Talk:New Hollywood

Discussion

"The studios were still being run by the moguls who had created them back when Hollywood was a baby."

This is not completly true. Warners was still run by Jack Warner until 1967. Daryl Zanuk had an on-again, off-again relationship with running Fox. Adolph Zuckor was still on Paramount's board of directors. However, Paramount's functions were run by others. Louis B. Mayer was dead. Also, he was removed as head of MGM in the early 1950s. He was the king of all the studio moguls. Harry Cohn at Columbia was also dead. Carl Lemme, the man who founded Universal, had died long ago. So, by the 1960s, there were actually very few moguls incharge of the studios.

I know Peter Biskind wrote a similar pharse to this in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls." However, you must take that book with a grain of salt. He wrote this phrase to create the sort of "us vs. them" atmosphere that he likes in his books. The book is filled with inaccuracies that he came up with just for dramatic effect. Remember the part at the beginning where he states it was unusual for an actor to also produce a film (in reference with Warren Beatty on "Bonnie and Clyde"). He had forgotten what Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Marlon Brando, John Wayne, John Garfield, and Ida Lupio had done. Also, at the end, when he makes it sound like this was the first time budgets had gone into the range of $30 and $40 million, he forgot to mention "Cleopatra." So, rather than just getting rid of this phrase, I would like to bring it to everyone's attention and hope to fix not only this but other aspects of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.17.128 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jaws & Star Wars were fine on their own, great even, the problem is that for 31 years now every freakin' studio has been following that pattern. Blame the bean counters not Spielberg & Lucas. Its also unfair to charge them with starting the 'block buster mentality' since the studios had previously gone a similar route with the Epics which started out as response to TV, and those two films had the same slow gradual role out release and stayed in cinemas for weeks & months of every other film of that time, very different to the ‘thousands at once and gone in a week’ releases of today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston (talk • contribs) 12:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

EDIT:

The New Hollywood did not "come crashing down" with the arrival of Jaws. The term New Hollywood encapsulates the modernisation of the industry from this point - the Blockbuster form is infact cental to the New Hollywood. Is the writer infact referring to The Hollywood Renaissance, a period between the late 60s and early 70s of smaller, character based films centred around autership - seems like it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.41 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of New Hollywood

What this article seriously misses is defining New Hollywood. It's not about time period but about attitude, although the times certainly influenced this greatly. New Hollywood films such as Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, M*A*S*H, Little Big Man, The Godfather, Nashville, Network, and Apocalypse Now were about overturning perceptions and myths that America had about itself. Sexual, political, and social issues were discussed and portrayed on-screen with a candor that had been building during the 1950s but now arrived in full bloom. Certainly, there had been social critique in Hollywood before, especially during the pre-Code days prior to 1934, and during the Depression as seen in films by Frank Capra and others, but never with the bravado or blatancy as seen in the period from the late 1960s through the 1970s. There continued to be blockbusters during the New Hollywood era, some of them New Hollywood films (Godfather and Godfather II especially) but business as usual continued in much of the town: witness the rise of the 1970s all-star cast disaster film starting with Airport, through The Poseidon Adventure and ending for the most part with The Towering Inferno. Jaws and Star Wars can never be considered part of the New Hollywood movement as they were good, old-fashioned spectaculars aimed at pure entertainment, no matter how masterfully crafted. The end of New Hollywood was not brought about by the blockbuster, but by the rise of movement conservatism and the backlash against the very myth-smashing and questioning that New Hollywood, as an outgrowth of changing attitudes arising in the 1960s, embodied. Americans tired of going to movies that were about reality, especially the negative parts of American reality, wanting instead what moviegoers had wanted from the beginning - to momentarily escape reality. This wish to escape reality had repercussions across the board, from the insipidity of most mainstream 1980s Hollywood films, which has continued in great part through today, to electing Ronald Reagan partially on a platform of embracing the mythology of America once again. Until the article reflects these socio-political realities, it cannot present an accurate account of New Hollywood.PJtP (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Prison?

Uh, this is pretty seriously POV:

This was when the Movie Brat generation broke in and Hollywood became an asylum that was truly run by the inmates.

--Saforrest 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Peckinpah

Peckinpah wasn't a member of the New Hollywood generation, neither by age nor by career trajectory. --TallulahBelle 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Altman and Arthur Penn were also older than the other figures listed, and were close in age to Peckinpah. Arguably, Altman's films did reflect the "New Hollywood" sensibility more than Peckinpah's, as did some of Penn's ; but Penn's career trajectory was more similar to Peckinpah's then the other figures on the list. Penn, after all, did make a film for a major studio and with major stars in the late 1950s, The Left Handed Gun.

Don't know why John Huston is listed here either, other than that he managed to stay relevant in the later part of his career.

Studio control

Contrary to what the article says, some of the figures listed DID make films outside of the studio system as well as within it, such as Scorsese, De Palma, Polanski, Schlesinger,and Altman. If one does not count American International Pictures and Avco Embassy Pictures as "major studios", then Allen, Bogdanovich, and Brooks could have been considered to have worked outside of the studio system as well as within it. Prairie Dog, 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to make ambiguous, disputable and unreferenced claims such as "None of them ever independently financed or independently released a film of theirs, or ever worked on an independently financed production during the height of the generation's influence" and then lists examples of exceptions to that rule, whilst seemingly omitting various other examples (Apocalypse Now for example) that would further weaken the original assertion, resulting in a confused and convoluted argument. - 85.210.44.98 08:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lumet

Unquestionably a great director, Sidney Lumet cannot be categorized as a member of the "New Hollywood" generation. Aside from age and career trajectory, the kinds of films he had been making for most of his career were clearly Classic Hollywood. Furthermore, he himself distanced himself from the generation.

The confusion lies in the fact that, though Lumet was not a New Hollywood director, he did make two unquestionably "New Hollywood" classics, Network and Dog Day Afternoon. --TallulahBelle 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Dog Day Afternoon was definitely New Hollywood, and SO WAS Serpico (1973)!!!! AppleJuggler 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cassavetes & Van Peebles

There's been discussion about this before—neither Cassavetes nor Van Peebles properly are New Hollywood. For one, their ages, nearly a decade older than the norm. For another, their origin: they migrated from theater to film, whereas New Hollywood came straight to Hollywood via film school. Finally, they themselves did not consider themselves a part of the Hollywood environment; Cassavetes consciously considered himself a New York filmmaker. New Hollywood filmmakers, on the other hand—even Scorcese—instinctively knew they were Hollywood people.

