Talk:Film: Difference between revisions
→Ratings: new section |
|||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
I would just like to point out there there are no citations in this section. This makes me, even though I would think some of this information is true, doubt the validity of the section. One could even argue that it is an unnecessary section because film (in any format) is still a wildly used medium for recording motion pictures. |
I would just like to point out there there are no citations in this section. This makes me, even though I would think some of this information is true, doubt the validity of the section. One could even argue that it is an unnecessary section because film (in any format) is still a wildly used medium for recording motion pictures. |
||
Question to all you guys reading this: Should the section be fixed or Deleted or What? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zekeman95|Zekeman95]] ([[User talk:Zekeman95|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zekeman95|contribs]]) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Question to all you guys reading this: Should the section be fixed or Deleted or What? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zekeman95|Zekeman95]] ([[User talk:Zekeman95|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zekeman95|contribs]]) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Ratings == |
|||
hey there. wanso when most people search for a film title on wikipedia, they probably want to know how good it is. as it stands, most pages have a section "reception" that describes how critic reviewed the film. however this part is usually at the bottom of the page. |
|||
i propose we start adding film ratings into the main panel at the top of each film page. along wth the year of production, director etc, we should show how good the film was. |
|||
i know this is supposed to be an exncyclopedia and thus should deal with facts, but i think adding a numerical number is still farly scientific, and honestly, its artm it doesnt make sense to show all the info but not how "good it is. opinion is still information, and we should show people what they want. |
|||
please reply on my page so i know you replid. |
|||
[[User:DJLO|-DJLO]] ([[User talk:DJLO|talk]]) 01:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:33, 25 April 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
To-do list for Film:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Supernumerary 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC) The first movie theater in the world built only to show movies is the Vitascope Theatre (listed under Edisonia Hall because someone removed the direct reference. Opened in October 1896 it was designed only to show movies. The 1905 Pittsburgh Nickelodeon doesn't even come close! This needs to be fixed. |
Film was one of the Social sciences and society 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
Edit request from 68.164.115.223, 12 September 2010
- REDIRECT Template:Edit semi-protected/preload
I DIRECTED THE OPEN TITLE HOT ACTION SEGMENT FOR THE 1985 MOVIE "HOT MOVES". ALSO DIRECTED THE HOT SHORT, "ROLLER SKATE FEVER' 1981, WHICH OPENED WITH E T AT THE HOLLYWOOD CINERAMA DOME PAUL SHAPER
PLS ADD THIS TO THE CREDTIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.115.223 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
'Story'
As a film student with a passion for experimental cinema I already have a massive problem with the opening line of this article: "A film, also called a movie or motion picture, is a story conveyed with moving images." This implies ALL films are 'stories' conveyed with 'moving images', and this is massively biased towards commercially dominant western modes of film-making, ignoring many important and loved works from various avant-gardes throughout cinema history. Derek Jarman's 'Blue', for instance, is the last film by an important director, which tells the story of his struggle with AIDS, though the film itself consists of no 'moving images'. There are also countless examples of non-narrative films which in no way convey any kind of 'story'. Could this opening line please be changed to remove the bias towards narrative film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.136.60 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- thanks for the info i support what he said...Babumonsms (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree completely. How should we change it? Donniedarkofan2006 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have changed it myself. I think it now more accurately reflects the reality. Donniedarkofan2006 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree completely. How should we change it? Donniedarkofan2006 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Wildeq, 3 January 2011
{{edit semi-protected}}
"Rather than leave the audience in silence, theater owners would hire a pianist or organist or a full orchestra to play music fitting the mood of the film at any given moment." - not true, first music in cinemas had purpose of covering noise of movie projectors.
I would say:
"Rather than leave the audience with noise of early cinema projectors, theater owners would hire a pianist or organist or a full orchestra to play music that would cover noises of projector. Eventually musicians would start to fit the mood of the film at any given moment."
Wildeq (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done Logan Talk Contributions 02:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It would be nice to have a source for this to verify the information and justify adding it to History of film. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- A 16 mm spring-wound Bolex "H16" Reflex camera, a popular introductory camera in film schools
Was certainly true in the 1980s and early 1990s, but in this day and age, I just don't believe it anymore. Most film students are using digital cameras. I'm going to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
All the major film schools in the east still use Bolexs or other 16mm cameras in the beginning. Ryerson University, York, Humber, Concordia in Canada. The New York Film Academy, and others all still use 16mm widely. I am reversing your mistake. (Yohowithrum (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC))
"Future State" Section has no Citations
I would just like to point out there there are no citations in this section. This makes me, even though I would think some of this information is true, doubt the validity of the section. One could even argue that it is an unnecessary section because film (in any format) is still a wildly used medium for recording motion pictures. Question to all you guys reading this: Should the section be fixed or Deleted or What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekeman95 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ratings
hey there. wanso when most people search for a film title on wikipedia, they probably want to know how good it is. as it stands, most pages have a section "reception" that describes how critic reviewed the film. however this part is usually at the bottom of the page.
i propose we start adding film ratings into the main panel at the top of each film page. along wth the year of production, director etc, we should show how good the film was.
i know this is supposed to be an exncyclopedia and thus should deal with facts, but i think adding a numerical number is still farly scientific, and honestly, its artm it doesnt make sense to show all the info but not how "good it is. opinion is still information, and we should show people what they want.
please reply on my page so i know you replid.
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class film articles
- C-Class filmmaking articles
- Filmmaking task force articles
- Core film articles supported by the filmmaking task force
- C-Class core film articles
- WikiProject Film core articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- C-Class Media articles
- High-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles