Talk:100 Years (film)

Posthumous release

Unless Robert Rodriguez lives to be 147 years old, this film will necessarily be released posthumously. Should we add a category reflecting this? IJVin (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No, because he's still alive and the film hasn't been released. PC78 (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

lol Randy Kryn 12:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

....I don't think this is an actual film

I'm fairly certain this is just an advertising campaign for Louis XIII, rather than a legitimate film. -User:1morey December 22, 2016 11:19 AM (EST)

Do you have a source for that? - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The setup of the trailers is more inline to the filming style of a commercial (lighting, filmstyles, and the fact that the trailer does not have an MPAA rating (which it would still have regardless of whether it got a rating or not), plus the end to all the trailers all state "Please Drink Responsibly" which is mandatory for liquer commercials, and would not be placed in a film trailer. Also no name for a production company, a film studio, a composer. Sounds like Robert Roriguez was the one to direct the commercials. Even low budget films have this kind of information. I mean, sure, this may not be the kind of film that gets released theatrically, but everybody seems to take the film as being a literal project that was created, rather than just a very clever design for an advertisement for cognac. Which mind you, takes 100 years to age. I just want to say its status as a legitimate film is questionable at best given the lack of actual information. There are other time capsule projects done that we have more information on. -User:1morey December 23, 2016 12:03 PM (EST)

That is all original research. All of the reliable sources treat this as a film, so Wikipedia treats it as a film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

All that antipathy against so-called original research... It's against all logic! After all the world would never evolve if people weren't continuously doing original research, researching into things that had never been done before. The best scientists are famous for their original research. And here it is scorned? No thanks! By the way, I guess it's just a joke alltogether and the alleged film does not really exist. It looks like it really is only an advertising campaign. And since everyone who was involved will be dead in 2115 they don't even need to worry about facing a shitstorm once the scam will be revealed. --Maxl (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Do NOT delete other peoples' edits even if you disagree with them! Discuss but do NOT delete! --Maxl (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the article's topic or your dissatisfaction with Wikipedia's core policies. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC) You seem to be disagreeing with my opinion. That's your prerogative. You also are entitled - and invited - to discuss my opinion (which, apparently, is not your wish). However, you possess NO AUTHORITY to delete my discussion posts (or, for that matter, that of any other user) unless it were blatant vandalism, or to keep me (or anyone else) from stating my (their) opinion. And anyway my point in my above post WAS about the article. The point that this whole thing was, likely, only part of a very sophisticated advertising campaign was mentioned before. I was merely agreeing with the user who started this discussion. And, by the way, since you did not contribute anything at all to the discussion itself but simply attempted to shut me up, what YOU wrote is off topic and not what I wrote. But let's get back to the topic. It's about time. There is no proof that this film really exist. No independent person has ever seen any proof for the film's existance. And no one is allowed to look into the safe. So it is indeed very much possible that it's all a scam. I understand that on this wikipedia there usually is a very strong stance not to provide unproven information. Why should it be different here?--Maxl (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic (such as whether or not in your opinion the film exists). - SummerPhDv2.0 14:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC) I said WHY I think the film does not really exist. This was the topic of this discussion. Therefore I am not off-topic. You just keep complaining, and THAT is off topic. Why don't you just answer properly? As I told you before, it's your prerogative to disagree with me but it's not your prerogative to decide what I may say or not. And I wish to discuss whether it makes sense to keep an article about a film we don't even know it exists! Instead of blocking the discussion why don't you just say why you think the film exists. --Maxl (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) You think it is not a film. If you are suggesting that we add "It is probably not a film.<ref>Maxl, 2017</ref> There is no proof it exists.<ref>Maxl, 2017</ref>", please say so. I am not saying I think it is or is not a film. I said, "All of the reliable sources treat this as a film, so Wikipedia treats it as a film." It is verifiable. If you feel it is not verifiable, please explain. (I did not say that I think it exists or explain why as that is exactly the kind of off-topic chat that is the problem.) If you feel the sources are not reliable, you will need to explain why. Variety, People and Entertainment Weekly have, to my knowledge, always been accepted as reliable sources for this type of material. If you feel the topic is not notable and the article should be deleted, WP:AFD describes the process you will need to follow. The article survived a very recent Afd, though, and I don't see anything new. If you have content to add to the article from reliable sources, you seem to have neglected to mention them. Please do. If, OTOH, you just wanted to say that you don't think it's a movie and why, we are done here.

