Talk:O.J.: Made in America

Film or miniseries?

It even says it on the poster. The version that screened in theaters is the same as the TV version. It's a five-parter - it's a miniseries. — Film Fan 11:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Favre1fan93, this edit (done by you a while after I started this coversation, and without replying to me) is not valid. Almost all - if not all - miniseries are one story. A "film" that consists of more than two parts is a miniseries. A "documentary miniseries" could be either be either one story or several, just as a drama miniseries could be. Even ESPN don't call it a "film". To be clear, even when it was shown at Sundance and in theaters, it was still made up of the same five parts, and always was a miniseries. Be nice if you could revert your own edit. Cheers. — Film Fan 19:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"A film that consists of more than two parts is a miniseries" - Says who? Where has ESPN defined it as a ms? Your opinion is noted but this has been called film and ms by different sources more reliable than you. The director has said that it's intended as an "epic film" and specifically NOT a ms. Read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/movies/oj-made-in-america-a-documentary-movie-or-a-mini-series.html. It seems that everyone agrees this... "movie" is blurring the lines between film and ms, but certainly there's no definitive answer. You refer to rules that don't exist. CarlF F (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You literally just created a new account so you could post two comments and make it look like consensus. — Film Fan 16:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

CarlF F and I are not the same person if that is what you are insinuating. What existing consensus are you talking about by the way? It's just you and your opinion is not going to outweigh Edelman's. — Skblole 17:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm categorically stating it. — Film Fan 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. Feel free to address the issue of your one-man consensus validity against Edelman's vision. — Skblole 02:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The territory between films and miniseries can be blurry, as it is in this case. The film has been released both as a film and a miniseries, depending on the medium, and depending on how you see it it can fit the definition for both. The fact of the matter is that every ESPN Films production to date has played as a film, and this film was split up when shown on television solely because it was inconvenient for ratings purposes to air eight hours in one go. Why not listen to the visions of the man who created this work, who has repeatedly said from the day this premiered at Sundance that it was made as a film? — Skblole 15:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. It's in multiple episodes either way. Not just on TV. — Film Fan 16:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Where other than on TV has it been shown as a miniseries? At Sundance it was split in two halves with a break, just like every lengthy film used to be shown back in the day. Or do you consider Gone with the Wind a miniseries just because of the intermission? In theatres and at other film festivals Made in America has been shown in its enirety. Lately it's aired in its entirety on TV as well. — Skblole 15:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Every showing it's ever had has been in five parts. — Film Fan 23:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This is false as well. Here's a bunch of sources proving you wrong through one quick google search.. I could go through more trouble getting more and better sources but that should be plenty enough to prove that you have resorted to false claims. — Skblole 02:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not false. Whether they take one intermission, two, or four, it's split up into 5 distinct parts with separate credits. When they put one intermission in, for example, it's between parts 3 and 4. Each part is ~90 mins long. — Film Fan 15:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that there are five separate credits in the theatrical version? Other than that, that they have an intermission at the same point as they do in the miniseries doesn't mean anything. — Skblole 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am notifying the TV and Film projects about this discussion to get more opinions on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a tough case to me. The documentary was theatrically released in film festivals and two cities. The widespread published medium was television. I see two or three people disagreeing over declaring the type of this documentary. I am torn about this. I wonder whether you guys consider resolving this at WP:DRN. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. I'm not very familiar with these Wikipedia discussions, so I'll have to take some time to look into how that's done when I can. — Skblole 03:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think the current solution "a 2016 American documentary ... which has been released as a five-part miniseries and in theatrical format" is the best solution. It was clearly intended as a multi-platform release in feature and serial format so Wikipedia should just accept the unusual nature of the release. It obviously qualifies as a film as well since it has an oscar nomination for Best Documentary Feature. Trying to pigeon-hole it as one or the other is not what Wikipedia is about. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The "theatrical format" is still in five parts, even if they only take intermissions after one or two of those parts. Calling it a "five-part documentary film/miniseries" would be a better compromise which clarifies that there is no difference between the versions. — Film Fan 15:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What makes you say the theatrical version is in five parts? If it hadn't been released as a miniseries no one would notice any separate parts. Shoah has been shown in two as well as four parts due to its length, yet no one refers to it as a four-part film. Why is the dubious claim that this film is split in five important to you? — Skblole 16:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

AMPAS has strict guidelines about this. For a documentary film to qualify as a theatrical "feature" for oscar contention it must spend one week in a theater before debuting on TV and it must be exhibited as a single show. Many roadshow films such as Gone with the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia were two-part features, but they were not multi-part releases in the way say Lord of the Rings was i.e. GWTW was a 2-part film, not a 2-part series, but we still describe it as a "film" regardless of how many intermissions it had. You can read the full oscar criteria at https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/88aa_rule11_doc.pdf and the rules specifically exclude "episodes extracted from a larger series". In fact, contrary to my earlier comment, I would clarify the lead further and change "released as a five-part miniseries and in theatrical format" to "released as a five-part television miniseries and as a theatrical feature film" to clarify the nature of the release. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support Betty's latest version of the lead sentence just above, as long as the lead paragraph continues to indicate the theatrical release was relatively brief. This was primarily a five-part miniseries. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that clarifies anything, since the theatrical release still consisted of the same five parts. If you word it like above, it implies a possible difference between the TV and theatrical versions, which there isn't. — Film Fan 11:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Or the TV version is a single film broadcast as five episodes. It is simply a matter of perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a matter of perspective, because it's split into five distinct parts with separate credits. It's a five-parter no matter how you look at it. — Film Fan 18:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If it was shown in episodic format in the cinema then I would support your position but I am simply not seeing any evidence to that effect. According to various sources it was shown in two parts at Sundance and in three parts at Cinema Village. Has anyone here actually watched it in the cinema? Betty Logan (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Me. — Film Fan 10:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems that there is no response for five days. Looks like the matter is dropped for now. If not, how about WP:DRN or RfC? George Ho (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Before we alter anything I would like to know exactly what the exhibition format was for this film at Sundance and Cinema Village, where sources indicate it was shown as a 2-part and 3-part film respectively. That contradicts what Film Fan says, but it also confirms that it is being exhibited in multiple formats. Saying the film has been exhibited in a theatrical format does not preclude an episodic format so I think we should stick with that for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

According to The Wrap, the Cinema Village (Santa Monica) played the film in five parts with two intermissions: parts 1 & 2, intermission, parts 3 & 4, intermission, and finally part 5. In contrast, at Sundance, the film was played "in its entirety with a lunch break in the middle"; in other words, the whole film with just one intermission. --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, George Ho. Thanks for finding that source. It's always in 5 parts. That's how it was made. There are not different versions of this thing. Theatrically, intermissions were taken after parts 2 and 4, or a single one after part 3. — Film Fan 21:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone got anything else to add to this or are we finally agreed that this is a five-parter? — Film Fan 11:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

In view of what George has discovered does anyone besides Film Fan wish to alter the existing wording? If it did indeed play at Sundance as a single film and at Cinema Village in five-parts as George indicates then it would seem there isn't a definitive theatrical version. However, there does seem to be a definitive TV version so the existing wording ("released as a five-part miniseries and in theatrical format") would seem to work best given the circumstances. Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

