Talk:List of years in film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Narrow minded This list should be renamed "List of years in american film". Even then it would be very narrow minded. There is a strong commercial bias, Maya Deren is not even mentioned. Film is not only about making money.

Why are we including television here? If we're going to have this -- and if we do, it really should just be the important stuff -- Spongebob Squarepants really doesn't qualify. -- Zoe

Of course it qualifies Vera Cruz

There's going to be a separate set of pages for "years in television"... Was Spongebob in a movie? -Jazz77


Could this list be changed to go forwards please? And I've moved "1800s in film" -- on Wikipedia, that is a decade not a century -- Tarquin 22:27 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

I removed from 1920 : - As radio is introduced, the popularity of silent films begins to decline

Seems a very dubious claim since silent films were still a growing industry and radio a curiosity still rare in homes at the time. -- Infrogmation 06:35 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

I shudder to think that Kangaroo Jack is the epitome of 2003 in films -- Zoe

Why delete future events? For example the following movie is scheduled for release in early December 2003. The movie is in post-production and the studio has already committed to a Premier venue and date - publicly.
Because it hasn't happened yet. It may not happen. A world war may stop anything from being released by the end of the year. Peter Jackson may die in a car wreck and his work put on hold. Why make predictions? This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. -- Zoe

Most controversial film in history. - What makes it controversial? -- Zoe

It seems far too early to judge if Irreversible (movie) is the most controversial film in history. -- Infrogmation 02:13 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)


I'm going to make some comments that apply to all the 'Years in Film pages'.

If you are going to put release dates on movies, please make them the first release in any country, not in the US. Second, please use a universally recognised date format. (12/1) is ambiguous.

The "Top Grossing" section has real problems. First it means "Top Grossing in the U.S." without saying so (I know this because the figures are copied from the IMDB). Second it needs to add the IMDB disclaimer, in case people think that the figures are the amounts taken in the year in question. Third, any movie which might still be shown in a theatre can have its grosses change, and thus the figures for 2002 might still be changing in 2003; it might be better simply to give links to the IMDB, like we do for 2003.

Please don't include movies that were released in the US in the year in question if they were released elsewhere earlier. If we gave a movie an entry in every year in which it was released in some country or other the lists would be very confusing.

DJ Clayworth 16:02, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Top Grossing sections are a mess. I just checked 1942 and removed 4 of the 5 listings. SOme of those on the list made only a tenth of the box office of the top movies. I used IMDB and Mchael Gelbert's The Encyclopedia of Movie Awards. Does anyone know what source was used to originally make the lists? The link to box office totals on this page is just as bad for instance for 1951 it lists On the Riveria as #4 when Gelbert makes it #20. Not an isolated difference - such are more common than not. Rmhermen 15:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I did more checking and it appears that our lists are based on Worldboxoffice.com (link on this page) which at least currently says on its FAQ that the rankings should be ignored as there are so many missing movies from its database, especially old ones. I think we got duped. Rmhermen 16:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] 2009

  • What happened to 2009 in film? -AMK152 02:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shift in importance of films?

I have made a thorough round through all the years, making for each a section "Films released in xxxx", in the place of "Other films" or other similar occasional headings, making sure each film mentioned in Awards and Top grossing was added to it's release year (as stated in the corresponding article, or the amg if without article). I have given a steady form to the year navigation (to the top right of each article) and fixed many links to point to the film articles (still, many remain linking to irrelevant articles). Also I have made an effort to keep the index box as uniform through the years as possible, turnung some subheadings to bold text.

In Awards I have reduced some subheaders to bold (like already done in some years, where "Academy Awards" had been turned to Awards and under it (in capitalized bold) "Academy Awards", "Golden Globe" (with inlined underlined bold sub-titles for 2 sub-types) and "BAFTA". My opinion is that "Directors Guild" is also important for their choice of director of the year. I also don't see why Cannes' "Palme d'Or" is not equally present, since they also accept english films for their awards and offer a more european art film view.

In the years of the 2000's surely the information on money, by being tabled over Awards, breaks the balance. Has there really been a shift in judging films by economical success over quality? If so, this issue is worth mentioning, in some relevant article. My view is that Awards should preceede Top grossing, all through the years, and that Academy Awards should be Awards with subsections as mentioned above. Technically I see no harm as it is, so long as there is an inclusive list (not table) for the films of each year, so that entries can be easilly added and crossed with other lists. As for encyclopedic presentation, I think a peer should tell us what is best. Hoverfish 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_years_in_film_71a2.html"