Talk:Warner Bros.

message: It is after all, the largest major film studio by market share and the size of its production pipeline, in terms of both films and TV shows. Just a thought. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kind of odd this article doesn't mention WB's size... 

message: Why does the list of highest grossing films only mentions the domestic gross but not the international gross? 98.119.155.81 (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest grossing films 

message: Renegade Pictures (Don't tell the bride, etc) redirects to this article but isn't mentioned in the article. Does anyone know of a reference that would allow this company to have a mention? Their own website does not mention a link to Warner Bros, but a recent TV prog made by the company did. Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renegade Pictures 

message: In the Warner Bros. topic, the section dealing with Olivia de Haviland's dispute with the studio reads:
"In 1943, Olivia de Haviland (whom Warner was loaning to different studios) sued Warner for breach of contract.[124] De Haviland had refused to portray famed abolitionist Elizabeth Blackwell in an upcoming film for Columbia Pictures.[124] Warner responded by sending 150 telegrams to different film production companies, warning them not to hire her for any role.[124]"
And the specific Olivia de Haviland page states that the letters were sent after the suit went in de Haviland's favor. The above passage seems to suggest that the letters were sent in response to her refusing the role, rather than a response to the favorable outcome of the lawsuit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0B3:9640:99A4:43FE:FB62:BE71 (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible timeline contradiction 

message: Justice League  grossed 657.9 million  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.142.212.85 (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest-grossing films

message: Where did the title "Global Kids & Young Adults" come from? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warner Bros. Global Kids & Young Adults 

message: You don't have a information about the International arrangements on Warner Bros.?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.122.232.125 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  International arrangements 

message: Shouldn't Warner Bros. be split up on wikipedia? Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Warner Bros. Pictures are two separate things. The actual film distribution section of the company should have it's own page in a similar way that there is The Walt Disney Company page, Walt Disney Studios (division), and Walt Disney Pictures. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. should be structured similarly, with a separate page for it's film branch Warner Bros. Pictures, theatre branch Warner Bros. Theatre Ventures (which I made and was just redirected to Warner Bros.), Warner Bros. Consumer Products (Disney has a page :Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media). I feel as though Warner Bros. is jumbled together and can really be simplified by creating these new pages.
Chrisisreed (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is the same thing.
Oppose I think Warner Bros./Warner/WB is similar to Universal in that the legal names are slightly different while they use the banners "Warner Bros. Pictures ©Warner Bros Entertainment" "Universal Pictures © Universal Studios or Universal City Studios". However with that said I agree with you on Theatre Ventures and other divisions having their own page. Thank you.217.114.169.244 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warner Bros. Pictures 

message: Hi. I am an anonymous user, so I cannot edit the Warner Bros. page. I feel like there should be a section about the logo, because when it comes to pages about famous film companies, there are usually sections about their logos. (I recommend you put it after the "History" section. Don't do the "New Section" method and put "Logo" in between "==" and "=="). 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section about the logo, please 

message: Part of Warner Bros.  and no significant difference with it. The founders, website, etc. all are the same. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea to have, just so there's a difference. --XSMan2016 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Hmm, not really. It's become its own division/label in recent years, like New Line Cinema and DC Films. Warner Bros. itself should definitely apply to the umbrella company housing all of that. I have to agree with Chrisisreed's notion. If you look on the website, the companies are even treated as such. JWthaMajestic (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Warner Bros. Pictures]] into Warner Bros. 

message: I'm not the best editor and I figure that this will probably be a slightly contentious idea. But I think it would provide to be an interesting addition to the article. My idea is to add a section to the article to describe the use of dmca claims by Warner Bros. and their subsidiaries. I only know of negative and possible bad faith claims they have made, https://mashable.com/article/youtube-livestream-bogus-copyright-strike-warner-bros-cnn/ ,https://www.youtube.com/post/UgxZfHGGCSUS4ntkj-p4AaABCQ, https://www.ajc.com/technology/warner-bros-files-copyright-claim-against-itself/eKu1EdjG7iWdMWXv2teCpN/, and https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-our-false-dmca-takedowns-are-not-a-crime-131115/, but I figure it might be good add this to the article to show how "WB" uses and possibly abuses copyright and dmca laws. What do you all think? Xeracross (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add new section to page, Use of DMCA  

message: This was merely the name Warner Bros. used from 1967 to 1970, and not only was the company short lived as indicated by the years shown, but the info detailing the company was also better described on the main WB page. IceWalrus236 (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's the same company, just with a brief change in name that's largely a footnote to the lengthy history. oknazevad (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Disagree. I think it is an important part of the history. It marks the transition from the Jack L. Warner era to the Steve Ross era. warpozio (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Warner Bros.-Seven Arts]] into Warner Bros. 

