Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nightcrawler (film)[edit]

There is a slowly brewing edit war at this article as to whether it should be included in the "films about psychopaths" category. I have consistently argued that it should not, because nothing in the article supports that inclusion. Indeed, the only mention of the word in the article is when the screenwriter/director said his intent was to make a film about an antihero that did not involve the character devolving into a psychopath, some critics have apparently referred to the character as a psychopath, but none of them are currently quoted in the article. Even if they were quoted, that wouldn't make it definitive, so the category is still doubtful. I'd like some other editor's thoughts on this. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You really need to start a discussion at the talk page of that article given the number of times you have reverted. The relevant guidelines are the following:
  • WP:CATVER – "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."
  • WP:NON-DEFINING – "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided." (This link includes some helpful criteria)
I think certainly with thematic categories it needs to be clear from the prose why an article is in that particular category. At the moment the article states that the director aimed to make a film about a character who isn't a psychopath, so the category will befuddle readers. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Third opinion. The words "psychopath" and "sociopath" are vague and undefined words which are used in common language to refer to several different types of characteristics that often coincide with several real life mental/personlity disorders but are not actual medicaly defined terms, they are often used interchangably while other times seem to mean diferent things and the existence of a category like this just causes disputes. I say delete the category all together.★Trekker (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I would support that suggestion, Trekker. I think the words are used interchangeably and without consistent definitions. If the category is going to exist, it needs to be defined and monitored. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@SickBoy1995: I believe you're involved in the edit war that had occurred in the article. It appears that you've added some sources to support the category that OldJacobite disputes. Can anyone review the revision whether the references are acceptable? I, for, one don't have an opinion on the matter. Slightlymad 13:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"The words "psychopath" and "sociopath" are vague and undefined words which are used in common language to refer to several different types of characteristics that often coincide with several real life mental/personlity disorders but are not actual medicaly defined term"

This is a bit of an understatement. Psychopathy as a term was coined in the 1840s to describe mental illness. It was redefined in the 1890s, by Julius Ludwig August Koch during his research on so-called born criminals. Koch's theory caught on, and entered popular culture by the the 1930s and 1940s when propagated by the likes of George E. Partridge, David Henderson, and Hervey M. Cleckley. The concept of psychopathy was adopted by sociologists, criminologists, and various legal systems.

With psychologists and psychiatrists the concept eventually fell out of favor as there were many varying definitions and it had become an "infinitely elastic, catch-all category" for all sorts of people. Critics of the term also argued that psychopathy as a term "is little more than a moral judgment masquerading as a clinical diagnosis", it is currently not accepted as a medical term and several of the related concepts are at best outdated.

There is still in use a Psychopathy Checklist which dates to the 1970s, but it has been pointed out that the signs of psychopathy it includes could also fit other medical conditions. Among the so-called signs: "glibness/superficial charm, grandiosity, poor behavioral controls, promiscuous sexual behavior, and irresponsibility". Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"glibness/superficial charm, grandiosity, poor behavioral controls, promiscuous sexual behavior, and irresponsibility" — Speaking of which, happy anniversary Mr President! Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
While I'm not fond of the man this comment seems rather of-topic and unnecessary for this discussion.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
You are completely right, of course, but Dimadick set the joke up so beautifully it would have been a travesty to not deliver the punchline! Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced production companies[edit]

I'm having a lot of trouble with several articles, which are being repeatedly edited to add unsourced content:

This is getting incredibly frustrating. I started a discussion at Talk:The Post (film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have recently been involved in similar dispute at Paddington (film). Just because a bunch of companies appears in the credits does not make them all "production companies". Sometimes we are able to apply common sense to the credits (nobody is going to dispute "A Lucasfilm production" for example) but mostly we need a secondary source to interpret the company's role, the {{Infobox film}} guidelines do stipulate to "Insert the company or companies that produced the film ... When possible, this should be cited to reliable secondary sources that explicitly identify the production companies." Betty Logan (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It's still going on. Very, very frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted one of the edits and referred them to the discussion at Talk:The Post (film). I can't get too embroiled right now though because I have just been put on notice by an admin for reverting some very obvious socking. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I requested full protection for The Post, which will hopefully force discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Box office bomb article[edit]

