Talk:Desilu

Comments
This article does what a lot of casual histories do when talking about Desilu: It confuses Desilu Productions and Desilu Studios. Desilu Productions had basically zero to do with The Andy Griffith Show, The Dick Van Dyke Show, etc, etc. These were merely tenants of Desilu Studios many sound stages and backlots. What IS missing is Desilu Productions' VERY important contributions to popular culture. It also makes an error when it states that Desi Arnaz did not sell his Desilu stock in his 1960 divorce with Lucy, which in fact, he did - this set several very important and historical events in motion:

1. With her acquisition of the majority holding of Desilu stock, Lucille Ball became the first female in Hollywood history to become head of a major Hollywood studio.

2. It was LUCY who tried to persuade her friend, Carol Burnett, to do a Desilu produced sitcom.

3. Even though Desilu Studios was making decent money as a rental facilty, Lucy was unhappy with the production company being moribund....except for The Lucy Show.

4. This led to the hiring of executive Herbert Solow in 1964, to develop shows for Desilu to produce.

5. This directly led to the creation of the cultural icons, Star Trek and Mission:Impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsherwood59 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that Lucille Ball production that she opened up with her husband Arnaz, revolutionize entertainment.Meaning she was the first with a production, and that influenced many people to open up new productions and become as successful and even better then Desilu Production. We have PARAMOUNT PICTURES who has benn succesful for the past 50 years, what about the other ones. -- (comment was added by 134.71.58.49 on 27 September 2005)


 * I reverted the talk page because this comment, while only an opinion, is on the talk page, and per wikipedia policy, talk pages should not be blanked. -- 12.116.162.162 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying (is English your second language?). How did Desilu "revolutionize" entertainment? Paramount Pictures bought Desilu in 1967, but Paramount had been around since at least the 1910s; Desilu did not create Paramount. Stars having their own production companies was nothing new, either. Western star G.M. "Broncho Billy" Anderson formed his own movie production company in 1907. Other silent stars like Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Charlie Chaplin, and Harold Lloyd all had their own production companies. — Walloon 20:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another error in this article is the story of how Desilu gained initial ownership of the I Love Lucy films. When CBS boought the Lucy idea from Desilu, they wanted the show to be done, like every other comedy of time, live and from New York. Lucy and Desi were just starting their family at the time, and wanted to do the show from Hollywood. CBS balked, as they wanted the east coast to have a nice live picture instead of a tinny kinescope reel. That is when Desi offered to take the 'pay cut', with the extra monies going towards the expense of filming the shows in California. He then asked if they could own the film negatives, and CBS said sure, as there was no such thing as reruns in those days. And there is NO contemporary evidence that Desi had this 'vision' of the rerun, either. In fact, he went and sold the negs back to CBS three years later, so he could buy Motion Picture Center. CBS then used those episodes as a Sunday night show for a while, as a lot of cities and areas had gotten television since Lucy had premiered in 1951. After I Love Lucy went off the air, it was a fixture on CBS daytime for many years. CBS (through its Viacom division) did not really start syndicating it until the mid 1960's. Lsherwood59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC).

Who owns the rights to the Lucy Show and then 1950s Desilu shows that were created before Desi and Lucy divorced and Desilu was bought by Paramount?70.114.39.22 (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CBS Television Distribution owns all the rights to the shows mentioned above. Creativity-II (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Desilu Too
From the article, is Desilu Too a licensor/rightsowner for the shows, or is it really a "licensee?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manys (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In 1957 I was at Desilu Studios to film the DuPont Show of the month. I was part of St Paul's Little Singers, an LA grammar school choir. 74.222.83.78 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Anyone proposing a similar move in the future may want to cite some form of sources. Anyone opposing a similar move in the future may want to cite some form of sources. Red Slash 03:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Desilu Productions → Desilu – Many sources called it simply "Desilu". Relisted Armbrust The Homunculus 12:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the current title makes the subject more clear, and as it is the official name. Omnedon (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A commonly-used name does not have to be official. George Ho (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does not have to be -- but "Desilu" communicates very little as a title. It is not concise, even though it is short. In this case the official name is best. Omnedon (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As in, not "unambiguous" or "accurate"? George Ho (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, George. A concise title is both comprehensive and brief. That's what concise means. Desilu Productions is accurate and unambiguous. It is also concise. Omnedon (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Desilu" is incomplete without "Productions"? Obviously, "Desilu" is a proper noun of a company by Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball. Why would omission of "Productions" pervert the meaning of "Desilu"? George Ho (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Desilu Productions" is the name of the company. Yes, people may refer to it simply as "Desilu", but an article title needs to convey at least basic information about the topic. "Desilu" conveys nothing unless one already knows what it is. And "Desilu" is not the name of the company. Nor is it concise. It perverts nothing; I don't know why you chose that word. Rather, it is simply not concise. Omnedon (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support WP:CONCISE, WP:OFFICIALNAME -- official names are not prescribed by Wikipedia. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the naming in Paramount Pictures, simply being abbreviated does not make it a common name. Miyagawa (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What's your point? Paramount is a disambiguation page, so obviously the studio isn't the primary topic of "Paramount", so resides at a different title. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Desilu Productions. 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/20160701022248/http://www.shemadeit.org/meet/biography.aspx?m=15 to http://www.shemadeit.org/meet/biography.aspx?m=15
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160701022248/http://www.shemadeit.org/meet/biography.aspx?m=15 to http://www.shemadeit.org/meet/biography.aspx?m=15
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710223934/http://www.culvercity.org/en/Visitors/CulverCityHistory/9336Washington to http://www.culvercity.org/en/Visitors/CulverCityHistory/9336Washington

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ball as Sole Owner Clarification
Just a minor point for clarity: Ball served as president after Arnaz retired, so his retirement should precede mention of her presidency. Especially since the section begins by stating a date (the divorce) which implies a chronological structure.


 * Sentence 1: 1960 - divorce
 * Sentence 2: Ball served as president
 * Sentence 3: 1962 Arnaz resigned as president

Can generate confusion over who served as president prior to 1962 and particularly between 1960 and 1962.

I don't know the historical details so I defer to someone who does to make actual changes to the section.

Rdyornot (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)