Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Dalek (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 18 February 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []

Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews


Did you know

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(4 more...)

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

View full version with task force lists

Template:WP Film Sidebar

Help

Conversation moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment#Independence Day (film).

2008 Hollywood strike in "Cinema of the United States" template

I think 2008 Hollywood strike should be added to the template {{CinemaoftheUS}}. Please see the discussion at Template talk:CinemaoftheUS#Strike 2008. Thanks.

Equazcionargue/improves23:23, 09/30/2007

lists > categorization

The template {{americanfilmlist}} contains links to pages that are nothing but incomplete lists of American films for given years (18902008). As I mentioned before (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 17#.7B.7BAmericanfilmlist.7D.7D), these lists will (a) probably be perpetually incomplete, (b) be better served by categorization, (c) are magnets for non-free media violations, and (d) so far as I can tell they're only linked to by (i) some of the articles listed within (ii) {{americanfilmlist}} itself (iii) various internal Wikipedia pages (talk, WP:, etc.)

I intend to create the categorizations pertinent to replacing these lists (i.e. Category:American films of 2001), and making them subcategories of the apropos film year category the articles may or may not already be in. I bring this up here for further discussion than there was before, before I boldly go. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


comment ABSOLUTELY NOT. Given time they will be filled in and completed and will be showing details which categories will never be able to achieve. Terrible idea. And are you kidding me that you don't think pages like American films of 1936, American films of 1960 etc aren't useful?; many of the lists are more complete than you are making out. These lists are supposed to serve a purpose which categories can never do. Given time they could even each be written into articles with text summarising the years in American film and then the detailed tabled lists underneath. Aside from the fact I've put in an enormous amount of effort in setting these pages up they are only incomplete because not one single person from WP:Films aside from Andrzejbanas, Rossrs and Nehrams with 2007 has bothered to even think about helping out. We made a WP:Film consensus about a year ago that to categorize as PD Thor has suggested would be gross over categorization -remember I initially started with this and people quickly made a decision it wasn't a good idea and lists would be the best alternative. All they need is people so make some sort of effort to chip in with them to get them completed. The fact is that if each of the "400" film members put in even ten minutes work on them each it would be done in a few days period ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These tables give much more information than categories do. Categories only give you the films name. These tables give directors, actors and genres - along with a spot for notes. Thus a reader can go in many directions while perusing these as opposed to a category page. If a new consensus needs to be reached regarding these my vote is to keep them. MarnetteD | Talk 14:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tables are a great idea. Sure, some of them are stuby and lack detail, but only for the reasons Blofeld has given above. They do serve a purpose and are handy for identifing important gaps in missing articles for films, directors and actors. Lugnuts (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments above in support of these lists. Categorization isn't much more than a navigation tool in this regard, and I think these lists are already quite useful, and have the potential to be even more so. It seems to me that gradually they are being improved and added to, and they just need some more time and attention to begin to mature. Rossrs (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Granted, the lists aren't complete, but then, nothing on Wikipedia is ever technically completed. The lists grow as articles are created, and that takes time. Categories don't contain the details that a list can and should. I can, and will, certainly start checking to see if individual films are contained within these lists as I am working on filmographies for actors. It's a simple matter to take that one extra step. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<unindent> Agreement here as well. Categorization here would only be useful in a navigational sense and would give only the film names. These pages work not only for navigation, but also as a guide to what needs to be done (missing articles). There's also a good parallel to the similar work being done for other countries, which gives some consistency to the project as a whole. SkierRMH (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the tables would be more appropriate than categories. A) Wikipedia itself is perpetually incomplete, B) Tables, like others have said, can go in better depth than categories, C) Standards can be set for using non-free images, if at all -- there are lists that don't use any images, and D) The linking in this context seems appropriate, as these aren't articles that would necessarily be wiki-linked all over the board unlike a specific film or actor. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or try to use only free images. For films pre 1960 the commons has many trailer shots which are free images. With film I do feel that limited images are very useful ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In broad agreement with everyone else here, though I would just like to say that I slightly resent your implied criticism of the rest of the project's members, many of whom put a lot of time and effort into their own particular corners of this vast project. That few have chipped in on your particular area should not be grounds for such criticism, just the same as your lack of participation in other editors' areas should not grounds for criticising you. There's enough work to ensure that one can spend weeks on something project-related without ever encountering another member. All the best, and I wish you luck in your continued improvements. Steve TC 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, vehemence, that was unexpected; I only had one comment/reply the previous time I brought this up. The chief problems with these pages are their insular nature and the prevelance of unnecessary decorative copyrighted images in them.

If this project ultimately has plans for integrating these pages into the whole of Wikipedia, I don't intend to piss in your Cheerios. Since this collection of pages are almost wholly insular, I thought they were the abandoned chaff from some previous project initiative. My only input on them would be to name them as lists as the majority on Wikipedia are; i.e. List of American films of 2001, w/o the "list of" differentiation it might be construed to be an encyclopedic article discussing the whole of American filmmaking of that year. Capiche?

Many of these list articles (how many, I didn't check) have a copyrighted image heading the list as representative of whichever film won the Academy Award for Best Picture; that is wholly unnecessary and failing of WP:NFCC#1, #3a, and #8. If the project is going to remove them, I'll leave them to your auspices, or if you're obliged, I'll remove them. Cheers. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah thats right, you're the loon who fussed about the Dances with Wolves image and ended up deleting it from the whole encyclopedia if I'm not mistaken. And now you want to "remove" the lot. You act as if there are twenty on each page. I personally think one single image of the Academy winning film or top grossing film of that year is useful, with film to disregard images completely seems implausible when film is about the visual. If possible I do think images can be replaced with free images if possible (earlier films more likely) e.g see American films of 1951 but remember each of the singular images have a detailed rationale for use. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 19:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to Steve I always appreciate the work that others do across the project and didn't inend to imply as if nobody was doing anything. I am fully aware that many members of the film project are doing great things. What I was referring to was that despite a request on the monthly newsletter for people to add least help a bit nobody did anything. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
American films of 2001 is quite suitable particularly as I intend that we turn them into more than just lists eventually ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else have any further input on this subject? With regard to the use of copyrighted images in lists of films: I find them unnecessarily decorative, but if this project's consensus is for their retention, I'll bring the subject to WT:NFCC for their specific review. OTOH, If this project has no objections, I'd be happy to remove them from these lists myself.

And did anybody have any input on the subject of duly renaming these lists as such? blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs)'s ... reply gave no input regarding this on his or her (or the project's) behalf. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that images should be removed, as there isn't much context for why one over another (and picking the Best Picture winner is tantamount to endorsement of the award, thus POV). Deletion would be a bad idea, I think, as it leads to the proliferation of excessive categories for a given film, assuming international co-production, etc. We've been trying to keep the categories to simple non-intersections, not only for category proliferation control, but also because it has been promised (although without a specific date) that dynamic cat intersection is going to be added to the wiki software shortly. (ie, one would request Category:American films of 2001 by asking for the common articles which are in Category:American films and Category:2001 films.) Additionally, recategorization is a time-consuming process, especially with the number of articles our project covers, so changes to category schemes generally are encouraged to proceed slowly and with a great deal of prior discussion and deliberation. As for the renaming, what did you have in mind, again? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no no. I'm not advocating their deletion any more, I originally thought they were a forgotten niche project of this WikiProject, since the last time I brought it up only one person had anything to say about them. If you guys want 'em, I'm happy to leave you to them, no biggie! I'm just now suggesting renaming them as "List of..."; for example renaming American films of 1970 to List of American films of 1970. Since they really are more lists than prosed encyclopedic articles, it would seem more appropriate titling than current. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't have an objection to renaming. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any further support or opposition to my suggestions here (not the categorization, as before)? I'd rather not endure the in-wiki lashing of blofeld of SPECTRE (talk · contribs) w/o a wider discussion from the rest of this Project. I'm appreciative of Girolamo Savonarola (talk · contribs)'s support and his position in this WikiProject, but would rather not think to rely on any protection from him. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC page?

