Talk:Sony Pictures

message: :** MGM/UA Entertainment Co.: The MGM/UA Entertainment Company owns the world's largest video library with over 4,000 films and 10,000 television episodes. Some of MGM/UA's films are currently being distributed by Columbia TriStar or Sony. Other MGM/UA films are being distributed internationally by 20th Century Fox.
Um, doesn't Turner/Time Warner own most of MGM/UA's library (at least through the mid-eighties)? —tregoweth (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MGM's library

message: The name MGM/UA Entertainment Co. doesn't exist anymore!  MGM/UA Entertainment Co. was from 1982-1986 on television and 1982-1987 for movies.  MGM/UA Communications Co. was from 1986-1992.  The company was reverted back to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in 1987 for movies (for good in 1992).  King Shadeed 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MGM 

message: Should Gaumont be listed on the article, although it's owned by Sony internationally?  King Shadeed 22:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaumont 

message: Sony Pictures Entertainment (Japan) was formed in 1991 through the merger of Columbia Tristar Japan, RCA Columbia Pictures Japan, and Japan International Enterprises (Reference: http://www.sonypictures.jp/archive/cinemaparadise/01/3.html). Before Sony's acquisition of Columbia Picture Entertainment from the Coca-Cola Co. in 1989, the 1984-founded company in Tokyo had no relationship with Sony Corporation. --Krtek2125 06:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sony Pictures Entertainment (Japan) 

message: I've read recently that Sony, Comcast, and Lions Gate were going to launch a new horror network based on the libraries of Sony Pictures, MGM, and Lions Gate Films.  It was launched on Halloween.  Anyone found out the name yet?  King Shadeed 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sony's new horror network 

message: Shouldn't there be a "Criticism and Controversey" section in this article, because the fact that Sony Pictures is covering up the Columbia name on television and home entertainment labels is a controversey among many online logo enthusiests. What do you think about it?71.116.26.88 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds rather silly and I've never heard of that (and I follow the industry quite closely).  If you can cite to a major entertainment industry source like Variety or Hollywood Reporter, or even a moderately respectable source like People magazine, then feel free to add that point.  But on its face your allegation sounds like original research and baseless innuendo in violation of all four Wikipedia core policies, especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  In particular, Wikipedia is not a soapbox!--Coolcaesar 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Causing a commotion in Boston because of strange looking signs is a controversy. A tiny group of obsessives grousing about a minor aspect of a company's behavior is not. —tregoweth (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: Should we remove MGM from under SPE since the company no longer owns nor distributes any of MGM's libraries and put it under a new article The MGM Company and put the Sony Corp. tag on it?  King Shadeed 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we remove MGM under the SPE page? 

message: :Image:Columbia Pictures.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia Pictures.png

message: :Image:Mgm2001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mgm2001.jpg

message: According to this link...
http://www.spacenewsfeed.co.uk/2004/20June2004_5.html
...Sony Pictures Entertainment is one of a handful of partners in creating the holding company "HBO Pacific Partners VOF."  I've been unable to find documentation on when that creation occurred and exact industry specs for it.  Does anyone know any info that can be added?
(Here is the text from the link to which I'm referring.)
"Singapore-based HBO Asia brings the best of Hollywood to Asia through its exclusive first-run licensing deals with major Hollywood studios including Columbia Tri/Star, DreamWorks, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios and Warner Bros. In addition to proprietary and award-winning HBO Original programming produced exclusively for its viewers, HBO Asia works with a number of prominent independent studios to secure exclusive rights to a host of quality movies. HBO Pacific Partners, VOF is a joint venture of media giants Paramount Films, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Time Warner and Universal Studios."
HBO Pacific Partners is also stated as the holding company primarily involved in a current (July, 2008) Spider-Man 3 contest for viewers in India.
http://hbo.magnonsolutions.co.in/spiderman3/terms-conditions.html#term
My interest is in expanding the available data on that holding company that can be inserted to all relevant entries.  (Time-Warner, HBO Asia, Paramount Films, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Studios, etc.)
(If anyone is keeping score at home, yes, I'm going to the talk pages for each of these companies and pretty much pasting this same request with minor edits in my search for this data.  If that's overkill, please accept my apologies.  Mea culpa...)
Thank you.
Medleystudios72 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: HBO Pacific Partners VOF

message: The security breach is well documented and the impact is far reaching (Sony Pictures network has been taken offline for several days including messaging services) this is not just a bit of data been leaked but the entre network being shut down. 
BTW : Wikipedia:Recentism is rather clear about when it does apply: 
* Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. - nope 
* Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. nope 
* The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus. nope
 --基 (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to compare when the Sony Playstation network has been breached in 2011 an entire article has been dedicated to the event see WP:PlayStation Network outage (now I am certainly not advocating the creation of an article for the breach).--基 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

text: There was speculation that the hack was the work of North Korea because Sony was getting ready to release a comedy called The Interview about an attempt to assassinate the country's leader Kim Jong-Un. North Korea initially seemed to hint that it was behind the attack, later denying involvement and claiming that it was probably done by its numerous sympathizers.
Also, there's more information about the seriousness of this in Sony Struggles to Fight #GOP Hackers Who Claim Stolen Data Includes Stars’ IDs, Budget and Contract Figures in The Wrap.
Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a lot of speculation - and speculations have moved on already ... the idea here is not to act as a news sticker adding stuff as we go but summarize basic facts. Readers that want more information can follow the references provided. 基 (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having said that - if you do want to elaborate - you can create an article on the breach it self (it s been done for the Sony PlayStation network hack for example) 基 (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

text:  the recent reporting seems to suggest the that breach runs deeper as suspected with a lot of data being leaked currently (and GOP having had access for weeks to SPE's network and server >> see the latest ars technica article). What about creating an article about the breach and have it linked to the main SPE article (rather than ending up having half the SPE article about security breaches) Any opinions on the subject? Thank you!基 (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security breach and consequent leaks in November 2014  

message: Vestron Pictures is NOT owned by Sony Pictures Entertainment, it's owned by LionGate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.6.118 (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vestron Pictures is owned by Sony Pictures Entertainment 

message: Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss are owned by Sony Pictures own Screen Gems’s Screen Gems Animation (formerly SpindleHorse) on the deal by April 11, 2024 63.150.78.146 (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss are Heading to Sony 

message: I believe that the new name of the movie should be called: "I'll Never Forget What You Did Last Summer" 67.234.38.77 (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of the new "I Know What You Did Last Summer"