References

There is only one version of the doc, theatrical or otherwise. Not all screenings took intermissions after parts 1, 2 and 4, but it was still shown as the five-parter that it is. Anyway, I'm just repeating myself. Not enough people here in the know. So, let it stay inaccurate. Over and out. — Film Fan 20:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's my working version. Not the best, but hopefully more accurate: "released as a five-part miniseries. The documentary also received limited theatrical release with one or a few intermissions." George Ho (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think "with one or more" or simply "with intermissions" is cleaner. — Film Fan 10:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"released as a five-part miniseries. The documentary also received limited theatrical release with one or more intermissions"; better? ;-) George Ho (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That'll do! Except "a limited..." is better grammar. — Film Fan 12:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done with a minor tweak. George Ho (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the previous wording was much better. It was more media neutral instead of overemphasizing the TV aspect. It has been clearly established that Edelman set out to make a film and that it was released as a film not only through theatrical release but on several film festivals as well. — Skblole 21:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The way the film was released to the vast majority of its audience was via television. And as we have established, even the theatrical screenings were in 5 parts, whether or not they took intermissions between all those parts. Also the fact that it played at a couple of film festivals means nothing. Lots of series play at film festivals these days. — Film Fan 23:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No one has established that it was shown in five parts during its theatrical release at all. It's still just you saying so, and somehow that was enough to make George Ho disregard the consensus that seemed to be that the former wording was a good compromise for an unusual release. If this matters I don't understand why you don't go to Gone with the Wind's wikipedia page to call that a two-part film. And no, lots of series are not shown in its entirety at festivals. Occasionally an episode or two are screened at a film festival. — Skblole 17:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's increasingly common to have a full seasons shown at film festivals. Granted, it's usually miniseries. — Film Fan 15:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If one of you insist on continuing to discuss this, you can go to WP:DRN. Discussing it here is becoming less productive, especially after the changes I made. --George Ho (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a frequent Wikipedia user so it took me long enough to figure out how to use this talk page. I'm not going to spend hours getting to know another pointlessly complicated message board. I don't understand why you made the change you made. There were a few users here who made good points in favor of the former wording, while Film fan has frequented the board on his own with unsubstantiated claims. I will change it manually to the former wording which was the version most people have spoken out in favor of and if anyone wants to change it, there's always dispute resolution. Because that's how this works, apparently. — Skblole 22:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, this is not the point where you say "I don't like it so I'm going to change it". If you want to take this further, see the above link. — Film Fan 00:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, that bring up the question why George Ho didn't use that link before he changed it. According to the procedure you are citing, he shouldn't have made that change, so I'm reverting the change he made without using dispute resolution. — Skblole 01:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, before I made the edits, I didn't think the DRN was necessary after discussing The Wrap article, which discussed intermissions and wide TV release vs limited theatrical release. Well, the "film" was a contemporary one, though it set in the 1990s. Both of you are not wrong about your arguments, but I was convinced by The Wrap and Film Fan's interpretation to change the passage. Now it's been reverted back to "theatrical format", seems that one of us must file the DRN before the heat goes further. Um... I'd love to file the case, but I'm also involved in the "American Pekin Duck" case because the other participants conflicted and I intervened at the minimum (except that I created RM after they made move warring). George Ho (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Producer credits

Schell, Giest et al do NOT have producer credit for this film. Per the credits and the billing block on the poster, Schell and Giest receive executive producer credits. However, some users, such as Gothicfilm, are claiming the credits at the very end for ESPN Films should be used, which lists them as producers. Those are the credits of ESPN Films as a production company, not necessarily how each are credited on the film. Those do not supersede the EP credits for just Schell and Giest at the very beginning of the credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You start by yelling they do NOT have producer credit for this film, then you admit they do, just not in a way you like. While it's a bit unusual, they are credited as both producers and executive producers, and one does not cancel out the other. It doesn't matter if they are credited as producers for ESPN Films - They were producers, and they got billing as such in the end credits, which takes precedence over the poster (a poster that is inconsistent with the onscreen miniseries credits in other ways as well). And by the way, on television projects the TV template makes provision for listing executive producers, probably because the producer with the most control and responsibility is the show runner, and the show runner is almost always credited as an executive producer. You might notice on TV articles usually all the executive producers are listed in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Add 2016 Peabody Award to the list of accolades?

The list of accolades does keep growing, but shouldn't the Peabody Award for 2016 be included? Documentation that it won is provided here.

107.15.35.102 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for an Oscar but not eligible

How was this film nominated for an Oscar when it was not eligible?

https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/88aa_rule11_doc.pdf

Look at rule 5. Screenings during the theatrical release must occur at least four times daily and must begin between noon and 10 p.m. with at least one screening beginning daily between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.

This movie is over 7.5 hours, if they started one at noon it would not be over until 730 if they started one at 6 it wouldn't be over until 1:30

It could be screened in two rooms, that would basically close down two rooms in a theater for an entire week. Did that really occur? 2605:A000:1E02:C30A:D176:1471:6773:40C (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• It still was nominated for (and eventually won) the Oscar and yes, it did received a limited theatrical run thus qualifying legitimately.Espngeek (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Ishmael Reed's self-published article was rejected as "unreliable". Explanation, please? Espngeek (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS, especially when there are also potential WP:BLP issues. Do you know of any third-party sources that discuss Reed's concerns? I could help add content to the article from them if you are interested. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)