This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2012 in film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2012. |
Need someone to start the W and L columns to symbolize movies in wide release and movies in limited, some movies like Moonrise Kingdom, Being Flynn, and the Spanish movie with Will Ferrell (Case di mi Padre? Something like that) are starting to appear on the page, so there needs to be a separation.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.199 ( talk) 23:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that this page lists some films as having "animation" as the genre. I know the film genre template contains animation (under the "by format or production" section), but I would have said that animation was a medium rather than a genre. The animation page certainly doesn't mention anything about it being a genre, aside from having the film genre template at the bottom, and the film genre page notes that some argue that animation is a "non-genre-based" categorisation. I've brought this point up here and here, but there has been little progress, and there is no clear consensus as to where to go with this. I propose we remove "animation" from the genre column, because all films that use it should (or already do) list another genre that is more descriptive, and the inclusion of "animation" as a genre is not of any benefit. -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 04:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Amanda Seyfried's name needs to stop being erased from Les Miserables. The musical's, which the film is based on, website confirmed this [1] and even ComingSoon.net has too in this article. [2] They just have not updated it in the reference used in this article yet. And1987 ( talk) 18:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that The Secret World of Arrietty was removed from the list of highest-grossing films. There wasn't any explanation given for its removal, but I'm assuming that it was because the film made most of its gross before 2012. My thought though was that even though the film made most of its money in 2010, it should be on the list because the source (Box Office Mojo) lists it on the 2012 list of grosses (due to it being released in the US in 2012). Unless people disagree with this, I think it should be added back into the list. Calathan ( talk) 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why either but don't worry I put it back Dman41689 ( talk) 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Box Office Mojo has made an error in calculating the 3D re-release earnings of "The Phantom Menace". The 3D page of the film shows the earnings as $100.5 million, but now if we subtract the original old amount ($924,317,558), from the new amount, the earnings show as $101.8 million. We are keeping the subtracted amount because, according to the "Box Office" section of the film's article, it is correct. To calculate the amount, we are using the system, and not determining it on our own. This is for people to be able to understand the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkdefenderyuki ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes the box office grosses for the countries listed don't add up to even close to the worldwide amount. Are there other countries that have the movies as well that are actually putting more money toward the worldwide gross than the listed countries? Alphius ( talk) 15:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Alphius>>> Maybe. Can't say for sure. Darkdefenderyuki ( talk) 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
This list seems to be heavily biased towards Hollywood films. I do not understand why there are no Indian ( Bollywood) films or actors listed. An editor tried to add the French film The Intouchables that has grossed more than US$200 million in Europe, but another editor reverted this because it had not been released in Australia, Canada, The United Kingdom and The United States. I do not understand the rationale for this. Can anyone enlighten me? If this page is not expanded to encompass a world view, perhaps it should be moved to "2012 in English Language Film". -- Wavehunter ( talk) 03:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok so that is why my edit on adding The Intouchables is continously being edited out because it hasn't been released in the U.S. yet? It is being released next week so I don't see why it shouldn't just be on the list since it is going to be on the list anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseCamachoJr ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
With the bulk of this article being devoted to a detailed release schedule for the United States, it's wrong that this page is simply titled '2012 in film'. This reflects a strong US bias, and prevents a much too limited scope for such a broadly encompassing title. The page should be titled '2012 US film release schedule', or '2012 at the US box office'. -- Krevans ( talk) 01:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The Intouchables is off the list again? I know that its earnings was made back in 2011, but aren't we using Box Office Mojo as the source for determining the top 10 films in 2012. Box Office Mojo has The Intouchables on their list so i believe we should base it on their list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseCamachoJr ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The Intouchables is a 2011 film. First release is the release we go by (btw, sources such as BFI would be better use for these things than Box Office Mojo as they take lengths to respect international world views rather than focussing on one market). However, if it earned enough of a gross in 2012 to be included on a list of top-grossing films of 2012 then it should be included here in that regard only. Titanic is a 1997 film but it's still going to be considered one of the big grosses this year too, after all. On a related note, the list of releases could really use a worldwide-based overhaul, listing only first releases for the year rather than US releases for the year (the above-mentioned Arietty shouldn't be here, for example). GRAPPLE X 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