Requested move 24 March 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

---

100 Years (film) → 100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See – It's a better title, because it is a little more vague about what the entity is -- which in this case is what we want, since what the entity is is somewhat uncertain.

Disambiguation is needed here, since 100 Years (song) exists. But by disambiguating with "(film)" we are, by clear implication, presenting this entity as being in essence similar to other "(film)" entities, such as Star Wars (film) and The Dark Knight (film).

But its not.

Whatever you think of this entity, and even if you do believe a film exists (and as the Washington Post says, "maybe it does"), it's quite an unusual phenomena. The entity being described here is quite difference in its essence from what is described by other film articles -- after all no living person has seen it or ever will (except the people who made it and their associates).

"100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See" is just the long form of the title (we use it to open the lede), and avoids the somewhat debatable proposition that what the reader is about to read is the same as any other article about a film. Maybe it is, but its debatable, so let's just avoid the issue, since we have a perfectly acceptable alternate disambiguation term. Herostratus (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer, my reasons being given in the original request. IMO even if you're a gung-ho believer that this is a film essentially similar to any other, you have to admit that others don't -- its debatable. We don't want our article titles to advanced debatable propositions when there's a perfectly good non-debatable alternative, even it its a debatable proposition that you personally agree with. Herostratus (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. The above-linked Washington Post article describes the title as "100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See", rather than simply "100 Years". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per conciseness. The present name is concise and doesn't need an extension to be understood. Randy Kryn 10:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's concise but possibly misleading. Herostratus (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not. After watching the promotional trailer and the production value that went into it, although none of that footage was said to end up in the film, I now think that the name does include the 'never see' line, but that it has a different meaning within the film than what many people alive today may think it means (it's talking to the film's audience rather than to their ancestors). In other weirds, the title probably has nothing to do with present-day conceptions, as its true meaning is contained and will be revealed within the film itself. If that's the case, and if the full name is the real name it almost has to be, then the conciseness of the present title (100 Years (film)) fits the title requirements. Randy Kryn 22:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're right with "Maybe not". It is possible that the current title is not misleading, if there is an actual film (and there probably is something on that reel), and if your analysis is correct, and if one accepts the proposition that a film that no one (except people associated with its production) has ever seen and won't for a hundred years should be disambiguated like a normal film. That's a lot of ifs, and "This title is possibly not misleading" is a low standard for titles.

• Oppose The rationale does not address why one title is "correct" and the other is not. Keep the current one for conciseness, and lack of consensus among the sources. Variety would probably be the best ref for this topic, and they use the short form (as do other cinema-centric sources like MovieWeb and SlashFilm). SteveStrummer (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The rationale seems to be aimed at working in a point not addressed in the article. WP:COMMONNAME seems to be the applicable guideline.

The reliable sources cited in the article say: "The film, aptly titled '100 Years,'...", "They’ve made a film, called 100 Years...", "Billed as 'the movie you will never see,' 100 Years...", "Per a press release, 'to ensure that 100 Years remains...'".

I am unaware of any guideline stating that being "more vague...is what we want". The sources do not support the contention that "what the entity is is somewhat uncertain"; I cannot see using the title of the article to avoid an issue the sources do not raise. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some of those sources are OK (although "Per a press release..." does not usually indicate something that's stone-cold incontrovertible). None of them are AAA-level sources though, and The Washington Post, which after all is at least closer to AAA-level than Entertainment Weekly and io9, and possibly even People and Variety, says the movie may not even exist (that ref's not in the article but will be presently.) So... you want to blow off the Washington Post?

