Talk:Warner Bros.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ive read that the Warner brothers were not polish jews, but russian jews. FYI... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.239.6 (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warner Bros. article.
Article policies
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.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Protect

Can somebody protect this page against ungoing vandalism? – (empoor) 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC). DO NOT MERGE or PROTECT THIS ARTICLE! I FORBID IT!

[edit] What about filiation

They are from Poland. Don't forgot about this important thing. --Mataga 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes of course they are-yet its strange that although the Hollywood film industry deals in fiction,the lies and misrepresentation that surround Warners tops the lot!

What for example is the REAL name of these Polish Brothers?We know about Luis B Mayer Sam Goldwyn etc but whats the real name of the "Warners? And why has no one ever seen a clear picture of them? Its interesting that the power and prestige of the dear old British empire is shown here in that they felt safer with the protection of a British /Canadian passport than a miserable American one!!-as did Mayers family! The tendency to deliberately lie still exists at Warners as their recent new logo shows.Warners international blockbusters are today set up, created ,written and made in Britain ,in London with Warners doing only the financing and distribution. This has obviously irked someone at Warners so their new logo shows a fleeting sepia tinted aerial view of their OLD thirties studios-to suggest their films are still made there....Clever eh?

I even saw a carefully made documentary on TCM all about Warners in which the pleasant voice over -a girl actually said proudly-talking about Stanley Kubricks films-ALL of Kubricks films were made AT Warners!!!! Now as all his films after 1960 were made at Elstree or Pinewood or other British studios that is a clear simple lie!!! Even Warners writers know the difference between the meaning of the word "AT" and "FOR"  !!! But thats America!!!!89.132.126.244 12:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreement between the articles on the four brothers and this one on who was born where. This article said that they emigrated from Belarus and that was just changed back to Poland, with the edit summary saying that they were born there, which is probably not true for all fo them. The Jack Warner article looks the most reliable to me, and it says that the oldest bother was born in Poland and came to America with his parents, that the next two were born in the U.S., and that Jack wast born in Ontario. Somebody who is really interested in this should probably straighten it all out, showing relaiable sources.--Hjal 05:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary film early Fifties by Hassoldt Davis

Hallo, is there a Warner Bros specialist who could help me to trace the documentary by Hassoldt Davis and Ruth Staudinger Davis made in French Guiana in the early Fifties? The expedition is described in "The Jungle and the Damned" published in 1952. Beside the fact that the whole expedition was about the film project the film itself is mentioned there on p. 196: "They (the Bonis and the Roucouyennes) shared each other's viands, or mine, and were cheerfully amicable, as I was, unaware of what Warner Brothers were later to insist on calling Jungle Terror when they distributed the film on this expedition." So it was published, wasn't it? In filmographies about H. Davis one finds only "the Sorcerer's Village". I'm trying to write an article on H. Davis and would like to add this information. Thank you. Answers directly to: pia@oberacker-pilick.de

[edit] Name

[edit] Bros. or Brothers?

I worked at WB for over 30 years, and we are the best ever we were always told that the proper legal name is "Warner Bros." - that "Brothers" should NOT be spelled out. We were always correcting vendor contracts - they always assumed it should be spelled out despite the fact that we always wrote "Bros."

I have no proof of this. I suppose one thing would be if you ever see BROTHERS spelled out on any company communication or product.

I've heard Roger Ebert say so, too. I'd guess he'd know. And I'd say "Bros.", too. Leave it alone. On another matter, I'm amazed Hanna-Barbera isn't hyperlinked.... --squadfifteen

[Another employee here.. corporate communications guidelines are clear on the subject that it is never to be spelled as "Brothers." It is not a public document, and therefore cannot be linked, but the user above is correct in the matter. The closest I can come is to have you look at http://www2.warnerbros.com/corpcomm/ and note the lack of the "Brothers" spelling on any page, most notably under the sections "The Studio" at "Company Overview" and "Company History". I changed the opening to reflect "Brothers" as the pronunciation, not the spelling.]

(the above post by another was moved from above the TOC to this new heading by --Hjal 05:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] "Warners" or "Warner"?

The article alternatively refers to the company as "Warners" and "Warner" without any apparent pattern. Is one more correct than the other? In any event, for this article we should pick one and be consistent. -- DS1953 talk 14:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synergy

The lack of synergy between TBS television networks and Warner Bros. Television Distribution is crazy. Considering, TBS apparently oversees both. These mass media companies never sieze to amaze me.

[edit] Disputed tag added for possible advertising

I added the 'Totally Disputed' tag to the section that reads: "One of Warner Bros. most notable current projects includes the film Single Wife, which is based on Nina Solomon's novel, Single Wife. Jennifer Aniston has signed on to the film." Here's why:

There is no reason why this film is any more notable than any of Warners' other projects, and as there is no citation for this information, it may not even be true. I expect it was probably added by someone connected with that book for purposes of advertising. A Google search for 'Single Wife' and 'Jennifer Aniston' yields no verifiable results, leading me to believe this 'information' was completely manufactured. If a citation isn't added shortly, I will remove it as non-verifiable. Terraxos 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

- I've just made the unverified text invisible and removed the 'Disputed' tag - it's unnecessary for such a small section of an article. The text above will only be returned to the article when it can be verified. Terraxos 21:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TriStar logo?! What's it doing here?

Can anybody tell me why that TriStar logo is placed in the Library section? The article text says nothing about TriStar, and I personally have no idea what it has to do with Warner Bros. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. Mavrov 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing section?

The History section of the article currently includes the following subsections:

  • 1.1 1903-1925: Foundation
  • 1.2 1926-1931: Sound; color; style
  • 1.3 1931-1935: Pre-Code Realistic Period
  • 1.4 1930: Birth of Warner's cartoons
  • 1.5 Post-World War II: Changing hands
  • 1.6 New owners
  • 1.7 1995-present

There's a 10-year gap between 1935 and the postwar era -- isn't there anything to say about that time? Also, either the "1930" section is out of order or it should be retitled to cover a longer period overlapping the 1931-35 section.

66.96.28.244 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to review. I made that titles, because it was very hard to read and I made some hints out of the text. There are some overlaps between sections. And they perhaps could be better named. But yes, what about the gaps? Downtownee 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Historical Ranking

I believe this article is incorrect in stating that Warner Bros. is the second-oldest American movie studio in history, second only to Paramount. The article for Universal Pictures states the same thing for that studio, and I believe that statement to be correct. If you want proof, look at the opening of Back to the Future Part III, released in 1990; it was the first Universal picture to use the new 75 Years logo, as mentioned in the film's commentary and pop-up anecdotes feature on the DVD. Warner Bros., on the other hand, held a celebration of their 75th anniversary years later, in 1998 I think. I remember an episode of The Rosie O'Donnell Show (which didn't begin to air until 1996) in which a brass band played "Seventy-Six Trombones", rewritten as "Seventy-Five Great Years" or something like that to commemorate the milestone. Therefore, Warner Bros. actually ought to be called the third-oldest American movie studio (unless, of course, another studio besides Universal has been overlooked). Placeandtime 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amended Website

I have amended website from www.warnerbros.com to www2.warnerbros.com Kathleen.wright5 06:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No women leads?

Is it true that WB stated that they will no longer be making movies with women in the lead? TwistedRed (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)