Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top-grossing films shot in Super 35


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 06:55Z 

List of top-grossing films shot in Super 35

 * — (View AfD)

Trivial list; one of hundreds which can possibly be derived from boxofficemojo.com. Nonetheless, this is no more notable than a List of top-grossing films shot with Arri cameras or List of top-grossing films shot with Cooke lenses. Super 35 is not a significant correlative factor to box office gross. While it is interesting that more recent films are using the format, it ultimately is a foregone conclusion of the fact that it is a newer technique, it can allow for cost-savings compared to anamorphic format, it uses smaller, faster, and higher quality lenses, and the development of digital intermediate as a method to avoid the compromises of an optical intermediate step. While one can form box office lists based on numerous variables, it ultimately comes down to trivia in all but a few more general cases (top opening weekends, top of all time, top by nation or time period). Wikipedia is not boxofficemojo.com - ie a film earnings database. (I must also confess that I find all this slobbering over box office numbers rather silly to begin with. If I'm not seeing any of that money, why should I care? ;) Probably a symptom of the fact that we're more interested in how the films are made now than what they are about. But that's another debate...) Girolamo Savonarola 19:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question Is there a category for Super 35 films? If not, maybe there should be one. FrozenPurpleCube 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is such a category. Girolamo Savonarola 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that answers my question. I can support a delete then. FrozenPurpleCube 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom for lack of encyclopedic value (a.k.a. listcruftiness). -- Kicking222 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.