Jump to content

Talk:2014 in film/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2014: Avatar 2[edit]

Why isn't this up yet? IMDB is reporting a 2014 release for Avatar 2...

Not that I care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.39.92 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source. If there is a reliable source for a 2014 date for Avatar 2, it should be several places on Wikipedia, including Avatar_(2009_film)#Sequels. No indication there or anywhere else that I've seen. For upcoming films, IMDb reports everything from cold, hard facts to loose speculation. Wikipedia wants facts from reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't really give a damn. Cameron can go jump off a bridge for all I care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.39.92 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a year later, and Avatar 2 and 3 are mentioned here, with a number of sources, so I think it's time to put them here. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From where I'm sitting, the problem is the date. The most recent info in the Sequels section you link to says, "...while Avatar 2 has already finished filming. But it will still take a few years for them to get the special and visual effects needed for the film." Without even looking at the quality of that source (I didn't even look at what it is), we have "a few years" from the date of the interview. Everything in this article carries a date (though I'm betting a few are beyond speculative...). - SummerPhD (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the date was what my problem was, but those sources (although I'm not sure what their sources are) are saying December, so you could potentially put it there with an unknown date... But I think it should be here (if only for consistency) if the wiki page for Avatar is confirming two sequels for December 2014 and 15. And while you're here, if you could give your opinion on my animation point below, that'd be great. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try this one. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that one looks good. I'll put it in the article then? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Split article permanently[edit]

  • For the past few years, we have had this article in which future films were listed (different names depending on when the article exisited. However, when, for example, 2009, and then 2010, and then 2011 was separated to its own article, it's article section's history remains on this article. Not an entirely big problem as far as the article is concerned, but the name "and beyond" or anything else that could make the title sound better would still not sound right, or even make the most sense. The only way it would make sense is the fact that (a) the films have not yet been released and (b) the article is not as long as articles regarding years in which more films are listed, or a particular years has come to pass. Still, I really don't see it necessary or even rational to continue this article the way it has been maintained (title and multi-year content). I propose:
  • Thoughts? — AMK152 (t • c) 02:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No! Ugh. I really dislike the "categories" articles. They bug the ever-loving cr@p out of me. So, let me offer a counter proposal:

We set "2012 in film" and "2013 in film" as their own articles, since, as you said, they have enough references to stand on their own. Then, in the future, beginning in October (the start of Quarter 4) 2013, each successive year's "year in film" article is separated off into its own article in October of the preceding year (October 2013 for "2014 in film", October 2014 for "2015 in film", and so on), such that, by October 2019, the page can be converted over to "2020s in film"

One problem with the "Category: 2010s in film" is that it is alphabetically organized, not by year/release date, which, for movie buffs, would irritate us to no end. --WTRiker (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brave release date changed.[edit]

Pixar has announced a new release date for Brave: June 22, 2012. I'd change it myself, but these tables are just too darn complicated. I despise having to edit and try to figure out really complicated wiki tables! Could someone else do it? (Oh, who am I kidding? Someone would have done it anyway without me saying anything.) dogman15 (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets separate[edit]

I believe it is time to separate into two sections: 2012 in film 2013 and beyond in film

2012 is getting pretty crowded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.199 (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird name for article[edit]

I dont think we want an article whose name has to change each year. i get the content will change, though. how about "List of orthcoming films" for all films confirmed or noted that dont have firm release dates. the rest should go in 2012 in film, etc. Same problem as at List of albums released in 2012 which may be deleted. (mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer this, although I would use "List of upcoming films" to match Category:Upcoming films. BOVINEBOY2008 21:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animation as genre?[edit]

I wouldn't have said "Animation" was a genre, but rather a medium, and the animation page doesn't mention the word "genre" anywhere, besides having a film genre template on the bottom of the page. So, my thoughts are that we find replacement genres for the films that list animation as their genre, unless we have a source or something that says Animation is the "genre" of that particular film? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "genre" is the problem here. While it's often used is a very narrow sense (such as "film noir" or "rom-com"), it really means little more than "category". Is "animation" a "genre"/"category"? The only factor that decides that is who is making the categories. We could have a genre called "Films released with an R rating, later edited down to a soft PG to be shown to captive audiences on flights out of Laguardia". FWIW (which is very little), IMDb lists a couple dozen genres of which animation is one. Perhaps we take the most descriptive genre we have a source for? Using this, "romantic comedy" would be taken over "comedy", "film noir" over "drama", etc. Or, we could go for a couple/few genres for each film: "animation" and "comedy", for example. Basically, I'm in favor of including a reasonable amount of description ("animation" alone doesn't say much, but leaving it out is a major point to lose...) without crowding the page too much. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the more descriptive genres we can have, the better, but I don't really think having animation there is a major point, or of any benefit. To me, at least, it's like putting down Black-and-white film as opposed to Colour film in the genre section just to define that point, whereas the style of the film is what I would label as the genre. But I guess its a pretty loose term (one that I'm not fond of at all- its just putting things in boxes), so yeah, I'm all for listing the most descriptive genre. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animation isn't quite a genre, but Animation gives a user reading the page knowledge that the movie is animated. At the Oscars, there is a category devoted to Animation, and it is a great help to know who is a contender and who is not by mentioning it in the genre section. Just my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.199 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the animated films need to be put aside because they're a different medium, though. The term "genre" is loose, but if there are other genres listed than "animation", I think it should be okay to remove "animation", as the others should be descriptive enough. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movies Without Release Dates[edit]

Is it really necessary to have unreleased movies on the page? Unreleased movies have more of a chance of shifting dates and/or never being made then movies that are given dates by studios. I don't think Avatar 2 and 3 need to be on this page unless they receive dates. Same for any other movie that is rumored/in progress without a release date, such as Indy 5 or Jurassic Park 4(just using those because they are common examples of movies that could fit this category in the future.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.199 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "unreleased dates"? Anyway, Avatar 2 and 3 are there because a reliable source specifies that they will come out in "2013 and beyond". This in itself should be enough to place a film on this page. It does only give a month, but that means that the film will come out in December 2014 and 2015 (just with the exact date unknown at this stage), and should be listed on this page. If the date changes, then we adjust the article slightly. After all, this page is of planned films, and so their planned release dates should be used. All of this aside, the main reason Avatar 2 and 3 are on this page is for consistency. Avatar (2009 film)#Sequels discusses the sequels, and considers them as official, and lists their releases as December 2014 and 2015, so this page should do the same. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Avatar 2 and 3 have a release date? No, they have a release month. It can stay up here but really, if we allowed to do "release month" or "planned" films, then this page could technically be cluttered with movies and full of unconfirmed material. A movie cannot come out until it has a release date. If a movie has a release month, that month is really just a hypothetical target for the studio. It doesn't give a specified date for the movie, and therefore, that movie has an unconfirmed date. On 2012 in film and in previous pages, we have found it cleaner and easier to just list the movies with the release dates to prevent vandalism and give more accurate info about the movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.199 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are all planned films. None of these films have been released, and I'm fairly sure none have been completed. So, there's still space for any one of these films to have something go horribly wrong, and the release date may be pushed back, or even the film may be cancelled. In the case of Avatar 2 and 3, the release of the film is confirmed for December 2014 and 2015, and we have a reliable source, so they should remain on this page. But again, the main reason I placed them here, was to be consistent with Avatar (2009 film)#Sequels, which considers the film's release confirmed. In general, I think they should be the guidelines we follow for inclusion in this page. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks 4[edit]

There's a Big Rumor of "Alvin and the Chipmunks 4: Fun on the Moon" Coming on July, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChipmunksFunontheMoon7 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this rumour has a verifiable source claiming that the producers actually plan to release the film in 2013 or beyond (making it a planned film, rather than a rumour), then it should not be mentioned in the article. If that's what you're trying to say, that is. If you are just pointing out that there may be another sequel, this talk page is not the place for that kind of discussion. So, overall, Wikipedia isn't for spreading rumours, so please don't. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow kilroy I think you missed the point when you failed to notice the name of the person who posted that.--173.58.131.233 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar 2 and Avatar 3[edit]

Avatar 2 apparently isn't going to come out until 2016 now, so this article needs to be fixed to reflect the new year it will be released. I don't know if Avatar 3 even has a year of release known anymore, so that needs to be fixed as well. Alphius (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar 2 was pushed back to 2016, thought everyone knew that? Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/12/avatar-2-release-pushed-back-to-2016-reveals-jon-landau_n_1201391.html http://www.metro.co.uk/film/887164-avatar-2-release-pushed-back-to-2016-film-producer-jon-landau-reveals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.164.51 (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers 4[edit]

This is it folks. It's official! Michael Bay himself confirmed the Release Date of Transformers 4.

June 29, 2014

"There has been a lot of speculation about what I'm going to do next and when or if I will do another Transformers. So let me set the record straight. I have just concluded a deal with Paramount to do two movies, but it won't be two Transformers. I will first do 'Pain & Gain' with Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. Then I will do the next Transformers for release on June 29, 2014. -Michael Bay" --99.153.252.149 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burton's Cinderella?[edit]

I'm pretty sure this is vandalism, but I wanted to check. Someone changed the entry for "Untitled Henry Selick film" to "Tim Burton's Cinderella". I can't find any reference for this, other than that there had been a rumor about Tim Burton doing a Cinderella movie at one point, so I assume this is vandalism. (Also, why would it be "Tim Burton's Cinderella" if it's directed by Henry Selick?) Alphius (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's vandalism, but ”Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas” was directed by Henry Selick from a concept/screenplay by Tim Burton, who was also the producer.69.166.73.203 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article separation[edit]

