Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:Film -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Film article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Important: concerning navigation support: this subject is outlined in the List of basic film topics. That page, along with the others in the set of Lists of basic topics, comprise an outline of knowledge, that doubles as a general table of contents or site map of Wikipedia. Please place the page on your watchlist, and help refine and maintain it. Thank you.

To-do list for Film:

· history · watch · refresh

NEEDS IN-LINE REFERENCES 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.

	Film was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 9, 2005 Good article nominee Listed December 18, 2006 Peer review Reviewed August 28, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

WikiProject Films     (Rated Start-Class) Film portal 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 see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. This article has been identified as a core article. Large improvements may make editors eligible for awards. This article is in the scope of the Filmmaking task force Improving this article Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Start to B-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this start-class article, the following requirements must be met: It should already have a developed intro, infobox, image(s), sufficient plot summary, cast and crew section, two other developed sections (production, reception, soundtrack, etc.), and adequate categorization. Statements that may be questioned by a reader over their verifiability must be referenced with an inline citation, preferably using citation templates. Cite any quotes, box office figures, movie reviews, production notes, and any questionable statements. The article should be free of major grammatical errors. Follow the guidelines of the Manual of Style. Consider having the article reviewed by another WP:FILMS member and/or the League of Copyeditors. The article should be broad in coverage, and should have at least six sections of information (plot, cast, and four others: production, reception, DVD release, soundtrack, differences between TV show/book, sequels, themes, awards/honors, etc.). Remember to cite information within these sections.  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be nominated for reassessment to B-class and this template will be removed automatically if it qualifies. 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 to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Reviews This article was the project's Collaboration of the Fortnight (20 January 2007). WikiProject Media Society portal 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 project and see a list of open tasks. Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class) This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

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.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Archives (Index)
1
About archives

Contents 1 Trying to identidy an old film 2 3d film 3 GA delist 4 Move Film to Movie? 5 Title Change? 6 External links 7 How about the term "cinema"? 8 History section - typesetters' quotation found 9 Translation 10 Interwiki 11 'Talkies', 'Film', 'Cinema', 'Movies', 'Video of film', 'Video of film on DVD', "Hollywood" as adjective

Trying to identidy an old film

Many years ago, I saw a film which was set on some kind of island with an evil priest and an Army. At the end of the film, the priest gave a speech that it was better to reign in hell than serve in heaven and then took a hero down to a prison cell, full of snakes. The hero's two friends were already dead in the cell. The hero was locked in with the snakes, but escaped, killed the guards, and captured the priest and nuns. He then takes the priest down to the cell, who is shouting "No! NO!" and locked him in with the snakes. The hero then leaves the island just as the priest screams, being bitten by the snakes. Its a long shot, but does anyone know the name of this film? -38.119.112.190 06:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could it possibly be "Snake People"? Otherwise known as "Isle Of The Living Dead", or "Isle Of The Snake People"? See here and here. EuroSong ^talk 10:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

3d film

I think the article should make mention of 3d films -- perhaps in the "future of films" section. Any thoughts? Wikipedia brown 02:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

GA delist

I have delisted this article from GA status. The article contains cleanup tags, lacks in-line citations, and has a pending to-do list that dates back to January. If you feel this delisting is in error you may request further review at WP:GA/R. Otherwise, the article is free to be renominated for GA status once the above issues have been addressed. Drewcifer 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

i like —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.83.117.93 (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Move Film to Movie?

For my reasons above Talk:Film#Film?/Movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grk1011 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Consensus doesn't seem to support it; it's been brought up several times before (see several threads above and look through the archives), but generally has been solidly opposed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - A film is both a medium and content. A film on DVD is still a film. As justification for the fact that there term Film crosses the actual recording media (as many pictures are digital now) I point to http://www.oscar.com, in which movie films are still referred to as "Films" not "Movies". The Oscars are controlled by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, -- KookyMan (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

The title should be motion picture.--Gladboy101 (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 21 September 2008, at 12:12.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Film".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Film

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.