So it's official now, The Intouchables is permanently off the list; unless it somehow manages to gross enough to claim a spot on the list. I'm asking because I don't want to add it on the list when editing and then lose my privilege of editing on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseCamachoJr ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
About world view, I suggest maybe doing something similar to the 2010 in film page. After all of the films, there is a subsection of "Films Released in 2010", followed by lists of movies by nation. It's quite a bit of work for whoever wants to do it, but it could solve the world view issue. After the list of films, we could have a subsection of "Films Released in 2012", followed by lists of films by nation, example, "American Films of 2012", "Bollywood Films of 2012" etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 02:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a lot of time on my hands tonight, so I will make this more "worldly" through editing. That way it is more for everyone viewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 02:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
TheMovieMan222/ 174.3.6.27, please stop removing properly-sourced limited releases from the film listing. Three times now you have inexplicably deleted The Raid: Redemption and Girl in Progress from the list with no reason provided. Both entries included refererences to ComingSoon.net indicating their U.S. release dates, which I will repeat here in case you somehow missed them. The Raid is indeed an Indonesion film, but it was released in the U.S., and in fact briefly expanded into wide release status in mid-April with 850+ theaters:
Summarily deleting content with no explanation is viewed by many as vandalism, and at the very least is frustrating for the editors who worked on building the content. If you have a problem with well-sourced information, please try bringing up your concern on the talk page first as opposed to just deleting, and please include edit summaries explaining your rational when modifying — and especially when deleting — existing content. – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to add them in? I'm not trying to be insensitive, but I thought the notable deaths list was for people that worked on movies, not those that go see them. – Defender miz ( talk) 6:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Rusted AutoParts ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed names from the page that are linked to legitimate Wikipedia pages about film-industry people, claiming that the article is "too full". Anyone who has a Wikipedia article is notable enough to be included. This is not a paper encyclopedia that has size limits. If someone feels that a person is not notable, the usual process of deleting the Wikipedia article on that person should be followed. Otherwise the person is considered notable and should remain in this article. Cresix ( talk) 01:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just told that "The Awakening" will not be allowed on here because it's already been released. It has been out in the UK, but it hits American and Canadian cinemas on August 17. What's the official ruling here? Movies such as The Raid: Redemption and Cosmopolis came out earlier than their listed release dates in countries outside of North America, yet they stay here. Is the standard going to be: A) When was it released first? B) When was it released in North America? I thought the standard was B), with any movies only being released in, say, the UK, such as Nativity 2, following A).
Thanks,
TheMovieMan222 ( talk) 23:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Somebody needs to put in the fact that Andrea Arnold's Wuthering Heights will receive a limited US release on October 5. Markunator ( talk) 16:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Should Titanic 3D really count as a film? It's just a rerelease, and would be redundant considering 1997 Titanic is on 1997's list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanEminemFan ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a problem in the notable death section. The June sub-section is not aligned properly. BattleshipMan ( talk) 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I just saw a commercial (on Cartoon Network) for a movie called "Dino Time", which comes out on December 7th. I don't have time to find a source and add it to the table right now, but I thought I'd mention it so that sometime else could. It doesn't even seem to have its own article yet. Alphius ( talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the "MovieUncover2" external link? Did someone just put it there as an advertisement? Alphius ( talk) 20:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I think something needs to be done about the section below this one "Enough with the trolling". It's making it so that if someone clicks "New Section" at the top of the page, their section shows up inside the box in that section. I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to just delete a section made by someone else or not, but someone needs to do something about it. Alphius ( talk) 20:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I never edit pages, but I use this page a lot for reference. The movie title, opening date, and limited vs. wide release are usually in the wrong column. Can somebody fix that? Also the month is written vertically in each movies row, instead of across the entire month's movies, which makes each row taller than it needs to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.145.192 ( talk) 01:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone please fix the page, I do not know how, I'm not sure if a registered user vandalized the page but it's not cool.
