Jump to content

Talk:List of 3D films (2005–present)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

First 3 Shrek movies are missing

Hallo i'm new to wiki, so sorry if i'm doing something wrong.. btw.. The first 3 Shrek Movies are missing from the list, they have been converted in 3d for Blu-Ray release, sold exclusively for launch of Samsung 3d TVs. They are one of the few movies in CGI that have been converted. I'm not much skilled to edit myself, so the best i can do is to pointing this out.. cheers.

catu carabai (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Kylie: Aphrodite Les Folies 3D

Does this count, it was shows in Cinemas in the UK, Ireland and will be shown in Australia and New Zealand. It has later showings in the UK. It was not live.

Aphrodite_World_Tour#Broadcasts_and_recordings

http://www.kylie.com/cinema/

sailor iain (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Added. If Justin Bieber and Hannah Montana are on the list, I'm pretty damn sure the lovely Kylie deserves a spot too :o) Barry Wom (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

3D vs. 3-D

We have (at least) four related pages on 3D/3-D technology:

Clearly there is an inconsistency between "3D" & "3-D". I checked both Merriam Webster (USA) and Collins (UK) and both show "3-D" and not "3D" ... also, I ran a Google search of each term and found 367 million hits for "3D" and 1.2 billion hits for "3-D".

By both measures, I believe we should be using "3-D" throughout in the above pages (and maybe more).

Enquire (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Books has 134,550 hits for 3D and 67,900 hits for 3-D. Google Scholar has 5,950,000 hits for 3D and 2,960,000 hits for 3-D. Just wanted to point these out. The dictionaries' spelling sounds fine, but perhaps check a few more sources like them. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Your observations are interesting and not surprising to me. I have always used "3D" and so was surprised to find that "3-D" is the preferred syntax in two of the most reputable dictionaries (one US dictionary and one UK dictionary). However, for the sake of consistency, we should try to reach consensus on the preferred syntax. I suspect this needs more research and development of consensus. Certainly, it does not seem to be a UK vs. US (or any other national variant) of English spelling.
Enquire (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are writing it "DVD" and not "D-V-D" even if spelling each character separately. For practical reasons its simpler to type that without a dash. If it does not form a word like "3rd dimension" then you will notice on reading it. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You fail at using google, Enquire. There are about half a billion hits for 3D, only about 60 million hits for 3-D. But because google basically treats certain symbols like whitespace, you effectively searched for D and 3 which gets over a billion hits. As for the old-fashion dictionaries, who cares what the prescriptivists wanted the language to be, the ship has sailed on this one. Even if the hyphen were originally justified, it's pretty natural to drop the hyphen from any term that achieves such frequent use. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to table format?

This list of 3-D films would probably be more valuable if it was presented in a sortable table format. The columns would include:

  • Title
  • Year
  • Studio
  • System (technology) film produced with (A/P/Ps,Po,L,...)
  • Projection system (if different/appropriate)
  • Sound (mono, stereo, Dolby, etc..)

The title would be the widest column, with the remaining columns abreviated as follows:

  • 4 characters for year
  • Short form of studio name (maybe 12 or 15 characters is sufficient?)
  • System, two characters (A/P/Ps,Po,L,...)
  • Projection system, maybe 5 characters is sufficient
  • Sound, maybe 9 characters is sufficient

There are possibly one or two other columns that could be valuable, or else just put in notes field. Obviously the title would link to the appropriate Wikipedia entry (if existing), but it would also be nice to have external links in the table to external film directories such as the Internet Movie Database (IMDb).

This would provide a much more flexible presentation and enable users to quickly find films by year, studio, technology (system) etc. depending on what is most relevant to the user.

