Talk:Desilu
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article does what a lot of casual histories do when talking about Desilu: It confuses Desilu Productions and DesiluStudios. DesiluProductions had basically zero to do withThe Andy Griffith Show,The Dick Van Dyke Show, etc, etc. These were merely tenants of DesiluStudios many sound stages and backlots. What IS missing is Desilu Productions' VERY important contributions to popular culture. It also makes an error when it states that Desi Arnaz did not sell his Desilu stock in his 1960 divorce with Lucy, which in fact, he did - this set several very important and historical events in motion:
1. With her acquisition of the majority holding of Desilu stock, Lucille Ball became the first female in Hollywood history to become head of a major Hollywood studio.
2. It was LUCY who tried to persuade her friend, Carol Burnett, to do a Desilu produced sitcom.
3. Even though Desilu Studios was making decent money as a rental facilty, Lucy was unhappy with the production company being moribund....except forThe Lucy Show.
4. This led to the hiring of executiveHerbert Solow in 1964, to develop shows for Desilu to produce.
5. This directly led to the creation of the cultural icons,Star Trek andMission:Impossible.—Precedingunsigned comment added byLsherwood59 (talk •contribs)00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that Lucille Ball production that she opened up with her husband Arnaz, revolutionize entertainment.Meaning she was the first with a production, and that influenced many people to open up new productions and become as successful and even better then Desilu Production. We have PARAMOUNT PICTURES who has benn succesful for the past 50 years, what about the other ones. -- (comment was added by 134.71.58.49 on 27 September 2005)
Another error in this article is the story of how Desilu gained initial ownership of the I Love Lucy films. When CBS boought the Lucy idea from Desilu, they wanted the show to be done, like every other comedy of time, live and from New York. Lucy and Desi were just starting their family at the time, and wanted to do the show from Hollywood. CBS balked, as they wanted the east coast to have a nice live picture instead of a tinny kinescope reel. That is when Desi offered to take the 'pay cut', with the extra monies going towards the expense of filming the shows in California. He then asked if they could own the film negatives, and CBS said sure, as there was no such thing as reruns in those days. And there is NO contemporary evidence that Desi had this 'vision' of the rerun, either. In fact, he went and sold the negs back to CBS three years later, so he could buy Motion Picture Center. CBS then used those episodes as a Sunday night show for a while, as a lot of cities and areas had gotten television since Lucy had premiered in 1951. After I Love Lucy went off the air, it was a fixture on CBS daytime for many years. CBS (through its Viacom division) did not really start syndicating it until the mid 1960's.Lsherwood59 (talk)—Precedingundated comment added00:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Who owns the rights to the Lucy Show and then 1950s Desilu shows that were created before Desi and Lucy divorced and Desilu was bought by Paramount?70.114.39.22 (talk)23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, is Desilu Too a licensor/rightsowner for the shows, or is it really a "licensee?"— Precedingunsigned comment added byManys (talk •contribs)17:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In 1957 I was at Desilu Studios to film the DuPont Show of the month. I was part of St Paul's Little Singers, an LA grammar school choir.74.222.83.78 (talk)17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 | An image used in this article,File:Lucy Offices.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 31 May 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please reviewdeletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevantimage page (File:Lucy Offices.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk)15:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
The result of the move request was:No consensus. Anyone proposing a similar move in the future may want to cite some form of sources. Anyone opposing a similar move in the future may want to cite some form of sources.(non-admin closure)RedSlash03:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Desilu Productions →Desilu – Many sources called it simply "Desilu".
RelistedArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)George Ho (talk)05:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links onDesilu Productions. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)17:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor point for clarity: Ball served as president after Arnaz retired, so his retirement should precede mention of her presidency. Especially since the section begins by stating a date (the divorce) which implies a chronological structure.
Can generate confusion over who served as president prior to 1962 and particularly between 1960 and 1962.
I don't know the historical details so I defer to someone who does to make actual changes to the section.