TheMovieMan222 ( talk) 02:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, it also doesn't work in Google Chrome, I will report the problem and so should anyone else who finds a problem with the page's format as well TheMovieMan222 ( talk) 07:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I can edit without Javascript on for now TheMovieMan222 ( talk) 12:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me what I'm supposed to do to see this page properly? (I use Google Chrome.) Markunator ( talk) 11:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
sortable
has been removed. This means everything displays fine both with and without JavaScript enabled in the browser, but the columns are not sortable.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
16:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)released in 2011. Not 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I see that this was discussed above, but no satisfactory conclusion was reached. It is blindingly obvious that if this article is to be restricted to US or English-language film that its title should be changed accordingly, but, anyway, we should have an article called "2012 in film" that takes a general view. Phil Bridger ( talk) 23:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Two comments:
I see that nobody has defended the third column in the table of film releases, which indicates how widely each film has been released in just one of the world's 200 or so countries. Because of the antediluvian formatting of tables in Mediawiki markup it will be a pain to get rid of this, but I will be doing so in the next few days as this is supposed to be an article about film in the whole world, not just in one country. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
What about cases in which movies have different titles in different parts of the world? How do we keep a worldwide view in those cases? 129.93.5.132 ( talk) 19:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree with the changes made on this page. Because the link Lists of box office number-one films only lists box-office films in countries listed with different years and it will frustrate a lot of readers who want to go to number-one box office films in the countries like United States and United Kingdom. You also have to scroll down on the Lists of box office number-one films to get the US and UK, which would only frustrate many, possibly a lot of readers. We should find a way to settle this with a compromise or something we can agree on. BattleshipMan ( talk) 17:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess it would depend on your point of view. I don't find much difference there other than the scrolling, but I do agree that specific 2012 films should be linked to the 2012 page instead of a broad year-by-year page linked to a specific year. That's my two cents. TheMovieMan222 ( talk) 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the sentence "Six box-office blockbusters (Beauty and the Beast, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Titanic, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Finding Nemo, and later Monsters, Inc.) have all been re-released in 3D and IMAX." actually true? Have all of these movies been re-released in both 3D and IMAX? Over time, I've noticed people changing that sentence back and forth to say that only some of them were re-released in one format or the other (or both). I'm pretty much positive the way it is now isn't entirely correct. For example,
Raiders of the Lost Ark was only re-released in 3D, not IMAX only re-released in IMAX, not 3D. Therefore, I think that sentence needs to be corrected.
Alphius (
talk)
23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Split - Article is over 100 kB, and quarters should be off to their own pages. Thoughts? Suggestions?-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Honestly I don't see a problem with the size of this page, the worldwide approach is definitely a tricky thing to cover. Just think that every country has different release dates, distributors, and even completely different films. Building one page around it will surely bring bias, and this one brings North American bias because it's most common editors (probably my IP and TheMovieMan222, my account) are North American and therefore follow mainly what's seen from here. I've tried to add some Bollywood films but it's simply not the same. The only way this problem can be fixed is if you have a List of films released in North America in 2012, List of Films released in Europe in 2012, List of Films released in India in 2012 etc. and then branch it out from there. This current page can be the North American page and then others can make the other pages. It is near impossible to have one worldwide page. Then, as Grapple explained above, you can have a main page that lists deaths/grosses/whatever you want that links to the lists of films released per region. 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC) (TheMovieMan222)
I could chop it down so that it's just director/screenplay/maybe 6 actors tops and then we can see what the size is from there. Another idea would be to take out the "medium" part of the table, I know this discussion has been had before but if a movie is animated, you could just put it under "genre" and save an entire row. 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 08:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC) 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 08:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I agree with you on that one, the W/L/R has never truly made sense if you were looking at worldwide release dates 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 20:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Two comments about splitting the page. First, the size guideline for splitting is mainly about "readable prose", which this page has very little of. I don't think there is any need to split this page based on size. Second, as I've said previously, I think the release schedule should be split off due to being primarily about the US, and additional release schedules should be created for each other country where reliable sources for the release dates of films are available. I would support the creation of a List of films released in the United States in 2012 like Betty Logan proposes above (as well as similar lists for other countries or regions). I don't think List of American films of 2012 is the same thing, as non-Armerican films can get a US release (also, sorting by date doesn't really work right in List of American films of 2012, at least the way the table is set up now). I don't think it is a good idea to try to cover all films released worldwide in one table sorted by date, as I think that will be too long and too confusing (linking to a category or to the lists by country might be better). I also would oppose just removing the W/L/R from the table without making new lists, as I think instead that information should be placed in a separate List of films released in the United States in 2012 (and similar information placed in other lists for other countries). Calathan ( talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that User:Jax 0677 has moved a chunk of the article to a separate page. This edit has been reverted twice by Special:Contributions/2600:1001:B02A:8C98:0:0:0:103 and myself as this is a drastic change and no decision has yet been made on how to reduce the page size. I don't think we should be splitting the page just yet.-- 2nyte ( talk) 04:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I propose (and I can definitely help do this): -Fixing all release dates so they reflect the first country they were out in -Getting rid of the wide release/limited release table -Getting rid of the studio column (also US bias on that one, not a pressing problem for me but it can be discussed) -Reducing some of the cast/crew numbers -Getting rid of the medium column and adding "animated" to the genre column
Any others? Anything to add? Opinions?
174.3.6.27 ( talk) 01:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (TheMovieMan222)
I agree with all these changes but the "studio" column. This column should be kept, though for production studios and not distribution studios.-- 2nyte ( talk) 04:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
How about an extra column for a review aggregation scores from metacritic or rotten tomatoes or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.100.147 ( talk) 22:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
When are you gonna put back North America, UK, and Australia money amounts? The others years have that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30B:8266:7209:CABC:C8FF:FEBB:1D6C ( talk) 03:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Why was Dino Time removed from this list? It came out on November 30th in South Korea. Alphius ( talk) 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Take for example The Hobbit that is on the top grossing list. Is that how much it grossed in only 2012 or how much it is still getting in 2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.171.158 ( talk) 05:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Just askin' ? Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Me too 98.169.24.67 ( talk) 04:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
What went wrong with the code in Hitchcock? It is all messed up on the page. Dazedbythebell ( talk) 11:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Should Marvel Studios just be credited for The Avengers? Not Disney? I see Marvel Studios kinda like Touchstone Pictures and that it doesnt need to have Walt Disney Pictures or Studios Motion Pictures be credited aswell. -- TreCoolGuy ( talk) 1:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The Amazing Spider-Man is no longer in the top 50 films. Someone take it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.126.228 ( talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. You could have done it yourself though since the article isn't protected. Jhenderson 777 21:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I could've but it won't let me edit. I only see the view source button, not the edit button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.38.25.56 ( talk) 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
There must be a better way of formatting this table. There was a glitch on Jan 30 which I fixed by adding a | character. It was a wild guess, and I don't know why it worked. December is a mess that I can't seem to fix. HowardMorland ( talk) 08:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Disney's Hercules did never get re-released into theatres in the US in March 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.84.128 ( talk) 18:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I am condensing the dollar values in the highest grossing table per
MOS:LARGENUM. Film community consensus also exists for these changes. Note the instructions at
Template:Infobox film as well as
this discussion. We don't know what Box Office Mojo's margin of error is and there is no specific need for this much precision. The specific MOS language that covers this is: Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
19:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This thing :see below
Rank | Title | Studio | Worldwide gross |
---|---|---|---|
1 | The Avengers | Marvel Studios | $1.52 billion |
2 | Skyfall | MGM / Columbia | $1.11 billion |
3 | The Dark Knight Rises | Warner Bros. / Legendary | $1.08 billion |
4 | The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey | Warner Bros. / MGM / New Line | $1.02 billion |
5 | Ice Age: Continental Drift | Fox / Blue Sky | $877.24 million |
6 | The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 | Lionsgate / Summit | $829.75 million |
7 | The Amazing Spider-Man | Columbia | $757.93 million |
8 | Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted | Paramount / DreamWorks | $746.92 million |
9 | The Hunger Games | Lionsgate | $694.39 million |
10 | Men in Black 3 | Columbia | $624.03 million |
should be transformed into this thing:see below
Rank | Title | Studio | Worldwide gross |
---|---|---|---|
1 | The Avengers | Marvel Studios | $1,519,557,910 |
2 | Skyfall | MGM / Columbia | $1,108,561,013 |
3 | The Dark Knight Rises | Warner Bros. / Legendary | $1,084,939,099 |
4 | The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey | Warner Bros. / MGM / New Line | $1,021,103,568 |
5 | Ice Age: Continental Drift | Fox / Blue Sky | $877,244,782 |
6 | The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 | Lionsgate / Summit | $829,746,820 |
7 | The Amazing Spider-Man | Columbia | $757,930,663 |
8 | Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted | Paramount / DreamWorks | $746,921,274 |
9 | The Hunger Games | Lionsgate | $694,394,724 |
10 | Men in Black 3 | Columbia | $624,026,776 |
Why doesn't someone edit these pages according to this way; It is easier to understand it and it's more convenient also. I mean if both pages are edited according to these way (full appearance of the number gross at box office) someone else who reads it will understand easier in that way. So why doesn't someone edit these three pages in that way; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.196 ( talk) 18:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
References
There seems to be some disagreement amongst editors regarding whether The Avengers should include Paramount. The cited source - comingsoon.net - includes it as Paramount Pictures, which I've restored. Can we get an agreement, or at least understand what the objection was? —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2012 in film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The Place Beyond the Pines was originally released at the TIFF in 2012. Should it not be included in the 2012 list of films as a limited release? -- Primium 7:51 p.m. 17 September 2020
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2012 in film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2012. |
Need someone to start the W and L columns to symbolize movies in wide release and movies in limited, some movies like Moonrise Kingdom, Being Flynn, and the Spanish movie with Will Ferrell (Case di mi Padre? Something like that) are starting to appear on the page, so there needs to be a separation.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.199 ( talk) 23:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that this page lists some films as having "animation" as the genre. I know the film genre template contains animation (under the "by format or production" section), but I would have said that animation was a medium rather than a genre. The animation page certainly doesn't mention anything about it being a genre, aside from having the film genre template at the bottom, and the film genre page notes that some argue that animation is a "non-genre-based" categorisation. I've brought this point up here and here, but there has been little progress, and there is no clear consensus as to where to go with this. I propose we remove "animation" from the genre column, because all films that use it should (or already do) list another genre that is more descriptive, and the inclusion of "animation" as a genre is not of any benefit. -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 04:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Amanda Seyfried's name needs to stop being erased from Les Miserables. The musical's, which the film is based on, website confirmed this [1] and even ComingSoon.net has too in this article. [2] They just have not updated it in the reference used in this article yet. And1987 ( talk) 18:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that The Secret World of Arrietty was removed from the list of highest-grossing films. There wasn't any explanation given for its removal, but I'm assuming that it was because the film made most of its gross before 2012. My thought though was that even though the film made most of its money in 2010, it should be on the list because the source (Box Office Mojo) lists it on the 2012 list of grosses (due to it being released in the US in 2012). Unless people disagree with this, I think it should be added back into the list. Calathan ( talk) 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why either but don't worry I put it back Dman41689 ( talk) 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Box Office Mojo has made an error in calculating the 3D re-release earnings of "The Phantom Menace". The 3D page of the film shows the earnings as $100.5 million, but now if we subtract the original old amount ($924,317,558), from the new amount, the earnings show as $101.8 million. We are keeping the subtracted amount because, according to the "Box Office" section of the film's article, it is correct. To calculate the amount, we are using the system, and not determining it on our own. This is for people to be able to understand the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkdefenderyuki ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes the box office grosses for the countries listed don't add up to even close to the worldwide amount. Are there other countries that have the movies as well that are actually putting more money toward the worldwide gross than the listed countries? Alphius ( talk) 15:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Alphius>>> Maybe. Can't say for sure. Darkdefenderyuki ( talk) 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
This list seems to be heavily biased towards Hollywood films. I do not understand why there are no Indian ( Bollywood) films or actors listed. An editor tried to add the French film The Intouchables that has grossed more than US$200 million in Europe, but another editor reverted this because it had not been released in Australia, Canada, The United Kingdom and The United States. I do not understand the rationale for this. Can anyone enlighten me? If this page is not expanded to encompass a world view, perhaps it should be moved to "2012 in English Language Film". -- Wavehunter ( talk) 03:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok so that is why my edit on adding The Intouchables is continously being edited out because it hasn't been released in the U.S. yet? It is being released next week so I don't see why it shouldn't just be on the list since it is going to be on the list anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseCamachoJr ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
With the bulk of this article being devoted to a detailed release schedule for the United States, it's wrong that this page is simply titled '2012 in film'. This reflects a strong US bias, and prevents a much too limited scope for such a broadly encompassing title. The page should be titled '2012 US film release schedule', or '2012 at the US box office'. -- Krevans ( talk) 01:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The Intouchables is off the list again? I know that its earnings was made back in 2011, but aren't we using Box Office Mojo as the source for determining the top 10 films in 2012. Box Office Mojo has The Intouchables on their list so i believe we should base it on their list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseCamachoJr ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The Intouchables is a 2011 film. First release is the release we go by (btw, sources such as BFI would be better use for these things than Box Office Mojo as they take lengths to respect international world views rather than focussing on one market). However, if it earned enough of a gross in 2012 to be included on a list of top-grossing films of 2012 then it should be included here in that regard only. Titanic is a 1997 film but it's still going to be considered one of the big grosses this year too, after all. On a related note, the list of releases could really use a worldwide-based overhaul, listing only first releases for the year rather than US releases for the year (the above-mentioned Arietty shouldn't be here, for example). GRAPPLE X 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
So it's official now, The Intouchables is permanently off the list; unless it somehow manages to gross enough to claim a spot on the list. I'm asking because I don't want to add it on the list when editing and then lose my privilege of editing on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseCamachoJr ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
About world view, I suggest maybe doing something similar to the 2010 in film page. After all of the films, there is a subsection of "Films Released in 2010", followed by lists of movies by nation. It's quite a bit of work for whoever wants to do it, but it could solve the world view issue. After the list of films, we could have a subsection of "Films Released in 2012", followed by lists of films by nation, example, "American Films of 2012", "Bollywood Films of 2012" etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 02:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a lot of time on my hands tonight, so I will make this more "worldly" through editing. That way it is more for everyone viewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 02:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
TheMovieMan222/ 174.3.6.27, please stop removing properly-sourced limited releases from the film listing. Three times now you have inexplicably deleted The Raid: Redemption and Girl in Progress from the list with no reason provided. Both entries included refererences to ComingSoon.net indicating their U.S. release dates, which I will repeat here in case you somehow missed them. The Raid is indeed an Indonesion film, but it was released in the U.S., and in fact briefly expanded into wide release status in mid-April with 850+ theaters:
Summarily deleting content with no explanation is viewed by many as vandalism, and at the very least is frustrating for the editors who worked on building the content. If you have a problem with well-sourced information, please try bringing up your concern on the talk page first as opposed to just deleting, and please include edit summaries explaining your rational when modifying — and especially when deleting — existing content. – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to add them in? I'm not trying to be insensitive, but I thought the notable deaths list was for people that worked on movies, not those that go see them. – Defender miz ( talk) 6:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Rusted AutoParts ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed names from the page that are linked to legitimate Wikipedia pages about film-industry people, claiming that the article is "too full". Anyone who has a Wikipedia article is notable enough to be included. This is not a paper encyclopedia that has size limits. If someone feels that a person is not notable, the usual process of deleting the Wikipedia article on that person should be followed. Otherwise the person is considered notable and should remain in this article. Cresix ( talk) 01:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just told that "The Awakening" will not be allowed on here because it's already been released. It has been out in the UK, but it hits American and Canadian cinemas on August 17. What's the official ruling here? Movies such as The Raid: Redemption and Cosmopolis came out earlier than their listed release dates in countries outside of North America, yet they stay here. Is the standard going to be: A) When was it released first? B) When was it released in North America? I thought the standard was B), with any movies only being released in, say, the UK, such as Nativity 2, following A).
Thanks,
TheMovieMan222 ( talk) 23:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Somebody needs to put in the fact that Andrea Arnold's Wuthering Heights will receive a limited US release on October 5. Markunator ( talk) 16:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Should Titanic 3D really count as a film? It's just a rerelease, and would be redundant considering 1997 Titanic is on 1997's list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanEminemFan ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a problem in the notable death section. The June sub-section is not aligned properly. BattleshipMan ( talk) 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I just saw a commercial (on Cartoon Network) for a movie called "Dino Time", which comes out on December 7th. I don't have time to find a source and add it to the table right now, but I thought I'd mention it so that sometime else could. It doesn't even seem to have its own article yet. Alphius ( talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the "MovieUncover2" external link? Did someone just put it there as an advertisement? Alphius ( talk) 20:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I think something needs to be done about the section below this one "Enough with the trolling". It's making it so that if someone clicks "New Section" at the top of the page, their section shows up inside the box in that section. I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to just delete a section made by someone else or not, but someone needs to do something about it. Alphius ( talk) 20:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I never edit pages, but I use this page a lot for reference. The movie title, opening date, and limited vs. wide release are usually in the wrong column. Can somebody fix that? Also the month is written vertically in each movies row, instead of across the entire month's movies, which makes each row taller than it needs to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.145.192 ( talk) 01:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone please fix the page, I do not know how, I'm not sure if a registered user vandalized the page but it's not cool.
