Talk:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

message: Disney changed the name of all Buena Vista business units six months ago.  Currently all of BVPD and BVI are divisions of Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, the umbrella name for a number of studio depts under Dick Cook.  I'm really surprised that no one has changed this. 69.231.225.204 (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's all set now. jhawkinson (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Buena Vista becomes Walt Disney

message: Is the franchises section of this article relevant to explaining what Walt Disney Motion Pictures does? In addition. this section cites no sources.
Should this section be deleted?
Of course NOT, besides what is up with removing something if that's the company's main franchises?--DisneyGirlovestacos1995 (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Franchises Section 

message: I'm so disappointed that Tarzan is no longer in Disney, how did this happen?!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.178.57 (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarzan no more? 

message: Is a table listing the studio's film franchises relevant?
There's already a section regarding the topic on this talk page, but I've decided to start anew and assess this critical issue. This discussion also applies to the same issue at 20th Century Fox (and any other studio articles for that matter), but I've concentrated the discussion here because of the higher frequency in edit warring and to avoid creating two, separate discussions. For now, I would argue against including the content for the following reasons:
1. Adhering to Policy — The current edits that have added the content have been unreferenced and are therefore unverified, which goes against Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and abstaining from including original research.
2. Arbitrary nature — The information is arbitrary and leads to questions like; What constitutes a media franchise? Do we include every franchise the studio has done, both widely known and less-known, or one over the other? Are dormant/future franchises part of the list too? What about franchises that only have one film but have a larger presence in other forms of media that are unrelated to the studio, like merchandising, television and theme parks? In shorter terms, where do we draw the line in the sand?
3. Notability — Does the content meet  notability guidelines or is it irrelevant and trivial?
Please note, that if those problems can be addressed and solved, then I'd support incorporating the content. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with EvilKeyboardCat. References need to be added to verify the list's contents. It would be ideal to find a reliable source that already has some form of this list, rather than editors putting together a list using references for individual items on the list and potentially creating an original research issue. Eidolonic (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Franchise relevance

message: Please note: I've abbreviated Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures as WDSMP and Buena Vista Pictures Distribution as BVPD for the purposes of brevity.
I feel as though I have to address two issues that are becoming apparent in several Disney film articles, involving the Studio and Distributed by parameters found in the infoboxes for Disney films. I've come across several articles that identity either a film label/imprint/banner (i.e. Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, or Hollywood Pictures etc.) as the film's distributor whereas other articles identify WDSMP or BVPD (depending on the year) as distributor, despite the fact that all of Disney's films are distributed by the latter, as the former ones are imprints/labels/banners. Thus the first key issue is this: Who do we indicate as distributor? WDSMP/BVPD? Or its various labels/imprints/banners? For the sake of argument, if we decide on the former, then where do we list all of the labels/imprints/banners? In the studio parameter? Or do we just double stuff the distributor parameter?
Addressing that concern, brings forth the second issue which is article consistency. If we do decide on what goes in what parameter, then we must enforce that rule-of-thumb on all articles and not just a collective few, which is what I've been noticing. For example, The Nightmare Before Christmas now lists BVPD as distributor and Touchstone as the studio, whereas My Father the Hero (a film from roughly the same timeframe), has Touchstone as distributor and nothing in the studio field, despite that they're both distributed by WDSMP/BVPD. In basic terms, many of the related film articles are just inconsistent with one another. 
I have two solutions that I'd like to bring to the table.A. We identify the distributor as one of the film labels/imprints/banners and disregard WDSMP/BVPD completely, since its role in distribution is already implied with the film label (exempting Disney's Marvel Studios releases).B. We only include WDSMP/BVPD in the distribution parameter and all the various film labels/imprints/banners would fall under the studio parameter alongside any other production companies.
What are your thoughts on addressing this issue? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At one point, each of BV, Touchstone, Hollywood and Miramax had their own distribution capability (not sure about Disney Pictures). Later the film units were force to operate closer and unified their distribution arm under BVPD (except for Miramax until near the end of its Disney ownership). Spshu (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So...what do we do about it? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Jedi94's statements and I think "Solution A" would work best for me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: In retrospect, I realized that I forgot to mention that I'm also inclined towards "Solution A" as being the best option. In regard to Betty Logan's comment - if we follow that route, then what would do for the studio and distributor parameters for such films from, let's say, Pixar? (While still staying true to Disney's film labels, that is.) ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the AFI always supply a list of the production companies and the distributor so in what sense is that not sufficient for what we need? If you take the Toy Story films for example, the AFI, MPAA and BBFC state that Buena Vista is the distributor for the first two films, while for the third they all state it is WDSMP (AFO, MPAA, BBFC). For the production companies, the AFI lists Pixar Animation Studios and Walt Disney Pictures () for the first two and just Pixar for the third one (). There are plenty of sources around that list the production companies and distributors and all we should be doing is following them. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Solution A is the best course of action. It feels more inclusive and overall makes more sense to me. Celestial Reader (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The core principal of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability. That means editors shouldn't be determining which companies/brands are credited with producing/distributing the film from their own personal knowledge or research of corporate infrastructure. If secondary sources credit a particular company then that is what Wikipedia should be doing. Betty Logan (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. However, this isn't conjecture, we know exactly what the studio is, and who the distributor is. The issue is how we are going to list it, correct? I feel like Solution A just makes more sense than solution B. It's not like solution A will have false information, It's a more specific route than just listing WDSMP or BVPD. Celestial Reader (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither solution is really acceptable if it puts us at odds with other secondary sources and database entries, and both are entirely acceptable if they are consistent with them. In the case of A Nightmare Before Christmas, sources credit the production company as Touchstone and Buena Vista as the distributor, so why would we need to deviate from that? In the case of the Toy Story films what is the problem with simply emulating the AFI? This is a solution without a problem IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC:"Distributed by" v. "Studio" 

message: Disney's Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas is not a feature film theatrically release, it's a direct-to-video.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Disney's ''Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas''? 

message: What is the actors and actress in invidual movies distributed by Buena Vista and W.D.S.M.P.?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.17.15 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actors and actress in invidual movies distributed by Buena Vista and W.D.S.M.P. 

message: All those R-rated Disney films by the MPAA are produced by Touchstone Pictures banner.
No children without their parents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.84.128 (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about R-rated Disney film by the MPAA? 

message: Can we now include Fox's films in the Highest-grossing films? RigorImpossible (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they were not distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures/Buena Vista distribution. Spshu (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Spshu said. Much like older Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios films, they were not originally distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures/Buena Vista Distribution. However, any new future Fox films distributed by Disney can be included from now onwards. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 20th Century Fox Box Office

message: The box office grosses should not be updated like we are some sort of film newspaper (NOTNEWS). Small increments, relatively speaking, are not encyclopedic. Thus I suggest that only after the weekend box office closes that they be updated. Spshu (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I disappointment too to argue with you over something over very basic logic. "....where is your idea of this “newspaper” thing even coming from?" Straight from NOTNEWS: "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." A million is not much money any more; there are 1 millionaire per thousand people. The box office table is cut to the millions to keep even lesser transaction from being reported. Even most media outlets don't even report box office information with most after the weekend boost, thus an daily up dater of a few million in box office sales is being Anal retentiveness. So, asking to match what news outlets usually report this info not much. This is all a volunteer effort, we shouldn't want "make work" in daily updates and the then expect the page watchers to have to verify these small updates. Spshu (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose –  While the numbers don't have to be up-to-date... that doesn't mean an up-to-date number is incorrect. If a user makes a correct updated box-office number, it shouldn't be reverted to an outdated, week-old version just because a "page watcher" doesn't have the time to verify from Box Office Mojo. We probably don't want small changes; but changes that involve millions or change in chart positions should be welcomed when they occur. Starforce13 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: I agree with Starforce13's reasoning. Although I agree that box office numbers don't need to be updated every minute of every day, that doesn't mean any new and accurate updates should be reverted for an old gross. If a dedicated user should provide us with any newer, accurate grosses, then they should be kept. No harm done with that. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The harm is the box office updates can hide incorrect changes or removal of information intentional or not from  watchlist(s) as it only shows the last edit on a day. It becomes harder to just revert as each succeeding edit occurs. Spshu (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can configure your Watchlist to show all the changes instead of just the recent ones. If you go to "Preferences", there's a "Watchlist" tab where you'll find an "Advanced Options" section. There's a checkbox that says "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent." Check it and save. So, all changes will be displayed by default and none will slip away. After that, it should be easy to see all the changes unless you only look at the comment and someone intentionally uses "BOM update" comment to hide a vandalism (which they can still do with any other edit/comment). Starforce13 20:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box office NOTNEWS 

message: If 20th Century Fox is still distributing its own films according to its sources, how come it's still listed on the film unit list of studios being distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures regardless?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSMan2016 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably due to the assumption that 2CF distribution operations (2CFD) is a unit or label of WDSMP. Which is logical given that the top 2CFD executives have been dismissed. But it still could be reporting to the 2CF vice chair thus not a part of WDSMP. Spshu (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution to TCF 

message: Anyone have idea if we should remove Searchlight Pictures or put a disclaimers saying They distribute their own films autonously from Disney? Because if we say Disney Studios Motion Pictures distrubutes the following studios and we last that, that technically means Disney doenst distrbute Searchlight Pictures films, acordding to this: "Following the reorganization and renaming of the acquired film units, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures began distributing 20th Century Studios films, while Searchlight Pictures continued to operate their autonomous distribution unit".[ NakhlaMan (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searchlight Pictures 

message: Who headed Buena Vista Pictures before Dick Cook became president of it in 1994? Who were the people that ran the distribution company from its founding until then?
--Evope (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  management at Buena Vista Pictures 

message: Well, since Buena Vista brand was officialy dropped in the Latin American region as of February 11, 2022, the Latin American branch of Buena Vista International is now Star Distribution as seen in the YouTube Channel and his Facebook page that the logo of Star Distribution first seen as a profile photo, the last film to use the BVI name was Today We Fix The World (2022) and the first film to use his current name was Noche Americana (2022) and the Argentine print of Official Competition (2022) and also on November 3, 2022, the Brazilian branch of Buena Vista International was renamed to Star Distribution as his YouTube Channel and his Facebook page the logo is the same with the Star Distribution logo, the last film to use the BVI name in Brazil was Abestalhados 2 (2022) and the first film to use his current name will be Fervo (2023) and yeah Star Distribution didn't have a on-screen logo in his films and is unknown if Las Fiestas (2023) would have a official on-screen logo (as in style of Star Original logo or in style of Star Studios logo). XboxFan2006 (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Distribution the successor to Buena Vista International in Latin America and Brazil 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Walt Disney Company § Disney Entertainment.  InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:The Walt Disney Company#Disney Entertainment|Talk:The Walt Disney Company §&nbsp;Disney Entertainment]]

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: from SF Chronicle:
Wait, what? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy crap:    InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

text: That's impossible? SolshineBenie (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Looks fake to me and sus if WDSMP had a d/b/a to ABC, Inc. TCFFanmade2006YT (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that and thus it may confirm ABC Inc has a trade name for Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures for which I believe it had left unconfirmed until at least 2019. So there's not a problem with that though. SolshineBenie (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This does seem real, considering that two of the three sources listed for this name in this article are from Disney itself. However, while the database OpenCorporates lists multiple entities under the legal name ABC, Inc. (or ABC Communications, Inc.) trading as WDSMP, Dun & Bradstreet lists the company's trade name as simply ABC. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (Converse here) 11:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And rumour has it that Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is a trade name for ABC Inc according to some source. I guess it's like Amblin Partners being the trade name for Storytelling Distribution LLC after all!! SolshineBenie (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC Inc.