To resolve the issue of when to separate each year into its own page, I propose that each year is branched off into it's own article in October of the previous year (i.e. the start of fourth quarter of the year). A long enough wait to allow it to build a good sized list of films, but early enough so that everything is ready to be updated for the following year's film releases and box office take chart.--WTRiker (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object if you were going to make the split, but if not then I would rather not. This article is getting too close to violating WP:CRYSTAL for my liking. Op47 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd split it myself, but I'm a complete and utter klutz when it comes to such things. :/ --WTRiker (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a split is a good idea. I also think that some of this article is already over the line into WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe a split would make it easier to keep the Crystal violations of the page. Its funny how wikipedia works. The next season of Dr Who can't get an article until just before the first new episode airs but we can have films that are only a gleam in the creators eye in this list :-) MarnetteD | Talk 19:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Folks anything slated for 2015 and beyond violates WP:CRYSTAL. Films get greenlit all the time and then wind up in "turnaround hell". No film should be added here unless it is :in production with a confirmed release date. If you want to play around with violating WP:CRYSTAL please start a separate article for 2015 and for each year after that as was suggested above. MarnetteD | Talk 02:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source being used for the 2015 films has next to no info on them except a hoped for release date. If you take a film like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow it had at least three release dates all of which were moved back for various reasons. Once again 2015 films don't belong here. MarnetteD | Talk 03:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I do not see one sentence in the WP: Crystal guideline that pertains to why this should be gone. These films are future events that have reliable sources behind them, and therefore they should be able to remain. 2. If they actually violated WP: Crystal, how does separating pages change things? If certain content isn't allowed on one page, how does it make any sense to allow it on a different page? Although movie release dates change, anything with a fixed release date should be listed until it no longer has a fixed release date. Even G.I. Joe 2 moved eight months, so it means anything can happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.6.27 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have reliable sources just an independent self published website that says then might be made. There is no indication that the studios involved actually have these films in the works. Per WP:CONSENSUS there are three editors who have reservations about including anything beyond 2014. You should not readd the info until you have convinced them otherwise or until more editors have commented. MarnetteD | Talk 03:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12024 is an interview with John Lasseter and Charlie Rose where they do mention the Pixar film is in the works, and here is an article from Variety regarding the beginning of development for Smurfs 3. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118053808.html?cmpid=RSS%7CNews%7CFilmNews there are plenty of sources for these films if the independent website is causing you doubt. It's two 2015 films that are both on schedule to be out in 2015, of course there is indication that these films are coming out, just nothing really of proof because it's three years away. Many of the 2013 and 2014 films are on the same level as these two films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.6.27 (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any films with official release dates (the day, not just the year) should be included on this page, and I think that splitting around October of the previous year would be a good idea. Alphius (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Untitled Pixar Movie that Takes You Inside the Mind and The Smurfs 3 absolutely belong. They have official release dates set by their respective studios. BoxOfficeMojo.com is a very reliable website. It is owned and operated by IMDB, but is not user-edited, and they never add films without official release dates confirmation from the studios. These release dates have also been reported in industry trades. Any attempts to remove them "just because" seems awfully close to vandalism IMO.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be interested to know who the other "three" editors that you speak of are. I only see you, MarnetteD, objecting to anything beyond 2014. There are at least 3 editors, including myself, who have commented on this thread who think they belong. You seem to be the one in the minority.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, I am not the only editor to remove the section. I would suggest that the redirects for 2014, 2015 and perhaps 2016 that send us back to this page be removed. Then move this page to remove "and beyond" from the title. Then you can add whatever info you want to those article whether they violate WP:CRYSTAL or not. That would also eliminate nonsense like this [1] that included listings for 2020. For the record Discospinster did not add this stuff but I couldn't find where it had been added originaly. MarnetteD | Talk 22:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to report the removal as vandalism please feel free to do so. I have seen far too many film release dates that get changed time and again within a calender year. Who knows what will happen - strikes, economic crises, studio bankruptcies/takeovers etc. - that can and will affect release dates three years from now. Once again I believe that you should separate out the years to their individual articles. You can also request comment from other members of the filmproject or request a thrid person comment to get more input. MarnetteD | Talk 22:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't report you for vandalism anyway. I just said it almost felt like vandalism, not that it was. But obviously I'm not the only editor to add 2015. For what it's worth, those release dates are also reported by ComingSoon.net, the website that majority of the citations come from. But in the event that the release dates are changed or dropped from the schedule, we can just as easily update or remove those titles on the release calendar. But at the moment, these release dates are not only official, but current and up to date. Also, I had nothing to do with that bogus 2020 title. TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we really need an article like this, how about calling this article Films in production and when a film is complete, move it to X_in_film (where X is the year and the article will be created when the first film of the year is complete)? Op47 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed[edit]

Someone added a 2020 section to the page and when I deleted, I mistakingly deleted the sources as well. Anyone on here super tech-savvy and knows how to get them back? - June 29, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MzDani92 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are any plans for a film with a 2020 release — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2015[edit]

Why does 2015 is on 2013 and beyond in film? I just want to about cut/delete on that year. --Brian J. Piercey (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 2013 and beyond in film, the beyond part being 2014 and 2015. Eventually, the article will be split into 2013 in film and 2014 and beyond in film. TheMovieMan222 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB[edit]

The IMDB is not a credible source. This message is for people who continue to use it to list cast members, crew members, titles, release dates etc. that are inaccurate or not yet confirmed. TheMovieMan222 (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this Article Shouldn't Be Deleted[edit]

I've spent a lot of time into this article, making sure that the information posted here is up to date and reliable. It's the only page on the internet that can easily list films that are being released in the future on one page. Sure, release dates are subject to change, but lots of things change. Should we have to now delete every individual movie page because the movie release date may change? No. So why delete this page? If a movie is given a release date, it usually means that the studio is targeting their movie to be out on that day and that they are developing it as we speak. If there is a change, then the article changes to reflect its accuracy. TheMovieMan222 (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make your comments at WP:Articles for deletion/2013 and beyond in film (2nd nomination). That's where the decision will be made. Cresix (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of upcoming films[edit]

Further up this page, someone suggested renaming this article List of upcoming films. Is there any reason not to do this? It would save from having to rename the article every year, it sounds more encyclopedic, and it's a much more plausible search term. Thoughts? DoctorKubla (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that solves very much. As it is, there are additions as new films are announced. Then the article could simply be renamed "2013 in film" with a few changes. At least that allows for development of a new article over a period of about one year. If it's renamed to "List of upcoming films", there would be constant changing anyway as films change from upcoming to already released. It doesn't seem to reduce the amount of changing; in fact, it might increase it. Cresix (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting any changes to the format or content of the article, just the name. "2013 in film" can still be split to a new article when the time is right; the only difference being that this article wouldn't then have to be renamed "2014 and beyond in film". DoctorKubla (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how that would reduce the amount of re-editing. This article, currently titled "2013 and beyond in film", will accumulate new items throughout 2012. Then at some point in 2013, items after 2013 will be moved to a new article: "2014 and beyond in film", and "2013 and beyond in film" will be retitled "2013 in film". And the process will continue with a new article every year. I don't see how it's any less cumbersome to retitle the article "List of upcoming films" because you will still have to create a new article every year and move the relevant items to that article. Cresix (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, I was mistaken about the process, but it would still mean one less page move. If that's not enough of a reason, what about the fact that it's a more plausible search term? If I was looking for a list of upcoming films, I'd type "list of upcoming films" into the search bar, but this article isn't even in the first page of results. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a list of upcoming films, you can use Category:Upcoming films. We could redirect List of upcoming films to the category? BOVINEBOY2008 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorKubla, I still don't get your point. You say "it's on less page move". If you compare the two methods for combined number of page moves (or page renames, which is the same process) and creation of new articles, I don't see any difference in the total. Am I missing something?

Bovineboy, thanks for your suggestion, but the article has far more detail than the category. I would oppose such a redirect. Cresix (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The process you described above requires one split and one page move/rename. If this article were called "List of upcoming films", then at the end of the year, the 2013 section could be split to 2013 in film, and that would be it. One split, no page move. It doesn't make much of a difference, though; my main reason for suggesting this is that I think "List of upcoming films" is a better title for an article. As I said, it's a more plausible search term. It also clarifies that this is simply a list of films (as opposed to 2012 in film and so on, which have info about box office sales, awards, etc), and eliminates the vague term "and beyond", which opens up the article to all sorts of speculation. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, your process requires a split (essentially creating a new article, "2014 and beyond in film") and renaming "2013 and beyond in film" to "2013 in film". The net result is the same amount of effort. What's the difference?? Not to belabor a point or make any personal offense, but this seems to be a game of semantics ("split", "rename", "move", "create") with the end result being the same amount of total effort every year. Cresix (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not playing with semantics, the process I've described would require half as much effort, but I'm obviously not making myself understood, so let's drop it. That part doesn't matter. What are your thoughts on the other points I've raised? DoctorKubla (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for whether the article should be renamed, I prefer leaving it as "2013 and beyond in film" (or whatever the year that is currently appropriate) and redirecting "List of upcoming films" to that article, as well as redirecting "2013 in film" to that article. My reason is that "2013 and beyond in film" is consistent with all other years ("2012 in film" etc.), so someone who is looking at different years would logically search "2013 in film" and get to the desired article. That having been said, even though I fail to grasp the effort saved in our debate above, I can see how a bit of effort is saved by having an article "List of upcoming films" that never changes it's title. But I prefer the consistency from year to year. I really think it's worth whatever extra effort is needed. I could accept any consensus, of course. You might post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to get more opinions, and if that doesn't get more eyes on this issue, post a WP:RFC. Cresix (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DoctorKubla's suggestion is approximately what I suggested above. The reason why I would prefer "Films in production" to "List of upcoming films" is that it gives a clear inclusion criteria and exclude some of the more extreme crystal ball gazing that is alleged to go on. In any case, I am removing the split tag because this discussion has gone far beyond that. When there is some concensus then by all means replace it. Op47 (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly can't speak for DoctorKubla, but my impression is that Kubla is not suggesting that only films in production should be included. Kubla can correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless of whether the article is titled "List of upcoming films" or "2013 and beyond in film", I disagree that it should only include films in production, IF (and this is a big if) every film is properly sourced as announced by a studio as scheduled for production. I understand the argument about WP:CRYSTAL so you don't have to repeat it. And I certainly would remove a film from a filmography of an actor that is not filming, in post-production, or released. But the very title "2013 and beyond in film" allows for more flexibility: the reader knows the article refers to the future and that the future is subject to change, as is the article if circumstances change. Cresix (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones 3D & Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith 3D Release Dates[edit]