I would like to suggest the creation of a subpage on this WikiProject that would display all film-related FAC processes. We already have an assessment subpage and a peer review subpage, and I feel that it would be beneficial to the community to have a subpage that shows active FAC processes. It could be modeled similarly to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film in having a brief description (especially referring to MOSFILM and general FA criteria) and the simple list of FAC processes. I'm suggesting this because some FAC processes seem to have come and gone without much community awareness. Thoughts on this? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support 100%, a lot of hard-working people have goals on getting the articles of movies they love so much featured. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of articles undergoing the FAC process are Transformers (film) and The Simpsons Movie. There could be more, but I'm not aware of them. Thus, centralizing them would be a good collaborative effort by everyone so the articles can be reviewed by multiple editors. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and created it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Featured article candidates, which has three FAC processes listed now. I'm not sure how to go about possible bot archiving, though, like the deletion listing page has. Any feedback would be appreciated. In addition, if this subpage is OK, where in the table could it be inserted? It doesn't fall under a department, so I guess general information? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea, but I must admit unfamiliarity in this area. We have the announcement board, which seems to have some impact, but a dedicated and watchable page would be another good step. By all means steam ahead! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note

World cinema templates standardised

I noted the following back in July:

A user pointed out to me that 2 templates exist, Template:East Asian Cinema and Template:East Asian cinema. The former had only 2 linking articles (under special:whatlinkshere/) and the latter had 12, so I took the easy route and amended the 2, meaning the template with "Cinema" with an uppercase C can now be deleted.

However, I took a look at the other similar templates and they're not standardised:

  • Template:Worldcinema - lowercase c, no space. This is the main World Cinema template containing links to all countries.
  • Template:World Cinema - Uppercase C. Contains links to 6 continental cinema "parent" articles and the 4 sub-continental Asia articles.

So are we happy with the format of these templates? Should they be standardised?

Gram123 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am happy with the templates. And, they should be standardized, both in design and naming conventions. I prefer the format that is used on the majority of the templates, such as Template:Southeast Asian cinema, with the light purple background. Lowercase c, with a space makes the most sense. Something additional to address would be a replacement for the film reel that was formerly in the templates, but went away with the deletion of the stock images. I had tried using a map image inside a clapperboard, similar to the flag icons that have been created, but I am displeased with the results and would urge a different direction, possibly finding another freely licensed film-related photo, like a camera lens or film reel. — WiseKwai 18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered about this, and so have now made some amendments. I haven't touched Template:Worldcinema and Template:World Cinema, because I don't quite know what to do with those. However, I've standardised all of the other template titles, and fixed all redirects to each. So we now have:

Gram123 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how standardization could be a bad idea. Please do feel free to be bold and make the necessary changes (providing that everything stays fully functional and working). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About two years ago, standardization was developed with film being the correct term for the product, and "cinema" used only to refer to the theaters. Now someone seems to have reverted the standard to using "cinema" for films/movies/motion pictures. With this evident lack of regard for work already done and standards already established, talking about "standardization" seems irrelevant. Wikipedia is too subject to the wills of different cliques, each vying for, and eventually achieving, dominance and not building on the work of predecessors but simply endlessly rewriting already-set material in new terms - cosmetic changes rather than substantive ones. Changing shape and color is not the same as growing; solve that Wiki dilemma before wasting time on temporary "standardizations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.198.54 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a core list

The question of the importance parameter has been raised sporadically in the past. In lieu of this, a core list has been proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Core. I'll let you read the page instead of rehashing the details, but if you'd like to help out, your comments and questions on the list's talk page are welcome! Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation: Review Department now up and running; A-Class reviews

Well, taking the ball from the FAC page, I've decided to consolidate all of the review processes into one page, so as to keep it simple. Following on the model of MilHist yet again, A-Class review has been brought on board as well. This will allow us to distinguish between the informal process of general article guidance (Peer review), formal content review (A-Class review), and final, tightly-polished review (Featured article candidate). All of the relevant reviews are transcluded, so there is no need for editors to wander amongst several locations - this is the one-stop shop for all editors interested in film to go! :) Your comments are always welcome. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There are currently about 260 films in this category currently that need to be sub-categorized. Please take a couple of minutes to help empty this category! SkierRMH (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on quite a few of these - I'll try and clear some more before the category fills up again. Lugnuts (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help - Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Please can someone help me with this - see the talk page for more discussion about the issue. --Solumeiras (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mission: Impossible III needs your assistant.

Click here for more information. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please don't reply to this section, instead reply where it's leading you to. The reason for that is because this discussion can get mixed up with all kinda movie discussion by the time it archives, it's easier for the future if people can can just look at the movie talk page to see why the article was cleaned up, instead of having to look for it on the highly active WikiProject.

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [1] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes

Is the news section of IGN's "Rotten Tomatoes" considered a reliable source for industry news? -- Vary | Talk 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how the information is reported. I'm wary of movie websites over actual newspaper coverage. They usually go two ways -- a report from an anonymous source, or information upfront from the filmmakers. If it's the former, it can't be dependable. If it's the latter, then it'd be appropriate. Of course, I'd favor newspaper coverage over movie websites whenever possible, but sometimes the websites get more information than newspapers. That's how I've seen it. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned in particular about a copy of a film's production notes from a press kit, which was posted by a contributor there along with a stack of stills and other promotional materials.
Rotten Tomatoes actually one of a number of online sources that have published the same document; that's just the link that happens to be in use at the moment, so I guess I should have said "sites like Rotten Tomatoes", as it's not really that site in particular that's the issue. -- Vary | Talk 06:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which article in particular is this relating to? Want someone to take a look at the source? Steve TC 08:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. They're the production notes for Cloverfield, posted in this article. I think they'd fall more under the 'word from the producers' category Erik mentioned above? -- Vary | Talk 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be unlikely to dispute these production notes unless someone really wanted to believe that the notes are susceptible because they're being posted on a possibly questionable website. I'm in support of the notes -- I've actually cited them in my revision of Cloverfield (creature) due to the AFD apparently not being successful midway through. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Must concur with Erik here. (Speaking of which, we're probably due for a discussion regarding guidelines for film character pages.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, that would probably involve those at WP:FICT, since it has a lot to do with the issue of notability. The guideline's been revised, so I don't know if that would be genuinely applicable. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to be said, but I want to wait for FICT to settle down, first. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deindent. Thanks for the input, guys. One more question: there's also been a discussion on the source at the RS noticeboard, which started a little while after this thread. Only one uninvolved editor weighed in there. He's said the problem with the source was that Giles doesn't give an author's name ("Documents that have no author are puzzling to cite.") Is it unusual for marketing materials like these to have no author listed? I was under the impression that when there's no author available, we should use the publisher. (I asked the same questions there yesterday, but the only response I've gotten was from an involved party.) -- Vary | Talk 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, publisher is fine (just leave the author field blank). Another example would be official press releases, which Wikipedia also considers acceptable sources despite lacking a named author. Steve TC 17:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks again, everyone. -- Vary | Talk 18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not thank him to fast. You do not have a legally fit publisher, and thus you cannot have it under Wikipedia Verifiability. There is no on document author or copyright, nor is there preventive measure to keep it from being forged. There is no information on the movie's main page, nor is their source of information except vague rumor for that which you are wanting to use the source to "prove". Ottava Rima (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must interject to mention that what Vary posted is not the case. Instead of getting the results she wanted at the proper forum, she came here, did not mention any background detail on the source. If anyone is interested and wishes to reevaluate, please go here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rotten_Tomatoes_Critic_Blogs. Ottava Rima (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Before you accuse me of forum shopping, Ottava, I invite you to take another look at the timestamps on the two discussions.[2][3] On the lack of 'background detail', I kept the comment bare-bones because I was making a point of keeping my question as neutral as possible: the point of getting a third view isn't to make your argument all over again to some new people, it's to get a few sets of fresh eyes to look at the issue themselves. What precisely in what I said above is 'not the case'?
As for your other concerns in your message to me above, I've already responded (and responded and responded) to those points. There is no point in me, personally, discussing the source's merits any further with you, which is why I brought the discussion up here, where there are likely to be people familiar with what content on Rotten Tomatoes is and is not acceptable as a source. -- Vary | Talk 14:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've responded. No one is denying that you responded. However, that forum is for third parties to respond and for the parties involve to mostly listen. Why else go into third party moderation on a verifiable source? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre, Film and Drama backlog at GAC

There are currently 38 articles awaiting review at GAC relating to Theatre, Film and Drama; several of them have been waiting more than a month. Any help in reducing this backlog would be very helpful! María (habla conmigo) 15:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kart Racer.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kart Racer.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

The uploader has been blocked from Wikipedia.--Rockfang (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about lists in various movie articles

Are parody lists necessary? I think they fall under fancruft and just plain clutter, and perhaps Wikipedia is not a directory. See Epic Movie and Date Movie as two examples. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the problem is that for articles like these, it's not easy to explain to new editors that just because some elements are obvious to them doesn't mean they're appropriate to point out indiscriminately. Parodies are tricky in this regard because a lot of their elements can make sense to us in the present that it does not warrant contemporary analysis, but it may not make sense when looked back 50 years from now, when pop culture has definitely moved on. Historical perspective is what matters on Wikipedia. Fifty years from now, the elements in a parody film cannot be verified by editors without secondary sources if they no longer live in the same environment as present viewers. I'd suggest removing the lists if you can. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 20:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a reader can watch the film that contains the parody, and also watch the film that is being parodied, the information is verifiable. I suppose if you want to get technical, a citation that Darrell Hammond is parodying Jack Sparrow in Epic Movie would be appreciated, but if a reader has seen Pirates of the Caribbean, it's evident. I guess it depends on which of these two essays[4][5] an editor agrees with. --Pixelface (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have a tendency to dislike these kind of "look at two sources and make the connection" (even though it can be pretty obvious). I try to look at Wikipedia articles from a historical perspective, and I'm not sure if people watching either film 50 years from now would be as culturally attuned. Thus, such "evident" similarities would not always remain that way. Another concern is that listing every parody would equate a blow-by-blow account for the film. If the whole film is built on parodying elements, then we're pretty much detailing the whole film in the article. I think that comedy and popular culture are topical challenges because what's funny to one person may not be funny to another, and we're bombarded with pop culture references every single day. I haven't really delved into these topics because there's not really a gold standard set for either one. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that at least one film critic has made a similar connection, which can be cited if necessary. If a film is a parody film, I wouldn't call it fancruft. If you mention every parody in the Plot section, it might be a blow-by-blow account, but I don't see a problem with parodies in an alphabetical list. The articles Hot Shots! and Hot Shots! Part Deux have similar sections. --Pixelface (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No list is "necessary" (nor any article for that matter). --Pixelface (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resevoir Dogs

Hey, I put Reservoir Dogs up for peer review and I would greatly appreciate any help I can get with this article, thanks in advance.--The Dominator (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Movie

I'm currently massively expanding the wiki page for monster movies. So far I've made a histroy section then I'm going to make one one conventions and another on symbolism. However for the intro paragraph, currently there is a statement that says there isn't an actual critical classification of genre of that name... does anyone have a citation to support this OR says otherwise? Stabby Joe (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that monster movies were originally recognized as "creature features", as evidenced by the book Creature Features. They're not really called that nowadays, but "monster movie" may be an evolution of the term. With that said, I think the article seems to focus on oversized monsters for some reason -- there's a lot of classic monsters that could be mentioned. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books shows that "monster movie" has very relevant hits. I'd rephrase the article accordingly. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well currently it is mentioned that when crtics classify films, they don't use monster in genre description however (cheers who the book link BTW) that does show critics DO call films by that name. How would one word that via intro? As for the oversized monsters, it would appear that term is given to films features those than lets say Dracula... which is mentioned still. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem is if it isn't a monster movie. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More of a sci-fi action/horror considering the aliens are against eachother and the monsters (predator) are less conventional "monsters". The term appears to usually given to films with large monsters... but of course part of my point of my previous questions, questioned this. Stabby Joe (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CORE: Last request

