Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Today's featured article requests 21 Jan 2025 – Ada Wong (talk · edit · hist) has been proposed for Today's Featured Article by Boneless Pizza! (t · c); see discussion Did you know 05 Nov 2024 – Miss Shampoo (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 24 Oct 2024 – Marcia Moore (actress) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Silver seren (t · c); see discussion 24 Oct 2024 – A Nail Clipper Romance (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 23 Oct 2024 – Yan Ruisheng (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion 20 Oct 2024 – Feelie (Brave New World) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion 19 Oct 2024 – Film Essay on the Euphrates Dam (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Zanahary (t · c); see discussion 15 Oct 2024 – Yen and Ai-Lee (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Prince of Erebor (t · c); see discussion 28 Sep 2024 – Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by PanagiotisZois (t · c); see discussion Featured article candidates 10 Nov 2024 – 2001: A Space Odyssey (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Ægc's friendly xbox alt (t · c); see discussion 29 Oct 2024 – Overdrawn at the Memory Bank (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by GamerPro64 (t · c); see discussion 28 Oct 2024 – Pulgasari (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); see discussion 15 Oct 2024 – John Wick (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Darkwarriorblake (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 08 Oct 2024 – List of accolades received by Jojo Rabbit (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion 15 Sep 2024 – List of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film) (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Birdienest81 (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 09 Nov 2024 – United Palace (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Epicgenius (t · c); start discussion 07 Nov 2024 – Bullet hit squib (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Adenosine Triphosphate (t · c); start discussion 25 Oct 2024 – Mr. McMahon (miniseries) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Royiswariii (t · c); start discussion 24 Oct 2024 – Alien: Romulus (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Lankyant (t · c); start discussion 24 Oct 2024 – The Hunt for Gollum (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start discussion 23 Oct 2024 – Yan Ruisheng (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Crisco 1492 (t · c); start discussion 19 Oct 2024 – Daredevil (Marvel Comics character) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Wrangler1981 (t · c); start discussion 12 Oct 2024 – Death Race 2 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); start discussion 08 Oct 2024 – Mufasa (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Changedforbetter (t · c); start discussion 01 Oct 2024 – Itim (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Mushy Yank (t · c); start discussion (8 more...) Good article reassessments 05 Oct 2024 – Walt Disney Animation Studios (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion Peer reviews 18 Oct 2024 – How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by M48SKY (t · c); see discussion 09 Oct 2024 – Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by PanagiotisZois (t · c); see discussion 27 Sep 2024 – Pearl (X) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by FishLoveHam (t · c); see discussion 29 Aug 2024 – Ivan the Terrible (1945 film) (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Jaguarnik (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

Need opinions at Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)

Hi there, I've seen a flare-up of activity in the Principal cast table at Pirates of the Caribbean (film series), with people adding supporting cast/characters like Scrum to the table. Since this seems like it could easily become cruft bait, I have opened a discussion at Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)#Principal cast revisited to try to get a clear consensus on the scope of this table. My thinking is that the same criteria for the |starring= parameter of the film infobox should be used here, i.e. the poster's billing block. Anyhow, comments welcome here. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Texas Chainsaw 3D requested move

The discussion is at Talk:Texas Chainsaw 3D#Requested move 08 July 2015. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:American films on all American films

The category American films appears to have a standing instruction that ALL American films should be listed IRRESPECTIVE of whether they are already included in sub-Categories. Is this right? This arose from Schindler's List which is listed in 'American biographical films', 'American epic films' and 'American war films', so there is no possibility of anyone not realising it is American. This film is also listed in about 20-30 other categories, which creates a bit of 'category overkill'.

Similar practices are not followed in biographical articles, where only the relevant sub, not the parent category are listed.

I've tried asking at the help desk (nobody knew, but some agreed it was a bit pointless), and tried asking on the category talk (no replies). Apart from anything else, what is the point of a parent category that already lists over 39,000 films (and growing).

Please ping if replying.Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete per WP:FILMCAT, all films are put in the category for their countries. Category:American films is non-diffusing category. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And Category:American biographical films is NOT a sub-category of Category:American films. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected.Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Character links

An issue of where character links should pipe to has come up. The discussion is at Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2)#Character links. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Struggling to integrate prequel comics into Mad Max: Fury Road

As it stands, myself and KahnJohn27 are at an impasse as to how we should include Fury Road's prequel comics. KahnJohn has added full plot summaries of each of the comics, which currently makes up nearly 20% of the page's length; an action I personally disagree with. Please see the discussion here for more context and to give your input. Sock (tock talk) 12:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Kansas City Film Critics Circle at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Are "mixed" reviews called "negative" reviews?

More input please, it just two editors disagreeing with each other here. Talk:Terminator_Genisys#Mixed_or_negative_reviews If Metacritic states a film got 5 positive, 24 mixed, and 12 negative reviews, is it original research to say the film got "mixed" reviews? Should you say "negative" instead, as it does now? Dream Focus 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Technically it's always original research to say anything other than what the sources explicitly say. In cases of disagreement about these sorts of things I find it's usually best to avoid making such a summarizing statement. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say that you can say that the majority of critics gave the film mixed reviews. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Related question: Rotten Tomatoes uses a pass/fail Fresh/Rotten grading system. When would we ever refer to an RT score as "mixed"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We probably wouldn't, unfortunately. The closest we can get to "mixed" is to report the rating average for a given film. I find it better to use periodicals that can apply the appropriate language in reading the reviews and/or the related aggregate scores. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you just posted the question at the article's talk page and didn't really give it enough time for other editors to weigh in. So to say this is only between two editors is a premature assessment. If there is no consensus to keeping "generally negative", however, then I propose we remove the statement altogether and let the sources speak for themselves in the following sentences. We have made similar compromises in other articles. In this particular article, I think it's clear that the weighted average falls in the realm of unfavorable per the sources, and to me, the terms "unfavorable" and "negative" are synonyms in the context of grading films. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Production sections that read like news releases

This is starting to become a problem, I think. A lot of recent production section include things such as when the cast signed on and when a movie was announced. The problem is that going forward this info becomes less and less important and it discourages deeper content from appearing on such pages. Is there a way we can encourage people to put more thought into these sections? Can this project try to clean up some of these articles? --Deathawk (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you somewhat. I think it is reasonable to write when development started and when cast member started joining, but I think it is problematic to be very date-oriented. I have seen a few articles where almost every sentence states the date as part of covering the new detail, which is not good writing. I try to simplify the timeline by keeping it to the month and year and to transition more subtly, like saying that something happened the following month. Can you show an example of what you mean, Deathawk? I'm not sure if we can do much widespread clean-up, but maybe some discussion here about how to summarize coverage would be useful for some editors to reconsider their approach. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll volunteer a personal example. At About Last Night (2014 film), in the "Cast" section, I mention the first actor joining in a specific month and year, then I say "in the following July" that two others join. Then I mention a fourth person being "cast in August". After that, I don't date-stamp when the supporting actors joined on. In the "Production" section, I mention what month and year development started, and I do repeat the month-year approach again (due to the noticeable gap) for when a director joined, then I use "in the following August". Most of these details are surrounded by the appropriate context (I like to think), but I'm happy to hear critiques of that writing approach. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Most articles about recent films develop incrementally as a "current event" which is why there seems to be a tendency to timestamp every development. It's just the nature of the beast I think. Short of actually re-writing the articles affected I am not sure there is much we can do about it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROSELINE, though an essay, may be worth bringing up for such articles. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Frankly this is the reason I really don't spend much time improving articles until after a piece of media is released; the article is going to be gutted and rewritten anyhow. Not much you can do besides removing and deemphasizing the temporal trivia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

A good example of what I'm Talking about would be Woman In Gold. Get Hard and Wedding Ringer are also good examples too. I would argue that once a cast is in place, there would be very few examples where the info someone signed on would be encyclopedic, certainly once it's mentioned that one cast member signs on we no longer need to detail when every other cast member signs on. --Deathawk (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

General time references can be useful to give readers some understanding of how the production unfolded, however the exact date isn't necessary nor is it necessary for every piece of information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Jack and the Beanstalk (2010 film)

I wanted to look up the film on wikipedia, as normally most films have separate articles with review/critics, but I am not sure about the consensus of why it was redirected per it's AfD discussion back in March 2011. There seems to be enough on the web to constuct a decent article, but it seems that the AfD, the result is, no synopsis on the story, lack of cast list, and lacks any information to provide for this diabolical film which is currently being aired in the UK on C5. Maybe someone can reconstuct a decent article for this film? Govvy (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there are very few sources. I found an announcement from Entertainment Weekly, which is apparently a rehash of this article from The Hollywood Reporter. A decent start, but it's not enough to satisfy WP:NFILM. As far as reviews, I found a review by Radio Times. This is what we need, but one isn't enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruption at Shane Hurlbut

Jesse96 (talk · contribs) has refused to engage in discussion on the talk page at Talk:Shane Hurlbut, choosing instead to revert, repeatedly -- with zero talk page discussion. Please see DIFF 1, DIFF 2, and DIFF 3. This disruption of a WP:GA quality article is inappropriate.

The account Jesse96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for both (1) Socking and (2) Vandalism.

Could use some help here.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

X2 (film)

Could we get some experienced, non-comics-fans editors at Talk:X2 (film)? Some die-hard fans are proposing that we give the film a false title because they like the marketing title better. That would be exactly like renaming the Die Hard 2 article Die Hard 2: Die Harder when that's factually not the onscreen title of the film. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you re-word this notice to be neutral per WP:APPNOTE? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Relations?

Are David Feige and Kevin Feige related?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Searching any combination of those two names turns up no results of the two together, so I think they just share a surname. Sock (tock talk) 15:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you have attempted to do well enough to be confident in your response. I assume you are saying that you searched something like Kevin David Feige in a search engine yielding results for pages mentioning both first names and the last name. Did you do searches like Kevin David Feige brother?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) or Kevin David Feige cousin?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are suggesting these search criteria why aren't you performing the search on your own? Sock was only trying to help and does not deserve this criticism. Also why are you asking this here rather than the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to search for evidence of a relation but have gotten results with spurious results. I have asked at various locations, but was not aware of the one you are suggesting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth: yes, I searched with various relative names (such as brother and cousin, as well as uncle and father) afterwards. Still nothing. Sock (tock talk) 14:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I also looked yesterday out of curiosity and did not find anything making the connection. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Film trilogies at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge requested

Hi friends, I'm looking at a dispute here and I wanted to see if I could get some of you crackerjacks to give some input at the talk page. Some folks seem to want to limit the infobox |language= to Telugu, ostensibly because the film was produced primarily in Tollywood (the Telugu-speaking center of the Indian film industry, which is based in Hyderabad). Other participants have argued that the film is being produced in a few languages simultaneously (Tamil, being one of them) so the parameter should include that dub. Template:Infobox film mentions the inclusion of multiple languages if it is clearly a multi-lingual film. I don't think that applies here because we're talking about dubs. Some comments like this raise my promo red flags: "Please change the First line in the main section as Indian Telugu Epic film . That would give due credit to the telugu people who worked for this film for almost 3 years." However, rather than dig my heels in, I figured I'd get some fresh eyes. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Dubs should not be added to the language parameter; just the language that is used in the film i.e. the language it is filmed in. Betty Logan (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Reasonable. Thanks for that. Here's a twist I just picked up on, though per this reference it sounds like the movie is being filmed simultaneously in at least two languages.

To make things tricky, the Baahubali team was simultaneously shooting the Telugu and Tamil versions. "I can speak Tamil, but this film required us to speak 'senthamizh', staying true to the period. Writer Madan Karky helped us. We went by Rajamouli’s guidance for the Telugu version,"

If Actor A films a line in Telugu, then films that same line in Tamil, and then two versions of the same film are produced in different languages, that's not a dub, that's a different beast, I think. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If it is not a straightforward dub, but a multi-lingual version so that two negatives exist then I honestly do not know how we would handle that in the infobox. To add languages in the conventional way would be a potentially misleading use of the parameter. For now I would omit the parameter and wait and see how reliable sources document it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Production Designer Credit inclusion in info box

I would like to open this discussion again as the arguments I have read so far defending the omission of the credit have been anything but satisfying. As it stands this is a colossal blunder when measured by industry standards: The production designer is essential to the look of a production and thus is part of main billing. That should not even be a question at Wikipedia because it certainly isn't in the industry. I would like to correct a commenter in the archives who is opposing inclusion that a film production's three crucial stages are defined as preproduction, production and postproduction. Unlike some of the other key personnel (e.g. writer, composer, editor) production designers have historically been involved in the key visual role in TWO of these stages (preproduction and production). In modern days this role extends into post production as well with many sets now being created digitally and added after the fact. I would also like to strongly object to the aforementioned idea (see archives) that the amount of production designer-Wikipedia pages somehow reflects on the importance of the role. If anything this showcases a deficiency of Wikipedia where popular subjects tend to attract more contributions than less popular ones. Do a google search on "famous production designers" and see an extensive list of past and present professionals pop up in a strip slideshow. At least in this case google certainly one-upped Wikipedia as the more thorough informational resource. In movie production a huge deal of importance is placed on the order people are being credited and who receives top, equal, diagonal, etc. billing. Matter of fact in most cases the production designer tends to be credited BEFORE the director of photography. Clearly the Infobox should reflect this consequently: either all main billing in or all main billing out. If composer and director of photography are included then so should the production designer. If the sentiment is to arbitrarily exclude the production designer from the Infobox in order to keep it brief then it only makes sense to not include any main billing at all. Simply put: any billing that is included on a movie poster -and the production designer clearly is- should be included in the info box as well, or no billing at all. Here is the universally practiced order of credits in North American and European movie productions: http://newenglandfilm.com/magazine/2012/08/credits.

I was asked to include a link to the respective infobox discussion so here goes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_film

@DonFerrando: Make sure you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) because I have no idea who you are or how to get you back to this conversation without checking the history. Also, a link to the actual discussions: initial discussion and edit request. Sock (tock talk) 20:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I suggest we discuss it over there. I replied in the initial discussion, linked above by Sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ju-On: The Final Curse

Can someone fix the title for the new Ju-On movie. i edited wherever I could, but the main article title is still JU-ON: The Final. Everywhere else on the web (official movie site, IMDB, etc..) it is titled JU-ON: The Final Curse.