This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warner Bros. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is after all, the largest major film studio by market share and the size of its production pipeline, in terms of both films and TV shows. Just a thought. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 08:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Why does the list of highest grossing films only mentions the domestic gross but not the international gross? 98.119.155.81 ( talk) 01:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Renegade Pictures (Don't tell the bride, etc) redirects to this article but isn't mentioned in the article. Does anyone know of a reference that would allow this company to have a mention? Their own website does not mention a link to Warner Bros, but a recent TV prog made by the company did. Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
In the Warner Bros. topic, the section dealing with Olivia de Haviland's dispute with the studio reads:
"In 1943, Olivia de Haviland (whom Warner was loaning to different studios) sued Warner for breach of contract.[124] De Haviland had refused to portray famed abolitionist Elizabeth Blackwell in an upcoming film for Columbia Pictures.[124] Warner responded by sending 150 telegrams to different film production companies, warning them not to hire her for any role.[124]"
And the specific Olivia de Haviland page states that the letters were sent after the suit went in de Haviland's favor. The above passage seems to suggest that the letters were sent in response to her refusing the role, rather than a response to the favorable outcome of the lawsuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0B3:9640:99A4:43FE:FB62:BE71 ( talk) 02:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Although "Warner Bros." is pronounced "Warner Brothers", the company has never been known as "Warner Brothers", but always, in all its permutations, as "Warner Bros.". Please do not add "Warner Brothers" to the article as an alternative name, as it is not and never has been. If anyone feels the need to do so, then it had better be accompanied by an extremely reliable source, such as a book about the company or a serious history of the Hollywood studios, not just any random citation from the internet. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Justice League grossed 657.9 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.142.212.85 ( talk) 16:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Where did the title "Global Kids & Young Adults" come from? Brian K. Tyler ( talk) 07:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
You don't have a information about the International arrangements on Warner Bros.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.122.232.125 ( talk) 18:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't Warner Bros. be split up on wikipedia? Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Warner Bros. Pictures are two separate things. The actual film distribution section of the company should have it's own page in a similar way that there is The Walt Disney Company page, Walt Disney Studios (division), and Walt Disney Pictures. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. should be structured similarly, with a separate page for it's film branch Warner Bros. Pictures, theatre branch Warner Bros. Theatre Ventures (which I made and was just redirected to Warner Bros.), Warner Bros. Consumer Products (Disney has a page : Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media). I feel as though Warner Bros. is jumbled together and can really be simplified by creating these new pages. Chrisisreed ( talk) 19:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I think Warner Bros./Warner/WB is similar to Universal in that the legal names are slightly different while they use the banners "Warner Bros. Pictures ©Warner Bros Entertainment" "Universal Pictures © Universal Studios or Universal City Studios". However with that said I agree with you on Theatre Ventures and other divisions having their own page. Thank you. 217.114.169.244 ( talk) 14:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Strongly oppose:I searched up "Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc." on Google and got "Warner Bros". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:4100:CB5B:9CFC:377E:5504:2855 ( talk) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I am an anonymous user, so I cannot edit the Warner Bros. page. I feel like there should be a section about the logo, because when it comes to pages about famous film companies, there are usually sections about their logos. (I recommend you put it after the "History" section. Don't do the "New Section" method and put "Logo" in between "==" and "=="). 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C ( talk) 17:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User_talk:XXzoonamiXX#November_2019 So this guy and I argued over a week regarding the word "Warner Bros. Pictures" blue-linked to this article that talks about being an entertainment company in general and part of the Big Five studio without "Pictures" attached to it, which makes the two totally different. While Warner Bros. Pictures does actually exist, it's a motion picture unit of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc, which is an entertainment company that makes a variety of products and is part of the Big Five anyways. I would love to see other editors chime in if it's appropriate to bluelink the word "Warner Bros. Pictures to this article with a different purpose. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 18:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
[[Warner Bros. Pictures]]That way, if a standalone Warner Bros. Pictures article is ever created, the link will continue to take readers to the most appropriate place. WanderingWanda ( talk) 08:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Part of Warner Bros. and no significant difference with it. The founders, website, etc. all are the same. KartikeyaS343 ( talk) 16:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I think Warner Bros./Warner/WB is similar to Universal in that the legal names are slightly different while they use the banners "Warner Bros. Pictures ©Warner Bros Entertainment" "Universal Pictures © Universal Studios or Universal City Studios". However with that said I agree with you on Theatre Ventures and other divisions having their own page. Thank you. 217.114.169.244 ( talk) 14:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Strongly oppose:I searched up "Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc." on Google and got "Warner Bros". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:4100:CB5B:9CFC:377E:5504:2855 ( talk) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Reverted undiscussed controversial move. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. → Warner Bros. – Sometime yesterday, this page was moved to its current name of Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. This move should not have happened, as not only was no consensus even made for such a page move to be made, but Wikipedia guidelines state to use WP:COMMONNAME, in which most news/press articles refer to it as simply Warner Bros. IceWalrus236 ( talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not the best editor and I figure that this will probably be a slightly contentious idea. But I think it would provide to be an interesting addition to the article. My idea is to add a section to the article to describe the use of dmca claims by Warner Bros. and their subsidiaries. I only know of negative and possible bad faith claims they have made, [1] , [2], [3], and [4], but I figure it might be good add this to the article to show how "WB" uses and possibly abuses copyright and dmca laws. What do you all think? Xeracross ( talk) 19:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
References
This was merely the name Warner Bros. used from 1967 to 1970, and not only was the company short lived as indicated by the years shown, but the info detailing the company was also better described on the main WB page. IceWalrus236 ( talk) 17:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's time I'd do some merging. What I'm saying is that the merging of Warner Bros. Pictures into Warner Bros. has been discussed for over six months and nobody has even bothered to do so because they're against the idea. But I'm not. I can just move it to the other page. To help I have the highest-grossing films from Warner Bros. right here.
|
References
The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa ( talk) 22:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Warner Bros. → Warner Bros. Entertainment - Strictly speaking, Warner Bros. can refer to Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Bros. Television Studios, Warner Bros. Home Entertainment and its main company Warner Bros. Entertainment. EuantheEditor ( talk) 21:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add extra notes in the Film series table. OJDiesel ( talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Under AT&T section:
In October 23, 2020, they Warner Max label was phased out, with Warner Bros. Pictures Group and its sister division New Line Cinema now becoming the now becoming the sole producers over all feature output for WarnerMedia, be it streaming or theatrical.
Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-max-shutting-down-as-warnermedia-reorganizes-film-production — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rov124 ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The image that states it is the previous logo from 1984-2019 is the current logo, not the one used from 1984-2019. It should either be removed (as the current logo is currently used), or updated to the correct old logo. Rdp8172 ( talk) 05:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
According to the website it says "The company’s vast library, one of the most prestigious and valuable in the world, consists of more than 114,000 hours of programming, including 10,000 feature films and 2,400 television programs comprised of more than 120,000 individual episodes." So it needs to be updated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.103.108 ( talk) 01:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
So as it stands, we finally have a proper structure for WBD, now that the deal is done. What I can't understand is this: How come Warner Bros. Ent. is still active as a division on related pages, despite the fact that certain parts of WB may have been dispersed across other parts of the company?
For example, Warner Bros. Pictures and Warner Bros. TV are direct CEO reports, while WB Games is now managed through WBD's streaming and interactive division, per many sources allocating to the leadership structure ( like here) with this statement: "Zaslav, as longtime observers predicted, has opted to have a direct-report relationship with the leaders of the businesses he doesn’t know as well as he does cable channels and advertising sales, per individuals close to the situation. Those include Casey Bloys, chief content officer of HBO/HBO Max (who will be adding Chip and Joanna Gaines’ Magnolia Network to his responsibilities), Warner Bros. Pictures chairman Toby Emmerich and Warner Bros. TV Group chief Channing Dungey."
Luckily, for now, it's safe to assume that Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. remains the trademark for Warner Bros. owned stuff, unless anything changes. So would it be safe to adjust several Warner Bros. assets, including all related WBD pages's in terms of ownership, to reflect on the leadership, to avoid confusion? BiggieSMLZ ( talk) 05:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@ DeepakG47: You have twice removed content from this article. Can you please explain why? Both of your edits have no explanation. The companies you keep removing are listed as separate divisions and subsidiaries so I don't see why you keep removing them from this article. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the 100th year soon 75.172.20.154 ( talk) 06:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. Better to wait until it actually turns 100, and then add a source with something about the anniversary, but it you disagree, get a consensus first.