As mentioned above and in the announcements for over a week, a proposal to create a core list and scrap the importance parameter has been brought up. We are still without any comments, however, so if you have any opinions one way or another, please voice them within the next few days. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Films series lists clean up

I am currently trying to clean up the film series lists. This is hard going do to a lot of items that are very confusing and whose pages are messes. I would like to get other filmians opinions on several things. - LA @ 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Films from television series episodes

Should these really be considered films if they are just compilations of episodes? The series Star Wars: Droids put out two such films, yet all they are is episodes cut together. The same is true for the Quatermass films. So, if there is little or no new content from the episodes, shouldn't these be considered episode compilations instead of films? Shouldn't there be significant new material for them to stand on their own? Also, this could open the door for every two or three part episode out there to be considered a stand alone film. - LA @ 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be considered episode compilations. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should have a new category, something along the lines of Television series edited into films. - LA @ 10:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remakes part of a series?

Should remakes and updates be considered part of the series or not? - LA @ 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no. they aren't in series. at most they should be considered addendums. EraserGirl (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say no, but then I thought of Batman Begins. I think that it should depend on the nature of the franchise. For example, the original film could be made by a certain set of individuals, and the remake is made by a completely different set of individuals, then I'd hesitate to suggest the notion of a "film series" there. However, for a film like Batman Begins, the film rights have been under Warner Bros. all this time. Are there any questionable examples you can share? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will get a list together in a bit, it may be lengthy. The lists of film series are such a mess right now, I want to scream. - LA @ 10:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thoughts

As I think of more, they may be added. Currently I am wading through a lot of the Japanese films series added to the lists which may need to be combined into one long list each without all the sub-series. - LA @ 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review Request

I was wondering if somebody from this Wikiproject could give a rating for the article on Juno. I am will soon be offering a challenge of at the Awards Center for the improvement of this article with the eventual goal of helping to get this article to FA status. Knowing where this article stands currently would be incredibly helpful. Thanks --Sharkface217 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, based on the talk page banner, it looks like it's been assessed at Start, which seems appropriate as of the diff I just looked at. If you want further feedback, this WikiProject has a review department where you can add the film for a peer review. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

In the film review, it is claimed that Dylan's father never applaudes. Actually, he does applaude for Akeelah in the final competition, and then "catches" himself, showing a bit of humanity that underlies his tough persona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgillam (talkcontribs) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to plot detail from Akeelah and the Bee. My suggestion is that such a nuance from the story should be excluded as a minor detail from the film. The Plot section should convey the general events of the film, such as the final competition and the protagonist's outcome in it. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the members of the project. Today User:Widgett began adding links such as this one [6] to film pages. It seems a little spammy to me. I also wonder about the promotional aspect since the reviews have more to do with the Criterion Collection's DVD of the film than the film itself. I wanted to have other eyes look at this before a final judgment is made so any help and direction that you can give will be appreciated. Here is a quick link to this editors contributions so you can see what films have had this link added. MarnetteD | Talk 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the single-website behavior is soliciting in nature. There's many, many film reviews out there, ranging from those widely circulated in newspapers to those published on blogs. The reviews in question seem to be added indiscriminately under the impression that it's OK to have a link farm, rather than providing a very relevant link to a specific film. Considering the blanket solicitation, I doubt the relevance of each link has been explored by the editor. I've removed them for the most part. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Erik. MarnetteD | Talk 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography content question

