Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Future films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Films
General information ( v • d • e )
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
 → Requests talk
 → Stubs talk
Resources
Showcase
Film Portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk


Shortcut:
WT:FUTFILM

Contents

[edit] Suggestions

I know this is a work-in-progress, so I hope you won't mind a couple of suggestions:

  • Slight reword of Resources section. Current text reads: "The IMDb should be regarded as an extremely unreliable source, most especially for future films." This is very strongly-worded, and may contradict general Wikipedia policy on the IMDb, which regards the site as reasonably accurate when it comes to information not relating to future films. Suggest reword to: "The IMDb should be regarded as an unreliable source for information relating to future films." Which is no less clear on the disallowing of its use.
  • The Process section, which restates the WP:NF guideline that film articles shouldn't exist until the start of production. Should it be mentioned that there will be exceptions from time to time, perhaps with examples? Or a mention of films with a notable development hell period, or productions which collapsed, yet are still especially notable? Erik makes the point that explicitly mentioning such things would give an argument to editors who watch over articles of films which are "still dwelling in the deepest depths of development hell", but a clear enough guideline, with heavy emphasis on notability, should be able to head this off.

Good work! Steve T • C 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the suggested text change, but I worded it as such so as to make it clear that IMDb is over-relied upon to the detriment of the article and guidelines. Personally, I think the more stringent, the better - it forces people to actually rely about real research. As for notable unproduced films, I believe that the NF guideline addresses them well enough, but they definitely would be extreme exceptions, and usually bear merging into other topics anyway. Girolamo Savonarola 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Films release list

Would it also be productive to compile a list of future film articles sorted by release date? That way we have a schedule for reassessment out of Future-Class? Girolamo Savonarola 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas

Girolamo's put together an excellent page for future films. The process is well-covered. I look forward to using this page to centralize discussion and to provide resources on how to improve articles on future films. I'm considering importing (and updating) a couple of the worklists at the bottom of the page. The production listings at The Hollywood Reporter definitely serve as a resource to gauge when production has begun per the WP:NF criteria. Should we establish subpages to maintain our own lists based on these listings? Another thought is to create a release date subpage. Perhaps we could set it up in a way that would be easy to copy to the newsletter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(Question: Should I move something like User:Erik/Clean-up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Clean-up?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that's your call - depends on your comfort level of control vs. collaboration. I linked to them because at the least they are useful reading, but as they are currently in your userspace, you still technically "own" them. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've created the following:

Based on the WP:NF criteria, articles should not exist for the first two entries, but they should exist for the third entry. Within the week, a release dates subpage should be created. We may want to look at articles like 2008 in film or 2009 in film and see if they're helpful or even worth keeping. Girolamo, in response to you, the production listings are now part of the project. For the clean-up, I'll continue on the project space instead of the userspace from hereon so it can be reviewed. We can set up subpages for articles that may need to be deleted or merged. We can work out a more specific system in time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To avoid systemic bias with the current focus on American productions, I'd like to include resources covering films from other territories. We can start with finding similar production listings or release date tables for British and Australian productions. Perhaps a step down the road would be to include editors who deal with non-English films (a certain editor involved with S.P.E.C.T.R.E. comes to mind). Does anyone know of any unique resources for non-American English-speaking territories to implement? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A quick Google reveals:
There's some duplication in the Screen Daily listings with the information from the Hollywood Reporter, but it does include non-US productions and a reasonably-efficient search engine which allows for the listing of different countries' productions. I'll have a look for some more production listing resources later this evening. Best regards, Steve T • C 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! I'll have to take a close look, too. I've set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films/Release dates, starting with January 2008. Some links may need to be cleaned up. Also, I've created a shortcut, WP:NFF, to specify the section that this department will refer to multiple times down the road. This should be more convenient for all involved. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What does everyone think about centralizing discussion for this department under this talk page? We can leave notes on the subpages (such as the worklists) to initiate any discussion here. That way, we don't need to keep all these subpages on our watchlist, only accessing them of our own accord. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkle unlink

Most probably know about this already, but it's worth mentioning for the few who don't: when projects which don't meet WP:NFF are successfully deleted, tracking down everything on the "What links here" page to de-link mentions of the film can be a bit of a chore. A handy tool to use if you're a Firefox user is twinkle, which has recently added a tab which does this automatically. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlinks

As of 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC), backlinks have been removed for the following deleted articles:

/Proposed deletions - 1 through 48 (up to The Mirror (2007 film))
/Articles for deletion - all

Actually, instead of going through the rigmarole of updating on this talk page, would it be better to simply strike those which have been scrubbed of backlinks? Steve T • C 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be a good idea. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Serious Man

As per WP:NFF, the article for this shouldn't exist yet; it's due to film after the Coens have finished with Burn After Reading. However, I'm slightly hesitant to prod it as, technically, production has started, with one scene being shot well in advance of filming proper. Thoughts? Steve T • C 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I wouldn't prod it but instead redirect to Coen Brothers#Upcoming and planned films. Considering that there could still be casting issues or budgeting issues (with the preliminary scene apparently being minor), I don't think this project is quite a shoo-in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When to remove {{Future film}}

