Talk:2009 in film: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:22, 6 June 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 in film article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film List‑class

	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
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Ponyo???

Why is the film on here, anyway? Isn't this article supposed to be about American films? Not, Japanese films.

Isn't it too early to make this article?

I mean 2008 has yet to be half way finished. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but since more and more films are being announced, I figured it was time to let 2009 have it's own article. Besides, 2008 in film was never part of Near future in film (I looked into it). It just sort of grew on it's own and look where it is today. --EclipseSSD (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Could people please reference the films properly before just simply adding them in. Note: A title in the IMDb does not verify it's existance, so please use other, more reliable source for verification. Thanks for contributing, but please we need to seperate fact from fiction, and only leave those with verified sourced. Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up

I was gonna clean up but the info on this page is all as relevant as the next piece of info, any ideas on how to clean up?! If anyone needs me just go on my talk page, happy to helpNisior (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest searching on the internet for proper references to the films, as IMDb is none too reliable for confirming a film's production, so a proper reference to confirm it's development, like Variety magazine and more official sites. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV question

Is this article considered by any way a violation of the NPOV rules? I have recently translated this article to the Hebrew Wikipedia and some folks over there say that it is since there is no real criterion for that list... ("a selective list of movie titles mostly from Hollywood which only the authors of the article think are notable"). Any ideas you might have which could help convincing them that it doesn't violate NPOV rules (such as an Inclusion criteria for this article or any film list article) would be greatly appreciated. 24.12.234.123 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another NPOV problem - half of this list is based on AMERICAN release dates, not the first release of the films. Fucking yanks, you're not the center of the world you know, as much as you might think so.--61.217.211.178 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight Re-Release

Since it's been announced that it will be re-released nationwide on January 23, shouldn't we mention it?12.37.71.141 (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy Colours

What with the fancy colour it looks very ugly. --117.192.128.115 (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Films

There are at least two (Taken and The Horsemen) films taken from 2008 in film. I believe this article needs major revision to remove those movies.148.225.101.3 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both films that were originally scheduled to be released in 2008, but later were pushed back into 2009. Although those films may have been made in 2008, this list is basically just a big list of U.S. theatrical release dates. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Accidental Husband was released over a year ago in the UK but ridiculously it is down as March 2009 on this list. I've looked at WP:FilmRelease - has there been any debate about basing the list on when they had their first public release rather than US dates? For an article to be so orientated towards one country but with a generic title (rather than US Film 2009, for example) isn't very 'wikipedian'. LunarLander // talk // 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHAHA you think Wikipedia's Powers that Be give a shit about the rest of the world. If it ain't American, it ain't important, you should know that by now.--61.217.211.178 (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

The layout of this article is a MESS! Can't somebody fix it? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Grossing?

Why is the list for top grossing already completed? 2009 has just begun! 24.76.185.79 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not complete, the highest grossing movies of 2009 will change as more movie come out. Prince Rana (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some anon keeps adding a table with fake data. If you see such a table re-added, please feel free to remove it. Legitimate 2009 figures will not be around until next weekend (January 9), as there were no major releases on the 2nd. Keep in mind, the top grossing films table should only contain entries for films released in 2009, so holdovers from December 2008 (such as Marley & Me) should not be included in this table. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some films, such as Taken, have already been released in other countries (and have made money there) but are scheduled to be released in the US in 2009. Shouldn't those films be on the table? Prince Rana (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth (2007 film)

Earth is a movie with had its world-wide release in 2007, 2 years ago. The movie hasn't been released in 2009, and will only get a release in US. This means that all the money listed here is actually money garnered in 2007 and 2008, and not 2009. Meaning that this movie does not belong on the list. 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 22:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we establish a consensus? Ra agg io 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sequals

at the top of the page their is a list of major mainstream sequels I noticed that Watchmen and Sherlock Holmes were on the list but they are not sequals should they be on their? also Friday the 13th is a remake not a sequel so should that be on that list too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.87.130 (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Releases

Why are there no/few Limited releases on the list, even those which have been released? The 2008 List was pretty good with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.109.244 (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please add the limited releasing film Whatever Works. Directed by Woody Allen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatever_Works

Angels and Demons under sequels?

I don't know if this counts, but Angels and Demons is a prequel, not a sequel.

No, for the movie series, "Angels and Demons" served as a sequel. Poppa Yami (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Carradine age 72

Someone who is good at editing Wiki wanna add him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontifactus (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{talkheader}}
 {{Film|class=List|importance=High}}
+==Ponyo???==
+Why is the film on here, anyway? Isn't this article supposed to be about American films? Not, Japanese films.
 == Isn't it too early to make this article? ==