Talk:History of film

message: Most of this article is pretty good and in depth, but the writer(s) seems to get lazy near the end with odd sentence structures and "short hand".  Sentences such as "The history of film and video distributed online began in the year 1994 with the first public showing of Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. Influence of Comics. Smoke, 1995. In the 1990s, cinema began the process of making another transition, from physical film stock to digital cinema technology. Pixar, The Matrix. Meanwhile, in the home video realm, the DVD would become the new standard for watching movies after their standard theatrical releases. Just look forward to the future." aren't very encyclopedic and need cleaning up.  They seem very stream of conscious or something like you would read in an email.  Statements need to be explained better and more in depth so the reader can understand why something is that way.
Yes, what the hell is up with 3.8-3.10?? 205.211.141.243 05:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why is there no history of Soviet cinema here, neither Eisenstein, nor the brothers Vasilev and Bondarchuk, nor many other Soviet directors and actors Цйфыву (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Lazy at the end

message: This article should be better called "History of Cinema in the United States" Is'nt it a shame to be so narrow minded and so arrogant?
We must add bits on daguerrotypes and the introduction of film itself, allowing for multiple copies of a work--surely a crucial development in film history.
I'm not sure what to make of part of the article on France--Truffaut's last film was completed in 1983, and Godard finished one last year (2000). Do you mean that these were influential personalities during that era? Why in that era specifically? What did they do? Would they be as influential now, with later generations continuing to discover their work at revival houses and on video? Also, could I add Louis Malle? (Au Revoir Les Enfants, Damage, My Dinner With Andre)
Plenty of subpages here that could be given new page names. -- Tarquin 10:30 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)
There seems to have been a vast momement from articles using the word film to using cinema without much discussion. Mintguy (T) 01:36, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Random Early Comments

message: * Stanley Kubrick
* John Cassavetes 
* Sam Peckinpah 
* Francis Ford Coppola
* Brian DePalma 
* Roman Polanski
I've removed this director list as I'm not really sure how it fits in. But if someone wants to expand on it and go into the autuer theory or whatever then please do. JW 00:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maverick directors

message: Does anyone know why it seems like the the names of actors on the covers of movies (movie artwork) are so consistently transposed?  what's with that?!--Deglr6328 20:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Um, why is the first entry (Acker) doing that?  Did I just do that?  I can't see anything in edit mode that would cause that to happen.  Anyone? Michael Wells 03:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put a space at the beginning of a line. It makes it go like that. I've no idea why. The Singing Badger 13:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooh.  Thanks. Michael Wells 23:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird problem in References 

message: Yeah, it seems odd that the tag urges us to discuss this on the Talk page, but the person who put it there gives no explanation for their view.  I mean, everyone's entitled to contribute, of course, but it's not terribly helpful to stick it up there anonymously without starting an accompanying discussion.  I'd be inclined to take it down after a few days if no more explanation is forthcoming (or if no one else steps in to agree with the tag and elaborate).  Although presumably it's my prose that's being critiqued, so I'm hardly objective in the matter. 
I am trying to make the style at least slightly pleasurable to read and not too dreadfully dry.  Do I cross the line into editorializing at certain points?  It would be useful to have some feedback on that.
Michael Wells 00:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it doesn't seem very accurate, and we know this article is still going through a re-writing process. JW 10:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Looking at it at the moment I would say the main issue with the style is there are a number of sections with numerous sentance fragments, and links that have no real context - for example in the 1990s it has a sentance 'Pixar, The Matrix.', where the sentance on either side has anything to do with either thing. What did the person adding these want to indicate about either's contribution to the history of film? Sfnhltb 17:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inappropriate tone" tag? 

message: I've been cleaning up links to Epic dab page and have been simply removing any link that is intended to explain "epic film" as there does not appear to be any addition information to be gained (currently) by clicking through the Epic page.  If anyone believes there is more that can be said about the term than "a film with a vast scale" and is interested in creating such an article, do so and let me know.
:Answering my own question - I found Epic film and have been using it.  Sorry I didn't sign. John (Jwy) 18:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epic Film 

message: The film industry article's history of film section is a duplicate (with more detail in some areas) of this page, and needs to be merged here. At the very most, the history on that page should be covering the highlights which impacted the development of the business side of film only. Anyone who wants to lend a hand in this merge, please feel free. -Harmil 16:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film industry merge 

message: I don't know much about film but I was researching the history of television and film and I could not find out when the first color film/movies started.. Perhaps this should/could be included in the article? I see sound is in there. Volksgeist 11:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, color should be treated in this article, if only minimally, with a link to some other article for more information. As it stands now there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the history, technology, or impact of color in films. --74.136.192.115 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreeing still. Perhaps the most minimal concerns above have been addressed, but still nothing of substance. A huge chunk of the article details silent vs. talkie and there's virtually nothing about b&w vs. color. At least something about the time period became odd to do black and white films vs. the tiime period when it was odd to do color films and what both the last commonly b&w films and the first commonly color films were like and why makers chose to sometimes be atypical (Wizard of Oz using color in a b&w era; Schindler's List using b&w in a color era) is very necessary. Also, why did sound almost instantly take over despite inherent diffculties early on, while color was available forever but didn't become common for decades. Etc. 74.242.255.251 (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  still nothing about color?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.137.186 (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my recently overhauled material addressing most of the abovementioned aspects of color in the "History" section of the "Film" article. I am tempted to simply copy the relevant text into this article myself, but there is no obviously inviting place in which to put it. Yet again, the resident Wikipedia demon of overlapping and duplicative (and sometimes contradictory) articles rears its head. A concise treatment of the advent of color seemed essential even in that summary of the history. The absence of any such treatment in this hefty "History of film" article is indeed absurd. On the other side of the street, this article contains a considerably more in-depth treatment, albeit from a historical perspective, of the non-technological aspects of filmmaking than can be found in the "Film" article. Major simultaneous surgery on the two seems to be in order, but I am neither broadly expert nor masochistic enough to tackle that Herculean task myself. AVarchaeologist (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about color 

message: I've just reverted a series of edits by User:Donteatyellowsnow. I'm normally loathe to bulk-revert edits unless they are obvious vandalism, and there may be a few elements in there that are salvageable. However, for the most part, these changes seemed to add a very distinct POV to the article, skewing it in a pro-Hollywood and anti-other jurisdiction manner. I noted these changes after the same editor made similar POV changes to a related article, and wrote a very POV article at Runaway film. Someone might wish to check out the edits at Quentin Tarantino as well. (By the way, I've also rewritten Runaway film to try to remove the POV, using the same sources already used in the initial edit. Please let me know if you can think of ways to improve and build upon it. Thanks.) --Ckatzchatspy 07:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of edits by "Donteatyellowsnow" 

message: Why is the Roundhay Garden Scene regarded as the first film when the Lumiere Brothers's stuff was being shown three years previously? Ed zeppelin 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roundhay Garden Scene 

message: "Paul had the idea of displaying moving pictures for group audiences, rather than just to individual viewers, and invented a film projector, giving his first public showing in 1895."
I would love to see a cite for this. Most books put his first public showing in february 1896.
--Tethur 10:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public showing 

message: I am about to considerably expand the section up to 1920 to give coverage of the history of film in other countries besides the USA, and to take account of important new factual knowledge about the period that has appeared in the last 30 years, but which is missing from the entry. Barrysalt 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coverage of other countries and new facts

