Talk:Film

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)

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 Template:Sv 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)