Talk:2011 in film

Cast list

Should there be a limit on how many people in a single film's cast we put in this article? Some of the sections like Transformers and Harry Potter are getting a bit ridiculous. If people want the full list they can just go to the movie's own article. 69.66.242.64 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose you're right. If you want to find the cast members, like Harry Potter for example, go to the Harry Potter film series article. Duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.154.228 (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So what should the limit be? Five? 69.66.242.64 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think you should leave it because if people are skimming through it they see the big names of the cast. Migitgem2009 (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The "big names" would be the ones we leave in anyway. We don't need 20-30 additional actors. 69.66.242.64 (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point but with films like that your going to have about 20-30 bigish names anyway so might as well leave it. This will be the last year either of them will be on the 'year in film' as they will be the last film in their respective franchises. Migitgem2009 (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the HP cast who I knew would have very minor roles and shouldn't have been there anyway. I'm sure one of the actors listed wasn't even it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArryStreet (talk • contribs) 08:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear ya. I just edited down the Transformers entry back down to the eight confirmed Voice actors. This page really needs to be locked until the movie's release to keep this from happening (in my opinion). Philipnova798 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

2010 Deaths - Pete Postlethwaite

I don't fully understand, but several IP's feel as though The Omen and Æon Flux don't belong in Postlethwaite's filmography, even though he was in them. For several days this has occured with no end in sight. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:39 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally would say if he was a suppoerting role/lead then keep it. If he's only in a cameo take it off. RIP to a great actor. Migitgem2009 (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

More generically, should this be something that Wikipedia does automatically. When an actor's page is updated with his death information, it should automatically get added to this sort of list. (And they're all "notable Deaths" because Wikipedia doesn't have pages on non-notable people.) Ergo if they have a page on Wikipedia, and are an actor, AND are dead they should be in the list. I mean it's a couple of database joins and some formatting of existing data. And if they're not notable, then delete their entry.98.223.65.175 (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of clean up...

I am tired of having to delete movies just because they are limited release, we need to clean this page up so that we have wide releases and limited releases noted... with the W and L symbols in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.199 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you deleting limited release movies in the first place? Nowhere in the page does it say that it's only for wide releases. 207.32.33.20 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was told by a few people that it was only for wide releases, I need help with getting it separated like the 2010 in film page, so that we have both wide and limited on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.199 (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the need for W/L columns since we already bold the wide releases, but if it's absolutely necessary then I guess I can put them in. 207.32.33.20 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I aint sure about the films but all I do is try update the Highest Grossing Movies everyday, What films should I include? ALL the films on the page or just the bold ones? Migitgem2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The main question still remains, WHY ARE YOU DELETING LIMITED RELEASED FILMS IN THE FIRST PLACE? This page is for all films released in the year 2011, there should not be films removed unless they were bunked back a year or put on permanent hiatus. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:01 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that is still incorrect, this seems to be a list of wide release films and selective limited release films for the United States. I agree that it is inconsistent, but if it were a full list then we are missing the following films: Achan, Anaganaga O Dheerudu, Boss, Eyyvah Eyvah 2, Free Man, Golconda High School, Graduate, Ilaignan, Impatient Vivek, Kaavalan, Kayam, Little Murder, Mama, I Want to Sing!, Mega Python vs. Gatoroid, Mirapakaay, Nakharam, No One Killed Jessica, Note Out, Parama Veera Chakra, Pyaar Hua Iqraar Hua!, Shaolin (film), Siruthai, Sri Naga Shakthi, Stretch, Thamizh Desam, Thavarina Runa, Traffic, Turning 30 and Yamla Pagla Deewana. And those are only films that have already been released this year... We need a clearer guideline on what films to be including on this list, otherwise we might as well redirect people to Category:2011 films and Category:Upcoming films for "all films released in the year 2011". BOVINEBOY2008 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The article says that it's for movies released in the United States. If any of those films have a sourced U.S. release date, you can add them. The other countries' releases would go in their separate articles like the 2010 movies. 207.32.33.20 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That is very US centric. We need to keep the criterion free of country unless there is a good reason for it. BOVINEBOY2008 22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What about I only add films that make over £5 million Migitgem2009 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems very arbitrary and sometimes that information is not available. BOVINEBOY2008 22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think if we have a USA only list, it will probably be the most efficient. Wide and limited releases that appear in the USA. There are a lot of Bollywood-type films that are not shown in the USA, I do realize, but if you look at the other years in film, we try to keep it strict on USA, with a few exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.199 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that this isn't the best approach for keeping a full understanding of "2011 in film". Perhaps there needs to be a separate article like 2011 film release schedule in the United States. Just because the others do it doesn't make it correct or best, just the majority. BOVINEBOY2008 00:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Then move the schedule to that page if you want. I just don't think we should jumble multiple countries' release dates together in one schedule. 207.32.33.20 (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 in Home Video

Someone should check this page out. It lists releases throughout the entire year, but has no sources to back this up. I don't see how they could all be correct, as I can't find any sources on the Internet for much of this page. Could someone please look over the 2011 in Home Video page, see if it's correct, and add some sources? Thanks. 98.19.62.147 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Box Office Performance By The Film?

What are peoples thoughts on adding the film's worldwide box office revenue onto the end of the chart? I think it would be a really nice addition and I would be happy to provide a sample if other people think its a good idea? Cheers. (BenPhillips2009 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

Lion King

The Lion King is getting a wide release in theaters on September 16th. This should be in the list. Obriensg1 (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Highest Grossing Films as of August 14th-

None of them are original except Rio, has Hollywood lost their originality mojo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.108.238 (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Way

I just watched a movie trailer for the film "The Way" (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/theway/) and according to that page it is released this October, but it's not on this list of films for 2011. Should it be added, or is the release date something else because it's a limited release or something? I don't know much about the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtw-wiki (talk • contribs) 03:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Google

I'm surprised this page isn't the first result for "2011 in film" on Google. The first result is "2012 and beyond in film", also on Wikipedia. This is the third result.... Alphius (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Now that the 2012 and beyond in film page has changed to the 2013 and beyond in film page, this is the first result when you search for "2011 in film" on Google. It still seems odd that it wasn't before, though.
  • The previous statement was mine. I had forgotten to sign it. Alphius (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Deaths: Annette Charles

I'm responsible for the addition of Annette Charles. It got deleted somehow recently. I want her to be left in here for my sake. Annette may not have been an important actress but she did have a few memorable scenes in Grease. Anybody agree with me here?--E2e3v6 (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it all right to put Annette Charles in, Please?--E2e3v6 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Description

There should be a description of each movie. I may make it if I have time Lostrocks123 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

W and L's ???

What are the W and L's for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostrocks123 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wide and limited release in the United States. BOVINEBOY2008 00:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon The Movie: White—Victini and Zekrom

Should Pokémon The Movie: White—Victini and Zekrom be added to the page it will in theater starting December 3, 2011 --Hellers4 (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor's nationality

Apparently, according to User:Therequiembellishere, Elizabeth Taylor was born in America, at the same time she was born in Britain. She must be some magician, because as i see it, if you are born in Britain, you are a British citizen. If she was born there and moved to America at one month, that's different. She lived there for three years. Do the math. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:52 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Birth-place is not the sole indicator of nationality, as everyone knows. Elizabeth Taylor's own page calls her British-American, and your obstinate refusal to believe that, firstly, where someone is born doesn't necessarily translate to their nationality and, secondly, that someone can have more than one nationality is naive. LeVar Burton is an American and you'd be foolish to say otherwise. Audrey Hepburn was born in Belgium, yes, but moved to the Netherlands at 10 and lived there as a Dutchman until she was 16, working for the Dutch Resistance and changing her name, while her parents were British. To suggest she was Belgian because she was born there is ridiculous. And, as you said, she lived there for three years. Meaning she was a toddler when she left. She was raised and lived the rest of her life in the United States. Just because you can't grasp nationality as a concept, doesn't mean you can impose your false one as truth. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to claim a British born actresses' birth place is irrelevant because she lived in America her whole life? So, being born and living in Britain is pushed aside even though she once wanted to denounce her American citizenship? Learn some manners, get your facts straight and stop pushing for an all-American agenda here.. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:18 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How am I possibly pushing an all-American agenda? I fully support that Taylor is a British-American actress. You, on the other hand, are pushing that she is only British. If anyone here has an agenda, it's obviously you. You don't understand what the concept of nationality is and with what you do know, you're trying to alter. I have my facts straight. Citizenship is not the same thing as nationality, which is common knowledge. You know, honestly, I'm surprised that there's even a field for nationality on these pages because most articles remove references to them because of these damn debates. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If i was pushing for an all-British agenda, people like Michael Gough would have Malaysian replaced with British. If i was pushing for that, everybody would be listed as British. I protested the American part because i felt her true nationality should trump the "place she lived her whole life". If i was born in Ukraine, then immigrated to the US, lived there but never applied for citizenship, would that mean my Ukraine background is squandered? P.S., i agree with you on the field for nationality, unecessary and doesn't really signify their film relations. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:38 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your Ukrainian background shouldn't be "squandered", but at the same time your American upbringing shouldn't be ignored. Bruce Willis was born in Germany, does that make him a German?207.32.33.20 (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy september

