Talk:2012 in film

Can't seem to be Able to Do This

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)

Animation as genre?

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 in Les Miserbales

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)

Should Arrietty be on the list of highest-grossing films?

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)

Box Office Mojo has made an error in calculating the 3D re-release amount of the film

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)

Other Countries?

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)

World View

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)

this page is for films released in the United States, Australia, and the U.K. and goes by their release dates. the film hasn't been released in any of these countries yet. It gets released in the United States May 25 so we have to wait till then for it to be put on the list. we normally go by the release dates listed below on the page unless the film is released early in Australia or the UK. Dman41689 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dman. Is this the consensus view, or your opinion? The title is "2012 in film", which says something about time but nothing about geography. The introduction states "The following tables list films that are in production or have completed production and will be released at some point in 2012." Again, no geographical bar. The first table lists "the top ten films of 2012, by worldwide gross in US dollars, as well as the USA, Canada, UK, and Australia grosses", which I take to mean the top ten films in the world. The columns showing box office takings in three important markets are subsidiary: interesting and informative, but not central to the table. Have I missed some hidden message?

It may be desirable to have a page that excludes successful films that are unknown to Anglophone audiences. Such a page could be short and easy to navigate. It could be called "2012 in Hollywood Films", "2012 in English language cinema" or "2012 at the US box office". My view is this is not that page. --Wavehunter (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what your talking about? This page is for Hollywood films, we go by Hollywood standards. All the films listed are distributed through Hollywood. It's obvious that this page is for Hollywood movies because all the release dates are American release dates and the money is shown in American dollars. Bollywood films have their own page here Bollywood films of 2012. and Dman is correct the highest grossing films chart is for films that are released in these three countries, the film must be released in one of these countries for it to be put on the list, that's the ways its always been and that's the way its staying. the film you mentioned will get released on May 25 so you have to wait for it to be released before you put it on the list, if we did it your way that movie wouldn't be on the list at all because it was first released in 2011. and by the way I love how you people were so fast to add that movie to the chart but didn't add it to the list of releases.Redsky89 (talk) 05:35, 19 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)

First, Redsky and Dman have put a lot of hard work into making this article and I appreciate it greatly. I have no intention of undoing any of that work. However, there are several important points to make. First, Wikipedia has a policy that articles are owned by everyone and no one. Redsky's comment, "that's the ways its always been and that's the way its staying", appears to go against this policy. (See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.) Second, the English language Wikipedia understandably suffers from bias towards English language topics. A small town in Indiana may have a long article but a small town in Indonesia is missing. Many Wikipedians want to correct this, not by deleting the article about the town in Indiana but by adding one about the town in Indonesia. I would like to see films from all over the world on this page (including the United States), but there is no pressure on any particular editor to be the one to do this work. (For more, see Wikipedia:Systemic bias.) Third, Redsky mentioned 'you people', but I don't know who this means since I am an individual editor unconnected to other editors. (See, there is no cabal.) Finally, I agree with Jose Camacho's comment above, so I will restore the Intouchables to the top ten list. (As I understand it, the film has been popular in Germany, Belgium and other countries during 2012.) I will also restore the 'World View' tag as this issue is not yet resolved. --Wavehunter (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Update. An IP editor quite reasonably explained that the Intouchables is excluded from the top ten list because most of its non-US box office was not in 2012. I calculate that it has so far taken about US$119 million in 2012 - a lot, but not enough to make the top 10. This seems to me a perfectly valid reason for not listing it, unless or until its revenue rises significantly. --Wavehunter (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That has never been what has been done before with these lists. In the past, this list and lists for previous years always listed the highest grossing films that Box Office Mojo listed as being in that year and that had recieved a release in the US. Following that idea, The Intouchables would be excluded because its US release had not yet occured, but once the US release occurs, it would be listed in the table for 2012 since Box Office Mojo lists it as a 2012 film. That is what was done with Arrietty earlier this year, where it wasn't on the list until the US release occured, but then was on the list even though it made most of its money in previous years. However, while I know that in the past the list has included only films which have already been release in the US and has included films even if most of their money was made in previous years, I don't know if there was ever a discussion that reached a consensus to do that. Personally, I think we should just take the top 10 films on Box Office Mojo's list for the year, regardless of if they made their money in other years and regardless of if the US release has occured yet. So I think Intouchables should be listed right now, even though the US release hasn't occured yet and even though some of its money was made in 2011. I think it is a bad idea to try to remove movies from the lists based on their gross being made over several years. There are lots of films in these lists that made most of their money outside the year they were released, but moving them around in the charts would be difficult and confusing. In particular, there are lots of films released in December that end up making the majority of their money in the following year, but I don't think we want to move those to the next year or list them in both years' charts. I think that since Box Office Mojo is the source we've chosen to use, we should just go with what they list, and count Intouchables as a 2012 film (I think Box Office Mojo classifies films by their year of US release, so we could perhaps put a note saying that is why Intouchables is on this list). Calathan (talk) 19:57, 23 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)

As I said above, I agree and think it should be on the list. Calathan (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why it was taken off but don't worry I but it back on Redsky89 (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's first official release was November 2, 2011, meaning it grossed it's first box office toll in 2011, hence it is regarded as a 2011 film and does not qualify as a high grossing 2012 film. RAP (talk) 13:54 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a reasonable arguement, but isn't what we have done before. For instance, Arrietty was on the 2012 list until it dropped off due to not having a high enough gross, even though it was released in 2010 and made most of its money in 2010. Films often get released in different countries in different years, and we have to decide if we want to list films by their year of first release, or by the year given in the main source we are using, Box Office Mojo. I think either position is reasonable. The majority so far seem to think that we should just go with the year listed on Box Office Mojo, so I'm going to revert your change again. However, I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film for more people to join this discussion. Since the current consensus seems to be to go with what Box Office Mojo lists, please don't revert the list again unless a consensus to change it is established. Calathan (talk) 14:37, 1 June 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)

I concur with Grapple X. There's a horrendous US bias to these pages regarding release dates. They should be overhauled to show first release dates. Therefore The Intouchables shouldn't be on the list, as it was released in 2011. However, also in agreement, if the highest-grossing films accurately shows how much each film made in 2012, then there's no reason not to include it. Are we talking about the highest-grossing films of 2012 or in 2012? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's supposed to be the highest grossing films that were released in 2012. RAP (talk) 15:03 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is the case (rather than box office takings throughout 2012), then as this is clearly a 2011 film, it shouldn't be on the list. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Festival premiere on 23 September 2011 and first country release on 2 November 2011. It's a 2011 film, no question. It's so obvious I don't even know why it's being discussed. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Could the confusion be caused by the fact that it's included in the tables of the year's releases? The US bias needs to seriously be looked at. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Since it's clear that the insular nature of that table is causing problems like this, it really does need to be moved towards a global perspective. GRAPPLE X 15:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through it right now, but the The Deep Blue Sea (2011 film) and The Raid: Redemption are two other 2011 films I've spotted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to exclude The Intouchables from the highest grossing list. The one thing I don't want to have happen is for film's first run gross to be split over multiple years, as I think that would be confusing to people (e.g. if someone looked at 1997 in film and saw Titanic wasn't the highest grosser, they would be confused). Basically, I think the list here should be a list of the highest grossing films that are considered 2012 films. It looks like that is the decision here, so I'm just saying I agree with that. About the U.S. release chart, I personally find that really useful, but agree that it doesn't represent a worldwide view. Rather than going through the chart and removing films released before 2012 in other countries, would it be possible to move the whole chart to a new U.S. specific article (e.g. List of films released in 2012 in the United States), and then make a new chart here listing the initial release date of films released worldwide in 2012? Some other things will change besides films released before 2012 outside the US (for example, I think Battleship was released in 2012 everywhere, but was released earlier in some places than it was released in the US). Calathan (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Titanic is different as it's a re-release and it was re-released in 2012. RAP (talk) 16:37 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a re-release should be listed in the year of re-release. The only thing I don't want to see is for first run grosses to be split over multiple years. Calathan (talk) 17:03, 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)

I think the decision is that The Intouchables is permanently off this list, regardless of how much it makes. If were somehow to make a lot more money, it could enter the list for 2011, since it is being counted as a 2011 film. Calathan (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that totals shouldn't be split over two years; most charts list releases by year of release, so Titanic comes under 1997, Avatar under 2009 and so on, even though neither of those films were top in the year of release, they topped the following year. For historical data this would be impossible to do anway, when all we have are the totals. Similarly, I agree that if a reissue qualifies on its own terms it is better to list it separately then to retrospectively alter the historical data; after all, the Titanic article can list the total for the film, but the 1997 in film is specifically about the 1997 release, so should ideally list the data for that release only. On the subject of release dates most of the older articles don't limit releases to US dates, they just mark out out the non-US one (see 1963 in film). Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 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)

Deletion of content

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:

• The Raid: Redemption: ComingSoon | BoxOfficeMojo
• Girl In Progress: ComingSoon | BoxOfficeMojo

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)

The Raid: Redemption is a 2011 film that happened to get a US release in 2012. Therefore it doesn't belong on the list. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the list is a list of films released in the US in 2012. As I've said above, I think that list should be kept somewhere on Wikipedia (not necessarily in this article). Since The Raid: Redemption does belong on that list, it shouldn't be removed from the list until it is decided what to do with the list. If we do decide to keep the list of films released in the US in 2012 (either as part of this article or in another article), we will want those films on the list, so removing them now may just create more work later to add them back in. Calathan (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

But as established by the above, the consensus seems to be that the US bias of the page is incorrect. However, I can't account for the user removing the other film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

While it did screen at a handful of film festivals in 2011, The Raid: Redemption did not receive a theatrical release anywhere until 2012. Confusion sometimes arises because IMDB dates movies by their first public screening (e.g. festivals), but film dates on wikipedia have traditionally corresponded to the first significant theatrical release (or at least that's the way it always used to be... I haven't been editing as actively as I used to). In the case of The Raid, it was released simultaneously in the U.S./Canada and its home country of Indonesia at the end of March this year, according to IMDB. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Aurora Notable Deaths

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)

You're right. I removed the item. If we start adding deaths of individuals who don't work in the film industry, we could end up with an endless list. There are other articles that discuss the Aurora deaths. Cresix (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