Enquire (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A sortable table sounds great! First, don't worry about the number of characters. The table is wider than you think. Start with a half dozen examples without worrying about short forms, and we'll go from there. A "Notes" field could be useful, but I'm not sure about this field's precedent in Featured Lists. Lastly, external links should not be placed in the article body, but in the "External links" section at the end. After all, our role is to provide an article, not a directory for readers to use to go elsewhere. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not possible to put the EL at the end, because the EL are specific to an individual record (film title), not the table/list/index as a whole (unless it is a link to another searchable database of 3D film titles). If this was done for each title, and considering that many titles would have multiple external reviews, then the EL section would be much longer than the table itself. If plain URL links were used (with no alternate text), such as [1] were used, then the EL embedded in the table would just be a number with the arrow icon to signify that the number is an external link, taking up practically no horizontal table space. Of course the user can identify the EL by hovering their mouse over the link. Enquire (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
guess why i clicked on the discussion page for this article? i subscribe to your idea forming a sortable list. its lots of attributes in there that have each an individual meaning that might be in the readers special interest. thus easing access for him is a good idea. i have seen the production country is mentioned. that should sort separately - it just wont work if there are multiple such qualifiers for a single film. lets assume the most relevant is in the beginning. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal/Sample:

Title Studio Country Year of
creation 		Year of
distribution 		Technology Notes

In the Italian version of this page there were in a case 5 yeras between production and publishing. Mabe the film length in minutes could be interesting as well. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


I have now converted the article into a sortable table with lots of internal links. I'm inexperienced with tables, so maybe someone could center some of the columns. Year, aspect ratio and runtime would look better centered than left-justified.
Chris TC01 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

List of vs. Index of

With respect to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Index, I am tempted to think that this page should be renamed as Index of 3-D films … or maybe Index of 3D films (see "3D vs. 3-D" above).

Enquire (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

True or not true 3-D

The category 3-D films should be splitted in 2 subcategories: Filmed in 3-D or converted to 3-D. --Bothary (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There aren't very many conversions at this point. I think it's fine for now to mention it in the table itself. Chris TC01 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
But there are more to come. Relatively cost-effective digital post-processing has spawned a new wave of these conversion products. It is also very interesting for the viewer as converted 3-D is mostly seen as very bad viewing experience (see Clash of Titans, Alice in Wonderland and so on). --Bothary (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the OP; there should be some kind of distinction in the table --99.101.160.159 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's already quite clear wich ones are converted and wich are not, at least for me --catu carabai (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Splitting?

This list is already quite long and will become much longer in the near future. How about splitting? let's say 3D films till 2002 and 2003-present like in the 3D film article? --Bothary (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the list is very long. I was thinking about possibly splitting it up into feature films and short films (pretty much everything under 60 minutes) / TV pieces. Only about a third of the list is comprised of theatrically released feature films, and these are the ones most readers are interested about. Obscure technology demos and other films nobody has ever seen just seem to clutter up the list. Of course, there are a lot of films on the list for which there is no runtime availabe, and it may not be obvious what kind of films they are. Chris TC01 (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this list could also be splitted into theatrical 3D films and non theatrical 3d films. I think films with no runtime information could be listed as non theatrical 3d films until proved otherwise. --Bothary (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I too think this list needs a major overhaul. Most interest is surely in 3D feature films and even then I'm guessing that pre-1953 3D feature films are of minority interest. How about the following splitting: Short Subjects and Ridefilms (move all films with a stated runtime of 40 minutes or less into this), Pre-1953 3D films, Non-theatrical 3D films (as Bothary suggests, move all films with no stated runtime into this) ? Also, do we really need the "Production Company" column ? The individual pages on the films themselves have this information. Barry Wom (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Good idea! Go ahead. Instead of the "Production Company" column we could add a "Converted in postproduction to 3D" column as Gawdsmak suggests. But new rendered animations-films should not be added to such a column. Such a 3D is not of inferior stereoscopic quality and it does not count as postproduction it is rather a second time production. --Bothary (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no point in having a column for 2D to 3D conversions. There are only a handful of such films and they can be indicated in the "notes" column. We need to reduce the number of columns in the table to give more space for the titles and notes. I've had a first stab at a split of the table but it's going to take some time. Barry Wom (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I really hope that there will be only a handfull also in the future but I am afraid that there are many more to come. Nevertheless nice to see someone working on an overhaul. :) --Bothary (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The 2D to 3D conversion is the most interesting column, please don't take it away. It indicates which 3D films were a money-grab by a studio and are going to be a bad 3D experience, and a waste of time to buy just to have 3D content at home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.80.171 (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
See the 3-D vs. "Shot in 3-D" section below. Barry Wom (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Section Films presented in digital 3D formats really necessary?

