Talk:Biograph Studios

Information frrom Tuska book

To editors; On the fire at the old Biograph Studios, the State of New Jersey had stated that it burned down in 1964. However, since I am not in NJ I will seek verification on that from the State.

On the purchase of the studio and film lab, the author of the book Jon Tuska, The Vanishing Legion: A History of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935 was contacted by me throught the publisher McFarland & Company. He stated the actual "Film Laboratory" and part of the studio facilities itself was purchased by Consolidated Film Industries, Inc. I have re-corrected the information. If verification is needed, the author can be contacted through the publisher McFarland & Company for verification since there was some ambiguity on this.

Thanks,

Roger the red

Hello editors: I noticed one of the editors changed the information from what the author of the book Jon Tuska, The Vanishing Legion: A History of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935 (Publisher McFarland & Company) had told me. The new informatrion is different from the first information that was not correct, but the newer edited version is still not accurate. Apparently, there is a confusion or miscommunication that needs to be solved from what I understand on Wikipedia, through this discussion page. I have reverted the information back to what was told to me by the author, Jon Tuska. Any editors that wish to confirm the information and changes I have included are welcome to contact the publisher of The Vanishing Legion: A History of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935 - McFarland & Company, to contact Mr. Tuska. Before any other changes are made, I will be happy to discuss them on this discussion page with any editors, to keep an open line of communication, and the information correct as possible. However, before changes are made, they should be posted up for discussion, agreement, and verification.

Thanks again, and let's make Wikipedia have a great future.

Roger the red

Consolidated Film Industires acquired all, not just part, of the Biograph Company in 1928 by buying a majority of its shares. Trade in Biograph stock occurred through the 1920s until 1928. After 1928, nothing. No one disputes that CFI's only interest in acquiring Biograph was for access to its studios and lab. But Empire Trust owned the physical plant, and did not sell those. What CFI acquired was access as manager, not as owner. To quote from The New York Times in 1939:

The studio, which is owned by the Empire Trust Company, has been operated for seven years by Biograph, a subidiary of Consolidated Film Industries, Inc.

(The studio closed after the stock market crash in 1929, and was reopened in 1932.) My sources are film professor Russell Merritt of the University of California-Berkeley, who has written much on Biograph; and Keith R. Pillow, public relations director of Thompson, CFI's current owner. — Walloon 03:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Walloon, Thank you for your input, and I don't mean at all to obsess on this one item, for there are other items I need to concentrate on. I need to research five different studio histories, so pressed for time. But, we need to find a verifiable source that the stocks were bought by Consolidated Film Industries. "Verifiable", that is that it is documented in writing somewhere according to Wikipedia standards, and as you know, with all due respect, not just said it is a fact by word of mouth (Even though, I do respect a Professor's insight, and yours). I understand that the New York Times in 1939 stated "The studio, which is owned by the Empire Trust Company, has been operated for seven years by Biograph, a subidiary of Consolidated Film Industries, Inc." but with the other printed sources, it points to the fact that the New York Times was referring to "Biograph" as the studio facilites, not the company itself. It uis ambiguos, and we need some citing of print for verification that the stocks were sold to Consolidated Film Industries. I contacted Jon Tuska (Author - The Vanishing Legion: A History of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935) as well as Technicolor's legal department (Which owned Consolidated Film Industries since 2001) and from my research, there was no record of stock being bought by Consolidated Film Industries. Also, this was verified by Mr. Tuska that it was the studio and laboratory facilities that were purchased by Consolidated Film Industries. If there is verifiable record of that, then so be it, and should be included in the article. On that note, I will contact Keith R. Pillow (CFI) and contact Mr. Tuska again and get further information and documentation. In the meantime, all relevant print sources concur that Consolidated Film Industries purchased the studio/film laboratory facilties itself. Again, I am up to anything, but I am a fact-finder as I know you are. What we can do is I will still include my findings in the article, but be as neutral as possible, and we can put it up for "Peer Review". That way we will be able to draw in any verifiable information that is not included and see what happens.

Thanks,

--Roger the red 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Editors! One more thing that totally slipped my mind! We need to get verification on when the studio burned down. If "Walloon" has input on this, that will be very helpful.

Thanks again,

--Roger the red 19:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

In the meantime, all relevant print sources concur that Consolidated Film Industries purchased the studio/film laboratory facilties itself.

Actually, no relevant print sources say that CFI purchased the studio and film laboratory. If CFI bought the studio and laboratory, then how could the studio be owned by Empire Trust Company, as the New York Times reported in 1939? Just what did Empire Trust Company own? How much more plain could it be put than, "The studio, which is owned by the Empire Trust Company . . . ." How could Empire Trust later transfer the management of the studio from Biograph to its subsidiary Actinograph if it didn't own it? Here is what Jon Tuska himself wrote on p. 47 of The Vanishing Legion: A History of Mascot Pictures, which you reference above:

By 1927, after several more mergers, [Herbert Yates] organized Consolidated Film Industries. Yates knew from tobacco that in the process of intelligent and careful mergers, the controlling company in time could remove former managements, the takeover being complete. His son, Herbert Yates, Jr., went to work in accounting for what was left of the Biograph Company for which pioneer director D.W. Griffith had once worked. The company, indeed, continued to reissue Griffith's old films throughout the silent era and leased space for new productions at the Biograph Studio in the Bronx. Presently, Yates gained a majority interest in the firm and in 1928 his son left Biograph and came to work for his father at Consolidated.

Notice the talk of removing former managements, and gaining a majority interest in the firm. This was the purchase of the entire Biograph Company. If you will follow transactions of Biograph Company stock in The New York Times, you will see the the last stock sale was in 1928, then stock sales in Biograph cease. The New York Times, Professor Russell Merritt, and Ron Maggliozi at the Museum of Modern Art all concur that the Biograph Studio itself was owned by Empire Trust Company, with the Biograph Company assigned to manage it. — Walloon 20:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Walloon, I agree that the Biograph Studio itself was owned by Empire Trust Company as one of the assets, with Biograph "Management" assigned to manage it. There is no dispute that the Empire Trust company took over Biograph Company's assets as a creditor. and did retained Biograph's "Management" to "Run" the studio and laboratory facilities. But then the Empire Trust company liquidated Biograph's assets (Including the Studio/Film Laboratory) and the company ceased to exist in 1928, hence the last stocks being traded mentioned in the New York Times. This is when CFI came in. Otherwise it would have stated stocks and properties would have been transferred. It is common knowledge in order for one company to merge with another, assets and intellectual and real properties have to be transferred from the sub-mergee company to the merger (Acquiring) company. Majority Interest in the "Firm" is ambiguous at best, and from my understanding, Mr. Tuska meant the Biograph "Studio" as the "Firm". But I will look into that further as well.

I will do more research to find out more on all of it, but it is getting obsessively deep on that end, and we can leave it at that for now. Moving on, I do need to find verification on when the actual Biograph Studios and Film Laboratory in the Bronx burned down. Our editors here say it was 1980, then I hear from NYC it was 1964. We need to get verification on this. This subject also is just as important as who owned what 80 years ago.

Thanks for the input!

--Roger the red 21:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a feature article with photograph in The New York Times in 1969 about the filming of the movie John and Mary (with Dustin Hoffman and Mia Farrow) at the Biograph Studios in the Bronx. If you have online access to ProQuest Historical Newspapers, you should be able to find the NYT article. — Walloon 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Walloon: Thank you for that. I'm not questioning that it burned down in 1980, I just want to get a verified source for it. Would this source (ProQuest Historical Newspapers) have that?

Thanks again,

--Roger the red 01:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Bronx Blaze Damages Old Biograph Studios," The New York Times, July 9, 1980, p. B4.

A suspicious three-alarm fire burned out of control for more than an hour yesterday in a vacant full-block Bronx building that once housed the Biograph Film Studios, fire officials said.

Available online at ProQuest Historical Newspapers, which most libraries subscribe to. — Walloon 02:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Walloon: Thank you! I will post the reference to it. Appreciate your help.

--Roger the red 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Information

Editors; the reason I am adding this, from American Mutoscope and Biograph Company article, is to its relevancy to this article which I am most interested in. the discussion is about the actual company transference, or the studio laboratory transference to [Consolidated Film Industries] a company absorbed by [Technicolor] Inc. Bare with me, since this is more of a trivial fact finding mssion, but nevertheless one that needs to be addressed. the following was posted from our discussion on the [American Mutoscope and Biograph Company] artcile, discussion page:

I was in a hurry and forgot to post this. I made minor corrections on information in this article so that the Biograph Studios correct information matched the information on this article. From time to time I will be adding links and doing articles on the founders, actors, etc. Thanks to all the editors.

