Template talk:Infobox film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject iconThis template falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 
WikiProject Film (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Infoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Crediting The Wachowskis[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Matrix (franchise)#Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis. It partly concerns Template:Infobox film. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about the color process field[edit]

For articles about live-action movies, do I really insert the film stock used here or the technology the movie was post-processed with? For instance, in the Ronin (film) article, I found sources stating that the movie was photographed with Kodak film stock while its color was provided by Deluxe. Which of these should I insert in the parameter? Slightlymad (talkcontribs) 02:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The color process parameter is for animated films. It was ported in when the cartoon infobox was merged with the film one. Just ignore it for live-action films. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding an "executive producer" credit[edit]

I think we should add an executive producer credit in the infobox, as these producers finance the film, and are equally as vital as the producer, writer, and director of the film. ATC . Talk 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You may want to review the many times this has been brought up before and address some of the reasons why it has been rejected previously. Ravensfire (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ravensfire. Traditionally, we are pretty conservative about expanding the film infobox with more credits. We don't even have parameters for some positions that win awards, like costume designer, art director, production designer, visual effects supervisor. This does not mean that executive producers cannot be mentioned in the article at all. I've instead advocated for "Crew" sections that can show more credits than the film infobox (since that infobox is technically a summary of the article body, and sometimes even fully-written articles don't mention all the crew names). So I would not support an executive producer credit at this point, unless we can do something collapsible with infoboxes and wiki-code. However, collapsibility isn't really a deserved feature in such templates. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

New field?[edit]

I've just discovered that PatTheMoron is making edits like thus adding a field to the infobox that does not currently exist. At the moment PtM seems to be adding info about the people that wrote the English language versions of various foreign films films. I know that we tend to reserve the infobox for original theatrical release information. OTOH I don't know if there have been previous discussions about including a "dialogue" field. I feel that a decision should be made one way or the other about its inclusion and then - if the decision is to include the field - it can be added to the infobox rather than shoehorning it in. Also the proper instructions can be included in the documentation section. MarnetteD|Talk 03:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We do have several writing credits (writer, screenplay, story, based on). If "dialogue" is a proper credit on some films it would seem amiss to leave it out. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
All I can say is that when I previously included "dialogue" credits for films, I put them under "screenplay", but only discovered that an individual "dialogue" field can be created after reading The Killing - I just started using it because it looks less cumbersome than having to separate the screenwriters' credits with Dialogue:. PatTheMoron (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
We are usually reluctant to add new fields because we are wary of infobox bloat, but the writing parameters are something of a "pick 'n' mix" i.e. we don't use all of them at once. I don't think bloat is something we have to worry about in this case, because the dialogue creator will either go in the screenplay field or in their own field, but either way they are still going in the infobox. I agree with Pat that a dedicated field looks cleaner. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. In this specific use the field was added to films like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West to indicate who wrote the dialogue for the English language releases but who had nothing to do with the original scripts or films. What happens when there are dialogue writers for other language releases? If the field is to added I would recommend that it only be used for those who wrote any dialogue for the a films original release in its country of origin. MarnetteD|Talk 05:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Surely these films must have had English dialogue in the original versions though? I can't imagine that Clint Eastwood, Henry Fonda and Charles Bronson spoke in Italian so presumably the "dialogue" credit is for the person who provided the English dialogue? Betty Logan (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Betty Logan see this where Knox is listed as dialogue writer for the "English language adaption" while other people are listed as the script writers for the original film. As mentioned in this interview Mickey Knox's work was translating the lines for the voice actors who dubbed the lines for the US release of the film and came after the film had been made. This happened for so many of those delightful spaghetti westerns. I am not saying that this info shouldn't be in the article - just not in the infobox. In fact a mention in prose with sourcing would give more info to the reader. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
As I have encountered this with numerous Italian genre films, I would suggest trying to explain the situation in the prose. If the infobox can not cover information easily, then do not apply it and explain it in further detail in the prose. Anythings better than a bunch of (American version) (US Cut) (Italian-languge only) type of things that gunk up an infobox and are not what infoboxes are used for. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Written and directed by?[edit]

Often when a filmmaker both writes and directs a film they receive the credit "written and directed by". I think we should consider adding this option to the infobox. 1. From the perspective of the reader, it would make the infoboxes on such films less repetitive and cluttered. 2. The credit "written and directed by" has, to me, a subtle glamor that is lost when you split it up into two separate credits: it conveys a sense that the film is the work of a singular vision. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

One downside is that the bold words would wrap, which is usually not desirable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've always felt that the order of producer and writer needs to be flipped... That'll allow for a more intuitive, cleaner look when a film is written and directed by the same person. That's also the order common in billings anyway even when separate credits are given. And who wrote a film is more pertinent for most readers than who produced it. Nardog (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that as well, and I agree with changing the order. What order should the first few parameters go in? Take a look at Template:Infobox film/testcases for a proposed order (in the sandbox version). – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, technically, for US films, the winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture is the producer, which would mean he would be top of the list. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
What's that got to do with our infobox? How is that a reason to show the producer above the writer (and yet not above the director)? (rhetorical) Nardog (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You probably missed the fact that I was commenting on Jonesey95's comment with the proposed order and me saying "top". --Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm opposed to combining parameters for a few reasons. For #1, What happens in cases where the person directed, wrote, produced and edited? See Primer (film). Do we combine them all? As for your #2, what you talk about is the Author theory, however that is not a widely accepted way of looking at things, and most see a film not as a "singular vision", but as a collaborative work. --Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm opposed to a "Written and directed by" spot. That isn't done for "Glamor" purposes, that's done to save space. Because one person was in charge of multiple roles that happen to come next to each other in the credits. If say they were a producer and director, but not a writer, they would have separate credits because producers are mentioned before writers in standard crediting order.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Bignole, do you have sources for your claim? My understanding is that "written and directed by" is often (certainly in the modern day, at least) meant to convey auteur-ship/singular vision. Much like how on TV shows they now have the "created by" credit usually for the originating showrunner or writer. Yes, writing and directing credits are often listed in close proximity and I'm sure it's not always intentionally meant to signal "you are seeing the writer's story as they envisioned it themselves"... but I can't see how it's only ever just a convenience of the two credits being close in order. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The same could be asked of you. You start with "my understanding", but don't point to anything that says it's anything more than a simplification of credits. The only time you see it is when the director wrote the script themselves. You don't see "Screenplay by John Smith and Alex Idiot, written and directed by Alex Idiot". Even though the "and" part of that signifies that he wasn't part of a writing duo and wrote a separate script based on John's work. The WGA and the DGA are separate and each dictates that credit goes where credit is supposed to go. There is nothing that says a director must be listed as "Written and directed by" if they are the only script contributor, just that they receive a writing and directing credit for their work. There is no rule governing the use of "written and directed by" like there is for the use of "and" and "&" in writing, or the fact that unless you're an identified directing team you cannot have co-directors. It's used for streamlining the credits and as best I can actually find to help with award season to show that the director is the true visionary of the film (i.e., the equivalent of a "A Film by"). But we're not here to pander to award season narcissism, which is why the infobox shouldn't have a section for "written and directed by".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The footnote credit for "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers"[edit]

How the footnote should appear in relevant Wachowski film articles, which covers its appearance in the infobox, is being discussed at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)#Footnote implementation. Please join the discussion and weigh in with your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)