Talk:New Line Cinema

main article change request
here is an update on the article i requested:

New Line Productions Inc., trading as New Line Cinema, is an American film production studio of Warner Bros. and formerly, a distribution company. originally founded in 1967 by Robert Shaye as an independent film distribution company for college campuses, later becoming a film studio. during it's independent years, new line soon was known for both distributing and producing The original Texas Chain Saw Massacre film, The Evil Dead franchise, The Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, The original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film, The Mask, The Austin Powers franchise, The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, The classic christmas comedy film Elf. during all that time, new line was acquired by Turner Broadcasting System in 1994; Turner later merged with Time Warner (now WarnerMedia) in 1996. after the massive Box-office Failure of The Golden Compass, New Line merged one last time with Warner Bros., ending the company's time as a distributor and as an independent film company, as well as the fact New Line would no longer be a studio that was separately operated. today, New Line is a film production studio/unit of Warner Bros. Pictures. Warner Bros. also today owns New Line's film library.

Nickname
Does “The house that Freddy built” really need to be in bold? It's not like it's a commonly used nickname. 2A00:23C6:4C95:BB01:5D58:BFC8:157A:D72A (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It's in bold because it's a redirect linked to this article (i.e. people searching for that phrase would end up at this article), so apparently at some point someone(s) must have felt it was commonly-used enough to merit the redirect. If you disagree, I'd recommend initiating a WP:RFD. That said, the claim itself was tagged for needing a source in September, so if no source is provided then at some point the statement and the boldfacing will likely be removed in any case. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Logo or label?
I would like to bring to fellow editors' notice that for the past few days, there has been a dispute over whether the image used in the infobox of this article is a logo or label.

On the seventh of April this year, user Thesimplesith changed the caption of the image as well as the legal name of the company, stating that the logo has been in use since 2001. Seeing that the version of the logo used (in this case the 2011 variant) had significant variations, especially a different logotype and the edges of the square in the logo being rounded, I reverted this edit. Thesimplesith then proceeded to revert that edit claiming that my revision was incorrect in that the logo has been the same since 2001 and has not changed since; not only has the 2001 version been used on-screen only once since 2010, the 2011 version is, as has been stated earlier, radically different.

When I restored the caption towards the end of April, Thesimplesith proceeded to change it ten days later. This edit would be reverted by user General Ization, followed by a final warning related to "introducing deliberate factual errors" on the page (most likely related to the legal name). Thesimplesith responded in a way which may come off as brash, denying that any wrong information had been added and asking the user to never contact them again. The user then reverted Ization's edit on grounds that there was no proper reason cited for reverting it.

On the 12th of May, I reverted the edit, stating that the logotype for the 2024 logo is different and, in addition to this, the 2011 logo has a shape with rounded edges instead of a square (if my behaviour in this revision may have not been in accordance with proper online etiquettes, I solemnly apologize). After suggesting a discussion on the talk page of the article, I further added information on the 2001 logo to avoid confusion.

Two days later, Thesimplesith responded by reverting the edit again; the second half of this summary however takes my reasoning out of context: the user assumes I was referring to the new 2024 logo when I had made it clear I was talking about the 2011 variant. I then proceeded to give further reasoning for my edits, which I will expand on here:

1. A logo is, by definition, a design or symbol used for identifying a business or organization. As the image used qualifies as a logo under this definition but is also different (in terms of the logotype for the 2024 logo) from the original 2001 logo, the term variant can be used as well.

2. While most definitions state that a label is a tag used to give information to a product usually tangible, it can also be defined as the name and trademark of a fashion company. The image does not fall under either definition, making the term label questionable.

3. The legal name of the company is New Line Productions, Inc., not New Line Cinema Productions, Inc. Most of the company's films have their copyright registered to this name, with sources such as Bloomberg, OpenCorporates as well as a list of entities under what is now Warner Bros. Discovery acknowledging it.

Thesimplesith further reverted this edit as well, claiming that their revision is consistent with those made in previous years. On further inspection however, not only was the legal name New Line Productions, Inc. intact, the image had no caption altogether and only got one in January this year. Furthermore, the user failed to adequately exemplify the claim that the term "label" has been extensively used in film and music. I somewhat agree with their viewpoint that editors should be encouraged to edit, but in this case, despite providing reasoning and at least one source in the last few edits, Thesimplesith has remained adamant, insisting that their revisions are right and claiming that those who edit must not be warned, when I neither warned the user and was trying to co-operate instead nor has the user been warned for improper reasons. After a few cleanups by TayoKid, despite providing a reliable source for the legal name, my edit was reverted for little apparent reason.

While I have concluded that the user means well and hold no grudge against them, they provide little reasoning behind their edits and has been jumping warns given them. The user has also violated the three revert rule, which I bore in mind while trying to resolve this issue, also receiving a notice regarding edit warring on their page. I must also claim responsibility in this fiasco however; had I started this discussion earlier, measures could have been taken to resolve this issue calmly. Some of my edits may have been against protocol and I realize my error and apologize if I have done any wrong.

I request other editors to give their opinions on this matter so that we can reach a consensus and end this dispute without fanning a sense of disagreement more than already has been. I hope we reach a firm and just conclusion on whether this image should be captioned as a logo, label or left captionless altogether. Thank you. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (Converse here) 06:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I made a revision to the New Line Cinema Wikipedia page in April since there was incorrect information. This past month multiple users have tarried with reverting the simple edit of "New Line Cinema Productions Inc." to "New Line Productions, Inc." Multiple images have been added and changed to prevent this edit, and all of the sources have been renumbered to accommodate for the reference link to OpenCorporates. This is not an accurate reference and I will post here an alternative reference from the same website with the same address OpenCorporates. New Line Cinema appears in movies as New Line Cinema and the addition of "Productions Inc" is unnecessary as is removing the word "Cinema."
 * In remaining consistent with the original writing for the New Line Cinema Wikipedia article, the term New Line Cinema Productions Inc. with the subtext "Label" is what is proper and most historically accurate. Thesimplesith (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly well what you're saying. I didn't even notice it til you told us. RobertFL1991 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Was New Line, prior to being bought by WB in 1997, ever a major heavyweight studio, when it was independent (both as a Turner company and a WB company)?
On par with WB, Disney, Fox, Universal? I know it was somewhat obscure, but before it became a WB company it did give us big hit movies such a Dumb and Dumberer and The Long Kiss Goodbye and Rumble in the Bronx (who can forget that movie was a box office hit). In fact even Seinfeld can be described as New Line to some decree, considering Castle Rock and the fact that Turner did buy them before they became WB. I'm just surprised it was released by Sony (but Sony is awesome; I don't really consider them Columbia that much; but the previews for the show's DVD release did show up on many WB DVDs and VHS openings from the time). RobertFL1991 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not certain what your premise is, but it was never one of the major film studios. Wikipedia describes it as one of the so-called "mini-major studios", the larger studios among the independent film productions which each had a considerable market share in their day. Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahh thank you. Although in 2001 when the Lord of the Rings franchise came out, people were singing a different tune. RobertFL1991 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And Seinfeld kind of is borderline New Line, so that's where our disagreement stems somewhat. RobertFL1991 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)