Talk:DreamWorks Pictures

It would probably be quite interesting to see the box office numbers for each film. Should an additional column be inserted into the table? 62.202.32.88 (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

HOW DO THESE MOVIE COMAPNIES WORK WITH BLU RAY AND HD-DVD. WHAT IS THE BUSINESS MODEL ?? PLEASE ANSWER .............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.190.186 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

article says Dreamworks are pub of Ratchet and Clank game, but Amazon says it is Sony

• It is definitely false information. Spyro is also not owned or developed by Dreamworks. Spyro is owned by Universal Studios. While Ratchet & Clank is a registered trademark of Sony and developed by Insomniac Games. No affiliation with Dreamworks. --Chill Pill Bill 01:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Come on people. If you just did a little Google search on Ratchet & Clank, then you know the Dreamworks connection is false. Just look at the official website for Ratchet & Clank, and look at the bottom of the page. All the copyrights, ownerships, and development are by Sony and Insomniac Games. Insomnaic made both the original Playstation 1 Spyro games and Ratchet & Clank but they're no way releated to Dreamworks. --Chill Pill Bill 01:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel that these lists of DreamWorks films should be in chronological rather than alphabetical order... shouldn't they? --Ihope127 8 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)

What is the obvious reason they haven't worked with MGM? And haven't they effectively done so anyway by working with Sony Pictures?

I actually sat in a entertainment law class in law school back in 1998 when a movie exec. from MGM came it to speak with us. I've been looking for my notes and cannot find his damn name. Anyway, at that time, there was bad blood between the companies. I will continue to look through my notes. If I can't find them, then I will pull this notation. If I find it, I'll quote the guy. His problem not mine. He also gave good reasons as to why he thought the venture would fail. Which it did. I really need to find my notes.

Shark Tale 2 has not been "announced." The possibility was only discussed before Shark Tale came out. So, I am removing it...

Regarding Disney co-productions, they've done some more recently than Dragonslayer and Popeye: Chronicles of Narnia and some others with Walden Media, the Pixar features before the merger. And Miramax does them relatively frequently: Cinderella Man with Universal, The Hours with Paramount, Once Upon a Time in Mexico with Sony, The Aviator with Warner Bros., and more recent ones with The Weinstein Company. —tregoweth (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Removed from article: "As for DreamWorks' television library, it is expected that CBS Paramount Television, the successor-in-interest to Paramount's television division now owned by CBS Corporation, will take over the TV rights to the shows."

I removed this because I don't think its correct. Viacom/Paramount bought Dreamworks in 2006 after the 2005 split of Viacom/CBS, so it does not make sense. I actually remember one of the rationales for Paramount buying Dreamworks was to get a TV Unit... If there is a cite for this please add it back into the article. --Cliffb 10:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should the movies for Dreamworks animation that were produced after the spinoff be mentioned on this page? I think we're getting a bit redundant by listing them here. —Cliffb 06:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No they shouldn't. They are two seperate companies and listed as it is is very confusing. 90.209.250.118 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

agree, totally separate companies post-2004. These shouldn't be listed in this article riffic (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Keeping everything DWA related post-2004 is doing nothing but confusing users. 75.84.123.169 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I came to this article looking for information about DreamWorks' erstwhile bid to transform the Playa Vista development into their own studio lot, the environmental outcry over the planned project, and the financial reasons for its failure to come to fruition. Can someone add some details to a new section of this article? Thanks! Robert K S 11:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's a bit odd that Aardman isn't mentioned with connection to Flushed Away, considering that it was largely their film. Esn 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Shrek the Third is not more successful than Shrek 2. Correct?

No. Shrek the Third has so far only grossed 400 million, 200 in the US and 200 elsewhere but Shrek 2 grossed over 900 million worldwide. I changed it.

72.49.205.8 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whoever keeps changing the dreamworks highest grossing film, please stop and look at the following link: ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?studio=dreamworks.htm ) that clearly shows that Shrek 2 is the most successful film by that studio.

The Modern Prometheus 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

indeed! a better site, though, is http://www.noblemind.com/toptenlists/Highest_Grossing_Movies_of_All-Time, you will see shrek 2 as the highest grossing DWKS film.

