Jump to content

Talk:Silent film: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 37: Line 37:
*Its also worth noting that because they were silent the actors could say anything - even swear!
*Its also worth noting that because they were silent the actors could say anything - even swear!


::Though my own local dialect uses "film", I'd be inclined to agree with the original sentiment. A film could be many things, not just a motion picture. But a movie is a movie. Even though they were all produced on film, using that as justification for the name is faulty logic: not everything recorded on a spooled strip of magnetic media is audio or even in a cassette (could be reel to reel computer data, video, etc) - but it's all "tape". The terms are ambiguous. Movie is precise, same as "audio cassette". ((yes yes i know you can put things other than audio on them as well, but that's the primary, 99%+ use)) [[Special:Contributions/193.63.174.10|193.63.174.10]] ([[User talk:193.63.174.10|talk]]) 13:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


== Gish, no chick list... ==
== Gish, no chick list... ==

Revision as of 13:08, 28 October 2010

Former good articleSilent film was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2005Good article nomineeListed
September 12, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject iconFilm: Filmmaking C‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Comment

Does anyone know if silent films from 1917 are still copyrighted? Can you use the name and premise for something like a broadway musical?

Who wrote

that motion-picture film technology was developed around 1860 ? The basic film invention by Hannibal Goodwin and the corresponding patent granted to him stem from 1887. Before that there is nothing like movies. Would the authors have the grace to first read about the subject, also Louis Le Prince ? --Filmtechniker 80.219.86.145 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top-grossing films list

What dollars are the grosses in? Real dollars? 2000? 2005? It would be nice to have both real dollars and, say, 2000 dollars, but that might be confusing for casual readers. I suggest only inflation-adjusted dollars for a recent year. --Tysto 06:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm also questioning this list. It needs to be clear about what period of time (initial release? Gross up to the end of the silent era? cumulative gross including releases up to today?) Also, there are other lists that dispute the order and amount for each gross. One example is at filmsite.org which lists the top 100 grossing films from domestic sales, adjusted for inflation. The only silent film to make the list was The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'll continue looking, but this list should be pulled unless it can be sourced. - Joe JJC 22:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After much searching, I found a page with the same list taken from Variety. I've cited it, but I still contend the list is wrong, probably even back when it was printed in '32. The site hosting the page points out that the publishers had a NPOV back then! Additionally, the article lists the gross earnings (most notably Wings) that might actually belong on the silents list by modern standards. Short of it, we know where it came from, but it ain't exactly authoritative.Joe JJC 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiki's List of Highest Grossing Films and the Wiki page for the film Mickey (1918), Mickey was the highest grossing film of the silent era with $18,000,000.00 and remained the highest grossing film (silent or otherwise) until unseated by Snow White and the Seven Dwarves in 1937. Number two was The Birth of a Nation (1915) with $10,000,000.00 (actual numbers not adjusted for inflation and are Worldwide statistics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.98.31 (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title Question

Isn't silent movie more adequate?

  • whats wrong with silent film? Wikipedia is generally forgiving of non-US English... Justinc 00:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Its also worth noting that because they were silent the actors could say anything - even swear!
Though my own local dialect uses "film", I'd be inclined to agree with the original sentiment. A film could be many things, not just a motion picture. But a movie is a movie. Even though they were all produced on film, using that as justification for the name is faulty logic: not everything recorded on a spooled strip of magnetic media is audio or even in a cassette (could be reel to reel computer data, video, etc) - but it's all "tape". The terms are ambiguous. Movie is precise, same as "audio cassette". ((yes yes i know you can put things other than audio on them as well, but that's the primary, 99%+ use)) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gish, no chick list...

Why no mention of silent stars? Some of those chicks were truly exceptional...

I think a short list of the biggest silent stars would be useful to readers; if it got too big I can imagine a separate article on silent film stars. --Tysto 06:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Silent film with Rube Goldberg device

About 15 years ago, I have seen an old classic short silent comedy film, where the hero had breakfast prepared by a complex machine. Can anyone tell me which one was it? I would add it to Rube Goldberg page. Samohyl Jan 16:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "It's a Gift" (1923)--Saxophobia 22:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Silent Film actors

As a fairly new Wikipedian, I was hoping to spruce up some of the silent film actors' articles with photos, but after studying the image uploading copyright rules I am utterly terrified of putting any images in. Is any photo of a silent film actor taken before 1922 good to go? Can I just take any pre-1922 photo of say, Patsy Ruth Miller from a website and paste it into the article, or is the digital version of the photo copyrighted material by virtue of being on someone's website? I'm just looking for any shortcut other than e-mailing a lot of websites asking for permission (although most Silent Movie fans want to spread the word about their forgotten genre and probably don't mine sharing, some are very protective about their personal collections). I'll post a copy of this inquiry somewhere on the wikipedia image pages, too, and report back if i learn anything. Wencer 02:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is okay to use pre-1922 photos. If you do a Google Images search you might be bale to find some. Vagrant 03:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo isn't copyrighted, a digital scan of it can't be copyrighted either, at least not in the US. This is just the law, no matter what anyone may claim on their website or anywhere else. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.--Pharos 20:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

silent film list cleanup

The list is getting way too unwieldy and large for the good of the article. I don't think that it's really avoidable - there are a lot of worthy films from 1895 to 1930 which are notable. However, we already have years in film articles for every year which include lists of that year's notable films. Anything listed on this page but not on a year page should be added to the year page, and the notable list on this page should be deleted and replaced with a notice to see the year pages for notable films in the silent era. The only part of the list that merits saving would be silent films in the sound era, and that probably should be a list article linked to this article. Please let me know if you have any comments, otherwise I will implement this sometime in the next few weeks. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Readers lose a lot with this cleanup

It was not *just* a list. It provided a timeline to see who and what was made when and pointed out some valuable connections between eras during a time of great change and innovation. For example, the films by William Desmond Taylor, or when Chaplin came on the scene. This seems like an example of editing Wikipedia for the specialists and experts while degrading the enjoyment and educational value for casual readers, IMHO. I miss the list!

  • It was unmaintainable and had no specific standards for inclusion - theoretically any "worthy" film from 1888 to 1927 could be included without a problem. That makes categorization a better choice than listing. The "[year] in film" articles provide a perfectly fine timeline of the progression of the artform while also better containing a list. Generally, articles which are not standalone lists should avoid long and extraneous lists dominating the page. See the Manual of Style for further info. Girolamo Savonarola 04:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found films

It's amazing (and, personally, I don't know how this can happend) that even today, old silent movies are discovered. Let's mention Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902): "a complete cut of the film was discovered in a French barn in 2002. It was an amazing discovery as it not only is the most complete cut of the movie, but was also entirely hand-colored. It was restored and premiered in 2003 at the Pordonone Silent Film Festival". I think that Joan of Arc (1927) should be in the list. I'm talking about the copy found in a hospital. Alex:D

I added in The Passion of Joan of Arc. Esn 11:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 17:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is currently disputed, then the delisting needn't occur until there is a consensus in favor of leaving the guidelines. I'm reinstating. Cbrown1023 01:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Projection Speed causes fire?

I understand the flammability issues of silver nitrate prints, but I'd be curious to see a citation for the assertion that projecting one print at 16 fps would be a seriously increased fire hazard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.107.215 (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

citation Girolamo Savonarola 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent actors & actresses still living?

Aside from Mickey Rooney, are there any other actors or actresses from the silent era still living? MarcelloRubini 01:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent films in the sound era

What about films which are entirely silent except for some opening narration? Chronopolis is one example - it has some opening narration and the rest of the film only contains music. Esn 07:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a mention of Ronnie Barker, and his (almost) silent films would be of interest: A Home of Your Own (1964), Futtock's End (1970), The Picnic (1975) and By the Sea (1982) Thehalfone 12:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion in the "later homages" section this includes films like the ones listed above but also (as the title suggets) homages i.e. films that have the silent era as a theme within the composistion of the film. This area of the article and the "silent films in the sound era" needs tidying and reorganising. Perhaps a "silent films in the early sound era section. One for homages and another mentioning the continued role of films with very little or no dialogue. Idealy with a mention for Koyaanisqatsi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete the pitiless (talkcontribs) 22:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous films

What about a short list of the most famous and notable silent films made, even if they are not necessary the largest economical ressources? Like Metropolis (already mentioned, but not on the list), Nosferatu, A Trip to the Moon, Das Cabinet des dr. Caligari, The Gold Rush and A trip to the Moon? 193.217.193.183 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV. Girolamo Savonarola 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Segundo de Chomón

Segundo de Chomón (see the Spanish wikipedia) was one of the most important pioneers in European film History. I think he deserves to have his own English page. There'are FREE licence films to watch on the internet by Chomón. Rohmerin 14:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, have a loook to El Hotel eléctrico Rohmerin 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA status two years later

After reviewing this article, I've found it to violate a number of Good Article criteria, criteria which did not exist at the time of article's original GA nomination. That said, I thought I'd bring up my concerns here before either delsiting the article or nominating it for Good Article review. The problems with the article as I see them, are:

  • Insufficient lead section.
  • The first image lacks both a fair-use rationale and source information.
  • Way too many external links.
  • The prose is very listy in particular sections. I'd recommend turning those sections into prose, and perhaps creating a new article or category for mentioning every film that is currently bullet-pointed.
  • The article has a decent breadth of topic, but covers some of the topics without sufficient emphasis. The History section, for instance, could be expanded considerably.

Hopefully somebody can find some time to help this article out. Otherwise, I'll delist or nominate the article for GA review in a few days. Drewcifer 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I've nominated this article for Good Article review. Contributors and original reviewers alike are welcome to contribute to the discussion concerning this article's GA status. Drewcifer 04:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the review was to Delist. An archive of the discussion can be found here. Drewcifer 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Achmed1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for contributions to a "Range of subject matter, film styles, etc" section

A few years ago I was surprised to find out about the range of different types of film made in the silent era. This article could do with a short section showing that slient films were not all fictional action comedies but serious fiction documentaries and historical subjects were tactled for example F.R. Benson's "Richard III" (1911) [1], the documentary Haxan Witchcraft Through The Ages (1922) or the historical film The Battleship Potemkin. Also I changed a section yesterday which suggested that the acting employed in Metropolis was thoughtless whereas it was arguably deliberatly anti realistic (see the article on German Expressionism). A section highlighting the range of different film making styles and experimantation in film [2]of the time would reduce this sort of confusion and help show readers why silent film is still so valued by many and misunderstood by others.

pete the pitiless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete the pitiless (talkcontribs) 12:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Live Music and Sound"

This section contains the following, "A watershed event in this context was Francis Ford Coppola's 1980 restoration of Abel Gance's Napoleon (1927) with a live orchestral score composed by his father Carmine Coppola." First, Kevin Brownlow and Carl Davis are responsible for the work placed in restoring and presenting silent films with live orchestral accompaniment. Secondly, Coppola didn't restore Napoleon, it's the work of Kevin Brownlow. Coppola got the rights to handle a U.S. distributed version, featuring music from his father, which he re-edited (cut), tinted badly, and ran at the wrong speed. Coppola will not permit any other version, including Brownlow's substantial subsequent work on the film, to see the light of day in America. Brownlow's most recent 2000 restoration has only played publicly a few times (Coppola threatened a lawsuit in 2004.) JonasEB (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]