Talk:Cinema of the United States/Archives/2018

Lucas' and Spielberg's doomsday prediction: WP:SOAP or not?
There's a paragraph on the bottom of modern cinema, which looks a bit out of place in an encyc. I'll copypaste it directly and save you the trouble of clicking away: "According to Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, 2013 has seen 'the industry at an extraordinary time of upheaval, where even proven talents find it difficult to get movies into theaters'; Spielberg predicts 'there's eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm', with Lucas suggesting movie theaters following 'a Broadway play model, whereby fewer movies are released, they stay in theaters for a year and ticket prices are much higher.'[49]" To me, this looks like pure gossip and just a piece of casual opinion. From two of the greatest men in business, yes, but still. Lucas and Spielberg might be the most experienced Hollywood men currently alive, but that does not give them scholar-like expertise about the future of Hollywood, and Wikipedia should not treat it as such. Much like we (by current consensus) don't mention Donald Trump's mental health and quote people who has not personally examined him, we should not publicize the opinions of celebrities-turned-scientists here either. On the other hand, if the subject about Hollywood's destruction was more written about and overall more notable around the web, then I'd certainly say we keep the statement and add more sources. But as we stand today... not so sure. Is Hollywood doomsday predictions that common around the blogosphere and scholar-sphere? The only source to the statements looks indeed reliable and formal, so no worry there. I was just thinking - is the mention notable enough, or is it nothing but an anecdote interview? I'm tempted to remove it right away, but wanted to check if anyone knows more about the subject matter. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 17:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A week has passed and no-one has said anything. I am removing that paragraph now, without consensus. I truly find it out of place.Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 19:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Battle of the Teamsters
Major topic missed. Nothing in here about Teamsters Local 399 and their battles with the Hollywood studios, where the studios want to rid themselves of restrictive practises by the Union. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing modern cinema to contemporary cinema(Plus adding in a ton of updates to the topic)
Here an idea that is definitely need on this article. Let change the name of modern cinema to contemporary and update the content of the article to add the current state of the film industry. The Modern section of the film industry is so outdated that I tired of waiting around for people to notice it. First off there is no mention of the films that are used to define the contemporary era of Hollywood in the early 2000s to the current decade. These film after there releases would still have an impact on film and I still don't see a single mention of them; such Star Wars, Harry Potter, Twilight and The Marvel Trilogy of films. Secondly, there are platforms on the internet that are influencing the film making industry, the biggest example is Netflix. Netflix is gaining as much of an audience as traditional Hollywood blockbusters. I'm not able to show examples, but I can point at the stock market value of Netflix; which is higher than Disney and the other Hollywood companies.

I will try to find sources that would define the current era of cinema and share it here. There properly a lot of info on contemporary cinema, I will make sure that I will look through it before posting. --User:Picaxe01 (talk) 5:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)