Talk:Paramount Pictures: Difference between revisions

100th anniversary photo

116 Hollywood stars have been photographed for the 100th anniversary of Paramount Studios.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2012/07/paramount-pictures-100th-anniversary-photo

Photograph by Art Streiber

This photo would be great for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.102.130 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if you can get permission from Vanity Fair... Trivialist (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The photo includes J.J. Abrams, Antonio Banderas, Jennifer Beals, Jamie Bell, Justin Bieber, Bird Brad, Jack Black, Peter Bogdanovich, Ernest Brognine, Josh Brolin, James Caan, Dana Carvey, David Chase, Don Cheadle, John Cho, Tommy Chong, George Clooney, Glenn Close, Sacha Baron Cohen, Bud Cort, Kevin Costner, Tom Cruise, Jon Cryer, Jamie Lee Curtis, Claire Danes, Philippe Dauman, Robert De Niro, Bruce Dern, Cameron Diaz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kirk Douglas, Robert Downey Jr., Robert Evans, Dakota Fanning, Elle Fanning, Jon Favreau, Katie Featherston, David Fincher, Frances Fisher, Jane Fonda, Harrison Ford, Megan Fox, Morgan Freeman, Andy Garcia, Richard Gere, Tyrese Gibson, Scott Glenn, Alejandro Inarritu Gonzalez, Bruce Greendoow, Brad Grey, Melanie Griffith, Davis Guggenheum, Ed Harris, Amy Heckerling, Emile Hirsch, Dustin Hoffman, Julianne Hough, Kate Hudson, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Felicity Jones, Anna Kendrick, Sir Ben Kingsley, Johnny Knoxville, Shia LaBeouf, John Landis, Jerry Lewis, Christopher Lloyd, David Lynch, Ali MacGraw, Shirley MacLaine, Garry Marshall, Marlee Matlin, Demi Moore, Julianne Moore, Eddie Murphy, Olivia Newton-John, Jack Nicholxon, Nicke Nolte, Ryan O'Neal, Patton Oswalt, Paila Patton, Simon Pegg, Sean Penn, Chris Pine, Brad Pitt, Natalie Portman, Zachary Quinto, Sumner Redstone, Ivan Reitman, Jason Reitman, Molly Ringwald, Chris Rock, Mickey Rooney, Paul Rudd, Eva Marie Saint, Zoe Saldana, Adam Sandler, Martin Scorsese, Tony Scott, William Shatner, Steven Spielberg, Patrick Stewart, Oliver Stone, Meryl Steep, Barbra Streisand, George Takei, Charlize Theron, Billy Bob Thornton, John Travolta, Karl Urban, Gore Verbinski, Mark Wahlberg, Mike White, Billy Dee Williams, Anton Yelchin, and Michael York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.102.130 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Rewriting Paramount Pictures: 2005–present: Paramount today

The 2005–present: Paramount today section is almost entirely unsourced, as indicated by the "citation needed" tags added in July 2012. I believe the entire section needs rewriting. Editors may find the following articles useful as sources.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] NinaSpezz (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why this needs an RfC. What is the dispute?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't really need an RfC. In general, policy isn't too clear on what exactly is supposed to happen, but I usually consider unsourced sections to be fair game for being rewritten. If anyone wants to rewrite that section, I don't think there will be any problems. It looks like you've got some reliable sources, and you've identified a problem to be solved – all that remains is to actually sit down and do the work. If you'd like help, there are better avenues than calling an RfC. WP:Cleanup is a good starting point for soliciting help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Be BOLD and just do it! Requests for comment isn't the place to get help with doing that. From Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the Request for Comment process: "If you want general help in improving an article … then list it at Peer review."

