as well. In two cases—Columbia and Universal—the studios were also considered majors, but in the next tier down, part of the "Little Three." In the sixth case, Walt Disney Studios was an independent production company during the Golden Age; it was an important Hollywood entity, but not a major." - confusing. needs copyedit. My take - "The "Big Six" majors are centered in film studios active since Hollywood's Golden Age of the 1930s and 1940s. 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., and Paramount were part of the Golden Age's "Big 5" while Columbia and Universal were considered as next-tier majors then. Walt Disney Studios, then an independent production company, was not a major but still considered as an important Hollywood entity."
• "While the majors do a modicum of true production, their activities are focused more in the areas of development, financing, marketing, and merchandising." - i think the statement is left unfinished though it is more like stating the obvious
• Today's big six table - consider moving the "Major Studio Subsidiary" column as the first column and re-name as "Major Studio". this will be followed by "Parent conglomerate" and "Division". That way. focus is given to the major studios rather than thier parent conglomerate.
• Suggestion: To help the flow, make HISTORY as the first section and the BIG SIX as the second section with mini-majors following it.
• "Paramount quickly surpassed Universal as Hollywood's dominant company" - need year
• confusion. As per your statement, Paramount surpassed Universal (date - unknown) whereas between 1924 and 1928, Universal and Loew's were considered Big 2. Please reconcile the statements
• "Revived on a small scale in 1981, it was eventually spun off and now operates as a minor independent company." - under what name?

Please address the comments and leave a note on my talk page and i shall take the next steps. --Kalyan 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Since there was no addressal of comments for 10 days, i have failed the GA nom. Please address above comments and ping me & i shall be glad to mark this article as "GA". --Kalyan 07:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved Fox Faith

Fox Faith isn't a mainstread subsidiary but rather a genre one, the genre being (extremely terrible) Christian movies. Titanium Dragon 08:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pixar

Should Pixar be mentioned in the studio table under Walt Disney now that the acquisition has taken place? --Jopo (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Universal logo.jpg

The image Image:Universal logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Waltdisneypictureslogo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

2009 Market Share

Now that 2009 has ended, someone with a Premier Pass at Box Office Mojo needs to update the market shares for the studios so that this page can be more accurate. Sufi34745 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comcast Acquisition

I have read in an online article that a deal took place in which NBC Universal is now owned by Comcast (51%) and GE (49%).

I think the section on "Today's Big Six" should be updated to reflect that.

Here is the link to the article:

[5]

Thanks,

--BOLD (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I started to make the change, then realized you'd linked to an old piece from December with the familiar report that the transaction had been agreed on by the companies involved. The deal, however, has not actually happened, and it is still being vetted by Congress and regulators. Please see this story, published March 11: [6]. I reverted the change. We'll wait to see what transpires.—DCGeist (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming the article...

To be honest, I think the page needs to be renamed. I mean, its current name is "Major film studio", but it also talks about the much smaller well-known film studios as well, which aren't exactly major studios. Whomever came up with the title for this article wasn't really thinking too well. 76.235.249.22 (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Wasn't really thinking too well"? That's not very helpful. The article discusses the majors and the mini-majors, by way of reference to the majors, so in lieu of alternatives, this title seems to work fine.—DCGeist (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

TriStar status

Per the Sony Pictures website — http://www.sonypictures.com/corp/corporatefact.html — TriStar Pictures is a "marketing and acquisitions unit" distinct from Columbia Pictures, though obviously both are under the Sony umbrella.—DCGeist (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Mini-major

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 Studios

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 as a Major

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)

Protection

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)

Aardman

Surly Aardman of Bristol a major flim studio.

Cheese gromit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disney Enterprises

See Discussion here. Spshu (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Everthing or nothing.

Where is Eon. 5 reasons why they are major. 1)skyfall the 8th biggest of all time. 2) James Bond is the 2nd biggest series of all time. 3) 007 is the biggest adjust form inlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.250.242 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Eon is not a major. Eon only has the Bond movies, nothing else. The distribution rights holder to Bond films in the US, MGM, is not a major studio any more and is a mini-major. You need to have a relable source indicating that Eon is a major studio. So every major is currently listed. Spshu (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I ask once

& I ask agin where Aardman it likely it the biggest stop motion film company in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I ask once

& I ask agin where Aardman it likely it the biggest stop motion film company in the world.

It @ list a min major — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Major animated.

Who are the big animated studios. I thought of 5 consider

Dreamworks Animation Pixar. Bule Sky Walt Disney Animation Studios Aardman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A Major is a studio, that has a significant share in the market. With one feature every three or more years no animation studio can be called a Major. In addition, not all of these studios operate entirely on their own, Pixar regularly teams up with Disney, and Aardman is usually linked to Dreamworks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.115.6 (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing

It would be nice to emphasize the change in the industry, in the Golden Age the Majors where actually producing the pictures. Today Majors act in various capacities and sometimes are only distributors of independent movies. A myriad of production companies is financially and artistically responsible for creating these and sells them to the Majors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.115.6 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Disney.

Some company's disney owns are missing. The full list is Walt Disney Pictures Walt Disney Animation Studios Walt Disney Theatrical Walt Disney India Ltd. Pixar Animation Studios Marvel Entertainment, LLC Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC The Muppets Studio, LLC ABC, Inc. ESPN Inc. (80%) A&E Television Networks, Inc. (50%) Radio Disney Hulu (27%) UTV Software Communications, Ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, that isn't a full list of the Disney owned subsidiaries, which would not fit. The article is about the film studio portion thus restricts it to those portion that are in the filmed entertainment market segment, ie being a film studio. Spshu (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

LGEI/LGEC

• 99.46.224.199 (talk)‎ . . (57,582 bytes) (+37)‎ . . (Undid revision 578437659 by Spshu (talk) Reverted edits. Learn how to get your facts right. Read this: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4392825)

Look, 99.46.224.199, I don't understand why you are edit warring over this. My edit matches the above sources if you bother to look. Also, my previous edit indicated there was no change in LGEI's position to LGEC & LGF. With few mini-major needing the parent unit column, thus that info is moved into the conglomerate column. (In fact it such, if actual learn a thing or two about the Lions Gate group is that LGE Corp. was the Canada parent corporation with LGE Inc. the USA subsidiary/holding corporation of LGE Corp. Not sure how it stands now with LGE ending Canadian operations.) So, how about you look and see that the fact are in fact right and the needless reverting that you are doing. Spshu (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And you are undoing the catagorization of Disney Nature, LucasFilms and Marvel Studios into the genre catagory as they specialize in nature, Sci-Fi and super hero genre respectively. Also, Sony Film Worldwide Acquision's units are being declassified also with you reversion.

The few columns in each of the table is so there is less rap around which extends the tables making them harder to look at all at once.Spshu (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Read this and do a search on Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. and Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc. LGEC is the conglomerate parent of LGEI as I showed you in the link above that you posted. In quote as where it says right here:

"Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes Issuance. On January 11, 2012, Lions Gate Entertainment Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("LGEI"), sold $45.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 4.00% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes with a maturity date of January 11, 2017 (the "January 2012 4.00% Notes")."

Then Read this and do the same search on that page. It says the same thing here on Steven Beeks' biographical description and here. Basically, LGEI is formerly known as Artisan Entertainment, Inc.

You screwed up the table to add more confusion, where I straightened it out so that there would be no confusion. Where are your sources?? And plus, SPWA's labels are counted as other brands and labels and should be listed in small parenthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.224.199 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You are the only one confused right now. TWICE I have said that LGEI is the subsidiary of LGEC. You still act like I oppose that. You are picking a fight for no reason. Spshu (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)