Jump to content

Talk:Warner Bros./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Poland or Belarus

EN - Poland : The corporate name honors the eight founding Warner brothers (born Wonskolaser [3][4] ), Harry (born Hirsz), Albert (born Aaron), Sam (born Szmul), and Jack (born Itzhak), Jews who emigrated from Poland, Russian Empire to Ontario, Canada.


RU - Belarus : Компания названа в честь четырёх братьев Уорнеров: Гарри Уорнера (Гирш Ворон) (1881—1958), Альберта Уорнера (Аарон Ворон) (1883—1967), Сэма Уорнера (Шмуль Ворон) (1887—1927) и Джека Уорнера (Ицхак Ворон) (1892—1978)), родители которых эмигрировали из Белоруссии (тогда территория Российской империи) в США (через Англию и Канаду). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.151.221.241 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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!

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)

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

Name

Bros. or Brothers?

I worked at WB for over 30 years, and 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.122.223 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2004 (UTC)

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.] [I will further add that a link to a random article from an Indian newspaper has no validity to the way the text has now been changed.]


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

"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)

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.

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)

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)

Back when the studio was created, Tri-Star Pictures was originally owned by Columbia Pictures, CBS, and HBO, thus the "Tri" in their name. As to what it was doing on this page, it beats me because, at the time, Warner Communications (Warner Bros' parent) and Time, Inc. (HBO's parent) weren't Time Warner. Nemalki (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Amended Website

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

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)

movie ownership

Doesn't Warner own One Fle Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Should this be put in? 66.112.100.226 (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

What does the following sentence from the article mean?

"The studio faced only two minor blows, as Harry Warner was engaged in a lawsuit with a Boston stockholder who accused him of trying to use money from the studio's profitable businesses to try and purchase his vast 300 shares of stock about declare monopoly.[43] and the brother's longtime banker Motley Flint was murdered."

I'm trying to clarify the bit about the 300 shares. And the article was inconsistent in how Mr. Flint's first name was spelled. I found a book through Google Books that spelled it as "Motley" so I've changed the references to reflect that. Dewey Finn (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Warner Bros.

pre joining TIME .. Warner Bros. MAN .. not to say its different but.. I was once in NYC and met a man who claimed Warner Bros... he had security.. sure he spent the money.. but.. We go to the bar.. to buy it out.. he tells me he always goes to this bar because, basically, the bartender is HOT..and she .. gets on the bar.. dances ... spits fire .. starts taking off MY clothes ... shes whipping me with my own belt.. shes dumping bottles down my throat and telling me to take it bitch... THAT was Warner Bros.. and they did that for me.. he did that for me.. after we met and talked on the street in NYC .. he asked me to talk for him.. asked me to limp for him.. asked me to act for him.. and I seemed so uninterested .. or maybe I just didnt believe.. too drunk.. or perhaps I just wasnt what he was looking for.. either way any way I wasnt even .. worthy.. but yes.. Warner Bros. .. nothing but awesome.

The image Image:GoldDiggersBroadway2.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:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You oughtta be in talkies

Can anybody source Harry's quote, "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"? Or is that apocryphal? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

TV times

Why did FCC prohibit Warners' TV efforts? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting fed up

I realize Jack Warner wasn't the easiest guy to get along with, but does everybody have to get "fed up" with him? Can somebody with sources be a little less redundant? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it on the run

"the longest running drama with female leads" What, ever? On WB? Or what? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WB Franchise list

There's gonna be some major changes made to that said list. That list is supposed to display franchises owned by Warner Bros. Entertainment through acquisitions of other companies. Not what's aired on whatever network. King Shadeed 0:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope so. That section is a mess. RC71.112.38.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

As it's a large mess of original research and/or information better suited to individual articles on each film/property, I removed virtually all of it. If someone wants to add it back, they are going to need to provide actual references (as well as restraint). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Warner Independent Pictures in this article

should probably be fixed Tehw1k1 (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Film library

Taking a page from the WB Animation talk page, I decided to put this here until someone can get references. 76.189.162.7 (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Peculiarities resulting from building this library

A result of WB building up its library is that they own many works of certain people. For example, they own seven of the films directed by Stanley Kubrick (including five released by WB themselves and two originally from MGM), most of the films that Joan Crawford starred in (all her MGM and WB films), and all but four theatrical cartoons directed by Tex Avery (those four are owned by Universal), in addition to his final creation, The Kwicky Koala Show, as well as Chuck Jones' Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies, Tom and Jerry's 1963–1967 cartoons, his MGM theatrical non-T&J cartoons (The Dot and the Line and The Bear That Wasn't), various TV specials (How the Grinch Stole Christmas!, The Pogo Special Birthday Special, and Horton Hears a Who!, all from MGM, and his Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies related specials), and three movies (Gay Purr-ee, produced by UPA and released by WB, The Phantom Tollbooth, produced and released by MGM, and The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie).

