Talk:Paramount Pictures/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Movie pictures

We should add random pictures from Paramount Movies like how the Warner Brothers article has random pictures from WB movies.--SpongeSebastian 02:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Early history - cartoons

There needs to be mention of Paramount Pictures' involvement in cartoon from 1927-1967 and their relation with Max Fleischer and Famous Studios. See http://www.cartoonresearch.com/paramount.html jnothman talk 09:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Paramount Mountain logos

What happened to the Paramount logos? Make a Paramount logo page just like the MGM Lion page. King Shadeed 20:20 5 May, 2006 (UTC)

Done. I have added more Paramount logos as per the Universal Studios article. I will add more as soon as I have some DVDs that have earlier versions of the logo. --Green451 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I had always heard the the mounaint was based on the Matterhorn is this true? NauticaShades 08:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
actually, the logo came from mount shasta which is in northern california, near a small town called etna. the mountain is over half of everest, the summit at over 14,500 feet. the paramount pictures logo is a little skewed but it is still mount shasta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.251.170 (talk • contribs) .
The story I read, perhaps in one of Milt McAuley's books, is that the logo was inspired by Sugarloaf Peak. That's a small but prominent mountain besides beside Malibu Lake, a small movie colony, and the Paramount Ranch, in the Santa Monica Mountains. Though it may have been the inspiration, it certainly wasn't the model. The logo looks much more like the Matterhorn (and nothing like Shasta, so far as I can tell). -Will Beback · † · 11:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I have always known that Paramount mountain is the Monviso (Italy, 12600 ft). (Photo: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Monviso_da_strada_per_Barge-2.jpg)
It is hard to know what to say regarding the prototype of the logo, for there seems to be no documented evidence. The legend that Hodkinson drew a mountain inspired by one he remembered from youth seems to be repeated often enough to lend credulity, especially since it is so reported in Leslie Halliwell's book about Paramount: "Mountain of Dreams". This would mean that all those other mountains far distant from Ogden, Utah, cannot have served as his inspiration, regardless how similarly they are shaped. (Nix the Matterhorn, Mt. Shasta, Everest, Sugarloaf, and the Monviso.) Ben Lomond is near Ogden and bears a resemblance, but is not as steep as even the earliest editions of the logo. Pfeifferhorn may have been visited by Hodkinson as a child, for it is in the neighborhood and its shape is closer to the earliest editions (as well as nearly identical to the blue Gulf & Western version), but it is still not identical. Then, too, the shape of the logo mountain changed considerably even in the early years, from a nearly perfect pyramid to a clearly artistic mountain as seen in the Betty Boop cartoons of 1932. The similarities between the Peruvian Artesonraju and the Vista-Vision logo that appeared in the mid 1950's and since are so obvious that it is hard to deny that this real mountain provided at least some inspiration to Jan Domela, the artist. I find no evidence that the logo was ever based on Mt. Everest. The 2002 90th Anniversary edition still has the shape of Artesonraju. See {http://www.closinglogos.com/page/Paramount+Pictures} (accessed October, 2010). Perhaps the best we can conclude is that the original logo was simply a generic mountain loosely based on Hodkinson's memory of a mountain he saw somewhere near Ogden, Utah. Later editions until 1953 were probably purely artistic reinterpretations of the earliest versions. The Domela version was probably inspired by Artesonraju, and the Gulf & Western version may have been inspired by Pfeifferhorn, but in neither case is this verified. RDavS (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Source?

What is the source for this? I can't find anything about it on the net. I have moved it from the intro to the 1980s - current section but will remove it if no source can be found. Paramount Pictures purchases TriStar Pictures to cost $1.7 billion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Small black sun (talk • contribs)

Tristar was formed as a joint venture of CBS, Columbia Pictures and HBO in 1982. It went public in 1984. Coca-Cola, the then owner of Columbia Pictures, bought out CBS and HBO in 1986 and then spun off Tri-Star and Columbia Pictures to the shareholders as a tax free dividend. This is the entity which was then acquired by Sony in 1987.

