Talk:Walt Disney Studios (division)

message: The BV Motion Picture Group has officially changed its name to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.  This new name will be used for all aspects of the studio film division.  Buena Vista Pictures Marketing is now Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Marketing.  The production and development area is now Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Production.  Domestic film distribution (BVPD) is now Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Distribution.  International film distribution and marketing (formerly BVI) is john willcox Studios Motion Pictures International.  Update your pages accordingly.  69.231.233.61 03:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Please see Talk:Marvel_Studios#Walt_Disney as to why not to add Marvel Studios as subsidiary of The Walt Disney Studios. Spshu (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvel Studios 

message: This page has been edited on numerous instances in regards to the film imprints, studio divisions, labels, and production companies of the Walt Disney Studios, therefore I want to bring some clarity on the subject.
Current Studio Structure
:According to the Walt Disney Company's corporate site, the Walt Disney Studios' site, and the overview description found at the Disney Careers site, all of which are official and credible sources, there exists a clear and defintive consensus on the studio's current roster of imprints, labels and divisions.
Film Imprints
*Walt Disney Pictures (responsible for releasing films produced by all the divisions listed below)
*Touchstone Pictures (responsible as of now for releasing films produced by the independently owned and managed, DreamWorks Pictures)
Divisions and Production Companies
*Walt Disney Animation Studios (DisneyToon Studios is a division of WDAS)
*Pixar Animation Studios (subsidiary)
*Marvel Studios (division of Marvel Entertainment, but nevertheless, listed as part of the Walt Disney Studios)
*Disneynature (independent film label)
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment handle distribution in theatrical and home media mediums, respectively.
Former Divisions
:These divisions are no longer listed on any of the official Disney sources I provided above, therefore, it is to be inferred that they are either obsolete due to their absence or are no longer part of the Walt Disney Company.
*Hollywood Pictures (once a film imprint, akin to Walt Disney and Touchstone)
*Miramax Films (Filmyard Holdings subsidiary)
*Dimension Films (The Weinstein Company subsidiary)
I recognize that there are some debacles concerning this issue, such as the ongoing discussion regarding Marvel Studios' role in the Studios at Talk:Marvel Studios#Walt Disney, but from the above information the Walt Disney Company has provided, I have to ask; "Why are we not firmly consistent on basing the article on the available information?" ~ Jedi94 (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One, there is no "ongoing discussion regarding Marvel Studios' role in the Studios at Talk:Marvel Studios#Walt Disney", some one just posted to the wrong topic and some one else though that expanding the lead section with ownership information to combat that error.  As that topic points out the source indicates clearly that Marvel Studios is owned by Marvel Entertainment and that Disney Studios is only distributing and marketing their movies.  So that is consistent to the source. --Spshu (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me, since Marvel Studios has been removed from this page. But that doesn't explain why this article continues to be changed, with constant removals and addition of studios, such as Touchstone Pictures. Both Touchstone and Walt Disney Pictures function as the same, unified business. The names are merely that; names. Yet, recently Touchstone was getting removed from the current roster. Touchstone may seem to have been relegated to a distribution label for the time being, since all of Touchstone's recent output (since 2011) has been only Dreamworks releases, that still doesn't offer any justification for its removal. I'd say we keep the article's "Studio structure" the way it is now and not alter it drastically again without further discussion.~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Because, a "label" is not a unit as Touchstone is per the source regarding the DreamWorks distribution deal.  That isn't as clear on the Disney Company's webpage for Disney Studios' units about Touchstone (re: label) as it is for Marvel Studios (being a part of Marvel Ent.).Spshu (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From our sources, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and Walt Disney Pictures don't seem to be separate entities.  One is just the common name for them, it is possible that they used to be separate before.  Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment only note of its existence is links to press website on the WD Studios website. --Spshu (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite a difference: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is a theatrical distributor for not only Disney-branded stuff, while Walt Disney Pictures is 1) a production company for live-action films, and 2) a release label for Disney-branded live-action films and animated films, the latter produced by either Walt Disney Animation Studios or Pixar Animation Studios. RicJac (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio Structure 

message: What is the name the list of actors and actresses at the Walt Disney Studios division?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.17.15 (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such article or list. Actors and actresses are hire/casted for an individual movie and they are not on salary with the studio. Mostly during the golden age of film did the studios hand them on contract. Spshu (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of the actors and actresses at The Walt Disney Studios 

message: Just a heads up that a change to the structure table is going to take place. Walt Disney Pictures Distribution (formerly Buena Vista Distribution) which is not a part of the current Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, but a part of Walt Disney Studios per Alan Bergman President, The Walt Disney Studios: "As President, The Walt Disney Studios, Alan Bergman is responsible for the distribution of the Studios' motion pictures across theatrical exhibition, home entertainment, pay TV, digital, and other new media windows." So, while they separately report to the WD Studio president, I will cluster distribution units together for categorization purposes only. Spshu (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution arms 

message: Has Disney released a R rated film in 2016. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  R rated films? 

message: Edit summary: "Film libraries: Miscellaneous listing that does not outlink. Already covered at Lists of films released by Disney" 19:28, 8 July 2016‎ Jedi94 
:This list is not the same concept as Lists of films released by Disney as that includes films it doesn't own any more (Mirimax nor Dimension Films). Disney does release films that it does not own. That list is not an accurate release list. As the pre- & post-Disney releases of Mirimax and the pre-Disney Marvel releases are included. Secondly, it does "outlink". Yes, did I need a link for WDFA/WDAS and others, just an over site easily fixed.
:Secondly, if this problematic for you then look at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Feature films, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and List of films based on Marvel Comics. If this list removal then these have a problem too.Spshu (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  But what's the point? This list is redundant. All of the "libraries" listed here are films produced/distributed by studios that are either part of the Walt Disney Studios or was acquired by them over time. Such studios are already mentioned under the Studio Units table. It can be easily inferred that any film libraries produced by such studios would be owned by Disney by default, unless otherwise noted. Thus, why do we need to include such a list? Right now, it's just a retread of the Studio Structure section and offers nothing new in terms of information. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the two sections can be consolidated. In the table under "Studio structure" formatting could be: "Marvel Studios (films)" etc. And any of the prose for the units could probably go under the "Production" subsection. Or, "Film libraries" could become a subsection of "Studio structure" with just a hatnote pointing to Lists of films released by Disney, and any that aren't on that list, in this list here, could be formatted as I first suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is not redundant as some were not produced by them, the Cinergi Pictures and the DreamWorks  libraries were not of companies acquired by Disney. Cinergi continued afterwards (got more into video games than film) and DreamWork company (DW II) became a part of Amblin Partner. But they were production companies that Disney had a small stake in and/or loan funds to then received part of the companies' films. Besides the Studio units section are basically duplicate of the Studio Unit table. At this point, I will just place their purchase in the history section. Spshu (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film libraries 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Walt Disney Studios (division). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070417214346/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2003/nf2003125_6848_db011.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2003/nf2003125_6848_db011.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.lowellsun.com/movies/ci_14294787
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303224037/http://waltdisneystudios.com/static/The%20History%20of%20TWDS.pdf to http://waltdisneystudios.com/static/The%20History%20of%20TWDS.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There seems to be an endless back-and-forth regarding whether we should list the subsidiaries in the infobox with full legal name (including suffixes like LLC, Inc). So, I thought I'd bring this up for those involved to agree on one format. 
Personally, I prefer them without the corporate suffixes. I think the suffixes make the infobox look ugly and cluttered while not changing or adding any valuable information. Marvel Studios is still referring to Marvel Studios company whether you call it "Marvel Studios, LLC" or not. "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation" just looks ugly and unnecessary since the more common "20th Century Fox" would be sufficient. I believe Wikipedia prioritizes common names over the official legal names. We don't list Bill Clinton as "William Clinton" even though that is his legal name. We don't reference to ABC Studios as "Touchstone Television Productions, LLC" because people would have no idea what you're talking about. Instead, we use the common DBA name, ABC Studios. So, why do we need to list them here with their full legal names here?
Pinging  and . 
Thanks. Starforce13 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it doesn't look like you have a list of subsidiaries. Usually the removal of the suffixes are followed up by other editors making them divisions. Second, I am not using their legal name, a comment I place there indicates what the legal name is and that it is listed by its DBA/common name. So, your legal name v. common name issue doesn't exist. Legal names are also included in the lead and the info box has fields for both legal name (name) and DBA/common name (trade_name). Spshu (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I understand wanting to use the suffixes to distinguish between subsidiaries and divisions. Although I prefer no suffixes, I'd be fine with whatever decision is made. I just want it to get to a stable state. Lately, it's like half of the article edits are people changing/undoing changes to the infobox subsidiaries and divisions. Starforce13 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsidiary Suffixes in Infobox 