TheMovieMan222 ( talk) 02:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, it also doesn't work in Google Chrome, I will report the problem and so should anyone else who finds a problem with the page's format as well TheMovieMan222 ( talk) 07:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I can edit without Javascript on for now TheMovieMan222 ( talk) 12:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me what I'm supposed to do to see this page properly? (I use Google Chrome.) Markunator ( talk) 11:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
sortable
has been removed. This means everything displays fine both with and without JavaScript enabled in the browser, but the columns are not sortable.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
16:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)released in 2011. Not 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I see that this was discussed above, but no satisfactory conclusion was reached. It is blindingly obvious that if this article is to be restricted to US or English-language film that its title should be changed accordingly, but, anyway, we should have an article called "2012 in film" that takes a general view. Phil Bridger ( talk) 23:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Two comments:
I see that nobody has defended the third column in the table of film releases, which indicates how widely each film has been released in just one of the world's 200 or so countries. Because of the antediluvian formatting of tables in Mediawiki markup it will be a pain to get rid of this, but I will be doing so in the next few days as this is supposed to be an article about film in the whole world, not just in one country. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
What about cases in which movies have different titles in different parts of the world? How do we keep a worldwide view in those cases? 129.93.5.132 ( talk) 19:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree with the changes made on this page. Because the link Lists of box office number-one films only lists box-office films in countries listed with different years and it will frustrate a lot of readers who want to go to number-one box office films in the countries like United States and United Kingdom. You also have to scroll down on the Lists of box office number-one films to get the US and UK, which would only frustrate many, possibly a lot of readers. We should find a way to settle this with a compromise or something we can agree on. BattleshipMan ( talk) 17:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess it would depend on your point of view. I don't find much difference there other than the scrolling, but I do agree that specific 2012 films should be linked to the 2012 page instead of a broad year-by-year page linked to a specific year. That's my two cents. TheMovieMan222 ( talk) 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the sentence "Six box-office blockbusters (Beauty and the Beast, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Titanic, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Finding Nemo, and later Monsters, Inc.) have all been re-released in 3D and IMAX." actually true? Have all of these movies been re-released in both 3D and IMAX? Over time, I've noticed people changing that sentence back and forth to say that only some of them were re-released in one format or the other (or both). I'm pretty much positive the way it is now isn't entirely correct. For example,
Raiders of the Lost Ark was only re-released in 3D, not IMAX only re-released in IMAX, not 3D. Therefore, I think that sentence needs to be corrected.
Alphius (
talk)
23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Split - Article is over 100 kB, and quarters should be off to their own pages. Thoughts? Suggestions?-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Honestly I don't see a problem with the size of this page, the worldwide approach is definitely a tricky thing to cover. Just think that every country has different release dates, distributors, and even completely different films. Building one page around it will surely bring bias, and this one brings North American bias because it's most common editors (probably my IP and TheMovieMan222, my account) are North American and therefore follow mainly what's seen from here. I've tried to add some Bollywood films but it's simply not the same. The only way this problem can be fixed is if you have a List of films released in North America in 2012, List of Films released in Europe in 2012, List of Films released in India in 2012 etc. and then branch it out from there. This current page can be the North American page and then others can make the other pages. It is near impossible to have one worldwide page. Then, as Grapple explained above, you can have a main page that lists deaths/grosses/whatever you want that links to the lists of films released per region. 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC) (TheMovieMan222)
I could chop it down so that it's just director/screenplay/maybe 6 actors tops and then we can see what the size is from there. Another idea would be to take out the "medium" part of the table, I know this discussion has been had before but if a movie is animated, you could just put it under "genre" and save an entire row. 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 08:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC) 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 08:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I agree with you on that one, the W/L/R has never truly made sense if you were looking at worldwide release dates 174.3.6.27 ( talk) 20:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Two comments about splitting the page. First, the size guideline for splitting is mainly about "readable prose", which this page has very little of. I don't think there is any need to split this page based on size. Second, as I've said previously, I think the release schedule should be split off due to being primarily about the US, and additional release schedules should be created for each other country where reliable sources for the release dates of films are available. I would support the creation of a List of films released in the United States in 2012 like Betty Logan proposes above (as well as similar lists for other countries or regions). I don't think List of American films of 2012 is the same thing, as non-Armerican films can get a US release (also, sorting by date doesn't really work right in List of American films of 2012, at least the way the table is set up now). I don't think it is a good idea to try to cover all films released worldwide in one table sorted by date, as I think that will be too long and too confusing (linking to a category or to the lists by country might be better). I also would oppose just removing the W/L/R from the table without making new lists, as I think instead that information should be placed in a separate List of films released in the United States in 2012 (and similar information placed in other lists for other countries). Calathan ( talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that User:Jax 0677 has moved a chunk of the article to a separate page. This edit has been reverted twice by Special:Contributions/2600:1001:B02A:8C98:0:0:0:103 and myself as this is a drastic change and no decision has yet been made on how to reduce the page size. I don't think we should be splitting the page just yet.-- 2nyte ( talk) 04:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I propose (and I can definitely help do this): -Fixing all release dates so they reflect the first country they were out in -Getting rid of the wide release/limited release table -Getting rid of the studio column (also US bias on that one, not a pressing problem for me but it can be discussed) -Reducing some of the cast/crew numbers -Getting rid of the medium column and adding "animated" to the genre column
Any others? Anything to add? Opinions?
