Talk:2016 in film

Latest comment: 3 days ago by 2409:4080:949C:F84B:0:0:297F:58A0 in topic Southside with You

2017 in Film edit

I need a 2017 in Film page to be made, because the movie "Ferdinand" comes out April 7, 2017, it's animated and directed by Carlos Saldanha http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=104401 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.6.27 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child edit

Harry Potter has 2 movies that are confirmed for 2016.

This is not a movie, it is a theatrical production. 71.13.246.32 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hercules (2016 film) edit

This cartoon movie will be presented by Paramount Pictures and in association with Nickelodeon Movies and released for Holiday 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dirty Grandpa edit

Hello. Could anyone change where it currently says "Dirty Grandpa: 26/2/2016". The film's not coming out until August 2016. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.229.64 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The August 2016 release date was old info, best information on this date from the distributor's site and theatre schedule says Thusday, 21-Jan-2016. Mojo and IMDB show 20-Jan-2016 in Serbia, but I ain't gonna go there to confirm. Kid Bugs (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
BTW, even the official site for Dirty Grandpa shows in theatres 22-Jan-2016, but http://tickets.dirtygrandpa.movie/showtimes has showings on 21-Jan-2016. Go figure. Kid Bugs (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_in_film&oldid=700795634 is one reason it is not worth wasting time doing anything... Kid Bugs (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Medium column? edit

Does this need a Medium column? Prior years do not have it, and I really do not believe it adds much to the article. I can think or much more useful information to put in if one was to use the space. Kid Bugs (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a strong opinion on this. I will note, however, that the 2016-2020 articles all include this column. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
It would probably be more to remove the Genre and Media columns and put in information on Country, Gross, Closing date and maybe the type of release i.e. Festival, Limited or Wide. Make it sortable and you could get rid of the Top Ten list, although I can't find anything in WP:NOT that says Wikipedia is not David Letterman. Kid Bugs (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
yea you can probably remove the medium column from this and all future pages. if you look back at some of the pages you will see that it was discussed before pretty sure they made the agreement to remove it which make sense if you think about it all films are live action unless they are animated I think the only issue was putting animation as a genre because in reality its more of a format then a genre. Jkl2299 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Highest-grossing films of 2016 not on list of 2016 films edit

It is very nice that editors are updating the list of Highest-grossing films, I an sorry that I do not have time to add the films that are missing from the list of 2016 films. Kid Bugs (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the attempt at sarcasm above, I'm having a bad millennium.
Anyway, I notice that Jane Got a Gun IS on this list. Also notice, per Box Office Mojo, this film was release to 78 theatres in Germany on 2015-12-31, making a whopping $46,482 for the weekend. Per WP:FILMYEAR that would make it a 2015 film. Kid Bugs (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Revenant edit

Shouldn't The Revenant be at the top of the list? Or does its limited release in 2015 make it not count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegerPrime (talkcontribs) 13:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You got it, The Revenant is considered a 2015 film. It could show up on the 2015 list if it makes enough. Kid Bugs (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Film Festivals edit

I updated the list of film festivals with best information readily available at this time, using the list from 2015 as a basis. I am wondering about notability and if festivals should even be listed before information is made available. New York, Carthage and Metro Manila have not placed any information online, I could not even find where to submit a film for consideration short of sending a random email. All of the festivals listed are reasonably well established, the newest coming into it's 27 year. Length of run is probably not a good basis for notability, any ideas? Kid Bugs (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also, can anybody think of a reason why the table of festivals should be sortable? Kid Bugs (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re: September 8–18 2016 Toronto International Film Festival, we know what year the festival is, it is at the top of the page. If the festival is for a different year, it would be on a different page. Kid Bugs (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sherlock: The Abominable Bride, film or not? edit

I noticed that Treeroy removed Sherlock: The Abominable Bride from the Top 10 Gross list, with the note "removed Sherlock as it is not a 2016 film and so should not be considered in the chart." I had nothing to do with putting it on this list, but having done a bit to checking on it, I think it should be on the list. It opened in theatres simultaneously with the TV broadcast, which would present an interesting situation for BAFTA and AMPAS for award consideration, but we do not need to deal with that. The fact is, it opened in theatres and generated box office revenue, and was released in 2016. I do not see any reason why it should not be on the list, especially since it has made over $36,000,000 so far. Kid Bugs (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

If Disney could combine some shorts and release them theatrically as films, I don't see why BBC can release an extended version of an episode theatrically as a film. Even if this is not right, I don't think there will be any permanent damage, because in 1, 2 months it will fall out of the Top 10 after other blockbusters are released. DCF94 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply



But here's the thing - this page is not for all box office entries, it is for films at the box office. Disney's collection of shorts is indeed being released, but it is not a film. There are live streaming events of theatre/opera/ballet that are shown in thousands of cinemas and they have reported grosses. This happens every week. But they would not appear on a list of highest grossing films because they are not films. Cinemas accommodate more than just films nowadays, but this article is strictly for films. If TV shows that are broadcast in cinemas are now films, then are films that get aired on TV now TV shows? The answer should be fairly obvious.
Box office reports and the BBC themselves considered the theatrical release to be a 'TV Episode' and not a film.
This article consists of a list of films, and the Top Ten table is simply a ranking of the films that are listed on the article. Would you really place the Sherlock episode on the list of 2016 films?
Finally, as mentioned above, it will only be a couple of weeks before Sherlock would be knocked out of the top ten anyway; is it really worth putting it in? At the end of the day, I believe this article is solely for films. It may be noteworthy box office news that the TV episode grossed so much, but this table is not the right place for its discussion, and may confuse users who believe the table to represent the highest grossing films. |- Treeroy (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Quite right that a live stream is not a Film. However, there is nothing in the definition of Film that automatically excludes a television production from being considered a "Film". AAMPAS has conditions by which a film is allowed to be considered for an award, one detail that it is not released on television prior to theatrical release. The Abominable Bride was not released after, but on the same day as the TV showing, and may well qualify for a film award. Would it be allowed on the list if it was not shown on TV?
Another upcoming film that will be questionable is Pee-wee's Big Holiday. It is set to premiere at South by Southwest, which would qualify it for this list, but after it is set for exclusive release on Netflix with no wide theatrical release planned at this time.
Does not bother me one way or the other. The (Year) in film pages are becoming unwieldy, if every film that did qualify was on the page it would be too big to be of any use at all. Much of what people are probably looking for should be on the List of (Country) films of (year), but those pages are mostly ignored because editors put every little thing on the Year in film page. I wager most are not even aware that List of American films of 2016 and it's ilk exist.
The List of (Language) films is another place that could be developed, there are pages on Lists of films for many languages, but notably lacking is a List of english-language films.
Anyway, I would suggest it may be worth getting the community together again to hammer out a workable system for film, the Manual of Style/Film is just too loose to continue. Kid Bugs (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Death List suggested change edit

No, this is NOT about the current Edit War over the content in the Notable deaths section.

The column "Notable films" should be changed to "Known for" or "Notable for". Many people that will be on that list are not best known for specific films. From the 2015 list, most would not know Donna Douglas for her films, but everybody over 30 knows her for the character Elly May on The Beverly Hillbillies.

Studio executives would not be known for a particular film, Steve Jobs is listed for Toy Story and A Bug's Life, instead of as majority shareholder of Pixar and later Disney.

Agents are normally known for those they represent, such as Sam Cohn who had Paul Newman and Woody Allen to name a few. Cohn isn't even ON the list, even though he was considered the first superagent.

Critics are not normally notable for films they happened to be involved in, Roger Ebert is turning in his grave to see that he listed as being notable for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens.

I wanted to throw this out there before making the change. With the current edit war going on, I am sure this will be like stepping on a land mine, unless the page is semi-protected, which would not be a bad idea anyway. Kid Bugs (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

By the way, the above will require a change to the Manual of Style/Film, which states "For the deaths section, a person must have two film credits to be added to the list". Kid Bugs (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppet on Death List edit

209.140.38.94 is the latest IP in edit war with AleCapHollywood over the death list. 24.191.98.232 was doing it before, both 24.191.98.232 and 209.140.38.94 resolve to Optimum in Hicksville, NY. Kid Bugs (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

RED 3 edit

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that RED 3 has a release date set for Dec 2, 2016. Here's one of the link's to the release date: http://www.releasedateportal.com/movies/red-3-release-date-2nd-december-2016/

Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.200.177 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Notable records edit

Shouldn't Deadpool being highest-grossing R-rated film of all time be listed among the notable records? Malachi108 (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

No because the rating system is different in every country Jkl2299 (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Edit war on Death List edit

About the edit waring on the "Notable deaths" list, I've noticed that several people have been removed from the list more of once (even when anonymous users added them back), and many of them were added by me. Now, I don't know if adding those people was wheter or not an act of vandalism: according my humble point of view, I think it was more an act of vandalism deleting them all those times from that list. So, what do you think, Mr. @Jkl2299:?

And, by the way, Merle Haggard died at the age of 79, not 73. Peace and love. AleCapHollywood (talk), 10 April 2016

@Jkl2299: Could you please participate here? I see you continuing to remove these additions and refer to them as vandalism, but they appear to be good faith additions. I checked several of the deaths added and the actors/actresses have both articles here on Wikipedia as well as sourced 2016 deaths. What is the basis for inclusion as a notable death that you are following to remove them? -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
the page was becoming too long so I removed people who were lesser known. I only called it vandalism was because editor AleCapHollywood was reverting it and aslo using multiple IP address to edit war Jkl2299 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Multiple IP address??? I have always used my IP address to modify the page: when I do an edit, I usually don't hide behind an unknown IP address. Beside, who is able to say that somebody is lesser known than someone else to deserve to be in that list? I've noticed that almost all of them are not American; I don't want to use the excuse that I'm Italian to accuse somebody of racism. I hate edit war and I don't want to delete someone else's edit on the page. So, if any of you will add someone else on the list, I won't say anything. I hope that this courtesy will be reciprocated by everybody. Once again, peace and love. AleCapHollywood (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

WP:FILMYEAR sets the rules for death lists and who should be included, and these entries appear to meet the guidelines. Edits are not vandalism just because other editors disagree with you or edit war, please read about assuming good faith and vandalism. You need to stop removing these entries for an arbitrary personal reason like "The list is long". If they fail the guidelines set forth in WP:FILMYEAR, that's a different story, but that does not appear to be the case here. -- ferret (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

fine have it your way but it doesn't excuse AleCapHollywood using multiple Ip addresses to edit war Jkl2299 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Assuming that's true, it doesn't excuse you edit warring back, either. Takes two to tango. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to look if my IP address has been hackered (it happens, you know). @Jkl2299: There's no need to forgive or to insult anybody. After all, I haven't deleted your edits and I promise you I never will. If you'll add someone else's name, I'll be the first to be happy for you. @Ferret: Thanks again for having pacified everybody. AleCapHollywood (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the whole page is too long, and should probably be broken up. However, a short term solution would be to simply collapse the Death List, i.e.:

Death List

Extended content

Norwegian Blue - Dead Parrot

Red Shirt - "He's dead, Jim"

Kid Bugs (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Captain America: Civil War needs to be moved edit

Captain America: Civil War opened on 2016-04-27 and has earned $224,300,000 as of 2016-05-02 per http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=marvel2016.htm on 2016-05-03. Even so, it shows an Opening date of 2016-05-06. It is on the top ten list and has not opened? The film currently directly below it on the list, Café Society, correctly shows it's release date as 2016-05-11 as that is when it opens at Cannes. It will not have domestic (North America) release until 2016-07-15.

Make up your minds how release dates will be handled. If editors cannot be bothered to check the guidelines for consistency, then lock the article and allow only certain editors to change it.

I can not think of a polite way to describe the "Year in film" articles, but I give up trying to do anything with them. The way they stand they should just be deleted since they are an embarrassment to Wikipedia and anyone who works on them. Kid Bugs (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do NOT include Monster Hunt edit

Monster Hunt is a 2015 movie. It may have opened in my regions in 2016, including the States, but it's initial worldwide release kicked off in 2015. Therefore, it's a movie from that year. Kinda the same as American Sniper counting as a 2014 film despite making 99% of its cash in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7456:4401:A4FB:3A87:DD36:EC49 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Godzilla Resurgence edit

Hi, sorry to ask but I was wondering if Godzilla Resurgence should be included as there are other foreign movies (Bollywood) included as well as those from Hollywood - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_Resurgence - RVDDP2501 (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

FIlm Data edit

Why is China gross numbers being included with Chinese currency? This page is for American film market. Western films. Not foreign markets and all grosses are in American money even from other countries. The grosses are always reported with American currency. The paragraph under the milestones paragraph should be removed. The Mermaid movie should be removed to. This page is for western movies. Most have not even heard of Mermaid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.106.149 (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Who says this article should strictly cover only western movies? Sro23 (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
List of American films of 2016 is probably what 69.126.106.149 is looking for. Kid Bugs (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

But thats what the Box Office is. Western movies have theirs. Bollywood has theirs.I would not think a movie being released in a few select westerns theaters now has its entire box office counted on the list. That makes no sense. I have looked at this page for more than 10 years and suddnly a foreign movie is listed. Who decides that the parameters of this list have changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.106.149 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film lays out what has been decided on the talk page. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Kid Bugs bulk of the films are American with some British, Australian and Canadian films so American films would not be wrong though I am only looking at Western Box office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.106.149 (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yup, this page is not complete, correct or even of much use for in-depth research. It is very superficial and what is missing will get your blood pressure up, as much as what is included that should not be. The Top Ten list is nothing more than a pissing contest to see who can update from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2016&p=.htm first. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
The section under Top 10 with the notes about Western films in China, beginning with:
"Captain America: Civil War, Zootopia, Kung Fu Panda 3, and Warcraft have grossed more than ¥1 billion at the Chinese box office"
does not belong on this page, it should be on List of Chinese films of 2016.
I ain't gonna do it cuz it will probably turn into another edit war. Kid Bugs (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Original Animated Film edit

Zootopia, The Lion King, and Finding Nemo are original animated movies. Finding Nemo is original and Zootopia is original. Isn't The Lion King an original animated film? Shouldn't it be Zootopia passed The Lion King as the highest-grossing animated original film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

the lion king is based on mcbath 82.38.157.176 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

America centric view edit

Why does this page (and similar pages for other years) have America centric view? This page is not called "2016 in American films", then why are releases only from America are included in this page? 122.171.79.8 (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

These pages include worldwide releases. That's why they may look like America centric to you but they are not. - RG | (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
How do you define "worldwide" releases? There are so many Indian films that are released in America and other countries, but I don't see any of them here. 122.172.165.184 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Stop complaining and fix it. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 11:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
If you know any Indian film which was released in many countries, then you can add them to the list. - RG | (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Almost all Hindi movies release in USA and European markets, such as 1, 2. Similarly a lot of other international markets like China also release movies worldwide. If all of those are included, this is a bloated list. If not, this is just a biased list. 122.172.165.184 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Southside with You edit

I do not see this title listed under August releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:102:B400:2D54:EF9A:271C:5085 (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

2409 2409:4080:949C:F84B:0:0:297F:58A0 (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2016 in film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Duplicate entries edit

The "Cafe Society" title appears twice. 1 need to be removed, but I don't know which. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qoushik (talkcontribs) 17:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Order of films that reached $1 billion edit

Several anonymous accounts (including 2600:100D:B107:BD0A:4009:A16B:1DF:1327 and 71.81.58.55) have been adding extremely detailed (yet unsourced) listings of which films have reached $1 billion and the order in which they did this:

Captain America: Civil War, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Finding Dory, and Zootopia grossed more than $1 billion each, making them the 25th, 28th, 27th, and 26th films, respectively, to reach the billion dollar mark and the 14th, 22nd, 25th, and 28th highest-grossing films of all time; the latter two are also the fifth and fourth animated films, respectively, to reach the mark following Toy Story 3 (2010), Frozen (2013), and Minions (2015). Finding Dory became the second Pixar film (after Toy Story 3) to earn over $1 billion, while Zootopia became the second Walt Disney Animation Studios film (after Frozen) and the second original film (after Avatar) to reach the mark, as the 4th and 5th highest-grossing animated films of all time; this marks the first time that two animated films grossed over $1 billion in a single year.

Aside from being overlong (that paragraph consists of only two sentences), I don't think that there is sufficient interest in the order in which films reached $1 billion to include it here. Also, just listing them piecemeal ("the 25th, 28th, 27th, and 26th films") doesn't help in parsing the sentence. This would be far more suitable in an article listing all of the films grossing at least $1 billion than than being shoehorned in bits into the years in film articles.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? Trivialist (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I say this stays here. Also Zootopia and Finding Dory are involved in Highest-grossing animated films. That stays as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.158 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The information of the films that reached $1 billion has been around for a while even without sources. And that Trivia guy took down the highest-grossing animated film part. Dory is the 4th highest-grossing animated film and Zootopia is the 5th. Someone put the highest-grossing animated film part back. It's also important.

"being around for a while even without sources" doesn't mean that it gets to stay. I mean it needs sources or it will be deleted. Also, you still haven't explained why it should be included, other than saying it's "important", and you're the only user (re)adding the info. Trivialist (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Everything was fine until you took it down. We still need the info of the highest-grossing animated films bit. Zootopia and Finding Dory are involved with it and you keep taking down the info.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017 Finding Nemo and Zootopia Highest-grossing animated films ranked edit

Ggianoli (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Zootopia and Finding Dory deserved to have their ranks from the highest-grossing animated films. Like Zootopia is the 5th highest-grossing animated film and Finding Dory is the 4th highest-grossing animated film. That info is useful.

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_animated_films Zootopia became the 4th animated film and is ranked the 5th highest and Finding Dory became the 5th and is ranked the 4th highest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Film Year Guideline edit

It is important to follow the guideline that other articles about years in films. WP:FILMYEAR We need to put these films in earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. And1987 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply