Talk:National Film Registry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listNational Film Registry is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on November 14, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 18, 2009Featured list candidatePromoted

Chronological order[edit]

I feel it'd make more sense to list the films by the year of their introduction to the National Film Registry rather than alphabetically the way they are now. - Throw 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can change it by clicking the little arrows next to 'release date' or 'induction date' 130.64.152.163 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these little arrows sufficiently noticeable, and their function presumed to be in the average user's knowledge of how to use Wikipedia? If not, perhaps a note should be added near the table in question pointing out the existence of the arrows and their function? MultiScrivner (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italics[edit]

Why are some film titles in italics and others not? GeorgeMillo (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone started and then got bored. I've finished the job. Gran2 15:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting[edit]

adding sorting instructions (in small letters) Martin | talk • contribs 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superlatives[edit]

I think it would make sense to include a list or chart of superlatives, such as director with most entries, actor/actress in the most, or studio with most —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.230.183 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiments, at least partially. I have added a "Statistics" section into the article. It somewhat, at least, starts to address the concerns of your above post. However ... the nature of this film list is such that it spans over 100 years and includes a wide variety of film formats (e.g., Hollywood classics, the Zapruder film of Kennedy's assassination, the first known film with sound, World War II footage, a Martin Luther King documentary, footage of the Hindenburg disaster, etc.). As such, I think that descriptive "characteristics" such as actors, directors, studios, etc., would probably not be very meaningful in a diverse list such as this. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yea true .still a really hot scene done reeltime can be found on many channels. The blond sexy ladies are what I look to give best idea of more intertwined picture. Yet my own wife casts image's lonly ND despite boring tv Juliuskemp85 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference the last paragraph in the lead[edit]

The last paragraph in the lead isn't referenced. Eventhough the information is available in the list itself it would be best to have the paragraph referenced since the prior paragraphs are. If you reference something in the lead, then the whole lead has to be referenced to make verifiability easier. It's either not referencing the lead at all ( In the case the info is available in the body text) or referencing the whole lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statements in the prior paragraphs are information that is not present in the rest of the list. Readers can easily find the information in each of the statements in the final paragraph within the list. If there was some other mention about the films that wasn't already included in the list, then I would have definitely sourced it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Category[edit]

I wanted to suggest that we create a category on commons "Category:National Film Registry" that contains film categories or images of Films that are listed in the National Film Registry. Wouldn't that be beneficial ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. It's obviously going to have namely older films, but as the years go by, new images can be added as films fall out of copyright. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative vs Feature Film[edit]

Feature-length narrative (i.e. fiction) films are currently listed as "feature film", while feature-length films of other genres are ghettoized to more specific categories (e.g. documentary, experimental). This is curious because "feature" refers to the length of the film (typically running over 60 minutes) not its content. Categorizing the films this way effectively reinforces the notion that the only true feature films are narrative films while documentary and experimental works are somehow lesser. Preserving works of all different forms and formats is a key part of the National Film Registry's mission, so it would make sense to keep this list genre-neutral. Perhaps feature-length narrative films could be listed as "feature-length narrative" or "feature-length fiction" while feature-length documentaries could become "feature-length documentary", etc? Peanutbuttertoast (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only American films[edit]

Does the National Film Registry only include American films?

Dumoren (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, but I think I remember reading a couple of these are foreign (or had foreign assistance). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick peek shows a number of non-USA films such as The African Queen, The Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia, produced by Horizon Pictures of the UK. Although those films are considered UK, they would have had some degree of USA involvement, which may be all th the Registry requires. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth, the National Film Preservation Board website:
The National Film Registry historically has included only those films that were produced or co-produced by an American film company, typically for theatrical release or recognized as a film through film festivals or film awards. If in doubt, check the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) for country of origin. Registry criteria does [sic] not specifically prohibit television programs, commercials, music videos or foreign productions, however, the original intent of the legislation that established the Registry was to safeguard U.S. films. Consequently the National Film Preservation Board and the Librarian of Congress give first consideration to American motion pictures.
--Thnidu (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fear not. There are lots of film archives (BFI, etc.) around the world although in your defense I tried to get Python's Holy Grail on it without avail. Espngeek (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One question: Jane Fonda's Workout (1982) is on the list for some odd reason. Did it had a theatrical release? Espngeek (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching Wikipedia for hits regarding workout+jane+fonda, Espngeek, and saw your question here. Jane Fonda's Workout was only a home video, never theatrical. But it was a HUGE home video, changing many things in the US, for instance the culture of exercise classes which we now take for granted. This blog says Wendy Shay, an audiovisual archivist at the Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, has reported that another AMIA member has suggested Fonda's video for the National Film Registry because of its cultural significance. Wendy Shay agrees that Fonda's video is important. But it's not yet on the list. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, direct-to-video titles count, too? Espngeek (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently not, as the Workout has not been moved from the list of unlisted titles. I'm sure there's lots of resistance on the committee. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Star Wars films[edit]

I think the full official titles of the Star Wars films as determined by Lucasfilm should be included on Wikipedia's list regardless of how the National Film Registry states them. The argument for just putting Star Wars is that's how the Registry lists it. But the registry also lists 'Thriller,' while Wikipedia lists it as 'Michael Jackson's Thriller.' By the time Star Wars was inducted to the list in 1989, it had the Episode IV designation, making that its official title. Also, why shouldn't Wikipedia be more precise whenever possible, as in the case of Thriller. After all, Wikipedia isn't presenting the National Film Registry list. It's presenting its list of the films that are on the Registry. There is a difference. If the page was just a reproduction of the graphic of the Registry's list, that's one thing. But it is not. It is a list of links to the pages of the films that are on the Registry, and the link to Episode IV goes to a page that is headed by that full title. That is the film's official name. Vader47000 (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The registry inducted the original, non-special edition of Star Wars to their list, since at the time of its induction (1989) the film was still being marketed only by the original title - hence the listing of the film simply as Star Wars, without any of the later additions of episode numbers or subtitles, which the original release of the film did not have. It's why pages like the 50th Academy Awards only list the film as Star Wars. The Empire Strikes Back was released with the full episode number and subtitle, which is why I've not tried to change that mention. Thriller is an odd case - most of the media mentions at its induction refer to it as only "Thriller" - only Wikipedia seems to go with the naming convention of using the longer title - the links still go to the appropriate pages, and I personally think that the names should be changed on the page as well to reflect the actual precise listing that the National Film registry represents. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is contradictory. The Empire Strikes Back was usually marketed as just that as well, so either we go with what it was marketed as, or what its on-screen title is. At the time of its induction, and officially today, the on-screen title is Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. And since Wikipedia is listing the films on the list, not re-creating the list, there's no reason NOT to include the full official title. There's no reason Wikipedia should not be more precise than what the Registry lists. 66.74.160.250 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the full title is more helpful for readers. We are fortunate to provide more details beyond the simple listing provided by the NR, and being more comprehensive will help to prevent any potential confusion. The fact that we include the year of the film's release will indicate to readers that the original was recognized (not any special editions), while the full title better illustrates which of the six (seven/eight?, do we count Christmas Special and animated Clone Wars?) were recognized. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation[edit]

There's no mention of what it actually means for a film to be preserved or why preservation is necessary. Seems pretty important for the article. 24.5.175.193 (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this information should be included. Information as to where, how, and why the various films are preserved are critical to a layman's understanding of the Registry. In addition, info such as whether updated versions of the various films (such as the various Lucas revisions for Star Wars) are also preserved should be noted as well.Number3son (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is very unclear why all theatre releases are not “preserved” in the NFR. Same applies to all straight-to-DVD/cable/streaming releases. All books get included in the library, after all, so why not movies and TV shows? 82.46.90.58 (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much stuff is there?[edit]

Yeah couldn't you add how much stuff you have in your collection. Like I don't maybe number the movies and stuff on the list. I don't know you don't really have anything in here which says the exact number of stuff collected. Am I right or just an annoying Wikipedia Critic.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.170.254 (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a numbering system might be confusing because the films are not part of the registry in any particular order. However, the article does say how many films the registry has. The end of the third paragraph says, "As of the 2010 listing, there are 550 films preserved in the Registry." Hope this helps! Erik (talk | contribs) 19:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Turner's coloring b/w films as the impetus to create the NFR[edit]

Caught a documentary called These Amazing Shadows about the National Film Registry last night, and was surprised to learn the cause→effect relationship between the Registry's creation and Ted Turner's purchase of MGM's entire library and his subsequent decision to colorize older films for television audiences. The criticism from directors such as Woody Allen and Sydney Pollack prompted Turner to respond "They're my movies and I can do what I want with them" or some such similar statement. Finally, Jimmy Stewart spoke out and that seemed to be the decision maker for Congress to create the NFR.

It's just the documentary I saw and I have no other sources, but I was wondering if the maintenance crew for this article knew this info and their thoughts on including it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a guarantee of preservation[edit]

An IP editor already asked last year but got no reply, so I am asking again out of curiosity.

So this list identifies films selected for preservation, is mentioned in the same article as 'National Film Preservation Foundation', 'National Film Preservation Board', 'National Film Preservation Act', and yet there is "not a guarantee of actual preservation" for the selected films.

So aside from the publicity (and prestige even) of inclusion, isn't it just a list of culturally important films? Not trying to be disrespectful here, but without actually preserving a copy of the film for future generations, it's just a list of films that grows bigger each year depending on criteria. We've had those sorts of "best of" lists for decades. What sets THIS list apart from (for example) IMDB's top 100 of all time? What is the actual point of this list? MrZoolook (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to their FAQ, they do indeed keep a copy of each film.—Chowbok ☠ 01:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do they actually have the original release of Star Wars or is it one of the revisions that were widely available on VHS when it was inducted?170.199.250.52 (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of a Nation lynching shot[edit]

Must we have a lynching scene as the still accompanying the mention of Birth of a Nation? While the film is infamous for its racism and glorification of the Ku Klux Klan, that's surely not why it's in the Registry. To quote the last paragraph of the article's lede,

Despite the film's controversial content, Griffith's innovative film techniques make it one of the most important and influential films in film history.

Somebody please replace that image with something less horrible.
Please {{ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars revisited[edit]

It may have been different when we last had a conversation about this, but the article about the 1977 Star Wars film is currently at Star Wars (film). It seems to me that if both the Registry and Wikipedia use the original name, this article should as well. Changed to reflect that.—Chowbok ☠ 01:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should list it as it is listed in the Registry. Gamaliel (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion relating to the titles of experimental films, home movies and such[edit]

See the discussion at Talk:Zapruder film#Requested move, regaring whether films such as "Zapruder film" should be titled as proper names (Zapruder Film), in this article and elsewhere. wbm1058 (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image use[edit]

There have been a couple of recent additions of non-free images to this article which have been reverted because the the use of these files does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, but there usage is highly restricted, unlike freely licensed or public domain files. Each use of a non-free image is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria without exception and those that do not can be removed. Moreover, non-free use typically requires more than just a desire to have a reader "see" the file in question, but a strong contextual connection between the article content and the image itself so that removing the file in question would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of said content. Most of the article is just an embedded list of films, all of which seem to have their own stand-alone articles. None of these entries really require that a reader see an image from the film in question, and in many cases most of these images can also be found in the stand-alone articles for the films. For freely-licensed and PD files, this is not such a big deal; for non-free images, however, it is almost never allowed per WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFLISTS). If someone feel that they can justify the non-free use these files in this article, then they are welcomed to try by providing a valid non-free use rationale for each image they want to use which clearly shows how the use satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria per WP:NFCCE. I am pretty skeptical that this can be done given the type of article this is, but anyone is welcome to try. For reference, simply adding a non-free use rationale does not automatically mean it's a valid rationale, so it might be best those wanting to use these files in this article to nominate them for discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Film Registry. 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) 09:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Film Registry. 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) 07:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Films Table Length[edit]

I just wanted to start a discussion regarding the length of the Films table on this page... Considering the Registry is likely going to continue growing for a number of years to come, it’s really going to get overwhelming - even moreso than it is now. As this page is meant to be specifically about the Registry itself, it seems as though the films on it should be moved elsewhere and accessible via a link. My recent edit to solve this problem was undone - out of a concern that it would hinder the ability for those seeking to find films by year (despite the function to sort by year still possible on the new pages on which I’d broken the films up onto, albeit not quite as easy as it is now) - but I’ve got to imagine there are others concerned about this issue and that there must be some sort of solution that could be agreed upon. Sorry, but it just seems a little silly to have such a massive list when the information can be presented just as well broken up into more manageable pages. Bradforce28 (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My original thought was to do it by Induction year, but alphabetical ended up making the most sense, in my opinion - List of National Film Registry films (A–D) - but as I said, there’s probably other ways to go about this as well. Bradforce28 (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me like a solution looking for a problem. Who cares if the table is large? "Overwhelming" to whom? Right now, I can click it once to see what films were inducted in a particular year, or which films from a particular year were inducted. Your way, I'd have to go to six different pages and sort 25 different tables to get the same information. I fail to see how that's more "manageable".—Chowbok ☠ 00:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradforce28: You might want to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Film Registry films (A–D). Pichpich (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chowbok: Again, I admitted there's probably other/better ways to go about this, it just seems like with 25 films getting added each year, this page is going to become primarily just a gigantic listing of films when it is meant to be a page about the Registry itself. Perhaps a separate, single page titled List of films in the National Film Registry or something similar, could be created instead if the consensus is that one list is the best way to present that information. @Pichpich: Thanks for the heads up, but I honestly have no desire to fight what appears to be a losing battle. Seems like it would just be a pointless waste of my time. I simply wanted to make this page meant to define and discuss what the Registry is, not home to one long - and still growing - list of films which distract from the primary topic and should instead be presented more as a supplement or addendum to this page. If that's something people want to debate, they can do it without me, this is more headache than it's worth.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other, but yes, I wouldn't have an problem with the entire table being split off to a separate page. I just want to be able to sort the whole thing by production year or induction year.—Chowbok ☠ 01:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What we have is fine. Any list should come with context and it makes no sense to keep context on one article and the list in another. It's still not clear to me what the issue is. The list is long, ok, but it's plain text so it's not like it's taking hours to download (I'm pretty sure the images take more time to load than the list) You want to skip over the long list to see what's below it? Well if you find scrolling takes too long, we have a convenient table of contents that allows you to jump to later sections. Pichpich (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good precedent might be The Criterion Collection and List of Criterion Collection releases; one article giving the surrounding info, and a forked list for the specifics. Seems to work there, at 1,000 films and counting. I'm not certain when it was forked, but given the number of films in the registry, I have no objection to the split. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain images[edit]

Superlatives section[edit]

I think this section needs some work done on it Bob3458 (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob3458: In what way? Reformatting? Rephrasing? All of the above? I've done a little work on it since this post, but I'm not sure if that addressed your concerns or not. Bradforce28 (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to follow up on this (I know it's been a while, but it's still an issue). The superlatives section seems to be mostly original research, which is deeply problematic for any page, but especially one that is a featured list. Many citations are either incorrectly formatted or use poor sources (IMDb is not a valid source), and the sources only seem to indicate that the film is in the registry, not that it meets the superlative. I think the entire section should be removed immediately or this list may need to be reexamined for FL status. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for removing the section per WP:SYNTH. The cited sources are not explicit about the listed films meeting the superlative. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: Since you agree that the content should be removed, I think that should be the plan. However, I think we should wait about 24 hours to see if anyone else has a response (I know I said "immediately", but I don't want to be accused of making major changes without a chance for discussion). Would you agree? RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody would be harmed if we remove now and then restore later. I run hot; I tend to the bold side of WP:BRD.
Whatever works. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. I've deleted it for now and we'll see how things play out. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I support removing the section as OR. Pichpich (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with removing the superlatives section is that it's now very difficult to find the oldest and most recent titles on the Registry, as well as other statistics and information of note and relevance. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the information regarding what titles got in on their first year of eligibility. IF the superlatives section is deleted, some of this information needs to be reincorporated into the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiIndustrialComplex (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have to get rid of awards and people on multiple inductees as well? Espngeek (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any information of that sort compiled by reliable third party observers can be summarized in the article. The WP:SYNTH problem comes when Wikipedia editors do the compiling themselves. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do these guys count?[edit]

Saul Bass-10 Espngeek (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espngeek: Definitely! It would be nice to get a most inducted "Lead Actor" and "Lead Actress" as well, but that's going to take a while to determine... Bradforce28 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Costume designer with most entries? Espngeek (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • [1]Espngeek (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I've got a massive spreadsheet where I'm gradually figuring out the numbers for everyone... It might take another week or so, but I'm planning to cover all the major cast/crew positions. Bradforce28 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special effects? Espngeek (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admire and appreciate the work that you guys have put into this, but I'm not certain how relevant it is to the topic. The Registry is there to honour the films, not the individuals who worked on them. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understandable, but credits is where credit is due. Espngeek (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which studio has the most titles as of 2020? Espngeek (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Inducted[edit]

@Espngeek: It definitely crossed my mind to include this, but it's going to take a bit longer to figure out than the youngest was... It also gets a little tricky because it becomes a question of - Are we looking for the oldest living person inducted? Or just oldest in general? Or both? Bradforce28 (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Age of filmmaker when said film was inducted. Espngeek (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Espngeek: Right, but I meant along the lines of, do we need to do the oldest filmmaker alive at the time of the induction, instead of/as well as the oldest filmmaker in general at the time of the induction - which would be someone like William KL Dickson, who would have been 155 in 2015. Bradforce28 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Inductees[edit]

On the National Film Registry's website, it details that "foreign productions" are not specifically prohibited, just that American produced films are given first consideration. I bring this up as I believe Lawrence of Arabia is a wholly British production, though it was nominated in 1991 for it's significance to American film. Should we make a list of completely foreign productions on the registry, with Lawrence of Arabia, as far as I'm aware, being the only one currently? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell,Lawrence of Arabia was made in Britain with a British crew but was funded and distributed by American studios. This is why the American Film Institute ranked it on its list of the top 100 American films, along with similar productions such as The Bridge on the River Kwai and 2001: A Space Odyssey. They're American enough to make the cut for the registry. If any of the Lord of the Rings films are ever inducted, it will be for the same reason.Sbb618 (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The production company, Horizon Pictures, whilst founded by an Austrian-born producer who became a naturalized American citizen, was a British production company and is even referred to with the initials (G.B.) on the official American Film Institute website. Columbia Pictures is indeed American, but according to my research, both independently and on the Lawrence of Arabia page itself, it only distributed the film. Now, if we were to also classify films as American by their distributor, that is fine and indeed allows the added benefit of a wide-range of films to potentially join the NFR from 28 Days Later to Love Actually, which I have no issue with, I'm just looking for clarification in regards to whether the distributor does or doesn't contribute to a film's eligibility. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With the induction of A Clockwork Orange last year, the count of fully foreign productions is now two. The same rationale may be assumed; it also had American distribution.--2600:1008:B063:1C3B:D0A1:93CD:41BF:CB08 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image Overload[edit]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Recording Registry cross-references[edit]

This past year, footnotes denoting the following appeared in the article:

± Indicates that the film's soundtrack or a significant piece of music featured in the film (even in variations) is also a National Recording Registry inductee.

I won't question the relevancy of the notation in general, but based on several of the titles noted, I think this cross-referencing of the two national registries requires stricter standards.

Shrek, for example, is footnoted, according to the edit history, because of the inclusion of John Cale's rendition of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" in the film. However, it is not Cale's version of "Hallelujah" in the Recording Registry, nor even Cohen's, but that of Jeff Buckley. When the Registry board makes a selection, it is not the song but the particular recording of the song that is inducted. If a film does not feature this precise recording, in my opinion, it should not be cross-referenced with the Recording Registry. By extending the footnote's criteria to "variations" of recordings, not only is the specificity of the Registry misrepresented, but the number of films eligible for notation may become unwieldy.

