Talk:Lists of Paramount Pictures films/Archive 1

Image copyright problem with File:Paramount logo.svg
The image File:Paramount logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Date format
I'd like to change the date format to yyyy-mm-dd so that the column can be sorted. The way it is now, once a sort column is clicked, chronological sort cannot be restored without revisiting the page. Another solution would be to add a first column of sequential numbers. Any objections, thoughts, or suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Year links
Do you think it's a good idea to link some (which?) years like [ [ 1990 in film|1990 ] ] for example? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming films sources
I have removed Pinocchio from the upcoming 2014 section. We don't use IMDb as a source, and this is the reason why.. it is unreliable for upcoming films. The source I found from Deadline.com says absolutely nothing about Regency Enterprises or Paramount being involved. Actually it mentions Universal. All the upcoming films need a reliable source for verification. — Mike  Allen   03:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming film rumours rumours
I find myself removing speculative crap every few days because individuals feel the need to add stuff that might happen. If Paramount Pictures are "in negotiation" to take on a project, it means that they haven mot yet agreed to it. Films should only be added if reliable sources confirm that Paramount is definitely producing/co-producing/distributing. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Paramount Pictures films. 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/20120622000118/http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/darren-aronofskys-%E2%80%98noah%E2%80%99-gets-march-28-2014-release-date/ to http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/darren-aronofskys-%E2%80%98noah%E2%80%99-gets-march-28-2014-release-date/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Paramount Pictures films. 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/20091228012257/http://www.paramount.com/studio/library/complete-library to http://www.paramount.com/studio/library/complete-library

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Avengers / Iron Man 3
Why can't Avengers and Iron Man 3 be on this list? Even though that they were not the distributors they should at least be credited for promoting and merchandising the films promotional releases. If Iron Man 3 and Avengers are added we can put in the notes that the distribution rights have been bought by Disney, the Paramount logo appears only for promotional and merchandise reasons, Paramount also even got box office credit from Avengers and Iron Man 3. 8% for Avengers and 9% for Iron Man 3. Heres the two sources to prove the box office credit. – TreCoolGuy, 3 March 2014 (UTC) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/07/entertainment-us-avengers-paramount-idUSBRE8460AK20120507 http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/toldja-paramount-pocketing-190m-from-disney-for-marvels-iron-man-3-the-avengers/

Paramount hasn't financed or distributed their movies, unlike with everything else on the list. Also, if Watchmen isn't on the Fox list even if they got some money out of its box office, why should Avengers and IM3 be on Paramount's list for the same reason (although in that case, with the logo plastered due to a deal with Disney)? igordebraga ≠ 00:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well technically Paramount kinda did before Disney bought the distribution rights Paramount financed all the pre-production for The Avengers. They originally payed for the filming locations, posters and for the cast of the Avengers to appear at the San Diego Comic Con 2010. But also Paramount did promote the film, they payed for the TV rights for it through a subsidary of Paramount not Disney. They had their logo in the movie. They did all this for Avengers thats why I want them to be on this list. – TreCoolGuy (talk), 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's flatly incorrect. Marvel Studios fully financed the film itself through its loan from Myrell Lynch as they did with all the MCU films. Paramount sold the distribution rights before the film was distributed so they actually didn't do any work on the film. The only reason their logo appears on marketing materials was because it was a part of deal made with Disney.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But TriiipleThreat, Paramount's Epix tv channel still retains pay TV rights for the Avengers. And Paramount and Marvel both originally scheduled to star filming in February back in 2010. You can check it, its in the pre-production section. - TreCoolGuy (talk), 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The filming schedule is irrelevant as the studio is the one that produces the film, the distributor distributes the film. Yes, Paramount may hold the pay TV rights but the theatrical rights is what really matters. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually in Reuters you posted it clearly says Disney holds the TV rights but they just agreed to air the film on Paramount's Epix.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What about promotional and merchandise wise? Would that count to be on this page plus the TV rights TriiipleThreat? - TreCoolGuy (talk) 3 March 2014
 * Disney marketed the film, they just included Paramounts logo as stated in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC
 * But Paramount originally marketed it, even though Disney now markets it, Paramount promotes it anyway. - TreCoolGuy (talk) 3 March 2014

What marketing? There wasn't any marketing at the time of the sale.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah the marketing/promotional materials like the posters. On the poster it and in the film it says "Marvel Studios presents in association with Paramount Pictures." Also other websites like comingsoon has Paramount listed as one of the studios for Avengers. - TreCoolGuy (talk) 3 March 2014
 * Again Disney fully owned the distributions rights by the time the first marketing materials were published, Paramount's name and logo were included as part of the deal.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Once Paramount sold the rights to Disney, they no longer were a part of the production, as others have said before me. The fact that their logo was included on material related to the film is irrelevant, as that was just a result of the deal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I support Tre. I think the films should be allowed. TDFan2006 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Paramount had nothing at all to do with financing, distributing or marketing these two films. That was all Disney. Therefore, they do not belong on this list. Richiekim (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They helped promote and merchandise the two films, they have their logos in both films, on google when you look up Paramount Pictures films Avengers and Iron Man 3 come up, Paramount's TV channel has rights to use those two movies on that channel, Paramount got box office money from both films, in the credits of both Avengers and Iron Man 3 it says "presents in association with Paramount Pictures." Even though it was part of the deal with Disney, Paramount was still counted as co-promoting the films. That is why I think that Avengers and Iron Man 3 should be on this list. Even other sites have Paramount as one of the studios for both films. - TreCoolGuy (talk) 4 October 2014
 * "They helped promote and merchandise the two films"
 * That statement is not true at all. Disney was solely responsible in marketing and promoting the films. Just because the Paramount logo is present does not mean they had anything to do with producing, distributing or promoting the films. As has been stated earlier, Disney was contractually obligated to feature the Paramount logo as part of the deal of buying back the rights to Avengers & IM3. Richiekim (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tre, we are arguing in circles. Paramount did no promotion, marketing or any other work on the films. That was all Marvel / Disney, who was contractually obligated to keep Paramount's name and logo in the film and on other materials. Wikipedia is not bound by this same contract, so we don't have to include Paramount as a partner. And yes, Paramount received compensation for the rights, that's how sales work. Please stop unless you have sources stating otherwise. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Release Dates on Feature Film Releases
While an admirable job has been done compiling Paramount's 1940s releases, I must point out that in many cases, film copyright dates have been substituted for release dates. I understand why, in part, this was done. Beginning in the 1941-42 release season (a motion picture "season" ran from September to September in those years), Paramount stopped assigning specific release dates to their feature films. This practice began around the beginning of 1942 and continued through 1944. Releases were organized into groups, but were not assigned a specific release date. At least not that was made available to trade journals of the era. Each season consisted of approximately half-a-dozen "groups." "Group 1" for 1944-45, for example, consisted of the feature films "Rainbow Island," "Till We Meet Again," "The National Barn Dance," "Our Hearts Were Young and Gay," and "Dark Mountain." My point is that I understand that this is the reason that copyright dates were substituted for release dates in many instances. However, a film's copyright date and a film's release date are not the same thing. The two can vary from days to weeks to months. I think that when we're seeing a copyright date rather than an actual release date, we should be told this. Likewise, if the date given as the release date is actually that of the film's premiere, readers should be told this, too. These three dates are not the same thing, and much confusion exists on sites like IMDB, where people have filled release date information with whatever information they can find, without being specific as to what, exactly, that date represents. Unfortunately, this confusion has spread to Wikipedia, where well-meaning researchers, anxious to fill gaps in the information we have available to us, fail to tell is what, exactly, the data we're looking at -- in this instance, a date -- represents: a film's release date, a film's copyright date, or the date of a film's premiere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.27.231 (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Future Films
OK, someone has removed the list of future upcoming films because he/she thought they were unsourced. They did had sources on the articles. I think someone should've double check that before removing them. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * References at other articles do not count as references here. All relevant refs should be brought here as well. Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Change in Ghost in a Shell US distribition
Ghost in the Shell currently dosen't have a US distributor as DreamWorks is ending it contract with Disney in 2016.

86.40.134.50 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters 2 release date
Hi. I need to add Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters 2 to your list. I'll add 2016 as it's release date and add the notes saying it's a co-production with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, MTV Films and Gary Sanchez Productions. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.48.206 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I SAID: G.I. JOE 3 IS DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PICTURES AND PRODUCED BY MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTIONS!
G.I. Joe 3 is distributed by Paramount Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Universal Pictures and produced by Hasbro Studios, Di Bonaventura Pictures and Morgan Creek Productions. You should understand that, everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.48.206 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Ownership
Is it really necessary to have such intricate notes tracking each film's current ownership? It seems like excessive detail that only belongs in the films' articles, if there. Trivialist (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Cliford movie
Hey u need to add Clifford the big red dog its been announced that itll be made at paramount instead of universal Jstar367 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)