Talk:New Hollywood

message: "The studios were still being run by the moguls who had created them back when Hollywood was a baby."
This is not completly true.  Warners was still run by Jack Warner until 1967.  Daryl Zanuk had an on-again, off-again relationship with running Fox.  Adolph Zuckor was still on Paramount's board of directors.  However, Paramount's functions were run by others.  Louis B. Mayer was dead.  Also, he was removed as head of MGM in the early 1950s.  He was the king of all the studio moguls.  Harry Cohn at Columbia was also dead.  Carl Lemme, the man who founded Universal, had died long ago.  So, by the 1960s, there were actually very few moguls incharge of the studios.
I know Peter Biskind wrote a similar pharse to this in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls."  However, you must take that book with a grain of salt.  He wrote this phrase to create the sort of "us vs. them" atmosphere that he likes in his books.  The book is filled with inaccuracies that he came up with just for dramatic effect.  Remember the part at the beginning where he states it was unusual for an actor to also produce a film (in reference with Warren Beatty on "Bonnie and Clyde").  He had forgotten what Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Marlon Brando, John Wayne, John Garfield, and Ida Lupio had done.  Also, at the end, when he makes it sound like this was the first time budgets had gone into the range of $30 and $40 million, he forgot to mention "Cleopatra."  So, rather than just getting rid of this phrase, I would like to bring it to everyone's attention and hope to fix not only this but other aspects of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.17.128 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: What this article seriously misses is defining New Hollywood. It's not about time period but about attitude, although the times certainly influenced this greatly. New Hollywood films such as Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, M*A*S*H, Little Big Man, The Godfather, Nashville, Network, and Apocalypse Now were about overturning perceptions and myths that America had about itself. Sexual, political, and social issues were discussed and portrayed on-screen with a candor that had been building during the 1950s but now arrived in full bloom. Certainly, there had been social critique in Hollywood before, especially during the pre-Code days prior to 1934, and during the Depression as seen in films by Frank Capra and others, but never with the bravado or blatancy as seen in the period from the late 1960s through the 1970s. There continued to be blockbusters during the New Hollywood era, some of them New Hollywood films (Godfather and Godfather II especially) but business as usual continued in much of the town: witness the rise of the 1970s all-star cast disaster film starting with Airport, through The Poseidon Adventure and ending for the most part with The Towering Inferno. Jaws and Star Wars can never be considered part of the New Hollywood movement as they were good, old-fashioned spectaculars aimed at pure entertainment, no matter how masterfully crafted. The end of New Hollywood was not brought about by the blockbuster, but by the rise of movement conservatism and the backlash against the very myth-smashing and questioning that New Hollywood, as an outgrowth of changing attitudes arising in the 1960s, embodied. Americans tired of going to movies that were about reality, especially the negative parts of American reality, wanting instead what moviegoers had wanted from the beginning - to momentarily escape reality. This wish to escape reality had repercussions across the board, from the insipidity of most mainstream 1980s Hollywood films, which has continued in great part through today, to electing Ronald Reagan partially on a platform of embracing the mythology of America once again. Until the article reflects these socio-political realities, it cannot present an accurate account of New Hollywood.PJtP (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of New Hollywood

message: Uh, this is pretty seriously POV:
:This was when the Movie Brat generation broke in and Hollywood became an asylum that was truly run by the inmates.
--Saforrest 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison? 

message: Contrary to what the article says, some of the figures listed DID make films outside of the studio system as well as within it, such as Scorsese, De Palma, Polanski, Schlesinger,and Altman. If one does not count American International Pictures and Avco Embassy Pictures as "major studios", then Allen, Bogdanovich, and Brooks could have been considered to have worked outside of the studio system as well as within it. Prairie Dog, 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems to make ambiguous, disputable and unreferenced claims such as "None of them ever independently financed or independently released a film of theirs, or ever worked on an independently financed production during the height of the generation's influence" and then lists examples of exceptions to that rule, whilst seemingly omitting various other examples (Apocalypse Now for example) that would further weaken the original assertion, resulting in a confused and convoluted argument. - 85.210.44.98 08:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Studio control

