Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Issues with the article

I don't see what the big deal is with this article. I can see nothing seriously wrong with it. AlbertSM (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  • It certainly needs expanding, but I agree that a rewrite was not needed. There is a claim elsehwere on this talk page that much of the article was derived from MGM: When the Lion Roars, but that claim is unsubstantiated and expansion would take care of that. It is highly deficient in citations, however. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty wrong with this article including but not limited to the fact that the entire history of early Hollywood film and specifically this studio (and this MGM brand) was practically entirely built in Culver City, California, home to their main lot and all their legendary back-lots. There are now only two mentions of the area the history does not even incorporate the details. This is a disgrace to film history and scholarship IMHO. 33L71488 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

if you see nothing wrong with this article, you probably shouldn't be a Wikipedia editor. It needs a careful going over for NPOV, not to mention a general mechanical check-much of the summary of the studio's recent history is still written in the present tense, and some of reads like it was written by an ESL speaker. it's not like this is a minor article, either. Kinda embarrassing to see it in such a state.2604:6000:6D43:1C00:C5FF:A30E:52A3:C9B6 (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Motto

On the MGM site you say that the motto of MGM is “art for arts sake.” I don’t think that that is right: gratia is ‘free’ and is the same as gratis “without charge or recompense : FREE” “Ars Gratia Artis” is more likely to be “art free from the artist” in keeping with Louis B. Mayer’s enormous ego and his total lack of concern for the artists in his “pen.” Only his arrogance would have you believe he was so noble. Greed was his god. “...Mayer’s diet was his fellow man.” (By Herman J. Mankiewicz, and reported on you site.)24.86.105.144 03:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)jparranto@yahoo.com

Yes, clearly the person who translated it doesn't know any Latin85.138.0.221 22:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
"Art for art's sake" is generally how the MGM motto has been translated into English, so whoever included the translation here is merely reporting the work of others. And according to the talk page for wikipedia's Latin proverbs, it is indeed correctly translated, with "artis" being the genitive form of art. See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Latin_proverbs and scroll to the bottom of the page.

'Gratia' has a standard usage meaning 'for the sake of + genitive'. Look in any Latin dictionary. 'Gratis' is a different word, developed from the core meaning of 'gratia' as 'that which is pleasant, agreeable'.

'Ars gratia artis' is occasionally criticized as not being good Latin. It is however perfectly sound, parallel to the amply attested ancient expression 'exempli gratia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.242.6 (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Distribution unit possibly dissolved?

It appears that now-sister studio Columbia Pictures has taken over the U.S. theatrical distribution of MGM films released after the Sony takeover such as Into the Blue...Ranma9617 22:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

MGM ends DVD and TV distribution deal with Sony Pictures

http://hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002577675&imw=Y --(trogga) 01:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • What caused that to happen? King Shadeed 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Well, it is true! 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment will release all the MGM flicks, as well as the DVD releases of the future seasons of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis.

Don't forget: MGM relaunched its TV unit after transfering its home entertainment unit from Sony Pictures to 20th. Don-Don 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

MGM movies

There should be a list of all of the movies owned by MGM today. All include United Artists, American International Pictures, Filmways Pictures, The Samuel Goldwyn Company, etc. King Shadeed 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sony

Weren't they bought by Sony a few years ago? --Elven6 12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

About MGM

The company is referred to as either MGM, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., or Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. All of MGM's trademarks are copyrighted under Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. It's best to use that name. King Shadeed 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

MGM, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer etc. are registered trademarks of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corporation (NOT Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc.)

  • Sony, Comcast et al. own MGM Holdings, Inc.
    • MGM Holdings, Inc. owns Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
      • Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. owns Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc.
        • Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. owns Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc. et al.
  • Guess again. They use MGM Studios overall. Check out the MGM website. Little times, they use MGM Lion Corp. On the new Pink Panther movie, it said "The Pink Panther is a trademark of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. King Shadeed 00:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah i work at MGM...it's best to use Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. bucpp12 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You work for MGM? What position do you have for the company? King Shadeed 13:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

State of the article

I have done a general rewrite to address style questions, not content. Feel free to continue that work! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

HDDVD or Blu-Ray?

