Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Future films

New articles
I've set up a new articles listing for future films at User:AlexNewArtBot/UpcomingFilmsSearchResult. Regards. PC78 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename
Should this department change its name to WikiProject Film/Future film to be more inline with the project?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say no. This department deals with, specifically, articles about films (that are future, of course). The motivation behind the move of the whole project was that it doesn't just deal with articles about films, but also about other related articles (Filmmaking, awards, film festivals, etc...). BOVINEBOY 2008 13:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes sense.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Superman (film project) and other future "film projects"
I have sent this to AfD due to it failing WP:NFF. If anyone has any contributions then please add, but if the outcome is that this article is kept, is it time to make provision at WP:NFF? I've added a discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ammendment to section on Process#Notability
The section I wish to address includes the sentence that currently states
 * "For these articles, the primary notability guideline is that the article should not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot."

While the italicized portion of that sentence appears to come right out of WP:NFF, it is generally agreed across the rest of Wikipedia that the "primary notability guideline" is WP:GNG, and not WP:NFF. So, and in order to bring that sentence in line with the rest of notability guidelines, I'd like to ammend that sentence to more accurately state
 * "For these articles, the criteria set as part of Notability (films) instruct that articles on films should generally not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot."

And to borrow slightly from NFF, I'd also like to add the clarification that states
 * When the events surrounding a film's pre-production have the persistant and in-depth coverage to meet the primary notability guideline, and by so doing merit inclusion and discussion per policy, information on the film project might best be included in pre-existing articles of a particular person, company or organization associated with the film under discussion, until the start of principal photography has been confirmed.

But and as this sub-project deals specifically with "future films", I'd like to address the well-meant but often premature creation of "project" articles by including this paragraph on "exceptions":


 * While WP:NFF is set to discourage creation of separate articles on future films, Exceptions may be considered IF the coverage of the topic of a future film is itself enduring and persistant in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with violations of WP:NOTNEWS) and ONLY IF if there is too much properly verifiable information for an article whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of a future film project or whether some development will occur" to be reasonably placed anywhere else.

What-cha think?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To reiterate a point as I see this might become a potential problem from editors who follow the literal word of Wikipedia guidelines, per WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE, we need not wait until a topic overburdens an existing article to create a new article as long as it is persistent and well sourced per WP:GNG and not "very short" per WP:MERGE.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps has anybody ever though about making a new consensus on making some new changes of WP:NFF? Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking as someone who !voted delete in the recent AfD, I'd endorse something along the lines of the proposal above as an amendment to WP:NFF if it's proposed, as recent AfD history has made it pretty clear that the community is supportive of pre-production articles in certain cases. As far as exceptions go, perhaps an encouragement to get consensus on the talk page before a split would be nice? BryanG (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A consensus for splitting would be a good idea, but some users, especially the newer ones, might do it anyway. In those cases, merges would have to be done, as happened recently with a clear consensus on merging a recent project. (I can't remember which one, but is was right after the Man of Steel AFD was field last week.) Also, I think "film project" is preferable to "future film", as the latter is a bit Crytal ball-ish. Not all film projects end up as films, but they may stil be notable. I also concur completley with TriiipleThreat's comments. Further, we should keep in mind that notability is attested to by reliable souces, not by desire to have film project articles be "rare". There may be some years where there are several film projects that meet GNG, while in other years there may be none. We can't place artificial limits on the outside world - we only reflect it as reported in reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay - so - I'm pretty much with MQS on this one. However, I too would like to see consensus prior to split, as sometimes people are a little too eager to create these articles.  In recent discussions, there has been a trend to argue along the lines "this is a film project article, not a film article, so therefore WP:NFF does not apply".  I think that if we make these changes, we should avoid the "film project" suffix, treating the articles exactly the same as any other article for an in production film, only using disambiguation when necessary (ie "film", then "YEAR film").  If a release date is not known, and further disambiguation is required then I'd prefer to see "future film" as a disambiguator, but "film project" could be acceptable if properly disambiguated in parentheses.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree consensus would be nice but we cannot stop people from taking bold initiative. Also the reason we treat these articles differently is because there are still WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Until principal photography has started there is no film only an idea or a plan for a film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is still only a plan for a film even after principal photography is underway. If we've agreed that a future film is notable, it's notable as a film.  There is no reason to distinguish with these so-called "film project" articles.  They are, after all, film articles.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true, after filming has commenced it moves from being a concept to something tangible. At the point if the film fails to finish shooting, it becomes an uncompleted film, but there is still a film. We do not write about future events as if they already occurred.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I say we should write about future films as if they'd already happened? What I am saying is that any future film article (no matter what stage of development) should be treated the same as any other film article. If guidelines are changed to allow film articles to exist for films which have not yet started filming, then these articles should not automatically be given a "film project" suffix.  Look at The Dark Knight Rises for example.  No need to disambiguate, so it doesn't get a "(film project)" after it.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misread your first comment, if you're talking about just the title, ofcourse we shouldnt disambiguate pages if there is no conflict with other pages. However film project articles more than just titles, they employ a manual of style that differ from film articles, this is what I thought you were refering to.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a discussion for another day, but it is debatable whether they should have a separate manual of style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And no, if a film fails to finish shooting, there is not "a film". There is some film footage, a script, some costumes, etc.  But not "a film".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting semantical but unfinished films do exist and are prevelant.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at The Other Side of the Wind. It seems to follow the same MoS as any other film.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not an argument to had but The Other Side of the Wind did begin filming.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Per the Film project page: "The project generally considers all articles directly related to film to be within its scope." I interpret that to mean the project covers more than just actual films that have begun production. At this point, NFF has self-limited itslef to covering only films that have begun actual production, so that neccessitates a separate MOS for film projects. Whether or not films and film projects should have separate Manuals of style is up to the project itself to decide, but it would mean accepting that film projects are legitimate subjects for WP articles, which hitherto some memebers have been reluctant to do. It's really up to the memebers to decide. As long as the project refuses to cover film projects under NFF, as it has done to the point, then natually a MOS for film projects needs to exist to avoid them being haphazard efforts with no common organization. However, if the project embraces film projects, and includes them in NFF, then they retain control of those articles under the film project, and those articles will benifit from the experience of the film project members. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC) - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why we are here at WP:WikiProject Film/Future films where we can better define how and when the topic of a film's pre-production has reached the point where a stand alone might be considered. Hopefully you've all had a chance to look over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films, as I have been tweaking and refining it. The second paragraph of its lead kind of says it all. While yes, WP:NFF serves a valuable purpose... when editors treat it as if it were policy we have problems.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's live. See Future Films  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Paradise Lost (2013 film)
This film currently in the stages of pre-production recently survived an AFD, but given new information that the film is now on hold, I have suggested a redirect to Paradise Lost is more appropriate as per WP:NFF - see Talk:Paradise Lost (2013 film).

It does concern me the increasing disregard for WP:NFF ("It's just a guideline" being a popular argument) and the number of "votes" saying nothing more than "this film is notable it will be made" or "look - it has a cast and everything". Similar arguments are now being used at WP:Articles for deletion/Burt Wonderstone too.

Without wanting to turn Wikipedia into a totalitarian state, is there anything further we can do to ensure the guidelines are adhered to? There has recently been a spate of premature article creation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about the film or the article so I won't comment about that but guidelines are not policy. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and for the most part is governed by consensus. If consensus is to keep a particular article regardless of guideline then so be it. The only thing that might trump consensus is policy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, but there's consensus, and then there's consensus. It's all very well to reason as to why a guideline shouldn't be followed in a particular instance, backed up with valid arguments, but we seem to be in a situation where we get the blatant "it's just a guideline - we don't need to follow it" arguments, and editors not bothering to take any heed of the guidelines.  For example, look at Burt Wonderstone - this is clearly falls foul of WP:NFF, but as nothing more than a list of cast as it is published in the news, it fails WP:N also.  Yet, at the AFD, we're just getting the "this film will get made" arguments, like we did at the AFD for Paradise Lost before it was put on hold.  I'm not even advocating a delete in this case, seeking an alternative (in this case incubate).  Anyway, maybe I just needed somewhere to vent!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Articles for deletion/Les Misérables (2012 film)
Anyone have anything to add? Future film that is still in casting stages. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No article until principal photography?
I'm coming here due to a user blanking Terminator: Genesis, apparently on valid grounds based on this guideline. That particular case is a film, that while not still in principal photography, has already gathered quite an amount of stuff to be said about it. And even if a film came to this stage and finally fell apart and was never released, I'd say it would merit its own article as a cancelled project, conveying the available information about the whole struggle. Isn't such thing contemplated? I don't think the "no article until principal photography" is entirely right. --uKER (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, I forgot about this page. You may want to post at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) instead. (Feel free to move the thread over there.) To answer you, the goal of the notability guidelines for future films is to not assume that because there is some development, a film will be made. A Wikipedia article about a work of fiction should discuss its "reception and significance" (per WP:PLOT). If a film is not guaranteed, then what we have is a historical collection of news headlines. That itself is not bad, and coverage is permitted per WP:CRYSTAL. However, such a collection is notable because of a broader element that draws reporting. In this case, it is the Terminator franchise. If the news coverage is abundant, then we could have a stand-alone article that is more historical than cinematic in scope. The whole thing about developing-films-not-yet-filming is a challenge because it is that gray area between tried-and-failed and succeeded-and-released, especially with recent news headlines writing of such projects as surefire releases. Maybe we can figure out guidelines for this so-called gray area, as I know that there are other exceptions to WP:NFF as it stands, but they are generally well-maintained. Do you want to have a more open discussion? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. And yeah, that's the thing. Even if the thing doesn't follow through, I'd say an article is due for historical purposes. I'll see to start a topic on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). Thanks again. --uKER (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If it doesn't get made, then it would not warrant a standalone as it could be incorporated into the franchise article, in the same way that all the failed Batman and Superman projects have. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What WP:NFF also says is that "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available". Therefore, information on Terminator: Genesis can be included at Terminator (franchise) until a breakout article is warranted.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's funny how I bother to restore the article text so that it doesn't get lost, start this discussion here and add a notice in the talk page asking that while I understand the guideline, we please hold on to it until we figure out what to do, yet you instantly go, throw the whole article out the window again, restore a six month old into the Terminator (franchise) article, and reply all over the place citing the very guideline I just said I already knew of. Way to go, man. Definitely way to go. That's really helpful. --uKER (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that I take a closer look, there's this discussion right here that ended up generating amendments to Planned films, in which Planned_Films appears to closely reflect the situation of Terminator: Genesis. --uKER (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The essay is the advice of one Wikipedia contributor. I even have my own essay here: User:Erik/Planned films. :) I still think an open discussion would help, especially to tackle certain questions, like what to do about films in active development. Batman vs. Superman is covered in a "Sequel" section, for example. The problem is that when a stand-alone article exists, it attracts edits to make it a film article despite filming not starting yet. For example, Development of Jurassic World does avoid use of the film infobox, but it opens with the claim that it is coming out, and uses all the usual film-related categories. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It maybe that the planned film meets WP:GNG outside the remit of WP:NFF. What I'd suggest is that you start a discussion on the franchise talk page, and seek consensus for the split prior to instigating it.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Tiger's Apprentice (film)
Can someone please take a look at The Tiger's Apprentice (film)? Can't really tell whether it should be moved based on its current state. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NFF has an RFC
WP:NFF has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Platonk (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Any guidelines on Remake section in film articles?
Hi all. I flagged 4 weeks ago in Talk:Bride of Frankenstein that the current "Remake attempts" section for that film is full of promotional details of remakes which have never been made, and suggested this section should be removed entirely. To date, no comments from others. Bride of Frankenstein seems to me to be grossly inflated with (admittedly referenced) information about remakes which have never happened.

Also, I notice the article for The Mole People (1956) has recently acquired a "Remake" section, referenced by publicity from UP saying "Universal Pictures...has acquired a pitch for a revamp" of that film, which is marketing puff.

I have seen WP:NFF, WP:FUTFILM and WP:FFILM, which primarily address new articles rather than Remake sections within existing articles. Has there been any past discussion or is there any guidance about remake sections? I need some support before deleting these sections in their entirety.Masato.harada (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2023‎ (UTC)