While it shouldn't go in the Deaths section, it should probably be included in either the lede or in the Events section. BOVINEBOY2008 14:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's overly relevant to the film industry, to be honest. It's definitely a notable event but the only connection here is the fact that it happened in a cinema, which is just a choice of building on the part of the shooter. GRAPPLE X 14:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Grapple X. If it happened in a post office, we wouldn't put it in United States Postal Service. If it happened at a Ben & Jerry's, we wouldn't put it in ice cream. There are other articles that are much more appropriate. Cresix (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That may be so, but the the film industry is reacting to it significantly. Studios are refraining from releasing budget figures until Monday[3] and several premieres were cancelled. Perhaps we can't tell about the notability about this event for now, but time will tell whether or not to include it. BOVINEBOY2008 14:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If it goes on to have an impact on the industry (I'm thinking along the lines of how the Dunblane shootings had a quantifiable and concrete effect on UK gun laws, for example), then I can support it being reinserted but for the time being I'm not convinced. GRAPPLE X 14:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that time will tell per WP:RECENT. In a week or two, although this will still be a major event, the impact on the film industry will be negligible. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We can wait. Cresix (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

Unnecessary removals

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)

It isn't (or at least shouldn't) cover EVERY passing. There are 26 July entries over the previous months which didn't even hit 20. It's ridiculously full.Rusted AutoParts 01:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrarily removing specific names without discussion isn't the best way to go about things though. Agreeing on what number is enough, and then who to remove to bring it to this number, would solve the problem from both sides. To be honest, I don't feel the number is too high, as it's meant to be as comprehensive as possible. This is an article about what has happened in film in the year 2012, which is a well-defined scope that should be as comprehensive within that definition as it can be. GRAPPLE X 01:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(Rusted, please follow the usual convention of starting a new comment on a new line, with appropriate colons for indentation). Rusted, you alone don't make the rules about what is included in this article, despite your apparent assumption of ownership by repeatedly reverting after being asked to discuss. There is no rule that says this article cannot cover "EVERY passing" of notable people who are involved in the film industry. If you disagree, please link that rule for us. It is your opinion that it is "ridiculously full". That is for the Wikipedia community to decide. And to repeat: This is not a paper encyclopedia; we do not have space limitations in determining what is "ridiculously full". And after your removals were first challenged, this talk page is where you should have gone immediately to get a consensus from the community rather than repeatedly deciding on your own what is "ridiculously full". Now, I thank you for finally following me to the talk page rather than reverting again, and I hope you will now respect the consensus process that has been followed thousands of times on Wikipedia and wait for a clear consensus here before removing any more names of people who have Wikipedia articles. And please remember: There is no consensus of one person. Wait for more opinions. Cresix (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Confusion regarding release dates

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)

There's already been discussion about keeping this article global; I believe the consensus was to use the first release date, not focus on North American releases; anything released before 2012 should be moved to 2011 or earlier. GRAPPLE X 00:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I also seem to recall that was the consensus. In any event, that's the way it should be. This is not the American, or North American, Wikipedia. It is the English Wikipedia and has readers and editors worldwide. Cresix (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All the release dates are for North American release dates if the film is being released in North American then it should be put on here I don't know why it would be an issue. 68.192.139.10 (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If the film's earliest release date is in North America (which will means the majority of Hollywood films), then yes, by all means, use the North American date. However, it's offensively insular to assume that the North American date is the only one to use regardless of when a film was first released; if its release date in its home country goes back to 2011 or earlier than that's the only one to use, because that's when it was released. GRAPPLE X 06:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've had to correct the Skyfall date again; this is the second time I've had to do it. Will editors please note that it opens a week before the US across Europe. The release date should match up to the one we have on the article otherwise it just makes the articles confusing and inconsistent for readers. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'd repeat my point above but it's right there an inch above this one. First release date only thanks. GRAPPLE X 19:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Make that third time now. Betty Logan (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Won't always having the earliest release date, regardless of country, actually make this more confusing? For example, I always use this article to see when movies are going to come out, since most of the release dates are for North America. So I was confused when I saw a commercial saying that Skyfall was coming out on November 9, when I had been looking forward to going to it on October 26. I think that this article should stick to one country's release dates. It would probably be too much work, but could separate articles could be made for film release dates in different areas? Alphius (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be confusing if the editors abided by the consensus that was established. What is confusing for readers is when the the release dates here don't match up to the release dates on the film articles, where the earliest release date is used. If editors really want to create an article documenting US release dates then they should create a 2012 in American film article instead of trying to hijacking the main 2012 film article, which is supposed to give an overview of world cinema. Betty Logan (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights

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)

Titanic

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)

A problem in the notable death section

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)

Dino Time

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)

• It's a computer-animated theatrical movie, and it's going to be in 3D. (It's not a movie that's just going to be on Cartoon Network on December 7th, if anyone thought that.) Alphius (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have added it to the table, since no one else ever did. I also created a stub article for it, which will hopefully be expanded. Alphius (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

MovieUncover2

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)

• Since it's not on last year's film article and no one ever answered me, I have removed it. Alphius (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Section Below This One

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)

The format is really messed up

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)

So...

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)

Non-one has done anything to the page. It loads up broken in IE and Firefox but it loads fine in Opera. The tech guys have done something at a technical level that affects how pages load up in browsers, and obviously it is not working properly in all browsers. You should report the problem at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 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)

If you need any screencaps of the "working" version let me know. Betty Logan (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've isolated the problem. My javascript was not turned on in Opera, and when I turned it on the table came out corrupted. I then turned it off in Firefox and the table came out fine. I suspect if you turn it off in Chrome the table will come out ok. It's not ideal, but you'll still be able to edit the table by temporarily turning off javascript, at least until the problem is sorted. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 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)

You need to disable javascript. You can do that by following this video. Don't forget to turn javascript back on once you are finished viewing the page, or else other websites might not work properly. Betty Logan (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The problems are discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Javascript screwing up tables. Currently 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)

The Intouchables

released in 2011. Not 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, and I believe it had already been removed previously. I've removed it. I left it in the gross table as it still made that money within 2012 though. GRAPPLE X 19:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ended up removing quite a few 2011 films from the list (surprise surprise, all were released in 2011 outside the US) and even one from 2010. Might pay to watch new additions to the list, especially for dates already passed. GRAPPLE X 21:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide view

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)

In fairness, I haven't seen a single non-English-language film removed from the list, but editors interested in non-English-language films just don't seem to be adding them. Yes, someone who does actively edit the page could track down a reliable source for more international films but there's no reason that that editor would even know where to begin or what films to even look for. I have removed, several times, films which don't belong here but were added because of a 2012 US release, but I haven't a Scooby Doo about sourcing the release of Bollywood, Chinese, Japanese etc films. If there are similar and sourced articles on other wikipedias, a translation notice might be of use to alert editors to where information might be found. GRAPPLE X 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This edit, and this defence of it, are what brought this article to my attention, but just as bad are the definition of the "Highest-grossing films" section as "The top ten films of 2012 in the United States, Canada, UK, and Australia" and of the "W", "L" and "R" in the list of films as indicators of how widely the films were released in the US. If this article is restricted to high-grossing films in Anglophone countries and/or films that have been released in the US then it should be titled accordingly, and not pretend to be a general article about 2012 in film. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd prefer to see the gross table reflecting only worldwide gross myself (I believe that's how they're ranked already so it shouldn't make too many waves). I hadn't noticed the edit you mentioned but I'll be reverting it post haste, the reasoning given was entirely false. The wide and limited release fields I could also see going without any fuss, as they're not only biased but wholly unsourced into the bargain. GRAPPLE X 23:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree. They aren't properly representative anyway, since a film in the US top 10 may not make the global top 10, so the ordering doesn't really mean anything. There are over 200 hundred countries in the world, what would we do if someone decided to add them all? That said, I would prefer to see the content relocated rather than deleted because I think these charts could be of interest to some readers, but we do have regional box-office articles such as List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United States and List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United Kingdom which could easily accommodate the regional charts, if we perhaps extended their focus slightly. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If those lists exist, that's where we should be keeping the regional information. A "see also" link section, or {{see also}} hats to each of those might be warranted but extending the gross table to just cover three narrow regions isn't constructive or useful. GRAPPLE X 00:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the new idea of not highlighting the nation that has number-one in one week. Linking to the neutral directory is not better option. If we don't link the more necessary countries in that page, it will be too frustrating for the readers to get to those pages quicker. I suggest what we should put the US and UK links in each year in the main article link since they are considered more popular, while we can have the other countries in the Lists of box office number-one films in the See also link. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see a valid reason to highlight only those two nations, especially when they aren't even the largest cinema audiences out there. If this is to be "2012 in film" and not "2012 in English-language film in the anglosphere" then any "see also" box office links should be all or none, really. And listing all is too many, so a nice brief and neutral link to a relevant directory is a perfectly valid and within-guidelines fork. GRAPPLE X 02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

While I can see an argument for adding direct links to the largest English speaking markets it is not that straightforward. If you consider countries that use English as a second language for instance, India has more speakers than Britain (not to mention the largest film industry and audiences in the world). WP:WORLDVIEW outlines several good reasons why we shouldn't get drawn into "numbers" games. The film project cracked this problem years ago and created the {{Lists of box office number-one films}} template which offers all the box office links and can be added to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Who considers the UK and the US "more popular"? India certainly has far greater cinema attendence than the UK, and probably greater than the US, although I haven't bothered to check the figures because they are irrelevant to the fact that this article should be about the whole world. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Those 2012 films are mostly in Enlgish, which is why we should try to get the number one box-office films US and UK on there as for US and UK box offices main articles while keeping Lists of box office number-one films so we can avoid conflict among people who read this article and try to get to number one films in US and UK quicker than the List of box office number-one films and going down to the US and UK from there which would frustrate readers to get there. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

They're only mostly in English because of systemic bias, which is a result of editors working with what they know—and with English-speaking editors that will mostly be English-language films. Even if this was intended to focus only on English-language films, which is most certainly isn't, the US and UK are only two of several markets within that realm; Australia, Canada, South Africa (and large swathes of the rest of the continent) and, as mentioned above, India are all large consumers of English-language cinema. There's just no need to focus on such a narrow and insular range of countries when we could stick to WP:WORLDVIEW. GRAPPLE X 18:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Two comments:

• I've noticed that the gross in the US/Canada, UK, and Australia has been removed from the highest grossing films table, with an edit summary by Grapple X saying the removal was "already discussed & supported". Could someone please link me to where the removal of that content was discussed and supported? I disagree with its removal (though if I read/reread whatever discussion took place, I may change my opinion). I do not think that information introduces significant systemic bias to the article, and do think it is likely to be of interest to many readers of the article. The article does present a worldwide view of the highest grossing films by listing only those that are the highest grossing worldwide, and by listing their worldwide gross. As far as I know, the top 10 list was never limited to the highest grossing films in those select countries (I'm not sure why the article previously stated that was the case, as I think the list has always been the top 10 worldwide). I don't think providing additional country-specific information in the table introduces much bias when the table already provides information on the world as a whole. I also think we need to consider what information is actually of use and of interest to readers of the article. Listing how much films in the table grossed in a few select countries that have both high film viewership and and a large number of English-language readers who would likely be viewing the article seems like it would provide useful information to many readers while not removing any content that would be of use to anyone from other countries. If we've chosen the wrong countries (e.g. if gross in India should be listed), then the solution would be to switch which countries are listed, not to not list gross in select countries.
• I agree that having a list of released films and a release schedule primarily reflecting U.S. releases is not correct for an article that is supposed to be about the world film industry as a whole. However, I don't think the solution is to add releases from multiple countries into a single table. Instead, I think there should be a separate table for each country (or each country for which reliable sources are available), with links to the release schedule for each country (it would be too long to put them all in the article). Combining the releases from every country into a single list would remove the utility of the table to almost all readers, as no one would be able to easily find what was released in their country and when (which I expect many readers would want to know). Having multiple separate lists would also allow each film to be listed by the year and date it was released in a given country. If a list of all films worldwide that came out in a particular year is desired, that could either be obtained through category pages (e.g. Category:2012 films), or in a separate, simpler list that isn't sorted by release date. I think trying to have a complete list of all films released worldwide in a year sorted by release date will result in something that is useful to almost no one, and should be avoided. Calathan (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll tell you all something. Some of us are not happy with the replacement List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United States and List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United Kingdom with the link Lists of box office number-one films being on 2012 in film, because it only has every listed country in different years and UK and US are at the bottom of that link. What was edited and done to that article was inappropriate and maybe unnecessary. So we need to find a way to settle with this with either a compromise or something we can all agree on. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please link to the discussion where "some of us" came to this conclusion, so that the rest of us can see why it is thought appropriate to single out two countries in an article with worldwide scope. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no preference on those links, as I stated on my talk page when BattleshipMan commented there. However, I'm surprised by the lack of response to my comment suggesting that grosses from select countries be added back in to the table of highest grossing films. So far, since I've posted my comment, BattleshipMan was in favor of adding them back to the table (again on my talk page), and no one else seems to have commented. However, I don't really think I've convinced everyone that they are useful while not significantly contributing to the non-worldwide bias of the page. Please say something if you have an opinion on whether listing those numbers makes the page better or makes it worse. Calathan (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

To respond briefly, as frankly I'm tired of repeating this, singling out some nations over others offers nothing but bias. This is 2012 in film, as in "all of film" not some narrower article on the western anglosphere, and to single out the US/UK/Australia over every other cinema-going nation (many of which actually contain more English-speakers than the listed nations) is not a positive step. There is a line past which "but it might help readers" is not a valid point—it might help readers if I personally visited their houses and narrated the articles myself in dulcet norn irn tones, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Listing films by their worldwide gross offers a fair and objective look at how these films are doing, it conforms to our stated guidelines on neutrality, and it reads cleanly. Singling out select regions or nations does none of those things. GRAPPLE X 23:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've never been to the UK or Australia, but I look at those numbers in the chart all the time (or I did when they were there). They help give me a sense of how far a film is in its run, and also help me determine whether a film did better in certain parts of the world than other parts. I think that in trying to respect readers from other countries you are actually doing them a disservice. These aren't numbers that only someone from one country might want to know. What if the list were to include the three (or whatever number) largest markets for film viewship worldwide, and list the numbers for those markets? I can see no way that can be considered biased, as largest market is just a cold hard fact. Again, I think that a breakdown of grosses among large markets is something that people from anywhere in the world would be interested in, and I think it in no way biases the article. Providing information on specific countries, especially when that information would be useful to everyone, in no way goes against Wikipedia policy or prevents the article from providing a worldwide view. Calathan (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The bias isn't in the assumption that, say, only Australians would want to see how a film did in Australia. It's in assuming that the entire English-speaking world only wants specific details on North America, the UK and Australia. If you're interested in seeing how a well a film did in different parts of the world, why not Russia or Brazil or China or India, hugely populous countries whose demographics would be culturally different and might present an interesting counterpoint? But at no point were any of these, or any non-western anglosphere nations, included with such specific detail. That's the bias. To avoid it, we would need either an exhaustive list of a fair set of countries (the top X most populous? But then you'd quickly lose the UK or Australia behind many others that have never been included) or we need a neutral directory that allows more specific information to be found by those looking it. If we went with the former, that's still only a snapshot view of things that really isn't giving that much information (honestly, how often is a reader going to want to know how well a film performed in Nigeria rather than the wider African market or globally?) and would be an absolute fiend to source reliably, with a nest of converted currencies bordering uncomfortably on WP:SYNTH. The clean and neat solution just avoids all of those tangles. GRAPPLE X 23:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the countries that were originally listed were chosen in a biased way, and I'm not suggesting that we should necessarily stick to the US, UK, and Australia. However, I think that listing some individual markets is useful to everyone. As long as we select which markets to list in a non-biased way, I think listing them will not introduce bias to the article and will improve the article for everyone. I do not think population is the right way to choose those markets, as some countries or regions have a large population but low film viewership. People in countries with high film viewship are more likely to want to read an article about films, and people in other countries would probably be more interested in seeing numbers from countries with a high film viewship. Instead I think we should choose the markets to list based on which ones contribute the largest percentage of the worldwide box office for the films in the table. Checking just for The Avengers, it looks like the largest numbers are for the US, China, UK, and Brazil in that order (using [4] for the non-US numbers). If there are similar numbers for the other films in the top 10, then I think we should list the numbers for those four countries. That would also have the advantage of providing numbers from countries in four different continents, which would help give a better indication of how the films performed in different regions (yes, Africa is not represened despite having a large portion of the worldwide population, but film viewship is very low in Africa based on the numbers listed on Box Office Mojo [5]). Calathan (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it. We need to be specific about the year of each film, such as 2012 and what this has done was unnecessary and probably quite inappropriate to many readers. It will frustrate many readers from different countries by going Lists of box office number-one films to go the countries that are below the pages, such as US and UK, just to check out the number one box office films in those countries and I do not agree with this worldwide bias issue because it will cause frustration on many readers by doing all that. Also, the link is not specific for 2012 in films as it should regardless of what others say, so it should be the 2012 page instead of a broad year-by-year page linked to a specific year or it's going back to way it was before hand. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I genuinely don't understand what you're getting at. This page is specific about the year, this is 2012 in film. I've gone in several times and specifically pruned the article to be relevant to 2012 only. As for this issue of scrolling (first world problems!), I've already stated that the browser search function or the click-to-navigate table of contents will cut this right out, rendering it a non-issue. GRAPPLE X 23:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There should be number-one box office films in specific years only in the page 2012 in film, not with the page that contains different years in various countries. That will only frustrate many readers and not just the ones who are from an English-speaking country. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How is Lists of box office number-one films not the proper place to put lists of box office number-one films? GRAPPLE X 00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I see, Lists of box office number-one films only lists in different years and 2012 in film should only link number-one box office films that have been released in 2012 specificly and that year only, like every other year before that. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"W", "L" and "R" in the table of film releases

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)

Has my thumbs up. I'd have done so myself when I culled the biasedly region-specific gross figures but it looked like too much work. :P GRAPPLE X 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As I stated previously, I think that separate tables should be made for each country or region that we have information on (not in this article, but possibly linked from this article). I think that labeling releases as wide/limited/rereleases would be useful on tables for individual countries. I personally don't think it makes sense to have a table that covers worldwide releases that is sorted by date. Perhaps instead this article should include a list of worldwide releases sorted in another way (e.g. alphabetically, or by country of origin) if that wouldn't be too long. I do not think it is a good idea to remove the W/L/R column from the table in this article. I belive that would be taking what is fairly close to being a good table dealing mostly with US releases and making it into a worse table still dealing mostly with US releases. That wouldn't really address the problems with the table being in this article, and would get rid of content that is generally good but just doesn't fit this article. Instead, I think we should cut the table from this article and place it in a new article, and make an entirely new table in this article. Calathan (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, the "good" material you speak of is unexplained and unsourced; no definition is given for what constitutes a "wide" or "limited" release, and there isn't a single source for declaring any of the films as having been given one or the other. As such, even if it were encyclopaedic content (which I don't believe it is) it would fail to meet simple guidelines on sourcing facts. If it goes anywhere at all, it should be given and sourced in the article on the individual film it refers to, where it can actually be explained how wide/limited the release actually was. An overly-simplified (to the point of being meaningless) key, with no sources, is not "good" content. GRAPPLE X 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I just clicked on several of the sources given in the table (ComingSoon.net pages), and limited releases were clearly designated (either by listing them as "limited" or by listing them as only playing in New York and/or Los Angeles). Rereleases were also indicated by mentioning when the film was originally released. It wasn't clear from the pages linked how "limited" is defined, but if the source is reliable and it states they are limited releases, then that is justification for calling them limited releases. We certainly shouldn't be coming up with our own guidelines of what is or is not limited, as that would be original research. Also, I couldn't find information on ComingSoon.net about releases outside the US. Since it seems to be the primary source for the table, I think that further reinforces my point that a new table starting from scratch is needed (perhaps using Boxofficemojo as the main source, since I think it includes non-US release information, albeit not as prominently as US release information). Calathan (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This just underlines the point that we shouldn't be basing this article on US-centric sources such as ComingSoon.net and Boxofficemojo that completely ignore any films that are not made in or shown in Anglophone countries. If this is to be about "2012 in film" then we should use sources that are about that topic, not about "2012 in Hollywood" or "2012 in film in the United States and Canada" (which, by the way, don't constitute the whole of North America) or "2012 in English-language film". While the title of this article remains as it is we need to remove the US-specific content, but I'm rather being drawn to the idea that this article should be renamed to one of those alternatives so that the title reflects its contents. This would allow those currently maintaining it, who obviously have no interest in providing world-wide coverage, to continue to do so, and hopefully some editors with a less narrow-minded view of the world can create a proper "2012 in film" article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Movie Titles

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)

Since it is the English language Wikipedia then the most commonly used title in the English press should be used, which shouldn't be an issue for this page since these titles should already be enacted as their page names. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I just hadn't been sure whether that counted as a worldwide view or not. Alphius (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I apparently made that comment when I wasn't logged in. I'm on a shared IP address, so I usually only do edits when I'm logged in. The vast majority of the edits on that IP address aren't mine. Alphius (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of this page, stick with the article title; though in a wider context I'm always in favour of the film's original release titles over a translation (so, for example, Sang Pencerah, Nude per l'assassino, etc). What to change or what to keep should only really be handled on each specific article, while this, as a directory, lists what currently exists. GRAPPLE X 23:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues with Number-one box office films in country links

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)

Ctrl + F is your friend in those cases, although there is a table of contents which allows you to click through to a heading without scrolling. Short of including a link to (not a transclusion of) Template:Lists of box office number-one films there's nothing that could realistically be done here. GRAPPLE X 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TheMovieMan222. We probably should create some compromise on the link to specific 2012 films. It's either this or we have to take it to some Wikipedian admin. Maybe we should link specific 2012 films, like TheMovieMan222 said, rather than Lists of box office number-one films, probably a list of box office number-one 2012 films article. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What about the many readers who will be frustrated by not having a direct link to number-one films in countries other than these? The "English" in "English Wikipedia" means that this encyclopedia is written for anyone who can read English. There are more such people in Asia than in North America, more in continental Europe than in the United Kingdom, and more in Africa than in Australasia. And, even if that was not the case, why assume that readers in a particular country will be more interested in articles about their own country than in those about other countries? I read an encyclopedia to broaden my knowledge, not to read about parochial matters, and I would hope that the same goes for other readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The link Lists of box office number-one films will be too frustrating to some readers. What we should do is set up links in list of number one box office films each year and set up countries that have those years on there, including 2012. That way, we might not frustrate most readers who would want to know those things in North America, Asia, Europe, Africa and the areas around Australia. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

But the Lists of box office number-one films is exactly the thing you're proposing, a list of number one box office films sorted by country and year. Doing the same thing again would be uselessly redundant. GRAPPLE X 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The list that is not sorted out year. You all should realized that if that list is not sorted by year, it won't be as easy for the readers to get what they wanted and easily frustrate them. We should set that up by create list of number one box-office movies of each year and we should create a template for the year of number-one box office films. Many readers will handle that. Also, it will easier for them and it wouldn't be redundant. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It divides each nation's lists into years. Each one is clearly labelled with its year. Such a template also exists and is linked above. You have yet to suggest anything that isn't already extant and linked. GRAPPLE X 21:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It won't do much good with Lists of box office number-one films. I will find a way to set up a compromise myself. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If direct access to the 2012 lists is what you are concerned about there is a template that offers this directly: {{Lists of box office number-one films}}. An alternative would be toturn Lists of box office number-one films into a sortable table, so you can sort the list by country or year. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's one of my main concerns, Betty. One of my other ones is that since this article is about films that we're released in 2012, they would have to specific about the year of these films and the box office section of it now no longer has a specific link to the number-one box office film in 2012, since the Lists of box office number-one films only lists them in various countries in different years. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that there should be a page for Lists of 2012 box-office number-one films with only the 2012 lists for each country (and something similar for other years as well)? I don't see why that would be a problem. Alphius (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Other than a massive level of redundancy? Lists of box office number-one films is in no way unwieldy enough to warrant splitting into each of its constituent years, and creating anoter set of lists of lists is just going to make information harder to find when you want it. GRAPPLE X 16:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Would this be an appropriate compromise. Putting the lists into a sortable table would allow the lists to be grouped by country and year. If all you want is the the 2009 lists or whatever then all you have to do is click the year heading. Sorting the table would allow a search by the two valid indeces. I have reverted it to its old start for now, but if you are ok with this let me know and I can finish it off. Betty Logan (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alphius. The new page idea Lists of 2012 box office number-one films would provide lists of number-one box office films in that year and we can divide it in each section like Africa, America, Asia, Europe and Oceania, find the links to the countries that number-one films in the years (some of them are incomplete), create some new ones from the different countries, get them to link Lists of 2012 box office number-one films and put that link on that page so we can settle a compromise to make it bias free and make it easier to get readers to go where to the cretain country that has the number one box office movie of the year 2012. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Betty, I know your trying to some way settle with a compromise and I greatly appreciated it. So here's what I think we should do. I think we should try to keep the list [[Lists of box office number-one films with the thing you suggested while sortable by year as well as create the Lists of 2012 box office number-one films and other years to in order to have anyone who want to know about the box-office number one films in specific years to be keep as main article for specific year (2012, 2009, etc.) box office films, kind of like this For number-one box office films in 2012:. That's what I think we should do to settle a compromise. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone else wants to participate in this discussion, it has basically continued here. There's been debate about whether to have two separate articles for box office number-one films lists (one sorted by country and one sorted by year, so that we could link directly to either); or one article with a sortable table (which might be less redundant, but wouldn't have the benefit the other option has). Please come join our discussion if you have any opinions regarding this. Alphius (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

3D and IMAX Re-Releases

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)

I can't speak for any of the others, but I believe Raiders actually was re-released in IMAX. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what I meant to say. I didn't realize I'd written that wrong until you pointed it out. Anyway, I don't know if it's the case or not, but if Raiders of the Lost Ark was only re-released in IMAX and the others were only re-released in 3D, then I have a suggestion for what it could be changed to. Perhaps: "Several box-office blockbusters (Beauty and the Beast, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Titanic, and Finding Nemo) were re-released in 3D; and another (Monsters, Inc.) is scheduled for 3D re-release later in the year. Additionally, Raiders of the Lost Ark was rereleased in IMAX." Alphius (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Size split?

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)

Hmm. The release schedule could feasibly be broken right off as List of 2012 films, leaving deaths, awards and top grosses here. GRAPPLE X 01:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that we do have Category:2012 films. Let's not let it get redundant or too bloated. BOVINEBOY2008 01:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Splitting out the release schedule may be best all round solution in terms of addressing the neutrality issues as well. The main problem is that the regular editors have no desire to cater to a worldwide view, and those who consider it an issue (including me) simply don't care enough to spend the many hours needed to remove the US bias. The section could be split out to a List of films released in the United States in 2012 and problem solved! We could replace the section with a link to the category that presumably adopts a worldwide approach, for anyone who wants a worldwide list. Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 30 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)

The article is big in size because of all the table code so breaking it off isn't going to help much, you'll just have a separate article filled with table code that is over sized. I will say that I don't see why the tables need a "cast and crew" section, maybe a director, but the field seems ripe for abuse and in this context just a large source of not particularly useful text. BUt I imagine the table code is the major contributor to the file size and there isn't much that can be done about htat. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

As said by the user above, the "medium" section of the table should be removed as "animation" is a genre of its own. I also think we should cut down the "Cast and crew" section of the table, but to what extent I don't know. Regarding the worldwide approach, I think the page is fair though we should follow WP:FILMRELEASE for the release date rather than following the United States release date. Keep in mind there is already a List of American films of 2012 article stating all US film release dates. --2nyte (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I just realised that the article does already follow WP:FILMRELEASE and show the release date of country of production, so as already stated, the article is far at representing a worldwide approach.--2nyte (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think to keep a more worldwide perspective we should remove the following section:

W - Wide release in the United States
L - Limited release in the United States
R - Re-release in the United States

and also remove its respected section in the table. This section is specifically targeting the US. --2nyte (talk) 02:45, 3 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 already said this on the talk page for 2013 in film, but I thought it would make sense to say it here, too: I don't think that animation should be considered a film genre. Saying that a movie uses animation doesn't tell you anything about what it's about (just that it's animated). Saying that a movie is in the action genre, for example, would give you at least some idea about its content. Both animated movies and live-action movies could be in any genre, but "animation" and "live-action" shouldn't be considered to be genres themselves. Thus, I would support bringing the "Medium" section back. Besides, if "animation" was going to be listed as a genre on this article, then it seems like "live-action" should be as well. Alphius (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

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)

yeah I agree too get rid of wide and limited releases and the medium colum. Redsky89 (talk) 07:47, 14 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)

Countries money amounts

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)

There was a discussion about that above under the "Worldwide View" heading. I'm personally in favor of adding in certain countries (tentatively the US, China, UK, and Brazil), but other people seem to be opposed to that. Calathan (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of adding in certain countries to the box office. I think only the biggest countries in terms of revenue i.e. US, UK, Australia, maybe France, Brazil. This addition should definitely be considered to add a world-wide view. --2nyte (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why Was Dino Time Removed?

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)

I don't know why it was removed but I re-added it back to the page Redsky89 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Top Grossing

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)

These are the top grossing 2012 releases. It includes the full gross for any 2012 release. For The Hobbit that means everything it has made to date, for Titanic, that means everything from its 3D reissue. The description isn't very clear I'm afraid. Betty Logan (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are some titles in bold face, others not?

Just askin' ? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Me too 98.169.24.67 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Titles that are in bold correspond to movies that achieved wide release in the United States. Year in film pages since 2009 also follow this format, but since earlier discussion regarding a worldwide instead of US-centric article (here) I think they can be standardized to non-bold face. Reatlas (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

someone should really unbold them its really unnecessary and put the films in alphabetical order under their release dates. Redsky89 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitchcock

What went wrong with the code in Hitchcock? It is all messed up on the page. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rob Sinden. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Avengers Studio

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)

Only Marvel Studios. Disney is just the distributor. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It also the parent company but I concur just Marvel Studios is fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Top 50 films

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)

Table formatting - Notable deaths

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 (2012 film)

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)

MOS:LARGENUM

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)

Change in numbers

This thing :see below

Highest-grossing films of 2012

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

Highest-grossing films of 2012

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)

The version you want goes contrary to MOS:LARGENUM, although the current table format also has an issue with MOS:UNCERTAINTY.

This is effectively the same discussion which already tool place at WT:FILMS in November, which resulted in the current structure - and which is now being discussed at Talk:2015 in film#Disagrreement and which appears to be leaning towards a refinement of the current format - thus eliminating the problems from both MOS concerns. I suggest discussing this at Talk:2015 in film#Disagrreement which can then provide a centralized discussion for all of these articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

References

The Avengers (2012 film) and Paramount Pictures

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)

Paramount Pictures had no final involvement in the film. The film was solely produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. Disney had purchased the distribution rights from Paramount two years prior to release, and Paramount was given marquee credit as part of the deal. The same goes for Iron Man 3. This was resolved on the The Avengers' talk page. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the clarification and the improved reference.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

After this edit, I reiterated the need for edit summaries and the need for justifications for re-adding content previously removed at User talk:67.160.32.102‎.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skyfall-movie.com/releasedates/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120043513/http://www.walesonline.co.uk:80/multimedia/entertainment/film/images/2011/11/14/in-pictures-david-tennant-filming-nativity-2-91466-29775416/ to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/multimedia/entertainment/film/images/2011/11/14/in-pictures-david-tennant-filming-nativity-2-91466-29775416/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Place Beyond the Pines

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