Talk:Hawk Films

Possible Source
This is good article and topic - I found a source at the Kubrick Archives in London - basically the archives suggest that because Kubrick set up independent film production companies - this gave him more economic freedom and therefore greater artistic control over his work. Hawk films is one of these companies. I tend to veer towards original research so someone else should probably consider this.

"He maintained an unprecedented degree of control over his films and, unlike the vast majority of directors working in the studio system, he was able to hold on to the materials generated by his rigorous and detailed pre-production and production work. In the studio system, such items are usually destroyed or cannibalised for subsequent films. Surviving against the odds, these unique and multifaceted materials form an extensive and unusually complete collection, providing an extraordinary level of insight into the times in which he worked and the creative process itself."

http://www.arts.ac.uk/kubrick.htm

There is also another ref. I have from Harvard that states economic freedom = artistic freedom which could tie in well with the above info. Finally, in a biography on Kubrick, the author states that only Charlie Chaplin and Kubrick were able to work with the studio systems yet keep their own production companies separate.

--Kary247 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. It'd be good to find a source that explicitly connects the two. That said, creating a separate (limited liability) company for each film has been a standard way of doing business for some time. If the film flops, nobody can go after the assets of the parent company. Not sure when this started to be common practice or who started it. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't find anything that shows notability.
Can't find anything that shows notability. No reliable source are quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.37.208 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)