The same standard should be applied across the board. The musicals Oklahoma!, Porgy and Bess, Show Boat and West Side Story appear on both registries, but as performed by different casts. Concert films such as Jazz On a Summer's Day, Monterey Pop, The TAMI Show and Woodstock contain several songs that are in the Recording Registry, but although performed by the same artists, they're not the specific recordings inducted. Platoon made extensive use of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings", but as conducted by Georges Delerue rather than Arturo Tuscanini. 2001: A Space Odyssey famously uses "Also Sprach Zarathustra", but not as performed by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Manhattan uses "Rhapsody In Blue", but not as performed by Gershwin. Perhaps many in the public would not recognize a distinction between these recordings, but an encyclopedia should aspire to greater accuracy than conventional thought.

I suggest that the footnote's scope be limited to films with an actual soundtrack on the Recording Registry, such as Shaft and The Sound of Music, and films in which a registry-inducted recording appears prominently, such as American Graffiti and Bonnie and Clyde. --2600:1008:B045:39D8:7139:5F42:1EE5:64A8 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns[edit]

In its current state, I'm wondering how this article is an FA. Aside from having a lead that's no joke only one sentence long, the article uses a rather large amount of primary sources. Although everything in the main table is sourced, both "Number of films by release year" is hardly sourced and "Filmmakers with multiple entries (3 or more)" is entirely unsourced. There are also numerous dead links. If something isn't done soon this article definitely no longer deserves the star. – zmbro (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check out each inductee's article for more information Espngeek (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Espngeek How does that help with keeping this specific article an FA? – zmbro (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Well for one, IMDb is not reliable. You're adding sources improperly: missing websites, authors, access dates, etc. FAs need to have consistent sourcing. Also, you just extended one sentence so no, it's not better. – zmbro (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Bambi in Related Articles list[edit]

I skimmed the Bambi article to see why it merited inclusion in the list. I stopped and examined the content referring to the NFR as well as nearby content.

I found nothing in the article sufficiently related to the National Film Registry to recommend it as a Related Article. It does mention Bambi's inclusion in the NFR, but not with any other information about the NFR or Bambi that suggests that this inclusion was particularly interesting, unusual, or noteworty.

Thus I think Bambi should be removed from Related Articles. Unless someone can point out something I'm missing. MultiScrivner (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and punctuation issues throughout the article[edit]

I felt it necessary to make small rewrites in both the very first paragraph and in several subsequent sections for clarity.

If I scan the rest of the article and conclude this is a pervasive problem, how would I tag the article for proofreading and copyediting? MultiScrivner (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use Template:Proofreader needed. Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

± Key[edit]

On the list of films included in the registry, multiple films have ± next to their name. However, the page does not explain what this sign means. So, I suggest that a key be included above the list of films - that explains what the sign means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.35.8 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the notes section of the article it says "± Indicates that a significant piece of music featured in the film's soundtrack is also a National Recording Registry inductee." Hope that helps. Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! I didn't see that, thanks very much 92.0.35.8 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"National film registry"" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect National film registry" and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § National film registry" until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i messed up[edit]

hey, i tried to remove Morbius because it isn't an actual movie on the Film Registry but it appears I accidentally deleted every movie. I have no idea how to fix this, i'm really sorry. Can someone fix this and then just remove Morbius? Morbiusisnotagoodmovie (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nvm i fixed it Morbiusisnotagoodmovie (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


National Film Registry: Film Essays and Interviews[edit]

Index of Film Essays and Interviews at National Film Registry
cite list:
  • 12 Angry Men by Joanna E. Rapf
  • 13 Lakes by Scott McDonald
  • 2001: A Space Odyssey by James Verniere
  • 7th Heaven by Aubrey Solomon
  • 7th Voyage of Sinbad by Tony Dalton
  • Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein by Ron Palumbo
  • Airplane! by Michael Schlesinger
  • All My Babies by Josh Glick
  • All Quiet on the Western Front by Garry Wills
  • All That Heaven Allows by John Wills
  • All the President's Men by Mike Canning
  • An American in Paris – Interview with Leslie Caron
  • Annie Hall by Jay Carr
  • Antonia: A Portrait of the Woman by Diane Worthey
  • Apartment, The by Kyle Westphal
  • Atomic Cafe, The by John Willis
  • Baby Face by Gwendolyn Audrey Foster
  • Bambi by John Wills
  • Bank Dick, The by Randy Skretvedt
  • Bargain, The by Brian Taves
  • Battle of San Pietro, The by Ed Carter
  • Being There by Jerry Dean Roberts
  • Ben-Hur
  • Ben-Hur
  • Begigist Years of Our Lives, The by Gabriel Miller
  • Big Business by Randy Skretvedt
  • Big Lebowski, The by J.M. Tyree & Ben Walters
  • Big Trail, The by Marilyn Moss
  • Birth of a Nation, The by Dave Kehr
  • Black Pirate, The by Tracey Goessel
  • Black Stallion, The by Keith Phipps
  • Blacksmith Scene
  • Blade Runner by David Morgan
  • Blazing Saddles by Michael Schlesinger
  • Blood of Jesus, The by Mark S. Giles
  • Blue Bird, The by Kaveh Askari
  • Bonnie and Clyde by Richard Schickel
  • Born Yesterday by Ariel Schudson
  • Brandy in the Wilderness by Paul Schrader
  • Bride of Frankenstein, The by Richard T. Jameson
  • Bringing Up Baby by Michael Schlesinger
  • Broadcast News by Brian Scott Mednick
  • Broken Blossoms by Ed Gonzalez
  • Bronx Morning, A by Scott Simmon
  • Buffalo Creek Flood: An Act of Man by Mimi Pickering
  • Cabaret by Steve Tropiano
  • Casablanca by Jay Carr
  • Castro Street
  • Cat People by Chuck Bowen
  • Chechahcos, The by Chris Beheim
  • Chinatown by James Verniere
  • Chulas fronteras by David Wilt
  • Cicero March by Nancy Watrous
  • Citizen Kane by Godfrey Cheshire
  • City, The by Kyle Westphal
  • City Lights by Jeffrey Vance
  • Civilization by Brian Taves
  • Clash of the Wolves by Susan Orlean
  • Close Encounters of the Third Kind by Matt Zoller Seitz
  • Cologne: From the Diary of Ray and Esther by Scott Simmon
  • Commandment Keeper Church by Fayth M. Parks
  • Computer Animated Hand, A by Andrew Utterson
  • Conversation, The by Peter Keough
  • Cops by Randy Haberkamp
  • Corner in Wheat, A by Daniel Eagan
  • Cry of Jazz, The by Chuck Kleinhans
  • Cry of the Children, The by Ned Thanhouser
  • Cure for Pokeritis, A by Steve Massa
  • Czechoslovakia 1968 by Robert M. Fresco
  • Dance, Girl, Dance by Carrie Rickey
  • Dances with Wolves by Angela Aleiss
  • Dark Knight, The by Mark Dujsik
  • Daughter of Shanghai by Brian Taves
  • Decasia by Daniel Eagan
  • Detour by J. Hoberbman
  • Die Hard by Eric Lichtenfeld
  • Dirty Harry by Matt Lohr
  • Disneyland Dream by Liz Coffey
  • Do the Right Thing by David Sterritt
  • Double Indemnity Matt Zoller Seitz
  • Down Argentine Way by Carla Arton
  • Dr. Strangelove by Wheeler Winston Dixon
  • Dracula by Gary Rhodes
  • Drácula by András Lénárt
  • Dragon Painter, The by Daisuke Miyao
  • Dream of a Rarebit Fiend by Lauren Rabinovitz
  • Duck Amuck by Craig Kausen
  • Duck and Cover by Jake Hughes
  • Duck Soup by William Wolf
  • Eaux d’Artifice by Daniel Eagan
  • E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial by David Gibson
  • Easy Rider by William Wolf
  • El Mariachi and Robert Rodriguez by Charles Ramírez Berg
  • El Norte by Matthew Holtmeier
  • Electronic Labyrinth THX 1138 4EB by Matthew Holtmeier
  • Emperor Jones, The by Scott Allen Nollen
  • Empire by Cary O'Dell
  • Enter the Dragon by Michael Sragow
  • Eraserhead by David Sterritt
  • Evidence of the Film, The by Ned Thanhouser
  • Exiles, The by Catherine Russell
  • Exploits of Elaine, The by Margaret Hennefeld
  • Faces by Ray Carney
  • Fall of the House of Usher, The by Scott Simmon
  • Felicia by Marsha Gordon and Allyson Nadia Field
  • Felicia by Alan Gorg
  • Flash Gordon by Roy Kinnard
  • The Fog of War by Betsy McLane
  • Foolish Wives by Daniel Eagan
  • Footlight Parade by Randy Skretvedt
  • Forbidden Planet by Ian Olney
  • Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, The by Randy Haberkamp
  • Fox Movietone News: Jenkins Orphanage Band by Julie Hubbert
  • Frankenstein by Richard T. Jameson
  • Freshman, The by Annette D'Agostino Lloyd
  • From Stump to Ship by Karan Sheldon
  • From the Manger to the Cross by Daniel Eagan
  • Fury by Raquel Stecher
  • Gertie the Dinosaur by Daniel Eagan
  • Ghostbusters by Adam Bertocci
  • Gilda by Kimberly Truhler
  • Gigi – Interview with Leslie Caron
  • Godfather II, The by Michael Sragow
  • Godfather, The by Michael Sragow
  • Gold Rush, The by Darren R. Reid and Brett Sanders
  • Gone with the Wind by Molly Haskell
  • Graduate, The by Jami Bernard
  • Grass by Dennis Doros
  • Great Dictator, The by Jeffrey Vance
  • Groundhog Day by Steve Ginsberg
  • Gun Crazy by Richard T. Jameson
  • Gus Visser and His Singing Duck by Scott Simmon
  • Halloween by Murray Leeder
  • Hands Up! by Steve Massa
  • Harlan County, USA by Randy Haberkamp
  • Hearts and Minds by Peter Davis
  • Hell's Hinges by David Menefee
  • Heroes All by Gerry Veeder
  • Hester Street by Eric Goldman
  • High School by Barry Grant
  • Hitch-Hiker, The by Wheeler Winston Dixon
  • Hole, The by Greg Cwik
  • Hospital by Barry Keith Grant
  • The House I Live In by Art Simon
  • House in the Middle, The by Kelly Chisholm
  • House of Wax by Jack Theakston
  • I, An Actress by Scott Simmon
  • Imitation of Life
  • Imitation of Life
  • Immigrant, The by Jeffrey Vance
  • In the Heat of the Night by Michael Schlesinger
  • In the Land of the Head Hunters by Aaron Glass and Brad Evans
  • Incredible Shrinking Man, The by Barry Keith Grant
  • Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport by Mark Jonathan Harris
  • Intolerance by Benjamin Schrom
  • Invasion of the Body Snatchers by Robert Sklar
  • Iron Horse, The by David Kiehn
  • It by Dino Everett
  • It Happened One Night by Ian Scott
  • Jailhouse Rock by Carrie Rickey
  • Jam Session by Mark Cantor
  • Jaws by Nathan Wardinski
  • Jazz Singer, The by Ron Hutchinson
  • Jezebel by Gabriel Miller
  • Johnny Guitar by Michael Schlesinger
  • Kid, The by Jeffrey Vance
  • King Kong by Michael Price
  • King of Jazz by Jonas Nordin
  • Kiss Me Deadly by Alain Silver
  • La vengenza de Pancho Villa by Laura Isabel Serna, PhD
  • Lady Windermere's Fan by Scott Simmon
  • Lambchops by Ron Hutchinson
  • Land Beyond the Sunset, The by Scott Simmon
  • Lawrence of Arabia by Michael Wilmington
  • Lead Shoes, The by Kyle Westphal
  • Learning Tree, The by Maurice Berger
  • Let There Be Light by Bryce Lowe
  • Let's All Go to the Lobby by Thad Komorowski
  • Life and Death of 9413: A Hollywood Extra, The by Brian Taves
  • Little Big Man by Kimberly Lindbergs
  • Little Miss Marker by John Kasson
  • Little Nemo by Daniel Eagan
  • Living Desert, The by Paul Kenworthy
  • Lonesome by Raquel Stecher
  • Lost World, The by Brian Taves
  • Love Finds Andy Hardy by Charlie Achuff
  • Love Me Tonight by Richard Barrios
  • Mabel's Blunder by Brent E. Walker
  • Magical Maestro by Thad Komorowski
  • Magnificent Seven, The by Stephen Prince
  • Making of an American, The by Charles "Buckey" Grimm
  • Maltese Falcon by Richard T. Jameson
  • Master Hands by Richard Marback and Jim Brown
  • Matrimony's Speed Limit by Margaret Hennefeld
  • McCabe & Mrs. Miller by Chelsea Wessels
  • Meet Me in St. Louis by Andrea Alsberg
  • Men and Dust by Adrianne Finelli
  • Middleton Family at the New York World's Fair, The by Andrew Wood
  • Midnight by Kyle Westphal
  • Mildred Pierce by Charlie Achuff
  • Modern Times by Jeffrey Vance
  • Mom and Dad by Eric Schaefer
  • Monterey Pop - Interview with Michelle Phillips
  • Morocco by Donna Ross
  • A MOVIE by Kevin Hatch
  • Mr. Smith Goes to Washington by Robert Sklar
  • Music Box, The by Randy Skretvedt
  • Nanook of the North by Patricia R. Zimmermann
  • Nashville by David Sterritt
  • National Lampoon's Animal House - Interview with Tim Matheson
  • The Navigator by Yair Solan
  • Network by Joanna E. Rapf
  • Night of the Hunter, The by Peter Rainer
  • Night of the Living Dead by Jim Trombetta
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street by Nathan Wardinski
  • Norma Rae by Gabriel Miller
  • North by Northwest by Thomas Leitch
  • Notes on the Port of St. Francis by Scott McDonald
  • Now, Voyager by Charlie Achuff
  • OffOn by Scott Simmon
  • Oklahoma! by Phil Hall
  • On the Waterfront by Robert Sklar
  • Once Upon a Time in the West by Chelsea Wessels
  • One Froggy Evening by Craig Kausen
  • One Survivor Remembers by Kary Antholis
  • One Week by Daniel Eagan
  • Our Day by Margaret Compton
  • Out of the Past by Stephanie Zacharek
  • Parable by Mark Quigley
  • Pass the Gravy by Steve Massa
  • Pawnbroker, The by Annette Insdorf
  • "Peege" by Daniel Eagan
  • Pillow Talk by Matthew Kennedy
  • Pink Flamingos by Howard Hampton
  • Pinocchio by J.B. Kaufman
  • Planet of the Apes by John Wills
  • Plow That Broke the Plains, The by Robert Snyder
  • Poor Little Rich Girl, The by Eileen Whitfield
  • Porgy and Bess by Foster Hirsch
  • Power and the Glory, The by Aubrey Solomon
  • Powers of Ten by Eric Schuldenfrei
  • Precious Images by Patricia R. and Dale Zimmermann
  • Preservation of the Sign Language by Christopher Shea
  • President McKinley Inauguration by Charles "Buckey" Grimm
  • Princess Nicotine; or, The Smoke Fairy by Scott Simmon
  • Producers, The by Brian Scott Mednick
  • Psycho by Charles Taylor
  • Pulp Fiction by Jami Bernard
  • Pups Is Pups by Randy Skretvedt
  • Quiet Man, The by Scott Nollen
  • Raging Bull by Jami Bernard
  • Rear Window by John Belton
  • Rebel Without a Cause by Jay Carr
  • Red Book, The by Holly Willis
  • Red Dust by Daniel Eagan
  • Red River by Michael Schlesinger
  • Regeneration by Marilyn Ann Moss
  • Ride the High Country by Stephen Prince
  • Rio Bravo by Michael Schlesinger
  • River, The by Dr. Robert J. Snyder
  • Road to Morocco by Richard Zoglin
  • Rose Hobart by Holly Willis
  • Safety Last by Richard W. Bann
  • Salome by Martin Turnbull
  • San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, April 18, 1906 by Daniel Eagan
  • Schindler’s List by Jay Carr
  • Searchers, The by Scott Allen Nollen
  • Sergeant York by Donna Ross
  • Sex Life of the Polyp, The by Steve Massa
  • Shadow of a Doubt by Thomas Leitch
  • Shadows by Ray Carney
  • She Done Him Wrong by Randy Skretvedt
  • Shoes by Shelley Stamp
  • Shop Around the Corner by Kevin Bahr
  • Show Boat by Phil Hall
  • The Silence of the Lambs by Will Mann
  • Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs by J.B. Kaufman
  • Son of the Sheik, The by Donna Hill
  • So's Your Old Man by Steve Massa
  • Some Like It Hot by David Eldridge
  • Spook Who Sat by the Door, The by Michael T. Martin
  • St. Louis Blues by Mark Cantor
  • Stagecoach by Scott Nollen
  • Star Wars by Matt Zoller Seitz
  • State Fair by Aubrey Solomon
  • Steamboat Willie by Dave Smith
  • Story of G.I. Joe, The by Amy Dunkelberger
  • Strong Man, The by Bill Schelly
  • Study in Reds, A by Patricia R. Zimmermann
  • Study of a River by Claudia Costa Pederson
  • Sullivan's Travels by Julie Grossman
  • Superman: The Movie by Chuck Kolpinski
  • Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One by Maria San Filippo
  • Sweet Smell of Success, The by Andrea Alsberg
  • Tall T, The by Michael Schlesinger
  • T.A.M.I. Show, The by David E. James
  • Tarantella by Lauren Rabinovitz
  • Terminator, The by John Wills
  • Tess of the Storm Country by Eileen Whitfield
  • Tevye by J. Hoberman
  • There It Is by Steve Massa
  • They Call It Pro Football by Ed Carter
  • Thief of Bagdad, The by Joe Morgenstern
  • This Is Cinerama by Kyle Westphal
  • Time For Burning, A by Ed Carter
  • To Be or Not to Be by David L. Smith
  • Tol'able David by Fritzi Kramer
  • Tootsie by Brian Scott Mednick
  • Top Hat by Carrie Rickey
  • Topaz by Karen L. Ishizuka
  • Touch of Evil by Michael Sragow
  • Toy Story by Mindy Rickles
  • Traffic in Souls by Marilyn Ferdinand
  • Trip Down Market Street, A by David Kiehn
  • Tulips Shall Grow by Mark Mayerson
  • Twelve O’Clock High by Luisa F. Ribeiro
  • Twentieth Century by Michael Schlesinger
  • Two-Color Kodachrome Test Shots III by James Layton
  • Two-Lane Blacktop by Sam Adams
  • Uncle Tom's Cabin by Stephen Railton
  • Under Western Stars by Howard Kazanjian and Chris Enss
  • Verbena trágica by Carl J. Mora
  • Vertigo by Thomas Leitch
  • Virtuous Vamp, A by Jennifer Ann Redmond
  • Wattstax by Al Bell
  • Wedding March, The by Crystal Kui
  • What's Opera, Doc? by Craig Kausen
  • Where Are My Children? by Shelley Stamp
  • White Fawn's Devotion by Scott Simmon
  • White Heat by Marilyn Ann Moss
  • Who Framed Roger Rabbit? by Alexis Ainsworth
  • Why Man Creates by Sean Savage
  • Why We Fight by Thomas Bohn
  • Wild and Woolly by Steve Massa
  • Wild Boys of the Road by Gwendolyn Audrey Foster
  • Wild Bunch, The by Michael Wilmington
  • Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory by Brian Scott Mednick
  • Wind, The by Fritzi Kramer
  • Wings by Dino Everett
  • Wishing Ring; An Idyll of Old England, The by Kyle Westphal
  • Within Our Gates by Daniel Eagan
  • Wizard of Oz, The by Peter Keough
  • A Woman Under the Influence by Ray Carney
  • Woodstock by Ed Carter and Dale Bell
  • Young Frankenstein by Brian Scott Mednick
  • Zapruder Film by Daniel Eagan
......0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Film_Registry&oldid=1209322183"