Furthermore, no one serious debates that Cassavetes and Van Peebles were not New Hollywood—neither the two filmmakers, nor scholars, nor other New Hollywood types. --TallulahBelle 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Logan's Run

Okay, perhaps this is just a personal favorite, but I see it as somehow defining of the period's science fiction identity (between 2001 and Star Wars)- so I wonder if MGM's Academy Award-winning Logan's Run would be considered New Hollywood? - Eric 22:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be

How about Rocky I (1976)?

Could this be considered a New Hollywood film? AppleJuggler 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jaws and Star Wars

Someone rather perversely removed Jaws and Star Wars from the list of notable New Hollywood pictures—ironic, since they defined the period. --TallulahBelle 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars clearly is not... It's pathetic and demonstrates the biased views and unprofessionalism of some Wikipedia's editors. This line "Author A.D. Jameson (I Find Your Lack of Faith Disturbing) claimed that Star Wars was New Hollywood's finest achievement that actually embodied the characteristics of the respected 'serious, sophisticated adult films'" is ridiculous because it's a merely opinionated POV of an author whose book is no serious academic or scientific work by any standards. In fact, one could say that Star Wars inaugurates the (long) 80s -- which had it's good moments but Star Wars was clear not one of them. The line “George, you can type this shit, but you sure can’t say it” by Harrison Ford clearly defines a movie that's neither serious nor sophisticated (and not even adult).

Jaws is another league -- a really serious movie one could call authorial despite its blockbuster appeal --, but I'm also not sure if it could be labeled as New Hollywood since it lacks characteristics listed in the eponymous section. And this last observation is important because the page should have coherence: if in one point it lists a set of characteristics and, in another, classify a movie that's the opposite -- Star Wars --, it becomes really schizophrenic... Dellamotta (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Jaws & Star Wars do not REALLY belong to the New Hollywood era. As you have perhaps observed in the paragraph called The close of the New Hollywood era those two film in fact initiated another different "era" in movie history and movie making, the "blockbuster era". Moreover, it simply is not true that they "defined the [New Hollywood] period". That's WRONG! Sure, they were both released in the 70's, which represented the climax of the New Hollywood era, but this cannot be the only argument. So, I do not agree that the removal of those two films was a "perverse" act, but a legitimate one! 83.189.18.112 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the issue of Jaws and Star Wars:

The point of the article is pretty clear—New Hollywood begat the Hollywood blockbuster mentality. Peter Biskind and everyone else who has written about the generation all agree that Jaws and Star Wars are firmly in the New Hollywood opus. To remove them is to miss the entire point of the generation: They created the blockbuster mentality. To expurge them because they retrospectively seem corporate is to fail to understand that, at the time of their release, these two films were considered as idiosyncratic and odd as Five Easy Pieces or M*A*S*H. George Lucas in particular has expressed how negatively the studio reacted to Star Wars, right up to its release. It's only retrospectively that these pictures are seen as corporate. --TallulahBelle 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Pruning list of films

The list of films of the new Hollywood era was becoming bloated, rendering the list meaningless. I'm pruning it down to a manageable number.

Remember, simply because a picture was released during the period doesn't mean it was New Hollywood. --TallulahBelle 13:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, so why do you still want to include "Star Wars" and "Jaws"? Please DISCUSS first!!!!!!!! 83.181.77.26 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See above. And I for one would prefer to discuss this issue with a registered user, not an anonymous number. --TallulahBelle 23:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable Actors?

Joe Pesci was in only one film of the New Hollywood era and that was 1980's Raging Bull (which is at the very end of the new hollywood era by the way.) He was in one other film prior to this and it was of little to no importance. 1 film at the very end of the era as a supporting character does not seem notable to me.

"produced and marketed, but also the kinds of films that were made" Do you mean produced in the context of films "made" or in the context of films "directed"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.1.123 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I Agree Also Is it really appropriate to include guys like James Coburn, Paul Newman, Jack Lemmon, and to a lesser extent Steve McQueen?

I know Newman starred in several important seventies classics like Butch Cassidy, The Sting, and Cool Hand Luke...but Marlon Brando also was prominently featured in The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, and no one in their right mind would consider him anything other than a Classic Hollywood star. Can't an Actor go around reinventing himself without being immediately being labelled as part of a particular generation? I can the say the same for Steve McQueen as well, but I think it's less obvious with him, being as that Newman cut his teeth starring in popular films in the 50's like Cat On A Tin Roof and The Silver Chalice with the likes of 50's stars Elizabeth Taylor. Lemmon is also a Classic movie star along the same lines as Newman, even though both weren't nominated in AFI's list (their film debuts were not before 1950).

Also, on to the main point: James Coburn. I know he starred in several Peckinpah movies (a guy whose inclusion into this discussion is also quite questionable) but other than that did not possess the same neurosis which governed the likes of Pacino, De Niro, and Hoffman. His age and acting credits fits squarely with the same generation that came about as The TV became a popular tool (late 50's and early 60's) - namely alongside guys like Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, George Peppard and James Garner. I guess the best way to describe these guys is - not old enough to be Classical but not Young enough to be 'New Hollywood'. Coburn cut his teeth playing supporting/character roles alongside the likes of Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, Anthony Quinn, and even when he became a potential leading man, his draw was already wading by 73 - in that time the 'new guys' like Pacino, Hoffman, De Niro, and Nicholson have tooken over.

By the way a bunch of Director's also don't belong there. Peckinpah, Altman, and Lumet (and maybe Kubrick) belong in that same 'TV period' as actors like Coburn, Marvin, and Eastwood. They are in the same generation as John Frankenheimer and Robert Aldrich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolascoburn (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Kubrick

I wouldn't count Kubrick in. He is another generation of moviemakers. Accordingly 2001 I would not consider 2001 as a "New Hollywood"-piece. Not every revolutionary move of that period is new Hollywood, neither is every genious director, which made a movie in this time. Is there any reason to consider Stanley Kubrick or 2001 "New Hollywood"?

