 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
The section had only one main link (Chicano Films), so I included some more and also renamed the section because there is a separate section on women in film and this section seems to only contain content about race and ethnicity. The section needs lots of work. There is very little on how black people are depicted in film beyond exclusion, blackface, and an extensive plot summary of "Moonlight" which takes up most of the space in that paragraph. That plot summary should cut back to a single sentence which lists several films including "Moonlight" that include stereotypical depictions of black people as drug dealers, prostitutes, servants, etc. Then that freed up space could be used for more discussion of things like interracial relationships, blacksploitation, other stereotypes, light vs. dark skin color, actor screen time, pay etc. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hollywood which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What was the first studio in Hollywood itself? I've made two edits and started a thread Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles#First studio about this because I have no idea. Help would be appreciated. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)
New version:
The cinema of the United States, mainly comprised of major film studios (also known as Hollywood) along with some independent film, has had a large effect on the global film industry since the early 20th century.
If you feel otherwise, as the previous version effectively stated, please supply a cite that says Hollywood is fully synonymous with American cinema.
I'm merely a film buff, but let me say it would be shocking news to me if very many independent film houses regarded themselves as part of Hollywood, though they very much regard themselves as part of American cinema. By Hollywood, they usually mean the American institutional behemoth, notorious for having barely any appetite to expand the formulaic box.
No national culture should be so insulted as to be directly equated with the self-glorifying institutional outgrowth of the thing, no matter if it's the Rickey Hendersonofilleistic self-regard.
Perhaps "along with a small but vibrant independent film scene" would sound better, but I'm not one to moot puff language, even when dwarfed to the max by the proximate hindquarters of Puff the Magic Disney Kingdom. — MaxEnt 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood is not failing. It has failed.
- ...
However the probability of a resurrection of the industry through individual expression is slim, for the men of new ideas will not compromise themselves to Hollywood's departmental heads. These artists have come to realize that to compromise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it, to betray it.
In Hollywood the producer intimidates the artist’s new thought with great sums of money and with his own ego that clings to the past of references of box office triumphs and valueless experience. The average artist, therefore, is forced to compromise. And the cost of the compromise is the betrayal of his basic beliefs. And so the artist is thrown out of motion pictures, and the businessman makes his entrance.
First known as a television and film actor, Cassavetes also helped pioneer American independent cinema, writing and directing movies financed partly by income from his acting work.
(Note: I'll try to use US english here)
There is a source in the "Working conditions" section, which backs up content about labor unions. The reliability of this source has been challenged by User:103.156.42.195. The source in question is this: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/UnionsInHollywood
TV tropes is considered generally unreliable, as it is user generated content. A better source needs to be found, but replacing the source with a "citation needed" isn't really the way to do it. 103, do you consider that this information is likely incorrect, or is it "just" referenced to an unreliable source? That will affect where we go from here. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image caption for this film says it's the first western. I changed the wording to be consistent with the Wikipedia article on the film that says that is a debunked myth and it isn't. (Though it's still considered such by some, so the revision still reflects this). 136.159.160.121 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening, all. Recently this article was reverted. This version of the article is rife with grammatical errors as well as including a reference to a foreign film of questionable relevance to the article. Before the reversion, I had made edits to the article to fix some of its poor grammar and diction, add sourced material, and add templates regarding missing information (of which there is much). Other editors had amended erroneous punctuation, and another had also removed the poorly-sourced and irrelevant statement about Vijay's Leo (2023 Indian film). I believe these edits to have improved, if by a small margin, a frankly low-quality Wikipedia article, not to mention one which happens to treat a fairly consequential topic. Therefore, I do not believe this most recent reversion to be justified, "last good version" (the revision summary) hardly qualifying as rationale. As a matter of fact, the degree of the measures undertaken by myself and others to improve this article is not commensurate to the level of attention it actually requires. 174.81.23.127 (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
