Talk:Cinema of New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
Flag Cinema of New Zealand is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] combining information with other page

I suspect that the list of recent New Zealand films on this page would probably be better merged into List of New Zealand feature films, which is a more comprehensive list but misses quite a few from this page. Grutness...wha? 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph removed

Why was the following paragraph removed from the article?

I don't know anything about this film, but it exists in imdb and the paragraph appears to be factual.-gadfium 01:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, that parargraph is not really relevant/relevant in that part of the page. Possibly it might be relevant in the list of films section. Just my opinion. --Matt von Furrie 02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It certainly is relevant to the page, put it in the history section. It is a doco by Sam Neill covering a period where many New Zealand films were dark themed or edgy hence 'unease'. Films such as sleeping dogs, an angel at my table, and the one where the farmer boy has lambs blood spit on him when his old man cuts its throat (cant remember the name but its freaky weird New Zealand Cinema). --Say Var Ree 01:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Balme

not a prominent actor

He certainly is prominent in New Zealand. We even have an (albeit stubby) article on him. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Pages

Pages need to be created for the following films.


[edit] Recent NZ Movies

Im thinking of merging the Recent NZ Movies section into the recently released section.

Any opinions.


Yes, please. Unless there is a further distinction between the two lists, one list would be more efficient. Cheers, Her Pegship 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable actors

What definition of notability are we using? I would have thought someone who has been the lead actress in at least two mainstream movies and has appeared in several others, who is currently on New Zealand TV in Maddigan's Quest and used to be on Shortland Street, would be considered notable. I'm talking about Danielle Cormack. Our article on her is about as minimal as articles get, so see IMDB for more about her.-gadfium 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

Since a lot of the big budget films coming to NZ seem to be coming for the scenery in the background (Rings, King Kong, Narnia for example), should there be a bit of discussion of what regions of NZ are being most heavily used in the film inductry? NoSeptember 12:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defining New Zealand Film

I have added a section on defining New Zealand film. I put it at the top as i thought that it is the best location for that kind of information. A reference needs to be made, perhaps linking to the act itself online or even just a classic reference to the Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives or something, Also;

  • Is there a really need to put the director's name in brackets next to the films mentioned?
  • Either merge the sections or create a Catergory named ==New Zealand Films==, that section is messy. The thing is, do we really need to have 2 lists of New Zealand Movies (the one on this page and the actual list page)?? --Say Var Ree 2 August

[edit] List of New Zealand film makers

I'm not sure whether to merge List of New Zealand film makers into this article, or tidy it up and move some of the content here into that article. Comments welcomed.-gadfium 18:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should merge the the article into this one, though moving some content sounds good. Arguss 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stickmen link

the stickmen link should be edited to Stickmen(movie) to disassociate itself from the current link Stickmen which redirects to an article on the form of drawing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Typera (talk • contribs) 02:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 70s revival

This section seems to cover two distinct periods. As I understand it, the burst of films in the 1970s and early 80s was due to a tax loophole which made investing in unprofitable films an easy way to write off tax. This loophole was closed in the 1980s (presumably by the 4th labour govt), and subsequent films have had to rely on the film commission or get commercial funding on their own merits. There is a clear break between the films of the 70s and early 80s (entirely NZ funded and made, low budget, often unlikely to be of interest to anyone outside NZ) and those of the early 90s onwards (often made with international funding and lead actors, more professional, geared for the international market as much as NZ). If you look at the first group (Sleeping Dogs, Ngati, A Dog's Tale, and to a lesser extent early Peter Jackson) and compare them to the later group (The Piano, Once Were Warriors, The Frighteners etc) it is clear that a major change has taken place. Peter Jackson's films don't really fit into this scheme, but arguably he doesn't really fit into the general pattern of NZ film making in most ways.

Therefore I think the structure should run like this:

  • 1970s revival
  • Coming of age of the NZ short film
  • Hollywood comes to NZ (or some less lame title) - this would cover the early 90s onward, and include the current '21st century' section.

--Helenalex 03:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed the history section is very weirdly structured. Surely the Classical and 70s revival sections should be subheadings of history? The short film and 21st century sections should also be subheadings of history, rather than of the 70s revival. --Helenalex 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea. Arguss 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)