Another anomaly in the WB library is The Goodbye Girl, which was originally a WB/MGM co-production. Due to that, the copyright is now owned by both WB and Turner.

Material owned by WB

In addition to a majority of its own film and television library (pre-1950 and post-1949, with the former re-acquired from Turner), WB owns (both through its own in-house unit and its Turner Entertainment subsidiary combined):

Exceptions

WB

  • Certain John Wayne Warner films are owned by Batjac, Wayne's company, as are other Batjac productions not starring Wayne – Paramount owns distribution rights to these films. Warner and Paramount cross-licensed each others' logos for DVD distribution of both these films and the Paramount produced Popeye cartoons Warner controls.
  • Certain territorial rights to co-productions with other studios. For example, domestic distribution rights to Watchmen are with WB, with Paramount holding international rights—the opposite with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Beowulf, Zodiac, and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; Something's Gotta Give has its international rights held by WB (while its co-producing studio, Columbia, has domestic rights); MGM (successor-in-interest to Cannon Films) and Paramount Pictures share certain components to Superman IV: The Quest for Peace depending upon particular media and territory (Trifecta Entertainment & Media handles North American television rights on behalf of Paramount); North American rights to Gorillas in the Mist are held by co-producer Universal (Warner holds international rights); domestic rights to The Pagemaster (co-produced with Turner Pictures) and Slumdog Millionaire are held by co-producer 20th Century Fox (WB holds either partial or full international rights), and so on.
  • Two Elia Kazan films, A Face in the Crowd, and America, America, originally released by WB, are now fully owned by the Kazan estate via Castle Hill Productions. However, WB has retained partial rights to Baby Doll, another Kazan film originally released by WB (its rights are shared with the Kazan estate and Castle Hill); WB also distributes much of the Castle Hill library in North America (which explains why A Face in the Crowd was distributed on DVD by Warner Bros.).
  • The Alfred Hitchcock film Rope, and the original 1954 film version of Jack Webb's Dragnet, both originally released by WB, are now owned by Universal Studios.
  • Warner's 1956 version of Moby Dick is now owned by MGM and United Artists.
  • One film that was originally released by Warner in 1957, Sayonara, is now owned by MGM (the successor company to former owners The Samuel Goldwyn Company).
  • One film released by Warner in 1983, Zelig, is now owned by MGM (after MGM's purchase of Orion Pictures)
  • The ancillary rights to ITC Entertainment films originally distributed by WB (including The Medusa Touch, Movie Movie, and Capricorn One) are now owned by ITV Global Entertainment Ltd., while MGM owns theatrical distribution rights.
  • The 1951 western Only the Valiant, the 1983 horror film Cujo (produced by the Taft Entertainment Company), Irreconcilable Differences, and the pre-1960 United States Pictures catalog (the post-1959 releases, including Battle of the Bulge, remain with WB) are owned by Republic/Paramount Pictures, while Trifecta Entertainment & Media holds television rights under Paramount's license (having assumed such rights from CBS Television Distribution) and Lionsgate holds video rights.
  • Ancillary rights to My Fair Lady are now owned by CBS (this is part of a deal made with WB years previously on the film rights), although until recently WB owned the home video rights under license from CBS.
  • Universal owns previously-released film versions of The Flintstones and The Jetsons as well as the ride film of The Funtastic World of Hanna-Barbera (co-produced with WB's Hanna-Barbara animation unit).
  • The 1943 musical This Is the Army was donated by Jack Warner in 1950 to Army Emergency Relief, who got all the profits from the movie's original release. However, they, along with the God Bless America Fund, licensed the film to Warner Bros. for their Veterans Day, 2008, DVD release of the Warner Bros. and the Homefront Collection.
  • Hanna-Barbera's 1973 film Charlotte's Web is owned by its distributor Paramount Pictures (who also co-financed the film).
  • Rights to the film Once Upon a Forest (produced by Hanna-Barbera) is owned by 20th Century Fox.
  • Rights to Don Bluth's films Thumbelina and A Troll in Central Park are now owned by 20th Century Fox (possibly acquired when Bluth became president of Fox's animation department).
  • The rights to Lorimar films An Officer and a Gentleman and The Last Starfighter are handled by respective co-producers Paramount Pictures and Universal Studios (excluding television rights to the latter film which is owned by Warner).
  • The rights to the Peanuts theatrical library, including A Boy Named Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Come Home, Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown and Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown (and Don't Come Back!) are currently owned by CBS Home Entertainment and Paramount Home Entertainment through United Feature Syndicate.
  • Rankin-Bass's 1982 film The Last Unicorn is owned by ITV Global Entertainment Ltd. (With Lionsgate handling the DVD rights).

Turner

Further information: Turner Entertainment

FremantleMedia

Further information: FremantleMedia
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warner_Bros./Archive_1&oldid=1074838968"