These films are already mentioned in the list above and nearly all 3D-films since 2003 are presented in Digital 3D. I can not see any reason for this section. --Bothary (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The section is completely superfluous. The main list already makes it obvious which films are presented digitally. If additional info is needed, it can be added to the Notes section in the main table. Chris TC01 (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The section is designed to include films that were presented in RealD (sorry if that makes me sound biased, but those who have bias will have bias) or another major digital 3D format. Another criteria for inclusion in that section is having already been released theatrically in RealD or another major digital 3D format (upcoming movies won't be moved to the section until after their first digital 3D public screening). --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
These films are already included in the main list and almost all new 3D feature films presented in digital 3D formats. RealD is only one of them so there is no need to advertise this format especially. --Bothary (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make any sense to me either. It seems like the consensus is to remove this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Also because of this we need an overhaul of the whole article as Barry Wom suggests. --Bothary (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming films also in table

I think it would be better if the list of upcoming films would also be added into a table, that will include release date, details and notes. This is how it used to be, before the merger (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_RealD_films&diff=378695758&oldid=378695400), and it would be a lot easier for people to find basic information about that 3D title (mostly the release date, or if it has been filmed in 3D or converted in post-production, etc) - details that are more useful before seeing the film, than after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristane (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a separated table for upcoming films is a good idea. --Bothary (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

make a seperate "quicklist" that lists all the post production converted 3-d

I think this page should have a seperate little sublist list or "quicklist" for people to quickly see which films were not filmed in 3d. imho those are inferior quality 3d and not true-3d and I would never purchase one of those for my 3-d collection. its too hard and time consuming to search through the entire list if you are just looking for the few non-true 3d films (which I want to avoid buying for my 3d tv) so here I made the list but have not edited the page . if someone supports my idea can you make a nice professional little sub category list. heres the list that i found after searching the entire article(this list does not contain upcoming films converted to 3d)

the green hornet gulivers travels chronicles of narnia, dawn treader nutcracker "3d" soul to take pirahna cats and dogs kitty galore last airbender clash of titans alice in wonderland g-force

anyway if anybody else was trying to get this information quickly, there you go. (current as 3-24-11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Bothary (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

As discussed above under "Splitting?" I've overhauled the page.

  • I've assumed that any films with no running time listed are short films with the exception of the ones which are probably features (e.g. the adult titles). There might well be some errors in this assumption.
  • For post-2005 films I've merged the "System" and "Technology" columns into a single "Camera System" column. Post-2005 films are pretty much exclusively Dual HD. ETA: or IMAX 3D
  • Removed references to home video releases. There's already a Wiki list of BluRay 3D releases linked to here, it was duplication of information.
  • Merged "upcoming films" into the main list. It was "dated" info, no need to differentiate between "Released" and "Upcoming" films.
  • Removed a few films which haven't yet begun production. Many films get announced and even enter pre-production without ever being completed.
  • Removed references to "converted to 3-D in post-production" and replaced it with a "Filmed in 2-D" entry in the Camera System column. If it was filmed in 2-D it was obviously converted to 3-D.
  • Removed links to Russian websites. In fact, I'm tempted to remove the entire "Comparison of Cyrillic Titles" section as it must be of extremely minority interest in an English wiki page. Any comments ?
  • Removed references to "Disney Digital" as a system. "Disney Digital" is simply a marketing term attached to every Disney 3D production regardless of the camera system employed.

Barry Wom (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

regarding "Comparison of Cyrillic Titles"; I have merged the 2 lists of Soviet 3D films. I think that is the best way to keep it. --Koifkoi (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent idea ! Barry Wom (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

3-D vs. "Shot in 3-D"

there needs to be a distinction when listing the movies--99.101.160.159 (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above under "Overhaul", films which have been converted to 3-D have a "Filmed in 2-D" entry in the Camera System column. Barry Wom (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
While obvious to those of us in the know, I feel that this is confusing to many readers. There should probably be a quick explanation somewhere that clarifies why movies that were "filmed in 2-D" are listed. Chris TC01 (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. Barry Wom (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No default sorting