• In addition, he shot all his films after Spartacus in the UK. --5.165.89.142 (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Even though Kubrick directed his New Hollywood-era films in the UK, he still made them within the Hollywood studio system (2001 was made through a British MGM, while his films after that were only nominally independent because they were bankrolled by Warner). If anything Kubrick helped to pioneer auteur-cinema of that period (i.e. studio films that encapsulated the sensibilities of independent film). While I can see an argument for excluding Kubrick on the basis his films were not technically exponents of American cinema, I think it is certainly reasonable to regard his films within the wider "New Hollywood" movement, which many reliable sources do. Remember guys, we are not setting our own criteria here. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bonnie and Clyde.JPG

The image Image:Bonnie and Clyde.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Assault on Precinct 13

An IP keeps adding Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film) to the list of New Hollywood films. I have text searched a couple of books used as sources: The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars by Peter Kramer, and Geoff King's New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction and it isn't mentioned. These books are not conclusive, but I have never heard of this film discussed as an exponent of "New Hollywood". In most cases "New Hollywood" films are studio films, but AOP13 is an indie production. I am aware there some exceptions to this, however I am going to remove it, and I would appreciate it if this time it is not restored to the list without a source. There are too many instances of a film just being added to the list because it was made in the late 60s and 70s without being established it was part of the New Hollywood movement. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is pathetic

The list of movies has grown to include, well, what appears to be everyone's favourite movie from the 1970s. You people don't know what you're talking about. 'Airplane!' should not be on here. This article is hopeless. Zweifel (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I have tried removing quite a few of these but they keep getting added back. The problem is it is so subjective; personally I would not consider Airplane an exponent of New Hollywood but since it is cited it would be "original research" to remove it, unless we have a source that contends the claim. The same with something like Halloween: it was an independent film, and "New Hollywood" was a studio movement in which the studios adopted an "auteur" approach to making their films, so Halloween would seem by definition not a New Hollywood film, but again it is on the list with a citation. The problem is more intrinsic to Wikipedia than the editors: we cannot use our judgment, so if poorly researched books proclaim a film to be part of "New Hollywood" I don't see a way around it. These are subjective claims, and Wikipedia isn't really well placed in dealing with subjectivity. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

way too overrated
way too overrated New Hollywood's success is due to the invention of the rating system, making way for violence, nudity and profanity in the cinema. After the novelty had worn out the new wave declined, similar to Blaxploitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.69.40 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed text, talk section not a general forum. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Add directors

I propose that we add in the names of directors in the list of notable films. This would help the reader to connect films with directors. This is particularly pertinent for New Hollywood, because the directors took on a more major role in the filmmaking process. I would like to canvass the WP editors for a yea or a nay on this proposal. I know one editor disagrees, but I would like to get more input. Thanks. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am still waiting for editors' views about adding in the names of directors to the list of movies. In a few days, I will make the assumption that no one opposes this plan.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my reply I don't oppose the principle just the way you did it. It looked cluttered and and incoherent especially on smaller screens. I thought my alternative suggestion was a reasonable compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the alternative suggestion?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was to create a sortable table and tabulate the information into separate columns (film, year, director, source). It looks better aesthetically, is easier to read and has more functionality. A simple table format can be found at List of vegans. Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

possibly contains original research?

This article's headline "possibly contains original research" is an understatement. Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced films

I would like to remind editors that the film section is not a "free for all". Not every film made in the 70s is regarded as being a key film in the New Hollywood movement. It is largely subjective since beyond a few key features there is no definitive list, so each new addition should have an inline citation that explicitly credits the film as a "New Hollywood film", or credits it to a source that is about New Hollywood and discusses the significance of the film within that era. Ideally NO film on this list should be unsourced, although inevitably some are; however, most of the films that are unsourced are key films of the era that few people would dispute so we can let those slide temporarily, but not indefinitely. However, NO MORE films should be added without an appropriate source, especially if they are genre, independent or foreign films i.e. types of film of the era which commonly fall outside of the New Hollywood sphere. Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has been added to the list several times now by Austinmovies. There are several important reasons why I dispute its inclusion:

1. It is an Italian film
2. It is not backed by major American studio
3. It is a genre film

The New Hollywood movement was principally a movement centering on the Hollywood studio system in which it appropriated independent sensibilities. As I point out in the section above, all films included on the list really should be sourced, but films which fall outside of this sphere such as is the case with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly should definitely not be added to the list without an accompanying source. Neither The New Hollywood (by Peter Krämer) nor New Hollywood Cinema (by Geoff King) which are both used as sources for this article list The Good, the Bad and the Ugly as an example of New Hollywood. Betty Logan (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Period or movement?

The first sentence states: "New Hollywood, sometimes referred to as the "American New Wave", refers to a period in American film history from the mid-to-late 1960s" and one of the sentences in the introduction states: ""New Hollywood" usually refers to a period of film-making rather than a style of film-making, though it can be referred to as a movement."

The article seems to be based on the opinion that "New Hollywood" is a movement, excludng all exploatation and commercial titles from the period, as well as those having more in common with classical Hollywood. In my opinion, there should be clear distinction of "New Hollywood" as a period and "New Hollywood" as a movement, and the article doesn't seem to be clear on that one.StjepanHR (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It is both, and I don't think there is a clear distinction. It was a movement defined by new filmmaking sensibilities—some of them artistic, some commercial—that defined a particular period. As a period it brought an end to the classic Hollywood era, and as a movement it saw a new aesthetic become central to studio film production. From the list of films included it is evident that commercial films were not excluded: The Godfather, Jaws, Star Wars and ET are all represented and all became the highest-grossing film of all-time. I don't think exploitation films are specifically excluded but let's not forget that "New Hollywood" was principally a change in studio film-making, and exploitation films were mostly peripheral to that. Some of them took advantage of relaxed censorship, which resulted in their own movements such as Golden Age of Porn. Betty Logan (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of the things you wrote, but, for example, the directors section is missing most of my favourite directors working in the period, such as Burt Kennedy, Don Siegel (who is listed in the info box, but not in the main article), Dick Richards, Andrew McLaglen, John Sturges, Mark Rydell, and countless others. Some of them started in the late classical period or the transitional period of the early/mid-1960's, but all of them had careers in the New Hollywood period and are a significant part of it, despite not being part of the New Hollywood movement in the more narrow sense of the phrase. One thing I can't agree is when you say that "there is no clear distinction" and that ""New Hollywood" was principally a change in studio film-making, and exploitation films were mostly peripheral to that". The second sentence would be correct if the article is about the movement in the narrow meaning. However, the exploatation cinema was a huge part of the PERIOD in question and can't be excluded. What I would like to propose is to make separate lists for directors (and producers) associated with the movement in the narrow sense and those working in the period, but not being part of the movement. StjepanHR (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, I don't propose adding every name who had something to do with the period of cinema in question, but some names simply need to be listed, such as all I have mentioned above.StjepanHR (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I would actually go the other way and cut the number of directors down. I don't see the point of listing them all in the infobox when there is a more complete list in the article itself and I would limit the list of directors to those who have a directed a couple of films on the list. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks better :) I wasn't proposing expanding the infobox (it was ridiculous as it was), just saying that some where listed there and not in the main article, what was also a bit weird, but it is solved now. The only thing I would still do is to list few other directors working in the period, but which were not a part of the movement, since many of them were very significant, such as those I have listed above (Burt Kennedy, Dick Richards, Andrew McLaglen, John Sturges, Mark Rydell) and few others. I just don't know how to make a distinction between them and those who followed New Hollywood "rules" more closely. StjepanHR (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is much value in simply listing people who worked during the period; that is pretty much everyone who worked during the 1970s so the article would just become a WP:COATRACK. However it is defined—and I concede there are multiple definitions out there—"New Hollywood" basically comprises a body of work which is usually associated with the concept i.e. films that are repeatedly brought up as examples of "New Hollywood". For example, films like The French Connection and The Exorcist are nearly always listed so that makes William Friedkin a prominent figure of New Hollywood, but because James Bond films are generally ommitted then I would not include Lewis Gilbert and Guy Hamilton—who directed three films apiece during the period. I question whether somebody like Sigourney Weaver should even be listed: she basically had a supporting role in Annie Hall and was part of the Alien ensemble, but I would hardly call her a prominent figure. I would prefer to see a more rigorous and objective inclusion criteria introduced, because many of the inclusions seem arbitrary to me. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, for those two you have mentioned, Hamilton is British director who worked in Britain during 1970's, not in Hollywood. Gilbert also had only a brief (and, IMHO, not very significant) career in the US during the period. Again, we have issue of omitting a huge part of the US cinema of the period. For example, the article about the classical Hollywood (although in need of expansion) does a reasonable job of covering broad spectrum of films and artists, regardless of them following closely the "rules" usually associated with the Golden Age. As this is an encyclopaedia, where should one look if he wants to find more about 1970s US directors working in a style more similar to classical Hollywood than to the one of New Hollywood (which itself is a mix of classical Hollywood with (western) European cinema, or even a pure classical Hollywood with 1970s political opinions involed, as well as a relaxed "censorship")? To repeat once more, I am not proposing adding Kennedy, McLaglen and the rest into the current list, but I can't see how would one sub-chapter and one separate list of 20-30 names hurt the article. Another thing is that neither this nor classical Hollywood article cover a "gray area" of 1960s, which included (d)evolution (based on personal opinion) of classical Hollywood into post-classical Hollywood. I know that is slightly off-topic, but as you seem to be a sensible editor, I would like to hear your opinion how to cover that period? StjepanHR (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia policy answers your question already: there are plenty of books that cover "New Hollywood" and any films or names added to the article should really be WP:Verifiable i.e. it should not be down to editorial whim who or what gets added. As you can see, the film section has started to move in that direction and new film additions are now prohibited unless they are sourced, and the "Important figures" section should ideally follow suit. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And it is again "period vs. movement" thing. If the so-called "New Hollywood" was described only as a movement, I wouldn't write any of these objections. However, even some of the sources claim (King (2002), for example) that there is no clear definition of the term and that several positions exist and some (Schatz (1993)) even disagree with the years this article includes for the period. Considering Wikipedia articles, for example: Czechoslovak New Wave is described as a "movement" (and I surely wouldn't propose adding films by the likes of the great Otakar Vávra to the list, since he obviously wasn't a part of the movement), French New Wave is described as a "blanket term coined by critics for a group of French filmmakers of the late 1950s and 1960s" (as the "group" is clearly defined, nobody would add somebody like Henri-Georges Clouzot or even Jean Renoir or Robert Bresson, who are from the previous generation, despite being active in the late 1950s and 1960s), "Iranian New Wave refers to a new movement...", "British New Wave is the name given to a trend in filmmaking among directors in Britain in the late 1950s through the late 1960s", "Cinema Novo is a genre and movement of film...", "Hong Kong New Wave was a movement...", "Parallel Cinema is a film movement in Indian cinema...", "Japanese New Wave is a blanket term used to describe a group of loosely connected Japanese filmmakers during the late 1950s and into the 1970s", etc. Only the "New German Cinema" (itself refering only to West German cinema) has the same problem as "New Hollywood" as it refers to a "period", while it was clearly a "movement", and the directors belonging to it were only a minor part of the larger German cinema of the time, even if we only look at the West German cinema.StjepanHR (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Just as a note, one source not listed here is "The Last Great American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s", which describes many films not listed here as a part of the New Hollywood, and also refers to the New Hollywood as a complex movement consisting of several smaller movements.StjepanHR (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"This new generation of Hollywood filmmaker was predominantly film school-educated"

I don't know what is the origin of this claim, but huge majority of the directors listed never attended (and even less of them finished) any kind of film school. I would just like to leave this open for discussion before deleting it.StjepanHR (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"de-emphasis on the traditional view of casting physically attractive actors in lead roles..."

My last edit was a removal of the following statement: "According to Peter Biskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, one aspect of New Hollywood was a de-emphasis on the traditional view of casting physically attractive actors in lead roles; the movement's occasional emphasis on recreating a reality which audiences could relate to resulted in actors with "everyman" looks, such as Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman, getting cast in lead roles that would have been unavailable to their physical type under the studio system." The source listed ("Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", page 16) doesn't even state that, but something different. On the other hand, I don't see the point of listing it since "attractiveness" is very subjective term and even if we go with what majority would consider attractive, I don't see that most of the Classical Hollywood actors would be considered conventionally attractive (although I am a straight male and not the best judge, I admit). Just take a look at some of the Academy Award for Best Actor winners of the Golden Age (just the first dozen years): Emil Jannings, George Arliss, Wallace Beery, Charles Laughton, Victor McLaglen, Paul Muni, Spencer Tracy, James Stewart, etc. I think it is not fair to assume that any of them was popular because of his attractive look and not because of acting (or physical presence in case of McLaglen). On the other hand, while 70's Hollywood had its share of unattractive actors, it also had Redford, Beatty, Reeve, Reynolds, H. Ford, etc. I don't doubt their acting talent, but much of their popularity among female audience was based on their looks. StjepanHR (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

List of important figures of the movement - dual roles

I don't see the point of listing a person under only one category in this section. For example, Allen and Eastwood fit perfectly in both "actors" and "directors" sections and there is no reason for them not to be listed under the both. StjepanHR (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This is still pathetic

Now people have gone and added "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "The Empire Strikes Back", etc., onto this list. These are not "New Hollywood" movies. These are "Blockbuster" movies. They are the antithesis of New Hollywood -- big concept, highly marketed and advertised movies that make all their money on their opening weekend. These are the movies that killed New Hollywood. Go watch the documentary, "The Monster That Ate Hollywood". Enough already. Zweifel (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• They still were made at that time. Sounds like you got a personal grudge against these movies (yet The Godfather was a blockbuster as was Jaws & Star Wars). Espngeek (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Films that failed verification

I have just undertaken a verification check on the list of films. I am not prejudiced either way about the films. I have listed them here so a record of what was removed can be easily identified, and if sources can be found for them then by all means add them back in. I will attempting to locate sources my self over the next few days. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Wizards (1977)
• The Duellists (1977)
• The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
• Slap Shot (1977)
• Martin (1978)
• 1941 (1979)
• The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
• Popeye (1980)
• The Thing (1982)
• Making Love (1982)
• Rumble Fish (1983)
  • What is your criteria? Espngeek (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

    The criteria is explicit verification i.e. the film is explicitly mentioned as an exponent of NH, the film appears on a list of NH films, or the film appears in an article/book that is explicitly on the subject of NH. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

    Many of these films are tagged as "New Hollywood" on Flickchart, so I am going to work my way through that first and see what is left at the end of that process. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty in 'Bonnie and Clyde', 1967.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Patton source

I have recently added "better source needed" tag for Patton (1970). The film stands somewhere between Old and New Hollywood in style and the source listed mentions it only two times, once as a film that Rod Steiger regreted turning down and once as a financially successful 20th Century Fox film. In both pages, it is not listed as a New Hollwood picture. It is not even listed in the Index at the end of the book. StjepanHR (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right to call it out, and I certainly don't regard your intervention as "tiring". In a subjective list such as this one sourcing should be explicit, either by name-checking it as an exponent of the era or through contextual discussion of its significance within the movement. Flickchart has a comprehensive list of NH movies and Patton isn't showing up here either: https://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?genre=New+Hollywood&year=1970. Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Should I put an image in the lead section?

I feel like putting the poster for Bonnie and Clyde (1967) in the lead section because I feel like it would educate readers and let them see what the movement looked like, especially considering there's no image in this article. But I want you to decide, should I do it or not? CaptainRex2008 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Nvm, somebody already did it for me. Thanks! CaptainRex2008 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I did it :) Espngeek (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Godfather, taxi driver and others

If these two movies and others appearing in the full list are indeed part of new hollywood they should appear in last paragraph of the introduction given that they are more relevant. 2800:40:41:558:F1A6:4FA9:6C4E:957F (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Probrem about Movie List

As I delete some films depend on a single, unreliable source, those are "undo"ed by Mr. Betty Logan.I think this user is not a good administrator.This matter has been brought up many times in NOTE.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:310B:36EC:3608:FAD1 (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry about I'm a "not native "　English user, but I've never seen such a "sloppy" list. If you can read another Wikipedias written by another languages, you may understanｄ what I say. --240B:11:BEE0:1410:310B:36EC:3608:FAD1 (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I translated your response on my Chromebook and some of the "single" sources are legit (e.g. The Criterion Collection) Espngeek (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• • Excuse me, We can't find films which depends on "The Criterion Collection" as a single source. We mean such as "A Child Is Waiting","The Cool World ", and so on.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:310B:36EC:3608:FAD1 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

    Besides what Betty Logan provided (which I understand and support 100%), what's with replacing "I" with "we"? The only person making this conflict, let alone edit war over it, is you. Carlinal (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You did not delete films due to a "single" unreliable source. You deleted lots of films cited to many sources, and left lots of citation errors in the process. Some of the deletions were prima facie ridiculous: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Cool Hand Luke, Rosemary's Baby, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, Klute, Carnal Knowledge, Dirty Harry, Cabaret, Last Tango in Paris, American Graffiti, Serpico, The Exorcist, Rocky and Saturday Night Fever (to name just a few) are all seminal films of the New Hollywood era. You will find them on most "New Hollywood" lists. And yet you deleted these films and many more without providing a clear rationale.

Let's take They Shoot Horses, Don't They? as an example, which you removed on the grounds of having an unreliable/ambiguous source. This entry is sourced to a book called Film History: An Introduction, which is authored by Kristin Thompson (an Honorary Fellow in the Department of Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin) and David Bordwell. This would appear to be a reputable source at face value, so why do you regard it as unreliable? Even if you succeed in convincing me that the source is not reliable, or that it does not back up the claim, then the correct course of action (if you are challenging the validity of the source rather than the veracity of the claim) would be to replace the source. There are multiple texts citing They Shoot Horses, Don't They? as an exponent of New Hollywood, and the source is easily replaceable.

You clearly employ a different approach on your version of Wikipedia, but on the English Wikipedia we don't purge factually accurate long-standing content just because there may be an issue with the source. The correct approach would be to tag the sources you believe to not be reliable (using either the {{Unreliable source?}} or {{Failed verification}} tags and providing a clear reason), and give the community the opportunity to review them. If the community agrees with your assessment the next step should be to replace the sources, without compromising the content. If there is a consensus that the source is unreliable and a suitable replacement cannot be found, that would be the time to consider deleting the information from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not good at English, so I'll simply ask Mr.Betty Logan two questions: the "We" instead of the "I" is what I would judge to be a public, traditional first person. I am not talking about "you and me", but about Wikipedia users.

1.What is your rationale for deleting the following text that I attached at the beginning of my film list?

"Please handle with care those that only have one source explicitly indicated."

2.Why, for example, at the beginning, do you not first talk about something that has only one source?

・A Child Is Waiting (1963)

・The Cool World (1963)

・What's a Nice Girl like You Doing in a Place like This? (1963)

・Dr. Strangelove (1964)

・It's Not Just You, Murray! (1964)

If we were to define New Hollywood as anything at the level of “They Shoot Horses, Don't They?” then the Hays Code would be loosened and all films since its repeal would be of that genre.With great respect, have you seen “They Shoot Horses, Don't They?”? How many times? Some of the films you have mentioned as examples were made before the New Hollywood, under the influence of the New Hollywood, and are New Hollywood-esque (thus, as New Hollywood in terms of film history, they are only personal impressions and sentiments by overly broad-minded pseudo-critics and pre-researchers). Including them only serves to confuse amateur critics who speak of Wikipedia as a source.For example, as far as can be ascertained, “Dirty Harry” is an action hero film with New Hollywood influences(In terms of film history, it has not had or left a New Hollywood impact on future generations of films.).Wikipedia uses the phrase “American neo-noir action thriller film." Pauline Kael describes it as “a stunningly well-made genre piece”.

As for the movie list, I judge that only you(Mr.Betty Logan) are the only one who is refuting or "undo"ing the multiple people who are talking about "to be or not to be" in the note,

Unfortunately, we were not able to check the book(" Film History: An Introduction") you mentioned as an example. If you are able to cite the relevant section, please do so.

By the way, if you say “You did not delete films due to a ‘single’ unreliable source.”, I would judge that it is OK to delete a “single” unreliable source.

For a discussion of the problem of arbitrary interpretation of history, please read Gongyang Zhuan, “公羊傳・公羊學” in the Qing Dynasty in China. (Preferably in Chinese).--240B:11:BEE0:1410:E889:D1D:268:9280 (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

1. The English Wikipedia does not add warning notes to articles. A claim is is either sufficiently sourced or it is not. If an editor does not believe a claim is properly sourced, then they should tag it in the manner I have described above, providing a valid reason as to why the source is not reliable for the claim.
2. On the English Wikipedia, deleting a claim because it only has one source is not a valid reason for deleting a claim, if the source is reliable. A quick Google revealed that there are many other sources for the films you deleted, as I demonstrated with They Shoot Horses.
3. Wikipedia editors do not "define" New Hollywood as anything. We defer to sources that do this for us. If you believe the inclusion criteria is too WP:INDISCRIMINATE then you need to set out your reasons clearly.

If you want to raise issues about some of the films on the list (such as Dr Strangelove and the other points you point to) then you should initiate a discussion on the talk page as to why you do not believe they should be on the list. Because they only have one source is not a valid reason. If other sources cannot be found, then that may point to the existing source being an outlier. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes "Wikipedia:Verifiability" this wa:y

"Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

This means that you should be careful with information sources that are not RELIABLE or do not have MULTIPLE high-quality sources.

More specifically, academic article-level information should be used as a source of information with an understanding of its context, while personal opinion, like opinion on personal blogs and product catalog-level information from sellers should not be used alone.

Here is my suggestion.

1.The rationale for some “unreliable sources” will be given in this note, and you are invited to provide justified rebuttals to them (doubts about the sources will be mentioned gradually).

2. Any work that cannot be objectively proven to be a “reliable source” will be excluded from the list of films.

3. We attach the following text at the beginning of the listing.

“Please handle with care those that only have one source explicitly indicated.”

"If you have a work you would like to add to the list, please do so after reaching a consensus in NOTE."

By the way, Mr. or Mrs. Betty Logan, do you disagree with my view, with sources clearly stated, that “Dirty Harry” is not a New Hollywood movie? Also, how many times have you seen “They Shoot Ruined Horses”?

Excuse me, to avoid unnecessary heating, pause for about one week.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:7554:86B6:B529:F54D (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

As I stated above, we don't add notes to the articles. That is not how the English Wikipedia works. If you want to raise doubts about a particular source then you should use one of the tags I recommended above. Secondly, Wikipedia only requires reliable sourcing—it does not require that reliability is "objectively proven", which is an impossibly high test. The reliability of a source is a question of editorial judgement. Please keep your suggestions within the framework of Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that while it is fact that New Hollywood existed and was a legitimate era, the examples and listing of these films are of opinionated sources, academic or otherwise. There's also so many sources discussing examples from New Hollywood that I do not believe that "this is a New Hollywood film" is exceptional; know we're living in the same world where there's hundreds of "all time greatest films" lists or whatever, including over 60 yearly lists from Sight and Sound.

You're right to scrutinize certain lists and say they are suspicious, and should be given a re-review with a bigger and wider amount of users, especially as there's only one frequent contributor to this article. But in a subject like this, with film (a medium often used for entertainment), the selections shouldn't be exclusively "academic", if that's what you're implying, and neither should a restriction to 2+ sources, especially as the amount of films listed isn't outside proper moderation (I speak with many such lists/articles on my watchlist, including stuff over video games, television and photos). Lastly, I don't feel a need to have a source criteria added into the article because while there has been much criticism of its contruction in the past, I do not believe it's to the point of recklessness. Everything else in your comment has a rather policing attitude that should be quelled. Espngeek and Betty Logan know what they are doing and saying.

In another note, I respect your deliberate break from these discussions, but I again remind you that you're putting yourself with a subject about entertainment media in a very old, hardly relevant era that isn't really frequently edited besides the devotion of one dude. I don't see much reason to be so incredibly devoted to this in the first place. Carlinal (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with films or sources being challenged—rather I take issue with the IP's approach. The fact is though, this is not a black and white issue—New Hollywood is a movement, and whether a film was in the spirit of the movement is essentially a case of subjective judgement. I am also slightly concerned that the editor has asked if I have seen this film or that film, in that they may be bringing their own opinion to bear on the topic. Some of the sources may not genuinely hold up to RS scrutiny, and in those cases the proper approach would be to tag it with {{Unreliable source?}} or {{Failed verification}}. One example of that would be Flickchart, which the editor identifies below. The other issue is that the editor seems to be conflating outliers with WP:EXCEPTIONAL: most of these films do not fall within the remit of WP:EXCEPTIONAL (and therefore do require to be cited by multiple sources), but at the same I agree it is important to weed out outliers to avoid the list becoming indiscriminate. Betty Logan (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

As for the “flickchart” genre, unfortunately, the source is unknown (and it is also unknown who put which films in that genre), so it is difficult to use it as a stand-alone source of information. Therefore, we conclude that some of the films that use the “flickchart” genre as their only source of information should be excluded. Anonymous polling sites that clearly state the number and percentage of ratings, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, are more likely to be useful as a source of information, so you will need a source of multiple opinions, such as “flickchart Users' Choice 100 New Hollywood Movies”. (and a link would be needed).--240B:11:BEE0:1410:3986:B89F:96EF:9FF9 (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Since we have not seen sufficient objections or rebuttals, we will soon exclude the treatment of “flickchart” as a single source for New Hollywood films. The reason is, as mentioned above, that we have “no basis for assuming it to be a reliable source.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:4881:1CC5:4D9D:CF6C (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

unreliable sources?

"Influence of New Wave Around The World - Film Theory"(https://www.filmtheory.org/influence-of-new-wave-around-the-world/) ...This is a source that should be treated as a Wikipedia article in “French New Wave” because it is contextually a source that mentions the French Nouvelle Vague and mentions Nouvelle Vague films from around the world.

"New American Cinema"(https://www.criterion.com/shop/collection/123-new-american-cinema) ...This is part of a list created for sale by a seller of cell film software, and there is no scholarship behind the source of the information.

"15 Sleeper Films Of The New Hollywood Era That Are Worth Seeing"(http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/15-sleeper-films-of-the-new-hollywood-era-that-are-worth-seeing/) ...In it, he only vaguely states his personal opinion about “Mickey One” as “might have been the film that started the entire era of the ‘new Hollywood’”. And "might have been" is not stated in an academic context. As for the other films, references are made in the context of films made in “The New Hollywood Era” and not as “New Hollywood films” (context is important).

"flickchart"...flickchart” is a site for ranking films in flux, and its genre classifications are not backed by film historical sources.

Nashawaty, Chris (2013). "Book Excerpt: Crab Monsters, Teenage Cavemen, and Candy Stripe Nurses"(https://www.rogerebert.com/features/book-excerpt-crab-monsters-teenage-cavemen-and-candy-stripe-nurses) ....Regarding Wild Angels, PETER BOGDANOVICH was involved in “It was the first big hit counterculture Hollywood movie, and it sort of started the New Hollywood.” as director of the second part with just only reminiscing and expressing sentiments. Can you understand the meaning "sort of"?

Thompson, Christine & Bordwell, David (2003). An Introduction to the History of Film (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill...They are using as a source of information lacks information (context is unclear), so more information regarding what context is being referred to is needed.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:7554:86B6:B529:F54D (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The Thompson/Bordwell book looks like a reliable source to me. Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell appear qualified to make critical judgments about which films belong to the New Hollywood era. "They are using as a source of information lacks information" does not detract from the reliability of the source. Thompson and Bordwell are film theorists, and are most likely drawing on their own judgment as much as other scholarly work. As for New American Cinema, the reasons behind how the work was commissioned is irrelevant (unless there is a conflict of interest). It was compiled by a professor of English, so to state there is no scholarship behind the source is incorrect. I don't agree with your conclusions in either of these two cases. As for the other sources, I agree they are poor; the next step should be to tag them, and give editors an appropriate opportunity to either defend them or replace them. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The Thompson/Bordwell book appears to me to be a reliable source of information as well. However, with the lack of information regarding how the two of them “contextualize” some of the films in said book, I find the reliability of the sources and the information to be ambiguous. In other words, if a work talks about a film with the text “might have been” or “sort of” in the work, it cannot be considered an obvious claim that the film “belongs” to a particular genre. I am very sorry, Mr./Ms. Betty Logan, but would you be able to confirm the text (context) of the part of your book that refers to “New Hollywood” as an argument?--240B:11:BEE0:1410:3986:B89F:96EF:9FF9 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"Looking Back on Hollywood’s Second Golden Age"(https://www.hollywood.com/movies/looking-back-on-hollywoods-second-golden-age-60822140) ...The second golden age of Hollywood is an “era,” but it is not treated as a “genre” by the linked sites. For example, “Portrait of Jason” is discussed in the context of “Films in this era also explored heavy issues of race". It is difficult to mention any commonalities other than the fact that they were made in the same era. For example, it is contextually obvious that Kubrick is listed as the leading director of that “era” and only “2001: A Space Odyssey” is listed as Kubrick's masterpiece. He may be a director who made New Hollywood-style films, but “2001: A Space Odyssey” is clearly different. In the first place, there is no element linking Kubrick to Hollywood/New Hollywood, except for a few early films.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:3986:B89F:96EF:9FF9 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey is not a particularly controversial inclusion: it is auteur-driven, adopts a "free form" narrative style that had become popularised by the European new waves, and is an expensive Hollywood studio film. Even if the F/X had been available a decade earlier, it is difficult to envisage such a film being made in the 1950s. The only point against it as far as I can see is that it was filmed in Britain (albeit at MGM's British studio) by virtue of Kubrick having relocated to the UK. If you google the terms there are many sources that discuss 2001 within the context of the New Hollywood movement (such as this one). The rationale for a film's inclusion is not always clear (and the language barrier may be exacerbating this in your case) but it doesn't have to be clear to us, in the sense that as editors we are not permitted the luxury of agreeing or disagreeing with the writer. We don't peer review the sources, we simply assess their reliability for the claim. Provided it is clear that the author considers it a New Hollywood film there is no reason for barring the source. Dr Strangelove, on the other hand, is perhaps an inclusion that should be reconsidered, as it is sourced to a catalog and doesn't tend to come up in the context of writings about New Hollywood. Betty Logan (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I and my search skills were unclear as to whether the linked text could be used as a source of information. First of all, what kind of film criticism does Mr./Ms. Renate Hehr, the author of the book, do and to what extent can the text be treated as a source of information by academics?　Next, and all my reading comprehension could tell me was that the New Hollywood approach changed the genre of science fiction films (not the other way around).

It seems to me that these discrepancies stem from Mr./Ms. Betty Logan's differing interpretations of “of.” The Collins COBUILD Learner's Dictionary first defines “of” as follows:

"You use of to say who or what someone or something belongs to, or is connected with."