message: Should’t 20th Century Fox and Fox 2000 be moved down to the subsidiary section? Because what you have listed here now is kind of confusing. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 20th Century Fox Animation is a division as I have not found any incorporation records for it. Nor for Fox 2000. 20th Century Fox is incorporated thus a subsidiary. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division or subsidiary 

message: Since Blue Sky Studios and 20th Century Fox Animation division are basically synonymous, led by the exact same people who report to Walt Disney Studios... and since Disney reorganized all the studios to report directly to Walt Disney Studios... is it really correct to keep saying Blue Sky Studios is a subsidiary of 20th Century Fox Animation when they're basically the same thing? Also, Disney only uses "Blue Sky Studios" in its press releases. They never use "20th Century Fox Animation." The only time you see that, it's when news sites are paraphrasing. Even Blue Sky's Andrea Miloro used "Blue Sky" in her farewell note. If Fox Animation was at a higher organizational level than Blue Sky Studios, she would have used the bigger piece. So, does 20th Century Fox Animation still exist? Starforce13 17:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The farewell note was to the Blue Sky Studio staff (...Miloro wrote Thursday morning in an email sent to Blue Sky employees."). The memo published in full that specified the at acquisition adjusted organization indicated: "The studio execs, reporting to Horn: '•Fox Animation (including Blue Sky Studios) will continue to be led by Co-Presidents Andrea Miloro and Robert Baird.'" The Studio's website shows Blue Sky's logo but not 20CFA's, but when the logo is click on text appear: "...Twentieth Century Fox Animation (including Blue Sky Studios),..." With the appointed of Andrew Millstein to replace Miloro there was the additional appointment of Pixar Animation Studios president Jim Morris in a supervisor role over Millstein with out naming his post's name. So, a few things could be happening or being considered. 1) a name change is in the works for 20th Century Fox Animation after all Fox Stage Production was changed to Buena Vista Theatrical when it was transferred over in July to Disney Theatrical Group. (How long do they have rights to the Fox name? unknown) So, instead of waiting still using the 20CF name they are waiting for the new name to say any thing about it. 2) Fox Animation's future is up in the air as besides the Fox HQ support for Blue Sky, the division just handles outside contracted productions like with Locksmith Animation. Why mention the unit if it might just soon become defunct. that just does not mean that it now defunct. Spshu (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess it still technically exists if they still do contracts for other external studios. Also, they still have the old "Fox Animation Studios" registered and updated after the merger. Hopefully Disney will clear up the structure soon. They might be planning to either merge Blue Sky into Pixar or make Jim Morris in charge of all animation studios eventually. Starforce13 23:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Sky Studios: Does 20th Century Fox Animation Still Exist? 

message: This is name of the division: The Walt Disney Studios. That is its legal, registered name; it is also how it appears in the logo, and how Disney promotes the division publicly. So why is the title of the article resorting to parentheses instead of just adjusting it to its official name?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Week (talk • contribs) 11:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know this is the "legal, registered name"? As no registration has been found for this name (or that I have been able to find). Because there is the physical film studio from which film studio company (production, distribution, facility/studio) comes from. And in this case, it is Walt Disney Studios (Burbank). The physical studio predates the use of "The Walt Disney Studios" for the division. Plus, there are the additional uses, as Walt Disney Studios, the disambiguation page, can attest to. The test is whether or not it is the primary subject for the name. The parentheses is a method of disambiguation, so those topics of the same name don't have to share the same article, and is not consider to a part of the name. Given that the "Disney Studio" was also a name for the Walt Disney Company, it would seem to have some difficult in what would be the primary subject. Spshu (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

text: As far as the "the" goes, an encyclopedia doesn't recognize it as part of a name. Spshu (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should not have been moved without following the proper page move protocol. , , you should have waited for consensus on this discussion or placed a formal page move request to get people's attention before moving a page. Renaming just to include "the" counts as a controversial move because "The" in company names is most often left out; so, it needed consensus. Starforce13 17:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! My mistake, sorry about that, I had no idea this discussion existed and I forgot to check for such.  I actually agree that the "The" should be left out, as per what  stated. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 22:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I must've confused this article for The Walt Disney Company as I accidentally reverted to "The" Walt Disney Studios instead of the opposite. This is my fault, the article name should go back to how it was before. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 22:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The relevant naming convention is at :WP:THE. Really, it's on a case-by-case basis; sometimes "the" is used (":The Coca-Cola Company") while sometimes it isn't (":Boeing"). I don't have a particular opinion either way as to what this article should be named, but I do agree that Dougal Dankworth jumped the gun by moving the page without consensus. (And I don't blame HurricaneGeek2002 at all for their changes; when pages get moved around, the aftermath is often confusing.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the article be titled 'The Walt Disney Studios'? 

message: As explained in the edit summary, post 21st Century Fox merger makes more sense as a History subsection then the decades naming. This is more meaningful for the company than decades and for readers. This era goes over the decade split. I would remove the decades as they don't convey any thing meaningful eras of the company to the reader. Spshu (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History subsections 

message: A 20% stake in Regency Enterprises was bought out by frequent distributor, 20th Century Fox in 1997.
In the 2019 acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, Walt Disney Studios inherited the stake in Regency by owning the now renamed 20th Century Studios.
This would only be a minor edit added under the 20th Century Studios sections. It also shown on the Regency Wikipedia page that it is owned by Disney. It is still shown that they own a portion of the company. Rywiki02 (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney owns a 20% stake in Regency 

message: I feel like there should be a Franchises section. Clearly there are several franchises stemming from the Walt Disney Studios. ZX2006XZ (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This long-running edit war is not constructive. I think it would be best if you through dispute resolution, perhaps by requesting a third opinion or an RFC. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchises section 

message: Should somebody put a mark on Marvel Studios that inficates "This division produces both live-action and animated productions" since there's no indication they are going to use a separate subsidiary or label for certain animated works (unlike Lucasfilm, whose animated productions are made under the "Lucasfilm Animation" label/subsidiary), and instead will be produced directly at the studio. Yet, their only productions are animated series and not movies (as of writing), so what is the best option? And ihop you can understand what i wrote.
PD: Before anybody makes mention of the "Marvel Animation" label (which became part of Marvel Studios in 2019), i was talking about shows such as What If..? and X-Men '97, which are being produced outside of Marvel Animation and directly at Marvel Studios. BestDaysofMusic (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvel Studios 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus not to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Walt Disney Studios (division) →  – This is the correct and official name of the Walt Disney Company's movie division, per their official website (https://www.disneystudios.com/). Walt Disney Studios as a division name may be used in parentheses in the opening part of the article. 36.68.198.229 (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose sorry about the late reply. Although I found that "Disney Studios Content" is used on its website, and even any news used by Disney, but "The Walt Disney Studios" name still exist on The Walt Disney Company website. Hence, I think it might more suitable to move once Disney remove "The Walt Disney Studios" name from all its website, but not now. 2001:1970:57A7:FD00:EC65:95DF:AE50:8921 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I put the comment in the wrong place. I actually I want to say I'm not agree to move the page, not disagree this final decision. 😂 2001:1970:57A7:FD00:EC65:95DF:AE50:8921 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 October 2022 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Walt Disney Company § Disney Entertainment.  InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:The Walt Disney Company#Disney Entertainment|Talk:The Walt Disney Company §&nbsp;Disney Entertainment]]