Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:51, 10 December 2005

Removed this sentence:

If moving pictures were not an American invention, they have nonetheless been the preeminent American contribution to world entertainment.

According to the linked page Film, moving pictures are an American invention. What's the true story here? Rmhermen 22:14 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, but that was what the us government article said. It did not elaborate and I haven't had a chance to check it out. Sfmontyo

According to http://www.cinescene.com/dash/lumiere.html, it was a french man, Lumiere, and his two sons (in Lyons), who having been inspired by Thomas Edison's Kinetoscope, had invented a process of moving a filmstrip and projecting it onto a screen. Sfmontyo

Finally, according to this article, http://animation.filmtv.ucla.edu/program/before.html, others had a system of projecting images onto the wall, including Edison's personal system (not his public Kinetoscope), but it would appear that the sprocketed film coordinated with a shutter was the design of the french man Louis Lumiere. Sfmontyo

This title is ludicrous. It sounds like it's about movies ABOUT the United States. Avoiding the use of the adjective "American" is nonsense. -- Zoe

Okay Zoe, first I'm glad that you don't mince words and I've seen enough posts from you that I don't take this personally, but I'd appreciate it if you would be a little nicer. Anyway, here's my rationale, in the beginning, there was Culture of the United States and Music of the United States (as well as things like Politics of the United States which I think is a bit odd). So in the interest of keeping it similar to the other half-dozen to dozen _______ of the United States, I added Literature of the United States, Dance of the United States, Architecture of the United States, Visual arts of the United States. (BTW: I didnot use Film of the United States, because that literally sounded like it was a film about the US). Anyway, are you suggesting that we:

1. ) special case just this entry
2. ) change all of the entries

Again, I was simply trying to go along with what I preceived was the spirit of the articles. Cheers, Sfmontyo 02:16 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

How about this title: Movies made in the United States - Sfmontyo Actually, I don't like that either. Any suggestions?

I understand what you're saying, and I apologize for the tone, but the thing is that around here, the word "American" has become a dirty word, and I was reacting to that. I still think the title is wrong, but then, what do I know, I'm just one of those Unitestatesians who have stolen the name that belongs to everyone in the Western Hemisphere. -- Zoe

It seems to me that the title is perfectly fine, and I, for one, wasn't confused at all. The rationale given above is perfect, I think. Let it stay as it is. Atorpen

Having read the above justification, I think the title is perfectly correct and logical. I will others would show the same logic sometimes in naming articles. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:03 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

But JT, you're not an imperialist warmongering Unitedstatesian. -- Zoe

Oops, I wanted to move Film history/France, Film history/Italy and Film history/United States out of subpages and I put them at Cinema of France, Cinema of Italy and Cinema of the United States, not knowing a discussion had already come up. I like my way better, because movies of the United States sounds strange to me, but I don't feel strongly. If someone wants to integrate the two articles here, there or somewhere in between, that's fine. Tuf-Kat 16:34 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion:

• Movies of the United States and Cinema of the United States are essentially the same, except "Cinema" is just a hole-y list. I propose Cinema gets deleted. Where's the best place to ask for a mediation?
  • On wikipedia:duplicate articles! :) Martin 21:55, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • My suggestion would to the Cinema content to Movies, and redirecting Cinema to Movies. The content seems valid enough as far as it goes. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:34, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I think Cinema is more canonical (?) than Movies - rather like Photography and Snaps. Andy G 21:03, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, most of the articles about the movies of other nations do seem to be titled Cinema of . . . (Cinema means a movie you don't want to see, with long shots of gauze curtains blowing in the wind, and subtitles, and no explosions.) So it looks like "cinema" is the keeper. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:44, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • I second moving content from Movies to Cinema and placing a redirect at Cinema. Virtually everyone calls them movies in the U.S. If there's a summary page somewhere that lists all countries, then just use Cinema if you want to make it pretty. Daniel Quinlan 08:43, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • Whichever is kept, it seems better to make the other a redirect than to delete it. Andre Engels 08:56, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • I third the move of content. Cinema is about the art form and its history. Movies should be a list of movies which references cinema for the art form. JamesDay 09:11, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • What about films? There's already a long list of almost entirely US pictures at List of 'years in film'. Andy G 22:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I suppose there's an exclusive list for other countries, so we might as well accept the inevitability of a list of only US movies page. Personally, I don't care, I just forsee the inevitability of it happening.JamesDay 11:11, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In light of the above consensus-free discussions, I combined the content at cinema of the United States. While I prefer this to movies of the United States, the duplicate articles disturb me more. At least the content is now together and can be moved en masse.Tuf-Kat 02:53, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Introduction

Having added images, I'd like to ask other editors to help with the introduction. The quote by Pauline Kael - out of context and referring to an Italian film - is presented in a way that denigrates this subject. Surely there's a better way to begin the article. Durova 10:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)