Unlock

Unlock this page right now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.121.47 (talk • contribs)

  • If there's something you'd like to add, you can either post it here, or sign up for an account, wait a few days, and you'll be able to add it yourself. —tregoweth (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Logo font

What font was used for the Paramount logo? --Ryanasaurus007 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The lettering was probably specially created for the logo, and not from a font. —tregoweth (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Or should I have phrased it as "what font was created for the Paramount logo?" --Ryanasaurus007 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's from a font; it was probably based on hand-lettering by an artist. —tregoweth (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

nonsense grammar

What did the author really intend to write here? It makes no sense:

"Mae West would in fact had to Paramount's success with her movies She Done Him Wrong and I'm No Angel. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcat2075 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "had" should have been "add?" I'm just speculating, of course. Medleystudios72 (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not the only thing wrong with it. Looks like it was written by an idiot. I'm just speculating, of course. No personal attack intended. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if I'd label him/her an idiot. One possible typo and apparent laziness when it comes to punctuation does not an idiot make. If this were the sentence, it would make sense:
"Mae West would, in fact, add to Paramount's success with her movies 'She Done Him Wrong' and 'I'm no Angel.'"
Medleystudios72 (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You realize we're responding to a thread from December, posted by someone who can't spell, and that the point in the article was fixed long ago? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More nonsense grammar

Removed a nonsense sentence in the opening paragraph that said: "Paramount now takes with TriStar Pictures." Maybe the original author (non-English speaker?) could enlighten us. --Nate Silva (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

HD/BD Section

It totally needs to be reworked, less opinion, more fact. And specifically needs to stick to Paramount's role in the war. Also we need sources, where is the $10M per month coming from? Lots of incorrect information. I have updated the section to be more concise and contain just the facts as we know them. Swisspass (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

HBO Pacific Partners VOF

According to this link...

http://www.spacenewsfeed.co.uk/2004/20June2004_5.html

...Paramount is one of a handful of partners in creating the holding company "HBO Pacific Partners VOF." I've been unable to find documentation on when that creation occurred and exact industry specs for it. Does anyone know any info that can be added?

(Here is the text from the link to which I'm referring.)

"Singapore-based HBO Asia brings the best of Hollywood to Asia through its exclusive first-run licensing deals with major Hollywood studios including Columbia Tri/Star, DreamWorks, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios and Warner Bros. In addition to proprietary and award-winning HBO Original programming produced exclusively for its viewers, HBO Asia works with a number of prominent independent studios to secure exclusive rights to a host of quality movies. HBO Pacific Partners, VOF is a joint venture of media giants Paramount Films, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Time Warner and Universal Studios."

HBO Pacific Partners is also stated as the holding company primarily involved in a current (July, 2008) Spider-Man 3 contest for viewers in India.

http://hbo.magnonsolutions.co.in/spiderman3/terms-conditions.html#term

My interest is in expanding the available data on that holding company that can be inserted to all relevant entries. (Time-Warner, HBO Asia, Paramount Films, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Studios, etc.)

(If anyone is keeping score at home, yes, I'm going to the talk pages for each of these companies and pretty much pasting this same request with minor edits in my search for this data. If that's overkill, please accept my apologies. Mea culpa...)

Thank you.

Medleystudios72 (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

External Link

Hello, I'd like to make the suggestion to add this external link to this page. The page contains informative information and stats on Paramount Pictures box office grosses. The page is updated when Paramount has box office success that applicable to the page. This is something I think would add to this page's content and inform people who are looking for this type of list and stats. Thanks.--Zrt4me (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

civil suit

Minister Dean Mckenzie seek to resolved a topic of copyright infringement found in the film "Shooter" made on his actual factual life event between philadelphia and Clarendon Jamaica. If there is no correspondence between parties within 10 work days the complaint will be filed in the United States District court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. U.S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.197.124 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you say the logo is notable enough to have it's own page? I read the clean up area, and although not sourced, found the information fascinating. (especially the parts about how the logo blended into some films.) Hutch1970 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm more interested to know if the Apogee Inc. mentioned is the same Apogee who became 3D Realms. Sslaxx (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Paramount Music Corp.

Is Paramount Pictures related to the Paramount Music Corporation from the 1930s-60s? Kaldari (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Found this in the Mar 11, 1950 issue of Billboard Magazine: "Paramount Pictures, Inc. owns 100 per cent of the stock of Paramount Music and Famous Music corporations." Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
According to The Purchaser's Guide to the Music Industries, Paramount Music was originally a subsidiary of Famous Music. Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

History ; Early history ; 1910's

The second paragraph,part of the third and last paragraph of this section should be re-written. The last sentence of the third paragraph is meaningless as well as inaccurate, and is contradicted by the next paragraph which is also inaccurate.The source I use for this topic is A.Scott Berg's Goldwyn,a biography. pp 32-36,49,58-59. Mr. Berg lists as his sources for the section of his book regarding the association of Goldwyn,Lasky and DeMille and thier partnership,thier distribution contract with Paramount and the later merger of The Lasky Company with Adolph Zukor's Famous Players, as Jesse Lasky's autobiography I blow my own horn. C.B.DeMille's, Autobiography. and Great Goldwyn. by Johnston,among several others. I could rewrite this section and will if no one else does,using Berg as my only redily available source, but it would be nice if someone who knows about early Paramount history and has multiple sources available did it instead. This section on the early history of Paramount deserves to be better written, acurate and informative.

Overall the entire article on Paramount Pictures is pretty good with lots of interesting information, but sadly lacking references and sources to verify that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonel469 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC) ````

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Paramount Pictures/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

9 images, 83 citations, parts of it reads WP:OR, lacks refs. JJ98 (Talk) 09:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

100th anniversary photo

116 Hollywood stars have been photographed for the 100th anniversary of Paramount Studios.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2012/07/paramount-pictures-100th-anniversary-photo

Photograph by Art Streiber

This photo would be great for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.102.130 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, if you can get permission from Vanity Fair... Trivialist (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The photo includes J.J. Abrams, Antonio Banderas, Jennifer Beals, Jamie Bell, Justin Bieber, Bird Brad, Jack Black, Peter Bogdanovich, Ernest Brognine, Josh Brolin, James Caan, Dana Carvey, David Chase, Don Cheadle, John Cho, Tommy Chong, George Clooney, Glenn Close, Sacha Baron Cohen, Bud Cort, Kevin Costner, Tom Cruise, Jon Cryer, Jamie Lee Curtis, Claire Danes, Philippe Dauman, Robert De Niro, Bruce Dern, Cameron Diaz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kirk Douglas, Robert Downey Jr., Robert Evans, Dakota Fanning, Elle Fanning, Jon Favreau, Katie Featherston, David Fincher, Frances Fisher, Jane Fonda, Harrison Ford, Megan Fox, Morgan Freeman, Andy Garcia, Richard Gere, Tyrese Gibson, Scott Glenn, Alejandro Inarritu Gonzalez, Bruce Greendoow, Brad Grey, Melanie Griffith, Davis Guggenheum, Ed Harris, Amy Heckerling, Emile Hirsch, Dustin Hoffman, Julianne Hough, Kate Hudson, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Felicity Jones, Anna Kendrick, Sir Ben Kingsley, Johnny Knoxville, Shia LaBeouf, John Landis, Jerry Lewis, Christopher Lloyd, David Lynch, Ali MacGraw, Shirley MacLaine, Garry Marshall, Marlee Matlin, Demi Moore, Julianne Moore, Eddie Murphy, Olivia Newton-John, Jack Nicholxon, Nicke Nolte, Ryan O'Neal, Patton Oswalt, Paila Patton, Simon Pegg, Sean Penn, Chris Pine, Brad Pitt, Natalie Portman, Zachary Quinto, Sumner Redstone, Ivan Reitman, Jason Reitman, Molly Ringwald, Chris Rock, Mickey Rooney, Paul Rudd, Eva Marie Saint, Zoe Saldana, Adam Sandler, Martin Scorsese, Tony Scott, William Shatner, Steven Spielberg, Patrick Stewart, Oliver Stone, Meryl Steep, Barbra Streisand, George Takei, Charlize Theron, Billy Bob Thornton, John Travolta, Karl Urban, Gore Verbinski, Mark Wahlberg, Mike White, Billy Dee Williams, Anton Yelchin, and Michael York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.102.130 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Rewriting Paramount Pictures: 2005–present: Paramount today