Which one is MGM siding with? --Elven6 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's owned by Sony, so the choice is clear...--71.235.81.39 03:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

in-short blu-ray exclusive for ever Markthemac 04:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Article confuses me

1. I'm speaking strictly about the USA and not how it works anywhere else: If it's not a co-production between Columbia and MGM (Casino Rayole, Rocky Balboa), Sony Pictures doesn't distribute it? Fox distributes MGM movies, right, or just on video? 2. MGM distributes Weinstein Company movies theatrically, so Fox distributes MGM and MGM distributes Weinstein/Dimension. Doesn't that basically mean Fox puts out Weinstein and Dimension Films for theatres? ChesterG (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Historic Logos

What happened to the historic MGM logos on this page? Mighty copyright again? --  J7n (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dogville comedy shorts 1929–1931

A recent editor inexpertly attempted to add something about MGM's nine Dogville shorts. If somebody with greater experience in Wikipedia's editing style would like to add mention of these, here are some info pages:

HTH. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

The persistent and peculiar vandalism edits of 219.83.106.16 (talk), (and AKA many other previous IP addresses), just seems incredibly odd. Thanks to all those who are vigilant and quickly reverse his/her weird flights of fantasy. Markhh (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Plagerism

This article has lots of problems. A major one is that the content of certain sections appears to have been lifted wholesale from "MGM: When the Lion Roars" (1992). 70.234.203.107 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Something's odd...

The MGM article claims that Paramount has been distributing MGM films and its home entertainment division has been distributing DVD and Blu-ray Disc releases. The Paramount articles deny this. What is wrong with the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.218.175 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Comcast own part of MGM?

One article in Variety dated August 21, 2009, says no. But nearly every other article published in the last four days says Comcast is still part-owner of MGM (see the footnote to the ownership list in the infobox). I also did a brief Google News search on MGM and Comcast from January 1, 2007, to August 19, 2009, and could find no other sources which say Comcast sold its interest in MGM. Based on those findings and the preponderance of evidence, I restored Comcast as a part-owner of MGM in the infobox and addressed the issue in a footnote. If additional sources other than a parenthetical remark in one article can be found which absolutely declare that Comcast sold its interest on such-and-such date, then Comcast should be removed from the ownership list in the infobox (and that information added to the main text of the article). Otherwise, I suggest leaving Comcast in the infobox. - Tim1965 (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What is in the Orion library?

The content of the so-called "Epic Productions Library" -- owned by MGM (but not cited as such) -- allegedly contains films previously owned by Atlantic Releasing, Scotti Brothers Pictures, and Hemdale Film Corporation. One revision to this section of the article claims that all three collections are part of the Orion library. The previous revision to this section indicates that only the Hemdale Film Corporation collection is part of the Orion.

  • The Atlantic Releasing article says that this company was absorbed into PolyGram Filmed Entertainment, and says nothing about "Epic Productions."
  • The Scotti Bros. article says nothing about selling the film division to anyone.
  • Only the Hemdale Film Corp. article says anything about being sold to Orion Pictures.

First off, all this needs citation. Second, I think the original revision ("...Hemdale Film Corporation—itself incorporated into the Orion library.") is probably correct (in that it agrees with the three articles). But, absent any citations, I think the article should avoid any assertion of what belongs in the "Epic Productions library." (I did a very quick search on "Epic Productions," and I frankly do not believe that these three studios' libraries were folded at any time into Epic Productions. Epic Productions was a stand-alone bought up by MGM.) - Tim1965 (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Kerkorian takes over

There are errors in the Kerkorian takes over section. 2001: A Space Odyssey was started and released under the Robert O'Brien administration of MGM. Also Edgar Bronfman Sr. took control in 1968 not 1967. Kerkorian took control in 1969.The full obituary for O'Brien is here <http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/11/business/robert-h-o-brien-93-mgm-president-in-60-s.html>110.67.142.165 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Frank Mancuso was hired before Kerkorian bought the studio back. Ladd's firing was a big controversy and he was able to grab some important rights because of that. I believe it happened around when Parretti was in control or fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.198.230 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ownership

Is MGM really a wholly subsidiary or Private comapany? I looked at the reference at MGM's webpage, and it stated the company is a "independent, privately-held motion picture, television, home video, and theatrical production and distribution company" although it also says that the company is "owned by an investor consortium comprised of Providence Equity Partners, TPG, Sony Corporation of America, Comcast Corporation, DLJ Merchant Banking Partners and Quadrangle Group." An IP keeps disputing over this stating that it is a wholly owned subsidiary. Maybe we need a person that knows all about the company to find out what it really is. -68.219.207.171 (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia Whitewash

MGM is drowning in debt. I came here to find out why. There is zero information. The article leaps from the golly shucks company line about MGM's wonderful new media innovations to the next paragraph, whoops, they're broke. This, "On November 10, 2008, MGM announced that it will release full length films on YouTube." To this, "As of mid-2009, MGM had US$3.7 billion in debt". Nothing in between. Nothing about the string of flops which led them to this juncture, or who is to blame. Where is the story, people?

It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see that what happens to so many wikipedia articles about big companies has happened here. Company shills use meat puppets to wikilawyer anything negative about the company out. What's left is a long yawn, an artificially sweetened pablum unfit for adult consumption. I'm so sick of this shit.75.84.122.117 (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look to the mid-1970s when they sold off the back-lots in Culver City, California and the related studio archives sale where props and costumes were sold off in a legendary multi-day sale. 33L71488 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Check out the parent corporation, MGM Holdings, looking at the operating company for financial information isn't the best bet. --Spshu (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

MGM Resorts

Logical or what? Shouldn't MGM Resorts buy MGM/UA and UA Theaters and MNTV? I think so. Apple8800 (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Page Split

I think the section reguarding the bankruptcy should be split from this article and given its own page, seeing as though it is quite long. This would make it easier for some people to read this section, and the article in general. --Klltr (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

HQ

http://www.puccinellidigital.com/bennit2/project.php?id=1 is supposed to show photos of the old Santa Monica HQ, but the links are broken WhisperToMe (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Condition

When I started working on this article several years ago it was in pretty good shape. The sourcing was immaculate and the contributions were right on point. I guess I should have kept a better eye on it because now it is all over the place! There are sections in this article that do not have one source. There are parts that are written totally in WP:POV. This article needs to be brought back to standards. I will give the contributing editors time to make the proper sources and cites and if I don't see this taking place than I will begin to remove everything that is not properly sourced per Wikipedias rules of editing and sourcing. We cannot just add things to this article without having the proper sources to back it up! Thank you --Canyouhearmenow 11:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Five years later and is still looks like shit, lots of NPOV and improper citations issues. Considering how loudly Wikipedia trumpets about NPOV, you'd think an editor would get off their ass and work on it. This whole article badly needs a rewrite. 2604:6000:6D43:1C00:C5FF:A30E:52A3:C9B6 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Is current MGM a separate company?

There is currently a podcast hosted by a Warner Bros. library archivist. He claims in this episode (skip to 43:09 to hear this statement) that Warner Bros. Entertainment is the legal successor to the original MGM (up to the purchase by Ted Turner and his later dismantling of the assets), while the company currently operating as MGM is a completely separate group using the MGM name and trademarks.

Would this information be worthy of mentioning here? I doubt that would lead to this article being split in two (pre-1986 and post-1986), but this is rather interesting information. Freshh! (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Turner Entertainment Co. (owned by Warner Bros.) was the real MGM, Turner sold United Artists (later known as MGM/UA Communications) and some of MGM's assets back.

This article states that Turner would sell some assets from MGM.

and Turner Entertainment's bloomberg page says it was founded in 1919, the same year the original United Artists (who merged with MGM to form MGM/UA) was founded. 82.50.52.98 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

MGM-Pathé Communications

  • No merge. While the topic of MGM-Pathé is certainly intertwined with those of MGM, UA, Cannon and others, and certainly Kirk Kerkorian was buying and selling MGM over and over again, and Giancarlo Parretti fell into legal issues with his own dealings... but despite that intertwining, when one does a search for MGM-Pathé, scads of significant coverage dealing with the facts of that company comes forth. So much about this ill-fated company would over burden the already overlarge article on MGM, and no matter its history being part of other organizations, WP:ORG is met. Dozens of available sources tell us that as a now-defunct company, we have a topic that passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. IE: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and many more.[8][9][10] The MGM article is big and if anything from MGM-Pathe were to be moved here, it would likely be removed per WP:UNDUE. The topic of MGM-Pathe has been specifically covered by number of notable observers. It is best that it have its own article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Material owned by MGM article section

This could be in the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer&diff=544643181&oldid=544640617 

===Material owned by MGM===
  1. ^ "Coma / Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer." (PA0000009993 / 1978-07-27). United States Copyright Office.
  2. ^ A few Compass International-distributed films are included in the list of SGC's assets in this page and its companions, including Laserblast

Sequence of sections

The 'Overview' section seems redundant. That is what the lede is meant to do. Most of the current Overview section is represented in the History, and doesn't need duplicating. I would suggest deleting the Overview section, and moving the 'Logo and mottoes' section quite a long way down the page, leaving the article to start appropriately with 'History'. Valetude (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. The Overview section sould be merged with the lead section. El Matador (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC).

Tense

Much of the tense is wrong in the history section. It looks like it was written during the period when MGM was having solvency issues. It now needs to be corrected. Enigmamsg 21:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bankruptcy Chapter directly affects the Stargate Franchise

It's been well known that when MGM went through its bankruptcy, one thing that was directly affected was TV-Series Stargate Universe, the bankruptcy effectively ended the show after 2 seasons with many viewers in displease, since then there has been small battles here and there between MGM officials and past actors for Stargate. One case is where, during a Comic-Con convention, Joe Flanigan (the actor for John Shephard in Stargate Atlantis) had expressed much feeling to buy out the Stargate Franchise, but was rejected by MGM.

There may have also been multiple other instances where actors or series staff attempted to buy it, this is the only one I know about off-hand.

Just thought this was something worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zirkon0999 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide sources for its inclusion. Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits Needed

While this article is locked, collect needed edits here.

- Opening section, "As of 2017, MGM co-produces, co-finances and co-distributes a majority of its' films with Sony Pictures Entertainment" needs removal of extraneous apostrophe on the end of the word "its" Jeff Worthington (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2017

97.93.117.124 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Glickman is the president of the film division. It says so right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Glickman

Already done JTP (talk • contribs) 00:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer&diff=768453147&oldid=768451751

Please remove Motion Picture Group from the infoboxs' Division list. Also, my name is Vahan Nisanian. 97.93.117.124 (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

. Not supported by sources:

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

Can someone change this link from:

"In 2000, MGM changed the way it distributed its products internationally. MGM had until that time distributed its films internationally through [[United International Pictures]] (UIP), a joint venture of MGM, Universal Pictures, DreamWorks Pictures and Paramount Pictures. UIP was accused by the [[European Union]] of being an illegal [[cartel]],<ref>{{cite news|last=Willcock |first=John |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/people--business-movie-moves-1072937.html |title=People & Business: Movie moves - Business - News |publisher=The Independent |date=February 24, 1999 |accessdate=2014-07-20 |location=London}}</ref> and effective November 2000 MGM severed its ties with UIP and distributed films internationally through [[20th Century Fox]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://online.wsj.com/article/SB930006963691596498.html?mod=googlewsj |title=Fox Enters Deal With MGM On International Distribution - WSJ |publisher=Online.wsj.com |date=June 22, 1999 |accessdate=2014-07-20 |first=Bruce |last=Orwall}}</ref>"

To:

"In 2000, MGM changed the way it distributed its products internationally. MGM had until that time distributed its films internationally through [[United International Pictures]] (UIP), a joint venture of MGM, Universal Pictures, DreamWorks Pictures and Paramount Pictures. UIP was accused by the [[European Union]] of being an illegal [[cartel]],<ref>{{cite news|last=Willcock |first=John |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/people--business-movie-moves-1072937.html |title=People & Business: Movie moves - Business - News |publisher=The Independent |date=February 24, 1999 |accessdate=2014-07-20 |location=London}}</ref> and effective November 2000 MGM severed its ties with UIP and distributed films internationally through [[20th Century Fox]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB930006963691596498 |title=Fox Enters Deal With MGM On International Distribution - WSJ |publisher=Online.wsj.com |date=June 22, 1999 |accessdate=2014-07-20 |first=Bruce |last=Orwall}}</ref>"

please? It redirects to the sign up/subscribe page. 103.21.166.13 (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the correction. 97198 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer. 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) 06:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Renaming

On 2017-05-31, this article was renamed from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (with hyphen) to Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer (with endash). As far as I can see this was done without any prior discussion. It had been stable at the old name for years. My inclination is to reinstate the old title. There's guidance at WP:ENDASH:

Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities.

  • Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea
  • Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities
  • John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families

Any objections? Colonies Chris (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Per the page you cited: WP:DASH. This isn't a compound name of a single person like a woman who hyphenates her name when she gets married. This is a conjunction of two separate entities. "Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound.: the Seifert–van Kampen theorem; the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory, the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme (developed by Seeliger and Donker-Voet), Comet Hale–Bopp or just Hale–Bopp (discovered by Hale and Bopp)" (for those who can't tell, those latter examples all use ndashes). This isn't a person who was renamed but a company whose name is a conjunction of two distinct names. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The closest example to this case is Wilkes-Barre. It's a single entity, but it's named after two people. MGM has the same form. It's not a conjunction of separate entities, it's a single entity named after two people. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris: How is it not like the ones listed above? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The guideline says the use of endash applies to "attributive compounds"; all the examples you quoted are exactly that. But MGM is not - there is no noun for which the conjoined names are an attribute. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris: Yes, there is: "Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Studios Inc." That's the name of the company. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
But the title of the article is not Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Studios Inc., it's just the commonly used short form Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. In any case the situation is rather similar to Thừa Thiên-Huế Province, which is a single province in Vietnam originally compounded from Thừa Thiên Province and Huế Province, but we refer it now using a hyphen because it has an established separate identity from its components - as does MGM (and unlike Minneapolis–Saint Paul, for example, which refers to two distinct cities jointly, not one city with a joint name.) Colonies Chris (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

←Yes, there is a "Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Studios Inc." and "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc." plus more subsidiaries that uses the full spelled out names (14) plus additional (27) parent and subsidiaries that only use MGM letters. But that just an aside. The use of endash would be used like "The Hobbit film series was a MGM—WB production." MGM cannot even use Goldwyn separately as after they acquired Goldwyn Jr.'s first company being forced to renaming it G2 Films as Samuel Goldwyn Jr. had the rights to the name from his father. Spshu (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  •  Moved -- AlexTW 09:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. 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) 03:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. 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) 18:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2017

Can anyone please add the MGM logo back in the infobox? 201.209.186.196 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The image was deleted. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I know, but can you reupload it? 169.159.129.9 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
You can upload it here by yourself if you have it.  — Ammarpad (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2018

JohnHenry666 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to edit the MGM page.

 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. It's not enough to ask if you can edit. You have to explain what you wish to add to the page.Crboyer (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2018

Delete "Once the largest, most glamorous, and most revered studio in Hollywood" because its unnecessary, opinionated filler. Zesticular (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2019

This needs to be added in the History section:

"On February 5, 2019, Annapurna and MGM rebranded and expanded their US distribution joint venture as '''United Artists Releasing''', marking another revival of the United Artists brand, with the distribution teams of Annapurna and Orion Pictures (whose films will be added as well) joining the venture and former [[Screen Gems]] executive Pam Kunath joining as COO in addition to the heads of MGM and Annapurna joining the board of directors. The decision was made to coincide with the UA brand's 100th anniversary, and has plans to release 10-14 films a year through the new label, including the domestic release of ''[[Bond 25]]'' (which marks a reunion between the UA brand and the James Bond franchise in two decades).<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ellison |first1=Megan |title=MGM, Annapurna Team for Distribution Label United Artists Releasing |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mgm-annapurna-team-distribution-label-united-artists-releasing-1182888 |website=The Hollywood Reporter |accessdate=6 February 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref>https://variety.com/2019/film/news/annapurna-mgm-united-artists-releasing-1203128801/</ref><ref>https://deadline.com/2019/02/mgm-annapurna-joint-venture-united-artists-releasing-banner-1202550085/</ref>"

174.18.31.160 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Done, in modified form. With a section for UAR at United Artist where details could be expand upon with out duplication at all three companies' wiki pages, I cut down your text. Spshu (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Edits HugoSpin (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2019 (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. Roadguy2 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Warner Bros. / Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer deal

Nothing a information about Warner Bros. to buy the rights of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.222.84.72 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Warner Bros. didn't directly buy the MGM library. Turner bought MGM, selling the studio but keeping the library, and later Turner and Warner merged. Trivialist (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply to User:Trivialist Yes, but imagine if Warner Bros. DID announce plans to purchase ALL of MGM. --2601:2C0:C280:21A0:D8FB:DC79:6FC0:D915 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a fanfiction wiki, this is an encyclopedia. Trivialist (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2019

Please apply the changes in this diff: [11] 5.104.90.107 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ~ RhinosF1(chat - live)/(contribs) 22:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Acquired libraries

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer only owns the international and domestic home video rights to the pre-July 1994 Castle Rock Entertainment film library, because it was a part of Nelson/Sultan's back catalog. The copyrights as well as theatrical rights and television library are legally held by WarnerMedia. 67.45.112.234 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

"Theatres" spelling is wrongly written as "theaters" ArchikGuha (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

All now switched over to the American spelling, "theater". – Thjarkur (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Might I suggest that we change some text in the acquired libraries section? I found an article concerning the Epic library and it seems Crédit Lyonnais and later PolyGram Filmed Entertainment only had the video rights to the Castle Rock titles. MGM inherited the video rights and they don't technically own them the copyright was retained by Castle Rock Entertainment which itself is a subsidiary of WarnerMedia so they technically are Warner Bros. titles. 67.45.113.82 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. For instance, please feel free to provide a link to the article concerning CDR's Epic library to support this edit request. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/Archive_1&oldid=1137005352"