I am very bad at formatting new sections on pages, but the release dates for Episode II 3D (September 20) and Episode III 3D (October 11) were announced at Celebration VI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCodeman4 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 and beyond in film[edit]

That's a quite putting alots of more movies into it. --71.172.187.42 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Split?[edit]

Isn't it probably about time that this should be split into 2013 in film and 2014 and beyond in film? I think the decision that was made at one point was to split the article sometime around October of the preceding year. Alphius (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 26 October 2012[edit]

Please add {{Split2|2013 in film}} as by convention, the article is split into a new year about this time annually. Thanks. 121.218.45.245 (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Although 2013 in film exists as a redirect, so you can actually split the article yourself. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Episode VII[edit]

I don't know how to edit this page but Star Wars Episode VII is officially set for July 17, 2015. Could somebody put it up there please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.88.78 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source? BOVINEBOY2008 16:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TotalFilm has reported (in at least two articles, including one from today) that the United Kingdom release date will be on July 17, 2015; but I'm not sure whether that was confirmed by any other source. Alphius (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archived Discussions for This Talk Page[edit]

I just noticed that there is a problem with the archive section of this talk page. It is trying to show "2014 and beyond in film/Archive1" rather than wherever the actual archive location is. Since this article has existed for a long time (under multiple names), I assume that an archive does exist, but I don't know what the archive link needs to be changed to. Alphius (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules vs. Tarzan?[edit]

Seriously, where'd you get that information? Up until now that specific film has been untitled. There's no information about it, so how do you know its got something to do with Hercules or Tarzan?

Fixed. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two Articles?[edit]

Why is there a 2014 in Film and a 2014 and Beyond in film?

174.3.6.27 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Usually they don't get split until around October, but apparently someone decided to do it already. If it's going to stay that way, the 2014 section should be removed from this article and the article should be moved to 2015 and beyond in film. Otherwise, 2014 in film should be merged back to this article. Alphius (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, apparently someone already made 2015 and beyond in film, too. So either this article should be turned into a redirect, or both articles need to be merged back into this one. Alphius (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

2015 and beyond in film might need to be merged back into 2014 and beyond in film, since single years usually don't get their own articles until the preceding October or so. However, I guess I don't see why it couldn't stay this way, so long as it has a decent amount of sourced information, and it does. 129.93.5.132 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops. I posted this, but I forgot to log in. It's a shared IP address, so most of the edits on it aren't mine. Alphius (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I have temporarily redirected the talk pages for 2015 and beyond in film and 2014 in film here, because if the articles are kept this way, this talk page will need to be moved to be the talk page for 2015 and beyond in film, and a think an administrator would need to do that. If they aren't kept the way they are now, then people will have been able to leave messages in the correct place without having to worry about merging the talk pages. Alphius (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toy story 4[edit]

The untitled pixar movie is going to be toy story 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_in_film/Archive_1&oldid=1142389218"