Jump to content

Talk:2005 in film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help?

[edit]

All of these tables have me complete at a loss. I'm trying to add Ruth Warrick to the deaths, but I can't get it to come out right. What I did looked just like the previous line, why isn't it working? RickK 22:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I can't say exactly what you were doing, but you need to increment the rowspan="2" attribute. By not incrementing it then your browser doesn't know to "extend" the month column to the new row. Cburnett 19:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I did add the rowspan="2" attribute to the Ismail Merchant column, and tried to add the following column with details : Sunil Dutt, 75, actor (date is the same as Merchant Ivory). I copied and pasted the exact format of the Morris Engel column, but it doesn't come out right.
Pls somebody do it for me.
Also the date has to be top-aligned rather than middle aligned. In Opera the cell borders don't show up and the whole table is a mess. For e.g., there is no way to know if Debra Hill belongs to March 5 or 7. Jay 08:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added Sunil Dutt and changed to top-aligned. Anything else? Also, as with RickK's request above: I don't know exactly what you were doing but did you also increment the May rowspan from 2 to 3? Cburnett 16:26, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

moved video releases

[edit]

I moved video releases to 2005 in home video since this article is already very long and primarily focused on cinema - not home entertainment. DAVODD 06:37, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Cburnett 14:17, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cannes film festival

[edit]

Somebody please add a link to 2005 Cannes Film Festival --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 08:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Release Status

[edit]

Many movie sites state that a wide release is a movie that gets released in 700-800, not over 1,000. Thus I believe we should have both the wide release page, and the movies that were released in wide release reposititioned such as "A Sound of Thunder", "Oliver Twist", and "The Gospel".

All the figures that are used are arbitrary; I believe we use 1000 because it is a round number. There is no absolute definition of "wide" release, some sites use 650, some 750, and some, like Wikipedia, use 1000. What ever figure we use there will be films which just miss out. That being said, I personally do not mind if someone decides to change the definition, as long as they make all of the relevant changes to 2003 in film and 2004 in film as well. Rje 18:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I changed wide release to 650 on the three pages, but if anyone wouldn't mind to go tidy things up, it would help a lot. I really don't understand how the graph works.- Casey14 01:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, it takes a little getting used to. I think I've sorted everything out now. Rje 13:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casey14 01:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Well I changed it now to 600 theatres, to make it a nice a round number. Only 4 movies since 2003 have had between 600 and 649 theatres, that have not went more than 650. 2 of those movies already were undeer wide release statues anyways, so two new movies won't hurt. Also this means everyone should now put 600+ theater movies on the list[reply]

Too much US film?

[edit]

I think so. No mention of the Cannes film festival, Berlin or Venice. Hardly any mentioning of movies, events or persons not associated with Hollywood, or working outside of the US. I've added a film (Caché (film), so I have contributed a little bit! I'll try to add more later, but I would like to make a plea for all wikipedians to also add stuff happening outside the US. :) NuclearFunk 16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant mode - BAFTAs, Bond, Potter, Hitch-hikers Guide, League of Gentlemen... Last time I checked, the UK was still outside the US. If you're actually complaining about the lack of non-English language films, well they don't tend to feature heavily in the box offices, so no surprise they don't feature heavily here. Average Earthman 14:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, all those movies were financed in the US. Should 2005 in film be summarized by the top-grossing films and box-office success? I think not. NuclearFunk 18:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize films entirely by the ones that people watched? Oh, heavens no. Quick, get out my copy of Sight and Sound and find something obscure! Seriously, things should be added only on their own merit, not because you think there's too much US-bias and want to even things up. My point remains - there's going to be lots of films at least partially financed by US sources on this list because they make up the vast majority of films that people actually watch. Films that haven't even been released outside of film festivals shouldn't be added just to make up the numbers - and I'm sure you actually agree with that, or you'd have added more than one film. Average Earthman 10:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't added more than one film because I haven't had the time.... Some films are for the sake of the audience, and some films are for the sake of film. It isn't about bias, it is about balance. Throughout history, many films that now are considered classics and important in film history weren't near being "box-office hits". I request more because it is in wikipedias interest that there should be more information about films that are harder to find info about, than movies we basically are slapped in the face with each day. Oh, and many films that aren't released outside film festivals are considered as important. NuclearFunk 11:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is aimed at reflecting notability, not creating it. So we should only list those that are genuinely considered as important. If you want a list of all films, go to the Internet Movie Database. Average Earthman 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Math?

[edit]

Maybe my calculator is broken, or maybe my conversion is off, but it looks like Revenge of the Sith made more money than Harry Potter. Am I doing something wrong?

Other films table

[edit]

The table substituted by section Films released in 2005, contains additional information with studios, release dates, etc. It can be put in a subpage and place a link in the article (see also, or for more details). The same I suggest for the Wide release films. We could keep the article shorter and offer links to the additional information. Like this a subpage called 2005 in film/Releases in North America could become more organized and focused. Please, discuss on the issue. I also posted in the Film Project Talk: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Later years in film - subpages. Hoverfish 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyToon Studios vs. Fox Animation Studios

[edit]

DisneyToon Studios produced only 13 2D-animated films to not be produced by Fox Animation Studios:

  • Teacher's Pet (2004) is the first and only theatrical release of a DisneyToon Studios film to not be produced by Fox Animation Studios.
  • The Lion King 1 1/2 (2004) is the first DisneyToon Studios direct-to-video film to not be produced by Fox Animation Studios.
  • Mickey, Donald & Goofy: The Three Musketeers (2004)
  • Mulan II (2005)
  • Tarzan II (2005)
  • Lilo & Stitch 2: Stitch Has a Glitch (2005)
  • Pooh's Heffalump Halloween: The Movie (2005)
  • Kronk's New Groove (2005)
  • Bambi II (2006)
  • Brother Bear II (2006)
  • The Fox and the Hound II (2006)
  • Cinderella III: A Twist in Time (2007)
  • The Little Mermaid III: Ariel's Beginning (2008)
  • The Princess and the Frog (2009) is the first Walt Disney Animation Studios 2D-animated film to not be produced by Fox Animation Studios.

Note: DisneyToon Studios produced only 12 direct-to-video films to not be produced by Fox Animation Studios, because Fox Animation Studios was Don Bluth & Gary Goldman's animation studios and they already directed only two animated features, the children's classic Anastasia and Titan A.E., because Fox Animation Studios was closed down in October 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.18.244 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_in_film&oldid=1266228934"