Talk:Columbia Pictures

Columbia Pictures sued by The Three Stooges

I remember reading from some page from the net that The Three Stooges (Larry, Moe, and Curly Joe sued Columbia Pictures Corporation for using their shorts on a movie without the Stooges' permission. King Shadeed 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Torch Lady Logo

Am I the only one who thinks the current Columbia logo looks exactly like Beverly Garland, star of numerous Columbia pictures in the 1950s? I don't think that can be a coincidence. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-02-11 21:40Z

I'm more surprised nobody has mentioned the commonality between the Columbia and Tri-Star (and at least on some) and Merv Griffin's logos. 83.104.34.212 (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am even more surprised nobody has mentioned the obvious allusion the logo implies. The allusion to the Statue of Liberty, and behind her a nuclear mushroom cloud. The destruction of New York City is an integral part of the "occult messianic prophecy" and the coming of the occult "Messiah" who will unite the world under one religion and his autocratic rule. 178.201.16.24 (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Messianic" stuff notwithstanding (nor is there a "mushroom cloud" behind Columbia, merely cumulus congestus clouds): a heads up for the future in case someone tries to insert this factoid. The logo figure does look like Annette Bening. Some years back, I do not remember where, I saw Ms Bening on a talk show where the resemblance was brought up. She said that she had indeed posed for the illustration. She seemed totally believable, though apparently she spoke tongue-in-cheek: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000906/bio . This ReelClassics article (not sourced) states that although Jennings was used as the basic model, the face is a computer-generated composite: http://www.reelclassics.com/Studios/Columbia/columbia-article-logo.htm Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Low comedy?

In the section titled "Rejection by one studio", It says, "Harry Cohn never lost a taste for low comedy, and at his insistence the studio signed The Three Stooges in 1934. Rejected by MGM (which kept straight-man Ted Healy but let the Stooges go), the Howard brothers and Larry Fine made more than 180 shorts for Columbia between 1934 and 1958."

I really object to lebeling the Three Stooges "low comedy", and the rest of their fans would too. It not only insults the Stooges and Mr. Cohn, but the Stooges' fans as well. Granted, many people over the years have considered the Stooges low grade, but that may be because they don't understand the Stooges. There was classic comic timing in everything they did and said for laughs. Their wiity verbal humor(and they had plenty of it) is often overlooked because people want to look for something to negatively criticise them for. So they say, "One of them hits another and it's supposed to be funny? That's supposed to be enough to sell them to us?" Never mind the comic timing involved and the lines before and after the blow. It's just, "Three grown men hurting each other is supposed to be funny?" What about their verbal humor and mannerisms when they weren't doing this? Bottom line, the Three Stooges are more complex than what many or most critics make them out to be.

To me, low grade humor would be toilet humor, hunor laced with sexual themes... even much or most of today's humor in movies and TV is low grade, be it just because of bad writing or rehashing or because it's performed or spoken badly. Too much catering to the youth of America/the world has never been a good thing either, for any genre. So I'm requesting a rewording here. Maybe the word "low" can be taken out and the rest could stand as it is? 68.188.166.56 18:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

RCA ownership

I believe that RCA either owned or attempted to buy Columbia between Coke and Sony.

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:Columbia 1980's Torchlady.jpg

Image:Columbia 1980's Torchlady.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 04:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Tied" with MGM?

How is it possible to be tied with MGM for age? Even when twins are born one is older than the other by minutes. I seriosly doubt that the two studios were founded at the exact same moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasticbadge (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Columbia Pictures is older than MGM by a few months. It might be between January to March 1924 Columbia Pictures was formed. Need to dig up more info. King Shadeed 15:33, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Significance of Ghostbusters

I know this doesn't count as reliable informtion, which is why I'm not using it to justify an edit. But I used to have a book of old newspaper articles on movies, and one of them stated that Columbia Pictures was basically broke when Ghostbusters came out and earned enough money to almost single-handedly return the studio to financial success. Yet this Wikipedia article mentions Ghostbusters merely in passing, in a paragraph that strongly implies that Columbia was already doing well when Ghostbusters came out. Which is it? Minaker (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Very first logo of Columbia Pictures

You might want to make note that there was a very, very first logo of Columbia Pictures. It's on a flash slideshow on the index page at the Sony Pictures Museum website. King Shadeed 13:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

List of highest grossing films on main article

DO NOT re-add the List of Highest Grossing Film by Columbia Pictures on the main article. That needs to be on the List of Columbia Pictures films article. King Shadeed 20:36, December 21, 2014 (UTC)