Talk:DreamWorks Pictures

message: It would probably be quite interesting to see the box office numbers for each film. Should an additional column be inserted into the table? 62.202.32.88 (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmography

message: HOW DO THESE MOVIE COMAPNIES WORK WITH BLU RAY AND HD-DVD.  WHAT IS THE BUSINESS MODEL ?? PLEASE ANSWER ..............  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.190.186 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Error?: [[Ratchet and Clank]] are [[Sony]] [[SCEI]]??

message: Regarding Disney co-productions, they've done some more recently than Dragonslayer and Popeye: Chronicles of Narnia and some others with Walden Media, the Pixar features before the merger. And Miramax does them relatively frequently: Cinderella Man with Universal, The Hours with Paramount, Once Upon a Time in Mexico with Sony, The Aviator with Warner Bros., and more recent ones with The Weinstein Company. —tregoweth (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney co-productions 

message: Removed from article: "As for DreamWorks' television library, it is expected that CBS Paramount Television, the successor-in-interest to Paramount's television division now owned by CBS Corporation, will take over the TV rights to the shows."
:I removed this because I don't think its correct.  Viacom/Paramount bought Dreamworks in 2006 after the 2005 split of Viacom/CBS, so it does not make sense.  I actually remember one of the rationales for Paramount buying Dreamworks was to get a TV Unit...  If there is a cite for this please add it back into the article.  --Cliffb 10:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Television Group

message: Should the movies for Dreamworks animation that were produced after the spinoff be mentioned on this page?  I think we're getting a bit redundant by listing them here. —Cliffb 06:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No they shouldn't. They are two seperate companies and listed as it is is very confusing. 90.209.250.118 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  agree, totally separate companies post-2004. These shouldn't be listed in this article riffic (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text:  Keeping everything DWA related post-2004 is doing nothing but confusing users. 75.84.123.169 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Dreamworks Animation Be here? 

message: I came to this article looking for information about DreamWorks' erstwhile bid to transform the Playa Vista development into their own studio lot, the environmental outcry over the planned project, and the financial reasons for its failure to come to fruition.  Can someone add some details to a new section of this article?  Thanks! Robert K S 11:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of failed studio headquarters deal at [[Playa Vista]]

message: It's a bit odd that Aardman isn't mentioned with connection to Flushed Away, considering that it was largely their film. Esn 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aardman

message: Shrek the Third is not more successful than Shrek 2. Correct?
:No. Shrek the Third has so far only grossed 400 million, 200 in the US and 200 elsewhere but Shrek 2 grossed over 900 million worldwide. I changed it. 
72.49.205.8 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever keeps changing the dreamworks highest grossing film, please stop and look at the following link: ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?studio=dreamworks.htm ) that clearly shows that Shrek 2 is the most successful film by that studio. 
The Modern Prometheus 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shreks

message: The last line in the "Trivia" section indicates the theme song for Shrek Goes Forth.  Doesn't this seem like Shrek trivia, more than Dreamworks? Does this belong on this page?
12.69.202.2 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shrek Goes Forth Music Trivia

message: Is there any evidence of Dreamworks making a movie about Count Duckula beyond 2009? 82.4.79.173 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Count Duckula 

message: Why is the studio logo represented in shades of purple? It's always been blue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.121 (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo? 

message: Anybody care to write what SKG stands for in DreamWorks SKG? Or does nobody know? Or does it not stand for anything?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niwdog (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you'd care to read the article, it says what SKG stands for. Next time, instead of looking for others to give you the answer, try looking for it on your own. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SKG 

message: This article formerly stated that Dreamworks' most successful film was Shrek 2, which made $441 million dollars. This may have been true when the source provided() was written, but it no longer is; the article on Shrek 3 states that it made $798,958,162. I'm not sure if that's their highest-grossing film now, or if it's something else, but it's definitely not Shrek 2 anymore. I have removed the statement; if anyone knows what it should be, they can re-add it. Robofish (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most successful film? 

message: I'm not really good at "editing" on Wiki... I tried, but my edit got rejected.  So after some searching around, I thought I would try this, and maybe someone who knows what they are doing can fix this!!
At the bottom of the Dreamworks page, it lists "links"... one of those links is for a supposed "fan site"... but that is NOT a fan site.  I went to it out of curiosity and found that it was not related.  Luckily I used a fake phone number and email adress to get through until it wouldn't let me go any further.  But as far as I got, it is obvious that it is a SCAM site that pretends to offer you a "prize/reward" after completing a bunch of "offers" in different "levels" like "level 1, 2, 3 & 4... or silver level, gold level, or platinum level"... as with all of these sites, they just gather your info (phone, address, email, etc) and get you to sign up for things you shouldn't or normally wouldn't, and usually they sell all your info, so you get slammed with spam, and possibly other issues!
So in my opinion, that link should be removed completely, or have a note added that it is FALSE/FRAUDULENT and say that it has nothing to do with Dreamworks, or it's fans!  Again, I attempted to do this, but it was rejected as "negative"... like DUH, it IS negative, the link is a scam and I am trying to warn people!  I hope someone who knows their way around Wiki can help with this!  I hate seeing people get in trouble with those websites, and I really hate people putting fake info in order to trick people!
72.193.194.214 (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the website is nonsense. I've removed it. Thanks for the heads-up! Hope you'll stick around and edit some more. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous fan website listed 

message: We have a new problem on our hands. User:TheWikiMan95 wants to split the DreamWorks articles between the pre-Reliance and post-Reliance years. Is this split feasible? Freshh (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the split is feasible as the post- and pre- DreamWorks are seperate entities.  --Spshu (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UPDATE 

message: DreamWorks Studios SKG, DreamWorks Pictures and DreamWorks Studios are all names available to both DreamWorks, so breaking up the history section by them is "fudging", ie made up. --Spshu (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names as history subsection 

message: What does a sentence like "Later in the marriage between DreamWorks SKG and Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks SKG became intoxicated and would later have trouble distributing their own films and even fully financing them"  even mean?  
There's paragraph and paragraph of indecipherable chronology about deals -- and an entire section on who designed the company's logo?  
I'd do this if I knew enough about the company...
Djcheburashka (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs a rewrite... 

message: Someone had changed the Parent company to be NBCUniversal. Please note that NBCUniversal/Comcast has only purchased Dreamworks Animation, a distinctly separate company. Stabani (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBCUniversal 

message: Dreamwork's did not buy Pacific Data Images till 2000. At first they were partners.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.56.40 (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific Data Images 

message: Actually, I agree with Spshu's edits. The category Predecessors of NBCUniversal is seemingly for individual companies that comprised NBC Universal when it was first formed. DreamWorks was not owned by the company at the time it was formed, so nothing DreamWorks related should be in there at all. ViperSnake151  Talk   19:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The only predecessor of NBCUni is MCA and Vivendi Universal as those two companies became NBCUniversal. DreamWorks isn't even an acquisition of NBCUni. DReamWorks is now a part of Ambline Partners and is only distributed by Universal. Spshu (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Edit war over NBCUniversal category 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion