Talk:Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Film article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
To-do list for Film: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • NEEDS IN-LINE REFERENCES
  • Expand the crew section.
  • Film theory needs to mention major movements/people.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 35 mm, use 35 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 35 mm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Supernumerary 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Good article Film has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Film as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hungarian language Wikipedia.
Archive

Archives
May 2005 – August 2005

Contents

[edit] Timeline

I just finished re-reading the timeline. It seems slightly bereft of information following the 80s. The 90s and the 00s may not have seen the same radical changes as the decades before, but there's still a lot to talk about with the rise of DVD and the distribution of movies illegally via peer2peer (and the MPAA's attempts against that movement), as well as other issues --Harmonica 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This should be addressed in History of Film. For whatever reason someone copied what was there and put it here, and no one has condensed it down into the appropriate summary yet. MechBrowman 03:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of this Article

Currently, this article is about the medium as well as the industry, and has a focus on history. Noisy suggests that the Cinematography article could be left to cover media and technology, and some history as well. More content is covered in Movies basic topics.

There has been a possibly misguided effort to pull in the content from other articles (timelines, etc) into this one. I say misguided because (1) the result is far, far, less readable and (2) the information was merely duplicated instead of moved entirely. Still, we really should have a consensus-based roadmap for what belongs in the various articles, and until we have one of those to point people to. So as I don't have the time at this exact moment to constructively do so, I'll just voice my opinion and hope someone else agrees and fixes it. Will the person/persons doing the merging edits identify themselves and present their rationale? Metaeducation 22:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that the timeline actually reads as a fairly decent outline.. of something. But is it about Film per se? Or Cinema? Or is it in fact an amalgum of both? I realise that the two are inexplicably linked, but it starts out as talking about film (ie, the technical aspects/development) and then moves to talking about films (that is, Film) and the development of cinema.

Perhaps a timeline isn't a very helpful way of starting off this article because it conflates all the aspects of Film into one piece. I'm going to think about how this can be dealt with. Thoughts?--Harmonica 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the word "film" is originated from? 64.231.177.76 00:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I came here looking for that precise information! (or the word 'cinema' in actual fact) --Harmonica 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have tried to address the transition to digital theater display, and point out that HD home entertainment is soon to be a

big risk to the theater business, as 2K cinema is only a little better than home HD image

That list is too long and needs categorised; either that, or some entries should be removed. Fourohfour 10:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Films with plot twists"? This is a list? Films without are documentaries, aren't they? Or deadly dull... Trekphiler 07:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Film dating

Not sure if this belongs here or where, but... There seems to be a problem dating movie releases. I've seen discrepencies of a yr source to source; somebody needs to check. This isn't a problem unique to Wikipedia: I've seen 2 diff movie guides with diff dates, & the dates the newspaper uses don't agree always. More than that, & is it yr of release, yr filming ended, copywright yr, or what, that actually gets mentioned? Absent the exact release date, the year is a toss. Trekphiler 07:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] name of this article

should it be named Motion pictures - wouldn t this be the most umabiguous, straight forward, formal, and thereby proper name to use? Mayumashu 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Motion Pictures are often but not always on made on (photographic) film. AjaxSmack 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. "Motion pictures" is probably the most accurate name, and while the term "film" generally refers to motion pictures, the word only literally refers to the most common format of motion pictures. To me, it seems that a page entitle "Film" would be more likely to describe photographic film, rather than motion pictures. Of course, that's just me, and I'm not trying to call for a change in where "film" directs (although I would probably support such a change), but the name "Motion pictures" does seem more logical. --Shroom Mage 23:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Movie types

good job on the listings

But you all forgot, Movie based over video Games

When i get back, i wanna see it:P

>x<ino 08:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It should have a list of movies based on books. All I saw was a list of songs based on films or books, which I think was put in by mistake.

[edit] Chinface

Does anyone know which articles I should link to the Chinface article? This is a unique type of performance, there are only so many ways one can act with the human body. Kernow 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] size of pic

The size of the pic (the one of the reel) is a little large in my opinion. Does anyone mind if I scale it down? --Osbus 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Endurance of film

Does this section really belong there -- or does it need a rewording? I wouldn't call it NPOV, exactly, but it seems to read more like a short essay than a part of an encyclopedia article. Eeblefish 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late, but I wholeheartedly agree. I was tempted to severely edit that piece just now, but I realised it was unsalvageable because of its complete pointlessness. It should get the axe. Anyone else have an opinion? elvenscout742 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice: Quarterly Review of Film and Video bounty

See Wikipedia:Reward_board#Quarterly_Review_of_Film_and_Video. — Matt Crypto 19:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external link

Do you think that Film Reviews & Discussion would be worthy of putting in the external links section?

[edit] A Filmmaking Wiki

I apologize if this is somehow considered spamming or vandalism, but I thought this might be of interest to people who contribute to the Film Portal. If this should be deleted, by all means do so. I've created a filmmaking wiki, at http://wikifilmschool.com. My aim is not to duplicate the efforts of the Film Portal or any other project that seeks to catalogue films themselves (though, in truth, that may be an eventual effect if the project grows as large as I hope it will), but rather focus on the art and craft of how films and movies are actually made; cataloguing technique, terms, resources, and all knowledge that is related to how one would actually put together a motion picture. My goal is to cross the spectrum of filmmaking, from informing on the arcana of names and terms used in professional filmmaking that are only generally privy to professionals and people who have accumulated schooling and/or experience to cataloguing every possible way to achieve professional level results with as little money and as little "industry standard" equipment as conceivable. I hope some people will be interested in contributting, as Wikifilmschool could benefit from people with general wiki experience (formatting, templates, community building, etc.) as much as actual content. I intend to post this in a few other spots related to film, so I apologize in advance to anyone who comes across this message more than once. HamillianActor 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It might not be appropriate in the film article, but perhaps in the film school and filmmaking ones. I'd say be sparing in your use of linkage and only place it in articles which are very closely (ie not generally) related. Girolamo Savonarola 11:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree in principle, and certainly wouldn't start posting on things any more tangentially related to filmmaking than the film page, but in my opinion, it's relevant enough to warrant it. HamillianActor 16:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not directly important enough to warrant a link to the article designed to discuss the entire discipline and artform of film in the past 100 years. Simple as that. External links should always be kept to a minimum, which was the rationale behind the extreme deletion of links recently. Relevant it may be, but not relevant enough to warrant inclusion in a serious encyclopedic article about film in general. Girolamo Savonarola 17:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not in the main article, and I would never edit the actual article unless it were a noteworthy inclusion (even then, I wouldn't make the edit myself) but do those same principles also apply to talk pages? As I stated in the original post, the last thing I want to do is engender a lot of ill will and if somebody feels their toes are being stepped on, I'm more than willing to entertain concerns and reverse edits.HamillianActor 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request, if I may

The article on Satyajit Ray, Bengali filmmaker, is up for a peer review. Please take a look. Thanks--ppm 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Film

Having worked on various international cinema articles, I saw the opportunity to improve this section here. I have moved moved the few international cinema links to an "International Film" section under "See Also". As an alternative to this, the {{World Cinema}} template could be added, but I'll leave that up to the editors of this article.

I removed the few cinema by country links, as they were woefully incomplete, and added film by continent links in their place. If you wish to add a full list of cinema by country articles, check the World cinema article (but there are loads, so you may wish to avoid repeating the info that is already there). Gram 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

I have semi-protected the article based on frequent vandalism/link spam by IP users. Said users can request changes on this page to be reviewed deemable for admission, by any member or they can get an account. :) Cbrown1023 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] definition

The definition isn't specific enough. According to it, each episode of TV shows like Family Guy and Nip/Tuck could be considered a motion-picture film. Herorev 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start of Collab

So what needs to be done to this article to make it a FA? First thing I notice is no inline cites, which is an instant fail. I think the endurance section should mention film preservation. Crew is an exceptionally short section that should include at least who are the main crew people. Film theory needs at least a sketch of realism vs expressionism and the major players. In the venues section we should mention how films are now framed with TV in mind. These are all off the top of my head, so if we agree we can start refilling the todo box.--Supernumerary 03:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Theory" vs. "Criticism"

Is there a difference between "film theory" and the academic style of film criticism? If not, perhaps we should combine the two subsections. --GHcool 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a HUGE difference. Film theory is much more academic, while film criticism is just reviewing movies.--Supernumerary 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Same comment as his, I was going to reply then he gave my answer. :-P Cbrown1023 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there is a difference between film theory and film criticism of the newspaper review variety, but that doesn't answer my question. My question was "Is there a difference between 'film theory' and the academic style of film criticism?" --GHcool 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is. The difference is that academic film criticism applies the film theory to a specific film, director, series, genre, etc. It's film theory in action. (See reviews written by André Bazin.)--Supernumerary 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] With the invention

of celluloid film by Goodwin in 1887 . . . Why not like that in the main article ? 80.219.134.64 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roundhay Garden Scene

The still from Roundhay Garden Scene, carries the caption "world's first motion picture," though the article refers to it as "the earliest surviving film." What's the truth here. Is there a distinction between motion pictures and films in this example (i.e., is this a reference to the use of celluloid film?) Do any of Muybridge's earlier experiments count as "motion pictures?" Does the fact that this is the earliest surviving film depend on the fact that earlier films haven't survived, in which case this is not the "world's first motion picture?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zadignose (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wait a minute

Wait a minute... I thought the first film was released in 1896. And the oldest film was released in 1888. Something seems to be wrong. When was the first film released? Comon people, lets get our facts straight. Factual80man

[edit] first feature film

Surely there would be room for mention in the article about what is considered the first feature length film, The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906, Australia)?? Peter 12:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/l/Talk%7EFilm_5f28.html"