The dictionary I have on hand says it this way:

"(A) belongs to B while it leaves B. The characteristic of “of” is that it simultaneously indicates the mutual relationship between attribution (I) and provenance (II), and a variety of usages are generated depending on which of these is emphasized. It also indicates the semantic relationship between A and B (III)."

I am not sure what those texts are talking about, even in my own language, but I would judge that "belong(s)" is the key word. New Hollywood is a genre with vague boundaries, but it is a genre and must be excluded carefully as far as what is spoken of with “post-” or “pre-” or “ex-”.To speak of a film as a New Hollywood film, the director or someone associated with him or her would have to consider the film as belonging to the “New Hollywood” (not on the level of influence or impact).--240B:11:BEE0:1410:4881:1CC5:4D9D:CF6C (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The New American Cinema

Unfortunately, the mass deletion of sources and films has resumed, this time deleting The New American Cinema as a source. Following the discussion above it is clear there is no consensus to remove this source from the article. The essay in question is written by David Cook, a Professor in the Department of Media Studies at the University of North Carolina. It forms a wider collection of essays in what is described as "The New American Cinema brings together thirteen leading film scholars who present a range of theoretical, critical, and historical perspectives on this rich and pivotal era in American cinema." The editor has not even provided a coherent explanation as to why he considers it to not be a reliable source. Having taken a look at it there is nothing about it that raises a red flag over its RS status. It may well be the case it does not support every claim it is used for, but that does not justify the wholesale removal of it from the article. The editor is going to have to provide clear reasons why he considers a scholarly work not reliable. If he continues to delete sources and films from the article without providing clear reasons and obtaining a consensus then I will request that the article is placed under protection. Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Very sorry for my misleading statement. I did not exclude “Auteur Cinema and the film generation in 70s Hollywood”,(Cook, David A.) but excluded ” https://www.criterion.com/shop/collection/123-new-american-cinema".　This is the one that deals with websites that sell movie software as a (unreliable)source. If I have excluded Mr.David A. Cook's work as well, it is my mistake.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:68B9:A997:8091:4CAE (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Criterion is a reliable source Espngeek (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have stated before that Criterion is an unreliable source.:

"This is part of a list created for sale by a seller of cell film software, and there is no scholarship behind the source of the information."--240B:11:BEE0:1410:68B9:A997:8091:4CAE (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The Criterion Collection is a commercial operation, which generally Wikipedia frowns upon when it comes to sourcing. It may well be accurate, but that's not quite the same thing as reliable in Wikipedia terms. My advice would be to try and find alternatives for the source. When there are borderline sources in the article it makes it more difficult to defend other sources that are being challenged. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

unreliable sources?

(added)

Davidson, James (12 June 2014). "15 Sleeper Films Of The New Hollywood Era That Are Worth Seeing"(https://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/15-sleeper-films-of-the-new-hollywood-era-that-are-worth-seeing/) ...“The New Hollywood Era” films are not equal to The New Hollywood Films. This article simply talks about “Sleeper Films made during that era”.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:696A:EBA8:28AE:8AEC (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"One great New Hollywood film for every year (1967 to 82)"(https://www.bfi.org.uk/lists/one-great-new-hollywood-film-every-year-1967-1982) ...The title says “New Hollywood film,” but the text spoken of is a “New Hollywood era” film, judging from the context and the commentary. It is somewhat unreasonable to treat non-Hollywood films made in the New Hollywood era, since New Hollywood film was once a movement and is now a genre (although the boundaries are very blurred).--240B:11:BEE0:1410:696A:EBA8:28AE:8AEC (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

New Hollywood is a “movement”

New Hollywood is a “movement” and not an “era”. As stated at the beginning of the article.:

“The New Hollywood, Hollywood Renaissance, American New Wave, or New American Cinema was a movement “

Texts that conflate them, either intentionally or unintentionally, should be carefully avoided as sources of information.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:696A:EBA8:28AE:8AEC (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's probably a bit of both, to be fair, in that it marked the end of the Golden Age of Hollywood. However, I agree that it would be more encyclopedic to describe New Hollywood as a movement consistently throughout the article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, if there are no objections within a few weeks, we will remove as an unreliable source anything that refers to the New Hollywood "era" and "movement" together.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:CC07:2172:41DB:664C (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Whoa there. Sounds like you're willing to remove any source that doesn't call New Hollywood a movement. Unreliable sources are unreliable, sure, but a source referring to New Hollywood as anything but a movement (including calling it an era) is not a good enough reason for removal. If there are several reliable sources calling N.H. an era, at least that should be noted. Carlinal (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Carlinal. It is beyond the purview of Wikipedia editors to regulate language in the sources upon which the article depends. This article should employ an encyclopedic tone, but it is not an WP:RS requirement for every underlying source. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If so, the title and content of the article should be rewritten, and the list of films should be divided into “New Hollywood films” and “New Hollywood era films”. I apologize first of all for my poor language skills and search ability, but as far as I can confirm, there is no text that treats the two as the same thing: “New Hollywood movies are the New Hollywood era."

Since New Hollywood is a “movement,” it would be important to know whether or not they consciously participated in the movement and created the genre, that is, whether they supported it internally or externally, interpreting the movement as a current of the times and making films accordingly.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:21FD:A8C3:6FD4:2116 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The terms are often treated synonymously by sources discussing the topic, so the distinction is irrelevant as far as the films themselves are concerned. Given that there is no firm definition of New Hollywood films anyway, introducing an arbitrary split based on the vagaries of the English language is a futile task. Given your poor grasp of English I would recommend that you do not try to police the English language. Betty Logan (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

No English dictionary or other dictionary available to me treats “movement” and “era” as synonyms. I would appreciate it if Mr./Ms. Betty Logan, a regular commenter on Wikipedia and a master of the English language, could provide such a definition.--240B:11:BEE0:1410:818F:AECC:521F:829 (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We are not discussing dictionary definitions of "movement" and "era", we are discussing how sources describe the "New Hollywood" concept. Some describe it as a movement, and others as an era, because it is time-specific. It is beyond our remit as editors to police the terminology of sources. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Took out Last Tango in Paris

Previously cited as a New Hollywood production despite being an Italian/French co-production. Espngeek (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)