The last line in the "Trivia" section indicates the theme song for Shrek Goes Forth. Doesn't this seem like Shrek trivia, more than Dreamworks? Does this belong on this page? 12.69.202.2 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)DylanReply

Is there any evidence of Dreamworks making a movie about Count Duckula beyond 2009? 82.4.79.173 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why is the studio logo represented in shades of purple? It's always been blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.121 (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, where did the comment about the Neverland Ranch logo originate? It says "Some say" but does not cite anyone. Is this just hearsay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OgreKiller (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anybody care to write what SKG stands for in DreamWorks SKG? Or does nobody know? Or does it not stand for anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niwdog (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you'd care to read the article, it says what SKG stands for. Next time, instead of looking for others to give you the answer, try looking for it on your own. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article formerly stated that Dreamworks' most successful film was Shrek 2, which made $441 million dollars. This may have been true when the source provided([1]) was written, but it no longer is; the article on Shrek 3 states that it made $798,958,162. I'm not sure if that's their highest-grossing film now, or if it's something else, but it's definitely not Shrek 2 anymore. I have removed the statement; if anyone knows what it should be, they can re-add it. Robofish (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really good at "editing" on Wiki... I tried, but my edit got rejected. So after some searching around, I thought I would try this, and maybe someone who knows what they are doing can fix this!!

At the bottom of the Dreamworks page, it lists "links"... one of those links is for a supposed "fan site"... but that is NOT a fan site. I went to it out of curiosity and found that it was not related. Luckily I used a fake phone number and email adress to get through until it wouldn't let me go any further. But as far as I got, it is obvious that it is a SCAM site that pretends to offer you a "prize/reward" after completing a bunch of "offers" in different "levels" like "level 1, 2, 3 & 4... or silver level, gold level, or platinum level"... as with all of these sites, they just gather your info (phone, address, email, etc) and get you to sign up for things you shouldn't or normally wouldn't, and usually they sell all your info, so you get slammed with spam, and possibly other issues!

So in my opinion, that link should be removed completely, or have a note added that it is FALSE/FRAUDULENT and say that it has nothing to do with Dreamworks, or it's fans! Again, I attempted to do this, but it was rejected as "negative"... like DUH, it IS negative, the link is a scam and I am trying to warn people! I hope someone who knows their way around Wiki can help with this! I hate seeing people get in trouble with those websites, and I really hate people putting fake info in order to trick people! 72.193.194.214 (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that the website is nonsense. I've removed it. Thanks for the heads-up! Hope you'll stick around and edit some more. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Joseph: King of Dreams is missing: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264734/ --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a direct-to-video movie produced by the animation unit. It doesn't belong here.

Spshu claims that a source indicates that a new DreamWorks is a new company. Please show us this source before edit-warring over a major article like this. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Source: Dreamworks Studios history

"DreamWorks Studios is a motion picture company formed by partners Steven Spielberg, Stacey Snider and The Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group." TM 2010 DREAMWORKS ANIMATION LLC. COPYRIGHT 2010 DW II DISTRIBUTION CO, LLC

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007358.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 cached: "The latest incarnation of DreamWorks launched Monday as principal partners Steven Spielberg and Stacey Snider and India's Reliance Big Pictures announced completion of the first phase of funding for DreamWorks 3.0.

Anil Dhirubhai Ambani, chair of Reliance Big parent company Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, made the joint announcement with Spielberg and Snider."

"It last year provided $325m of equity to fund recreating Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks studio as an independent entity." source: benziga.com

"■No Strings Attached © (2011) DW Studios LLC. All rights reserved." ...

■I Am Number Four © DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All rights reserved." source

"This website is operated by: DW II Distribution Co., LLC on its own or in combination with DW II Production Co., LLC and/or DW II Development Co., LLC" source - No mention of DW Studios LLC.

Bolding is mine. These mostly are the sources directly from the DreamWorks article. None of these indicate that they bought DW Studios LLC from Viacom/Paramount, but create a new company with staff coming over (and getting the use of the name, DreamWorks, from DreamWorks Animation). Spshu (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Distribution companies change names all the time. Disney has had several over the last 25 years, yet it's still The Walt Disney Company. It's not recreated every few years whenever they come up with a new one. Even if it did change, it's still the same company as before, so its history continues through any name change. Further, per WP:COMMONNAME, the most commonly used search name should be used for the article name, and that will still be "DreamWorks". --McDoobAU93 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

What McDoob said - it's still the same Dreamworks. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

But that like sticking John Adams and John Q. Adams, or some other father/son that have a same name in the same article when they are long enough for their own article. I gave a source that show DW Studio (the former DreamWorks) and DW Distribution (the new DreamWorks) exist at the same time and another that shows there is no relationship between the two. That is not the same as Disney just changing their name over the year. The Common Name rule then might just have us name the two companies's articles as DreamWorks (1994) and DreamWorks (2008) and does not support your position. Spshu (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

And I did include a disamg. link to DW Studios from DreamWorks. Spshu (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

John Adams and John Quincy Adams are two individuals, not the same company undergoing a name change, if what you suggest is correct. Again, you're confusing a film distribution company (like Silver Screen Partners II and Silver Screen Partners III, both of which distributed films from The Walt Disney Company) with the actual company. --McDoobAU93 00:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, better example. Check out the article for US Airways ... it began life as US Air, then renamed itself US Airways, then was bought by America West, which decided to keep the US Airways name since it was more well-known than America West was. Even though the entity is now owned by something completely different and is actually a renamed America West, essentially, the WP:COMMONNAME rule has the article name as US Airways, with all the history in one article. --McDoobAU93 00:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Corporations (and possibly LLCs) are seperated "individual" as they are legal persons. Both Adams would be commonly be refered to as "President Adams" these days as most US Presidents are known. McDoobAU93, your Silver Screen Partners example does not make any sense, Silver Screen Partners, LP are 1) limited partnerships, 2) no one commonly refers to them and 3) they don't have any ownership entanglements with Walt Disney and 4) does not parallel the situation here as they were not purchased by Disney, they were movie financing partners. Your US Airways/America West example doesn't parallel the situation here as it was a merger and America West Airlines has its own article previous to merger and is not included in the US Airways article. US Airways Group is commonly not refered to as any but US Airways, but it has it own article. Back to the Walt Disney Company example, there are a host of article where the common name would dictate they all should be in the "Disney" article as we all just refer to it as Disney: The Walt Disney Company, [[List of management of The Walt Disney Company], Walter Elias Disney, Walt Disney Studios, Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, DisneyToon Studios, Disneynature, Disney Music Group, Walt Disney Records, Walt Disney Theatrical, Disney on Broadway, Disney on Ice, Disney Live!, Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, Disney-ABC Television Group, Disney TV, Disney TV Animation, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, Disney Family Movies, Disney Cinemagic, Radio Disney, Disney-ABC Domestic TV, Disney-ABC International TV, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Disneyland Resort, Walt Disney World Resort, Tokyo Disney Resort, Disneyland Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland Resort, Shanghai Disney Resort, Disney Cruise Line, Disney Vacation Club, Adventures by Disney, Disney Regional Entertainment, Walt Disney Imagineering, Walt Disney Creative Entertainment, Disney Consumer Products, Disney Publishing Worldwide, Disney Press, and more. We commonly refer to these and other Disney subsidaries and divisions as Disney and yes some time we use a longer name to refer to a part of Disney. For public reporting purposes (to the SEC), they are all seen as one entity, but yet here they have there own article. In the DreamWorks situation, Dream Works Animation owns the rights to the Dream Works name (in the entertainment field). So the original DreamWorks Studios spun out Dream Works Animation as a public company with the trademark of "DreamWorks". DreamWorks Studios thus rents the use of the name there after. Paramount/Viacom purchase the original DreamWorks Studios (DW Studios). Having problems with Paramount, a new company, DW II Distribution, is formed and gets the right to use DreamWorks Studios from DreamWorks Animation. So, DW Studios and DW II Distribution, exist at the same time! This is a reverse of a merger and more like a spin out except mostly the personal is leaving, but personal leave companies all the time even in mass. CBS and Viacom are case is point as there are articles for Viacom, CBS Corporation, Viacom (1971–2005). Go look at the latest Transformer poster, no mention of "DreamWorks" dispite it being a DW Studios (as DreamWorks Pictures) production that the movie's article indicates. Thus you could say now that as a common name, DW Studios is just Paramount, not DreamWorks. So perhaps a better naming of the 2 seperate and unrelated companies is "DreamWorks (Paramount)" or "DreamWorks (DW Studios)" (for DW Studio in 1998) and "DreamWorks (Relaint)" or "DreamWorks (DW Dist.)" (for DW II Dist. of 2008). Spshu (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

