Talk:Studio system

Untitled
There was more to the end of the studio system than just the ruling in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.. Television was just really beginning at the time and had little to do with it then, although some would say that James Garner's fight with Warner Bros. over his Maverick contract was really the true total end of it. Bob Hope's war with Paramount earlier in the 1940s, is credited by writer Raymond Strait, at least, as the beginning of the end of its breaking down when he got raises above his contract, percentages, and a more legitimate accounting of film expenses and revenues than had previously been achieved. Rlquall 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. If you think this article is the place to go into detail on it, by all means. (PS: Your "defunct" is the mot juste!) --DCGeist 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi DCGeist, I'm very interested in the RKO history, I think it's not the right way to consider RKO defunct between 1960 and 1989. In the late eighties RKO General used his arm/brand RKO Pictures to produce or coproduce many movies: (Carbon Copy (1981) - The Border (1982) - Cat People remake (1982) - The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (1982) - TV show Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (1982) - D.C. Cab (1983) - Streets of Fire (1984) - Plenty (1985) - Mesmerized (1986) - Half Moon Street (1986) - Campus Man (1987) - Hot Pursuit (1987) - Hamburger Hill (1987) - The Lighthorsemen (1987). All those movies were produced under the General Tire/GenCorp management I think it's better to consider RKO "dormant" in the sixties and seventies as movies production company. Ciao GPM from Italy

You're right about a low level of production resuming in 1981. As for "dormant" vs. "defunct": as I understand it, RKO Pictures simply did not exist between 1960 and 1980--not as a producer or distributor, not as a corporate entity of any kind, no officers, nada. That's "defunct." The name, as you point out, was revived as a brand by RKO General in 1981, but there's a definitive break between that RKO Pictures and the original one. The five years in the 1990s when Hartley and Merrill produced and/or distributed nothing, but kept the corporate identity alive is a better example of a period of dormancy. Best, Dan --DCGeist 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very hard to explain my point of view with my poor English, but I will try it, When General Tire bought RKO Pictures Corporation from Howard Hughes it shut down the movie's production and distribution between 1957 and 1981, changed the name of the company 3 times (RKO Teleradio Pictures - RKO Teleradio - RKO General) and changed the matter of his business from movies to Radio and TV broadcasting. But it's clear the RKO company lived without break from Hughes era until the Hartley/Merrill purchase and RKO always owned all the right about the movies and trademarks of the old RKO (except the TV broadcasting rights sold out in the fifties). Many other Hollywood Studios changed the ownership and corporate name and structure ( see Universal - Columbia - UA - MGM - Warner) the only difference is the continuity in movies productions but it is not matter of existence or not of the company. Ciao GPM

You've made your point very well, I think. It comes down to a difference of opinion on what information is most relevantly emphasized in this article. Since the article is on the "studio system" and the section in question concentrates on the fate of the "eight major studios," I think it's important to underscore the fact that there was no movie business under the RKO rubric between 1960 and 1980, no "studio" in any sense of the term--unlike all those other studios you mention. Ownership of trademarks and remake rights (all unexercised for two decades) does not a studio make. The usage note in the standard Merriam-Webster's dictionary says, "Defunct stresses cessation of active existence or operation." That seems exactly right to me in terms of any discussion of RKO as a "studio." If I may state your opinion, it is that the continued existence of a corporate structure bearing the RKO name that holds those trademarks and rights is the crucial fact. That corporate lineage is, in fact, currently reflected in the article and, of course, extensive detail can be found in the RKO article. I've changed the header in the corporate lineage section to read "RKO Pictures" as opposed to "RKO" for greater clarity. What do you think?--DCGeist 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi DCGeist! I agree with You about the change of the header in the corporate lineage section, but in my opinion RKO can't be called "defunct" from 1960 until 1980. For example (for a more complete and accurate information) I found there was a very little movies production and distributions in those years e.g. (The Abbott and Costello Show cartoons (1966) - Comanche blanco (1968) - Supercolpo da 7 miliardi (1966) - Kingu Kongu tai Gojira / King Kong vs Godzilla (1962) etc. I know it was quite insignificant, but the RKO corporate lineage was always uninterrupted. I still prefer RKO was "dormant". Ciao GPM

I'm sorry, GPM, but it looks like we'll just have to disagree. No one denies that a company called RKO General existed during the years in question and was in the TV business, but that has nothing to do with being a movie studio. It seems absolutely clear to me that RKO Pictures, the movie studio, was defunct. I'll address each of the examples you raise. The first, whose secondary producer is "RKO-Jomar Productions," behind Hanna-Barbera, is obviously a TV series. The second and third were foreign-language movies (Spanish and Italian, respectively); RKO was involved in neither their production nor their theatrical release--they were distributed in dubbed versions by RKO General on American TV. As for the last, RKO General, as "King Kong" rightsholder, licensed the Japanese producers to use the character and received a fee and screen credit in return. Not only do none of these activities qualify a business as a movie studio, none of them were even done under the rubric of "RKO Pictures." Even the one that qualifies as a TV production, RKO General seems minimally involved in at best--"RKO-Jomar" AFTER Hanna-Barbera. It looks like it might be just another rights deal. Could you find out the details on that?

Believe me, I care just as much about RKO as you. If you'll remember, before I started working on the English-language version of the "studio system" article, there was no mention of RKO at all. Similarly, before I started working on the "RKO Pictures" article, there was a considerable amount of erroneous information in it, which I've corrected. (By the way, the Italian version of the RKO article, which I was hoping you were being diligent about, still erroneously states that Pathé was part of the original RKO. Please correct that, would you? If you have any questions, please refer to my clearly cited sources in the English-language version.) I'm continuing to work regularly on both articles. Again, if you read either article, the corporate lineage is clear. For now, let's leave the language as it is. (If you've been working on an Italian-language version of the studio system article, we can leave that one as it is for now, too.) I've made my case; you've made yours. Let's wait for some disinterested parties to weigh in and see if we can reach a consensus. Best, Dan--DCGeist 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RKO - Wesray - William E. Simon
It needs more clarity. When GenCorp sold RKO Pictures, Inc. it was purchased by Wesray and some of RKO Pictures's managers, but Mr. William E. Simon never bought RKO Pictures from Wesray, simply because William E. Simon was the co-founder and owner of Wesray Corporation. At least probably, Wesray (and therefore William E. Simon) became the major stakeholder among the owners of RKO Pictures, and then Wesray/William E. Simon and Ray Chambers sold RKO Pictures, Inc. to Hartley and Merrill.

Let's see if I can put this all together properly:

RKO was purchased by Wesray Capital (controlled by William E. Simon and Ray Chambers) in 1987 and was merged with their Six Flags operations. Over the course of 1990-91, Wesray (i.e., Simon and Chambers) split RKO off again and sold it to Merrill and Hartley.

Is that correct, according to your best information?--DCGeist 16:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Mr. William E. Simon was co-founder and owner of LBO Wesray Capital (according to an interview of Merrill, Bill Simon had left Wesray before the negotiation was in progress), RKO Pictures was a Wesray company linked with Six Flags (in the same time Six Flags was a Wesray company and it's still possible to find traces of RKO/Six Flags Entertainment, Inc. ), but I'm still searching better source about this argument. I found a quite interesting interview of Dina Merrill but it's available only as google cache page, She also talks about the negotiation among Bill Simon, Ted Hartley and Ray Chambers. Let me know if You find helpful this page. DINA MERRILL on Mrs. Johnson

According to the Dina Merrill interview it's possible to suppose (1)William E. Simon - one of the major stockholders of RKO, and (2)Ray Chambers - one of the owners of RKO Pictures, Inc. through his Wesray company Thanks for your very very good job on RKO page :)

That's an excellent source, the Merrill interview (and OK that it's only available cached--as long as it's accessible, it's good); I found a way to work some info from it into the RKO piece. I confess I wasn't too interested in the latter-day RKO Pictures to begin with, but it's clearly a fascinating bit of corporate history. Your diligent research has made our article the best available source on or--I believe--off the web for information on this complex topic.--DCGeist 05:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Some suggested edits
“movie-crazy multimillionaire Howard Hughes” (is “movie-crazy” necessary?)

“...a Chicago-based syndicate led by shady dealers without motion picture experience.” (consider a more precise word in place of “shady”)

“RKO's new owners were encountering little success in the moviemaking business and by 1957 the gig was up.” (“the gig was up” seems a little too informal)

“unlike UA, it barely owned its old movies” (what does “barely” mean, e.g., only 10% ownership of its old movies?)

“The studio system was a means of film production and distribution dominant in Hollywood from the early 1920s through the 1950s.” vs. “In 1954...the era of the studio system was officially over.”  (appears inconsistent:  did it last through the 1950s, or was it officially over in 1954?)

“1927/29–1948/49, is commonly known as the Golden Age of Hollywood.” vs. “The years 1927 and 1928 are generally seen as the beginning of Hollywood's Golden Age” (also appears inconsistent: did the golden age begin in 1927/29 or 1927/28?) Genesis 1:3 (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.

Arcsoda (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Too much on RKO, not enough on Production.
There is too much info on RKO as a studio in this article. The entire paragraph that begins: "Hughes gambit helped to break the studio system,..." is superfluous, as is relates more to the long slow demise of RKO than the Studio System. I think it could be deleted without harming the article.

I also think that there is a great deal of focus on film distribution, and hardly anything on how the system affected film production on a day to day basis (i.e actors denied the right to refuse a film, being unable to make films for other studios without permission from their own, etc.). This type of information needs adding asap!

And the language is far too informal throughout. Would anyone object if I help with some rewrites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CYL (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reign of the majors
This section is not as clear as it should be, if it is all going to be told in prose.

The best thing would be to just put in a table of years and the big five. tahc chat 16:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the subject of the article?
This article does have a section on the "Studio System" but that is not the subject of the article. This article is on the financial history of Hollywood. Frankly, this article has multiple problems. A good start at correction would include breaking it up into smaller articles. Otherwise, re-title the article and leave Studio System as a section.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree with these criticisms but I don't agree with breaking the article up or retitling it. More information on the actual production aspect would be good. Another glaring omission would be the almost total-absence of how the studios controlled actors with restrictive contracts. Information on how quickly movies were made, from conception to production--but especially the technical aspects of how films were shot and edited--is sorely needed.


 * Overall, a large main section detailing the production of movies (screenwriting, shooting, editing, etc.) and a supporting section detailing the logistics (how actors and production staff were kept on hand via contract) would go a long way toward improving this article. The financial history can be condensed into a smaller section (although I do think the information is important, since the financial effectiveness is what made the system possible to start with!) I think the lead outlines pretty well what the article should be, we just have to go about following it. 8bitW (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC), modified 21:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Origin Of Term "Golden Age of Hollywood"?
Who first used the term "Golden Age of Hollywood"? 38.111.35.2 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

After reading, none the wiser
If the first paragraph is meant to detangle and introduce you to further reading, this article has a nightmare for a start. Even industry-experienced readers may feel bamboozled after five or six sentences. An unnecessarily buzzwordy initial section.

Editing is necessary, unless the jargon and mystifications at the start is meant to put a reader off.

Arcsoda (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)