Talk:Republic Pictures

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Blackhawk Films

Typing in Blackhawk Films into wikipedia one is directed to the Republic Pictures page yet there is nothing about Blackhawk on the page. Blackhawk Films was a company in the 1960's to early 1980's that released mainly vintage silent films on to the home movie market in 16mm, 8mm, and/or Super 8 film and it would be nice for them to have their own page on wikipedia. I believe Republic did buy the company out in the mid 1980's and immediately got out of the film market and released some of their titles on video. (Teeb 05:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So basically, Republic Pictures now belongs to Paramount Pictures? --68.37.116.234 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Pictures is more of a sibling to Republic Pictures now, both of which are owned by Viacom. (Electricbolt 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Did Republic Pictures have reciprocal arrangements with the major studios?

1)In an interview, Bob Clampett said that after he made his "It's a Grand Old Nag" cartoon in Trucolor, Herbert Yates said he didn't want any cartoons as he had arrangements with other studios to provide them for showing with a Republic Program (does anyone recall which studio?) 2)Some Australian film posters for Republic Pictures have "Released through 20th Century Fox" printed on them.

Is it possible that Republic was encouraged to stay with 'B Pictures' to avoid competing with the major studios?Foofbun (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studio City Television Productions same or different from Hollywood Television Service?

I've noticed that Studio City Television Productions has the same logo setup as Hollywood Television Service when I saw Stories of the Century. Is Studio City Television Productions the same company as Hollywood Television Service or is that a different company from Studio City, California? King Shadeed 16:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it is. It's the television production arm. King Shadeed 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Republic Pictures. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160110015340/http://republicpictures75th.com/ to http://www.republicpictures75th.com

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion of a split between all three Republic companies

I'm suggesting an idea for a three-way split between all three Republic Pictures businesses because they are not related company-wise, and all function differently.

I've started a draft for a separate page for the 1984-2010's era Republic which will replace the National Telefilm Associates page, which I am planning for a name change to "Republic Entertainment" (which is currently a redirect to Republic Pictures) as that was the final name this incarnation of Republic used.

While for the Paramount-era Republic, I think once enough sources are found, we could make a page on that as well. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's seem like good idea. However, let's keep the same article page for Republic Pictures for simplicity sake. Afterall, it is an reestablishment (e.g. Castle Rock Entertainment for Warner Bros.). It was once a mini-major and the library still exist within Paramount Pictures.

All we have to do is restructure the article. 2601:152:4400:7B60:D8B6:41D9:191D:FF49 (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Republic Pictures should be referred to as a brand that has been used over the years. The American International Pictures and Screen Gems article deals with how the parent film company changed the purpose of the brands several times over the years very well without the need to complicate things. As for NTA: That company is notable enough to stand on its own as an article, given many reasons (parent company of attempted fourth TV network in the U.S., early syndicator of Republic film catalogue, etc). I don't see the point of redirecting NTA to Republic? Misterpither (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want point out the book "The Republic Pictures Checklist: Features, Serials, Cartoons, Short Subjects and Training Films of Republic Pictures Corporation, 1935-1959" Paperback – Illustrated, May 19, 2006 by Len D. Martin (Author) so the author of that book doesn't seem to consider pre-1960s and post-1960s Republic Pictures to b the same. It seems to me that if there is a split two articles instead of three would be enough DoctorHver (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to replace the NTA article. A case could be made to rename it, but the article and its edit history should be preserved.

As for the 2023–present incarnation, I don't think it has any independent notability worthy of a separate article yet. All the major studios have multiple labels for specialized uses like genre pictures or acquired art films. But until it's actually so used, the label isn't a distinct entity. oknazevad (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]