Talk:Major film studio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Major film studio was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 22, 2007
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
  1. Review — This article is currently 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

Contents

[edit] No longer valid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 because this article is out of date and false.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 examples how it's out of date...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:
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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Orion Pictures

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

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)