Parking text/quote

I found some references for the 2005-Present section and made changes in the text to reflect the information found in the references. I could not find the source of this quote, purportedly by Brad Grey (which was in the Dreamworks purchased section), so I have removed it until a source can be found:, who noted that enhancing Paramount's pipeline of pictures is a "key strategic objective in restoring Paramount's stature as a leader in filmed entertainment."Coaster92 (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few possible sources. Trivialist (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Trivialist. I'll check these out.Coaster92 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I could not find sources for this text either so I re-wrote the paragraph in conformity with the references I found and I am parking the unreferenced text here: "The decision was made to split Viacom into two companies, which in turn led to a dismantling of the Paramount Studio/Paramount TV infrastructure, with the current Paramount, consisting only of the movie studio, retaining only about one-quarter its former size under Dolgen and Lansing. The Paramount Television studio, Paramount Parks and UPN was made part of CBS in the split and the remaining businesses were sold off or parceled out to other operating groups."Coaster92 (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Switching Logos

Can we please switch the Gulf+Western Paramount logo used in the first three Indiana Jones films with the Blue Mountain Logo? There may be some people that are afraid of that logo. As a matter of fact, it almost gave me a heart attack while reading it. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why put 1912 as the founding date of Paramount, when it's really the founding date of Famous Players, a company that is only one component of Paramount?

1912 is NOT the founding date of Paramount. It's only the founding date of Famous Players, which is only one component of Paramount. Paramount, the company we know today, was formed from a merger in 1916 (after which it was known as Famous Players-Lasky, but that was the beginning of the company as we know it today). So 1916 is the founding date, NOT 1912. So, why not put 1916 as the founding date, instead of 1912? Why are we putting 1912, when we know it's not correct? Mattdillon87 (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We,as you put it don't know it's not correct,as 1912 is widely given as the year for the founding of Paramount and not only on Wikipedia.

While it's true that Famous Players-Lasky was formed in 1916,either June 28th or July 19th(sources differ),as a result of a merger between Adolph Zukor's Famous Players Company and the Jessy L. Lasky Feature Play Company,Paramount Pictures as a distribution company founded by W.W.Hodkinson in 1914,had been distributing Famous Player films since May 15 or June 1,1914.(again sources differ)Prior to the merger with Lasky,Zukor(and possibly Lasky depending on what source you believe) bought enough stock to take control of Paramount and replace Hodkinson as President with Zukor associate Hiram Abrams.Google searches and Wikipedia searches turn up multiple references for a 1912 date for the Founding of what became the Paramount Pictures vertically integrated production,distribution and exhibition giant,and Paramount itself claims 1912 as it's founding.(A Google search of:History of Paramount Pictures,gives 11.2 million results.)

Sources for this reply; Goldwyn,A biography.A Scott Berg,Simon & Schuster, 1989.Page 49&58.

                       The S.I.M.P.P Research database article,W.W.Hodkison:The Man Who Invented Hollywood,
                       www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/hodkinson_system.htm
                       www.closinglogos.com/page/paramount+pictures
                       www.paramountstudios.com/working_on_the_lot/general_info/history.html
                       

Personally,I've been a student of film and film history for over 40 years and have found trying to get to the truth of Paramount's history an aggravating exercise of frustration,filled by multiple varying versions written long after the fact,and often based on rather shaky research,if any at all.My take on it,for what's it worth,is this; no Zukor,no Paramount as we know it,so the origins start with the company he founded in 1912.So if You still have an issue with the 1912 date perhaps you should take it up with the folks at Paramount,and/or the multiple websites,publishers,authors etc.that give 1912 as a founding date.Or better yet maybe You could write a book or article on Paramount with the 1916 date of founding which would muddy the waters even more.

Erotic Thrillers released by the company

The following erotic thrillers to be released by this company that I can think of are:

• Hustle
• Thief of Hearts
• Fatal Attraction
• Sliver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.245.226 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Founded by - Hodkinson or Zukor

The article seems to be split on this. " Paramount Pictures Corporation, organized early that year by a Utah theatre owner, W. W. Hodkinson, who had bought and merged several smaller firms. " and "Paramount Pictures logo, based on a design by founder William Wadsworth Hodkinson, from 1917 to 1967." But the infox says "1912 (as Famous Players Film Company)" and names Adolph Zukor, Jesse L. Lasky and Cecil B. DeMille as founders, as does Paramount's website say, but I could list a number of reliable sources that credit Hodkinson. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated page

I just updated this page with different information about the logos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.149.84 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

Can somebody change the Start date and age template from the current {start date and age|1912} to {start date and age|1912|5|8} to correspond to Paramount Pictures's official founding date? 173.73.242.76 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Rysher Entertainment

Does Paramount own most of the Rysher film library? Because, some of the film trailers have been put on the Paramount Movies YouTube channel. Matthew Cantrell (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Production deals

It's been a while since my last edit--several months, at least, as far as I can remember, anyway--and I feel like I missed something in the interim. Are production deals sections no longer allowed on film studio pages? Because at one point when looking through the edit history I noticed that someone's adding of the section had been reverted with "minor trivia" given as the excuse. However, I suspect the real reason is because of block evasion by the one who added that section, each time, at least after sources were added. Before I make any attempt to read it myself, I should like to know whether or not the section would be allowed, with sources, under normal circumstances. Thank you. (ADDENDUM: It has actually been 4.5 months, now that I've checked.) --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care. My concern is the sock puppetry and block evasion. Others might revert you, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I feel the need to clear something up here. If I was a sockpuppet of Nate Speed as you imply, would I have edits dating back to two years before his first edits? In any case, I seriously need to start editing here again more often, because it seems my frequent absences have triggered at least one false positive. --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't imply anything. I don't know how you read that into my comment, but I'm just here to block sock puppets. You don't look like a sock puppet to me, so I don't care what you do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just making sure you didn't get the wrong idea by mistake, is all. --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I started these sections, some were removed as trivia as they started from just a magazine list. Finding other articles that just highlight the top deals made them some other than trivia. [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed|Sockpuppet Nate Speed]] latched onto these list and would decide a one picture deal or a film series distribution deal amounts to a production deal. Production deals usual has first (or secondary) look provisions, overhead payments, office space at the studio lot and is for a term. Ryanasaurus, you restore one of Nate's versions. Disney and Lucasfilms don't have production deals for different reasons. Disney has been a long time mini-major as it distributed its own films since the 1950s under its Buena Vista Film Distribution (thus it doesn't make sense for them to have any prodco deal with Paramount as distribution rights was a financing source) and Lucasfilms was so independent after Star Wars that it could produce what ever Lucas wanted and only shopped for distribution (being put on Paramount's list for Paramount distributing the Indiana Jones films). Nate Speed switch from demanding his version with no sources to adding sources that don't support his position. Thus easy for you to assume sourcing = correct. I meant to correct this when you added it back but got side tracked. Spshu (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU'RE NOT READING THE FRIGGIN' SOURCES PROPERLY, YOU SHITTY A$$ ILLITERATE F*GGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE PARAMOUNT/DISNEY CO-PRODUCTION DEAL COVERED TWO MOVIES ONLY WITH POPEYE AND DRAGONSLAYER, WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO SAVE THE DISNEY STUDIO FROM BANKRUPTCY BUT DIDN'T WORK OUT AS THE TWO MOVIES F*CKING BOMBED AT THE BOX OFFICE, AND IF YOU THINK PARAMOUNT'S DEAL WITH LUCAS FOR THE INDIANA JONES FRANCHISE AND A COUPLE OF HIS OTHER MOVIES IS JUST A DISTRIBUTION DEAL, THEN PUT IT UNDER A NEW FRIGGIN' SUB-SECTION FOR DISTRIBUTION DEALS, FOR GOD'S SAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OTHERWISE YOU SUCK SO HARD AT BLOODY RESEARCH AND I'LL BE FORCED TO EDIT THIS PAGE UNDER A NEW ACCOUNT AND GET YOUR SORRY A$$ KICKED OFF THIS SITE, YOU DUMB F*CK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:< 39.40.70.28 (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)