Talk:2007 in film

Untitled films

While I realise that quite a few of the films listed on this page will not get made, I see no reason to include films which are at present untitled (films which are in production always have at least a working title). When and if things start moving on these films they can be re-added. Rje 15:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

PSR

It may just be my ignorance but what does PSR stand for?ONEder Boy 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing...---ACL- 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea either, I have changed them all back to WR and LR - like it is in the previous articles - and added a legend to further clarify the abbreviations. Rje 02:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Films on this page

When adding films to this article, can everyone please make sure that there is solid evidence that the film is being made (this is not just me being picky, it is policy). This article is not the place for rumoured projects, IMdB is. I will remove any film that is either rumoured or has stalled for longer than six months, and, for the record, I do not consider IMdB to be a reliable source of information. I know some might find this policy somewhat authoritarian, but I am doing it to maintain some level of information quality. Rje 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How come the film Away from her is not included? Here is the link for the film: http://www.caprifilms.com/awayfromher/index.html Julie Christie should get an oscar nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.81.139 (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Webcast only projects

Should projects such as 'Rough Science boys' which the listing says will be shown on youtube and maybe guba be listed at all? There's no page for it, and the ONLY google hit is a youtbue video removed for violatign YouTube's TOS. That hardly builds a case for acarrying such on the page.ThuranX 05:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it, if we allowed this we could have tens of thousands of other films made by kids with camcorders. You Tubs/Google Video films do not pass muster in terms of notability for having their own articles, this being the case they shouldn't be listed here. Rje 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rogue is TWO films.

I have repeatedly tried to clean up the mess that is Rogue in this list, but other editors continue to delete the commented sections i put into the article, then mash the two listings into one. Here's what I've found. [1] shows that at SOME point in Feb, the Li/Statham Rogue (LSR) here MAY be shown to critics. [2] Shows that the Michael Vartan/Crocodile Rogue (VCR) here is being released Feb 2nd. ThuranX 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Release dates

What are these dates set by? For example, Mr bean's Holiday is being released on 25 March. Simply south 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The release dates listed are the North American dates taken from www.boxofficemojo.com, which is by far the most accurate site on the internet for this type of information. Whilst it will be released in the UK on March 30, Mr Bean's Holiday will be released on September 28 in North America. We use North American dates because the film industry tends to be focussed primarily on this market, and it is necessary to use information from only one market in order to avoid confusion (it should also be pointed out that North America is the only market big enough to allow a clear distinction between wide and limited releases). I hope this answers your question. Rje 10:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Images - how can we use - the wiki looks incredibly dull without pictures

Images

How to we gain rights to use these images on our Wiki page. At the moment it is dull and boring - need some pictures to jazz it up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banacek555 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Using the images in the tables as they were doesn't comply with the non-free content criteria. To "jazz up" the list, only free-use images can be used. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm still confused about this. If the images are being already used on Wikipedia - does that not mean they can be used on others? Banacek555

Because the images are copyrighted, they are "non-free content"; the crux of the policies is that we can only use non-free content where necessary, and where it is used it must be clearly explained why we need to use said copyrighted material. Those images are presumably on Wikipedia for depiction in the films' article, but to use them here wouldn't qualify under the Wikipedia criteria. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Having now read up about this subject I propose we can use the scaled-down, low-resolution images of poster "to illustrate the film, event, etc. in question" which qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Are you happy for the images to be reinstated pd_THOR?

Battle of the Sequels 2

Why is this here? It's entirely original research. Will someone give me a good reason why it should be up in the first place? --Plasma Twa 2 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any mention of it in Entertainment Weekly ONEder Boy 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, until someone gives me a good reason for it to be in the article, I'm removing it. --Plasma Twa 2 05:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

something/someone has messed up the film release dates, half the film are flipping miss from 4th may onwards urgent maydsy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.13.202.173 (talk • contribs).

Mr. Beans Holiday

Mr. Beans Holiday has been released so why is it in unscheduled?

Major Mistakes

The Last King of Scotland and Miss Potter are both 2006 films and should not be on this list. Many other films are either not wide or in the wrong year (ex. La Vie in Rose). Casey14 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Chart

The Chart is messed up from Jan.- Mar. look at it and you can see that someone messed it up. February is intercepting January and March.

Limited releases

In the Scheduled 2007 releases section, limited releases are listed. But in the month tables, it says "The following films meet these criteria (600 screens or more) and indicate first major release date:" so I'm assuming we list limited releases as upcoming and then when they come out we drop them from the article? I think the tables should also include limited releases. For example, December Boys and King of California are currently in the Scheduled 2007 releases section, but if this sentence in the July - September section is to be followed "The following films meet these criteria and indicate first major release date:" that would mean those 2 films would not appear in this article. Should limited releases be excluded from this article? Or should we just remove the "wide release" criteria from the tables? Or should we create a different section for limited releases? Or should we just list limited releases in the table, but indicate that the movie is not a wide release (with LR -- which appears in the Scheduled 2007 releases section)? --Pixelface 21:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"International" box office totals.

These are not international totals, but totals excluding the USA and Canada but including the UK. Does anyone know of a short description to replace this incorrect "International"? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t10:02z

That is the correct term, as used by the industry, and is how such figures are released by the industry. Also, there's no need for such an arrogant edit summary as you used. ThuranX (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international project read all over the world. The quoted industry writes from a USA/CA POV, so that anything not USA/CA is "international". Readers from other countries don't split the world between USA/CA and "international".