Recent expansions being made at Box office bomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editors here might want to have a look at them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've had to remove most of it. A ton of OR and IMDB citations. Betty Logan (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll be there for backup if any of that content is restored, the article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I've been wondering about that article for a long time, mostly because I see links to it in articles about films that, while they were box office disappointments, do not qualify as "bombs". My guess was that the term was being used more widely than was justified. A bomb has to be a film that did more than underperform – it has to have been a significant loss. Is there a reliable source that tracks box office bombs that can be consistently used? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
There isn't a convenient "catch-all" source but if a film loses a crap load of money the trade press are usually all over it. The latest film to be held up as a "bomb" is the Blade Runner sequel, projected to lose around $80 million. Betty Logan (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I often compare box office results from Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, for personal research and not for Wikipedia; in some cases I noticed that a film may perform decently at the box office but still lose money due to high production costs or advertising expenses. For example 47 Ronin (2013) earned 152 million at the worldwide box office and was among only 68 films of that year to earn more than 100 million, but it still lost money because its production cost was estimated to 175 million and the marketing campaign supposedly cost 50 million.

Compare it to the low-budget Fruitvale Station (2013), it earned only 17 million at the box office, but that was about 15 times its production cost.

The concept that a film does not "sell" which I often find around the Internet, often overlooks that the loss may have to do with other factors.Dimadick (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Future film[edit]

Hi. I don't do that much work on upcoming films, but was wondering if this passes the WP:NFF threshold? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There is an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Manson Family Project. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The sexual abuse scandal in Hollywood[edit]

Not sure how to best approach it but I feel like there should be an overall article documenting this event, because it is an event it seems. I believe it would be useful for future research to read about the events chronologically and what impact they had on the industry, especially with the upcoming Oscar season. Jmj713 (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. This is clearly series of events inheretly related to each other.★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources connecting the different accusations, and commenting on what's been happening, that can be used. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken up at Me Too (hashtag) and Weinstein effect, but from a more broader view, which is a good idea, but there is little structure and chronology of events. These articles don't seem to delve into details such as I Love You, Daddy being pulled from release and Kevin Spacey's scenes being reshot with a month out in All the Money in the World. Jmj713 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking for reviewers for Natacha Rambova article[edit]

Hello all, I've recently done significant work on the Natacha Rambova article, and I frankly feel it is at Featured article status at this point. I am trying to get it there so that it can potentially make it to "Featured article of the day" for January 19 (her birthdate), it is currently unranked, but I have nominated it for GA status and would love it if anyone would be interested in doing a review. She is a fascinating topic whose earlier Wiki did not do her justice. Thank you! --Drown Soda (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Action mystery thriller film[edit]

Hi all, so as a maintainer of Indian film articles, what do I do about an edit like this, where we wind up describing Mersal (film) as an "action mystery thriller film"? It's sourced. This describes it as all three things. Seems like obnoxious label bloat to me though. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like bloat to me. Is it a mystery-thriller with some action or an action-thriller centered around a mystery? You can often cite multiple genres for certain films but it is the primary genre we are interested in as editors. You need to compile a list of sources that mention the genre and then judge the WP:WEIGHT of those genres. Betty Logan (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Indian film articles get this stuff a lot. It's like these editors think you have to indicate every shade of storytelling employed... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Its definitely a bloat. My usual attempt is to mention either a primary genre and perhaps one that may not be obvious to a reader. If the brief plot summary in the introduction helps the user understand whats going on thematically, you can usually let them figure it out themselves from there. if it gets more complex, I'd create a section called style and find sources that discuss genre beyond a tag saying "Genre: Action" or whatever. Ones that go more into how the film fits a genre usually works better. I did this a while ago with the Drug War article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Justice League[edit]

Users Cgutierrezego and OhsalveelCesar have been repeating removing the budget cost of Justice League which was added by TropicAces a few days ago, saying the Collider source is unreliable because the budget hasn't officially been announced even through the $300 million budget was also reported by the likes of The Wall Street Journal. They were asked to discuss on the talk page, which they have not as of yet. Also there have been other disputes on the article such as if the current poster on the article is a teaser or theatrical poster and the placement of Amy Adams in the cast ordering. TheDeviantPro (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

8 ball icon.svg The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: very, very  Likely to each other. Blocked for sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cannes Film Market release[edit]

I was working on expanding the article on Lisa and the Devil, the earliest source I can find for a release in 1973 is at the Cannes Film Market. I do not know much about it, but these are not public screenings correct? If it isn't considered one, do we go by the next known earliest release date? What's the protocol here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know much about it either, but it doesn't look like Joe Public can just waltz in. By way of comparison we wouldn't use the date of a press screening as a release date. Betty Logan (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Article split[edit]

I have started a discussion to split the article National Film Award – Special Jury Award / Special Mention (Feature Film). I hope you would spare some time to join the discussion. Regards.--Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes[edit]

Is RT still viable as a source now that it's witholding scores for films made by studios that have a stake in it? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This is news to me. Can we have some more background on this please? Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
He's referring to Rotten Tomatoes withholding the score for Justice League. The score itself is still valid; it is the way of not sharing the score that has been deemed problematic. I think coverage about that can be put in the Justice League article and the Rotten Tomatoes article. If a RT score or the reporting of it, is scrutinized in the future, especially for another WB movie, then we can include that in the film's article and update the RT article as well. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The scores have always been weighted in a secret way though, now that we know they are actively obfuscating scores for business purposes, surely it's not something that can be trusted anymore. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The score and the reporting of it are distinct matters. I do not recall any criticism about the RT scores themselves being weighed, only criticism that a review was either positive or negative then got flipped the other way after a follow-up. Maybe there will be greater scrutiny now, but I don't think there's anything that suggests that we should disqualify the scores themselves across the board. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there evidence of RT weighing? This says, "Unlike Rotten Tomatoes, though, Metacritic weights some reviewers to have a greater influence on the score." This says, "I would not think that Rotten Tomatoes would ever manipulate a Tomatometer score or anything that extreme (not that they could, since anyone could manually calculate it), but WB nudging to say 'hey, maybe keep the score off the site for another 12-24 hours' does not seem out of the question." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
"witholding" scores only means that some scores are revealed a day or so later in a show at instead of being published immediately at The Justice League score is now posted in the normal way at It's not publicly known how they select which film scores to reveal in their show, the first was A Bad Moms Christmas this month, not made by their owners. Some people speculate why they chose Justice League (by minority owner with negative to mixed reviews) as the first big film but so far I see no reason to stop using Rotten Tomatoes scores. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
What sometimes concerns me is not that RT is considered an appropriate source to cite in reception sections, but that some editors appear to treat its verdict as the definitive judgement on a film, editing wording from its 'consensus' into both lead and reception sections not just as an RT citation, but as some sort of overall conclusion about a film. A good article should draw on a range of sources to give a balanced view of a film's good and bad points, and resist the temptation to mechanistically follow RT's scoring and wording as if it were the Holy Grail. Just my two pennies' worth MapReader (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It's a recurring problem with aggregators. The bottom line is that they only speak for the reviews they survey and they are not arbiters of consensus, as explained at WP:AGG, as for the main issue it seems that Warner is only in damage limitation mode by withholding the score, and there is no evidence of them actually manipulating it. If evidence of manipulation does materialise then obviously we would have to review its suitability as a source, it is still definitely a problem though because this suppression means that RT isn't operating independently of the corporate ownership. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, industry sources will probably be watching Rotten Tomatoes a bit more closely now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that Justice League (film) does not talk about the Rotten Tomatoes score-withholding at all, despite there being numerous articles about the matter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It is fairly tangential to the critical response though, so perhaps it would be better to cover it at Rotten Tomatoes. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It can be both places. Maybe a sentence or two at the film article that can link to a relevant section at the aggregator article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection to that. Is there currently a dispute over this? Sometimes, the reason something isn't in an article is simply because it hasn't been added. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted the 90% of the times when Rotten Tomatoes is used as a source it's to talk about the RT Score, this is different from something like New York Times, or The Guardian which are primarily secondary sources. Thus as long as there is a strong consensus among the public to know what the tomotometer said, it should be included, even if it is not seen as a perfect source. --Deathawk (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Description of remakes[edit]

Many films are remade, sometimes in several languages, such connections are now described in texts (if they are). Maybe some graphics:

Open Your Eyes (1997 film) -> Vanilla Sky
Adrushtavanthulu -> Thirudan
-> Himmat (1970 film)
Pathlaag (Chase) -> Idhaya Kamalam -> Mera Saaya
infoboxes or templates would help to describe the genealogy.

Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Producer categories on film articles[edit]

Has anyone seen any precedent regarding producer categories on film articles? I saw Category:Films produced by Bradley Fuller and Category:Films produced by Andrew Form today and was wondering if it qualified as overcategorization. Technically, their names are probably mentioned routinely in sources that recap credits, but they don't seem to be "household" names like Category:Films produced by Michael Bay. (Or should we even be categorizing Bay's producing credits?) Wanted to get some thoughts before deciding on doing WP:CFD or not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAT suggests creating categories for any director with an article. I guess it follows that people would do the same for producers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
This is one of several issues that should be made clearer in WP:FILMCAT. It all depends on what we want categories for, but this is a more general categorization issue I plan to bring up for discussion (when external circumsatnces permit me to do so). In this case I think WP:OVERCAT applies. Just think of what would happen if such categories were added to ALL film articles... Hoverfish Talk 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability[edit]

User:Michael 182 is changing film award artiles by diasbling sortability and splitting the lists by decades.[1] I reverted once in Palme d'Or, User:Filmested has reverted them in Golden Bear and User:Brian W. Schaller has adviced them against doing this in Academy Awards, however they revert back and continue with this scheme. Any opinions? Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 20:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe hold an RFC? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Since this is an issue spanning various award articles, where would the right place for an RfC be?
I guess this would probably be the best place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Splitting by decade is usually done when there is a need to split a list due to size issues, per Lists of horror films. I don't see much point in doing it within the article itself, especially if the table is sortable, it seems to me it is reducing the functionality and not gaining much in return by breaking up the table. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Avengers: Infinity War[edit]

Regarding Avengers: Infinity War, there is a discussion regarding listing 29 names in a sentence. Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Premiere date of Hunt the Man Down[edit]

AFI says February 16, 1951, but there are a number of semi-reliable sources that say December 26, 1950 (see discussion here), the AFI listing shows the December 27 issue of Variety as one of its sources. Does anybody have access to that issue by any chance? User:ClarityfiendClarityfiend (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Release dates can be confusing for older films, and the AFI generally goes with the LA date for roadshows or the general release date. In both cases a film can play prior to either of those dates, the AFI Catalog is a superb source but it is not infallible. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of soundtrack information on Side Effects article[edit]

There's a discussion happening about whether to include soundtrack album art and tracklisting in the Side Effects (2013 film) article. Input appreciated. (Sorry if this isn't an appropriate place to request comments; I think I've seen them here before, hope I wasn't imagining it.) Popcornduff (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Max Mad Poster[edit]

If anyone is free, your participation in this discussion would be appreciated as there is only myself and Film Fan involved and we are opposed to each other so discussion goes nowhere and there is edit warring going on over the poster so input would help. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)