Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cinema of the United States: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:50, 30 September 2020 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,379,925 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Cinema of the United States/Archives/2017. (BOT)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:48, 20 November 2024 edit undo24.249.59.28 (talk) Regarding the recent reversion: ReplyTag: Reply 
(38 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Art|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Film|class=C|American-task-force=yes {{WikiProject United States|importance=high|USfilm=yes|USfilm-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject California|importance=top}}
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = no
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=high|USfilm=yes|USfilm-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject California|class=C|importance=top}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=C|category=Socsci}}
}} }}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Cinema of the United States/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Cinema of the United States/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}


== External links modified == == Move discussion in progress ==

There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Hollywood#Requested move 9 March 2022 crosspost --> —] 17:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

== First studio ==
What was the first studio in Hollywood itself? I've made two edits and started a thread ] about this because I have no idea. Help would be appreciated. ] (]) 1 October 2022 (UTC)

== Hollywood is not synonymous with American cinema ==

New version:

<blockquote>
The '''cinema of the United States''', mainly comprised of ] (also known as '''Hollywood''') along with some ], has had a large effect on the ] since the early 20th century.
</blockquote>


If you feel otherwise, as the previous version effectively stated, please supply a cite that says Hollywood is fully ''synonymous'' with American cinema.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I'm merely a film buff, but let me say it would be ''shocking'' news to me if very many independent film houses regarded themselves as ''part'' of Hollywood, though they very much regard themselves as part of American cinema. By Hollywood, they usually mean the American institutional behemoth, notorious for having barely any appetite to expand the formulaic box.
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109233447/http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/research/statistics/acompadmitper.aspx to http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/research/statistics/acompadmitper.aspx


No national culture should be so insulted as to be directly equated with the self-glorifying institutional outgrowth of the thing, no matter if it's the ] of ] self-regard.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


Perhaps "along with a small but vibrant independent film scene" would sound better, but I'm not one to moot puff language, even when dwarfed to the max by the proximate hindquarters of Puff the Magic Disney Kingdom. &mdash; ] 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}


:I agree with you. I've never liked the fact that "Hollywood" redirected to this broader scope. I feel like an actual Hollywood article would be more about etymology and cultural meaning, and it can also point to relevant historical sections in this broader article. Be bold and make a change? ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 21:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 01:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
:Could also get other opinions by posting at ] since this is a core topic. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 21:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
:I'm surprised to see the quick response. Thanks, Erik. For what its' worth, here ], apparently writing in ''Film Culture, n. 19, Spring 1959'', nakedly equating Hollywood with an ethos developed around a set of business practices ():
<blockquote>
Hollywood is not failing. It has failed.
:...
However the probability of a resurrection of the industry through individual expression is slim, for the men of new ideas will not compromise themselves to Hollywood's departmental heads. These artists have come to realize that to compromise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it, to betray it.


In Hollywood the producer intimidates the artist’s new thought with great sums of money and with his own ego that clings to the past of references of box office triumphs and valueless experience. The average artist, therefore, is forced to compromise. And the cost of the compromise is the betrayal of his basic beliefs. And so the artist is thrown out of motion pictures, and the businessman makes his entrance.
== Lucas' and Spielberg's doomsday prediction: ] or not? ==
</blockquote>


:About John:
There's a paragraph on the bottom of modern cinema, which looks a bit out of place in an encyc. I'll copypaste it directly and save you the trouble of clicking away:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>According to Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, 2013 has seen "the industry at an extraordinary time of upheaval, where even proven talents find it difficult to get movies into theaters"; Spielberg predicts "there's eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm", with Lucas suggesting movie theaters following "a Broadway play model, whereby fewer movies are released, they stay in theaters for a year and ticket prices are much higher."</blockquote>
First known as a television and film actor, '''Cassavetes also helped pioneer American independent cinema''', writing and directing movies financed partly by income from his acting work.
To me, this looks like pure ] and just a piece of ]. From two of the greatest men in business, yes, but still. Lucas and Spielberg might be the most experienced Hollywood men currently alive, but that does not give them scholar-like expertise about the future of Hollywood, and Misplaced Pages should not treat it as such. Much like we (by current consensus) don't mention ]'s mental health and quote people who has not personally examined him, we should not publicize the opinions of celebrities-turned-scientists here either. On the other hand, if the subject about Hollywood's destruction was more written about and overall more notable around the web, then I'd certainly say we keep the statement and add more sources. But as we stand today... not so sure. Is Hollywood doomsday predictions that common around the blogosphere and scholar-sphere?<br/>The ''only'' source to the statements looks indeed reliable and formal, so no worry there. I was just thinking - <u>is the mention notable enough</u>, or is it nothing but an anecdote interview? I'm tempted to remove it right away, but wanted to check if anyone knows more about the subject matter. ] for ], ] for ], '']'' (],],]) 17:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
</blockquote>
:A week has passed and no-one has said anything. I am removing that paragraph now, without consensus. I truly find it out of place.] for ], ] for ], '']'' (],],]) 19:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
:I can't think of a single other figure in the history of American cinema more germane to the issue, but then I know next to nothing about film prior to the second world war, other than as written up by ] in his book ''The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires''. So that's my best shot, Alex, for what it's worth. I didn't squeeze hard on Cassavetes, either; what I found on one click in a single search was good enough. &mdash; ] 21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


:My final input, <strike>five</strike><strike>six</strike>seven American films I regard as entirely apart from Hollywood, as such, yet distinctly American:
==Battle of the Teamsters==
* ] — 1996; ]
Major topic missed. Nothing in here about Teamsters Local 399 and their battles with the Hollywood studios, where the studios want to rid themselves of restrictive practises by the Union. --] (]) 18:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
* ] — 1993; ]
==Changing modern cinema to contemporary cinema(Plus adding in a ton of updates to the topic)==
* ] — 1990; ]
Here an idea that is definitely need on this article. Let change the name of modern cinema to contemporary and update the content of the article to add the current state of the film industry. The Modern section of the film industry is so outdated that I tired of waiting around for people to notice it. First off there is no mention of the films that are used to define the contemporary era of Hollywood in the early 2000s to the current decade. These film after there releases would still have an impact on film and I still don't see a single mention of them; such Star Wars, Harry Potter, Twilight and The Marvel Trilogy of films. Secondly, there are platforms on the internet that are influencing the film making industry, the biggest example is Netflix. Netflix is gaining as much of an audience as traditional Hollywood blockbusters. I'm not able to show examples, but I can point at the stock market value of Netflix; which is higher than Disney and the other Hollywood companies.
* ] — 1980; ]; ''belated documentary addition''
* ] — 1974; ]
* ] — 1972; ]; ''belated animation addition''
* ] — 1971; ]


:Some of those are student productions financed with pin money. As a Misplaced Pages editor, I'm a tumbleweed, most at home editing ten or twenty different pages daily for small blunders. It has already pained me to stick around here as long as I have, but my two cents was shining like a pair of pennies freshly toweled down after a good long soak in a vinaigrette hot tub, and just this once I couldn't help myself. &mdash; ] 22:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I will try to find sources that would define the current era of cinema and share it here. There properly a lot of info on contemporary cinema, I will make sure that I will look through it before posting.
--] (]) 5:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


== Reliability of tvtropes to support content found in the "Working conditions" section ==
== Change of Filming location to Toronto ==


(Note: I'll try to use US english here)
There is the history where film locations started,where and why it left...But not the where and why
of now. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


There is a source in the "Working conditions" section, which backs up content about labor unions. The reliability of this source has been challenged by ].
== Nazi versions ==
The source in question is this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/UnionsInHollywood


TV tropes is considered generally unreliable, as it is user generated content. A better source needs to be found, but replacing the source with a "citation needed" isn't really the way to do it. 103, do you consider that this information is likely incorrect, or is it "just" referenced to an unreliable source? That will affect where we go from here. ]]] 🇺🇦 07:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
:https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/29/historian-says-hollywood-collaborated-with-nazis
:https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-hollywood-helped-hitler-595684 ] (]) 11:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
:Urwand, Ben. The Collaboration: Hollywood's Pact with Hitler. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. ] (]) 11:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


==Great Train Robbery image caption==
== ] ==
The image caption for this film says it's the first western. I changed the wording to be consistent with the Misplaced Pages article on the film that says that is a debunked myth and it isn't. (Though it's still considered such by some, so the revision still reflects this). ] (]) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


== Regarding the recent reversion ==
Isn't this page biased? It ignores problems like Nazism and racism.] (]) 08:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
*''it was Griffith's controversial 1915 epic Birth of a Nation'' - what was ''controversial''? ] (]) 08:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
*https://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Party-Communism-American-Industry/dp/0761513760 ] (]) 08:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
:Anybody can edit or submit copy. ] (]) 03:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


Good evening, all. Recently this article was reverted. This version of the article is rife with grammatical errors as well as including a reference to a foreign film of questionable relevance to the article. Before the reversion, I had made edits to the article to fix some of its poor grammar and diction, add sourced material, and add templates regarding missing information (of which there is much). Other editors had amended erroneous punctuation, and another had also removed the poorly-sourced and irrelevant statement about Vijay's ''Leo (2023 Indian film)''. I believe these edits to have improved, if by a small margin, a frankly low-quality Misplaced Pages article, not to mention one which happens to treat a fairly consequential topic. Therefore, I do not believe this most recent reversion to be justified, "last good version" (the revision summary) hardly qualifying as rationale. As a matter of fact, the degree of the measures undertaken by myself and others to improve this article is not commensurate to the level of attention it actually requires. ] (]) 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
== Selection of stars ==


:Since no discussion has come about on the talk page, I have restored the edits that were unjustifiedly reverted. If anybody would like to undo this action, they ought to provide a legitimate reason. Thank you. ] (]) 17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
So I understand that any list will be controversial and it's difficult to find a cutoff, but the gallery of stars from the golden age shown seems to be a pretty comprehensive selection of the biggest stars but manages to miss Charlie Chaplin, arguably *the* dominant superstar for the critical early period with a career spanning throughout, and a single person of colour: Sidney Poitier, most obviously. Florence Lawrence, Dick van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, Sessue Hayakawa - these are debatable choices. But Sidney Poitier and Charlie Chaplin? This literally includes the top 22 men and 22 women from the AFI's list of top stars except these two with Chaplin at 10th and Poitier the only one of colour - yet neither are even mentioned in the article. Poitier was a US citizen and Sophia Loren and Laurence Olivier were not, so that's not it either. ] (]) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
:I nearly threw up three different times while reading this. Not sure if you are the original author of the article or not, if not disregard the following:
:If you can't keep your politics to yourself, you have no business contributing to Misplaced Pages.
:Please don't make it worse by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. ] (]) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:48, 20 November 2024

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFilm: American
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Cinema High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconCalifornia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)



This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hollywood which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

First studio

What was the first studio in Hollywood itself? I've made two edits and started a thread Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles#First studio about this because I have no idea. Help would be appreciated. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hollywood is not synonymous with American cinema

New version:

The cinema of the United States, mainly comprised of major film studios (also known as Hollywood) along with some independent film, has had a large effect on the global film industry since the early 20th century.

If you feel otherwise, as the previous version effectively stated, please supply a cite that says Hollywood is fully synonymous with American cinema.

I'm merely a film buff, but let me say it would be shocking news to me if very many independent film houses regarded themselves as part of Hollywood, though they very much regard themselves as part of American cinema. By Hollywood, they usually mean the American institutional behemoth, notorious for having barely any appetite to expand the formulaic box.

No national culture should be so insulted as to be directly equated with the self-glorifying institutional outgrowth of the thing, no matter if it's the Rickey Henderson of illeistic self-regard.

Perhaps "along with a small but vibrant independent film scene" would sound better, but I'm not one to moot puff language, even when dwarfed to the max by the proximate hindquarters of Puff the Magic Disney Kingdom. — MaxEnt 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've never liked the fact that "Hollywood" redirected to this broader scope. I feel like an actual Hollywood article would be more about etymology and cultural meaning, and it can also point to relevant historical sections in this broader article. Be bold and make a change? Erik (talk | contrib) 21:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Could also get other opinions by posting at WT:FILM since this is a core topic. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see the quick response. Thanks, Erik. For what its' worth, here John Cassavetes, apparently writing in Film Culture, n. 19, Spring 1959, nakedly equating Hollywood with an ethos developed around a set of business practices (src):

Hollywood is not failing. It has failed.

...

However the probability of a resurrection of the industry through individual expression is slim, for the men of new ideas will not compromise themselves to Hollywood's departmental heads. These artists have come to realize that to compromise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it, to betray it.

In Hollywood the producer intimidates the artist’s new thought with great sums of money and with his own ego that clings to the past of references of box office triumphs and valueless experience. The average artist, therefore, is forced to compromise. And the cost of the compromise is the betrayal of his basic beliefs. And so the artist is thrown out of motion pictures, and the businessman makes his entrance.

About John:

First known as a television and film actor, Cassavetes also helped pioneer American independent cinema, writing and directing movies financed partly by income from his acting work.

I can't think of a single other figure in the history of American cinema more germane to the issue, but then I know next to nothing about film prior to the second world war, other than as written up by Tim Wu in his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. So that's my best shot, Alex, for what it's worth. I didn't squeeze hard on Cassavetes, either; what I found on one click in a single search was good enough. — MaxEnt 21:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
My final input, fivesixseven American films I regard as entirely apart from Hollywood, as such, yet distinctly American:
Some of those are student productions financed with pin money. As a Misplaced Pages editor, I'm a tumbleweed, most at home editing ten or twenty different pages daily for small blunders. It has already pained me to stick around here as long as I have, but my two cents was shining like a pair of pennies freshly toweled down after a good long soak in a vinaigrette hot tub, and just this once I couldn't help myself. — MaxEnt 22:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of tvtropes to support content found in the "Working conditions" section

(Note: I'll try to use US english here)

There is a source in the "Working conditions" section, which backs up content about labor unions. The reliability of this source has been challenged by User:103.156.42.195. The source in question is this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/UnionsInHollywood

TV tropes is considered generally unreliable, as it is user generated content. A better source needs to be found, but replacing the source with a "citation needed" isn't really the way to do it. 103, do you consider that this information is likely incorrect, or is it "just" referenced to an unreliable source? That will affect where we go from here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Great Train Robbery image caption

The image caption for this film says it's the first western. I changed the wording to be consistent with the Misplaced Pages article on the film that says that is a debunked myth and it isn't. (Though it's still considered such by some, so the revision still reflects this). 136.159.160.121 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the recent reversion

Good evening, all. Recently this article was reverted. This version of the article is rife with grammatical errors as well as including a reference to a foreign film of questionable relevance to the article. Before the reversion, I had made edits to the article to fix some of its poor grammar and diction, add sourced material, and add templates regarding missing information (of which there is much). Other editors had amended erroneous punctuation, and another had also removed the poorly-sourced and irrelevant statement about Vijay's Leo (2023 Indian film). I believe these edits to have improved, if by a small margin, a frankly low-quality Misplaced Pages article, not to mention one which happens to treat a fairly consequential topic. Therefore, I do not believe this most recent reversion to be justified, "last good version" (the revision summary) hardly qualifying as rationale. As a matter of fact, the degree of the measures undertaken by myself and others to improve this article is not commensurate to the level of attention it actually requires. 174.81.23.127 (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Since no discussion has come about on the talk page, I have restored the edits that were unjustifiedly reverted. If anybody would like to undo this action, they ought to provide a legitimate reason. Thank you. 174.81.23.127 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I nearly threw up three different times while reading this. Not sure if you are the original author of the article or not, if not disregard the following:
If you can't keep your politics to yourself, you have no business contributing to Misplaced Pages.
Please don't make it worse by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. 24.249.59.28 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: