This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While I realise that quite a few of the films listed on this page will not get made, I see no reason to include films which are at present untitled (films which are in production always have at least a working title). When and if things start moving on these films they can be re-added. Rje 15:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
It may just be my ignorance but what does PSR stand for? ONEder Boy 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering the same thing...-- -ACL- 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
When adding films to this article, can everyone please make sure that there is solid evidence that the film is being made (this is not just me being picky, it is policy). This article is not the place for rumoured projects, IMdB is. I will remove any film that is either rumoured or has stalled for longer than six months, and, for the record, I do not consider IMdB to be a reliable source of information. I know some might find this policy somewhat authoritarian, but I am doing it to maintain some level of information quality. Rje 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
How come the film Away from her is not included? Here is the link for the film: http://www.caprifilms.com/awayfromher/index.html Julie Christie should get an oscar nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.81.139 ( talk) 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Should projects such as 'Rough Science boys' which the listing says will be shown on youtube and maybe guba be listed at all? There's no page for it, and the ONLY google hit is a youtbue video removed for violatign YouTube's TOS. That hardly builds a case for acarrying such on the page. ThuranX 05:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have repeatedly tried to clean up the mess that is Rogue in this list, but other editors continue to delete the commented sections i put into the article, then mash the two listings into one. Here's what I've found. [1] shows that at SOME point in Feb, the Li/Statham Rogue (LSR) here MAY be shown to critics. [2] Shows that the Michael Vartan/Crocodile Rogue (VCR) here is being released Feb 2nd. ThuranX 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What are these dates set by? For example, Mr bean's Holiday is being released on 25 March. Simply south 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Images - how can we use - the wiki looks incredibly dull without pictures
How to we gain rights to use these images on our Wiki page. At the moment it is dull and boring - need some pictures to jazz it up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banacek555 ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for that. I'm still confused about this. If the images are being already used on Wikipedia - does that not mean they can be used on others? Banacek555
Thanks. Having now read up about this subject I propose we can use the scaled-down, low-resolution images of poster "to illustrate the film, event, etc. in question" which qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Are you happy for the images to be reinstated pd_THOR?
Why is this here? It's entirely original research. Will someone give me a good reason why it should be up in the first place? -- Plasma Twa 2 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
something/someone has messed up the film release dates, half the film are flipping miss from 4th may onwards urgent maydsy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.13.202.173 ( talk • contribs).
Mr. Beans Holiday has been released so why is it in unscheduled?
The Last King of Scotland and Miss Potter are both 2006 films and should not be on this list. Many other films are either not wide or in the wrong year (ex. La Vie in Rose). Casey14 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The Chart is messed up from Jan.- Mar. look at it and you can see that someone messed it up. February is intercepting January and March.
In the Scheduled 2007 releases section, limited releases are listed. But in the month tables, it says "The following films meet these criteria (600 screens or more) and indicate first major release date:" so I'm assuming we list limited releases as upcoming and then when they come out we drop them from the article? I think the tables should also include limited releases. For example, December Boys and King of California are currently in the Scheduled 2007 releases section, but if this sentence in the July - September section is to be followed "The following films meet these criteria and indicate first major release date:" that would mean those 2 films would not appear in this article. Should limited releases be excluded from this article? Or should we just remove the "wide release" criteria from the tables? Or should we create a different section for limited releases? Or should we just list limited releases in the table, but indicate that the movie is not a wide release (with LR -- which appears in the Scheduled 2007 releases section)? -- Pixelface 21:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
These are not international totals, but totals excluding the USA and Canada but including the UK. Does anyone know of a short description to replace this incorrect "International"? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29 t10:02z
Responding to ThuranX -- it may be the case that the film industry uses "international" to mean "everywhere but US and Canada", but if so, this is a technical usage with sufficient potential to mislead that it should be specifically explained in every article that uses it. In general I'm not anti-jargon, but jargon that doesn't look like jargon is dangerous. -- Trovatore ( talk) 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should remove the "international" column all together? I see no use in it.
The source that is currently being cited,
[3], uses the word "domestic" to describe profits within the US and Canada. That alone implies that this source is written from a North American point of view, and while it is fine to use it as a source, we shouldn't use its terminology.
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) 10:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going to add Persepolis (film) but wasn't sure which release date or flag icon to use. — Morning star ( talk) 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Accordng to Box Office Mojo it was released April 20, 2007 and opened in 825 theaters.(widest Release 1,272 theaters) This would seem to meet the wide release criterion.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hotfuzz.htm
Rsquid ( talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Hot Fuzz should definitely be on the list. 142.177.159.170 ( talk) 01:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The omission of this, and several other films encourage me to strongly suggest to the moderators / guardians that this article be renamed "2007 in AMERICAN film". I'm not dis'sing or any of that Wiki B.S. American cinema, and I wholeheartedly agree that there must be a cut-off or we'll end up with all 8,000 films released worldwide in 2007... BUT for films to ONLY be included because they reached widespread release IN THE USA suggests strongly to me that this list IS an American list, be it made-in-america or shown-in-america. I do not know if this is the appropriate forum, but I do ask the mods to give this serious consideration. 58.105.15.20 ( talk) 08:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Aragond
Why is it that the 2008 academy award winners are shown on the year 2007 in film page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.88.35 ( talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While I realise that quite a few of the films listed on this page will not get made, I see no reason to include films which are at present untitled (films which are in production always have at least a working title). When and if things start moving on these films they can be re-added. Rje 15:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
It may just be my ignorance but what does PSR stand for? ONEder Boy 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering the same thing...-- -ACL- 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
When adding films to this article, can everyone please make sure that there is solid evidence that the film is being made (this is not just me being picky, it is policy). This article is not the place for rumoured projects, IMdB is. I will remove any film that is either rumoured or has stalled for longer than six months, and, for the record, I do not consider IMdB to be a reliable source of information. I know some might find this policy somewhat authoritarian, but I am doing it to maintain some level of information quality. Rje 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
How come the film Away from her is not included? Here is the link for the film: http://www.caprifilms.com/awayfromher/index.html Julie Christie should get an oscar nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.81.139 ( talk) 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Should projects such as 'Rough Science boys' which the listing says will be shown on youtube and maybe guba be listed at all? There's no page for it, and the ONLY google hit is a youtbue video removed for violatign YouTube's TOS. That hardly builds a case for acarrying such on the page. ThuranX 05:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have repeatedly tried to clean up the mess that is Rogue in this list, but other editors continue to delete the commented sections i put into the article, then mash the two listings into one. Here's what I've found. [1] shows that at SOME point in Feb, the Li/Statham Rogue (LSR) here MAY be shown to critics. [2] Shows that the Michael Vartan/Crocodile Rogue (VCR) here is being released Feb 2nd. ThuranX 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What are these dates set by? For example, Mr bean's Holiday is being released on 25 March. Simply south 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Images - how can we use - the wiki looks incredibly dull without pictures
How to we gain rights to use these images on our Wiki page. At the moment it is dull and boring - need some pictures to jazz it up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banacek555 ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for that. I'm still confused about this. If the images are being already used on Wikipedia - does that not mean they can be used on others? Banacek555
Thanks. Having now read up about this subject I propose we can use the scaled-down, low-resolution images of poster "to illustrate the film, event, etc. in question" which qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Are you happy for the images to be reinstated pd_THOR?
Why is this here? It's entirely original research. Will someone give me a good reason why it should be up in the first place? -- Plasma Twa 2 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
something/someone has messed up the film release dates, half the film are flipping miss from 4th may onwards urgent maydsy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.13.202.173 ( talk • contribs).
Mr. Beans Holiday has been released so why is it in unscheduled?
The Last King of Scotland and Miss Potter are both 2006 films and should not be on this list. Many other films are either not wide or in the wrong year (ex. La Vie in Rose). Casey14 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The Chart is messed up from Jan.- Mar. look at it and you can see that someone messed it up. February is intercepting January and March.
In the Scheduled 2007 releases section, limited releases are listed. But in the month tables, it says "The following films meet these criteria (600 screens or more) and indicate first major release date:" so I'm assuming we list limited releases as upcoming and then when they come out we drop them from the article? I think the tables should also include limited releases. For example, December Boys and King of California are currently in the Scheduled 2007 releases section, but if this sentence in the July - September section is to be followed "The following films meet these criteria and indicate first major release date:" that would mean those 2 films would not appear in this article. Should limited releases be excluded from this article? Or should we just remove the "wide release" criteria from the tables? Or should we create a different section for limited releases? Or should we just list limited releases in the table, but indicate that the movie is not a wide release (with LR -- which appears in the Scheduled 2007 releases section)? -- Pixelface 21:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
These are not international totals, but totals excluding the USA and Canada but including the UK. Does anyone know of a short description to replace this incorrect "International"? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29 t10:02z
Responding to ThuranX -- it may be the case that the film industry uses "international" to mean "everywhere but US and Canada", but if so, this is a technical usage with sufficient potential to mislead that it should be specifically explained in every article that uses it. In general I'm not anti-jargon, but jargon that doesn't look like jargon is dangerous. -- Trovatore ( talk) 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should remove the "international" column all together? I see no use in it.
The source that is currently being cited,
[3], uses the word "domestic" to describe profits within the US and Canada. That alone implies that this source is written from a North American point of view, and while it is fine to use it as a source, we shouldn't use its terminology.
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) 10:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going to add Persepolis (film) but wasn't sure which release date or flag icon to use. — Morning star ( talk) 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Accordng to Box Office Mojo it was released April 20, 2007 and opened in 825 theaters.(widest Release 1,272 theaters) This would seem to meet the wide release criterion.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hotfuzz.htm
Rsquid ( talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Hot Fuzz should definitely be on the list. 142.177.159.170 ( talk) 01:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The omission of this, and several other films encourage me to strongly suggest to the moderators / guardians that this article be renamed "2007 in AMERICAN film". I'm not dis'sing or any of that Wiki B.S. American cinema, and I wholeheartedly agree that there must be a cut-off or we'll end up with all 8,000 films released worldwide in 2007... BUT for films to ONLY be included because they reached widespread release IN THE USA suggests strongly to me that this list IS an American list, be it made-in-america or shown-in-america. I do not know if this is the appropriate forum, but I do ask the mods to give this serious consideration. 58.105.15.20 ( talk) 08:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Aragond
Why is it that the 2008 academy award winners are shown on the year 2007 in film page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.88.35 ( talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)