Tinker tailor soldier spy came out in september in the UK, why is wikipedia all about the American side of things? :'( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.31.15 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the schedule would get way too confusing if we used multiple countries' release dates, and it's already messy enough as it is. If you want you can start a new article regarding the UK release dates.207.32.33.20 (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I just think that for any movie release the date should be shown for the FIRST public release in a country no matter where it is :)

Mission 4 Limited Release

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol opens on the 16th in IMAX theaters than follows wide a week later. Is maybe listing it first as a limited release in order? 66.41.255.44 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Genres

I really don't think there's a point to putting the genres in the schedule. They're not all that helpful and only add more clutter. 207.32.33.20 (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. If someone comes to this page and seeks to use it as a guide for finding movies they want to see, the genres are a useful tool. Now obviously this isn't the intent of the page, but it doesn't hurt anything to have the extra details. Rekov (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. A lot of the genre descriptions are awkwardly written and it makes the page look messy and unprofessional.69.66.242.64 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

₪

Could someone help explain what this '₪' symbol stand for that's included in 4 or so film titles? Dumbeddown (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It denotes "films that achieved wide-release status after initial release." This is noted in bold above the sections of the page that contain the symbol. Rekov (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and... why are we using the symbol for the shekel (₪) for this? It's a pretty symbol, but it has a specific meaning and this isn't it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Necrochiseler

I can't find any evidence for this film's existence, but then, I didn't look to hard. The citation (186) is the same as citation 185 for Melancholia. The thing seems ridiculous to the point of being obvious vandalism. I'm going to go ahead and remove this. Someone can feel free to add it back should they provide proof that it actually exists. Rekov (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Having removed the film from the listing, the alignment of the movie release dates is corrected (My Week with Marilyn was previously displaced and didn't have a release date). This is just one more piece that convinces me that this was vandalism. The user responsible for this seems to have been 92.20.80.80. Rekov (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

will be released in the United States and Canada at some point in 2011.

Surely you can't limit an article called '2011 in film' to films only released in the United States and Canada? Either call it '2011 in US and Canadian film', or stop ignoring the 200 odd other countries films get released in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.133.180 (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

agreed, clearly not a world view. --Danbob999 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MI4 in limited release

I have my doubts that Mission Impossible 4 is just limited release. Was there a source saying it was that I didn't notice? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Animation as genre?

I noticed that this page lists some films as having "animated" as the genre. I know the film genre template contains animation (under the "by format or production" section), but I would have said that animation was a medium rather than a genre. The animation page certainly doesn't mention anything about it being a genre, aside from having the film genre template at the bottom, and the film genre page notes that some argue that animation is a "non-genre-based" categorisation. I've brought this point up here, here and here, with varied (but overall little) progress, and there is no clear consensus as to where to go with this. I propose we remove "animation" from the genre column, because all films that use it should (or already do) list another genre that is more descriptive, and the inclusion of "animation" as a genre is not of any benefit. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Movie titles: mix of bold and regular font

Why are movie names mix of bold and regular font. Is there a pattern that I am missing? Mittgaurav (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good question ... I was asking myself the very same thing. I scanned through the article (and lists) briefly, but I did not see any explanation as to the difference. Does anyone know? Can this distinction be listed in the article somewhere? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Same question occurred to me, I was going to bring it up but I think it's probably just various users inputting in the table. I've seen lots of lists where some items were inexplicably bolded. I can't imagine what it might mean. Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The following sentence appears in the 2010 in film article, just above the chart with the list of films: "The tables list films that were released in the United States sometime in 2010 (wide releases in bold)". I suspect that is the case for this article, also. It seems to agree with the "W" (wide release) and "L" (limited release) notations within the table in this article. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

Coriolanus

Coriolanus was released in the USA on December 2, 2011. I do not see it in the list. Would someone please add it? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

2011 Notable Deaths - Andy Whitfield

Shouldn't Andy Whitfield be placed in this section? He was notable enough and he was in it but got removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.232.148 (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Insidious

Why is Insidious is not on the page. The movie was released on April 1, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:B43A:DDB1:670B:91C6 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:LARGENUM

I am condensing the dollar values in the highest grossing table per MOS:LARGENUM. Film community consensus also exists for these changes. Note the instructions at Template:Infobox film as well as this discussion. We don't know what Box Office Mojo's margin of error is and there is no specific need for this much precision. The specific MOS language that covers this is: Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Change in numbers

This thing :see below

Highest-grossing films of 2011

Rank	Title	Studio	Worldwide gross
1	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2	Warner Bros.	$1.34 billion
2	Transformers: Dark of the Moon	Paramount	$1.12 billion
3	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides	Walt Disney Pictures	$1.05 billion
4	The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1	Summit	$712.21 million
5	Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol	Paramount	$694.71 million
6	Kung Fu Panda 2	Paramount / DreamWorks	$665.69 million
7	Fast Five	Universal	$626.14 million
8	The Hangover Part II	Warner Bros.	$586.76 million
9	The Smurfs	Columbia/Sony Pictures Animation	$563.75 million
10	Cars 2	Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar	$559.85 million

should be transformed into this:see below

Highest-grossing films of 2011

Rank	Title	Studio	Worldwide gross
1	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2	Warner Bros.	$1,341,511,219
2	Transformers: Dark of the Moon	Paramount	$1,123,794,079
3	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides	Walt Disney Pictures	$1,045,713,802
4	The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1	Summit	$712,205,856
5	Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol	Paramount	$694,713,380
6	Kung Fu Panda 2	Paramount / DreamWorks	$665,692,281
7	Fast Five	Universal	$626,137,675
8	The Hangover Part II	Warner Bros.	$586,764,305
9	The Smurfs	Columbia/Sony Pictures Animation	$563,749,323
10	Cars 2	Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar	$559,852,396

Why doesn't someone edit these pages according to this way; It is easier to understand it and it's more convenient also. I mean if both pages are edited according to these way (full appearance of the number gross at box office) someone else who reads it will understand easier in that way. So why doesn't someone edit these three pages in that way; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.196 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The version you want goes contrary to MOS:LARGENUM, although the current table format also has an issue with MOS:UNCERTAINTY.

This is effectively the same discussion which already tool place at WT:FILMS in November, which resulted in the current structure - and which is now being discussed at Talk:2015 in film#Disagrreement and which appears to be leaning towards a refinement of the current format - thus eliminating the problems from both MOS concerns. I suggest discussing this at Talk:2015 in film#Disagrreement which can then provide a centralized discussion for all of these articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

References

why only 2011?

why the sections like "Evaluation of the year" doesn't exist in other years? i mean, 2010 and 2012 also had good films as 2011 has, if not better. i think there should be sections like these in 2010 and 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.54.95.84 (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: Somebody did it! Thank you whoever did it for adding these sections to other years! Much appreciated!213.230.103.173 (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

‘’Anastasia’’ in RealD 3D

After the success of ‘’Enchanted’’ in late 2007 and ‘’The Princess and the Frog’’ in late 2009, Fox Animation Studios’ ‘’Anastasia’’ was not re-released in theatres in November 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.18.244 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)