Jump to content

Talk:List of neo-noir films

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

Questionable Neo-noir

[edit]

What exactly are the justifications for including the Lethal Weapon films and Face/Off? The sources aren't clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.113.197 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Springbreakers and Zootopia. This list is just embarrassing.Heathcliff (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, both of them have sources provided. Are you taking issue with the sources, or can you otherwise clarify your concerns? DonIago (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that as soon as some guy with a blog types the word "neo-noir" in his musings, the film can be included in this list. This means that eventually even "Beverly Hills Cop" and "Harry Potter" will appear here. Croscher (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some guy with a blog wouldn't be a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, DonIago. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my book the source for Zootopia fits the definition of "Some guy with a blog" perfectly - and that's just for starters. Croscher (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So...challenge it on those grounds? DonIago (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Zootopia's case at least, perhaps this would be a better source than what's currently in place? It does seem like alternative sources would be preferable to removals where possible. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was The Wild Goose Lake from 2019 removed recently? Variety and the New York Times both list it as a noir as well as James Lattimer of the British Film Institute What's wrong with you guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.165.138 (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This list has to be one of the most egregious examples of when wikipedia goes wrong, and as it stands is a huge embarrassment to the site. An editor should give it some serious attention. So many of the films on this list are not within a country mile of being noir. It's embarrassing, laughable, but more than that it's actually really unhelpful for anyone looking to genuinely find more examples of neo noir. If it's really the case that all it takes for a film to be included here is for any old blog to mention it in that context, then the rule needs to be changed. Might I suggest a reference in a serious film journal to a film being in the genre (not having "noir elements") as a starting point. Because Lethal Weapon 3? This ain't it, chief. Optial7 (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lethal Weapon 3 isn't sourced to a blog (I'm unable to determine whether the source actually does mention LW3 though), but if an entry is sourced to a blog, I'd say you should WP:SOFIXIT, as blogs typically aren't considered reliable sources. I fear requiring that entries be sourced to "a serious film journal" may just result in a lengthy argument over what constitutes a serious film journal. A more workable option might be to require that entries be cited in at least two different sources, if that's a proposal you'd like to pursue. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced films

[edit]

List was tagged in 2013 for needing citations. Feel free to re-add these films to the list with appropriate referencing. DonIago (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1990s

[edit]

2000s

[edit]

2010s

[edit]

Non-American neo-noir

[edit]

I am surprised that you haven't already included Klopka, since that movie is often listed as the prime example of a non-Engliah language neo noir film. Editor-Plejer (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted films

[edit]

I deleted several films that were sourced to books that predated the films. All of these films were from the last 5-7 years, but were sourced to texts that were published in 2010 or earlier. This is, at least, sloppy editing if not outright deception. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My most charitable guess is that editors carelessly copied and pasted and only inserted the names of the new films without paying attention to the sourcing, much less updating it. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable guess, but very poor editing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It happens quite a bit though, especially with inexperienced editors who aren't aware that they're creating false citations. DonIago (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was The Wild Goose Lake from 2019 removed recently? Variety and the New York Times both list it as a noir as well as James Lattimer of the British Film Institute What's wrong with you guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.165.138 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated references

[edit]

We have references being used in this article dozens of times, especially Silver and Spicer, which isn't a problem, except that there are no page numbers. These texts run to hundreds of pages, with hundreds of films being discussed. If the same references are going to be used multiple times, the exact page, or pages, in which these specific films are discussed need to be listed. Otherwise, I have to question whether all of these films are listed. I have already removed films from the article that were sourced to Spicer or Silver but which could not have appeared in those books. Complete referencing includes the page numbers. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forced to concur. Providing a hundreds of pages long book as a reference for a single film listed somewhere in those pages is essentially sending readers looking for a needle in a haystack. DonIago (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being one of the worst culprits, I can't deny your point regarding Spicer's Dictionary, especially since in previous time I was considerably fastidious regarding the indication of page numbers. Still, it's quite a problem to solve, as I've got currently only Spicer's Dictionary; thus if I indicate every precise page for every film sourced to Spencer 2010, the other references will be pretty much flooded in the reflist and become invisible.
Still, it can be solved by changing the "references" section in a "notes" section and building a "referenences" section. Ideas? Criticisms? Objections?Aldux (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree with that approach. The full-length reference would go at the bottom in bibliography-type section, while individual notes, which can be very short, would go above. This seems the only workable solution. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have much free time available currently, so I hope you'll be patient (sorry :-(). Anyway, I'll begin by working on the "Bibliography" section and renaming it "References".
On a different topic, I found the anon. edits who had impossibly sourced a series of films and removed all those left that came from that editor, as it was clear he hadn't really sourced those films.Aldux (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why two lists?

[edit]

Why are there two lists, one for 1960-1990 movies; then one for 1960-present movies, that basically duplicates all the movies from the first list then adds the ones from 1990 - now? Boréal (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first list is 1960-1990...at least it is now...I'll guess this was resolved since the question was asked. DonIago (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made the modifications. Boréal (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could make ones for 60s, 70s and 80s separately Espngeek (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Espngeek: I have already done it once. The films in between 10 years are separated with a list. I had ever once created List of neo-noir films of the 2010s. But Erik merged it back to the list. He said it's not a big table. --Beta Lohman (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am having an allergic reaction

[edit]

breaking out in hives, at some of the titles included here and seeing that there have been "sourcing issues" about some titles in the past only increases my paranoia, so to speak. Okay. Ocean's 11. What is one "noir" or dark thing about this film? It is bright, colorful, cheery, almost a comedy throughout the whole film. It needs to go or . . ....... something. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it appears that there is a source that has referred to it as a neo-noir film. Provided that is the case, what is the basis for your objection beyond that you don't feel it belongs there? I might be willing to support a suggestion that titles need more than one source, if that's the direction you want to take this. DonIago (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in a position to check out the source given and I see here (on the talk page) that there has been a fair amount of bad sourcing happening on this list. There is a mistaken view among some that any heist movie is noir or neo-noir and this is not the case. I checked with my personal noir source (not a published source) and thare was some debate about some of the flics here - notably several of the Clint Eastwood titles, but Ocean's 11 was a clear "NO" all around. Also we probably all have stories about sources that are just wrong. When that is the case we are not obligated to include that info. I have not heard about asking for two sources but will think about it. IS that used elsewhere or would we be plowing virgin soil? Carptrash (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_neo-noir_films&oldid=1201521236"