The sorting appears to be completely jumbled. For example, the first list starts out alphabetically, but then has a whole bunch of unsorted entries at the end. I know that readers can sort by clicking the headers, but there should be a default sorting when opening the page. Is this something that can be done via code, or does it have to be done by hand? When I originally converted this article into a table I made sure to add entries alphabetically. Chris TC01 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It would have to be done by hand. If it were to be done, I'd suggest sorting on the release date rather than alphabetically, at least for the post-2005 table. It makes adding new titles easier. Barry Wom (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

wenders' "pina"

hi there, could you (or anyone familiar with the process) please update the list to include the german movie "pina"- a dance film about the famous choreographer pina bausch and filmed by wim wenders in 3d. it premiered 'out of competition' in 2011 at the berlin film festival. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.2.60 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of foreign films

What is the significance of a separate section for foreign films, especially those in Russian, that section dosen't present as anything different to the others. I think they should be merged with the main lists. Donnie Park (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See the discussions under "Splitting" and "Overhaul" above. The list was too long and unwieldly in its previous form. Barry Wom (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe unwieldy, but the post 2005 section have some foreign films listed, plus I can't see how is it different to English language films. That could be split into two since most of that weight is on the pre-2005 sections. Another suggestion is to split the lists in films of different nationalities but then there are films that is funded by more than one countries. Donnie Park (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I've moved Flying Swords, are there any further foreign films listed in the Post-2005 section ? Barry Wom (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There are three Belgian films listed. Donnie Park (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
...hence this is my criticism, there are Belgian productions with English language narrations, voice acting or dubs and we could get them listed on the main page, whereas for all non-English films get listed elsewhere, which to have a separate list for foreign films is pretty baffling to some as some people will think Europe - foreign language film. Donnie Park (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The Belgian titles were all produced by nWave, a specialist large-format company who make English language films. I agree that the separation of non-English language titles might seem arbitrary, but on an English language wiki most interest will be in English language films. I doubt many (if any) in the West will have seen a Russian 3-D production, for instance. In fact, it's probable that no-one in Russia has seen one for over 25 years. Barry Wom (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"... no-one in Russia has seen one for over 25 years" - a rather Americocentric statement, isn't it? The systemic bias is bad enough in Wikipedia as it is without making deliberate separations like this one. I agree with Donnie Park. They should be merged. Citing country of origin is enough.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There haven't been any Russian 3-D titles since 1984. Although it's possible that some titles have had anaglyph prints produced, it's unlikely that many (if any) people have seen them in their original form in the last 25 years. Aside from a handful of revivals, virtually no-one in the U.S. has seen a pre-1985 3-D film in its original form for over 25 years either. Barry Wom (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Foreign language" films

It seems reasonable to me to have non-English language films listed as "foreign language" in an English encyclopedia. The term "non-English films" isn't correct and "non-English-language films" is clunky. The Oscars and the Golden Globes happily use the term "foreign language film" and BAFTA uses the even more clunky term "Best Film not in the English Language". Any thoughts ? Barry Wom (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Foreign" is subjective to the country of the reader and thus inappropriate for an international encyclopedia. While this is the English Wikipedia, it is not the American Wikipedia.
British or Commonwealth films (and Commonwealth English) would be "foreign" to American movie industry and vice versa. An English language film from a country with a non-English speaking majority would be "foreign" as well. BAFTA's usage is far more correct, albeit clunkier. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point. "Foreign language" is an English phrase, so there's little cause for concern that someone might not realise that it means "non-English language". Would anyone complain if the German Wikipedia referred to non-German language films as "foreign language films" ? As to your second paragraph, aren't you confusing the terms "foreign films" and "foreign language films" ? Barry Wom (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
No. Please see Foreign language for the problems regarding its usage. You are, first and foremost, assuming that the reader belongs to a country where the native language is English just because this happens to be the English Wikipedia. Take for example a Tamil speaker reads the article, what do you think will be the "foreign language" for him? Tamil? "Foreign language" does not mean "not English".
Secondly, no, I was illustrating the point. "Foreign films" has the same problems as "foreign language films", both depend on subjective judgements of the reader and not on stable reference points such as "non-English".-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that a Tamil-speaking reader of English text would hardly be confused (or irritated) by the use of the term "foreign language". If someone came across the Tamil for "foreign language" in a Tamil text, they would assume that it meant "non-Tamil language". There's nothing in the Foreign language article to dispute this. Anyhoo, I'm not wedded to the term, although I still think "non-English films" is incorrect. Can someone else please step in with an opinion ? Barry Wom (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Then I suggest you read it again:
"A foreign language is a language indigenous to another country. It is also a language not spoken in the native country of the person referred to, i.e. an English speaker living in Japan can say that Japanese is a foreign language to him or her. These two characterisations do not exhaust the possible definitions, however, and the label is occasionally applied in ways that are variously misleading or factually inaccurate."
And you'd be wrong on the Tamil speaker. I am not a native English speaker and I am irritated that the text assumes "foreign" or "foreign language" for me means the same things as they would to you just because this happens to be an English encyclopedia. It implies oh-so-subtly that I shouldn't be reading this Wikipedia as it's supposed to be only for people from native English-speaking countries. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's face it, the wikipedia definition on this is weak. If a foreign language is indeed "a language indigenous to another country" then reductio ad absurdum the English spoken in New Zealand is a foreign language to an Aussie. Besides, the part of the lead that you have omitted backs up the phrase's usage here. An English speaker living in Japan can say that Japanese is a foreign language to him or her. So an English speaker watching a Japanese language film in Japan is watching a foreign language film. A Japanese speaker ... isn't.
And I'm no linguist, but Google Translate will happily translate the phrase "foreign language" into several other languages, including Tamil. If you were to learn Tamil and come across this phrase in Tamil, would it subtly imply that you shouldn't be reading a Tamil text ? Or is it only the English version of the phrase that is problematic ? Barry Wom (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Ugh. So now you want to redefine "Foreign language"? Sure here we go:
Wiktionary & Allwords.com: "Any language other than that spoken by the people of a specific place"
Dictionary.com: "Any language used in a country other than one's own; a language that is studied mostly for cultural insight"
In fact, let's go further than that shall we. Why don't we go to Oscars itself:
Rule Fourteen: Special Rules for the Best Foreign Language Film Award, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: "A foreign language film is defined as a feature-length motion picture produced outside the United States of America with a predominantly non-English dialogue track."
You can even read about the problems and controversies the Oscars has experienced because of their very US-centric definition of "foreign language film" which has caused non-American films with English dialogues to be rejected for the category. The use of "Foreign language film" in the Oscars means first and foremost "Un-American" not "non-English" as you think it does.
"then reductio ad absurdum the English spoken in New Zealand is a foreign language to an Aussie."
No. The language of New Zealand is Commonwealth English, same with Australia. See definitions above. If the language used by my country is the same as that in your country, then your language is not a foreign language for me.
"So an English speaker watching a Japanese language film in Japan is watching a foreign language film. A Japanese speaker ... isn't."
Of course. But imagine a native Japanese speaker with English as a secondary language reading the English Wikipedia and coming across "foreign language", how do you suppose this applies to him? English is still a foreign language for him, just because he understands it and reads the English Wikipedia doesn't make him a native English speaker. Neither does it make Japanese a "foreign language" to him.
We're not talking about the English language here, we're talking about the English Wikipedia. If this phrase was used in the Tamil Wikipedia to refer to languages other than Tamil, I would also find it problematic for the same reasons.
"Foreign" by context uses the country of the reader, not of the language being used by Wikipedia. Can you even grasp that? Do you even speak anything other than English? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to redefine anything, merely pointing out the illogicality inherent in the definition of "foreign language". "Any language used in a country other than one's own" clearly conflicts with "if the language used by my country is the same as that in your country, then your language is not a foreign language for me."

It's simply my contention that the phrase "foreign language" implies "a different language to that of this text". You claim that "Foreign language" does not mean "not English". I'd argue that it does, just as "langue étrangère" implies "not French" and "fremdsprache" implies "not German". Despite your claim to the contrary, "foreign" doesn't necessarily have to mean "from a different country".

It appears to be your contention that if the phrase "foreign language" is utilized in a Wikipedia entry, it somehow becomes confusing or offensive to someone whose mother tongue is different to that of the text.

And as for "I am not a native English speaker", you may wish to yank on an alternate appendage. Attached to it are bells. Barry Wom (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. You've apparently never heard of code-switching or pidgin either. I asked if you spoke any languages other than English because monolingual people tend to have problems putting themselves in other people's shoes.
And no. Your reductio ad absurdum is indeed absurd in its deliberate distortion of the definition. If Country A's language is Z and Country B's language is Z, then the language used in both countries are mutually not foreign languages. But if Country A's language is Z and Country B's language is X, then the languages of the countries are foreign languages to each other. Needless to say, any films made in Country A is also foreign to Country B and vice versa, regardless if they speak the same language or not.
The problem here is this: Wikipedia is not a country. Me as a reader from a country with a non-English native language will instead use the value of MY country when determining the meaning of "foreign language", not the language used in Wikipedia. You as an American, won't be affected either way. When you approach it from the opposite end, that's like using the phrase "native language" in a Wikipedia article and then expecting people from around the World to understand that you mean English just because it's written in English and is in the English Wikipedia.
And since we've now devolved to ad hominems. I'm asking for more opinions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. I'll abide with whatever consensus is reached.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I had trouble deciphering the idiom in your last sentence, after a bit of Googling, I think you meant this one? I can't quite decide if I should be flattered that you actually think I'm a native English speaker or be insulted that you're calling me a liar. Why you me no believe? Why? Because Engrish of me not bad enough for your stereotype? Kung gusto nimo, magbinisaya ta. Okay ra pud sa ako. Mas sayon gani unta i-explain kung bisaya pero unsaon ta man, dili man sad ka kasabot. O pwede rin Tagalog kung gusto mo. Pwede kang magtanong sa WP:Tambayan Philippines kung di ka talaga makapaniwala. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Many Wikipedia articles from the other language Wikipedias are translated into pages on the English Wikipedia and vice versa, so we should ensure nothing gets lost in translation. "Foreign language" would take on a whole new meaning in an automated translation whereas "non-English" would not. Generally we should write things so there is little risk of a translation altering the meaning of certain phrases and words. Betty Logan (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm ... good point, I hadn't considered that. As I've already stated, I'm not wedded to the term "foreign langauge" in any case. "Non-English" isn't correct though. Would "World Cinema" be acceptable ? Or would it perhaps be a better idea to rename the first three sections with "English language" attached, move the handful of pre-1952 non-English-language titles to the pre-1952 list, and simply rename the final section "Other films" ? Barry Wom (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"World Cinema"? Why, are English-language films made in another planet? I think the problems all stem from the fact that the non-English films are separated arbitrarily from the rest of the list on the flimsy assumption that an English-speaking reader would only care about films in the English language. Especially given that the first few sections give no indication that they in fact do not include films that are not in English. Compare with List of comedy films of the 2010s for example, in which indicating the country of origin should have been enough.
And ignoring me now, huh? No comment on branding me a liar for stating that I am not a native English speaker? Papungot gyud nga kagwang... -- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Apologies if you felt ignored, I simply didn't have much else to say. You've made your position clear, and when I attempted to point out an illogicality you countered with a detailed proof which demonstrated that I was correct. Maybe it's a comprehension problem, what with English not being your mother tongue and all ;) Barry Wom (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
At least I'm not an asshole like you seem to be. We have a consensus, I've changed it. Now go away.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the best approach would simply be to not divide the list by language, which is not necessary if you identify the production country; if the language is different to the country that produced it then it can be noted. By separating films into English and others you are introducing a point of view into the article anyway, so it's not as neutral as it possibly could be. Betty Logan (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes I think so too. Given that Donnie Park in the previous section also suggested this, I think we have enough support for a merging. I'd do it, but I'm currently in the middle of expanding an article within my more usual range of interests. If no one does it in the meantime, I should have time to do it by next week.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Renaming the foreign language films section is one thing; re-merging the lists is another entirely, especially as there was consensus that the original splitting needed to be done. I'll begin a new discussion. Barry Wom (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

New list

There is new list of Bollywood 3D films. Should it be merged with this list or should this very large article splitted into separate articles? --Fluffystar (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added the Bollywood titles to this list and tagged the Bollywood list for deletion. Barry Wom (talk) 12:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-merging of the list

There's been a suggestion that the lists of "non-English language films" and "Soviet films" be merged into the other lists.