message: Unquestionably a great director, Sidney Lumet cannot be categorized as a member of the "New Hollywood" generation. Aside from age and career trajectory, the kinds of films he had been making for most of his career were clearly Classic Hollywood. Furthermore, he himself distanced himself from the generation. 
The confusion lies in the fact that, though Lumet was not a New Hollywood director, he did make two unquestionably "New Hollywood" classics, Network and Dog Day Afternoon. --TallulahBelle 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Dog Day Afternoon was definitely New Hollywood, and SO WAS Serpico (1973)!!!! AppleJuggler 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lumet 

message: There's been discussion about this before—neither Cassavetes nor Van Peebles properly are New Hollywood. For one, their ages, nearly a decade older than the norm. For another, their origin: they migrated from theater to film, whereas New Hollywood came straight to Hollywood via film school. Finally, they themselves did not consider themselves a part of the Hollywood environment; Cassavetes consciously considered himself a New York filmmaker. New Hollywood filmmakers, on the other hand—even Scorcese—instinctively knew they were Hollywood people. 
Furthermore, no one serious debates that Cassavetes and Van Peebles were not New Hollywood—neither the two filmmakers, nor scholars, nor other New Hollywood types. --TallulahBelle 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cassavetes & Van Peebles 

message: Could this be considered a New Hollywood film? AppleJuggler 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about ''Rocky I'' (1976)? 

message: The list of films of the new Hollywood era was becoming bloated, rendering the list meaningless. I'm pruning it down to a manageable number. 
Remember, simply because a picture was released during the period doesn't mean it was New Hollywood. --TallulahBelle 13:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. And I for one would prefer to discuss this issue with a registered user, not an anonymous number. --TallulahBelle 23:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning list of films 

message: Joe Pesci was in only one film of the New Hollywood era and that was 1980's Raging Bull (which is at the very end of the new hollywood era by the way.)  He was in one other film prior to this and it was of little to no importance.  1 film at the very end of the era as a supporting character does not seem notable to me.
"produced and marketed, but also the kinds of films that were made" 
Do you mean produced in the context of films "made" or in the context of films "directed"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.1.123 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Actors? 

message: I wouldn't count Kubrick in. He is another generation of moviemakers. Accordingly 2001 I would not consider 2001 as a "New Hollywood"-piece. Not every revolutionary move of that period is new Hollywood, neither is every genious director, which made a movie in this time.
Is there any reason to consider Stanley Kubrick or 2001 "New Hollywood"?
* In addition, he shot all his films after Spartacus in the UK. --5.165.89.142 (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though Kubrick directed his New Hollywood-era films in the UK, he still made them within the Hollywood studio system (2001 was made through a British MGM, while his films after that were only nominally independent because they were bankrolled by Warner). If anything Kubrick helped to pioneer auteur-cinema of that period (i.e. studio films that encapsulated the sensibilities of independent film). While I can see an argument for excluding Kubrick on the basis his films were not technically exponents of American cinema, I think it is certainly reasonable to regard his films within the wider "New Hollywood" movement, which many reliable sources do. Remember guys, we are not setting our own criteria here. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kubrick 

message: The image :Image:Bonnie and Clyde.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Bonnie and Clyde.JPG

message: An IP keeps adding Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film) to the list of New Hollywood films. I have text searched a couple of books used as sources: The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars by Peter Kramer, and Geoff King's New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction and it isn't mentioned. These books are not conclusive, but I have never heard of this film discussed as an exponent of "New Hollywood". In most cases "New Hollywood" films are studio films, but AOP13 is an indie production. I am aware there some exceptions to this, however I am going to remove it, and I would appreciate it if this time it is not restored to the list without a source. There are too many instances of a film just being added to the list because it was made in the late 60s and 70s without being established it was part of the New Hollywood movement. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assault on Precinct 13 

message: The list of movies has grown to include, well, what appears to be everyone's favourite movie from the 1970s.  You people don't know what you're talking about.  'Airplane!' should not be on here.  This article is hopeless.  Zweifel (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, and I have tried removing quite a few of these but they keep getting added back. The problem is it is so subjective; personally I would not consider Airplane an exponent of New Hollywood but since it is cited it would be "original research" to remove it, unless we have a source that contends the claim. The same with something like Halloween: it was an independent film, and "New Hollywood" was a studio movement in which the studios adopted an "auteur" approach to making their films, so Halloween would seem by definition not a New Hollywood film, but again it is on the list with a citation. The problem is more intrinsic to Wikipedia than the editors: we cannot use our judgment, so if poorly researched books proclaim a film to be part of "New Hollywood" I don't see a way around it. These are subjective claims, and Wikipedia isn't really well placed in dealing with subjectivity. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is pathetic 

message: New Hollywood's success is due to the invention of the rating system, making way for violence, nudity and profanity in the cinema. After the novelty had worn out the new wave declined, similar to Blaxploitation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.69.40 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  way too overrated 

message: I propose that we add in the names of directors in the list of notable films. This would help the reader to connect films with directors. This is particularly pertinent for New Hollywood, because the directors took on a more major role in the filmmaking process. I would like to canvass the WP editors for a yea or a nay on this proposal. I know one editor disagrees, but I would like to get more input. Thanks. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still waiting for editors' views about adding in the names of directors to the list of movies. In a few days, I will make the assumption that no one opposes this plan.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in my reply I don't oppose the principle just the way you did it. It looked cluttered and and incoherent especially on smaller screens. I thought my alternative suggestion was a reasonable compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the alternative suggestion?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion was to create a sortable table and tabulate the information into separate columns (film, year, director, source). It looks better aesthetically, is easier to read and has more functionality. A simple table format can be found at List of vegans. Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Add directors

message: This article's headline "possibly contains original research" is an understatement. Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: possibly contains original research?

message: I would like to remind editors that the film section is not a "free for all". Not every film made in the 70s is regarded as being a key film in the New Hollywood movement. It is largely subjective since beyond a few key features there is no definitive list, so each new addition should have an inline citation that explicitly credits the film as a "New Hollywood film", or credits it to a source that is about New Hollywood and discusses the significance of the film within that era. Ideally NO film on this list should be unsourced, although inevitably some are; however, most of the films that are unsourced are key films of the era that few people would dispute so we can let those slide temporarily, but not indefinitely. However, NO MORE films should be added without an appropriate source, especially if they are genre, independent or foreign films i.e. types of film of the era which commonly fall outside of the New Hollywood sphere. Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of unsourced films 

message: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has been added to the list several times now by . There are several important reasons why I dispute its inclusion:
#It is an Italian film
#It is not backed by major American studio
#It is a genre film
The New Hollywood movement was principally a movement centering on the Hollywood studio system in which it appropriated independent sensibilities. As I point out in the section above, all films included on the list really should be sourced, but films which fall outside of this sphere such as is the case with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly should definitely not be added to the list without an accompanying source. Neither The New Hollywood (by Peter Krämer) nor New Hollywood Cinema (by Geoff King) which are both used as sources for this article list The Good, the Bad and the Ugly as an example of New Hollywood. Betty Logan (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