And anyway we never say "a reliable source printed it, so our thinking job is over: in it goes". Nor do we say "more sources Yes than No, so in it goes". We look at sources. We weigh. And my reading of these sources is mostly that they're taking this pretty much as fun entertainment fluff. Did they really dig? Who did they call? They're not allowed to see the film. Did they dig up someone not on the film's payroll who can independently verify the thing? My reading of the offhand way they are handling this is "quite possibly not". I don't get that vibe, at all.

But wait. Even if it exists and is the best film ever, it's not regular film. We open the lede "100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See is an upcoming film..." and that's too cutesy by half, and toying with the reader. It's not an "upcoming film" in the way that term is employed and understood. It's just not, is all. And everyone knows it. It's a special case, so special that calling it just a "film" in the title is misleading.

But wait. Even if I'm dead wrong about all of this we should still move the article. Because I might be right. If I might be right we should err on the side of caution. I laid this out in more detail below in the "Threaded Discussion" section. Herostratus (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The film was made by a first-tier extremely well-respected director and was written and stars one of the most revered actors of his generation. It exists because they say it exists. If they are liars, which would damage their new-found publicity and ruin a bright light focused on their legacy, shining with retrospectives and maybe even a major Cannes film festival in 2115 celebrating their work (dibs on the idea, and credit please from you creative and passionate people with a sense of history who are organizing the 2115 film festival), with every old-time film fan looking forward to a new Malkovich. What an amazing thing it would have been if this was done in 1915 starring (insert name of your favorite screen star of the era here), which will be the plot of a well-done film sooner or later. If it is then found out, in 2115, that these guys lied to them, and that the film doesn't exist, their statues will be torn down and their names always preceded by some 22nd century curse word meaning 'fraudliar', and, at that point, someone will edit the 5D-innerwikilinked sounding-board15K edition Wikipedia totalcast and add each of those facts, with sources, onto the page. As for the name, the only source saying that the promotional line is even included in the title is the Washington Post which has been wrong before (that's what the "Corrections" section is all about). In any case, though, whatever its real name, the present Wikipedia page title, 100 Years (film), seems a concise way of identifying the project. Randy Kryn 02:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as the current title (100 Years (film)) is more WP:CONSICE than the proposed target as both titles would disambiguate the entity but the [[100 Years (film)] is the most concise to identify the subject. However, a redirect from the target to the current title could be made. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I could support this, but only if the proposal is amended to say that the title must be kept in italics. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course -- in fact this is forced by the presence of {{Infobox film}}. But so amended. Herostratus (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Upon review, I see no reason to make this move. The rationale given in the proposal is only a backdoor method of reintroducing the same unsourced assertions that were so belabored at AfD. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, not a backdoor method, but certainly a necessary preliminary. But I'm not suggesting here in this Requested Move to make any changes to the content of the article. That's a separate discussion for later. In order to have that discussion we'll want a disambiguation title that admits to more interpretations than "this is normal film like any other, period".

What I'm suggesting here is just that it is a debatable proposition what the entity is so we should err on the side of a more broadly-interpretable title. It's one thing to maintain "It's a debatable proposition, but I think it is essentially a film like any other" and quite another to maintain "It's not a debatable proposition. Only a madman, idiot, or troll could contend that it's not essentially a film like any other". See the difference? Even if you think its a film like any other, one ought to support the change if one allows that the nature of the entity is debatable, I think. Herostratus (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW there's more discussion over what the entity is over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Years (film). Herostratus (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

As to what the actual name of the entity is, let's think about this.

Very many book title are of this nature: "X: Y" with a secondary clause following a colon. Is this secondary clause part of the title? Well, yes and no. It's generally printed on the cover and the title page. It's probably correct to think of it as being part of the "long name" or "formal name" of the work, I guess. On the other hand, the secondary clause following the title is often dropped (not always but often), so the "common name" is usually the "short name", just the part before the colon. They are both "correct". (FWIW titles can't be copyrighted I believe, so that's no "legal name" argument either way I guess, even if that mattered.) (Most movies don't have this "X: Y" title format, but many do. Luckily for us, this one does -- the long title is used on screen in the trailer, and so forth.)

Back to books. Generally we use the just short name for the title (often giving the long name right away in the lede -- The Death of Expertise which opens with "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters is..." being a very common format with our book articles I think). We do this because 1) it's shorter, 2) it's the common name (usually), and 3) it's sufficient to identify the book or film

However, when disambiguation is required, what then?

For instance, Devil's Knot requires disambiguation, so the title of the book article uses the long form: Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three The title could have been Devil's Knot (book) instead. Should it be? I don't know. The film article is just Devil's Knot (film). But the film doesn't have a long-form title (I don't think). We can't make one up, so we use parenthetical disambiguation.

Looking through Category:American non-fiction books, most titles are not disambiguated. Of those that are, most use the subsidiary clause (Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War etc.), but some do use parenthetical disabiguation (Body Count (book) even though the long form Body Count: The Terrifying True Story of the Spokane Serial Killer is available, etc.). So there's no "one Wikipedia way" here.

For films, the situation is reversed. Looking at Category:American documentary films (I chose that rather than just Category:American films because my guess is documentaries are more likely to have a long-form title, making disambiguation on that possible). Of those that are disambiguated, some use long-form disamguation (Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War etc.) but more use parenthetical disambigation (American Dream (film) etc.). It's not a huge difference: on the first page of that category, I count 36 articles using parenthetical disambiguation and 27 using long-title disambiguation, so 57% - 43%. So no "one Wikipedia way" for film titles either, I guess. (And at least some of these films probably don't have long-form titles, so of films where either type of disambiguation is possible it is surely closer to 50-50.)

So that's precedent. What about sources?

Well, sources don't need to disambiguate. They don't have to worry about the reader getting it confused with 100 Years (song). So they are free to just use the short form, and usually most will. That's an important reason why we would probably use just "100 Years" if disambiguation wasn't required. When it is, we go to our own rules for that -- which is why we don't go "Well, no source names it as '100 Years (film)' so we certainly can't use that for the title".

So that's how sources and disambiguation fit together. What about our written-down rules?

Wikipedia:Article titles gives us the Five Virtues of article titles, Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency (with other article titles). Wikipedia:Disambiguation is subsidiary to that, being only a guideline. At WP:NCDAB it says

"[S]everal options are available: 1) Natural disambiguation... When there is [a] more complete name (such as English language instead of English)... that term is typically the best to use. 2) Parenthetical disambiguation... 3) Comma-separated disambiguation [mostly for] [a]mbiguous geographic names... Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation; for instance mechanical fan and hand fan are used instead of fan (mechanical) and fan (implement). If natural disambiguation is not available, a parenthetical is used..."

So that page seems to encourage us to use the long form rather than parenthesis. That matters some, but WP:AT is the master rule. In its section about disambiguation (WP:ATDAB) it mentions the three options above plus two more, but doesn't valorize any one method. So getting back to first principles, the Five Virtues:

• Conciseness clearly favors "100 Years (film)" over "100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See"
• Consistency, kind of a wash. It looks like we are close enough to 50-50 in the sample that it's clear we do it both ways. Assuming the sample is accurate.
• Precision... you could go either way on this IMO. You could say best precision is "100 years, and to be precise, the film 100 Years". Or you could say it is "100 years, and to give the precise title, 100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See". Either works fine IMO. It could be argued either way.
• Naturalness -- "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles". IMO this also is arguable. If a person is linking to this article, they probably figure that just "100 Years" won't do, so if they don't bother to look are they more likely to write "100 years (film)" or "100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See"? (And ditto if searching.) Beats me. Depends on what source they're looking at I guess. Hard to know on this one.
• Recognizability, an important virtue. It means that title which the highest percentage of readers, upon reading just the title, we be like "Oh, I know what this article is about". Again, dunno. "100 Years (film)" tells them its about a film, which is helpful (if it is a film, of course). "100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See" tells them its about a movie (same thing). IMO the latter is just a little bit more likely to elicit "Oh yeah, that thing" if they've heard about it. If they haven't... I dunno. Arguable I guess.

So OK. Of the Five Virtues, one for "100 Years (film)" and the other four kind of a wash, depending on how you squint. OTOH hand, actual practice is somewhere near 50-50, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation kind of nudges us to use the long-title version. So, you know: either way is defensible. It's not a big deal, either is fine.

BUT WAIT.

That's if there's no question that the entity is, in it's core essence, a film more than anything else (such as a publicity campaign or whatever). But there's plenty of question. Since there's question, it's entirely possible (if the answer is "it is not, or anyway not mainly, or at least not entirely") that "Precision" is blown out of the water. We could call it "100 Years (automobile)" and that would be Concise, and Recognizable... but wrong and misleading.

So let's not take that chance.

I mean, if Body Count (book) was 12 pages long, and some people were saying "it's not a book its a pamphlet", and some people were saying "sure it's a book", and we were going back and forth between Body Count (book) and Body Count (pamphlet)... wouldn't it make sense to title it "Body Count: The Terrifying True Story of the Spokane Serial Killer" since that is 1) just as acceptable (according to my analysis above) and 2) avoids the contentious question so that it can be laid out in a detail in the article ("Body Count: The Terrifying True Story of the Spokane Serial Killer is a book[ref] (some sources say a pamphlet)[ref] which...").

Same deal here. Sorry to be so lengthy, but I'm a little gobsmacked by editors who can't see this. Herostratus (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I get that you don't think it's a film. To the reliable sources cited in the article, there's no question that the entity is, in it's core essence, a film: "The film, aptly titled '100 Years,'...", "They’ve made a film, called 100 Years...". - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I just read this after posting above, and what a great discussion by Herostratus. Don't have time to answer now, but just wanted to again thank Herostratus for bringing the discussion to an even more interesting level. Randy Kryn 03:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Tickets

Please have a look at the picture of the tickets here: http://runwayday.com/en/1417706097 (https://web.archive.org/web/20171116082552im_/http://runwayday.com/sites/default/files/files/images/fisti_ru_20709.jpg) On the tickets it says there will only be one screening of the film, at the Cognac cellars, implying there will be no other distribution of the film. So quite literally for anyone not invited to the screening, this will be the film you will never see! John a s (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That there is only one screening at the cellars does not mean the film will not be otherwise available. If it did, the promotional machine certainly would have made a point of saying so. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The ticket says "Worldwide screening". Nothing on the ticket or the article says it will be shown only once. By that time touch-screen inner-holographs may make it available to the whole world on a nopay nonexclusive basis. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Have a closer look at the box shown holding the tickets. In the lid at the bottom it says "There will be just one screening".John a s (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Got it, blew my viewing up to 400%. Yes, it does say there will be only one screening, and then a comma which is in the appropriate place if it actually means only one screening (and not one screening at the cellar). So yes, by the ticket descriptor, there "will be only one screening". But I think the fans of this Wikipedia page have almost 98 years to lobby the film owners to release it in 2115 directly into their neural pathways and neural net (complete with simulated popcorn). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've never been to a screening of Casablanca, but I've seen the film at least three times. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming vs Unreleased

Isn't treating it like a certainty that this will release in 92 years from now basically going full crystal ball? Coverage plays along with the certainty because that gets clicks, but as an encyclopedia we should stick to the facts: there's a film that's intended to be released at a given date that's in a safe. Too many things can happen in such a long period of time to guarantee that release will happen. 2803:4600:1116:807:E104:32EF:D0D6:3052 (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That would apply to any upcoming film regardless of determinative time. "Best laid plans of mice and men" etc. The release date of this film has been announced and all principals have agreed to it, so for now the planned showing is on-track and applies encyclopedically. I plan to attend, and may sneak popcorn in under my coat. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)