Talk:One-shot film

Untitled

According to the source someone used to claim Mr. Robot wasn't a single take [21]: "but ... the sequence everyone saw in the episode is, in fact, a true single take" So the episode should be moved from the "edited" section to the "actual" section at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.45.46 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. While a vote count may suggest a lack of consensus, my view of the discussion is that the support arguments are based in policy (using natural disambiguators when doing so doesn't use obscure terms), while the oppose arguments are either weak or cite guidelines which I interpret to only apply when parenthical disambiguation is needed. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 23:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One shot (film) → One-shot film – It sounds more natural and less ambiguous with One Shot (film). © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as suggested. Per WP:NCFILM the correct disambiguation would be One-shot (filmmaking). --Gonnym (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose per WP:NATURALDIS. Seems fairly uncontroversial. — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think the terms "one-take film" or "single-shot film" are more commonly used, plus this isn't an article so much as it is a list, so it should be "List of ...", so I would support move to List of one-take films. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The current title is bad, and we should avoid a disambiguated version as per WP:NATURALDIS. Thus, any of "One-shot film", "One-take film" or "Single-shot film" would be superior to the current title. As to which of those three is the "best", I would agree that "one-take film" is probably the best choice, followed by "single-shot film". As to Netoholic's point that this should be moved to a "list of..." title, while that is the current state of the article, it would seem clear to me that this article should be expandable to include much more prose on the topic (for example, I'm sure there has been analyses written on "single-shot films"), so I think the article should not be moved to a "list of..." title, but instead should be expanded with more sourced prose on the subject. So, basically, I'm in favor of moving to any of the three options, with "One-take film" being the preferred choice, followed by "Single-shot film". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support any move to any other reasonable title. The current title is overly ambiguous with One Shot (film) and suggests it's the same thing, about a film called "One shot". One-shot film, One-take film, Single-shot film, anything is preferred to the current. SnowFire (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Move to One-shot (filmmaking) per Gonnym. One shot is a disambiuation page so it makes sense to have the disambiguation in brackets. The current title suggests this article relates to a film. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose initial proposal
Support (filmmaking) disambiguation per Gonnym. On top of the MOS, this article is also citing TV episodes and video games. "Film" by itself would seem to imply a specific medium of a work and exclude other mediums, whereas "filmmaking" is a creative process that can be applied to other mediums. -2pou (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved - no consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One-shot film → one-take film – The previous RM decided the issue of parenthetical vs natural disambiguation, but in my look at this topic, the current title is a less-common way to describe it. The proposed title aligns with the very related article already titled long take. Also, I can see potential for minor confusion of "one-shot film" being taken to mean a film with no sequels, or a one-off film made by any particular director, actor, studio, etc. Netoholic @ 22:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that while one take (or a one-take film) can involve several cameras, a one-shot film does not. Dekimasuよ! 01:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've always understood these to mean two slightly different things. One-shot is one take but specifically on one camera. One take could have many cameras set up but the action is only filmed once. A one shot is always a one take but a one take is not awlays a one shot; squares and rectangles. This could easily be a misconception on my part though. Millahnna (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See single take. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Oppose per the discussion concerning the use of cameras. A one-shot film seems to be the use of one camera to film an entire film in one take (i.e. the masterpiece Russian Ark). Since I'm assuming none of us are experts, and even though it's recruiting, I'll ignore the rules and ask if Roman Spinner may have personal experience or accumulated expertise on this subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I cannot claim personal expertise on the matter, it does not seem that the terms "one-shot film" and "one-take film" are synonymous. After ten days and a relatively small number of discussion participants, I have posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#One-shot film → One-take film, which will hopefully expand the conversation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its not so much a matter of being "synonymous" - the problem is that the phrase "one-shot film" is ambiguous in many contexts as I mentioned in the request, where "one-take film" is more precise/clear, and matches the content of this article. The list includes Timecode (2000 film) which was done in one-take on four cameras. This would not be a "one-shot" as described by Millahnna, and so if the page isn't renamed, it might have to be delisted. Randy Kryn's mentioned Russian Ark is a single-camera film. "One-take film" includes those multiple camera films, and so renaming this page would allow expansion and listing of them, where keeping the current name means we couldn't. -- Netoholic @ 08:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination was solely about the main title header's form, since that header's parenthetical qualifier implied, as pointed out by SnowFire and Polyamorph, that the article's subject is a film entitled One shot [albeit unitalicized and with lowercase "s"]. In this nomination, if consensus coalesces around the argument that Timecode (2000 film), along with whatever other multiple-camera one-take films, cannot be considered one-shot films, then One-shot film, if the main header is moved, should not become a redirect to One-take film, but should attain its own separate article or should redirect to some closer-related already-existing entry, perhaps Take#Single take. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

La Casa Lobo (2018)

It's animated (stop motion) so obviously not a true One-shot but I feel like it would fit under "edited to appear as 'one shot'", other than the opening scene --CosmicKiwii (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft

Should the lists in this article be confined to notable films? I have deleted all the entries which neither cited a source nor linked to an article about the film or director. Currently there is some edit warring going on. Meticulo (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We need to require notability and citations, otherwise lists like this turn into garbage. Doctormatt (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per WP:LISTV. DonIago (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per Doniago. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rope

I've removed "Rope" but the edit has been reverted. i just say: watch the movie. This movie has clear cuts in more than one point. PedroPistolas (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you'd remove it, given that it's one of the film films on the page that has any significant discussion and that it's clear that it isn't literally a one-shot film but rather a film edited to appear as such, which is consistent with the definition in the lead of the article. There's plenty of films on the page with no sources or discussion at all. DonIago (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

because it is not. It's a marketing ploy perpetuated by people who didn't see the movie. It's actually a series of long shots ok but edited to appear 4 long shots, not one. Aside from the very beginning and the ending we have clear, unmasked cuts. The page clearly identifies them and I just checked in the universal blu ray and here is the timing for that version: 00:19:55; 00:34:24; 00:51:57; 01:09:51. Once you will watch these timeframes I think that you will agree with me that this movie does not fit the definition given in the page of a one-shot movie. --PedroPistolas (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that even the lead for Rope describes it as being notable for having been edited to appear to be a single shot, and that that statement is sourced? Honestly, I feel it would be a better use of your energies to focus on providing sources for some of the other films listed in this article that currently have none, but if you want to keep arguing that Rope should be de-listed, you'll need to gain a WP:CONSENSUS from other editors, or at least provide a source backing up your claim that Rope being classified this way is "a marketing ploy". Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why are you debating citing secondary sources that does not matter given that the film itself shows the opposite. I don't know what's a better source than the timestamps of what I'm saying. I want you to explain why the countershot at 00:51:57 does not count as a cut given that it is, by definition, another shot. Anyway only four of the elements of that list cite sources, do we remove them? Plaese answer only when you'd have looked at those timestamps, it doesn't take much time. --PedroPistolas (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without other editors stating their support for your opinion, I am opposed to de-listing Rope from this article. I don't believe our own judgments should contravene what reliable sources have said. DonIago (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's wait for other editors but I still think that on the visual content of a movie the movie itself is the ruler of all sources.--PedroPistolas (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the summary, at least two other films in the same list, Birdman and 1917, also have clear cuts mid-film. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if a number of films in both lists also had clear cuts, especially around the beginning and the end. See also the note for Macbeth.

I think we need to establish criteria for what counts as one-shot, regardless of whether it's actual or disguised. Does a clear cut in the middle of a film disqualify it? What if cuts were concentrated at the beginning and the end? Need there just be a continuous scene that makes up a majority of the film, or perhaps that is longer than a certain number of minutes? Nardog (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we are talking of one at the very beginning and other four more or less evenly spaced every 15-20 minutes using well known editing techiniques like reverse shots. I guess I can't post few seconds clip extracted from my copy of the movie for illustrative purposes, right? The page, citing a site that I don't think qualifies as a reliable source, states that a one-shot movie "is a full-length movie filmed in one long take by a single camera, or manufactured to give the impression it was" and by this definition a movie like rope doesn't qualify imho --PedroPistolas (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't feel the site currently being used to define a one-shot film is reliable, can you provide a better option? DonIago (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see where you're coming from now. In the History section Rope is mentioned as an example of the technical limitations that historically inhibited one-shot films from being made. I don't oppose the removal at this point. Nardog (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Given that it is still notable for it's use of long takes I left it in the history section (edited of course) and put a source that talks about the nature of the cuts. Thanks everyone PedroPistolas (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extraction and Extraction 2

Possible long shot for entire or most of the movie ? 2601:602:B01:B460:A132:D2E:D116:ECED (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iain (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]