Talk:2007 in film

message: While I realise that quite a few of the films listed on this page will not get made, I see no reason to include films which are at present untitled (films which are in production always have at least a working title). When and if things start moving on these films they can be re-added. Rje 15:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled films

message: It may just be my ignorance but what does PSR stand for?ONEder Boy 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea either, I have changed them all back to WR and LR - like it is in the previous articles - and added a legend to further clarify the abbreviations. Rje 02:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PSR

message: When adding films to this article, can everyone please make sure that there is solid evidence that the film is being made (this is not just me being picky, it is policy). This article is not the place for rumoured projects, IMdB is. I will remove any film that is either rumoured or has stalled for longer than six months, and, for the record, I do not consider IMdB to be a reliable source of information. I know some might find this policy somewhat authoritarian, but I am doing it to maintain some level of information quality. Rje 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Films on this page

message: Should projects such as 'Rough Science boys' which the listing says will be shown on youtube and maybe guba be listed at all? There's no page for it, and the ONLY google hit is a youtbue video removed for violatign YouTube's TOS. That hardly builds a case for acarrying such on the page.ThuranX 05:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it, if we allowed this we could have tens of thousands of other films made by kids with camcorders. You Tubs/Google Video films do not pass muster in terms of notability for having their own articles, this being the case they shouldn't be listed here. Rje 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webcast only projects 

message: I have repeatedly tried to clean up the mess that is Rogue in this list, but other editors continue to delete the  commented sections i put into the article, then mash the two listings into one. Here's what I've found.  shows that at SOME point in Feb, the Li/Statham Rogue (LSR) here MAY be shown to critics.  Shows that the Michael Vartan/Crocodile Rogue (VCR) here is being released Feb 2nd. ThuranX 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rogue is TWO films. 

message: What are these dates set by? For example, Mr bean's Holiday is being released on 25 March. Simply south 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The release dates listed are the North American dates taken from www.boxofficemojo.com, which is by far the most accurate site on the internet for this type of information. Whilst it will be released in the UK on March 30, Mr Bean's Holiday will be released on September 28 in North America. We use North American dates because the film industry tends to be focussed primarily on this market, and it is necessary to use information from only one market in order to avoid confusion (it should also be pointed out that North America is the only market big enough to allow a clear distinction between wide and limited releases). I hope this answers your question. Rje 10:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release dates 

message: How to we gain rights to use these images on our Wiki page. At the moment it is dull and boring - need some pictures to jazz it up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banacek555 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the images in the tables as they were doesn't comply with the non-free content criteria.  To "jazz up" the list, only free-use images can be used.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because the images are copyrighted, they are "non-free content"; the crux of the policies is that we can only use non-free content where necessary, and where it is used it must be clearly explained why we need to use said copyrighted material.  Those images are presumably on Wikipedia for depiction in the films' article, but to use them here wouldn't qualify under the Wikipedia criteria.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Why is this here? It's entirely original research. Will someone give me a good reason why it should be up in the first place? --Plasma Twa 2 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is any mention of it in Entertainment Weekly  ONEder Boy 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, until someone gives me a good reason for it to be in the article, I'm removing it. --Plasma Twa 2 05:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of the Sequels 2 

message: The Last King of Scotland and Miss Potter are both 2006 films and should not be on this list. Many other films are either not wide or in the wrong year (ex. La Vie in Rose). Casey14 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Mistakes

message: In the Scheduled 2007 releases section, limited releases are listed. But in the month tables, it says "The following films meet these criteria (600 screens or more) and indicate first major release date:" so I'm assuming we list limited releases as upcoming and then when they come out we drop them from the article? I think the tables should also include limited releases. For example, December Boys and King of California are currently in the Scheduled 2007 releases section, but if this sentence in the July - September section is to be followed "The following films meet these criteria and indicate first major release date:" that would mean those 2 films would not appear in this article. Should limited releases be excluded from this article? Or should we just remove the "wide release" criteria from the tables? Or should we create a different section for limited releases? Or should we just list limited releases in the table, but indicate that the movie is not a wide release (with LR -- which appears in the Scheduled 2007 releases section)? --Pixelface 21:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited releases

message: I was going to add Persepolis (film) but wasn't sure which release date or flag icon to use. —Morning star (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persepolis 

message: Accordng to Box Office Mojo it was released April 20, 2007 and opened in 825 theaters.(widest Release 1,272 theaters) This would seem to meet the wide release criterion.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hotfuzz.htm
Rsquid (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't "Hot Fuzz" included? 

message: The omission of this, and several other films encourage me to strongly suggest to the moderators / guardians that this article be renamed "2007 in AMERICAN film". I'm not dis'sing or any of that Wiki B.S. American cinema, and I wholeheartedly agree that there must be a cut-off or we'll end up with all 8,000 films released worldwide in 2007... BUT for films to ONLY be included because they reached widespread release IN THE USA suggests strongly to me that this list IS an American list, be it made-in-america or shown-in-america. I do not know if this is the appropriate forum, but I do ask the mods to give this serious consideration. 58.105.15.20 (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a US list and should be titled accordingly 

message: Why is it that the 2008 academy award winners are shown on the year 2007 in film page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.88.35 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely because the Academy Awards presented in 2008 were for films released in 2007. Oscars are always presented in February or March for films that had their first public presentation the previous calendar year, which is why you typically see studios saving their films they think will be awards contenders for the end of the year, so they will be fresh in the minds of Academy voters come awards season. A lot of times they will only screen at a single festival or have a small limited release at the end of the year to make them eligible for that award season and build buzz before getting a wider release closer to the award selection time. Recent examples include No Country For Old Men, Juno, and There Will Be Blood.–207.180.187.8 (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are 2008 Oscar winners on this 2007 page?