BilCat (
talk) 06:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please reverting edits made by Judokos ( /info/en/?search=Special:MobileDiff/1136235546) 36.77.66.183 ( talk) 15:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm talking about the image. This logo looks fake. Chiagozie Elobuike ( talk) 18:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm talking about the image. The image consists of the 2022 Warner Bros. Discovery shield, but below is the 2019 Warner Bros. wordmark. Chiagozie Elobuike ( talk) 00:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The article states "the founding Warner brothers (born Wonsal, Woron and Wonskolaser, before Anglicization)". This is confusing. It makes it sound like the brothers had three different surnames. In the articles for each of them, it's just said that their real surname was either Wonsal or Wonskolaser, meaning that we don't know for sure. Woron isn't mentioned. Also, by the way, "anglicization" isn't capitalized. Kumagoro-42 ( talk) 22:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
This article mentions Warner Bros. Pictures Animation, but not Warner Bros. Animation. Jstewart2007 ( talk) 03:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I noticed the edit warring in recent days on the article over what is the correct Warner Bros. logo.
It's obvious what's going on if you look at the Web site of Warner Bros. and the Web site of Warner Bros. Discovery.
The former is still using the 2019 logo. The latter uses the new 2023 logo for both itself and its link to the Warner Bros. web site.
What's probably going on is that the new parent company probably intends to make Warner Bros. adopt its logo at some point, but Warner Bros. hasn't done it yet because it takes a lot of time and money to redesign document templates, Web sites, and signs. Signs in particular are expensive. And keep in mind that Warner Bros. is shorthanded at the moment due to their massive layoffs. Whenever companies have layoffs, it's common for Web sites and other marketing materials to get stale and out-of-date because the remaining employees tend to focus on operational issues.
So the correct approach is to stay with the 2019 logo in this article until Warner Bros. updates its Web site and/or its physical signage to adopt the 2023 Warner Bros. Discovery logo. Coolcaesar ( talk) 13:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
− | It is never read out loud as "Warner Bros" | + | It is never read out loud as "Warner Bros" ([[Help:Pronunciation respelling key|<i title="English pronunciation respelling">-BROHZ</i>]] or similarly); the opening voiceover of ''[[The Lego Batman Movie]]'' (2017) makes fun of people who make this mistake. |
(The parentheses should also extend around the pronunciation spell-out; calling something a "classic mistake" also sounds like an opinion and a tiny bit condescending.)
− | The company is known for its film studio division, the '''Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group''', which includes [[Warner Bros. Pictures]], [[New Line Cinema]], [[Warner Bros. Pictures Animation]], [[Castle Rock Entertainment]], | + | The company is known for its film studio division, the '''Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group''', which includes [[Warner Bros. Pictures]], [[New Line Cinema]], [[Warner Bros. Pictures Animation]], [[Castle Rock Entertainment]], [[DC Studios]], and [[Warner Bros. Television Studios]]. [[Bugs Bunny]], a character created for the ''[[Looney Tunes]]'' series, is the company's official mascot. |
(The original is a sentence fragment making no grammatical sense.)
2603:8001:4542:28FB:5534:5296:7B83:61A8 (
talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages
here)
The updated shield is used as a secondary logo, and is used concurrently with the 2019 logo (which is the main and primary logo) since May 2023.
IMO, this argument is no longer relevant, because in fact, the updated shield (the 2023 logo) is taking over its role as the primary logo, while the 2019 Pentagram shield remains in use for secondary purposes such as its website's appearance and copyright tag for films (which slowly being phased out with the new 2023 WB Pictures horizontal logo with the banner/sash). If we see the WBD's official website ( https://wbd.com/wp-content/themes/warner-bros-discovery-corporate/pdf/wbd-4q23-earnings-release-02-23-24.pdf), the new Warner Bros. Pictures/WB Television/Warner Horizon on-screen logo made by Devastudios, and the appearance of the new WB logo at many Studio Tours, that's the 2023 logo being used. Could we please change the sentences to reflect the current situations? 103.111.100.82 ( talk) 04:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warner Bros. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is after all, the largest major film studio by market share and the size of its production pipeline, in terms of both films and TV shows. Just a thought. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 08:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Why does the list of highest grossing films only mentions the domestic gross but not the international gross? 98.119.155.81 ( talk) 01:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Renegade Pictures (Don't tell the bride, etc) redirects to this article but isn't mentioned in the article. Does anyone know of a reference that would allow this company to have a mention? Their own website does not mention a link to Warner Bros, but a recent TV prog made by the company did. Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
In the Warner Bros. topic, the section dealing with Olivia de Haviland's dispute with the studio reads:
"In 1943, Olivia de Haviland (whom Warner was loaning to different studios) sued Warner for breach of contract.[124] De Haviland had refused to portray famed abolitionist Elizabeth Blackwell in an upcoming film for Columbia Pictures.[124] Warner responded by sending 150 telegrams to different film production companies, warning them not to hire her for any role.[124]"
And the specific Olivia de Haviland page states that the letters were sent after the suit went in de Haviland's favor. The above passage seems to suggest that the letters were sent in response to her refusing the role, rather than a response to the favorable outcome of the lawsuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0B3:9640:99A4:43FE:FB62:BE71 ( talk) 02:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Although "Warner Bros." is pronounced "Warner Brothers", the company has never been known as "Warner Brothers", but always, in all its permutations, as "Warner Bros.". Please do not add "Warner Brothers" to the article as an alternative name, as it is not and never has been. If anyone feels the need to do so, then it had better be accompanied by an extremely reliable source, such as a book about the company or a serious history of the Hollywood studios, not just any random citation from the internet. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Justice League grossed 657.9 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.142.212.85 ( talk) 16:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Where did the title "Global Kids & Young Adults" come from? Brian K. Tyler ( talk) 07:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
You don't have a information about the International arrangements on Warner Bros.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.122.232.125 ( talk) 18:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't Warner Bros. be split up on wikipedia? Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Warner Bros. Pictures are two separate things. The actual film distribution section of the company should have it's own page in a similar way that there is The Walt Disney Company page, Walt Disney Studios (division), and Walt Disney Pictures. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. should be structured similarly, with a separate page for it's film branch Warner Bros. Pictures, theatre branch Warner Bros. Theatre Ventures (which I made and was just redirected to Warner Bros.), Warner Bros. Consumer Products (Disney has a page : Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media). I feel as though Warner Bros. is jumbled together and can really be simplified by creating these new pages. Chrisisreed ( talk) 19:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I think Warner Bros./Warner/WB is similar to Universal in that the legal names are slightly different while they use the banners "Warner Bros. Pictures ©Warner Bros Entertainment" "Universal Pictures © Universal Studios or Universal City Studios". However with that said I agree with you on Theatre Ventures and other divisions having their own page. Thank you. 217.114.169.244 ( talk) 14:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Strongly oppose:I searched up "Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc." on Google and got "Warner Bros". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:4100:CB5B:9CFC:377E:5504:2855 ( talk) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I am an anonymous user, so I cannot edit the Warner Bros. page. I feel like there should be a section about the logo, because when it comes to pages about famous film companies, there are usually sections about their logos. (I recommend you put it after the "History" section. Don't do the "New Section" method and put "Logo" in between "==" and "=="). 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C ( talk) 17:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User_talk:XXzoonamiXX#November_2019 So this guy and I argued over a week regarding the word "Warner Bros. Pictures" blue-linked to this article that talks about being an entertainment company in general and part of the Big Five studio without "Pictures" attached to it, which makes the two totally different. While Warner Bros. Pictures does actually exist, it's a motion picture unit of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc, which is an entertainment company that makes a variety of products and is part of the Big Five anyways. I would love to see other editors chime in if it's appropriate to bluelink the word "Warner Bros. Pictures to this article with a different purpose. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 18:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
[[Warner Bros. Pictures]]That way, if a standalone Warner Bros. Pictures article is ever created, the link will continue to take readers to the most appropriate place. WanderingWanda ( talk) 08:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Part of Warner Bros. and no significant difference with it. The founders, website, etc. all are the same. KartikeyaS343 ( talk) 16:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I think Warner Bros./Warner/WB is similar to Universal in that the legal names are slightly different while they use the banners "Warner Bros. Pictures ©Warner Bros Entertainment" "Universal Pictures © Universal Studios or Universal City Studios". However with that said I agree with you on Theatre Ventures and other divisions having their own page. Thank you. 217.114.169.244 ( talk) 14:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Strongly oppose:I searched up "Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc." on Google and got "Warner Bros". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:4100:CB5B:9CFC:377E:5504:2855 ( talk) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Reverted undiscussed controversial move. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. → Warner Bros. – Sometime yesterday, this page was moved to its current name of Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. This move should not have happened, as not only was no consensus even made for such a page move to be made, but Wikipedia guidelines state to use WP:COMMONNAME, in which most news/press articles refer to it as simply Warner Bros. IceWalrus236 ( talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not the best editor and I figure that this will probably be a slightly contentious idea. But I think it would provide to be an interesting addition to the article. My idea is to add a section to the article to describe the use of dmca claims by Warner Bros. and their subsidiaries. I only know of negative and possible bad faith claims they have made, [1] , [2], [3], and [4], but I figure it might be good add this to the article to show how "WB" uses and possibly abuses copyright and dmca laws. What do you all think? Xeracross ( talk) 19:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
References
This was merely the name Warner Bros. used from 1967 to 1970, and not only was the company short lived as indicated by the years shown, but the info detailing the company was also better described on the main WB page. IceWalrus236 ( talk) 17:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's time I'd do some merging. What I'm saying is that the merging of Warner Bros. Pictures into Warner Bros. has been discussed for over six months and nobody has even bothered to do so because they're against the idea. But I'm not. I can just move it to the other page. To help I have the highest-grossing films from Warner Bros. right here.
|
References
The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa ( talk) 22:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Warner Bros. → Warner Bros. Entertainment - Strictly speaking, Warner Bros. can refer to Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Bros. Television Studios, Warner Bros. Home Entertainment and its main company Warner Bros. Entertainment. EuantheEditor ( talk) 21:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add extra notes in the Film series table. OJDiesel ( talk) 01:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Under AT&T section:
In October 23, 2020, they Warner Max label was phased out, with Warner Bros. Pictures Group and its sister division New Line Cinema now becoming the now becoming the sole producers over all feature output for WarnerMedia, be it streaming or theatrical.
Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-max-shutting-down-as-warnermedia-reorganizes-film-production — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rov124 ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The image that states it is the previous logo from 1984-2019 is the current logo, not the one used from 1984-2019. It should either be removed (as the current logo is currently used), or updated to the correct old logo. Rdp8172 ( talk) 05:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
According to the website it says "The company’s vast library, one of the most prestigious and valuable in the world, consists of more than 114,000 hours of programming, including 10,000 feature films and 2,400 television programs comprised of more than 120,000 individual episodes." So it needs to be updated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.103.108 ( talk) 01:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
So as it stands, we finally have a proper structure for WBD, now that the deal is done. What I can't understand is this: How come Warner Bros. Ent. is still active as a division on related pages, despite the fact that certain parts of WB may have been dispersed across other parts of the company?
For example, Warner Bros. Pictures and Warner Bros. TV are direct CEO reports, while WB Games is now managed through WBD's streaming and interactive division, per many sources allocating to the leadership structure ( like here) with this statement: "Zaslav, as longtime observers predicted, has opted to have a direct-report relationship with the leaders of the businesses he doesn’t know as well as he does cable channels and advertising sales, per individuals close to the situation. Those include Casey Bloys, chief content officer of HBO/HBO Max (who will be adding Chip and Joanna Gaines’ Magnolia Network to his responsibilities), Warner Bros. Pictures chairman Toby Emmerich and Warner Bros. TV Group chief Channing Dungey."
Luckily, for now, it's safe to assume that Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. remains the trademark for Warner Bros. owned stuff, unless anything changes. So would it be safe to adjust several Warner Bros. assets, including all related WBD pages's in terms of ownership, to reflect on the leadership, to avoid confusion? BiggieSMLZ ( talk) 05:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@ DeepakG47: You have twice removed content from this article. Can you please explain why? Both of your edits have no explanation. The companies you keep removing are listed as separate divisions and subsidiaries so I don't see why you keep removing them from this article. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the 100th year soon 75.172.20.154 ( talk) 06:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. Better to wait until it actually turns 100, and then add a source with something about the anniversary, but it you disagree, get a consensus first.
BilCat (
talk) 06:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please reverting edits made by Judokos ( /info/en/?search=Special:MobileDiff/1136235546) 36.77.66.183 ( talk) 15:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm talking about the image. This logo looks fake. Chiagozie Elobuike ( talk) 18:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm talking about the image. The image consists of the 2022 Warner Bros. Discovery shield, but below is the 2019 Warner Bros. wordmark. Chiagozie Elobuike ( talk) 00:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The article states "the founding Warner brothers (born Wonsal, Woron and Wonskolaser, before Anglicization)". This is confusing. It makes it sound like the brothers had three different surnames. In the articles for each of them, it's just said that their real surname was either Wonsal or Wonskolaser, meaning that we don't know for sure. Woron isn't mentioned. Also, by the way, "anglicization" isn't capitalized. Kumagoro-42 ( talk) 22:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
This article mentions Warner Bros. Pictures Animation, but not Warner Bros. Animation. Jstewart2007 ( talk) 03:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I noticed the edit warring in recent days on the article over what is the correct Warner Bros. logo.
It's obvious what's going on if you look at the Web site of Warner Bros. and the Web site of Warner Bros. Discovery.
The former is still using the 2019 logo. The latter uses the new 2023 logo for both itself and its link to the Warner Bros. web site.
What's probably going on is that the new parent company probably intends to make Warner Bros. adopt its logo at some point, but Warner Bros. hasn't done it yet because it takes a lot of time and money to redesign document templates, Web sites, and signs. Signs in particular are expensive. And keep in mind that Warner Bros. is shorthanded at the moment due to their massive layoffs. Whenever companies have layoffs, it's common for Web sites and other marketing materials to get stale and out-of-date because the remaining employees tend to focus on operational issues.
So the correct approach is to stay with the 2019 logo in this article until Warner Bros. updates its Web site and/or its physical signage to adopt the 2023 Warner Bros. Discovery logo. Coolcaesar ( talk) 13:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
− | It is never read out loud as "Warner Bros" | + | It is never read out loud as "Warner Bros" ([[Help:Pronunciation respelling key|<i title="English pronunciation respelling">-BROHZ</i>]] or similarly); the opening voiceover of ''[[The Lego Batman Movie]]'' (2017) makes fun of people who make this mistake. |
(The parentheses should also extend around the pronunciation spell-out; calling something a "classic mistake" also sounds like an opinion and a tiny bit condescending.)
− | The company is known for its film studio division, the '''Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group''', which includes [[Warner Bros. Pictures]], [[New Line Cinema]], [[Warner Bros. Pictures Animation]], [[Castle Rock Entertainment]], | + | The company is known for its film studio division, the '''Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group''', which includes [[Warner Bros. Pictures]], [[New Line Cinema]], [[Warner Bros. Pictures Animation]], [[Castle Rock Entertainment]], [[DC Studios]], and [[Warner Bros. Television Studios]]. [[Bugs Bunny]], a character created for the ''[[Looney Tunes]]'' series, is the company's official mascot. |
(The original is a sentence fragment making no grammatical sense.)
2603:8001:4542:28FB:5534:5296:7B83:61A8 (
talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages
here)
The updated shield is used as a secondary logo, and is used concurrently with the 2019 logo (which is the main and primary logo) since May 2023.
IMO, this argument is no longer relevant, because in fact, the updated shield (the 2023 logo) is taking over its role as the primary logo, while the 2019 Pentagram shield remains in use for secondary purposes such as its website's appearance and copyright tag for films (which slowly being phased out with the new 2023 WB Pictures horizontal logo with the banner/sash). If we see the WBD's official website ( https://wbd.com/wp-content/themes/warner-bros-discovery-corporate/pdf/wbd-4q23-earnings-release-02-23-24.pdf), the new Warner Bros. Pictures/WB Television/Warner Horizon on-screen logo made by Devastudios, and the appearance of the new WB logo at many Studio Tours, that's the 2023 logo being used. Could we please change the sentences to reflect the current situations? 103.111.100.82 ( talk) 04:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)