174.3.6.27 ( talk) 01:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (TheMovieMan222)
I agree with all these changes but the "studio" column. This column should be kept, though for production studios and not distribution studios.-- 2nyte ( talk) 04:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
How about an extra column for a review aggregation scores from metacritic or rotten tomatoes or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.100.147 ( talk) 22:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
When are you gonna put back North America, UK, and Australia money amounts? The others years have that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30B:8266:7209:CABC:C8FF:FEBB:1D6C ( talk) 03:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Why was Dino Time removed from this list? It came out on November 30th in South Korea. Alphius ( talk) 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Take for example The Hobbit that is on the top grossing list. Is that how much it grossed in only 2012 or how much it is still getting in 2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.171.158 ( talk) 05:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Just askin' ? Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Me too 98.169.24.67 ( talk) 04:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
What went wrong with the code in Hitchcock? It is all messed up on the page. Dazedbythebell ( talk) 11:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Should Marvel Studios just be credited for The Avengers? Not Disney? I see Marvel Studios kinda like Touchstone Pictures and that it doesnt need to have Walt Disney Pictures or Studios Motion Pictures be credited aswell. -- TreCoolGuy ( talk) 1:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The Amazing Spider-Man is no longer in the top 50 films. Someone take it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.126.228 ( talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. You could have done it yourself though since the article isn't protected. Jhenderson 777 21:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I could've but it won't let me edit. I only see the view source button, not the edit button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.38.25.56 ( talk) 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
There must be a better way of formatting this table. There was a glitch on Jan 30 which I fixed by adding a | character. It was a wild guess, and I don't know why it worked. December is a mess that I can't seem to fix. HowardMorland ( talk) 08:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Disney's Hercules did never get re-released into theatres in the US in March 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.84.128 ( talk) 18:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I am condensing the dollar values in the highest grossing table per
MOS:LARGENUM. Film community consensus also exists for these changes. Note the instructions at
Template:Infobox film as well as
this discussion. We don't know what Box Office Mojo's margin of error is and there is no specific need for this much precision. The specific MOS language that covers this is: Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
19:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This thing :see below
Rank | Title | Studio | Worldwide gross |
---|---|---|---|
1 | The Avengers | Marvel Studios | $1.52 billion |
2 | Skyfall | MGM / Columbia | $1.11 billion |
3 | The Dark Knight Rises | Warner Bros. / Legendary | $1.08 billion |
4 | The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey | Warner Bros. / MGM / New Line | $1.02 billion |
5 | Ice Age: Continental Drift | Fox / Blue Sky | $877.24 million |
6 | The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 | Lionsgate / Summit | $829.75 million |
7 | The Amazing Spider-Man | Columbia | $757.93 million |
8 | Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted | Paramount / DreamWorks | $746.92 million |
9 | The Hunger Games | Lionsgate | $694.39 million |
10 | Men in Black 3 | Columbia | $624.03 million |
should be transformed into this thing:see below
Rank | Title | Studio | Worldwide gross |
---|---|---|---|
1 | The Avengers | Marvel Studios | $1,519,557,910 |
2 | Skyfall | MGM / Columbia | $1,108,561,013 |
3 | The Dark Knight Rises | Warner Bros. / Legendary | $1,084,939,099 |
4 | The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey | Warner Bros. / MGM / New Line | $1,021,103,568 |
5 | Ice Age: Continental Drift | Fox / Blue Sky | $877,244,782 |
6 | The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 | Lionsgate / Summit | $829,746,820 |
7 | The Amazing Spider-Man | Columbia | $757,930,663 |
8 | Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted | Paramount / DreamWorks | $746,921,274 |
9 | The Hunger Games | Lionsgate | $694,394,724 |
10 | Men in Black 3 | Columbia | $624,026,776 |
Why doesn't someone edit these pages according to this way; It is easier to understand it and it's more convenient also. I mean if both pages are edited according to these way (full appearance of the number gross at box office) someone else who reads it will understand easier in that way. So why doesn't someone edit these three pages in that way; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.196 ( talk) 18:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
References
There seems to be some disagreement amongst editors regarding whether The Avengers should include Paramount. The cited source - comingsoon.net - includes it as Paramount Pictures, which I've restored. Can we get an agreement, or at least understand what the objection was? —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2012 in film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The Place Beyond the Pines was originally released at the TIFF in 2012. Should it not be included in the 2012 list of films as a limited release? -- Primium 7:51 p.m. 17 September 2020