Talk:BVS Entertainment

Sailor Moon

"Some of the more infamous localization attempts which fueled this hatred include their attempt to create an American version of Sailor Moon. In this particular situation, Saban planned to purchase the rights to the show, animate a new batch of episodes, and blend them with live-action sequences. Certain characters were also changed around; in particular, Sailor Jupiter was to be disabled and use a wheelchair both as an average citizen and as a Sailor. As a result of this, Toei Animation (the production company of the Sailor Moon anime) handed the rights to the series to DiC, who were also bidding for the show at the time." That wasn't Saban, it was Toon Makers and Renaissance Atlantic. [1] GracieLizzie 09:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was all three of them, with TM doing the animated parts, and RA doing the CGI as I understand it. Furthermore, I believe that the reason DIC got it was because they were willing to pay more money.

To add to this: Some kind soul posted the long version of the Saban Sailor Moon demo to YouTube, and the speaker at the beginning says that remaking the show turned out to be more expensive than just buying the existing footage from Toei and having it dubbed. -lee 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

There is an inconsistency in the List of Television Shows and Films. Next to MASKED RIDER (1990s), you have the various Japanese counterparts used to make the show. However, Ryuki is listed there, which it should not be. Kamen Rider Dragon Knight (Kamen Raida Ryuki) is in no way linked to Saban's work on Masked Rider. It is a new series being produced by Adness Entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.38.191 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Spartakus

Saban had nothing to do with Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea - this is a somewhat common mistake (I just corrected it on IMDB), because it was produced in France (as were Mysterious Cities of Gold and Ulysses 31) and Nina Wolmark was an important part of the creative team.

However, it did not involve Saban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.140.53 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Saban Entertainment → BVS Entertainment — Saban Entertainment is now BVS Entertainment — Powergate92 (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Weak oppose. Even assuming that the official name has changed (evidence?), it doesn't follow that the article should automatically be renamed. Adoption of the new name in normal English often takes some time, and sometimes never occurs at all. Also, article lead currently reads as though the article is only about the company when it was officially known by its former name; If that's the topic, then the former name should again be retained. Andrewa (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment Evidence? JPG-GR (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Saban Records is now Saban Music Group

Looks like Saban Records is now Saban Music Group not Saban Entertainment.[2] So i think the Saban Records info should be moved to the Saban Capital Group article. Powergate92Talk 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Saban Entertainment started in 1988 and was a separate company from Saban Records[3] Powergate92Talk 23:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Diplodo(s)

The link for the Diplodo show on the page points to creating a whole new page but there is already a page on Wikipedia for this show: Diplodos Since the article is locked I cannot edit it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.26.3 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Saban Entertainment returns?

Saban Entertainment produces the new Mighty Morphin Power Rangers series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.20.205 (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Why is Saban on former walt disney subsidiaries?, Disney still owns saban, Masked Rider, beetleborgs, digimon, those are all still Disney! And Saban Entertainment is still there, but it's Disney!

Saban Entertainment may be defunct with most of their old stuff owned by Disney, but Disney does not own Saban Brands, which is completely owned by Haim Saban himself, which owns the Power Rangers brand. Saban Entertainment and Saban Brands are two completely different companies with little to no relation from each other (except the former Saban Entertainment being owned by the current Saban Brands owner in the past). 124.171.206.147 (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But disney will! They'll buy everything, really! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.232.88 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Camp Candy

I've seen Cookie Jar's website and it doesn't mention Camp Candy in their library section at all and Disney owns that show because it aired alot on Fox Family even though the channel also aired stuff not owned by Saban like various Rankin-Bass specials but Camp Candy is part of Saban's library and not DiC (when Disney owned DiC after they bought Capital Cities/ABC, it did not include Camp Candy, but when Disney bought Saban, they now own it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.34.84 (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Casper: A Spirited Beginning and Casper Meets Wendy

Why were they removed from the library section? Classic Media owns those films, not Disney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.56.37 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disney partly owns them and Disney will aquire Classic Media as well! Really! Saban Entertainment is not in Saban Brands, it's still in Disney, It's not the one currently making Power Rangers, So Saban Entertainment should not be credited (Yet) for It! Disney will have all Saban soon! You'll see! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.114.250 (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you but just last year DreamWorks Animation bought Classic Media and renamed it to DreamWorks Classics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.42.110 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Power Rangers

Each incarnation of Power Rangers is considered to be a new season of one show. So Mighty Morphin is three seasons, Zeo is the fourth season, Turbo is the fifth and so on. As a result, in the list of shows Saban make, Power Rangers should be grouped together under the one name, rather than listing each season individually as it does here. the new names are merely season identifiers, not the marking of a new show, as with (for example) Star Trek The Next Generation. 219.90.136.61 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: To have the article remain as Saban Entertainment. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Saban Entertainment → BVS Entertainment – This is the current name of the legal entity. The article falsely displayed that Saban Entertainment was dissolved as a legal entity, however, numerous citations just state that The Walt Disney Company renamed the company to BVS Entertainment. They're still the same legal entity Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Spshu (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The company is commonly referred to as Saban Entertainment (WP:COMMONNAME). Google search gets more hits for Saban than BVS. Spshu (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree. The only reason why the company is commonly referred to as Saban Entertainment is because the information on this article gave the assumption that BVS Entertainment and Saban Entertainment are two separate companies. Right now, Saban Entertainment operates under the legal name of BVS Entertainment, therefore, it should be known as such. On Wikipedia, you always give the most current name of the legal entity. Common name is used as the most common means of calling the company, not the most popular. For example, Atlus is legally known as Atlus Co, Ltd., but it's referred to as Atlus because of (WP:COMMONNAME). Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

So, but you can not have WP influencing common name. You do give the full legal name in the lead paragraph. Article doesn't complete give the assumption that BVS and Saban are separate companies - read the article as BVS is a subsection of the history section and spells out BVS is Saban's current name. The ibox and lead ¶ do need to be cleaned up (done). Common name is basically the popular name as that is what is commonly used. In your example, the article is not called the legal name, Atlus Co., Ltd., but Atlus. Note that Bill Clinton's legal name is not used per WP:COMMONNAME. The BVS name was and is not out there like the Saban name in being used on productions, had a logo, etc. --Spshu (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, we need to have input from someone else regarding this in order to reach a consensus. I'm in support for the name change and you're against it. The only reason why I mentioned that Saban Entertainment and BVS Entertainment were given the impression to be separate companies is because I had to clean up the article in order to identify that they were not. Before my edit, the article gave tags that Saban Entertainment as a legal entity was dissolved once it was acquired by The Walt Disney Company. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: Same stand as Spshu. Even more, the article only mentions BVS as its main topic on the last paragraph of the "History" section. What would be the point of remaining it, since people are more aware of Saban Entertainment than BVS Ent., and it's more collectively known with that name? --Bankster (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is like the equivalent of redirecting the Disney or Warner Bros. pages to some obscure technical title average folk would not be privy to. I call the big one bitey (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the majority has decided to stick with Saban Entertainment. I'll end the discussion and maintain the page as is. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal - SIP

I propose that SIP Animation be merged back into Saban Entertainment.

1. I think that the content in the SIP article can easily be explained in the context of Saban Entertainment, and the Saban Entertainment article is of a reasonable size that the merging of SIP will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Part of this, is that it was just Saban's international arm as SIP is from Saban International Paris.
2. Per notability, " Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, " All sources are primary, media or animation news news website, thus not the "world at large". For naysayers about this requirement, I have not hear any other logical test for "world at large".
3. Sources are not significant articles

• • Saban is not an independent source being an owner of SIP.
  • 4rfv.co.uk accepts reader submitted articles
  • Most of the articles are of "Capsule" size, which under film notability Capsule reviews do not count towards notability as they are not significant coverage (WP:NFSOURCES).
  • The article general are more about the TV show then SIP and notability is not (WP:INHERITORG) inheritable from its product. Spshu (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose nomination: The nominator does not seem to have read the article they want merged so much. The main reason for having a separate article is because SIP was an independent company with highly distinct productions after the split from Saban. Even the name of the company is that of the independent studio, not the "international arm" that the nominator is referring to!

The other arguments brought up are quite weak as well – but I am not simply opposing the merger, but this nomination itself. Modernponderer (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I went directly down the article to development my argument, so please strike such baseless attacks. The other arguments are directly from notability requirements thus not weak at all. This is a "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" opposition. Spshu (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

And... you've completely missed the point I'm making once again. WP:IDIDNTREADTHAT? By the way, just looking at references doesn't really count as "reading" an article – though it would certainly explain quite a few of your deletion nominations. Modernponderer (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Telling you I read the article along with the sources is what I did. Reading the sources along with the article "doesn't really count as 'reading' an article". Do not tell me what I did or did not do. Spshu (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose nomination: The reason why I seperated the page from the Saban Entertainment page was because SIP Animation was founded before Saban Entertainment was (As Saban International Paris), and was more of it's own company producing its own shows, and plus it was renamed to gain some independence from it's former owner, so I think the page should stay how it should. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Being its own company (as generally each country a company operates in they have to set up a new business entity/company there) is not grounds for it having its own article. Spshu (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral: @User:Spshu and @User:LTPofficial, while this nomination is still factually incorrect on a fundamental level, I have to say I am no longer opposed to a merger, as I am starting to question the supposed independence of SIP. In particular, What's with Andy? "moving" from Saban to SIP once the former was bought out (with the latter later dropping out entirely) is incredibly suspect for a nominally independent company. Modernponderer (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: User:LTPHarry's recent additions mean that there is probably just enough content to maintain a decent standalone article now.

What do you think, User:Spshu? Can we finally close this? Modernponderer (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree - We had less information at that time. Now we know that SIP has been a 100% owned subsidiary of BVS Entertainment for the last 10 years. It was also apparently never an independent studio. In this case, both Creativite et Developpement and SIP Animation should be combined under this title. 212.252.136.42 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

What about Sensation Animation? 165.140.214.238 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2019

Please apply the changes in this diff: [4] 5.104.90.107 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 16:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Mystic Knights and the 2010 deal

People keep adding the unsourced claim that Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog was part of the Power Rangers-related package "new Saban" bought back from Disney in 2010, and I keep having to remove it because there's no evidence that's true. All the titles that were part of the deal have a clear chain of trademark transfers showing it, but there were no such transfers for Mystic Knights. Various articles (mostly fansites) claim it was part of the deal, but this appears to just be an assumption on the part of the authors, with no documentation or quotes to back it up. -- Jake (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge this article with SIP Animation

It seems that all the information about SIP mentioned in that topic is wrong. In 2013, BVS Entertainment takes control of all remaining shares of the SIP before the SIP is liquidated in 2023.Moreover, SIP was never independent according to the French documents we have. Since 1993, companies called IFP and Pueblo have been joint shareholders along with BVS Entertainment (formerly Saban Entertainment) until 2012. So there is no reason for that title to be separate from the Saban Entertainment's main title. Because BVS has been a shareholder from the very beginning, and in 2013, the control of the all shares was completely transferred to BVS Entertainment. When the company is liquidated in 2023, all company assets are transferred to Delaware US-based company BVS Entertainment. If you want, I will share the documents with you. I think this needs to be fixed. That company was a subsidiary of BVS for 10 years before it officially ceased operations in 2023.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.26.237.91 (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with this! Julian.exe (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

BVS Entertainment → Saban Entertainment – Essentually, this whole page move thing has been a complete mess. Firstly, it was moved without any voting from other users, and secondly, it uses a logo that was stolen from a DeviantArt user who stated that the logo was custom-made, as seen in this link. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: We are talking about a successor company whose corporate name is now BVS Entertainment. There is no use in still calling it by the name it was 22 years ago. In this way, the company's ties with Disney remain much stronger. If there is no official logo, let's not use the logo, but I think the title is much more informative this way. Also, the information is more up to date. We are not obliged to use a logo at Infobox by rules. The old logo should remain within the article. But this company has been BVS Entertainment for 22 years, and also writing subsidiaries when called by the old name is pure hell because of the namechanges. It lengthens the infobox unnecessarily. GRPHX-TREME (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Since this is the company name for a long time, is there a way to let the template with no logo? The old Saban logo is stuck there even if there's no logo icon name attached to the "logo" section of the template. Daikage (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Same with the "Mattel Playground Productions" logo on the Mattel Films article until a made-up Mattel Films logo was recently inserted there. Intrisit (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Is there any need to think so much about the logo? The company already stands for Buena Vista Studios, and Disney also added these Buena Vista closing logo prints to some of the shows in the Saban library. So any Buena Vista logo wouldn't look wrong in this page. GRPHX-TREME (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: For the DeviantArt logo, I concur, as editors rush to just have logos uploaded here on WP. But for this RM, multiple RMs have come and gone about its renaming, in case the nominator hasn't seen this page thoroughly. Plus. I couldn't agree more with editors in previous RMs where they claim that "this article needs cleanup". But who will provide them? Simply put, BVS Entertainment is the current name and should remain as it is, regardless of common/well-known name, due to WP striving for updates on events and activities. Intrisit (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Many of the cartoons produced by Saban Entertainment are identified with Fox Kids and Jetix worldwide. The audience that will search for Saban Entertainment is quite limited. Other than a few titles such as Power Rangers and Digimon, Saban series are not generally associated with Saban. These franchises no longer have any connection with BVS Entertainment (Saban) and Disney. For this reason, anyone who wants to do research about Saban Entertainment can access BVS Entertainment information. Additionally, Wikipedia's rule regarding listing current companies should be taken into consideration. Moreover, the successor company owned by Saban now continues its existence as Saban Capital Group. To avoid this confusion, the title should continue as BVS Entertainment. KıpçaK (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: You brought up a very valid point, sir. GRPHX-TREME (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Saban Entertainment name is no longer in use, Disney changed it into BVS Entertainment in 2002, and since then, this is the legal name of the company that is still active and owned by Disney. Julian.exe (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Succession of Jetix Animation Concepts

Fox Children's Productions was retired after the Fox Kids-Saban merger. For this reason, even the later seasons of The Tick were produced at Saban's studios and featured the Saban Entertainment watermark on the animation cels. Fox Children's Productions had two successor companies. These are FOX Family Properties Inc. (later renamed ABC Family Properties.) and the offshore company, Aruba-based Fox Kids International Properties A.V.V. (It was later renamed BVS International Properties A.V.V.) Therefore, the successor-predecessor relationship between Fox Children's Productions and Jetix Animation Concepts (JAC for short) exists only in spiritiual. Since Jetix is ​​an ABC Family Worldwide brand, the joint venture relationship here is entirely through Jetix and DisneyTVA. It is not affiliated with Fox Children's Productions. If you claim it is, please CERTIFY THE SOURCE. User:GRPHX-TREME (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

As Sensation Animation

Digimon Frontier (2002-2003) 165.140.214.238 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2024 (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. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)