After slogging through all that, I came to the same realization that I had before ... even if there has been an ownership change and temporary name change, it would still be DreamWorks. Yes, the animation division has been spun off, and as such operates separately. It would also be reasonable for separate articles for DreamWorks Records (not sure it's still a going concern, but bear with me) or a DreamWorks Publishing, much as there are several separate operating units of The Walt Disney Company. It seems that there is another potential parallel situation, this time to Chrysler, which again has gone through numerous ownership changes, including a recent point (wait for it ...) when two separate versions existed at once ("old Chrysler" and "new Chrysler"), yet it all comes here to this one article. Again, sorry, but the level of separation you're proposing is too great and potentially too confusing for most readers. --McDoobAU93 16:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

One there has not been a ownership change in the original DW Studios, it is still owned by Paramount. There isn't a spilt as in the case of old & new Chrysler or the old (Motors Liquidation Company, which under this name has an article) and new GM. The old car companies take a new name and are liquated unneed assets to pay off liabilities of that company, they don't continue making autos. DW Studios and DW II Distributions are both making films, so you have an article that IS -- not potentially -- confusing for most readers. I understand what is going on, and the article is confusing to me as it is written. Based on the current article the following question arise-- If Reliant took over DreamWorks why is there no mention of this being a purchase from Paramount? (If you go to the source of course this is all explain as a new company.) Why are there movies being released by DreamWorks through Paramount post-2008 now that DreamWorks post-2008 exclusively releases through Disney?

So under my last compromises of having a disambiguation page at DreamWorks and the 2 DreamWorks Studios have article titles like "DreamWorks Studios (DW Studio)" and "DreamWorks Studio (DW II Distribution) is too confusing for readers? So giving an explaination to them over the difference is too hard? There are ones for Disney, Superboy (which even has a full article with divisions for the various versions with Main|Superboy (Kal-El) for each respective Superboy. Spshu (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK you're arguing your points well, but there's something still bugging me about this, and maybe this will help solve it ... how about posting a proposed lead paragraph for each of your potential articles as you suggest? Since the lead paragraph summarizes each article's contents (establishing what it is), this may answer a question that those who are opposed to this move are probably all asking: how different would these articles be from the others ... in other words, is DW 3 doing something so totally different from DW 2 and DW 1 that it merits a completely different article? --McDoobAU93 19:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

We have a new problem on our hands. User:TheWikiMan95 wants to split the DreamWorks articles between the pre-Reliance and post-Reliance years. Is this split feasible? Freshh (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the split is feasible as the post- and pre- DreamWorks are seperate entities. --Spshu (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

DreamWorks Studios SKG, DreamWorks Pictures and DreamWorks Studios are all names available to both DreamWorks, so breaking up the history section by them is "fudging", ie made up. --Spshu (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

What does a sentence like "Later in the marriage between DreamWorks SKG and Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks SKG became intoxicated and would later have trouble distributing their own films and even fully financing them" even mean?

There's paragraph and paragraph of indecipherable chronology about deals -- and an entire section on who designed the company's logo?

I'd do this if I knew enough about the company...

Djcheburashka (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Someone had changed the Parent company to be NBCUniversal. Please note that NBCUniversal/Comcast has only purchased Dreamworks Animation, a distinctly separate company. Stabani (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dreamwork's did not buy Pacific Data Images till 2000. At first they were partners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.56.40 (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I agree with Spshu's edits. The category Predecessors of NBCUniversal is seemingly for individual companies that comprised NBC Universal when it was first formed. DreamWorks was not owned by the company at the time it was formed, so nothing DreamWorks related should be in there at all. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The only predecessor of NBCUni is MCA and Vivendi Universal as those two companies became NBCUniversal. DreamWorks isn't even an acquisition of NBCUni. DReamWorks is now a part of Ambline Partners and is only distributed by Universal. Spshu (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

• DreamWorks (2021) -2.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply