Talk:Gaumont Film Company

message: There needs to be discussion in the article of how this company was tied into Gaumont British Pictures Corporation/British International Pictures, and also how the present-day company was not legally considered to be sufficently derived from the earlier one to be allowed to retain the copyrights to the old BIP films, which has resulted in many significant films (most of Hitchcock's early orks, for example), to fall into the public domain.  Rlquall 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: You are absolutely correct. There has been no questions to the links, or validity of the company past connected with present, which I find very strange. If you will notice on a similar article American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, the article has been torn apart word for word with much heated debate. Yet, this one and others like it are untouched. Why is this? Read the archives "Talk" section in the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company article, and see. We should do every article with such scrutiny, but without the bias. Even I was harassed at changes I made, which will soon be corrected. Let me know of any ideas on citing of facts on Gaumont Picture, and will be happy to take your lead.
--Roger the red 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaumont Pictures

message: There was a home video division called Gaumont-Columbia TriStar Home Video.  King Shadeed 00:27, 16 Setember 2006 (UTC)
:: Again, there needs to be verifiable references that it is the same company.
--Roger the red 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Video division 

message: The article is mainly unreferenced and unsourced. It claims to be the "Oldest movie company in the world" and yet no reference or source. It also has no continuation and no references to Gaumont being linked when it looks as if the company was "Revived" or "Re-Opened". We had this problem on another article (See American Mutoscope and Biograph Company) which was almost the same in content. There are more citations and references on that article than any other film company on Wikipedia. This article is very similar, and on the other article the items were removed, even though there were conflicting references and sources, you can use this as a guide. I invite any editors to provide verifiable sources for this article. If we cannot find the sources, we need to delete these claims.
Cheers!
--Roger the red 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation tag has been up for over a week for the founding of Gaumont Films, with no response from any editors. The inclusion "Gaumont is a French film production company and is the world's oldest film company. It was founded in 1895" was omitted until verification. When proper verification from other verifiable sources are included, I will he happy to reverse this.
Thanks,
--Roger the red 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: Gaumont also claims to have a massive film archive that they distribute under thier banner. From my research many of these films are public domain. Please refer to thier website Gaumont archives. Again, this was gone through with the other article mentioned, yet never questioned on this article. I invite editors to research this, and happy editing!
Cheers!
--Roger the red 19:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Domain Conflict

message: I'm going to change the caption of the 20s Logo image - this video shows that it was in use at the time of the Titanic, in the 1912 (look at the bottom of the text slide). Feel free to change back if need be. Dbg92 21:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  20s Logo 

message: We need info about Gaumont Télévision. King Shadeed 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaumont Télévision 

message: Who are and who were the main shareholders of Gaumont ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.171.32.248 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shareholders 

message: French pronunciation: -> should be ​[gomɔ̃]; not ​[gømɔ̃]. Wathiik (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunc

message: I don't believe the IPA for the English pronunciation given in the article (where it shows "citation needed") is correct for any of the Gaumont companies. I did find YouTube videos of old Gaumont-British reels in which the announcer says [GOH-mahnt] instead of the [GOU-mahnt] that is in this article, but that pronunciation only applies to Gaumont-British. The French company gets a strictly French pronunciation. I would link to the YouTube videos, but Wikipedia doesn't like them being cited in these Talk sections. If you search for "GAUMONT BRITISH NEWS- 16mm film", you can hear how the announcer says it. 67.83.99.134 (talk)corpho  —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  English pronunciation 

message: As the title says, I found no evidence that the name of the subject is "Gaumont Film Company"; every other place that uses it's name are other Wikis or other non-reliable sources. In fact the only thing closes was from Encyclopædia Britannica, as seen here:
In this we see "film company" is not a part of the name, rather simply stating that it is a film company. Also to be noted, on Britannica the subject is named Gaumont Pictures. I believe we should retitle the article to this new name, and replace over the former non-existent name. IAmNMFlores (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see quite a few instances of "Gaumont Film Company" (capital) on Google Books, even if you limit the search to the previous century. That said, a move on the WP:COMMONNAME grounds may be warranted. And I don't see "Gaumont Pictures" is it. A better destination is likely Gaumont (company) or Gaumont. Nardog (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I think Gaumont (company) would be better, as they mainly go by simply that in many sources. IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No proof of the name containing "Film Company"