The summary was a joke from The Princess Bride, sorry if it upset you. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t23:35z

This is the USA/UK Wikipedia, and this it the verifiable language used in the industry. I recommend you go after the film industry. When they change their terminology, we can change ours. Wikipedia isn't the soapbox for your assertions of anti-everyone else bias. ThuranX (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hate to butt in here, but this is NOT the "USA/UK" Wikipedia, it is the "English" Wikipedia, and English is spoken in a lot more countries of the world than just the USA/UK. Murderbike (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to ThuranX -- it may be the case that the film industry uses "international" to mean "everywhere but US and Canada", but if so, this is a technical usage with sufficient potential to mislead that it should be specifically explained in every article that uses it. In general I'm not anti-jargon, but jargon that doesn't look like jargon is dangerous. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then source it and add it, but i'm not going to sign off on dumbing down the encyclopedia to avoid hurting the feelings of people who object to not living in the USA or UK. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not using film industry jargon is "dumbing down"? That's kind of funny to me, given my opinion of the film industry.

More seriously, your logic is extremely strange -- what does the UK have to do with this? Are you saying the British film industry considers its revenues in Britain as "international", but in the US and Canada, not? And drifting off topic here, but how did "international" ever come to mean "foreign"? The natural meaning of "international" receipts is worldwide receipts -- virtually all revenue-generating film showings are in some nation-state or other. --Trovatore (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

blah blah blah. I get it. You live 'somewhere else', and your patriotism has you feeling you nation's been maligned. That's a POV, and this isn't the place to push it. Sorry. read up on the policies. ThuranX (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I live in the good old US of A. I have also lived fairly recently in Canada. They taught me in school that both were nation-states (I hope they're not "nations" in the nationalist sense, but that's neither here nor there). I don't have any POV to push here, except maybe the one that says I don't like your attitude -- you might read policies yourself, specifically WP:OWN, which indicates that whether you "sign off" or not is not the dispositive question here.

If this is in fact the standard usage in the industry (a matter that has yet to be established, and the burden of proof is clearly on you) then fine, let's use it, but let's explain it, because it's frankly weird. I think you're the one who should come up with the source, because you're the one that claims to know that this is standard usage. --Trovatore (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Burden is on those seeking to change, not those seeking to maintain, sorry. I already told others, look it up, cite it, and explain it, but we're not changing it to assuage hurt feelings. Go change the industry. I'm repeating myself on this point, so I'm done on it. Twice is enough. As for 'signing off', I simply state that i will not help create consensus to change to a version that panders to feelings over facts. Go do some research. ThuranX (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong. There is no burden of proof on the person who removes uncited information. This case has nothing to do with feelings versus facts, but rather with using ordinary English words as they would be understood by a speaker of English, versus ordinary English words used as terms of art in a way different from (and in fact inconsistent with) their plain meaning. Let me reiterate that I have no objection to using the term of art (with explanation!) if you can prove that it is in fact industry standard. Preferably with a citation from a film industry publication in an English-speaking country other than the US or Canada.

If it turns out that it is industry standard, but only for the US and Canadian film industry, well then things get more complicated -- the usage would not necessarily be ruled out a priori; sometimes you have to pick one country's usage, and the US is certainly the biggest player here. Still I would look for a more universal solution in that case, if one can be found. --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, you'd better get to work. SOunds like you've set yourself a big goal for the day. I remind you, it's not 'uncited information', it's vocabulary you object to based on 'WP:IDONTLIKEIT' thinking. And apparently, rather than do the legwork, you're foisting it off on others. Burden of supporting a change goes to the changer. Finally, this is probably the wrong place for this, as a change would have to be made project wide, to all the years in film, all the film articles using the terminology, all the articles discussing box office results, and so on. I suggest you bring this horrible injustice against all the people with hurt feelings to WP:FILM, where it can be addressed by many many more editors. ThuranX (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove the "international" column all together? I see no use in it.
The source that is currently being cited,[3], uses the word "domestic" to describe profits within the US and Canada. That alone implies that this source is written from a North American point of view, and while it is fine to use it as a source, we shouldn't use its terminology. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See discussion here. Murderbike (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Persepolis

I was going to add Persepolis (film) but wasn't sure which release date or flag icon to use. —Morning star (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't "Hot Fuzz" included?

Accordng to Box Office Mojo it was released April 20, 2007 and opened in 825 theaters.(widest Release 1,272 theaters) This would seem to meet the wide release criterion.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hotfuzz.htm

Rsquid (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Hot Fuzz should definitely be on the list. 142.177.159.170 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a US list and should be titled accordingly

The omission of this, and several other films encourage me to strongly suggest to the moderators / guardians that this article be renamed "2007 in AMERICAN film". I'm not dis'sing or any of that Wiki B.S. American cinema, and I wholeheartedly agree that there must be a cut-off or we'll end up with all 8,000 films released worldwide in 2007... BUT for films to ONLY be included because they reached widespread release IN THE USA suggests strongly to me that this list IS an American list, be it made-in-america or shown-in-america. I do not know if this is the appropriate forum, but I do ask the mods to give this serious consideration. 58.105.15.20 (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Aragond

Why are 2008 Oscar winners on this 2007 page?

Why is it that the 2008 academy award winners are shown on the year 2007 in film page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.88.35 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Most likely because the Academy Awards presented in 2008 were for films released in 2007. Oscars are always presented in February or March for films that had their first public presentation the previous calendar year, which is why you typically see studios saving their films they think will be awards contenders for the end of the year, so they will be fresh in the minds of Academy voters come awards season. A lot of times they will only screen at a single festival or have a small limited release at the end of the year to make them eligible for that award season and build buzz before getting a wider release closer to the award selection time. Recent examples include No Country For Old Men, Juno, and There Will Be Blood.
–207.180.187.8 (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)