This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 9 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion
The lead statement Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributes and markets the films produced by 20th Century Studios is incorrect. To start off, the Deadline source ([1]) doesn't even say this. It says: Post-merger, Fox Searchlight, now re-branded Searchlight Pictures, enjoys a lot of autonomy in the Disney empire, greenlighting pics they know and operating their own distribution, publicity and marketing teams. 20th Century Studios (which recently dropped the Fox) was melded into the bigger Disney fold, fusing all its operations. Nowhere in that paragraph does it indicate that 20th Century films are being distributed by Disney, only that its operations were merged into Disney and that Searchlight would retain its autonomy. Secondly, this is not correct, as evidenced by Disney's press releases ([2], [3]) and the fact that none of 20th's films even credit Disney at the end (unlike Marvel and Lucasfilm productions). I brought this issue up at Talk:Ron's Gone Wrong#Disney back in January, but since then I've observed an uptick in editors trying to change this on several other articles (Free Guy, Avatar 2, Dark Phoenix, New Mutants, and most recently Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes). InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Also, a fifth reason, Box Office Mojo still lists all 20th Century Studios as being distributed (domestically, at least) by 20th Century Studios, not Disney. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Despite no mention of it for the end credits of each film, 20th Century Studios films are indeed distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (through Walt Disney Pictures, but as a silent distributor of 20th Century's films) (even the BBFC source indicates this for example: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/the-first-omen-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc0xmde5odax)
However, when i looked up at the BBFC website, it says that 20th's films are distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (although credited in my country, Britain, as Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures UK rather than Buena Vista International UK).
So whatever the outcome of the "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" tag expected to appear in future 20th Century's films, i think it could happen but not soon enough i guess. SolshineBenie (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
We are going by what sources say and what the poster billing block say. This IP is hell bent on changing all recent 20th Century films. MikeAllen17:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Look I know there has been edit wars alot about Disney distrubuting 20th Century stuff but I just don't understand. Even the pages say "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributes and markets the films produced by 20th Century Studios" yet no one removed it and the previous person said it is incorrect and even the movies 20th does never mention "Distrubuted by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" so for every movie 20th does are we not gonnna mention Disney at all its as if people still think 20th Century is a seperate studio instead of being owned by Disney. NakhlaMan (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago15 comments6 people in discussion
I revised the list of examples to use the list of franchises from an article. It's basically the same as the list of franchises from before. And rather than list out every single individual movie and television show, I picked a single example for each: Titanic (highest-grossing movie of all time for 12 years as well as an Academy Award for Best Picture winner) and The Simpsons (the longest running scripted American television show of all time and it was also mentioned in the title of the article). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note that the article only mentions Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope because the other Star Wars movies in the original six films were already sold to Disney as part of Lucasfilms, but I used the broader "six films" for the introduction because the list of examples isn't about the acquisition. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
What is not on the list is Anastasia (1997) because it is not particularly notable from the standpoint of box office numbers, awards, or being a significant franchise. I mention this movie specifically because someone keeps adding it back and refuses to discuss it. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
As far as films go, Titanic and The Sound of Music are both in the top 10 for inflation-adjusted box office. Cleopatra "only" made $421 million adjusted for inflation so I think it misses the cut. (I checked every movie listed in the cited Independent article.)
None of those are even close to Planet of the Apes so I'm content to leave them off the list. I'd suggest we agree on a minimum box-office cut-off. I'd suggest $2B if we want the above more compact list or $1B if we want to include several additional franchises. I'm fine with either approach. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd rather not include nominations as any part of the criteria, especially because the number of nominees has varied over time and started increasing significantly in 2009. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think box office is the easiest, most accurate, and most objective criterion we can use. To keep the lead brief and emphasize only the most notable properties, I agree with keeping the cut-off at $2B. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It seems like we have consensus for a $2B cut-off. That gets two very notable movies that also won best picture into the introduction so I don't think we need to quibble over additional criteria. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just wanted to chime in and say that I agree with what was settled upon here. The metrics were fairly established and keeps the introduction from being too oversaturated with examples from the studio's film library. Something like this can be used as a framework on other similar studio articles. Well done! That being said, I rewrote the line mentioning Titanic and The Sound of Music to keep it more concise while maintaining the gist of their nobility. I also removed The Simpsons because that is a television series produced by sister unit 20th Television Animation, not 20th Century Fox/Studios. Even the Independent article delineates that. Only the 2007 film was released by the film studio. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 05:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Reassess article to C-class.
The B-class criteria #1 states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
The article is in the following categories:
Unreferenced Los Angeles articles.
Unreferenced Southern California articles
Unreferenced California articles
The article has unsourced content:
Third paragraph of the "From founding to 1956" subsection. Several paragraphs have dangling sentences (sentence after a source)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: The article lede and the History section already mention all of those companies. RudolfRed (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)