Talk:Golden Films

NPOV!
This is written like a Golden Films praise page. Why isn't there anything about their faults, such as ripping off Disney movies? DudeWithAFeud (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It really is a whitewash. I don't know anything about this film company except that they have released a comprehensive set of Disney knockoffs. I was hoping to find some information on the company here, but there's nothing of substance and plenty of fluff. If there's no information available about this company, they shouldn't have an article - but in any case the present one violates policy. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The supposed "whitewash" has now effectively been turned into a biased, one-sided and subjectively demeaning "article." Gone are references tying AFIC/Golden Films to the non-profit Wheel of Peace Foundation, a children's charity organization active world-wide, to which Golden Films' initial profits were profited, as well as the implication that the studio's "Thumbelina" adaptation was created to cash into the laughable flop that was Don Bluth's travesty, released two years later. I agree that if this article is to be written to repretent a subjectible point of view, that it is better to remove it entirely. T.W. (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * initial profits were forwarded, I intended to say. Furthermore, a rip-off is tricking consumers into believing they're getting something else/better. Golden Films' videos were never 'dressed' to resemble Disney's and no close inspection is necessary to tell them apart, unlike actual knock-offs that practically trace Disney's characters onto their video covers or additional publicity. In addition, alternative adaptations of classic and public domain works cannot be considered "rip-offs" or plagiarism, as Disney is no more entitled to adapt them than any other studio is. T.W. (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Restoring Good-Faith Edit
Today I restored a good-faith edit that was made by me in order to address some of the issues on this page, and to bring it more in line with an encyclopedic entry. Those revisions were reverted by a user who no longer exists, and whose account I suspect may have been created for the purpose of reverting the edits. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I believe the good-faith edits (which basically convert the content from a series of non-notable lists into a narrative) are not the proper subject of reversions.Magic1million (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)