Talk:2003 in film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I deleted the lists of movies. I hardly think Anger Management is one of the top-grossing movies of the year, and I don't like the idea of a list of "other movies" unless you plan on including all 200-plus films that get released this year. Another question. What does Phil Spector have to do with movies? -- Zoe

I can answer the Phil Spector Question... The woman that was found dead in his house was an actress. -Jazz77

True. Let me add that to the blurb to make it more relevant. -- Zoe

Whoops. Somebody beat me to it. ;-) -- Zoe

Stop erasing my information. -- Michael

No. -- goatasaur

I've edited the 'top grossing' section to point to IMDB, where the info is kept up to date. A page like this is only relevant if it is kept up to date. This one was over a month out of date.

Can anyone think of a reason why there should be an entry in the Births section? Famous actors born in 2003?

I don't think an arbitrary selection of movies is worthwhile. Some of the movies it's hard to justify a selection, and there are many more worthy ones missing (Hulk? Bruce Almighty? Charlie's Angels II?). Many of the movies listed were shown in places other then the US before 2003. Some of them (Ken Park, Sweet Sixteen) were shown in the US before 2003.

With the possible exceptions of the deaths section, there is nothing here to be gained that couldn't be got much better from the IMDB.

If the list of movies stays, it should at least be consistent - should the director be listed, or the star(s)? If we're going to have release dates (I presume they are release dates) can we have them in a standard format, like 1 November rather than 11/1, which could mean 11th January.

Seriously, does anybody think the list of movies should stay?

DJ Clayworth 15:29, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes it should stay. If it did go would you also want it deleted from all the 100 or so other year in film pages? If there are films that you think are missing then just add them. Also some of the films that are missing were listed on the Top Grossing Films of the Year section that was deleted. Although I do agree about the date. I wonder if it is really necessary to have the date at all.

I think films should only be listed on the year they were first released. Just because a film has been released in another country is not enough to have it listed on two years in film pages. Films can often be released over several years in different countries and the pages will get clogged up with them. -- Popsracer 20:48, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anger management is the No. 10-highest grossing movie of the year as off Dec. 18.

We should keep the movie list of all wide-released movies of the year and categorize them by month, studio and North American gross. Davodd 23:01, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Why the hell is a porno film like one night in paris on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.161.195 (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top grossing films

There is at least one fault in the current list, but I'm not sure what the correct one would be. Right now "85" is listed as the tenth highest grossest film in 2003, but I have not found a film by that name (could have missed it obviously). Anyway, "85" in the list directs to the article on the year 85, here. That should be fixed. Also, the list at "http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2003&p=.htm" is quite different from the one on Wikipedia. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Movie Released by 20th Century Fox

A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Movie is not released by 20th Century Fox and never released in theatres in November 2003, but one year later, A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Movie is released by Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Pictures and produced by Nickelodeon Studios and released in theatres in Christmas 2004.

20th Century Fox released great feature-length films in America like FernGully: The Last Rainforest, Doctor Dolittle and Home Alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.79.15 (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk in wrong place

Resolved

– Vandalism has been reverted. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk should not be fifth highest grossing film if it's box office is in between Bad Boys II and X-Men 2. This needs to be corrected. 2603:8081:4D07:5481:7129:2495:66CD:410B (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]