message: Whoa! This article is incredibly difficult for a newcomer to the subject to understand, and must be one of the worst long Wikipedia articles that hasn't been hijacked by a field's fringe group. Each individual section needs to be shortened to a brief paragraph with relevant information being split off into a different article. The article also needs to be linked with related relevant articles so that newcomers like I can get a better context of the subject matter. (For example, D.W. Griffith is mentioned constantly, but his name is never wiki-linked. Who the hell is he? He must be important, but I have no idea why.) Technical terms need to be defined at the beginning of the paragraph about their creation, whereas now they're only defined at the end or not at all. I understand how hard it is for any one person to make sweeping changes to such an article that covers so much material. But this article must be one of the most unreadable in the entire encyclopedia, which is a shame when one thinks of the importance of the topic. Please, film pople, do better... Soon.--Cassmus 08:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Desperately needs rewriting, chunking, and editing

message: it's quick disturbing to see how hard is it for American to give name of inventor when he's not american.
hey, go to Aviation history check how Wright bothers are highlighted as being inventor all along the article.
ok now check this "history" of film, who is the inventor ? quite hard to find, no ? (tips : no, it's not Edison)
Please be polite, give same honor to foreign inventors than US ones.
82.228.207.5 (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  not very precise about "inventor", US POV 

message: The image :Image:Safety Last!.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.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:VoicesOfIraq.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Safety Last!.jpg

message: Information from Encarta coupled with information on Wikipedia about the development of film. Feel free to use this. Here goes...
THE BEGINNING OF CINEMA 
•	As a result of the work of Etienne-Jules Marey and Eadweard Muybridge, many researchers in the late 19th century realized that films as they are known today were a practical possibility, but the first to design a practical moving picture camera was William K. L. Dickson, working under the direction of Thomas Alva Edison [chief engineer at Edison Labarotries]. His fully developed camera, called the Kinetograph, was patented in 1891 and took a series of instant photographs on standard Eastman Kodak photographic emulsion coated on to a transparent celluloid strip 35 mm wide. (Encarta)
•	Celluloid blocks were thinly sliced, then removed with heated pressure plates. After this, they were coated with a photosensitive gelatin emulsion.[citation needed] 
•	The results of this work were first shown in public in 1893 at the Chicago World's Fair, using the viewing apparatus also designed by Dickson, and called the Kinetoscope. (Encarta) The Kinetoscope was a cabinet in which a continuous loop of Dickson's celluloid film (powered by an electric motor) was back lit by an incandescent lamp and seen through a magnifying lens. 
•	This was contained within a large box, and only permitted the images to be viewed by one person at a time looking into it through an eye piece, after starting the machine by inserting a coin. (Encarta) Kinetoscope parlours were supplied with fifty-foot film snippets photographed by Dickson, in Edison's "Black Maria" studio (pronounced like "ma-RYE-ah"). These sequences recorded mundane events (such as Fred Ott's Sneeze, 1894) as well as entertainment acts like acrobats, music hall performers and boxing demonstrations.
•	Kinetoscope parlours srapng up in New York in the late 1890s and soon spread successfully to Europe. Edison, however, never attempted to patent these instruments on the other side of the Atlantic, since they relied so greatly on previous experiments and innovations from Britain and Europe. This enabled the development of imitations, such as the camera devised by British electrician and scientific instrument maker Robert W. Paul and his partner Birt Acres. (?)
•	Paul had the idea of displaying moving pictures for group audiences, rather than just to individual viewers, and invented a film projector, giving his first public showing in 1895. 
•	>>>The Kinetoscope was not a commercial success in this form, and left the way free for the Lumière brothers, Louis and Auguste, to refine/improve/perfect their apparatus, the Cinématographe. This was the first successful projector, as well as being the apparatus that took and printed the film beforehand. With their Cinématographe they gave the first show of projected pictures to an audience in Paris in December 1895. (Encarta)
•	>>>At about the same time, in France, Auguste and Louis Lumière invented the cinematograph, a portable, three-in-one device: camera, printer, and projector. In late 1895 in Paris, father Antoine Lumière began exhibitions of projected films before the paying public, beginning the general conversion of the medium to projection (Cook, 1990). 
•	They quickly became Europe's main producers with their actualités like Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory and comic vignettes like The Sprinkler Sprinkled (both 1895). Even Edison, initially dismissive of projection, joined the trend with the Vitascope within less than six months. The first public motion-picture film presentation in Europe, though, belongs to Max and Emil Skladanowsky of Berlin, who projected with their apparatus "Bioscop", a flickerfree duplex construction, November 1 through 31, 1895.
•	That same year in May, in the USA, Eugene Augustin Lauste devised his Eidoloscope for the Latham family. But the first public screening of film ever is due to Jean Aimé "Acme" Le Roy, a French photographer. On February 5, 1894, his 40th birthday, he presented his "Marvellous Cinematograph" to a group of around twenty show business men in New York City.
After this date, the Edison company developed its own form of projector, as did various other inventors. Some of these used different film widths and projection speeds, but after a few years the 35-mm wide Edison film, and the 16-frames-per-second projection speed of the Lumière Cinématographe became standard. The other important American competitor was the American Mutoscope & Biograph Company, which used a new camera designed by Dickson after he left the Edison company.  Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. 
This should cut the "development of film" section down quite a bit. Please discuss. Thank you.114.72.178.254 (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting information  