I've started to work on a few filmographies and nominating them at WP:FLC. Namely, Christopher Walken filmography, Woody Allen filmography, and Vittorio Storaro filmography. In the midst of these various nominations, one particular point of contention has been whether the gross of films is relevant to such a list. Specifically, if such data is relevant, if so, how best to present it, and if this applies to all filmographies or just some. So, they way I've been doing it so far is with a top-10 kind of list, based on date from Box Office Mojo. In the above examples, filmographies or an actor, director, and cinematographer respectively, I included the top-10 list similarly throughout, for the sake of consistency. I have also argued that the gross is both an indicator of the popularity of a film, as well as the type of film the person tends to work, and therefore a good measure of the person's career. I've also included gross averages and total gross of their entire body of work as well. However, various arguments have been made questioning the relevance to filmographies as a whole, as well as if they are relevant to only directors, only actors, and not cinematographers, etc. An alternative that I suggested, is to swap the top-10 list with an extra column in the main table providing the gross of all films, wherever the data is available. This too has been a point of contention, however, so we're stuck. So, I thought I'd bring the question here, to the experts so to speak. Any ideas? Drewcifer (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that there is mild misrepresentation when tying box office performance with an actor or a cinematographer. As opposed to the director, who is always significant in the production of a film, an actor's role in a film may vary from major to minor. For example, looking at Christopher Walken filmography, Walken was in Wedding Crashers, and while he had a supporting role, he wasn't in the lead. Thus, I believe it's not encyclopedic to mention such films because there is no evidence that Walken served as a basis for the high gross. If he didn't do that, then what is the point of mentioning that information? It seems akin to pointing out that he was in the well-received Pulp Fiction where nothing was actually attributed to him. I think that the bankability of an actor can be reflected, but prose needs to be drawn upon, rather than raw data. For example, Matt Damon and Will Smith were accredited with being very bankable. Damon showed this with his role as Jason Bourne, and Smith's film-carrying lead role in I Am Legend was a personal best for the actor. As for cinematographers, I think that the argument is somewhat weaker. I really don't find it commonplace to point out that a specific cinematographer was tied to the resulting gross of a film that he shot. Accolades are obviously acceptable -- just not box office performance. There's a lot of raw data for people involved in film. I think that to avoid being indiscriminate, prose should be a factor because it's independent acknowledge of something important in the raw data, like Roger Deakins working on so many Coen Brothers films. Hope you get what I mean by all this. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed similar arguments at the FLC process... sorry to be regurgitating it. :-P —Erik (talkcontrib) - 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I made my views on the matter clear in the Walken and Storaro FLCs, but it probably would be appropriate to bring this up here in order to be more germane to all filmographies and get more POVs from other editors who may not normally patrol FLC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I can certainly see this perspective on the issue, my argument has been this: the data presented isn't necessarily there to show how big of a box-office draw Actor A or Cinematographer B or Director C might be (though that may be a useful interpretation in some cases), but as a quantifiable way to understand the films they have worked on. We can learn alot about Storaro's work, for instance, based on the box-office draw of his films: he tends to work on films of a certain scale, or a certain caliber, etc. This fact is echoed by the totals/averages of the films. I see these tables acting in a similar capacity as chart positions in discographies: X people consumed this product, as opposed to this product. From the same data, we can also establish a hierarchy of sorts, even if we were unaware of each film in the first place. For Walken's filmography, there is obviously a difference between his work in Catch me if You Can and The Milagro Beanfield War. However, I freely acknowledge the weaknesses of the tables, namely that box office grosses change as inflation changes and interest in films change. It's not as solid of a quantifier as a chart position since we're dealing with a changing scale. Also, it can be mis-interpreted, granted. Which is why I'm happy to bring the issue here and get some more opinions on the matter. Drewcifer (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can learn alot about Storaro's work, for instance, based on the box-office draw of his films: he tends to work on films of a certain scale, or a certain caliber, etc. - If you were discussing the films' budgets (and somehow could account for inflation or the average cost of films in that year), then you might have an argument. But you're discussing the box office gross which is not correlative to anything involving Storaro. I would implore you to please not fetishize the grosses as if they actually validate the quality of the work done on-set. At best they demonstrate the effectiveness of the marketing department. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd say I'm fetishizing it. I'm trying to acknowledge it for what it is: an method of quantifying public opinion/reaction/consumption in the best way possible. It's definitely imperfect, but it's also has the potential to be useful and educational. Drewcifer (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To bring an example of Storaro's into stark relief, I am fairly certain that despite being known as a "bomb", Ishtar's $12m take massively overshadowed whatever The Conformist made as a foreign film 17 years earlier. Nonetheless, the former is not a notable film wrt Storaro's career, while The Conformist is generally considered by cinematographers to be one of the most influential films in their field ever, and is usually cited as his masterwork. It's box office take, largely contingent on its circulation (or lack thereof) in theaters of the period, cannot in any reasonable measure be shown to correlate with its influence. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Additionally, you didn't address my comment re budget vs. box office and which is more relevant to your claimed relevance arguments. I'd also say that the inclusion of statistics outside of the appropriate context essentially is a NOT statistics issue, amounting to indiscriminate information for the context of the article, which is to say, Storaro's career, not that of the producers he worked with. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I brought the topic here so we can get some more opinions, not so we can keep repeating ourselves. But to respond nonetheless: Conformist is most definitely more influential than Ishtar, but there's no way of quantifying influence. But there is a way to quantify consumption. Movies are made to be consumed, therefore I think it's a relevant statistic. And budget has nothing to do with consumption either. Drewcifer (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this is my point - just because there is a concrete quantifiable statistic doesn't mean that it's relevant. Indeed, extrapolating importance from box office is essentially OR. And my point about budget vs. box office take is that the latter has nothing to do with your hypothetical demonstration that he tends to work on films of a certain scale or a certain caliber - only the budget would show the scale, while awards would probably be a better measure or caliber (and just as quantifiable). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well it looks like my best efforts to get further conversation going have failed, so I guess I'm slightly overruled on the matter. So, to hopefully gain something useful from the discussion, what would anyone's recommendations be? Should box office gross be completely eliminated from all filmographies, or should they remain on some (ie actors, directors, producers, etc)? Drewcifer (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to clean up various film lists, but can't do that if the people who know the subjects are not going to answer a few questions. Please help me get these lists straightened out. - LA @ 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No replies:

One or two replies:

(I've listed this on the announcements in order to garnish further attention.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown title

Alright when I was a kid I saw a movie where a kid is playing with a toy on Earth but it breaks, so he gives it to his dad to fix, but the Earth is about to explode and he gets separated from his dad as he goes onto one space ship and his dad on another. Then at the end of the movie he finds his dad's ship and it has his fixed toy along with the DNA of every species on Planet Earth, and him and his girlfriend decide to make New Earth. This movie is most likely in the 1990s. Help endlessly appreciated. 76.16.188.239 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titan A.E. - LA @ 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU! I have been trying to find this title for years! 76.16.188.239 (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. - LA @ 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the new Featured Content from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/January 2008 Newsletter to Portal:Film. In the future I think that consulting the WP:FILMS newsletter will be a great way to quickly check the new featured content against what's currently in the portal - but if you notice anything that is missing, please don't hesitate to drop a note at Portal talk:Film, and I'll update the portal. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has 7 examples from films. Suggestions on reducing it to maybe just 5, and which ones? 5 of 7 are sci-fi, 1 is romance, and 1 is a plain thriller; so getting a better balance would be nice, keeping maybe just 2 sci-fi ones: Alien and Star Trek?

Please discuss at Talk:Tagline. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-17t21:02z

Comic Book Characters in film

I recently removed the WikiProject Films from the Batgirl article, although now, I'm not sure I should have. I can understand having it a part of the Batman article, considering Batman has numerous film adaptations, however, for other characters such as Batgirl, or Poison Ivy or Mr. Freeze, who have only one feature film adaptation and who are supporting characters in said films- I'm not sure if they should be considered part of WikiProject Films. Any thoughts?Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this question was also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ComicsBookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killers from space

Since Killers from Space is now public domain, does this mean that the copyright notice on the images from the film can be changed to a public domain notice? Or am I mistaken?Black Dalek (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]