Talk:Film industry

This article is basically about the Hollywood film industry. Shouldn't it be re-titled to reflect that? JW 10:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, it's only about Hollywood, with no mention of independent films. The Singing Badger 02:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

This page is very, very difficult to extract information from for several reasons:

• The "History of film" section is far too long, and duplicates (and in some cases even goes beyond the scope of) History of film.
• The discussion of the actual film industry starts in the section "The motion picture industry" which comes about half way into the article!
• The "Film crew" section is far too long, and duplicates Film crew.

I've been working on the Film crew page and if no one objects, I'd like to remove the redundant entries on this page. I'll leave a re-direct.--OldCommentator 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Independent filmmaking" should either be a sub-section of "The motion picture industry" or immediately follow it.
• "Development of film technology" overlaps "History of film". The two sections should be merged.
• "Endurance of films" is not about the film industry. There are other parts of this article as well that seem to belong to a Film as a social phenomenon article, rather than an article about the industry.

Agreed.--OldCommentator 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll add appropriate merge tags, but there's more work than that needed. I hope that others will comment. -Harmil 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the page to an old version, since the next edit involved an anon cutting and pasting the articles on Film, Film crew etc. here to replace the previous content, resulting in a page that wasn't really about film industry. If you miss the old version, just look at the film article or the articles linked from its sections. - Bobet 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Holy moley! Ok, well I'll start putting back some of that information. While I would agree that the person who pasted in other articles was not doing the article a service, much of the information pasted in was valuable stuff that later edits expanded on. Simply reverting 3 months of work seems... a bit odd for an admin. -Harmil 22:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem is, that the changes that were done to this article were done to sections that didn't belong to it in the first place. Any changes made were on parts of other articles, and tracking down the specific changes is very hard and not very fruitful, considering that the other articles have seen significant changes since, and pinpointing where the differences belong is probably more time consuming than actually reading through the articles themselves. Furthermore, since the changes were made to make this article more about film industry (instead of unrelated things related to film), it included cutting things that really didn't belong here, but are suited for the specific articles where the original text was cut from. The actual part about film industry (the section 'motion picture industry') had remained unchanged as far as I could tell. - Bobet 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why is this article about these specific countries? Cameroon? Really? Here are some other countries that have a film industry: almost all of them. unsigned comment added by 59.101.178.182 (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I started to flesh out the article a little more by adding more countries that produce movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.108.228 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, it was reverted. I guess no other countries make movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.108.228 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed Cameroon. Reasons: 1) it's not a major player, and there are many countries with larger film industries. If someone were interested in writing an article on Cameroon film industry, it would be more suitable to actually write a "Cinema in Cameroon" article, which doesn't even exist, and 2) it was a complete mess. I also removed the section on "networking" in the United States section, which really didn't belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyminuslife (talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to get rid of more countries. Pakistan and Nigeria? Really? Wait, why does this articles even exist? We should cut it up and integrate it to other more important articles...Pooh4913 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

In this article, it is claimed that Hollywood came before any other but it is said that Bollywood actually came 11 years before Hollywood. Bollywood’s first production was an 1899 short film, whereas Hollywood’s first movie came out in 1910. So...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.214.150.64 (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply 

Is it possible to replace the word "industry" with maybe "business" or "branch" or "trade" or something? Also see e.g. publishing User:ScotXW^t@lk 13:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The list of countries by "number of indoor cinemas" recently added to the article is obviously incomplete and somewhat misleading. The source chart contains data for only 61 countries (the other two-thirds presumably could not be accurately surveyed and so were left blank), making it a poor basis for an ordered list implicitly presenting itself as a "top 10" list.

For instance, all data for India is missing in the source chart. However, the very next chart down on the same website ("Cinema infrastructure - Capacity"), while also incomplete and using different metrics, DOES have data for India and shows that India recently had almost twice as many screens as France. (Not surprising, given India's massive film industry and population.) Meanwhile, Wikipedia's list, being based on incomplete data, shows France in 2nd place with India nowhere to be seen. Other major countries may be missing from Wikipedia's list as well. With apologies to the editor who recently added the list, I'm afraid we really ought to remove it unless a more complete source can be found. AtticusX (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just realized that two more tables in the Statistics section - "National film production" and "Number of screens" - are based on the same source as "Number of indoor cinemas", and thus have the same problem of missing data from many countries. We can't base a "top 10 countries" ranked list on statistics that include fewer than half the world's countries. AtticusX (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm removing the misleading lists from the article and archiving them below, should anyone want to incorporate some of their data elsewhere in the prose of the article. The statistics are verifiable and sourced except for the rankings and the presentation suggesting that they were based on worldwide surveys. AtticusX (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

National film production

The following is a list of the top 15 countries by the number of feature films produced in 2011.^[1]

Number of screens

The following is a list of the top 10 countries by the number of screens in 2011.^[2] The number of screens in China is growing rapidly, with 23,600 at the end of 2014.^[3]

Rank	Country	Screens
1	United States	39,641
2	China	23,600
3	India	10,300
4	France	5,465
5	Mexico	5,166
6	Germany	4,640
7	Spain	4,044
8	United Kingdom	3,767
9	Japan	3,339
10	Russia	2,726

Number of indoor cinemas

Source: UNESCO Institute of statistics - 2013

Rank	Country	Indoor cinemas
1	United States	5,628
2	France	2,025
3	Germany	1,637
4	Italy	1,063
5	Spain	777
6	United Kingdom	756
7	Brazil	721
8	Turkey	620
9	Mexico	604
10	Japan	596

Agreed. Unless reliably and extensively sourced, such content is quite simply misleading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the UNESCO source data and yeah, there are way too many random gaps (i.e. major countries missing) to use it as a basis for a ranked "top 10" / "top 15" list. Putting any data in a ranked order implies completeness of the data, i.e. that none of the candidates that might have shown up on the list are missing from your source data. I'm sure UNESCO's data is reliable for the countries they did survey in each category, it's just missing way too many countries to be considered a truly worldwide survey. So it was incorrectly extrapolated into ranked order in the above presentation. ScarlettWesterly (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

BTW, User:Pedia Master Mind has just gone and re-inserted the problematic tables into the article. Perhaps he/she was unaware that there was a talk page consensus. ScarlettWesterly (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, if Pedia Master Mind wishes to discuss content issues, this is the correct venue for WP:CIVIL discussions. As they are a relatively new user, could I suggest that he/she familiarise themselves with WP:SHOUT as being unacceptable either on talk pages or in edit summaries (as exemplified here). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know that they lack some of countries but it's better than nothing and the major countries are not missing, they are counted in the statistics. UNESCO and MPAA has collected accurate and the farthest source they could collect for countries. No other institutions or sites have done ranking of No. of screens and no of indoor cinemas, so it's better than nothing and it would be good for the page of Film industry to show rankings like that. If their will be other statistics done in the future then we will replace with it. But for now, it's good to show ranking of No. of screens and national film production as well as no. of indoor cinemas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedia Master Mind (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Pedia Master Mind: No, "better than nothing" [sic] does not apply to article content for an encyclopaedic resource. Note, also, that you have made WP:BOLD changes which have been challenged, therefore WP:BRD must be followed... and the 'discuss' component is still very much underway. Content decisions are made per consensus in light of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. "Nothing" is the preferable option at this point. Please read WP:WikiVoice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Quite a few major countries are indeed missing from UNESCO's data. India (a country ranking at or near the top of all the other charts) is one of many countries missing from the "Number of indoor cinemas" data set for 2013, as are China, Russia, Nigeria, and other countries with significant film industries. We can't guess how the missing data would change the presumed country rankings. The point is that the rankings and "top countries" presentation of the data are not part of the original data set, and basing a ranked list on a data set with half the candidates missing is a mistaken interpretation of that data. WP:SYNTHESIS states: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The guideline exists to guard against mistakes like this. This is not a critique of the source itself or its reliability. The UNESCO data could be legitimately used to support statements like "As of 2013, there were approximately 2,025 indoor cinemas in France." But it could not be used to claim, for instance, that "France has the second greatest number of indoor cinemas of all countries in the world." Like the charts above, that would imply information not explicitly contained in the source, and would likely be wrong. AtticusX (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

The usage of "cinema" is under discussion, see talk:movie theater -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Film industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110301022622/http://cbfcindia.gov.in:80/html/uniquepage.aspx?unique_page_id=30 to http://cbfcindia.gov.in/html/uniquepage.aspx?unique_page_id=30
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129021323/http://www.bfa.gov.bd/movie/details.html?id=100 to http://www.bfa.gov.bd/movie/details.html?id=100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923200931/http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/indonesia/new-import-policy-will-kill-indonesian-film-industry-noorca/423632 to http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/indonesia/new-import-policy-will-kill-indonesian-film-industry-noorca/423632
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511112523/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/462/cinema.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/462/cinema.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514210715/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/821/cu4.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/821/cu4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

pls fix market uk not 6.5 b dolars market its has 2.2 market. 6.5 is all money earning GB work om its. and sourse of this its on the page looks them and fix pls tnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by MS2054 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Countries by the number of films produced in 2015.jpg is wrong should be fixed or removed. e.g. it has marked countries like Russia and UK as "No film production," which is ostensibly wrong. NightD 10:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Film industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbfcindia.gov.in/html/uniquepage.aspx?unique_page_id=30
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/arts-music-a-movies/qnollywoodq-whats-in-a-name.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120802041712/http://www.internews.org/visavis/BTVPagesInews/Iranian_Cinema.html to http://www.internews.org/visavis/BTVPagesInews/Iranian_Cinema.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021003434/http://incolor.inebraska.com/theater/spring2000/the_iranian_cinema.html to http://incolor.inebraska.com/theater/spring2000/the_iranian_cinema.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224021642/http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7747 to http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7747
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923214944/http://imnews.imbc.com/replay/nwdesk/article/2973213_5780.html to http://imnews.imbc.com/replay/nwdesk/article/2973213_5780.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Film industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101005554/http://www.filmbiz.asia/news/china-bo-up-27-in-2013 to http://www.filmbiz.asia/news/china-bo-up-27-in-2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141110143354/http://businessdayonline.com/2013/12/nollywood-improves-quality-leaps-to-n1-72trn-revenue-in-2013/ to http://businessdayonline.com/2013/12/nollywood-improves-quality-leaps-to-n1-72trn-revenue-in-2013/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

we state, "The following is a list of the top 15 countries by the number of feature films (fiction, animation and documentary) produced,"
Is that for one year? There is a year given but I think that needs to be clairified. Carptrash (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

--New Question: Where is the source for Nigeria's 2019 numbers? For one thing, the UIS stats only go up to 2017 numbers, but Nigeria isn't even included. Can someone link an additional source for this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brsolo21 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I doubt that the figure is correct. I have added a "citation needed" tag for it. Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

It seems the number comes from this website. I don't know if it is a proper WP:RS. Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

When he got knocked down he kept getting up. Growing up in a small Ohio town to becoming Mr Ohio football going to his dream school OHIO STATE and getting hurt in the spring game and then setting the bench and never starting. Wanting to transfer to somewhere he could play his dad sent Nebraska where his brother went films they said no. Then transferring to LSU AND NOT STARTING BUT WORKING HIS WAY UP HIS 2 ND YEAR HE GOT THE QUARTERBACK JOB, SET all THE SEC Passing records beat Alabama won the Nat`l Championship and the Heisman trophy . Got drafted by his home state team Cincinnati Bengal 1st over all draft choose . His dreams came true .Got a very bad knee injury his first few games some say it could have ended his career but he worked hard and came back. His Bengal team was 125 to 1 odds of getting to the super bowl and was a under dog in every play off game but is now in Super LVX 56.

What a life story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.225.72.173 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ja 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍⁉ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.152.165 (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I want to become an actor 103.190.52.188 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lillarih (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lillarih (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply