Talk:Film

User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn User:MiszaBot/config

Additions to Sound

Hey fellow Wikipedians! :D

I have added some significant content to the "Sound" sub-section with applicable sources. For the most part, it was missing citations, but not anymore. Please, take a review and let's discuss how we can make changes to better the quality of the information.

Looking forward to what you have to contribute. DiamondPuma (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The only minor comment I have is that there is now a sentence fragment in the middle of the "Sound" section, starting with "American film studios, while Europe standardized on...". This was probably meant to tie in to the mention of US studios adopting Vitaphone and Westrex systems in the previous paragraph, but didn't quite get connected up. Thanks! 69.247.222.163 (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023

I want to add some content related to indian film history which is the oldest and big movie industry in entire world along with references. Aman0420verma (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 06:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Films

A Film --- also called a movie, motion picture, moving picture, picture, photography or (slang) flick ---is a work of visual art that simulates experiences and otherwise communicates ideas, stories, perceptions, feelings, beauty, or atmosphere through the use of moving images. These images are generally accompanied by sound and, more rarely, other sensory stimulations. Sandeep kaur028 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What? Ægc's friendly xbox alt (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is FILM written in American English instead of British English?

Hi all, I’ve noticed that the article Film uses American English, as seen with spellings like "color", "theater", and "analyze". The Template:Use American English template added in July 2020 suggests this was the choice. But given that "film" is more associated with British English and "movie" is the American version, it seems a little odd to me that this article, titled "Film", would follow American conventions.

Historically, many early cinema contributions came from Britain and Europe, so wouldn't British English be a more fitting choice here? I’m not suggesting a change straight away, just wondering if others feel the same way about this. Happy to discuss more, though! M1rrorCr0ss 22:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

See Template:Slink: we don't favour any national variety of English by default. Like almost every other article without strong ties to one English-speaking country in particular, this article uses the national variety of English it was initially written in. Remsense ‥ 论 22:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Its not like "film" isn't used in American English, even if it is seen as a bit more formal than common. Plus American English does have a weak WP:TIES aspect since motion pictures were invented in the US and Hollywood remains the largest force in English-language cinema. oknazevad (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I do have to be annoying and strive to nip that thought in the bud for newer editors, since there's really no benefit talking about national ties as regards ENGVAR unless they are bolded-and-italicized strong and singular. Remsense ‥ 论 23:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I concur with User:Oknazevad. Americans talk about "going to see a movie" or say "I watched a new movie last night" when speaking in an informal register but refer to the film industry, filmmaking, or films when writing in a formal register. The English Wikipedia is written in formal written English per the MOS. We have the Simple English Wikipedia for those readers who can't handle English in a formal register. I also concur that MOS:TIES is relevant due to American dominance of the industry. Notice how on List of films voted the best, the vast majority of films listed (except for votes taken at a national level) are American films. The United States as a whole is so culturally obsessed with its film industry that there is a 2004 book devoted to the subject: Open Wide: How Hollywood Box Office Became a National Obsession.--Coolcaesar (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

"on List of films voted the best, the vast majority of films listed (except for votes taken at a national level) are American films"?

in my count: overview of Sight and Sound poll: 2 of 6 from American directors + "other polls" (excluding US polls) 2 of 8 from American directors = 4 in 14 (also note that 2001 and Mulholland Drive are not US productions, if you'd like to claim Vertigo as a US production)

(the page's "audience polls" are mostly "taken at a national level" or with even more limited demographics,so you rightfully wanted to exclude those)

US obsession with films doesn't seem relevant. The US are also internationally infamous for their obsession with their own country and culture. Joortje1 (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you're not counting the best movies listed by genre. Most of those are from the United States.

Also, the U.S. major film studios have dominated the global film industry for much of its history and continue to do so today. See the various sources I added to that article on that point. To parody an old meme: All your box office belongs to us. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I count about 23 US films out of 40 titles for titles listed by genre, but that's without without discounting US polls or directors born outside the US. So, "vast majority" seems a bit overstated even for that part. Joortje1 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

"motion pictures were invented in the US "?

Most historians no longer try to make such dubious nationalistic claims. In the history section of this page, the "American" practical contributions of Muybridge (an Englishman) seem less relevant than the basic principles discovered/developed by Faraday (British) and especially Plateau (Belgian). Further contributions outside the US by for instance Anchütz (German) and Reynaud (French) also seem more relevant than whatever the Eidoloscope and Edison companies may have "invented". Joortje1 (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, in the context of the social construction of technology, the historical actors who actually respond to the social pressures driving what technology can do or what it should become are just as important as purported first-movers. For example, a lot of the ideas for the Macintosh came from Xerox PARC and Douglas Engelbart's Augmentation Research Center. But most people today are familiar only with Steve Jobs and Apple Inc., and are unaware of how much Jobs borrowed from others. Similarly, it was Thomas Edison's Kinetoscope that turned motion pictures from an impractical experiment into a widespread mass media phenomenon. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That's a totally different argument than "invention", but more importantly: please stop misinforming people and check your sources.

Reynaud's motion pictures reportedly drew 500,000 visitors to his Théâtre Optique. Anschütz' Electrotachyscope had 34,000 paying customers in Berlin in july/august 1892, more than the 25,000 mentioned for the Kinetoscope in Sydney from November 1894 to January 1895 (only customer count I see on that page). The Kinetoscope was largely inspired by the work of Anschütz and apparently falsely believed to have been introduced at the 1893 Chicago World's Fair, because Edison failed to deliver and Anschütz' machines seem to have been mistaken for his planned presentation. It was also soon superseded by projection, for which the success of the Lumière Cinematograph is best known. Joortje1 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

All this is far afield of the fundamental error of the original question, the mistaken belief that there is a disconnect between the title and the established ENGVAR of the body text. There is no such clash. oknazevad (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

In that case, why introduce such irrelevant aspects and only point out the focus of the topic after somebody explains how your argument is incorrect? Joortje1 (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, considering the OP tried to downplay American contributions, I think it was fair to highlight them. It wasn't irrelevant at all. You're the one that then took the tangent far afield. oknazevad (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Concur. Also, I forgot to link above to the more appropriate article: List of highest-grossing films. The lists in that article, especially the first one, are dominated by products of American major film studios. The point is that it takes an American major film studio employing predominantly American directors, producers, and bankable stars to get films onto screens and butts in seats around the world. Filmmaking professionals outside of the United States who want their work seen by the largest audience possible have to find a way to break into the Hollywood system. Otherwise, they find themselves limited to national or regional markets. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

So if somebody suggests that the Kinetoscope turned film into a viable medium it is fair because it highlights an American contribution, but if I point out why that assumption is incorrect, it's taking the tangent far afield?

The dominance of Hollywood in the international market is clear enough (however regrettable that may seem if we compare artistic qualities to economic successes). Just try to stay away from misinformation in your nationalistic arguments. Joortje1 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)