A bit of background on why these sections exist. As discussed under "Splitting?" above, the list had become pretty much unusable. As Chris TC01 pointed out, "only about a third of the list is comprised of theatrically released feature films, and these are the ones most readers are interested about. Obscure technology demos and other films nobody has ever seen just seem to clutter up the list." Have a look at how messy the list had become just before the overhaul: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_3-D_films&oldid=435416945

The original intention, as discussed, was to separate the features from the shorts and group them into date blocks. Post 2005 covered the introduction of digital 3D and allowed for the merging of the System and Technology columns. 1952-2004 covered the 1950s 3D boom and the 1980s mini-boom.

As a Russian editor had gone to the trouble of creating a "Comparison of Cyrillic titles" table, it seemed logical to separate the Soviet titles from the list so that they could be listed next to their translated titles. These Cyrillic titles were then merged into the table itself, making it even more useful for any Russian visitors. If the merge was to go ahead, I'd still maintain that the Soviet titles deserve their own section for this reason.

A problem then arose. Most of the non-English language titles (and most of the pre-1952 titles, hence the "Post-1952 short films" list) had no running time attached. Some research was undertaken in an attempt to obtain running times, but many of the films have little or no information on them on the web. The only solution - and I'll readily admit it's not an ideal one - was to have a separate list for non-English/non-Soviet language titles.

Any attempt to re-merge the Soviet and non-English language titles would require significant research to determine their running times. Otherwise, the obscure shorts and technology demonstration films would have to be lumped back in with the features, we'd be back to square one and in six months time someone would probably come along and suggest splitting the table again. Barry Wom (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, there's no reason that post 2005 non-English language films shouldn't be in the main list, so I'll go ahead and make that change. Barry Wom (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I think List of animated feature films has a good systematic approach. It divides the list by decade, and only documents feature films i.e. 40 minutes plus. There is no reason why this approach can't be used here, with the Soviet feature films integrated into the decade structure, and short films could form their own section. Betty Logan (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, as I've pointed out, there's no way of telling the running time of many of the non-English language films, so integrating the non-English language features would be problematic. There's a similar problem with many of the pre-1952 films (although I've just moved the pre-1952 non-English language films into the main list).
Secondly, a "decade structure" would require a clumsy split between pre-2005 and post-2005 films, the former having an additional column.
"Soviet feature films integrated into the decade structure" - are you suggesting a merging of the English language and Soviet titles ?
And I'm not sure what you mean by "short films could form their own section" as this has already been done.

I figured out some of the missing lengths in the section "Other non-English language films 1952-2004" and for all films at least whether it is a short or a feature film. Sources are mentioned in the history section. I removed 3 titles that have no prove of existence. Now I will merge the section "Other non-English language films 1952-2004" with "Feature films 1952-2004" and "Post-1952 short films". --Fluffystar (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

List of 3-D films → List of 3D films – I request a move to List of 3D films in consistency with other article titles without hyphen, like 3D film, 3D television, 3D display and so on. If someone is typing the title manually its more likely without hyphen, therfore it would be without redirect with the new title. See also discussion above. Fluffystar (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This was already discussed on the Talkpage of 3D film and also on Categories for discussion for the category 3D film and similar categories. The result was to move all from 3-D to 3D. --Fluffystar (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
A travesty, in my opinion, and not one I will support. Powers T 15:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

New camera system entry for CG movies

As animated CG movies do not have a real world camera component, I think it would be a safe assumption that they all be listed with something like "CG" or "Animated CG" for their camera system. The only issue with this is if there are any weird cases for older CG movies where for some reason rather than re-rendering the movie for both eyes there was some kind of quick and dirty post-conversion done to it. If such a case exists, I'd think we'd just list it as Shot in 2D, like is currently done for the hand drawn animated movies that have been post-converted. --ZephyrXero (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I suggest something like "Rendered in 3D" vs. "Rendered in 2D" since there are these cheap post-conversions like Shrek 1-3. See: http://3dvision-blog.com/tag/shrek-3d-conversion/ --Fluffystar (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless the term "Rendered" should only applied to computer-animated films. I would refer to 2D animations films like The Mermaid or stop motion-animated films like Frankenweenie as "Filmed". --Fluffystar (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

missing title

Flying Monsters 3D is missing in this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.109.72.132 (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Fluffystar (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

3D Movie

why 3D Zapatalela ( Marathi Movie ) not added in list of wikipedia ? Zapatlela 2 (झपाटलेला २) is a Marathi horror comedy movie, which was released in 3D on 7 June 2013. It is directed by Mahesh Kothare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.63.142.252 (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Next time please just do it yourself. --Fluffystar (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing non-notable entries

The policy on general lists is to include ONLY those entries that have a Wikipedia article: the reasoning being that if something is not sufficiently notable enough to have its own article, it is not notable enough to be included. Some exceptions can be made, like "List of movies that have received Special Award," but this is not that kind of list. Just wanted to give notice to the editors here, before cleanup begins. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If a movie does not have an article yet it does not mean the subject is not notable. It only mean nobody has written an article yet. Such lists are an important inspiration source for the creation of new articles. --Fluffystar (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Jumper 3d

Jumper 3d to list pls (I would add, but am not confident enough in keeping this the format not to screw something up)

Necrovamp (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Jumper is a post production 3D film that is done badly Bipedia (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic needs an overhaul

I value this page. After reading it, I found that half 3D movies were converted in post production, which explained why some movies were much better than others. I believe this topic is suffering from list-bloat because of the inclusion of 2D movies and animated CGI movies. Animated films are always assumed to be in 3D, and it's no revelation to find out what method they were produced in 3D.

Movies that are converted post-production should really just be in a list, somewhere else, maybe in the bin. I think it is still valid to list all the CGI animated movies, because people who have bought a 3D TV will be on a quest to find all good 3D stuff.

Should I volunteer to sort this list out? Bipedia (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Animated films are always assumed to be in 3D." I think you're confusing computer-animated film with 3D film. And if there's a film (animated or not) that is not in 3D (filmed or converted) it should be removed from the list. Other than that, the list already distinguishes from films filmed in 2D and filmed in 3D, and that info is even sortable, so I think it's fine the way it is. The major problem I see right now is that it's missing many films.--Cattus talk 14:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of 3D films (2005 onwards). 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:

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) 00:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of 3D films (2005 onwards). 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:

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) 06:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2019

Please remove United Kingdom from Star Wars: The Force Awakens - 2A00:23C6:5492:4300:9C8C:BCB3:E8E3:DE3 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Though the article doesn't appear to be protected. Trivialist (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

Please add an "S" on United States for Force Awakens. 86.166.82.169 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC) 86.166.82.169 (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

All releases after 'Onward' are deleted until further notice.

I don't think there's much option anymore. Not only Black Widow got delayed indefinitely, but cinemas across the world are getting closed down - even indefinitely in some cases.

This is why I decided to delete all 3D releases after Onward and add one film after another every time a film gets released in 3D safely. When cinemas start to open again, feel free to restore the list in its original state.

Terrible way of doing things. get a source instead of blanket deletion. Starzoner (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Page Protection to deal with vandalism

Can we please protect it so that only auto confirmed users can edit? It is loaded with vandalism and I don’t want IP address continuing to nonstop edit the page without citing sources. Raymondsze (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank goodness I was not the only one who agrees here, one of my edits I removed the vandal edits but somehow by stupid miracle they returned. MOVIEFAN2001 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Whoever is editing this article PLEASE USE RELIABLE SOURCES, most of these movies listed are ARE ON STREAMING ONLY, NOT CONFIRMED IN 3D, OR HAVEN'T EVEN ANNOUNCED IT YET signed MOVIEFAN2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOVIEFAN2001 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the Bad Guys a conversion?

Can someone confirm if "The Bad Guys" (2022) is Digital 3D or Conversion?

I've seen CGI movies that are native 3D and other CGI movies that are conversions, and from the Trailer it looks like a Native 3D cgi movie. StarHakimi (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass deletions today: looks like they took out unsourced/speculative films

I just did a spot-check, and for the first five films that were deleted, either the article made no mention of them being in 3D, or it mentioned speculation about 3D that were discounted by the producers or directors. Accordingly, I now consider the removal with merit. —C.Fred (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_3D_films_(2005–present)/Archive_1&oldid=1162125268"