The 2005–present: Paramount today section is almost entirely unsourced, as indicated by the "citation needed" tags added in July 2012. I believe the entire section needs rewriting. Editors may find the following articles useful as sources.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] NinaSpezz (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why this needs an RfC. What is the dispute?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this doesn't really need an RfC. In general, policy isn't too clear on what exactly is supposed to happen, but I usually consider unsourced sections to be fair game for being rewritten. If anyone wants to rewrite that section, I don't think there will be any problems. It looks like you've got some reliable sources, and you've identified a problem to be solved – all that remains is to actually sit down and do the work. If you'd like help, there are better avenues than calling an RfC. WP:Cleanup is a good starting point for soliciting help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Be BOLD and just do it! Requests for comment isn't the place to get help with doing that. From Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the Request for Comment process: "If you want general help in improving an article … then list it at Peer review."

Parking text/quote

I found some references for the 2005-Present section and made changes in the text to reflect the information found in the references. I could not find the source of this quote, purportedly by Brad Grey (which was in the Dreamworks purchased section), so I have removed it until a source can be found:, who noted that enhancing Paramount's pipeline of pictures is a "key strategic objective in restoring Paramount's stature as a leader in filmed entertainment."Coaster92 (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few possible sources. Trivialist (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks, Trivialist. I'll check these out.Coaster92 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I could not find sources for this text either so I re-wrote the paragraph in conformity with the references I found and I am parking the unreferenced text here: "The decision was made to split Viacom into two companies, which in turn led to a dismantling of the Paramount Studio/Paramount TV infrastructure, with the current Paramount, consisting only of the movie studio, retaining only about one-quarter its former size under Dolgen and Lansing. The Paramount Television studio, Paramount Parks and UPN was made part of CBS in the split and the remaining businesses were sold off or parceled out to other operating groups."Coaster92 (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Switching Logos

Can we please switch the Gulf+Western Paramount logo used in the first three Indiana Jones films with the Blue Mountain Logo? There may be some people that are afraid of that logo. As a matter of fact, it almost gave me a heart attack while reading it. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why put 1912 as the founding date of Paramount, when it's really the founding date of Famous Players, a company that is only one component of Paramount?

1912 is NOT the founding date of Paramount. It's only the founding date of Famous Players, which is only one component of Paramount. Paramount, the company we know today, was formed from a merger in 1916 (after which it was known as Famous Players-Lasky, but that was the beginning of the company as we know it today). So 1916 is the founding date, NOT 1912. So, why not put 1916 as the founding date, instead of 1912? Why are we putting 1912, when we know it's not correct? Mattdillon87 (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We,as you put it don't know it's not correct,as 1912 is widely given as the year for the founding of Paramount and not only on Wikipedia.

While it's true that Famous Players-Lasky was formed in 1916,either June 28th or July 19th(sources differ),as a result of a merger between Adolph Zukor's Famous Players Company and the Jessy L. Lasky Feature Play Company,Paramount Pictures as a distribution company founded by W.W.Hodkinson in 1914,had been distributing Famous Player films since May 15 or June 1,1914.(again sources differ)Prior to the merger with Lasky,Zukor(and possibly Lasky depending on what source you believe) bought enough stock to take control of Paramount and replace Hodkinson as President with Zukor associate Hiram Abrams.Google searches and Wikipedia searches turn up multiple references for a 1912 date for the Founding of what became the Paramount Pictures vertically integrated production,distribution and exhibition giant,and Paramount itself claims 1912 as it's founding.(A Google search of:History of Paramount Pictures,gives 11.2 million results.)

Sources for this reply; Goldwyn,A biography.A Scott Berg,Simon & Schuster, 1989.Page 49&58. 

                       The S.I.M.P.P Research database article,W.W.Hodkison:The Man Who Invented Hollywood,
                       www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/hodkinson_system.htm
                       www.closinglogos.com/page/paramount+pictures
                       www.paramountstudios.com/working_on_the_lot/general_info/history.html

Personally,I've been a student of film and film history for over 40 years and have found trying to get to the truth of Paramount's history an aggravating exercise of frustration,filled by multiple varying versions written long after the fact,and often based on rather shaky research,if any at all.My take on it,for what's it worth,is this; no Zukor,no Paramount as we know it,so the origins start with the company he founded in 1912.So if You still have an issue with the 1912 date perhaps you should take it up with the folks at Paramount,and/or the multiple websites,publishers,authors etc.that give 1912 as a founding date.Or better yet maybe You could write a book or article on Paramount with the 1916 date of founding which would muddy the waters even more.

Erotic Thrillers released by the company

The following erotic thrillers to be released by this company that I can think of are:

Founded by - Hodkinson or Zukor

The article seems to be split on this. " Paramount Pictures Corporation, organized early that year by a Utah theatre owner, W. W. Hodkinson, who had bought and merged several smaller firms. " and "Paramount Pictures logo, based on a design by founder William Wadsworth Hodkinson, from 1917 to 1967." But the infox says "1912 (as Famous Players Film Company)" and names Adolph Zukor, Jesse L. Lasky and Cecil B. DeMille as founders, as does Paramount's website say, but I could list a number of reliable sources that credit Hodkinson. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated page

I just updated this page with different information about the logos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.149.84 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

Can somebody change the Start date and age template from the current {start date and age|1912} to {start date and age|1912|5|8} to correspond to Paramount Pictures's official founding date?[1] 173.73.242.76 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Celebrating 100 Years: Paramount Studios". Digital Media Academy. 2011-12-19. Retrieved 2016-04-27.

Rysher Entertainment

Does Paramount own most of the Rysher film library? Because, some of the film trailers have been put on the Paramount Movies YouTube channel. Matthew Cantrell (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Production deals

It's been a while since my last edit--several months, at least, as far as I can remember, anyway--and I feel like I missed something in the interim. Are production deals sections no longer allowed on film studio pages? Because at one point when looking through the edit history I noticed that someone's adding of the section had been reverted with "minor trivia" given as the excuse. However, I suspect the real reason is because of block evasion by the one who added that section, each time, at least after sources were added. Before I make any attempt to read it myself, I should like to know whether or not the section would be allowed, with sources, under normal circumstances. Thank you. (ADDENDUM: It has actually been 4.5 months, now that I've checked.) --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care. My concern is the sock puppetry and block evasion. Others might revert you, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I feel the need to clear something up here. If I was a sockpuppet of Nate Speed as you imply, would I have edits dating back to two years before his first edits? In any case, I seriously need to start editing here again more often, because it seems my frequent absences have triggered at least one false positive. --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't imply anything. I don't know how you read that into my comment, but I'm just here to block sock puppets. You don't look like a sock puppet to me, so I don't care what you do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. I was just making sure you didn't get the wrong idea by mistake, is all. --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I started these sections, some were removed as trivia as they started from just a magazine list. Finding other articles that just highlight the top deals made them some other than trivia. [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed|Sockpuppet Nate Speed]] latched onto these list and would decide a one picture deal or a film series distribution deal amounts to a production deal. Production deals usual has first (or secondary) look provisions, overhead payments, office space at the studio lot and is for a term. Ryanasaurus, you restore one of Nate's versions. Disney and Lucasfilms don't have production deals for different reasons. Disney has been a long time mini-major as it distributed its own films since the 1950s under its Buena Vista Film Distribution (thus it doesn't make sense for them to have any prodco deal with Paramount as distribution rights was a financing source) and Lucasfilms was so independent after Star Wars that it could produce what ever Lucas wanted and only shopped for distribution (being put on Paramount's list for Paramount distributing the Indiana Jones films). Nate Speed switch from demanding his version with no sources to adding sources that don't support his position. Thus easy for you to assume sourcing = correct. I meant to correct this when you added it back but got side tracked. Spshu (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paramount Pictures. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2018

216.15.89.198 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Can i edit this so i can add the print logo and the studio? 216.15.89.198 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Paramount Pictures Corporation was actually founded in 1912 not 1914.

Paramount Pictures Corporation was founded on 8 May 1912 not 1914. Please edit source and change the three categories from American companies established in 1914, Entertainment companies established in 1914, Media companies established in 1914 and 1914 establishments in California to American companies established in 1912, Entertainment companies established in 1912, Media companies established in 1912 and 1912 establishments in California.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.103.175 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paramount_Pictures/Archive_1&oldid=1057737514"