Talk:Long take

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

Cinemetrics is RS?[edit]

Cinemetrics allows anybody to submit metrics. As far as I can tell, the submissions are not verified. Probably the whole ASL list should get deleted, unless these can be sourced to more reliable sources. Staecker (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V and WP:RS, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Now, this site includes the full dataset for shot lengths, so it is fair to say that the material is completely checkable against the films. Given the substantial amount of time and effort needed to generate the data (which is created via a proprietary widget that counts clicks against realtime), I think it's fair to say that the data is more or less accurate. (This is not to say that there aren't a negligible quantity of errors, which are largely inevitable given a large enough sampling.) Additionally, most of the content itself is created by named contributors, most of whom are academics involved in film studies, thus it is not anonymous. Furthermore, the site is run by administrators with film studies credentials, and has been referred to within peer-reviewed academic journals. While I am not personally familiar with the data review processes, I do know that entries are not automatically added to the database and must be admin-approved first. Lastly, the site is run by named editors with academic credentials, and thus there is a degree of transparency and accountability not apparent in other sites such as IMDb, for example. If evidence exists that this site is not reliable, I certainly welcome it, but the case that it "might not be" is not sufficient, IMHO, without significant evidence to the contrary. Also, keep in mind that statistical analysis of films is a very recent sub-discipline in film studies, and this site essentially is the online "headquarters" (for lack of a better word), and is run and affiliated with its most notable academics, such as Barry Salt, Yuri Tsivan, etc. I understand the skepticism of online sources, but surely having a complete dataset for an entire film's shot lengths is more reliable (and verifiable) than a citation from a book or paper saying that "X film has an average shot length of Y seconds"? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Cinemetrics does have a layer of admin oversight which makes it more reliable than, say, another wiki, or IMDB. But my read of your WP:V quote is different from yours. The quote says that it must be verifiable that the data comes from a reliable published source. You seem to be arguing that the data itself is reliable, which I agree is true in principle, but the tedium and special (admittedly simple) tools involved seems to require an act of OR in order to perform the verification. (That's why we need a source in the first place-- if the data is easy to verify, e.g. "there are 50 states in the USA", then no source would be needed.) Perhaps I could put a note at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get the opinion of some people who handle this more often? Staecker (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OR applies to this site only, not our sources. (Were that the case, there would be nothing to cite.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we disagree. I started a section at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cinemetrics?. We'll see what they think. Staecker (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After not much discussion over there, I am being bold and removing the list. There is no reason to believe that the user-submitted numbers are reliable. Hopefully the ASL section can be expanded without using dubious sources- I've tried to start it off on a good foot. Staecker (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the numbers which were submitted by noted film scholars such as Salt and Tsivan? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my text, G- you clearly know much more than I do about this stuff. As for the scholars' numbers, I'd rather some sort of peer-reviewed or otherwise professionally vetted publication- Salt himself discusses inaccuracy of his and Tsivan's own measurements at [1]. I agree that numbers submitted by big names carry more reliability, but that doesn't substitute for actual review. So I'd prefer to leave out any numbers that appear on the website only. I added in the bit on Intolerance because it's in the Tsivan article which presumably has had some real review. Staecker (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not about "the truth", it's about verifiability and reliable sources. And admitting that there will be errors is not the same as admitting to significant ones - Salt himself discusses how a stray miscount here or there shouldn't affect numbers significantly. Film scholars do have disproportionate weight, which is why they are considered - in their relevant fields - reliable sources. Doesn't matter if it's written in a book, a blog, or an online database: if they put their name behind it, it has implications for their reputations, which is why the medium of transmission is less important to WP:RS than who is doing the dissemination. I grant you that random people adding to the list are probably not reliable sources, but the film scholars are placing the viability of their work and career at stake if they don't properly do their work. It's not our job to vet the truth of their info (and discrepancies should be handled as an NPOV issue until proven conclusively), merely to vet the source of the info. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like we're getting anywhere here. I'm not talking about "the truth" either. Quantitative data like this needs to be published in peer-reviewed sources before it becomes reliable. This is the standard in science and mathematics and all other quantitative disciplines. We don't quote statistics in other fields from non-reviewed studies, no matter who the author is (at least not without several red-flags saying that the data has not been verified). I suppose we could have a list of ASLs saying that these measurements were gathered informally by film scholars and have not been verified-- but then what would be the point? (And anyway how would you choose which films to list?) I'm not really interested in arguing this any more- we both are here to improve the article and I won't be upset by some boldness on your part. Thanks for all the great work you do on WP:FILM. Staecker (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Arthur?[edit]

She is mentioned on her page as being a 'master' of this. Should she not be added to the list of directors?24.63.181.223 (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Angelopoulos[edit]

Theo Angelopoulos is notorious for his long takes. Amadeus webern (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ER (TV series)[edit]

Should ER be mentioned? In almost every episode, a long take is taken from the exit of the ambulance to the title sequence. --Boycool42 (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Scorsese[edit]

I was wondering if martin scorsese should be added to the list. I only know of a few examples. at the moment i can only think of a couple from casino. I know he has done it in other films and it is one of his director trademarks if i remember correctly. I may be wrong but i was just wondering if he is worth noting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably- do you have a reference? Names don't last long in this list without a reference. Staecker (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

I think there should be one more section with the most notable examples of long takes as in the Spanish Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.24.128.179 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Woody Allen frequently (and expertly) uses the long shot in many of his films...perhaps he should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before Sunset Trilogy is best Example for Long take.[edit]

please mention Before Sunset Trilogy is Best Example for Long take. Ram nareshji (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Long take. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long take. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Long take. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long take. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Long_take&oldid=1207840092"