Talk:2009 in film

I mean 2008 has yet to be half way finished. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good point, but since more and more films are being announced, I figured it was time to let 2009 have it's own article. Besides, 2008 in film was never part of Near future in film (I looked into it). It just sort of grew on it's own and look where it is today. --EclipseSSD (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could people please reference the films properly before just simply adding them in. Note: A title in the IMDb does not verify it's existance, so please use other, more reliable source for verification. Thanks for contributing, but please we need to seperate fact from fiction, and only leave those with verified sourced. Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was gonna clean up but the info on this page is all as relevant as the next piece of info, any ideas on how to clean up?! If anyone needs me just go on my talk page, happy to helpNisior (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I suggest searching on the internet for proper references to the films, as IMDb is none too reliable for confirming a film's production, so a proper reference to confirm it's development, like Variety magazine and more official sites. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've removed Mr Nobody. from 2009, as it's going to be released in 2010, not 2009.The Chosen One (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is this article considered by any way a violation of the NPOV rules? I have recently translated this article to the Hebrew Wikipedia and some folks over there say that it is since there is no real criterion for that list... ("a selective list of movie titles mostly from Hollywood which only the authors of the article think are notable"). Any ideas you might have which could help convincing them that it doesn't violate NPOV rules (such as an Inclusion criteria for this article or any film list article) would be greatly appreciated. 24.12.234.123 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Another NPOV problem - half of this list is based on AMERICAN release dates, not the first release of the films. Fucking yanks, you're not the center of the world you know, as much as you might think so.--61.217.211.178 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since it's been announced that it will be re-released nationwide on January 23, shouldn't we mention it?12.37.71.141 (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

What with the fancy colour it looks very ugly. --117.192.128.115 (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are at least two (Taken and The Horsemen) films taken from 2008 in film. I believe this article needs major revision to remove those movies.148.225.101.3 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Those are both films that were originally scheduled to be released in 2008, but later were pushed back into 2009. Although those films may have been made in 2008, this list is basically just a big list of U.S. theatrical release dates. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Accidental Husband was released over a year ago in the UK but ridiculously it is down as March 2009 on this list. I've looked at WP:FilmRelease - has there been any debate about basing the list on when they had their first public release rather than US dates? For an article to be so orientated towards one country but with a generic title (rather than US Film 2009, for example) isn't very 'wikipedian'. LunarLander // talk // 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

HAHAHAHAHAHA you think Wikipedia's Powers that Be give a shit about the rest of the world. If it ain't American, it ain't important, you should know that by now.--61.217.211.178 (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The layout of this article is a MESS! Can't somebody fix it? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is the list for top grossing already completed? 2009 has just begun! 24.76.185.79 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not complete, the highest grossing movies of 2009 will change as more movie come out. Prince Rana (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some anon keeps adding a table with fake data. If you see such a table re-added, please feel free to remove it. Legitimate 2009 figures will not be around until next weekend (January 9), as there were no major releases on the 2nd. Keep in mind, the top grossing films table should only contain entries for films released in 2009, so holdovers from December 2008 (such as Marley & Me) should not be included in this table. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some films, such as Taken, have already been released in other countries (and have made money there) but are scheduled to be released in the US in 2009. Shouldn't those films be on the table? Prince Rana (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Earth is a movie with had its World-wide release in 2007, 2 years ago. The movie hasn't been released in 2009, and will only get a release in US. This means that all the money listed here is actually money garnered in 2007 and 2008, and not 2009. Meaning that this movie does not belong on the list. 24.139.82.20 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can we establish a consensus? Raaggio 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