message: The first sentence states: "New Hollywood, sometimes referred to as the "American New Wave", refers to a period in American film history from the mid-to-late 1960s" and one of the sentences in the introduction states: ""New Hollywood" usually refers to a period of film-making rather than a style of film-making, though it can be referred to as a movement." 
The article seems to be based on the opinion that "New Hollywood" is a movement, excludng all exploatation and commercial titles from the period, as well as those having more in common with classical Hollywood. In my opinion, there should be clear distinction of "New Hollywood" as a period and "New Hollywood" as a movement, and the article doesn't seem to be clear on that one.StjepanHR (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is both, and I don't think there is a clear distinction. It was a movement defined by new filmmaking sensibilities—some of them artistic, some commercial—that defined a particular period. As a period it brought an end to the classic Hollywood era, and as a movement it saw a new aesthetic become central to studio film production. From the list of films included it is evident that commercial films were not excluded: The Godfather, Jaws, Star Wars and ET are all represented and all became the highest-grossing film of all-time. I don't think exploitation films are specifically excluded but let's not forget that "New Hollywood" was principally a change in studio film-making, and exploitation films were mostly peripheral to that. Some of them took advantage of relaxed censorship, which resulted in their own movements such as Golden Age of Porn. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of the things you wrote, but, for example, the directors section is missing most of my favourite directors working in the period, such as Burt Kennedy, Don Siegel (who is listed in the info box, but not in the main article), Dick Richards, Andrew McLaglen, John Sturges, Mark Rydell, and countless others. Some of them started in the late classical period or the transitional period of the early/mid-1960's, but all of them had careers in the New Hollywood period and are a significant part of it, despite not being part of the New Hollywood movement in the more narrow sense of the phrase. One thing I can't agree is when you say that "there is no clear distinction" and that ""New Hollywood" was principally a change in studio film-making, and exploitation films were mostly peripheral to that". The second sentence would be correct if the article is about the movement in the narrow meaning. However, the exploatation cinema was a huge part of the PERIOD in question and can't be excluded. What I would like to propose is to make separate lists for directors (and producers) associated with the movement in the narrow sense and those working in the period, but not being part of the movement. StjepanHR (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Just to make things clear, I don't propose adding every name who had something to do with the period of cinema in question, but some names simply need to be listed, such as all I have mentioned above.StjepanHR (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually go the other way and cut the number of directors down. I don't see the point of listing them all in the infobox when there is a more complete list in the article itself and I would limit the list of directors to those who have a directed a couple of films on the list. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better :) I wasn't proposing expanding the infobox (it was ridiculous as it was), just saying that some where listed there and not in the main article, what was also a bit weird, but it is solved now. The only thing I would still do is to list few other directors working in the period, but which were not a part of the movement, since many of them were very significant, such as those I have listed above (Burt Kennedy, Dick Richards, Andrew McLaglen, John Sturges, Mark Rydell) and few others. I just don't know how to make a distinction between them and those who followed New Hollywood "rules" more closely. StjepanHR (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is much value in simply listing people who worked during the period; that is pretty much everyone who worked during the 1970s so the article would just become a WP:COATRACK. However it is defined—and I concede there are multiple definitions out there—"New Hollywood" basically comprises a body of work which is usually associated with the concept i.e. films that are repeatedly brought up as examples of "New Hollywood". For example, films like The French Connection and The Exorcist are nearly always listed so that makes William Friedkin a prominent figure of New Hollywood, but because James Bond films are generally ommitted then I would not include Lewis Gilbert and Guy Hamilton—who directed three films apiece during the period. I question whether somebody like Sigourney Weaver should even be listed: she basically had a supporting role in Annie Hall and was part of the Alien ensemble, but I would hardly call her a prominent figure. I would prefer to see a more rigorous and objective inclusion criteria introduced, because many of the inclusions seem arbitrary to me. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for those two you have mentioned, Hamilton is British director who worked in Britain during 1970's, not in Hollywood. Gilbert also had only a brief (and, IMHO, not very significant) career in the US during the period. Again, we have issue of omitting a huge part of the US cinema of the period. For example, the article about the classical Hollywood (although in need of expansion) does a reasonable job of covering broad spectrum of films and artists, regardless of them following closely the "rules" usually associated with the Golden Age. As this is an encyclopaedia, where should one look if he wants to find more about 1970s US directors working in a style more similar to classical Hollywood than to the one of New Hollywood (which itself is a mix of classical Hollywood with (western) European cinema, or even a pure classical Hollywood with 1970s political opinions involed, as well as a relaxed "censorship")? To repeat once more, I am not proposing adding Kennedy, McLaglen and the rest into the current list, but I can't see how would one sub-chapter and one separate list of 20-30 names hurt the article. Another thing is that neither this nor classical Hollywood article cover a "gray area" of 1960s, which included (d)evolution (based on personal opinion) of classical Hollywood into post-classical Hollywood. I know that is slightly off-topic, but as you seem to be a sensible editor, I would like to hear your opinion how to cover that period? StjepanHR (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia policy answers your question already: there are plenty of books that cover "New Hollywood" and any films or names added to the article should really be WP:Verifiable i.e. it should not be down to editorial whim who or what gets added. As you can see, the film section has started to move in that direction and new film additions are now prohibited unless they are sourced, and the "Important figures" section should ideally follow suit. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Period or movement? 

message: I don't know what is the origin of this claim, but huge majority of the directors listed never attended (and even less of them finished) any kind of film school. I would just like to leave this open for discussion before deleting it.StjepanHR (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This new generation of Hollywood filmmaker was predominantly film school-educated" 

message: My last edit was a removal of the following statement: "According to Peter Biskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, one aspect of New Hollywood was a de-emphasis on the traditional view of casting physically attractive actors in lead roles; the movement's occasional emphasis on recreating a reality which audiences could relate to resulted in actors with "everyman" looks, such as Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman, getting cast in lead roles that would have been unavailable to their physical type under the studio system." The source listed ("Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", page 16) doesn't even state that, but something different. On the other hand, I don't see the point of listing it since "attractiveness" is very subjective term and even if we go with what majority would consider attractive, I don't see that most of the Classical Hollywood actors would be considered conventionally attractive (although I am a straight male and not the best judge, I admit). Just take a look at some of the Academy Award for Best Actor winners of the Golden Age (just the first dozen years): Emil Jannings, George Arliss, Wallace Beery, Charles Laughton, Victor McLaglen, Paul Muni, Spencer Tracy, James Stewart, etc. I think it is not fair to assume that any of them was popular because of his attractive look and not because of acting (or physical presence in case of McLaglen). On the other hand, while 70's Hollywood had its share of unattractive actors, it also had Redford, Beatty, Reeve, Reynolds, H. Ford, etc. I don't doubt their acting talent, but much of their popularity among female audience was based on their looks. StjepanHR (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "de-emphasis on the traditional view of casting physically attractive actors in lead roles..." 

message: I don't see the point of listing a person under only one category in this section. For example, Allen and Eastwood fit perfectly in both "actors" and "directors" sections and there is no reason for them not to be listed under the both. StjepanHR (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of important figures of the movement - dual roles 

message: Now people have gone and added "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "The Empire Strikes Back", etc., onto this list.  These are not "New Hollywood" movies.  These are "Blockbuster" movies.  They are the antithesis of New Hollywood -- big concept, highly marketed and advertised movies that make all their money on their opening weekend.  These are the movies that killed New Hollywood. Go watch the documentary, "The Monster That Ate Hollywood".  Enough already.  Zweifel (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is still pathetic 

message: I have just undertaken a verification check on the list of films. I am not prejudiced either way about the films. I have listed them here so a record of what was removed can be easily identified, and if sources can be found for them then by all means add them back in. I will attempting to locate sources my self over the next few days. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films that failed verification 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I have recently added "better source needed" tag for Patton (1970). The film stands somewhere between Old and New Hollywood in style and the source listed mentions it only two times, once as a film that Rod Steiger regreted turning down and once as a financially successful 20th Century Fox film. In both pages, it is not listed as a New Hollwood picture. It is not even listed in the Index at the end of the book. StjepanHR (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right to call it out, and I certainly don't regard your intervention as "tiring". In a subjective list such as this one sourcing should be explicit, either by name-checking it as an exponent of the era or through contextual discussion of its significance within the movement. Flickchart has a comprehensive list of NH movies and Patton isn't showing up here either: https://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?genre=New+Hollywood&year=1970. Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patton source 

message: I feel like putting the poster for Bonnie and Clyde (1967) in the lead section because I feel like it would educate readers and let them see what the movement looked like, especially considering there's no image in this article. But I want you to decide, should I do it or not? CaptainRex2008 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: Nvm, somebody already did it for me. Thanks! CaptainRex2008 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it :) Espngeek (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should I put an image in the lead section? 

message: If these two movies and others appearing in the full list are indeed part of new hollywood they should appear in last paragraph of the introduction given that they are more relevant. 2800:40:41:558:F1A6:4FA9:6C4E:957F (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godfather, taxi driver and others