Revision as of 17:57, 24 May 2023 edit24.24.243.136 (talk) →Sam you had two flops this morning: new sectionTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:59, 24 May 2023 edit undoInterstatefive (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,416 editsm Reverted edits by 24.24.243.136 (talk) (HG) (3.4.10)Tags: Huggle RollbackNext edit → | ||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
== Sam you had two flops this morning == | |||
Same as above ] (]) 17:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:59, 24 May 2023
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cinema of the United States. 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:
- 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
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 01:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Selection of stars
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. Harsimaja (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Section on Race and Ethnicity
The section had only one main link (Chicano Films), so I included some more and also renamed the section because there is a separate section on women in film and this section seems to only contain content about race and ethnicity. The section needs lots of work. There is very little on how black people are depicted in film beyond exclusion, blackface, and an extensive plot summary of "Moonlight" which takes up most of the space in that paragraph. That plot summary should cut back to a single sentence which lists several films including "Moonlight" that include stereotypical depictions of black people as drug dealers, prostitutes, servants, etc. Then that freed up space could be used for more discussion of things like interracial relationships, blacksploitation, other stereotypes, light vs. dark skin color, actor screen time, pay etc. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
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:
- Bottle Rocket — 1996; Wes Anderson
- Cigarettes & Coffee — 1993; Paul Thomas Anderson
- Slacker (film) — 1990; Richard Linklater
- Gates of Heaven — 1980; Errol Morris; belated documentary addition
- Dark Star (film) — 1974; John Carpenter
- Fritz the Cat (film) — 1972; Ralph Bakshi; belated animation addition
- THX 1138 — 1971; George Lucas
- 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)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class film articles
- C-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- C-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of High-importance
- Top-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class California articles
- Top-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles