Talk:Hyperlink cinema

Categorization

Wait, how is Reservoir Dogs hyperlink cinema? As far as I can remember it all revolves around the 5 main characters, and they're all together right from the beginning. Luvcraft 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And how is City of God a "canonical example" of hyperlink cinema? It is mainly told from the point of view of the photographer, with some omniscience into scenes that he was not a part of. There were hardly many different story arcs, and it is not "characterized by globe-spanning locations, multiple languages, ... strict parameters in terms of art direction, cinematography and mise en scène are used in each story line, ... use of radically different cinematography to define each arc."

Either the definition is screwy, or the list is. I'm removing City of God, but more importantly: we shouldn't be including items in this list just because some random person happened to mention them in a blog posting. Either this is a well-defined term, and there is agreement on what makes a movie an example of "hyperlink cinema", or this list is basically original research. 128.197.120.31 [not logged in, Asbestos 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Asbestos here, I think anything taken from a guys blog should not be on here. I looked at his page and he is in no way an expert in the field, he makes websites. Also can anyone find the review of Happy Endings by Alissa Quart? It would be nice to have the origin of this phrase as a source.Gorkymalorki 06:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

ID4

Would 'Independence Day', directed by Roland Emmerich, be considered a hyperlink film?

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Find an authoritative source stating it is, and you can add it. If there's no such source, don't. Chuck 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sin City

Hi! Since the characters' lives are being portrayed in somewhat parallel narratives which intersect at certain points, would this be a good example of the aforementioned category? Thanks! Heavenstorm 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it is--I would call it an anthology rather than a hyperlink film (and yes, I'm aware that characters from each storyline appear in the others, but they don't really interact), but admittedly that's a very fuzzy line. But I'm no film critic so what I think isn't really relevant. Is there an authoritative source that says Sin City is an example of hyperlink cinema? If so, go ahead and add it to the article, and cite the source, and you'll already be ahead of the other examples here. Chuck 21:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many examples

Everyone is putting in pictures that have flashbacks or more than two plot lines—technically, this would include Stars Wars and Citizen Kane. I'm going to prune off the spurious examples, because they're that—spurious. Hope no-one has a cow.--TallulahBelle 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Magnolia and Happy Endings

Undoubtedly a great film, Magnolia isn't quite a Hyperlink film, principally because two of the defining characteristics of the genre—abrupt visual breaks based on cinematography and mise en scene, and globe spanning story lines—are missing. The same of course could be said of Happy Endings—however, that film is included in the list because it was the film that originated the concept. --TallulahBelle 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Magnolia is also in the original coining of the phrase, the link to the creators article is http://www.alissaquart.com/articles/2005/08/networked_don_roos_and_happy_e.html I think that after reading this, there needs to be a rewrite of this article, The definition that is on the Hyperlink cinema page is that of a bloggers and needs to be removed and rewritten according to the originators definition of the term.Gorkymalorki 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In progress. —Viriditas | Talk 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What about Pulp Fiction?

I do not understand why Pulp Fiction, an obvious example of a hyperlink film, is not included on this page.

Mynamejonascuomo 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

me neither. it pretty much popularized, if not invented the genre.

Agreed. I added Pulp Fiction. Lhw1 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

I removed the Third paragraph that was littered with citation tags. all of it was original research. Also The list needs to be cut down to only movies that have been identified as Hyperlink Cinema. The rest of them are original research and Listcruft. Those that have been identified by reliable sources are Happy Endings, Syriana, Magnolia, Crash, Opposite of Sex, Time Code, Nashville, Short Cuts and Nine Lives. All of those films have been named as Hyperlink Cinema by credible sources. If you want to add anything else to the list make sure that you have a reliable source calling it Hyperlink Cinema.Gorkymalorki 01:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Found an article the Ebert says that City of God, Amores Perros, and Cape of good hope are also Hyperlink Cinema.Gorkymalorki 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This line

"Hyperlink cinema is often characterized by globe-spanning locations, multiple languages, and frequent though unannounced use of flashback and flashforward."

I have to doubt its veracity. While I'm sure this is true of some films, it certainly isn't true of all films with multiple unconnected storyarcs about different people which effect one another. Atropos 07:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I must have missed that one when editing out the unsourced material a couple of days ago. I took care of it. Gorkymalorki 08:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop Adding Unsourced Movies

Unless you can find an article from a reliable source saying that a movie is part of the hyperlink cinema genre, do not add it please. I am trying my hardest to keep this page free of any unsourced info. Most people add Pulp Fiction to here, but Pulp Fiction is considered an Anthology film. Gorkymalorki 01:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In Pulp Fiction, at least all the threads interact (e.g. most storylines involve Marcellus), unlike Gomorra. Remove Gomorra. Sunnan (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to fuller description and fewer examples

I have been reverting the cuts and additions made by User:Gorkymalorki for two reasons:

Number one, the cuts in the body of text made by User:Gorkymalorki are eliminating part of the definition of what a hyperlink movie is, as described by both Roger Ebert and Alissa Quart in their original articles, specifically, the issues of radically different cinematography and mise en scene, the globe-spanning locations,

Number two, the examples User:Gorkymalorki is including do not fit the parameters of what a Hyperlink movie is, again vid. Ebert and Quart. It is not enough that there be multiple storylines to qualify as a Hyperlink movie. If it were, then Chaplin's The Great Dictator would be an example of the genre, which it clearly is not. Adding extraneous examples muddies the issue and renders the genre meaningless.

There is no question that many films before Syriana and Traffic led up to the hyperlink genre. Obvious examples would be Nashville, Short Cuts, and especially Jim Jarmusch's ]]Night On Earth]]. However, again according to Ebert and Quart, Hyperlink cinema is more a product of the 21st century than of the 20th, albeit films from the past most certainly influenced of this particular genre.

I urge User:Gorkymalorki to be more judicious in his/her edits. --TallulahBelle 00:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have is that you are using unsourced information. I can find nowhere in any of the articles that are cited that supports this whole part-

Hyperlink cinema is often characterized by globe-spanning locations, multiple languages, and frequent though unannounced use of flashback and flashforward. Also, strict parameters in terms of art direction, cinematography and mise en scène are used in each story line, so as to create an abrupt visual break when cutting between characters and arcs.

The genre was generally identified as such in 2005 with Syriana, though its development can be traced back to the beginning of cinema. It is generally agreed that director Robert Altman is a major influence on the development of the hyperlink movie. The first true hyperlink movie was Traffic (directed by Steven Soderbergh), which systematically defined and applied the basic rules of hyperlink cinema: Multiple story arcs, multiple (and international) locations, use of radically different cinematography and mise en scène to define each story arc, and character ignorance of defining events occurring in other story arcs.

Infact one of your claims, that Traffic started it, is contradicted in Eberts review of Cape of Good Hope "The movie belongs to a genre that has been named "hyperlink cinema" by the critic Alissa Quart, in Film Comment. She suggests the structure was invented by Robert Altman" And in Quart's article it says "Happy Endings, which Roos also scripted, joins his The Opposite of Sex (98) in the hyperlink canon, alongside the likes of Magnolia, Time Code, and, most recently, Crash (with a special mention for tv’s 24)."

also many of these movies do not have international loacations, and multiple languages, so your definition is a bit off. If you could just cite where you are getting all of this from, I would not mind, but it is better to have a smaller, sourced article, than it is to have a large, unsourced article.Gorkymalorki 08:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written this description sticking to only what can be sourced per WP:V and WP:OR dissolve^talk 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! I like it much better now. Chuck (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Only recent examples?

While I think this "hyperlink cinema" is pretty much a fad and is being overused over the last few years, it's not nearly as recent as this article makes it out to be. Surely Robert Altman (especially "Short Cuts") had an influence, as did Lawrence Kasdan's "Grand Canyon"

Poor Definition

I'm sorry, the "global locations" and "multiple languages" bit is just complete bull. Those are artistic choices for a director, not an integral aspect of the genre, which is about a large number of random characters whose lives collide. Crash (recognized by Ebert), Lock-Stock-And-Two-Smoking-Barrels, and Snatch thus all qualify. In fact, expanded to the TV medium, The Wire and Heroes qualify. IF they do not, and IF the aforementioned concepts ARE important, then what should be painfully obvious (but apparently isn't) is that cinema experts need a new name for a genre/style that can accomodate a broader definition. Crash and Babel and Syriana and Snatch HAD something big in common. That needs a name, period. "Hyperlink" is the easiest one out there.

Also, Traffic did NOT "start" the hyperlink genre, even by the inadequate standards provided. Snatch (released earlier in 2000) beat it to the punch by months. By the way, that one WAS international (New York, London, Antwerp) and DID feature multiple languages (Dutch, Russian, English), so even by the poor definition provided it makes the cut.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.150.71 (talk) 13:10, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 

Crash does not fit

I have to question the current definition. "Multiple story lines, multiple (and international) locations, multiple characters, use of radically different cinematography and mise en scène to define each story line..." In Crash: The film is set solely in L.A While different cinematography is employed, it is far from separating story-lines. (Halation is used frequently across all story-lines and is to make viewers physically uncomfortably, and definitely not to 'define each story-line.') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.133.65 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I used to have this article pretty well maintained and I had all that stuff deleted but someone kept putting it up faster than I could delete it, and then I took a wikibreak and came back to check on this page and it has really gotten way out of context. Gorkymalorki 04:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedantic?

"...though its development can be traced back to the beginning of cinema, starting from 1975." This may be a little pedantic, but I somehow doubt the accuracy of this statement. Cinema existed a long time before 1975... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.133.65 (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebert Definition

Roger Ebert just provided his own official definition for the Hyperlink Film two days ago on his website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.9.98 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Neologism

My concern with this article is that the term is a neologism. Although there are a few articles that use the term, there are no article or books cited specifically about the term (WP:NEO). A few reviews by Roger Ebert does not a genre make. dissolve^talk 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NEO does not forbid all articles about neologisms, just specific subsets thereof, and I don't believe this article falls into the prohibited classes: the article does more than merely define the term (it has at least a kernel of the historical development of the genre); and it does more than merely "attempt[s] to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet."

As far as reliable sources, when it comes to movies, you don't get much more reliable than Roger Ebert.

If you're referring to the bit in WP:NEO that says "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term," I think you're misinterpreting that--I think the point is to avoid justifying articles on neologisms whose only sources are those in which the term is used without any analysis of the concept described by the term. While it's true there aren't any articles purely about hyperlink cinema, the Quart and Ebert articles cited clearly do more than simply using the term; they do spend some time discussing and analyzing the genre. Chuck (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Does 11:14 qualify?

Does Greg Marcks' thriller titled 11:14 (2003) qualify? -- bkil (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking for the purpose of including it as an example in the article? If that's the case, it would qualify only if there's a reliable source which says it's a hyperlink film. Remember: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiabilty, not truth.

Or did you just want to know? My gut instinct, after reading its article, is that it is not because the movie is really just one coherent story, although it is told in an unusual order. To me, a hyperlink film is a set of loosely connected stories which interact with each other in a few points throughout the movie. But I'm not an expert on the matter, and furthermore I haven't actually seen 11:14, so your guess is probably at least as good as mine. Chuck (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Lantana

This one is definitely a hyperlink film, but the closest thing I can come up with to a source is Roger Ebert's review (at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020118/REVIEWS/201180303/1023) which compares it to Short Cuts and Magnolia. Would this be enough? 202.168.103.248 (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that as a reference justifying its inclusion here. Chuck (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the film. dissolve^talk 00:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Love Actually

Is there any rule that says a Hyperlink film can't be a romantic comedy? Because Love Actually would seem to qualify.

The other thing is my source, http://tischfilmreview.com/blog/2008/12/29/i-need-to-know-who-he-is-the-search-for-certainty-in-david-fincher’s-zodiac/. Technically, he's using Love Actually to question the broad criteria of the genre, but that doesn't mean it isn't one. 203.208.67.34 (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a similar proposal for Playing by Heart (1998), which is undoubtedly a hyperlink movie. Lhw1 (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hyperlink TV/Literature

Should we add sections for these, considering that 24 is already mentioned as an example? Other shows that would seem to qualify are Six Degrees and Heroes (I have a source for Heroes which describes it as "X-Men meets Magnolia." Especially the first season, which often feels like one 16-hour Hyperlink Movie which would not get boring if watched from beginning to end.

As for literature, Middlemarch is the only one that comes to mind, but I don't have a source for it yet. 203.208.67.34 (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly other works. Michael Chabon's Telegraph Avenue features a good deal of cinematic cross-cutting and interweaving of scenes, even including one eleven-page single-sentence "tracking shot" that checks in on several of the storylines. Yann Martel's The High Mountains of Portugal also comes to mind, which presents three stories all connecting in a particular moment, not unlike the structure of Amores Perros.

The Player

I don't think The Player really counts - from memory, Griffin Mills appears in pretty much every scene, and every scene is to do with the blackmail, the murder investigation or the movie Habeas Corpus. 203.208.67.34 (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, The Player does not count. One of the problems with this page is that films are being included because they've been mentioned in articles related to the subject by writers who haven't looked at the subject very clearly and are just throwing films that sort of look similar.

Here's the thing, and I've waited a few years to mention this. I wrote my dissertation about Hyperlink cinema in 2006 when it was arguably at its zeitgiesty height and managed to pin down very well what Hyperlink cinema is -- I watched over two hundred films. What is amounts to is a range of characters of various social backgrounds with interacting in a range of different locations who somehow tangentially interact. If the film as a single viewpoint character it isn't a hyperlink film. If it's all set in one place amongst friends or family members it isn't a hyperlink film. Let's look at the films I've seen in current list as it stands:

  * Nashville (1975) [2]

Depends. One of the issues I came up against was whether a film could be considered a hyperlink drama if there was a single umbrella narrative, which in the political element of the story this does. Everything in the film is working towards the final rally, with the individual characters all governed by that. In hyperlink dramas, though there may be an event or incident which connects them they aren't all directly effected by it. Not all of the characters have anything to do with the quiz show in Magnolia. The earthquake in Short Cuts is just an environmental reminder to the characters. I'd say if Nashville is a hyperlink drama, so are dozens of disaster films, especially Deep Impact.

   * After Hours (1985) [6]

No, no, no. Single viewpoint character over a single night. One story.

   * The Player (1992) [7]

No. One protagonist across a single story narrative. It's a neo-noir set in the film studios. None of the hundreds of cameo characters have their own story.

   * Short Cuts (1993) [2]

Yes. If anything it's the film which really crystalised the form.

   * Pulp Fiction (1994) [8]

No. If anything it's a portmanteau or ensemble film. If you watch it in chronological order, apart from the Butch section which drops in at the end, it's all about Vincent Vega.

   * The Opposite of Sex (1998) [1]

No. Ensemble film. Two sets of characters but really only one story.

   * Magnolia (1999) [1]

Yes. Multiple characters, multiple social classes, multiple locales.

   * Timecode (2000) [1]

Yes. Though see above for discussion of issues related to single events providing connective tissue.

   * Amores Perros (2000) [3]

Yes.

   * Traffic (2000) [7]

Yes.

   * Lantana (2001) [9]

Yes, though just about. Because of the family connections it could equally be considered an ensemble drama.

   * City of God (2002) [7]

No -- which I was very surprised to discover. Single protagonist, one story.

   * 21 Grams (2003) [3]

No. If you try not get too excited by the editing, it is in fact a very simply structured ensemble film with three protagonists whose stories all dovetail into a single climax, with an intricate flashback and flashforward structure bolted on.

   * Cape of Good Hope (2004) [7]

Yes, judging by Ebert's review.

   * Crash (2004) [1]

Yes.

   * Happy Endings (2005) [1]

Yes -- along with Short Cuts and Love Actually, this was one of the three films I gave the most analysis to. Though it formally has the elements of an ensemble drama, there are three separate stories and the characters only vaguely know each other.

   * Syriana (2005) [2]

Yes. Though its surprisingly borderline because ultimately there is one umbrella story effecting all of the characters.

   * Babel (2006) [3]

Yes.

Of the others, looking the synopses there does seem to be the odd instance of ensemble dramas (where most of the characters are connected through an institution, family or work) are being mistaken for hyperlink dramas, as well as single or parallel protagonist stories because they happen to take place across continents. If that was the case, most James Bond films could be considered hyperlink dramas. Here's a list of the film I verified as being hyperlink dramas, from the appendixes of my dissertation, which hasn't been published so I know don't count as verified sources but I thought you might find interesting:

20:30:40 (2004) 200 Cigarettes (1998) Amores Perros (2000) Babel (2006) Bedrooms and Hallways (1998) Black & White (1999) Carnages (2002) City of Hope (1991) Crash (2004) Cyclo (1995) Duets (2000) Exotica (1994) Festival (2005) Go (1999) Goldfish Memory (2003) Grand Canyon (1991) Happiness (1998) Happy Endings (2005) Heights (2004) The Hours (2002) Intermission (2003) It's the Rage (1999) Lantana (2001) Last Night (1998) Le Gout des Autres (2000) Love Actually (2003) Magnolia (1999) Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) Nashville (1975) Pret-A-Porter (1994) Ragtime (1981) The Safety of Objects (2001) Seaside (2002) Short Cuts (1993) Snatch (2000) Sunshine State (2002) Survive Style 5+ (2004) Syriana (2006) Thirteen Conversations About One Thing (2001) Three Seasons (1999) Timecode (2000) Traffic (2000) Two Days In The Valley (1996) Your Friends And Neighbors (1998)

So there is a text about Hyperlink cinema knocking about (title: TO WHAT EXTENT IS ‘HYPERLINK CINEMA’ IDENTIFIABLE AS A GENRE AND WHAT ARE ITS CONVENTIONS?, 24,000 words including citations). It just hasn't been published yet. (Stuart Ian Burns (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

• Personally, I agree with you on Pulp Fiction, but it's got a reliable source calling it a hyperlink film. If there's another reliable source out there saying it isn't we could add an explanation saying it's disputed, A says it is, B says it isn't; but without such a source I can't justify removing or altering it, much as I'd like to. Unfortunately, an (as-yet) unpublished manuscript is not verifiable and not eligible to use as a source. Chuck (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Traffik (1989 TV miniseries)

Without wanting to get into the debate about the definition of hyperlink cinema, is it worth mentioning here that Traffic (which was written by Stephen Gaghan who later also wrote Syriana, both commonly mentioned as prominent hyperlink films), was based on Traffik, the 1989 British television serial/mini-series which already featured three different stories taking place in different countries?

The series is always credited as the source material for the film, but should this article also acknowledge it as an influence on the style of hyperlink cinema? --129.215.4.116 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No_country_for_old_men?

No_country_for_old_men?--x1987x^(talk) 17:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It didn't come off as a hyperlink film to me. But then, what I think doesn't matter; the question is, is there a reliable source stating that No Country for Old Men is a hyperlink film? Chuck (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In or out?

I would vote to include Go, Magnolia and (reluctantly) Sin City. In response to a previous poster's points about Magnolia I would argue that Hyperlink cinema doesn't necessarily need to include global storylines (Pulp Fiction and Amores Perros don't...) and I would argue that it does use abrupt visual breaks to switch between storylines.

I would vote NOT to include:

Timecode - fantastic as it is there are, by definition, no jumps in time and all characters are related to each other through a central point of interest.

City of God - very centered around one character, I can't understand how this is hyperlink cinema. If it is then so is Goodfellas...

Reservoir Dogs - all characters are related to the same crime.

No Country for Old Men - WHAT!?!?

Love Actually - no jumps in time. Also my mind can't cope with having this in the same list as Inarittu's death trilogy...

It's not a vote. Whether a film is listed here as a hyperlink film depends on whether there's a reliable source that says it's a hyperlink film, not whether 58 Wikipedia editors "vote" that it is and 53 "vote" that it is not.Chuck (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Finally, After Hours is very definitely not an example of hyperlink cinema. It all revolves around one character and there are no jumps in time whatsoever. If this is hyperlink cinema then so is The Big Lebowski. I'm going to remove this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpcohen1968 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

After Hours had a citation to Roger Ebert's review, which says it "could be called" a hypertext film. I'm pretty sure Roger Ebert constitutes a reliable source when it comes to film criticism. You are free to add The Big Lebowski as a hypertext film as well if there's a reliable source that says that it is one. Chuck (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Nolan's Filmography

I wanted to ask if there was a deliberate exclusion of Christopher Nolan's early films, that would seem to fall within the realm of hyperlink cinema. Sticking with the focus on multi-linear storytelling and non-traditional narrative structure, I think the Prestige and Inception might be considered "Hyperlink Cinema".

Many of his other films (Following, Memento) perhaps overly focus on the development of one character, but I am surprised there is no mention. Open to opinions on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiaheroyet (talk • contribs) 19:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you that Memento seems like an obvious fit. I also wish that there was a differentiation made between an Anthology film and a Hyperlink film in this article like the one in Anthology film. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Memento is a single story about a man with memory problems, told backwards, with occasional flashbacks. How is that obviously hyperlink? In any case, can we please agree that nothing goes in the list unless there is a reliable source that supports it going there? There are too many films on this list based on a reference which turns out to be a review only. I've started pruning but this is job for someone who also speaks Turkish (a few are there purely on the say-so of one of Turkey's scholar-critics, assuming that the WP editor is a fluent reader of Turkish and got his ref's right. Pretty shaky: he or she provided no page numbers, etc., to the book cited. Another film was there based on an interview with the director, but the director was talking about all his films and there was practically nothing in the interview related to this. One more thing: the list does not have to be "complete" (no such list ever can be: can you list "all" the tragedies ever written--what would be the point?), it just has to give a few solid examples. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyperlink cinema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203214153/http://alissaquart.com/networked_don_roos_and_happy_e/ to http://alissaquart.com/networked_don_roos_and_happy_e/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What?

The lead sentence makes no sense at all. "Hyperlink cinema is a style of filmmaking characterised by complex or multilinear narrative structures, which are used in ways that are informed by the World Wide Web" That is patent gibberish. It needs explaining and expanding Sirhissofloxley (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Describe films as "hyperlink" in their individual article intros?

I've always enjoyed films of this kind and didn't have a descriptor to look up more like them. It would have helped if, for instance, Disconnect (2012 film) said something like "Disconnect is a 2012 American psychological drama hyperlink film".

Should we add this term, at least to films that most hyperlink?

We could start with the films mentioned by the film reviewer in the article where this term was coined back in 2005: Happy Endings, Crash, Magnolia etc. Antrikshy (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)