Wikipedia talk:Planned films


 * 1) My opinion on this was asked. I certainly support it, as a minimal proposal, but I have some considerations:
 * 2) Many major films will have sufficient preproduction coverage in reliable industry sources to justify an article. In particular, any film by a  famous director is likely to have such coverage. At an early stage, when there is just speculation about whether a director will take responsibility for a production, it is perhaps best covered under the director. But once he has committed to it, the pre-production will be notable whether or not the film is actually finished, and perhaps even if it is never actually started.  In film literature, unfinished films about which there is enough information to write are normally covered along with the actual completed work.
 * 3) When the speculation involves whether a particularly famous performer will take a role, that would usually go with the person's article if it is more than just gossip. When the person does accept, what happens then is variable, so I wouldn't make an article for the purpose.
 * 4) As a general rule, the importance of the preliminaries depends on the importance of the film, which cannot always be predicted in advance.
 * 5) In a very few cases, it is possible that the pre-production stage of a film will justify a separate article,even after the film has been released
 * 6) The overall guideline is obsolete altogether.
 * 7) Preparations for an even, including film preproduction, is important, and something is worth an article as soon as there is information from sources that are more than gossip. The question is what is just gossip--and this is a field in which I am not a specialist. M<y usual criterion for things I do not know about is whether they are reported in the NYTimes. The existing guideline is way too over-restrictive & I think no longer have consensus, and since it is harder to change guidelines than to change interpretation of them, I suggest that they be interpreted as broadly and inclusively as makes sense. (which is not quite the same thing as saying "as broadly and inclusively as possible," but close to it.)
 * 8) This is a subject where I have no special interest, beyond looking for information on films and wishing we had more for the minor and older films that fall in genres other than cult and science-fiction. Even in an area as well covered by Wikipedia as film, we are just getting started.    DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FUT OKAY
This does not make any sense. Comparing the 2012 phenomenon to a planned film is preposterous. Why is this linked from the guideline?

Having articles on future events is perfectly okay. Claiming this makes articles on planned films okay is an illogical step. Fut not disallowed - oh boy. CapnZapp (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

How about for planned animated films?
There are no notability criteria specified for a film that is animated. @ Angus1986  TALK  10:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:NFF, which is actually part of the NFILM guideline, says In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. Is there something more you'd hope for? signed,Rosguill talk 15:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Got it. Thank you! :) Angus1986  TALK  15:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)