Talk:Fictional film/Archive 1

Archive 1

Could "fictional film" also mean a film which exists only within another film, or some other work of fiction? As defined in List of fictional films? GCarty 08:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Or are they better termed fictitious films? William Avery 12:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Fictional film → Fiction film — A "fiction film" is a film that is a work of fiction. A "fictional film" is a film that exists within a work of fiction, for example those in Category:Fictional films. —Otto4711 19:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose - See "Basic Types" in the standard text Film Art: An Introduction by Bordwell and Thompson (ISBN 007114035), p.42-50, in which they explain in some detail the difference between documentary films and "fictional films": "By contrast with documentary, we assume that a fictional film presents imaginary beings, places, or events." (45) and throughout the section (and the book as a whole). I believe the nominator is thinking of a "Fictitious film". The category ought to be Category:Fictitious films (Note: There was a proposal for that here, which failed to observe the use of the term in cinema studies... which is a little strange in itself). DionysosProteus 00:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, the nominator is thinking of "fiction film." And I'll see your Bordwell and raise you Bordwell's own Narration in the Fiction FIlm and Raskin's The Art of the Short Fiction Film plus Aumont's Aesthetics of Film ("The dominant characteristic of the fiction film is that it represents something imaginary, a story.") and many others. I had initially supported the rename of the category to "fictitious" because of the incorrect inclusion of some real plays in the fictional plays category but that problem can be rectified by simple monitoring of the categories. I note that the plays category has remained largely free of real plays. Otto4711 13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Both terms are in use in cinema studies, as your citations demonstrate. The distinction between "fictional" and "non-fictional" in the theatre doesn't apply (since even transcripts of trials turned into plays tend to be re-structured slightly). The point is that the categories use a term incorrectly and adjusting this article to reflect that incorrect usage in not the way to go. "Fictional films" is a correct designation for the subject matter of this article. Fixing the possibility of confusion should occur where the use is incorrect. DionysosProteus 13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Fictional film" is an ambiguous name for this type of film and our goal should be to reduce ambiguity whenever possible. When a non-ambiguous term, that you acknowledge is in use in film scholarship, is available, then we should locate the article there. In this instance, "fiction film" describes the article and its contents and frees "fictional film" to refer to films that exist within other works of fiction. It is certainly appropriate to include information in this article, when it is located at "Fiction film," about the use of the term "fictional film" to mean "fiction film" and the distinction between real films that tell fiction stories and films that only exist in works of fiction. Otto4711 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• It would be inappropriate to use a term that has a meaning in film theory for one invented by wikipedia - that is, "fictional film" to refer to "fictitious films". A fictional film is categorically not a film-within-a-film, as the citation above demonstrates. Are there any reputable citations that use the term in that way? As regards the proposed move, please note that according to the OED, "fiction" is not an adjective (as in "fiction film"); therefore, "fictional film" is the most appropriate phrase. DionysosProteus 22:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is just nonsensical. Look at any disambiguation page. We handle words with multiple meanings all the time. The notion that a "fictional film" can't possibly mean "a film that exists in fiction" flies in the face of common sense. Are you suggesting that fictional character is a faulty construction and that fiction character is correct? "Fictional film" is not different. A "fictional film" is categoricially and unquestionably a film that exists within a work of fiction. The notion that the term "fiction film" is unsuitable to describe narrative films is ludicrous and unsupportable, especially considering the fact that you've already acknowledged that both terms are in use in the literature. The idea that "fiction" can't be used as an adjective because the OED says so is foolish. An adjective is simply a word that modifies a noun. "Car" is a noun but if I talk about a "car loan" then "car" in that instance is an adjective modifying "loan." "Fiction" in the phrase "fiction film" is an adjective modifying "film," just like it's an adjective in the construction "fiction book". Would you suggest that that's wrong too? Would you further suggest that non-fiction is a faulty construction and we should rename everything "non-fictional"? Where does the madness end? Otto4711 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• You are mistaken. Firstly, to indicate correct word use is precisely the job of the OED--if that sense isn't in the dictionary, it isn't a correct use--that is what a dictionary does. Kindly examine what I wrote more closely: I did not say that "fiction film" is unsuitable--as the citations you offered above demonstrate, it is used in that way; I said that "fictional film" is the most appropriate, given the correct use of the words "fiction" and "fictional". Nonfiction is a noun, just like fiction. I've yet to hear the phrase "fiction book" outside of this discussion.
• On the other point you make, your own logic demonstrates my point: a "fictional character" is not a character within a film-within-a-film, but rather merely in a film. "Fictional" does not refer to Story within a story phenomena--you are thinking of the word "fictitious". You claim that "The notion that a "fictional film" can't possibly mean "a film that exists in fiction" flies in the face of common sense"; well, it may fly in the face of your 'common sense', but you claiming something is so doesn't make it so... Wikipedia:Verifiability applies. I'm happy to acknowledge that a word has multiple meanings, but the one you claim for it is not, I believe, one of them, despite what the categories claim. A film that does not exist, outside of the imaginary diegesis of another film, is a Fictitious film; a film that tells a fictional story is a Fictional film; some sources also refer to the latter as a Fiction film, but, as indicated above, the OED indicates that that is not the most appropriate of the two choices; I've provided a source to substantiate my claim; if you can do the same about yours, I'm more than happy to agree that the phrase may be used in that way. DionysosProteus 00:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1) Dictionaries do not mandate meaning; they record usage. And regardless of whether the OED or any other dictionary happens to note that "fiction" may be used as an adjective, the simple fact is that "fiction" can be and is used as an adjective when it modifies a noun, as in "fiction film" or "fiction book" or "non-fiction film" or "non-fiction book." That the OED is behind the times on how a particular word is used is irrelevant. I can't really help it if you haven't heard the term "fiction book" elsewhere. Wander into most any bookstore and you'll probably see signs up that indicate where to find "fiction books" or the "fiction section" (in which the word "fiction" is used as an adjective, modifying the noun "section") along with signs for "non-fiction books" or the "non-fiction section" (in which "non-fiction" is also an adjective used to modify the nouns "book" and "section"). "Science" is a noun, as are "anatomy," "chemistry," "geology" and "physics" and I bet the OED lists them as such. Are you suggesting that we rename Category:Science books and its anatomy, chemistry, geology, physics and other subcats to adjectival forms, despite the common sense knowledge that each of those constructions is common usage? And oh dear, what to do with Category:Science fiction books? Two nouns acting as adjectives at the same time, those cheeky devils! Have they no respect for the OED?! Clearly it must be renamed to Category:Scientific fictional books immediately!
• 2) I've never heard of it cuts no ice as an argument. I'm sure there are all sorts of things you've never heard of, and I know there are all sorts of things I've never heard of. Structuring Wikipedia on the basis of what you and I have heard of would make for a very poor Wikipedia indeed.
• 3) I never claimed that a "fictional character" is a character within a film that is within a film. What I said was that a "fictional character" is a character that exists in a work of fiction, just like a "fictional film" is a film that exists in a work of fiction.
• 4) I've already provided multiple sources that demonstrate that the term "fiction film" is widely used to mean what I say it does and you have in fact acknowledged that it is. Your insistence that it doesn't mean that when you've already admitted that it does is bizarre. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the construction "fiction films" despite all your bloviating to the contrary. It is simple, logical usage that is supported by common sense and verified by multiple sources and the fact that you don't like it is no reason to prevent the move. Otto4711 04:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear me. It's really not that difficult to understand. Please read more closely.

Firstly - your suggestion that the OED has somehow missed this valuable and wide-spread use of a common word like "fiction" is absurd. I mean, really. You're honestly proposing that the OED missed it? Perhaps you should email them and let them know. I'm sure they'll be ever so grateful!

Secondly - the reason I haven't heard the term "fiction book" is that no one with a firm grasp of the English language uses it. Including, I might add, bookstores - they have sections with signs that say "Fiction" - it's a noun - consult the dictionary, oh wait, right, they're wrong, not you. Silly me. With regard to Science book, actually, the correct phrase is "Scientific book", because, yes, you've guessed it, the adjective is "scientific". "Science fiction" is in the dictionary. Before attempting sarcasm, I encourage you to consult one; it sounds like it has many surprises in store.

Thirdly - I'm aware that you didn't claim that a fictional character is within a film within a film, but according to your logic, you ought to have, to be consistent with the argument you're making. You misunderstand the difference between "fictional film" and "fictional mountain", for example. Some films are not fictional. The film is the thing that draws the boundary between fiction and reality. It is not a member of its own set. And, yet again, I ask you to provide a source for your claim. Do that, and my pesky little insistence on using words correctly will no longer trouble you. I will be more than happy to agree with you. But, I'm afraid, I believe you are mistaken. "Structuring Wikipedia on the basis of what you and I have heard of would make for a very poor Wikipedia indeed" you say. I agree. I have provided sources-- Film Art and the OED --to substantiate my claims. Kindly provide yours so I can go examine them and see for myself, and, in fact, be more than happy to agree with you.

Fourthly - it appears that you're having difficulty following. You say "Your insistence that it doesn't mean that when you've already admitted that it does is bizarre". Let me repeat the relevant bit for you: "some sources also refer to the latter as a Fiction film, but, as indicated above, the OED indicates that that is not the most appropriate of the two choices"; clearer? No? How about from a posting before that: "Both terms are in use in cinema studies, as your citations demonstrate"? As I've made quite clear, I suggest that both terms are used but the OED indicates that of the two Fictional film is the most appropriate.

Fifthly - bloviate. a colloquialism, it's true, but still, how cute. I expect a phrase in Latin next, at the very least. But for bloviate, I hearby designate you honorificabilitudinitatibus. DionysosProteus 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't give a flying fig what the OED says is or isn't propah English.
• Close to 2,000,000 Ghits beg to differ with your ridiculous assertion that "no one with a firm grasp of the English language uses it." As do close to 200 Google News hits, 1150 Google Books hits and my mom, for what it's worth. Now it is true that a goodly number of those various hits are going to include hits that use the phrase "fiction book" as part of a larger phrase, such as "science fiction book," but enough of them use it as a standalone phrase that your clinging to this notion that it's bad English carries with it more than a whiff of disingenuousness.
• If you believe that Category:Science books and its subcategories are misnamed, I encourage you to list them at WP:CFD. I think you'll find that common sense will prevail over lunacy.
• Again, I have provided multiple sources, including one co-written by the same person who wrote yours, that attest to the use of the phrase "fiction film." More importantly, you stated flat out in this very discussion that the terms are used to mean the same thing. Otto4711 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to tell whether you're being serious or not. On the off chance that you are, kindly re-read my previous post. You appear not to have done so. Repeating, ad nauseum (did you see how I sneaked the latin in?), once more, I acknowledge "fiction film" is used, wearily once more, it's not the most appropriate. See the dictionary. Read it. It's immaterial whether you give a flying fig about anything we're discussing. The proposal is to move an article in an online reference work. Correct language use is the least we should be able to expect from such a project.

Now re-read my posting. No one with a proper grasp of English uses "fiction book". The phrase is just plain dumb, in the mouth of anyone. That's what I wrote above. But feel free to misquote me again.

Now provide a source for the ridiculous assertion you keep throwing around and the only one which I have repeatedly objected to, repeatedly informing you that I don't believe it means what you imagine it does, that "Fictional film" means a film-within-a-film. Your proposal reads: "A "fictional film" is a film that exists within a work of fiction". You made the argument. Now substantiate it. DionysosProteus 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• "The dictionary sez so" ranks as an argument at roughly the same level as "this guy told me." In other words, worthless. Now, if I were arguing that the article should be moved to, say "Elephant films" because I believed that "elephant" meant "fiction" then citing the dictionary might carry some weight. Sadly for you, the fiction boat has sailed and "fiction film" is part of the lexicon of film studies. But of course you know this already, because, as you said so eloquently, "Both terms are in use in cinema studies." I'm sorry that your snobbery about language leads you to pathologically resist the simple fact that enormously vast numbers of English-speaking people grasp the notion that "fiction book" is perfectly acceptable usage, as is "fiction film." You might want to speak with a licensed grammarian about it, or perhaps a licensed therapist. "It's not appropriate" brings to mind the image of my maiden auntie, fanning herself vigorously upon hearing of someone's using the wrong fork or folding down the incorrect corner of their calling card, clutching her smelling salts and exclaiming "it just isn't done!" Sadly for you and for my dear auntie, times change and language evolves. Deal with it. Otto4711 06:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh... Your attempts to avoid the point are so sweet. You know full well that the OED has been the most authoritative guide to language use in English for centuries, but your attempt to dismiss that authority is valiant in the face of its obvious futility. Despite your claims of "vast numbers", it remains true that the phrase "ficiton book" is dumb. Very, very dumb. But by all means go ahead an write to the OED to inform them of their mistake. It would be most entertaining to hear their response. But to the point: You have made a proposal. You have presented an argument:

“ A "fictional film" is a film that exists within a work of fiction ”

Now substantiate this claim of yours and provide a source that agrees with you. Otherwise, let us know that you were just making it up. And that, as we have agreed, is not an appropriate basis for a Wikipedia article. DionysosProteus 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Look Perfessor, your being a language snob about the term "fiction book" doesn't make its usage any less real. As for sources that use the term "fictional film" to mean a film that exists in fiction, we have a PBS review of the Wim Wenders film The Soul of a Man - "The film tells the story of these artists' lives in music through a fictional film-within-a-film..." and this Time Magazine review of that Atom Egoyan film Moving the Mountain, which describes the film being made by the fictional filmmaker within the film as a "fictional film" and this Socialist Review review of The Caiman that describes the "fictional film within a film" from that movie, and...is that enough? That's three reliable sources that use the term "fictional film" exactly as I said it's used and there are plenty more where they came from. Otto4711 16:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Awww, name-calling again? I can just imagine you there, a-huffing and a-puffing. Bless. Sadly, however, the articles you cite do not provide the evidence you wish they did. They use "fictional film-within-a-film" (a term I have no problems with, as that's an accurate way to describe it); the only one that does use "fictional film" in the sense that you're trying to give it is the Time review - that is, it is within the context of a discussion of a Fictional film (Moving the Mountain) that the term becomes available as a shorthand for a film-within-a-film (mentioned twice in passing). No such context exists in Wikipedia. You have provided one passing reference in a review of a fictional film (in the standard critical usage of the term). I have provided an academic source that defines the term Fictional film in a completely different way from that you're attempting to give it. A fictional film is defined in relation to a documentary. You need to provide a source that defines the term in relation to the general field of cinema, that is, where nothing may be "taken for granted" - to refer to a "fictional film" within the context of a discussion of a fictional film is to be able to assume that the reader would understand that this is a shorthand for film-within-a-film, since the context dictates that we are already within one frame of fictionality. That context-frame is not present in Wikipedia. Offer a source that defines the term in the way you're using it to substantiate your argument. That's what I've done. That's what Wikipedia:Verifiability asks for. You've said the "A "fictional film" is a film that exists within a work of fiction"-- where's the source that says so? DionysosProteus 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh my freaking god. You actually are this nuts. Here's another, a capsule review of the fiction film Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story - "I enjoyed the fictional film portions so much I wonder if it wouldn't have worked all by itself...even though I've heard that the novel itself is virtually unfilmable." And here is a news piece about the production of the fiction film The Majestic - "For instance, in Appleton's office there's a movie poster for the fictional film 'Sand Pirates of the Sahara.'" Here's one for the fictional film Cleaver, which has an article right here on Wikipedia housed in the very appropriately named Category:Fictional films - "Included on the series' swan song [is] a making-of documentary on the film 'Cleaver,' the fictional film made by the character played by Christopher (Michael Imperioli)." Note how that's a fictional film from a TV show which kinda blows through your "film-within-a-film" nonsense. And here is one for another fictional film from a TV show - "Awareness of the subject was recently heightened by "Medellin," a fictional film that was part of an ongoing storyline in the HBO series "Entourage." And so on. I'm quite sure that none of these will satisfy you and you'll tie your knickers in all sorts of knots trying to explain why they don't really count, but I hope that whatever poor administrator has to work through all your noise to make the decision will recognize that the wide-spread usage of the term "fictional film" to mean a film that exists within a work of fiction, coupled with the widespread usage of the term "fiction film" within the literature to mean a narrative film, along with the commonplace and commonsense understanding that "fiction" can and does serve as an adjective despite what the OED says, and of course not forgetting that you acknowledge the use of the term "fiction film" to mean what I've asserted it means and come to the correct conclusion and move this silly little article. Otto4711 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no knicker-twisting here, I assure you. I also remind you of Wikipedia:Civility. You have missed the point. You claim to define the phrase. All I want is a reputable source that gives that definition. As explained above, within the context of a discussion of a Fictional film in my (cited) definition, the use of Fictional film to refer to a film within that fictional film takes for granted the primary layer of fictionality set by the frame of the film. You cannot assume that context here. The correct term for what you are describing is "Fictitious film" - a film that does not exist. "Fictional film" is defined already, as given by the source above. If you have a reputable source for your definition, provide it. There's no twisting or turning there: provide a source that defines the term in the way you claim for it. It's a simple enough and reasonable request. I asked for that source at the beginning of the discussion and for all your flapping you've yet to provide it. If it's so widespread, you won't have trouble locating one, no? Your appeal to "common sense" is explicitly rejected by Wikipedia. The OED on the other hand, is a reputable source. You've claimed a definition is valid - source it and prove it. DionysosProteus 22:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have provided more than a half-dozen sources. One of the sources I cited is by the co-author of the source that you cited. When you offer him up as a source for your argument dismissing him as a source for mine is irrational. I have also quoted Jacques Aumont directly - "The dominant characteristic of the fiction film is that it represents something imaginary, a story." Are you calling Jacques stupid or a liar? Otto4711 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you being serious? No, really. It's not the fiction/fictional part, it's a source for your definition of "Fictional film". A source that defines "Fictional film" as "A "fictional film" is a film that exists within a work of fiction". A definition, please! DionysosProteus 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've offered you source after source after source that demonstrate the usage. You've even acknowledged that a film within a film, in other words a film that exists within a work of fiction, is a "fictional film." So, since you've already admitted that the definition I've offered is valid and I've demonstrated that it's in use, your pathetic insistence on this battle is completely stupid and a total waste of my time. I'm tired of dealing with your intellectual dishonesty. Feel free to scream at the rain some more. I'm done trying to convince you of something you've already agreed to but still pretend you haven't. Otto4711 02:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. From start to end, you have evaded my simple request for a source that provides the definition you're claiming. The proposal is out of step with the way the phrase is used within critical literature--period. I have no desire to "battle" with you. Provide a source that defines "fictional film" in the way you claim and we're done. But you can't, can you? Wanna know why? Because you've made a mistake. There is no psychological complexity here. It's simple. Provide a source that defines "fictional film" in the way you want the wikipedia article to define it. This is a reference work. We rely on reliable sources. That means if you want to define something, you need a definition from a reliable source. So stop avoiding the issue, claiming you've already done it, and attempting to twist my words until it seems like I'm dumb enough to agree with the ill-conceived proposal. If it means what you say it does, point to a source that says that. The rest is just hot air. 04:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Wikipedia needs SOME convention to distinguish a film that is a work of fiction from a film that exists only in the world of a work of fiction. I suppose that a film X which is a work of fiction that only exists in the world of film Y which is a work of fiction, is a fictional fiction film. And as more and more of Y is filmed and shown in the real world, until it is nearly or absolutely complete, it may be said to gradually stop being fictional. It may happen that the fragment of Y seen in the real world as part of X, is treated by the real audience as an internal advertisement for a forthcoming real complete Y, causing public demand for Y, as may have happened with Buzz Lightyear of Star Command. Anthony Appleyard 10:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a film that exists only in the world of a work of fiction is a fictive film--victor falk 11:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of Seinfeld fictional films

So why does the above article link, in its introductory sentence (!), to fictional film? <KF> 00:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Tariqabjotu:

Hi, I'm quite at a loss as to what to do now that you, following, as it seems to me, an informed minority, decided on "no move" in the case of Fictional film. Not only do the List of Seinfeld fictional films, the Category:Fictional films itself, the article on Fictional character, and the List of fictional books follow a different definition of "fictional" (while Category:Fictitious films is obviously a no-no), there also seems to be no place now where I could put, well, the films that exist only in the world of a work of fiction which I came across while reading Gilbert Adair's A Mysterious Affair of Style.

I'm going to post a copy of the above at Talk:Fictional film, but can you yourself think of a solution?

All the best, <KF> 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1