at the top of the page their is a list of major mainstream sequels I noticed that Watchmen and Sherlock Holmes were on the list but they are not sequals should they be on their? also Friday the 13th is a remake not a sequel so should that be on that list too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.87.130 (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why are there no/few Limited releases on the list, even those which have been released? The 2008 List was pretty good with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.109.244 (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can someone please add the limited releasing film Whatever Works. Directed by Woody Allen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatever_Works—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.79.188 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if this counts, but Angels and Demons is a prequel, not a sequel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.106.53 (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, for the movie series, "Angels and Demons" served as a sequel. Poppa Yami (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Someone who is good at editing Wiki wanna add him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontifactus (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is the film on here, anyway? Isn't this article supposed to be about American films? Not, Japanese films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppa Yami (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article is about films from all countries. Best name (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Adding imdb, metacritic and rottentomatoes movie ratings to the movies tables ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.59.44 (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Transformers 2 is listed with the release date as 24th June, however it was released on 19th June in UK, shouldn't the earlier release date take priority even though it is an american film? 91.109.212.196 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

All release dates are the American release dates, per industry standards. BOVINEBOY2008 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

What exactly makes a film a "blockbuster?" I don't really see any sources that indicate that whenever a film makes $100 million in US/Canada or $400 million internationally, it's marked as a domestic/international blockbuster. This is irrelevant material, as it contributes no pertinent information. This goes for the other "in film" articles as well. - Enter Movie (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I too can't find anything about a "blockbuster status" but Blockbuster (entertainment) explores this briefly. I would be for removing the data. BOVINEBOY2008 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

What happened. Last I checked it had over 600 million on Box Office Mojo and now...it suddenly lost 200 million from the foreign box office. Like I asked, what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itri12 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea, but that is what Box Office Mojo has now. They may have way-over-predicted the foreign box office. BOVINEBOY2008 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

On here, it says that Harry Potter 6 has made $896.8 million worldwide but in this article, it says that it has made 904.9 million worldwide.

http://the-leaky-cauldron.org/2009/8/31/box-office-watch-harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince-continues-to-do-well-overseas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkyoda141 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Harry Potters box office is 934,559,990 not 929 million something STOP changing it check half blood prince's film file and it's there so it's verifiable leave it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.230.31 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please add him to the notable deaths section. Information yes (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is her film career sufficient to include her in the Deaths section? WP addict 0 (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's an article for when movies come out in theatres and in home video; what about for when they eventually premiere on TV? I think there should be an article for when movies premiere on TV, saying the movie's details, premiere date, and TV station. If this can't be done, please tell me why. If it can be done, please start it. Mollymoon 21:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Whip It! is on two dates in october. One on the 2nd and one on the 9th. Can someone find out which date is the correct one? - 71.20.29.38 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Appareantly, Box Office Mojo hasn't updated the info on Ice Age 3's international gross, but the-numbers.com does have that information [1] can someone update this to this article and List of highest-grossing films? I'm not sure exactly how to edit wikitables --Exrain (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems like these are just American films. What kind of "2009 in film" is this if it's just concentrating on U.S. releases??? 75.72.105.60 (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you'd look closer, you'd notice several foreign titles with their American names (as is customary).

The thing about foreign releases is that we usually classify them as the year they are released in America, as it is easier to follow as a whole that way. If you'd like to add more foreign titles, as I would, it's best to wait until the end of the year to see what makes it this year. Also, take a look at films released in 2008 that didn't get distribution in the U.S.A. until 2009, such as The Class, Gomorrah, and so forth. (Obviously, looking at nominees in Foreign Language helps.) I think you're right though that it's a good idea to make the list less Anglocentric.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 23:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Someone really needs to fix this; just look at late November and you'll see what I mean. Markunator (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is anybody gonna bother fixing "observe and report" and some other films on this? I can't do it correctly. Will somebody experienced do it instead?--163.150.137.101 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

In a recent interview with IGN.com, Hideo Kojima confirmed that the movie will be released in 2008. So stop adding.

You where right. Bencey (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you have noticed, the 2009 section now actually looks, well, professional. Very organized for any future expansion.

