Talk:Studio system

message: There was more to the end of the studio system than just the ruling in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc..  Television was just really beginning at the time and had little to do with it then, although some would say that James Garner's fight with Warner Bros. over his Maverick contract was really the true total end of it.  Bob Hope's war with Paramount earlier in the 1940s, is credited by writer Raymond Strait, at least, as the beginning of the end of its breaking down when he got raises above his contract, percentages, and a more legitimate accounting of film expenses and revenues than had previously been achieved.  Rlquall 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It needs more clarity. When GenCorp sold RKO Pictures, Inc. it was purchased by Wesray and some of RKO Pictures's managers, but Mr. William E. Simon never bought RKO Pictures from Wesray, simply because William E. Simon was the co-founder and owner of Wesray Corporation.
At least probably, Wesray (and therefore William E. Simon) became the major stakeholder among the owners of RKO Pictures, and then Wesray/William E. Simon and Ray Chambers sold RKO Pictures, Inc. to Hartley and Merrill.
Let's see if I can put this all together properly:
RKO was purchased by Wesray Capital (controlled by William E. Simon and Ray Chambers) in 1987 and was merged with their Six Flags operations. Over the course of 1990-91, Wesray (i.e., Simon and Chambers) split RKO off again and sold it to Merrill and Hartley.
Is that correct, according to your best information?--DCGeist 16:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RKO - Wesray - William E. Simon

message: “movie-crazy multimillionaire Howard Hughes” (is “movie-crazy” necessary?)
“...a Chicago-based syndicate led by shady dealers without motion picture experience.” (consider a more precise word in place of “shady”)
“RKO's new owners were encountering little success in the moviemaking business and by 1957 the gig was up.” (“the gig was up” seems a little too informal)
“unlike UA, it barely owned its old movies”  (what does “barely” mean, e.g., only 10% ownership of its old movies?)
“The studio system was a means of film production and distribution dominant in Hollywood from the early 1920s through the 1950s.” vs.  “In 1954...the era of the studio system was officially over.”  (appears inconsistent:  did it last through the 1950s, or was it officially over in 1954?)
“1927/29–1948/49, is commonly known as the Golden Age of Hollywood.” vs. “The years 1927 and 1928 are generally seen as the beginning of Hollywood's Golden Age” (also appears inconsistent:  did the golden age begin in 1927/29 or 1927/28?)
Genesis 1:3 (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some suggested edits

message: There is too much info on RKO as a studio in this article. The entire paragraph that begins:
"Hughes gambit helped to break the studio system,..." is superfluous, as is relates more to the long slow demise of RKO than the Studio System. I think it could be deleted without harming the article.
I also think that there is a great deal of focus on film distribution, and hardly anything on how the system affected film production on a day to day basis (i.e actors denied the right to refuse a film, being unable to make films for other studios without permission from their own, etc.). This type of information needs adding asap! 
And the language is far too informal throughout. Would anyone object if I help with some rewrites?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CYL (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much on RKO, not enough on Production. 

message: This section is not as clear as it should be, if it is all going to be told in prose. 
The best thing would be to just put in a table of years and the big five. tahc chat 16:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reign of the majors 

message: Who first used the term "Golden Age of Hollywood"? 38.111.35.2 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin Of Term "Golden Age of Hollywood"? 

message: If the first paragraph is meant to detangle and introduce you to further reading, this article has a nightmare for a start. Even industry-experienced readers may feel bamboozled after five or six sentences. An unnecessarily buzzwordy initial section.
Editing is necessary, unless the jargon and mystifications at the start is meant to put a reader off.
Arcsoda (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  After reading, none the wiser