--Roger the red 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All printed evidence (and I've supplied it) says that CFI acquired the Biograph Company itself, not just its labs and studio (which were owned by Empire Trust Company). You still haven't provided evidence of your claim that CFI acquired only the Biograph studio and labs. As it is now, the article has footnotes with sources that contradict statements made in the body of the article. Unless you provide the evidence to back up your claim, the article will be reverted to state that CFI acquired the entire Biograph Company. — Walloon 23:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Walloon; I don't want to waste anyones time, nor stay on a subject that is nothing more than merely a paragraph in history. However, we do need to make sure things are correct. In response to your statement(s) the evidence of CFI acquiring only the Biograph studio and labs is in all the references. All information supplied shows the studio/laboratory facilites were acquired by CFI after the acquisition from Empire Trust cCmpany (Except for the footnote in Tuska's book)and no mention of transference of intellectual/real properties from the actual company, only the studio/laboratory facilities itself that were purchased. I supplied the information and utilized your references as well, including the New York Times and Jon Tuska's book.

I will insert all the items of reference again:

(a) The last trade of Biograph stock was reported by The New York Times on December 27, 1928, p. 39. (No transference of Biograph Company properties, intellectual or otherwise, or any mention of intellectual or real property transference to CFI.)

(b) "Screen News Here and in Hollywood", The New York Times, September 27, 1939, p. 29. Empire Trust Company, one of Biograph's creditors, had acquired the Bronx Studio, but retained Biograph to manage it. (Again, in italics, mentions "Bronx Studio" nothing of any acquisition or transference of properties from company).

(c)Jon Tuska's book; The Vanishing Legion: A History of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935, 42, Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0786407492. (This mention of "Biograph" in the book was explained to me by the Author).

Again, no records indicating any kind of transference of intellectual and or real properties. The only items mentioned were the actual studio and laboratory facilities. On the clariification of Tuska's book, would I need to call him again and get a letter from him stating what he told me. Also, on your end, a verification of transfer of ownership or merging of intellectual properties , real properties etc. from the old company itself to CFI is needed (This is of course excluding the actual studio/laboratories which were purchased by CFI).

If we can find that the actual company was transferred, or transference of intellectual/real properties to CFI, then there is no problem (And, I have no problem) in changing it back to your original version. On another note, unfortunately, I do not have alot of time, the lecture circuit has been busy, so I cannot give full attention to Wikipedia on a daily basis. But, I will be checking in as frequently as possible, so we can take time on this small subject. Again, I am interested more in old studio facilities than this article.

Thanks,

--Roger the red 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Contributions and Wikipedia

Any and all editors are encouraged to supply us with any pertanent information so I may move onto editing more important studio articles. One added personal note, at this point I could care less whether it was the Biograph company or studio facilites that CFI took over. I just like keeping facts straight. I also enjoy collaberating knowledge with others for people to freely access. If some members are this detirmined about proving a small point, even their point, then let it be so. I truly have better things to do, and it has posed some doubt over the purpose of Wikipedia, which to me was to freely contribute and to collaborate with others for the contribution of purposeful knowledge.

Thanks,

--Roger the red 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion

As I see this has been resolved. But my opinion is that unless there are verifiable sources that indisputably show ownership, mention that fact in the article. Maybe someone else will see it and know the answer.Eagle talk 05:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Although, I checked it out on all undisputable facts. I am glad I am done with it, it was a headache. You should go to the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company article, and go to "Talk Archives", and see what went on there, it was unbelievable.

--Roger the red 23:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

References

On the inclusion "Empire Trust later assigned management of the property to one of its own subsidiaries, The Actinograph Corp., which held it until 1948.[7]", with reference from "Ron Maggliozi, Museum of Modern Art, New York" there is no sourced reference in print or on the web. Please provide a verifiable source reference and if not, please remove the the inclusion. Thanks, --Roger the red 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Magliozzi made the statement in an e-mail in April 2006. He can be contacted in the FIlm Dept. at New York's Museum of Modern Art if anyone has any questions. Thanks. — Walloon 21:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Now is that considered by Wikipedia a verified published source? I am just trying to clean up everything for verifiable references and sources. According to "Sources" it needs to be a reputable source min a published form. Even some webpages are not accepted as verifiable sources. Is there anything in the "Sources" section that condones an e-mail as a reference source? If there is that would be fine and let me know. Thanks, --Roger the red 05:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I notice above that you used correspondence with author Jon Tuska as a source to edit the article ("If verification is needed, the author can be contacted through the publisher McFarland & Company for verification since there was some ambiguity on this"), but then did not list this correspondence with Mr. Tuska in any source note. I'm a believer that even a partial source note is better than none. I am revising the Magliozzi note to include contact information. — Walloon 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add that the only contact I had was by phone to Mr. Tuska and cannot give that information out due to privacy respect to him. However, he may be contacted through his publisher McFarland & Company.

Also, I thought that usually veirified "Source" was an already published source. However, no big issue. If a source can be a verified "Source" without being published, but verified through a letter or e-mail, that's fine. --Roger the red 11:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)