U2 3D was put in limited release today, but it will only be playing in about 25 theaters in the United States. It doesn't get its wide release until February 15, 2008, when it will be shown in over 1,000 theaters throughout the world. With that being said, should the {{Future film}} tag remain on the article until February 15, or should it be removed now? –Dream out loud (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's technically in the public eye, so it can be removed. There should be a good number of reviews following this limited release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for consideration of AfD

Mary Queen of Scots (film) and Sunset Boulevard (2008 film); both at the moment appear to qualify for AfD. Any takers? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cool department

Apart from that, I just wanted to mention that the website comingsoon.net is full of information that could probably be used by this new department. Someone else from WP:007 found it while researching info on Quantum of Solace. Regards, Cliff smith (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation -- I've actually used it to put together the Release dates subpage. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My feelings about future film articles

I recently stumbled across two articles - From Within and Twilight - that seem to provide excellent arguments in favor of banning articles about future films until more concrete information is available or until the film actually is on the verge of release, i.e., trailers are in theaters, ads are on TV, an official website is available, etc., or the film at least has very distinct notability due to its source material (a best seller along the lines of The DaVinci Code), its impressive cast (every one of them has won an Oscar within the past five years), or its history (Evita and Chicago, for example, started and stalled and restarted and stalled yet again for years). With no disrespect to the editors who created these particular articles intended, I think they're a mess, and the subject matter not very notable. They contain a handful of meager bits of data that was culled from a disparate variety of sources, leaving the reader with the impression a lot of unnecessary filler has been added to give the impression there's some substance there. Let's be honest - neither of these emperors is wearing any clothes. Shouldn't there be a limit as to what future film merits an article and in what stage of the film's production it should make its debut? If it doesn't fall into the notability categories I mentioned above, I think at the very least we should wait until the film is completed. That's just my two cents . . . thanks for the opportunity to spend them! MovieMadness (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right; I've been guilty of adding filler to upcoming film articles to bulk them up a little more. For example, mentioning when an actor comes aboard. (That would not be very relevant unless the circumstances were unique, like joining the project after shooting has begun.) I assume you're OK with the likes of articles like The Dark Knight, since they have rather rabid fan bases? :) From Within is likely very low-tier, barely passing the threshold. Twilight, I think, would be more appropriate for full-fledged article existence because there seems to be a fan base for the books.
It's not always easy to write articles when they're very early in the production stage. Recently, I just fixed up The Soloist from its original state. I've usually tackled more untouched future film articles (I have a few listed on my user page that still haven't been edited by anyone other than me) partially out of interest and partially to establish a "wave" of structurally coherent articles, having the film infobox, the sections, and the categories. Not always easy to do, and I can't figure out where some editors copy over badly-conditioned film infoboxes from. :)
The current threshold is from when it begins shooting, but general notability guidelines would also apply. The threshold exists because we are near certain to receive a product as all the resources are invested into making it. It's very rare that a film would completely stop in the middle of production (even The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is fighting to get back on its feet). I don't think that there's a major harm in having somewhat messy articles if they can provide some relevant factoids. You have to remember that they will be created any way by someone who may not be familiar with setting it up appropriately. Hence, some of us have probably taken the initiative a bit strongly to "prep" such articles for their inevitable future existence. We do try to tackle films, upcoming or released, that are non-notable, but in the majority of cases, I think most films establish a degree of notability that shows it will have a future as a more comprehensive article. I think that sometimes, excess is appropriate because there's more to work with and discuss. The Jake Weber example at From Within is likely just bad reporting, but it's nothing that can't be addressed when the wave of press information about the film comes. Some editors here, especially Alientraveller, have taken on film articles in a big way to sort out the bloat and make it more coherent. Sometimes the pieces can fit. Sometimes they can be discarded. Ultimately, even though I'm biased in a lot of regards, I think that the layout of these articles override issues with stubs having disjointed content. Do you have any opinion about how the threshold could be treated? I doubt that we'd be able to move the goalpost forward from "start of filming", as the threshold has caused some grief in addressing articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think we agree in most cases a future film article needs to be rewritten drastically once it's been released, and a lot of the data that served as filler tends to be deleted. (Will anyone care that Jake Weber was or wasn't cast in a project once it's released? If the actor in question were Brad Pitt, for example, it might be a fact worthy of mention.)
In answer to your last question re: how the threshold could be treated, I reiterate I think it would be best to wait until the film is completed and actually on the verge of release unless it has a very distinct notability, examples of which I noted above. At the moment there are future film articles that are longer than those about films released long ago, in some instances rather noteworthy ones (when I stumble across these I usually expand them). MovieMadness (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What if Jake Weber becomes a Brad Pitt in the future? ;) Then his near-showing in From Within could be relevant! (Of course, I'm reaching here.) I try to avoid such claims to notability, though, because after the A-list, it could be disputable who is worthy to mention. If you really want to remove the Jake Weber mention, you could probably do so. I guess my thinking is that Variety got the information from somewhere, and it seems odd that nope, it was completely wrong to mention it in a handful of names.
One of the issues with "preventing" articles on future films that may be seriously underdeveloped is if it's really an issue about content or notability. The Hollywood Reporter has a production listing for films that are not attached to studios, and I haven't truly considered creating articles for them because the coverage is zero to minimal. I think part of my going-overboard nature is to reflect the numerous instances a film has been mentioned. For example, Twilight has been covered twice, in detail, by MTV, as you can see from the References section. Thus, I think it's fair to say that it would be a topical film even this long before its December 2008 release. It's hard to set up arbitrary criteria for beyond the start of filming because in a lot of cases, we have to "assume" whether a project is notable or not. I try my best to leave it to headlines to show that this project's been making the airwaves even before its release. If you're not familiar with WP:CRYSTAL, I suggest reading it. In the past, it was cited to keep very stubby film articles, but WP:NFF was established as a more topical guideline, considering how projects can come and go in the film industry. However, WP:CRYSTAL indicates that it's OK to cover such a topic if it's nearly certain to be released and is able to establish notability.
Believe me, though, I know that there are quite a few prominent film articles that don't get the attention they deserve. I believe Girolamo has put together a "Core" list of articles that deserve more attention. I was looking at Citizen Kane the other day (not an insubstantial article in itself) and thinking that it was more deserving of Featured Article status than most others. Sometimes we like to work in our niches, though. I've expanded Fight Club considerably, and others have had their own specific successes. Most of them seem contemporary, and I think it suggests that the obstacle is the research required to expand classic films. I would probably oppose a Featured Article that failed to utilize any kind of print sources if it came out before the Internet was around. Not to mention research and actual writing of content is a lot of time to invest. With future films, I think it's easier to grab a headline from an RSS feed and implement it bit by bit. Most future or recently released films are not going to have books or academic studies related to them, so we have to rely on a mish-mash of sources, generally from headlines and credible websites. Hence the messes you may occasionally see. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to the concerns expressed here, my opinion on the matter is fairly straightforward - if the article can establish sufficient notability per WP:NOTFILM and WP:NFF, then essentially what you're concerned with is that the articles are stubby. But we don't delete stubs just because they're stubs - the nature of wiki (and the situation of the films being unreleased at present) is for most articles to start this way and "grow into" a quality article - at least that's the hope! :) As a quick look at the project assessment statistics will show, the vast majority of our articles are Stub or Start-class. While we'd obviously love to bring all of them up to FA in a heartbeat, I really don't see Stubs going away anytime soon, unless films suddenly stop being made. It's just the nature of the field we're covering. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cell

I recently made a Wikipedia page for the 2009 film, Cell. The people here at Wikipedia erased it and redirected it to the page of the novel it's based on. Can you tell me why this page was erased and possibly help me get the film's page back up? Thank you. --Creamy3 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The notability guideline for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute that it's the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be a significant release that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike, including the very high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, Shantaram among many others. It's not just those affected by the strike; Jurassic Park IV, which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, was actually supposed to be released in 2005, and we don't even have a separate article for the (now delayed by another year) Hobbit film yet. The Fahrenheit 451 and Logan's Run remakes are another couple of examples of films in perpetual development. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun, which (as the the article itself admitted) is not likely to be any time soon. All the best, Steve T • C 15:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting

Does anyone think that there is any need to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films/Release dates? It does not seem frequently used and requires more maintenance than seems necessary. The only major reason I could to see to keep is to reformat the page so the format can be copied and pasted into future newsletters, saving Nehrams2020 a little grief as the lead editor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, what do others think about WP:FUTFILM#Production listings? I was thinking about basically combining preparation, pre-production, and production, maybe implementing show/hide templates to improve readability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea for the latter case, but I think that my idea for the release dates was never fully implemented. What I had in mind was a thorough listing of all of the articles within our relevant categories, sorted by release date, not just larger budget US studio films. The reason had nothing to do with the newsletter, to be honest, and more to do with project admin needs. This would allow us to turnover the project rating from Future to a standard class on a regular schedule as the articles needed it, and also would probably identify a fair number of NFF fails in the process of organizing it. This is a major concern, because anything in the Future class is classified as "removed" from the assessment logs, and while in this "invisible" mode, could have the project banner deleted without our being able to notice it in the logs. Therefore, moving articles out of the Future class as soon as they qualify needs to be a high priority item for this department, IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hobbit film duology

Just a note to my fellow film article editors, I've invoked WP:IAR here. I feel there is too much info to be crammed into a single section at The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Alientraveller (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there no way that this could be integrated into a general Film adaptations of the works of J. R. R. Tolkien article? (Or something to that effect?) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)