Talk:Sony Pictures

MGM's library

** 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)

-Turner/Time Warner did own the library rights but since Turner's resale of MGM those rights have been given up. MGM is now distributing its product through 20th Century Fox (recently transferred from Sony).

MGM

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)

MGM logo

I'm trying to add the MGM logo with that metalic gold ribboning on the article page of Sony Pictures Entertainment. King Shadeed 16:54, 4 July 2006

Gaumont

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

Next Release Date

To Whom It May Concern ,

  If possible I would like to get information on the release dates of the next DVD's of the Barney Miller show .

Sony Pictures Entertainment (Japan)

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)

Sony's new horror network

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)

Controversy?

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)SonicRacer-MEC

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)

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)

Should we remove MGM under the SPE page?

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)

Are you kidding me? You’re cancelling "The Firm" show? It is so much better than any other show on TV now! I can’t believe ya’ll are doing this. This is why I don’t get into shows sometimes because as soon as you get into something, they cut it off. This show would have done much better on ABC…..where they have the worst shows on TV yet. Why do you cut off all the good stuff??? And leave the crummy stuff alone??? Now we’ll never find out if the family is going to be okay from the mob….we’ll never find out if the advisory guy actually killed the girl or if it was a set up. So many questions left unanswered. The reason the rating were so bad is because they handled this show incorrectly, changing times, etc. Whoever made this decision is really lame. Signed KD & upset, USA

Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia Pictures.png

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mgm2001.jpg

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)

HBO Pacific Partners VOF

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)

Sony Pictures franchises

Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! are exclusively owned and produced by SPE and its subsidiaries (Califon Productions, Inc. & Jeopardy Productions, Inc.), not franchised. Deleted from the list.

It's still licensed by them around the world. Though still distributed by CBS. Therefore it still counts as a franchise. King Shadeed 12:53, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Read this page for further details http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wheel_of_Fortune_%28franchise%29 King Shadeed 13:07, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph.

Seeing as my change was reverted. I do feel that it's understanding was misunderstood. In it's current form:

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (SPE) is the American and global television and film production/distribution unit of Japanese multinational technology and media conglomerate Sony, that is based in Culver City, California.

It doesnt make sense. It either serves America or the World, in which case the America reference is obsolete.

It should be noted that the original user User:MervinVillarreal who put the American reference in in the first place has tried to be jingoistic on numerous articles regarding "American" companies/films, that and he obviously has little understanding of the written language meant that it didn't make sense and was just him trying to further his agenda, hence the revert.

But putting that aside, I see the value in identifying SPE as an American company (providing it is correct information) that provides a global service for Sony. Therefore the change I propose is:

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (SPE) is the American television and film production/distribution unit of Japanese multinational technology and media conglomerate Sony. It is based in Culver City, California and serves as Sony's main global film production/distribution company.

Thoughts? MisterShiney ✉ 22:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

America is referring to the United States. It's also serving internationally in other countries. King Shadeed 18:01, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

Is there a rule that it shouldn't say that? King Shadeed 18:02, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

No, unless you are following an agenda like Mervin was. (Which looking at some of your edits I sincerely doubt you are) But reading in it's current form sounds confusing. Hence my original edit summary and wanting to discuss a change. MisterShiney ✉ 23:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

An article must be stated if it's an American, North America, European, British, Worldwide, or two company or studio. King Shadeed 18:25, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't. Especially if there is dispute over it's nationality. But in this case it isn't in dispute. Just the wording as it is confusing. Which is why I haven't changed its country of origin in my suggestion and why I am guessing you added this edit. MisterShiney ✉ 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why do the other articles have "is an American", "is a British", etc? King Shadeed 20:33, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I am saying. I am not disputing the country (you can see that in my suggestion). I am talking about what Sony Pictures Entertainment serves as. Namely the global film and production company for Sony. MisterShiney ✉ 01:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter anyways.King Shadeed 22:18, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it does because it sounds confusing. MisterShiney ✉ 15:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why under the circumstances did you remove the word "American" in the first place? King Shadeed 20:09, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Because as I had already explained, the user who added it was disruptively editing pages and was putting undue emphasis on them being American. Which, I reverted, because of this, and because it's addition does not make the sentence make sense! MisterShiney ✉ 22:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that I am not talking about removing the American bit, you seem to be caught up on this, I am talking about moving the opening sentences around a little so that it makes more sense. MisterShiney ✉ 22:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, that was on there for years. King Shadeed 13:18, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Actually, "American" was not added until this edit by Mervin (who is currently blocked for disruptive editing because he was pushing the American angle on multiple pages) and going back till at least September 2012, it was not a part of the opening paragraph. There wasn't even any edit warring over it. One could assume that this is because its nationality is contested, what with it being owned by Japanese Multinational Corporation Sony. But I am not willing to get into a massive discussion over nationalities of the company. But I think given the circumstances it shouldn't be included. But anyway, it was been put in, and rather than get into a repetitive argument going round in circles about it which would ultimately disrupt the page I am not really bothered, and neither are you otherwise you would have put it in.

But as the article stands, (including American reference) as per Wikipedia:Work in progress and Wikipedia:Consensus can change it can change and be moved around if a better alternative is found. I have found this page, feel that it can be changed to improve it further. I see you have put in a lot of work in this article and that is admirable, but with respect, I do feel I should remind you that Editors do not own articles and you shouldn't bar an editor who wants to reword something (not change) so that it makes more sense. The current version is good. But I do feel that it would make better sense and clarify it further with the change I have put forward. Unless you can come up with a really good reason why my suggestion isn't better than the one in place, then I am going to go ahead and change it. MisterShiney ✉ 18:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Go in the history section and see throughout the last year to 5 years. And is THIS going to turn into an argument even further?? King Shadeed 19:36, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the current version is grammatically poor. What you are trying to say is that it is an American company and is responsible for global distribution, but that isn't clear as it currently stands. You cannot describe it as "American and global", because you are conflating nationality and functionality. You need to describe it as an American company responsible for global distribution, or a global distributor based in the United States, which is what MisterShinney has more or less done. Betty Logan (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My suggestions " Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (SPE) is a global television and film production/distribution unit based in Culver City, California of Japanese multinational technology and media conglomerate Sony. " or " Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (SPE), based in Culver City, California, United States, is a global television and film production/distribution unit of Japanese multinational technology and media conglomerate Sony. " Jean Julius Vernal 10:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

First let me saying that an editor is involved in a jingoist campaign, does not assume good faith of a fellow editor, and is not the best way to start a discussion. That being said, it is a fact that the company is headquartered in the United States; it is a fact that the company is a unit of a Japanese company. Both should be acknowledged in the lead. The latter statement by Jean Julius Vernal appears to be a fair compromise, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor with the "jingoistic agenda" is currently serving a 1 month ban after making many nationality alterations on a whole range of articles, so MisterShiney is just explaining the circumstances of the edit and why he changed it. That's been dealt with though, the issue here is just one of clarity. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry I thought I had mentioned that already. The problem was, with him adding it in there, it grammatically doesn't make any sense. I don't mind if we keep American in there or not, as long as something is done so that the lead paragraph makes more sense. MisterShiney ✉ 22:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I cast my vote for something like MisterShiney's edit or Jean.julius' second suggestion. Trivialist (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So what is the final outcome? Jean Julius Vernal 10:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as no one has said anything else FOR leaving as it currently is, I am going to edit it so that it is along the lines of my original suggestion. MisterShiney ✉ 16:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Good call, Shiney. Kresblain (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Security breach and consequent leaks in November 2014

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)

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)

Speculation - usually there is more concrete information later available - lets just wait a little longer and see what actually did happen. --基 (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should put in the following information:

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hacking incident

Do not add the "Hacking incident" to the bottom of the page below the list of operations. It's part of the history of Sony Pictures Entertainment. I added it under the history until it was moved back down for no reason. Then IP user "99.46.224.17" added back to the history until it was moved back down. King Shadeed 20:04, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include this development under the History section at this time. (i) The incident has garnered enough press attention to warrant its own section (ii) the investigation is ongoing; the hackers have threatened to release fresh information; and there is an ongoing lawsuit concerning the matter. If the anon editor wishes to step forward and explain his rationale for disagreeing, or if other editors having something to add, we can further discuss the matter. — TPX 11:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is it that is such a thing that an on-going event can't be included in history?? King Shadeed 13:51, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

The first editor to remove this information from the history section cited wp:recentism, (diff) presumably because this development lacked a long-term, historical view. I'm going to seek clarification on this exact topic shortly, so we should have a clear view of how to proceed. — TPX 19:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

KS is right. And if you didn't see it? The first hack took place in 2011. That can't be part of history?? 99.46.224.17 19:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if you explained the reason why it's correct to include in the history section, particularly as detail to the story keeps emerging. If Sony Pictures announce a new film tomorrow, do we mention it in the history section too? — TPX 00:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood the whole point. Releasing films into the next day has got nothing to do with it. The HACKING has a lot to do with the whole detail. And the IP user is right. They first got hacked in 2011, so that's PART of SPE's history. Even with the current hacking situation counts as well. There's no point on you acting so biased about this. –King Shadeed 21:28, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 2011 security breach, more than enough time has past for it to warrant inclusion in the history section. We can summarise the 2011 incident and its ramifications without the need to keep updating it as new information emerges. The same cannot be said of the November 2014 security intrusion. — TPX 12:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Answer this question, why put the hacking info on the bottom below the list of subsidiaries where it looks tacky, where other info that are placed at the top?? King Shadeed 11:42, February 6, 2015 (UTC)