message: I was going to write a few choice comments here but I see Cassmus already said it perfectly on 10 Nov 2007:
:Whoa! This article is incredibly difficult for a newcomer to the subject to understand, and must be one of the worst long Wikipedia articles that hasn't been hijacked by a field's fringe group. Each individual section needs to be shortened to a brief paragraph with relevant information being split off into a different article. . . .  But this article must be one of the most unreadable in the entire encyclopedia, which is a shame when one thinks of the importance of the topic. Please, film people, do better . . . Soon.
Well, here it is three whole years later, and the article is still un-freakin-readable.  Typical Wikipedia insanity:  no adult in the room.  The first section, "Precursors," names three different "first projected movie" events in three different countries in three different years.  Things like "reverse angle shot" are redundantly explained and exemplified two or three times in the course of the article, which is a waste of the reader's time.  
It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, guys, not a f***ing textbook, ya know?  Something a casual non-expert reader can easily read through and glean the essential points from, and move on to sub-articles if he wants more details.  
As is, it's just crap, guys.  Totally not-helpful.  I don't have the time or the expertise in this subject to tackle what is now an enormous job of editing, just hoping to bring this to people's attention one more time.  Though why I should bother, when obviously nobody else gives a damn, is beyond me . . . .  Textorus (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Long, Too Detailed, Too Disorganized 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Le Voyage dans la lune 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, File:VoicesOfIraq.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:VoicesOfIraq.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:VoicesOfIraq.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: this could use an update, now that we've seen video websites like youtube and vimeo offer comparably excellent content and serve as a bridge for filmmakers into professional ranks.  
P.S.  i think you might want to look into the animation portions of film better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.181.96 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  internet 

message: For over 8 years, there have been complaints on the article's length, and its focus on detail.
I think the article lends itself to a very easy split. 1) history of film technology, which includes the first cameras, projectors, cinemas, companies, sound and colour, and 2) history of film, which deals with the media and its artistic and aesthetic development.Noodleki (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: 'Griffith followed this up with the even bigger Intolerance (1916), but due to the high quality, film produced in USA the market for their films was high.'
:Don't understand this sentence. Valetude (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  D.W. Griffith 

message: Could someone please do something about the fact that this history is way too much centered around commercial films (predominantly produced in Hollywood). You cannot write a serious article (or summary) on the history of film, when crucial figures like Jean Renoir, Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, Eisenstein, Tarkovsky, etc. aren't even mentioned. This article is seriously flawed. C.Gesualdo (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The history of commercial cinema 

message: This article contains an illustration from The Three Musketeers with the following caption: "Ernst Lubitsch known as the master of kostumfilme". This is obviously the wrong picture. If someone knows what picture is supposed to be there, can you please fix it? Otherwise, the current picture and caption should be removed. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong image 

message: You should clarify what the role of Thomas Edison was in the development of motion pictures.  He may not have invented the movies, as many Americans believe, but what exactly was his (pre-Lumiere) contribution?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B035:FE28:D13C:C66C:40E8:7823 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, no Edison? 

message: This is an extremely vital article that I see as not up to standards with sourcing and proper punctuation. Please help me improve this page over at my sandbox. Windyshadow32 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking this on! I'll try to contribute a little when I have free time (i.e. not this week). It looks like you might be able to find some of the necessary sources inside the "main article" of each section, but of course there are some sections like "Maturation" that probably need to be researched from scratch. It looks like a lot of this content has been here unsourced since 2007!! --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great! I must admit that I didn't include many references for some sections that I've (re)written before, since these could be considered abstracts of the linked "main articles", and mostly consisted of widely accepted facts/theories. I'm still not very interested in looking up the sources myself, but it sure would be nice if someone did. I'll keep it in mind for new contributions/changes. But why use this sandbox, rather than immediately improve on the article? It's much less efficient when people start editing in both the actual article and the sandbox version, and it's probably better to be able to track the changes under the "view history" tab of the article, which might also trigger more help from people who have the article on their watchlist.Joortje1 (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm working on revamping and overhauling this page as much as possible 

message: Thomas did not invent film.Louis le prince invented it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuka12345 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas edison is not the inventor 

message: I think we can say that film was born in 1888 or 1889 with the industrial sale of celluloid by the Eastman company. What do you think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.153.105 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, you can say something like that, but you might want to have a look at the roll film and celluloid articles to find the proper year, history and meaning of that medium. If you think celluloid is the critical aspect, you might have to say that film has been all but dead since the digital revolution and that whatever most cinemas are exhibiting these days should not be called "film". You might also want to consider the meaning of Louis Le Prince's films on paper, Anschütz's photographic motion picture presentations from disks (1887), Duboscq's Bioscope (circa 1853), any other motion picture that wasn't recorded on celluloid, and all of the culture and science from before the 1880s that influenced the development of movies. Also note that this article is about the history of the artistic medium rather than its technological aspects.Joortje1 (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  It all started in the 1880s ? 

message: 1894 is the year of the beginning of industrial film with the opening of the first Kinetoscope Parlor and these ten different films. 1894 therefore marks a before and after in the history of film. I think we can put Sandow (1894) and Conan the Barbarian (1982) on the same level...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.153.105 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1894 

message: According to the article of kinetoscope (under Going public), The Barbershop (1894) is the first film of the history. What do you think ?
--194.224.6.173 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barber Shop is it the first film ? 

message: Attn: @Joortje1 and others who might be invested in editing this page. I was wondering what the consensus on changing the current section headings (1890s, 1900s, 1910s...) would be? I feel the current divisions by decades are detrimental to providing an easy-to-read overview of the subject. I propose, for example, the sections representing the 1890s-roughly 1906 (when the narrative potential of cinema came into a more concrete realization) could be titled something like "Novelty Era" so that a rough approximation of film up to and including about 1906 can more smoothly flow together. The remaining sections can be changed over the course of editing the page but may benefit from a focus on film movements rather than concrete dates. Thank you for your input! Windyshadow32 (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your proposal indeed makes much more sense than strictly dividing the article into decades. Maybe some caution should be taken with concrete beginning and (especially) end dates/years. For instance, is there a reason to end the "Novelty era" at 1906? I may have introduced the current "1896–1900" heading myself, but it now bothers me that it suggests an abrupt ending of some developments/trends and the populair novelty aspect of motion photography already began with the Schnellseher in 1887. So, it may be best to only use concrete starting dates when they are very obvious (like 1878 for chronophotography) and otherwise use decades as start or end dates. These could demonstrate some overlap with the previous section (for instance "Novelty era (1890s to 1910s)" and "Development of narrative cinema (1900 to 1920s)", or whatever suits the described trends). By the way, it's kind to ask, but I'm not sure if consensus is needed for changes that clearly make sense. This article could use improvement and there's enough room for debate and repairs if somebody disagrees after changes are made. Joortje1 (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input and help! I'll start trying to devise some better section headings today while editing. Windyshadow32 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Divide into Sections?  

message: There's a separate page for History of film technology, so the History of film should address the artistic aspects and the cultural influence of cinema. The tech and art histories are often intertwined, but it would be nice to avoid overlap between the corresponding pages. For instance, the fact that Edison ordered Dickson to improve on previous motion picture machines is about technology, while here it might be more interesting to know that Edison originally intended to record and reproduce operas, or that there was much interest in the possibility to preserve the moving appearance of relatives or celebrities for posterity. Joortje1 (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural and artistic history, not technological 

message: — Assignment last updated by Queenones87 (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History and Theory of New Media

message: I'm a graduate student in Sheffield. I'm taking a course called Wikipedia and Medieval History. I will try to further modify this seemingly perfect Wikipedia from three directions.
Firstly, I will add citations from reliable sources in the "1910s" "Film technique" "During World War I and industry" "1930 s" section to help improve the accuracy of the text..
Then, I will remove links or add reliable pages to make  the red words such as "Amber tinting", "blue tints" and "Gregorio Fern á ndez" blue or black.
Finally, I will add or reduce further reading resources in the outer chain. Oxygenyang (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does this article have to do with medicine? Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: None of my messages are related to medicine. Where did you get the information? Oxygenyang (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the course is on medical history. Dimadick (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry!! Thank you for your careful inspection. Here is my spelling mistake. The course name is "HST6089 Wikipedia and Medical History". We need to edit Wikipedia about "history", not limited to the "Middle Ages" in the course name. And I will carefully edit the content according to the mission of Wikipedia. Oxygenyang (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia and Medieval History 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jessicacariello (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010

message: Were the 1960s the first decade of modern cinema ? (The majority of films released in cinemas are in color for example. Which was not the case in the 1950s) 62.202.189.220 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1960s 

message: There is about an even mix of "theatre" and "theater" use throughout the article. Any thoughts on using one version over the other? ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language version use 

message: Are you guys trying to get us busted by the time cops!? The “Sound Era” (or the talkies, if you’re not trying to sound like a Victorian scholar, but I digress) starts in 1923. It is therefore highly inappropriate to see this “The Era… of Sound!” section popping up in the 1930s of all places. Especially since now, as it stands, the only section in the 1920s is the one about how Germans were great at this early on. So it’s not only factually logical but aesthetically more pleasing for that section to be back in the 1920s where it belongs. Plus, sneaky bonus, no temporal agencies are gonna be busting our balls about “Shadow Proclamation” this and “Temporal Prime Directive” that. So can someone with edit access to the timeline please move this sequence of events back to the correct temporal coordinates before this situation gains too great a mavity for the Wikimedia legal team to deal with? Thanks babes! 95.145.43.97 (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound era subsection temporal displacement 

message: Artistically, film and video game are close or even identical. Because these two arts use image and sound. Take as an example the television series The X-Files (1993) and the video game The X-Files Game (1998) or Final Fantasy (video game) (1987) and the film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001). In terms of image and sound, there is no difference between film and video game. They are therefore artistically identical. 195.53.245.125 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film and video game 

message: the article mentions that the May Irwin kiss was the first recorded kiss, which is factually incorrect. While it's still a culturally significant picture given the reaction it got, the first kiss recorded was actually The Kiss by Eadweard Muybridge all the way back in 1882 TheZwierz (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Source TheZwierz (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Yep, but that's chronophotography rather than cinematography, so not really part of "cinematic history". Joortje1 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The May Irwin kiss wasn't the first recorded kiss