And please, don't just put whatever in this place. Actually research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.212.31 (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted a large portion of false listings for unscheduled 2009/2010 releases -- the large majority of these projects were not in production, and they are never guaranteed to be. Anything can happen between a film's announcement and when it could start production -- years or decades, even. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added Citizen Siege to the 2009 section. Please make it work properly and let it stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.247.10 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

What happen to Superman: Man of Steel and Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins on the 2009 list? --71.178.250.89 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody remember in the movie "I Am Legend" when the Batman/Superman Crossover logo was displayed on a movie poster? It was scheduled as a 2009 release... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi Master Fort (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The poster in the film was just an Easter egg because two writers involved with I Am Legend had worked on a script for that project. See the MTV article for more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comments added by AMK152 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it is time to move this article back to 2009 in film, and have all the future films beyond 2009 moved to the new near future in film. Seeing as how there is movies getting announced and pushed back to 2009, I think now is a good time to make way for these movies, and move the future (2010, 2011 etc.) films to the new article.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I'm not sure about that, considering that there's not too many 2010 or 2011 films in place. When did 2008 in film get created as separate from this article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's just a possible suggestion which I thought would be appropriate. Maybe, maybe not. As to when 2008 got seperated from this article (or if it ever was part of this article), I have no idea.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I looked into it, and 2008 in film was created about 3 years ago (3 February 2005) by SD6-Agent. Taking that into account, I assume it was never part of Near Future in Film. The article just sort of grew by itself. I think it is a good idea to move to 2009 in film. However we can leave those films in place then, by adding a section called Beyond 2009 and listing the future films there.--EclipseSSD (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess we can do that, but we should try to determine some kind of criteria as to when it's OK to move content from Near future in film to 20XX in film. What kind of threshold should we set up? Also, if we make 2009 in film stand-alone, I would suggest keeping all the announced films here. I think it's misleading to say that these announced films are definitely part of 2009's release slate. We can mention at 2009 in film, "For projects that have been announced by studios but have not yet begun filming, see the near future in film." Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I like that idea, yes, so as to have it part of the 2009 article for the time being while mentioning that it's not guarenteed to be part of the 2009 slot. Perhaps as more and more films get announced over the whole year, that would be the time to start planning the articles for the 2011, 2012, etc. films.--EclipseSSD (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion: Wait until this article exceeds 32 kb (the reccommended limit) and put the 2009 films in it's own article. Then just keep 2010 and beyond in the "Near future in film" article. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 02:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

As it is now May, I think we should move the 2009s to their own article and leave NFIF for 2010+ --WTRiker (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why was Rendezvous with Rama remove of the list? It had a score to the actice and Fitcher said he will work on the movie after The Curious Case of Benjamin Button comes out. --71.178.250.89 (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not in production though. He says he will, so file it under "Announcements" (with a source of course). Alientraveller (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comments added by AMK152 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Data in Highest-grossing films is not correct. For example Avatar did not make $760,507,625 domestically in 2009 - it only made $283,624,210 in 2009 [2]. The same applies to all other films as data is taken from [Box Office Mojo and it does not list the actuals for 2009 only.--Nedergard (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

PS. This seems to be a correct listing.--Nedergard (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed quite a few problems with the page the way it appears right now. First, Public Enemies and I Hate Valentine's Day were released on July 3, not July 1, and I Hate Valentine's Day was a limited release, so why put it in bold? Second, Splice was released in 2010, not September 2009. Thirdly, Trailer Park Boys: Countdown to Liquor Day was apparently only released in Canada, and it was definitely not wide. Fourthly, some movies that were first in limited release before being distributed more broadly are still listed in bold, but not all of them are. Why? And finally, while on the question of limited releases, it must be noted that Paranormal Activity is not listed whatsoever, although it has made quite an impact at the box office. These are the most obvious changes I thought should be made: there must be others that I couldn't notice; and I didn't take care of it myself because I'm not comfortable with editing Wikipedia. So I hope somebody will read this and correct things. 86.71.101.132 (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why isn't Agora (film) in this list? --StephanNaro (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Because it is listed on the page for 2010. Seems a bit strange to me... --StephanNaro (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whose bright idea was it to post a Wizards of Waverly Place movie directed by Sam Raimi?—Preceding unsigned comments added by Art1991 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply