| Film has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This page has been rated as C-Class. |
 | This subject is featured in the Outline of film, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia. | edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Film: | | | The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. - 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) The first movie theater in the world built only to show movies is the Vitascope Theatre (listed under Edisonia Hall because someone removed the direct reference. Opened in October 1896 it was designed only to show movies. The 1905 Pittsburgh Nickelodeon doesn't even come close! This needs to be fixed. | | This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. | | | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. | | Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | | | This article is on the project's core list. | | | This article is within the scope of the Filmmaking task force. | | Improving this article: | | | | | See how this article can be improved to B-Class status. | | | This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
 Referencing and citation: not checked- Coverage and accuracy: not checked
- Structure: not checked
- Grammar: not checked
- Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: |B-Class-1 <!-- Referencing & citations --> = |B-Class-2 <!-- Coverage & accuracy --> = |B-Class-3 <!-- Structure --> = |B-Class-4 <!-- Grammar --> = |B-Class-5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = and assess the article against each criterion using "yes" or "no". | | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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. | |  C | This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | WikiProject Media To-do List: | | | | | | | [edit] Title Change? I think the title should be changed to Movie.70.234.245.53 (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Why is that? Film is much more commonly used so it makes sense to use it. SP900 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I agree with the title change. The word "film" may be more commonly used, but its primary meaning is the celluloid medium. "Film" means a thin coating or layer. I guess the most correct title would be "Motion Picture". Film is just the most common nickname for motion pictures. For example, my nickname is much more commonly used than my full name, but my full name is still my proper name. The only reason why "film" is more commonly used is because its short and neat, easy to use. However, its meaning is not as accurate as "motion picture" here. 88.112.228.30 (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 'Film' means what Americans called 'Movie' in the majority of English speaking countries (it's also interesting to note that the French language uses the word 'film' as well, not 'movie'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.12.236 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, and so does Merriam-Webster. Binba (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External links I'm proposing that the following external links be removed as off topic. The article is about films in general, while the links are all to movie review sites. - All Movie Guide - Information on films: actors, directors, biographies, reviews, cast and production credits, box office sales, and other movie data.
- Film Site - Reviews of classic films
- The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) - Information on current and historical films and cast listings.
- Rottentomatoes.com - Movie reviews, previews, forums, photos, cast info, and more.
What I think would be appropriate are links to sites and articles about the topics covered in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC) - I would be in support of that if you replace those external links with better ones you can find. It's arguable whether those are off-topic or not and since the external links section is not cluttered, you named 4 of the 5 links in it, I think it would be a bit silly to remove all the external links without replacing them with better ones at the same time. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- May I suggest The British Film Institute's search engine, similar to those listed above however it is purely factual, listing things like release format, date, cast, credits with a synopsis etc. To fully declare my interested I was one of the developers who helped develop it although I no longer work for the original company nor the BFI itself. There are already a significant number of links from wikipedia into the results, the database itself is updated by the BFI every so often however the design ensure the updates keep links stable as it were. Philipmather (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Philip Mather
The title should be motion picture.--Gladboy101 (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] How about the term "cinema"? I've seen a bit of the discussion about using the terms "film" versus "movie". I tend to think, however, that neither is appropriate. Film refers to the physical storage medium, the traditional name for the entire industry, and a common name used by a number of European English speakers. Movie refers to the actual motion picture, a modern name for the entire industry, and a common name used by most American English speakers. This dichotomy reflects a lack of consensus or reason, so the name of this page, in my opinion, should shed any conceptions of a storage medium or cultural attitudes: cinema. Cinema refers to the field as a whole, and does have a hold as seen with world cinema (foreign film) and cinema of the United States (US movie/film industry). Nevertheless, I admit that most cinematic terms are based around the term film. Some of these may be easy changed to more correct terms as needs present themselves. For example, history of film would work well history of cinema, as this term refers to the industry instead of individual films/movies. In the cases like filmmaking, where traditional terms have a strong hold, the term may either be used or changed (movie production), but explained more appropriately. In other words, ending the debate between film and movie would allow the most fitting terms to explain each concept individually. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [amended] - No, I disagree. This article is not just about the industry of cinema, but it's about the actual cinematic productions themselves. "Film" has evolved to mean much more than just the medium of recording, anyway. If there were to be a strong objection to the current title, then I guess the proper alternative would be "motion picture". But I support keeping it as it is. EuroSong talk 13:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see how your suggested alternative, "motion picture" would encompass the entire production and distribution process. And I furthermore fail to see how "cinema" does not include all the aspects "film" refers to. I'm not suggesting changing any of the scope of this article: it will still include much information on the actual motion pictures and their making, without the weight of an objectionable term. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see how "motion picture" would not encompass the entire production and distribution process of motion pictures :-) Binba (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History section - typesetters' quotation found "motion pictures." needs changing to "motion pictures". I'd do it myself, but the page is semi-protected. Can someone else do it, please? Avengah (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Oops, fixed (I forgot the S). The page, however, still needs fixing! Avengah (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC) - Page fixed. Avengah (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Translation The French article, is an extremely promissing featured article candidate. Any French-English bilingual interested in the topic willing to make a translation for an eventual FA here? Zouavman Le Zouave 16:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC) [edit] Interwiki Please add this: {{Link FA|fr}} . This article (Swedish) is also a good article but I don't know how you call them. Thank you :) Dodoïste (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC) - Added the French tag. The Swedish one I left alone; we only label FA-level articles, not GA (to the best of my knowledge). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 'Talkies', 'Film', 'Cinema', 'Movies', 'Video of film', 'Video of film on DVD', "Hollywood" as adjective I lectured on film at Stanford from 1984 to 1992 (Tarkovsky was my thing). - A question I was typically asked was "what is the difference between 'film' and 'cinema'?". I would answer they are the same.
- "Talkie" usually means "movie made shortly after "silent film".
- Another question is on the difference between a "film" and a "movie". The answer is more subtle, but the former is usually more used for artistic focus, the latter more for entertainment focus. However, "film", in the expression "silent film" could refer to an entertainment focus. Often "commercial film" and "movie" have similar meanings, but "commercial movie" still has meaning, as an entertainment vehicle that is also intended to make money.
- Then I would hear people say "I 'saw' 'Andrei Rublev' on DVD, and it was boring". I would respond, "No, you saw 'a DVD, of a video, of the film'". A good way to make the point is to ask a person if they would claim to have seen the Grand Canyon if they merely had seen a picture book on the Grand Canyon. Surprisingly, I hypocritically would make this argument, then go on to talk about Copolla, and say I had seen "Godfather" ten times or more, but I never saw it on a screen until 2003. I went back three times in a row in 2003. I then corrected my own error and started saying that I had seen the Godfather film three times, and a 'video of the film' more than ten times.
- This article shuold make this point, or Tarkovsky may die a second death because the "video of the film" is confused with the film. But I do not want to edit an article that seems so otherwise essentially complete.
- The most clear way to make this point is using Ken Russel's Davils, in which shades of white (contrast) are used to create a symbolic language, related to purity and sin, and related to a whole lot more. This is almost impossible to see on a "DVD of a video" of the "film". —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I used to use the expression "Hollywood", as in "It is Hollywood", as a disparaging adjective, similar to "commercial", but more specific, as a "noncommercial Hollywood film" is still usually "Hollywood". For example, Copolla's "Rumblefish" and Lynch's "Elephant man" are Hollywood films, but they are not "Hollywood". I now live in Los Angeles and run with the crowd here. No one here uses "Hollywood" as a disparaging adjective. When I first came here and met a person remaking a Kurusawa film, to star Tom Hanks, I mistakenly thought it was suppose to be a joke, and I laughed loudly in front of everyone, and the person has been ice cold to me ever since. That is because she is Making a film in Hollywood that is not "Hollywood".
I am not making any changes in the article, as it seems to have a lot of thought having gone into writing it, but these issues shuold be included, as they were things most often dicusseed in outside the theater conversations in places like the Pacific Film archive, when it used to be under the basement of the Berkely museum. EricDiesel (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC) - "Another question is on the difference between a "film" and a "movie". The answer is more subtle, but the former is usually more used for artistic focus, the latter more for entertainment focus."
- Maybe from a USA-centric perspective. However, in British (and other varieties of) English, "film" is absolutely the correct standard word for the feature production; whether it's been produced primarily for the purpose of art or for entertainment. When I saw "There's Something About Mary", I watched a film. EuroSong talk 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Photography why are there no references to photography? Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects. would be more accurately put as Films are produced by editing photographic and or digitally originated footage. Research Method (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC) [edit] Gaping holes? How could we claim this article is anywhere near completion, when there isn't even one sentence about documentaries? I'd suggest we add an introduction to key concepts of fiction vs. nonfiction, live action, animation, and the VFX & mocap inbetween, and that would allow to present the four basic types of films: live-action/narrative, documentary, experimental, and animation.
Meanwhile, I cleaned up and rewrote the Production section's beginning. You're welcome to revise, of course. Binba (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] Including Moviefone as an external link {{editsemiprotected}} Please include the following in the external link section of the Film page: - Moviefone - Find comprehensive information about movies, celebrities, theaters and location-based showtimes
Varcyb (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC) -
- And how does this meet the requirements of WP:EL? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) -
- Request to edit semi-protected article not done at this time. The article has had problems in the past with external links. Whilst it is impossible to be 'fair' about this, the existing external links are certainly more commonly known movie review sites. There are many, many websites with reviews similar to 'moviefone', and it would not improve the article if we added them all.
- Any decision to add further external links would require a discussion here, in the talk page, and a clear consensus wish to add the link.
- In the external links section of the article is a 'hidden comment'; "NEW LINKS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED WITHOUT PRIOR DISCUSSION ON TALK PAGE AND WILL BE DELETED OTHERWISE".
- I'm sorry that I couldn't accede to this request.
- Best regards, Chzz ► 05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reference I don't know where to get a new source, but under Industry, where it says that bollywood has the highest amount of produced movies annually, the link [1] which is supposed to back this statement up goes to some completely different article, which is about how bollywood is getting to making "hotter" movies, not more, and not most in any way... 213.67.62.172 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Why do "film", "motion picture", "movie", and "cinema" all redirect here? They are different concepts and should get their own pages. "Film", "motion picture", and "movie" may all have similar meanings (with slightly different connotations and technicalities) but they are usually used interchangeably colloquially. But "cinema" does not mean "movie". I think there should be two separate articles, one for the field of film as an art form and the motion picture industry another for individual motion pictures. Many other arts do this. Compare literature with book. Or photography with photograph. Why does film have to be different? Also, some other languages do not have the same word for both concepts as English does, which makes it difficult to create affective interwiki links. See fr:Cinéma versus fr:Film and es:Cine versus es:Película. -- Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC) - The article about what we would understand as a cinema is the Movie theater article; which really should be moved to cinema. I understand your compaints that "film" and "movie" are different - but in English they are used pretty much synonomously, and don't merit two articles. I understand other languages have different (and seperate) concepts, and this can confuse interwiki links, but I would focus on improving this article, rather than trying to split it off. YeshuaDavid (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, I'm not talking about cinema in the sense of a movie theater--I'm talking about cinema in the sense of the art of moving images. Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- How would you split the content of this article between the two? At a glance it looks like this article could be left as it is and renamed Cinema, and a new article would need creating on the concept of a film (the object). What would you put in that? Would it be a summary of the content linked from list of film formats? That could be nice. Perhaps you could create the new page at film (motion picture), say - if you're volunteering - and then we could quibble about naming afterwards. Flowerparty☀ 06:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yup! That's what I was thinking! It's just like the article for photograph, which just gives a brief history of the medium and the different types of photos. I would do the same with the new motion picture article. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Go for it. Sounds good to me. Flowerparty☀ 11:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's also film stock. Not sure how much that overlaps with what you have in mind. Flowerparty☀ 11:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] 2 Factual Errors Sergei Eisenstein is not European; he was a Russian filmmaker b. 1898 in Riga (now in Latvia), died 1948. Also, in the 1920s, New York City was a filmmaking hub as much as Hollywood. In fact, in the early 1920s, Hollywood was not yet the mythical movie-making mecca it would become in the studio-era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.32.80 (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC) - While definitions may vary, most geographic distinctions include Russia as a part of Europe. As for NYC vs Hollywood, all of the major studios were founded in Hollywood in the 'teens, and output surpassed New York by 1915. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please add the interwiki link kn:ಸಿನಮಾ. -- 59.96.58.8 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC) |