message: It's time I'd do some merging. What I'm saying is that the merging of Warner Bros. Pictures into Warner Bros. has been discussed for over six months and nobody has even bothered to do so because they're against the idea. But I'm not. I can just move it to the other page. To help I have the highest-grossing films from Warner Bros. right here.
=== Highest-grossing films ===
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin:auto; margin:auto;"	                                             	    	
Rank	Title                                        	Year	Domestic gross
1   	The Dark Knight                              	2008	$535,234,033
2   	The Dark Knight Rises                        	2012	$448,139,099
3   	Wonder Woman                                 	2017	$412,563,408
4   	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2	2011	$381,409,310
5   	American Sniper                              	2014	$350,126,372
6   	Joker                                        	2019	$335,451,311
7   	Aquaman                                      	2018	$335,061,807
8   	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice           	2016	$330,360,194
9   	It                                           	2017	$327,481,748
10  	Suicide Squad                                	2016	$325,100,054
11  	Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone        	2001	$317,871,467
12  	The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey            	2012	$303,201,694
13  	Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince       	2009	$303,003,568
14  	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1	2010	$302,289,278
15  	Inception                                    	2010	$296,131,568
16  	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix    	2007	$292,576,195
17  	Man of Steel                                 	2013	$292,137,260
18  	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire          	2005	$291,045,518
19  	The Matrix Reloaded                          	2003	$290,201,752
20  	The Hangover                                 	2009	$285,686,992
21  	Gravity                                      	2013	$281,576,461
22  	Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets      	2002	$277,583,522
23  	The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug          	2013	$277,322,503
24  	The Lego Movie                               	2014	$274,092,705
25  	I Am Legend                                  	2007	$262,233,983
: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2020 

message: {| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin:auto; margin:auto;"	                                             	    	
Rank	Title                                        	Year	Domestic gross
1   	The Dark Knight                              	2008	$535,234,033
2   	The Dark Knight Rises                        	2012	$448,139,099
3   	Wonder Woman                                 	2017	$412,563,408
4   	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2	2011	$381,409,310
5   	American Sniper                              	2014	$350,126,372
6   	Joker                                        	2019	$335,451,311
7   	Aquaman                                      	2018	$335,061,807
8   	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice           	2016	$330,360,194
9   	It                                           	2017	$327,481,748
10  	Suicide Squad                                	2016	$325,100,054
11  	Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone        	2001	$317,871,467
12  	The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey            	2012	$303,201,694
13  	Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince       	2009	$303,003,568
14  	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1	2010	$302,289,278
15  	Inception                                    	2010	$296,131,568
16  	Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix    	2007	$292,576,195
17  	Man of Steel                                 	2013	$292,137,260
18  	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire          	2005	$291,045,518
19  	The Matrix Reloaded                          	2003	$290,201,752
20  	The Hangover                                 	2009	$285,686,992
21  	Gravity                                      	2013	$281,576,461
22  	Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets      	2002	$277,583,522
23  	The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug          	2013	$277,322,503
24  	The Lego Movie                               	2014	$274,092,705
25  	I Am Legend                                  	2007	$262,233,983
: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest-grossing films 

message: I want to add extra notes in the Film series table. OJDiesel (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021 

message: Under AT&T section:
In October 23, 2020, they Warner Max label was phased out, with Warner Bros. Pictures Group and its sister division New Line Cinema now becoming the now becoming the sole producers over all feature output for WarnerMedia, be it streaming or theatrical. 
Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-max-shutting-down-as-warnermedia-reorganizes-film-production  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rov124 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 08 April 2021 

message: The image that states it is the previous logo from 1984-2019 is the current logo, not the one used from 1984-2019. It should either be removed (as the current logo is currently used), or updated to the correct old logo. Rdp8172 (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . The two logos are slightly different. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Previous Logo 

message: According to the website it says "The company’s vast library, one of the most prestigious and valuable in the world, consists of more than 114,000 hours of programming, including 10,000 feature films and 2,400 television programs comprised of more than 120,000 individual episodes." So it needs to be updated. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.103.108 (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Library 

message: So as it stands, we finally have a proper structure for WBD, now that the deal is done. What I can't understand is this: How come Warner Bros. Ent. is still active as a division on related pages, despite the fact that certain parts of WB may have been dispersed across other parts of the company?
For example, Warner Bros. Pictures and Warner Bros. TV are direct CEO reports, while WB Games is now managed through WBD's streaming and interactive division, per many sources allocating to the leadership structure (like here) with this statement: "Zaslav, as longtime observers predicted, has opted to have a direct-report relationship with the leaders of the businesses he doesn’t know as well as he does cable channels and advertising sales, per individuals close to the situation. Those include Casey Bloys, chief content officer of HBO/HBO Max (who will be adding Chip and Joanna Gaines’ Magnolia Network to his responsibilities), Warner Bros. Pictures chairman Toby Emmerich and Warner Bros. TV Group chief Channing Dungey."
Luckily, for now, it's safe to assume that Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. remains the trademark for Warner Bros. owned stuff, unless anything changes. So would it be safe to adjust several Warner Bros. assets, including all related WBD pages's in terms of ownership, to reflect on the leadership, to avoid confusion? BiggieSMLZ (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WBD Structure? 

message: You have twice removed content from this article. Can you please explain why? Both of your edits have no explanation. The companies you keep removing are listed as separate divisions and subsidiaries so I don't see why you keep removing them from this article. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeepakG47 

message: Add the 100th year soon 75.172.20.154 (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Better to wait until it actually turns 100, and then add a source with something about the anniversary, but it you disagree, get a consensus first. BilCat (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023 

message: Please reverting edits made by  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1136235546) 36.77.66.183 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done Looks like this is taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023 

message: I'm talking about the image. This logo looks fake. Chiagozie Elobuike (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from the Warner Bros. 100 logo on their main page. BilCat (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have helpful if you'd explained that in the first place. But anyway, the file is on Commons, so it would have to be deleted there, and I don't know if it would be. BilCat (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The WB International TV logo has begun using the new shield and text, and "The Flash" trailer used it for the WB Pictures division, so it's on its way to becoming the new WB logo overall. HM2021 (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ... VictorPinas17 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess we shouldn't delete it since it's the official logo. Chiagozie Elobuike (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we delete this? 

message: The article states "the founding Warner brothers (born Wonsal, Woron and Wonskolaser, before Anglicization)". This is confusing. It makes it sound like the brothers had three different surnames. In the articles for each of them, it's just said that their real surname was either Wonsal or Wonskolaser, meaning that we don't know for sure. Woron isn't mentioned. Also, by the way, "anglicization" isn't capitalized. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original surname 

message: This article mentions Warner Bros. Pictures Animation, but not Warner Bros. Animation. Jstewart2007 (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warner Bros. Animation  

message: I noticed the edit warring in recent days on the article over what is the correct Warner Bros. logo.
It's obvious what's going on if you look at the Web site of Warner Bros. and the Web site of Warner Bros. Discovery.
The former is still using the 2019 logo.  The latter uses the new 2023 logo for both itself and its link to the Warner Bros. web site.  
What's probably going on is that the new parent company probably intends to make Warner Bros. adopt its logo at some point, but Warner Bros. hasn't done it yet because it takes a lot of time and money to redesign document templates, Web sites, and signs.  Signs in particular are expensive. And keep in mind that Warner Bros. is shorthanded at the moment due to their massive layoffs.  Whenever companies have layoffs, it's common for Web sites and other marketing materials to get stale and out-of-date because the remaining employees tend to focus on operational issues. 
So the correct approach is to stay with the 2019 logo in this article until Warner Bros. updates its Web site and/or its physical signage to adopt the 2023 Warner Bros. Discovery logo. Coolcaesar (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If i'm not mistaken, the 2023 Warner Bros. logo already appeared physically at least two places: Warner Bros. Studio Tour in Burbank and the another one in Tokyo.https://www.wbstudiotour.jp/en/ This is how the new WB logo appeared physically. We also count the appearance of the new WBD logo at social media's pfp, such as WB Television (and its subsidiaries) social media pages, and WB Pictures Instagram page. Not only that, the new WB logo also appeared on-screen at two DC films for WB Pictures, and many programmes produced or distributed by WB International TV Production, as well as sizzle reel regarding the new Warner Bros. Logo. For me, the cause of edit warring regarding which the WB logos are correct is both 2019 and 2023 logos are officially used interchangeably since this year and both logos are technically correct, so, we can safely settle the edit warring by keeping the 2023 logo in the infobox (as their official corporate logo) while adding the 2019 logo (with wordmark) at the sections of Wikipedia page, giving the 2019 logo still presence at various properties like on-screen logo. 180.254.167.220 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The edit warring over the Warner Bros. logo  

message: (The parentheses should also extend around the pronunciation spell-out; calling something a "classic mistake" also sounds like an opinion and a tiny bit condescending.)
(The original is a sentence fragment making no grammatical sense.)
 2603:8001:4542:28FB:5534:5296:7B83:61A8 (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: but slightly reworded: Thank you for the well-formatted request. It is much-appreciated. — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮  12:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2024 

message: The updated shield is used as a secondary logo, and is used concurrently with the 2019 logo (which is the main and primary logo) since May 2023.
IMO, this argument is no longer relevant, because in fact, the updated shield (the 2023 logo) is taking over its role as the primary logo, while the 2019 Pentagram shield remains in use for secondary purposes such as its website's appearance and copyright tag for films (which slowly being phased out with the new 2023 WB Pictures horizontal logo with the banner/sash). If we see the WBD's official website (https://wbd.com/wp-content/themes/warner-bros-discovery-corporate/pdf/wbd-4q23-earnings-release-02-23-24.pdf), the new Warner Bros. Pictures/WB Television/Warner Horizon on-screen logo made by Devastudios, and the appearance of the new WB logo at many Studio Tours, that's the 2023 logo being used. Could we please change the sentences to reflect the current situations? 103.111.100.82 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 2023 WB shield is a secondary logo?