Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Years (film)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 18:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

100 Years (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. This "film" feels like it is a publicity stunt to advertise a brewery, and thus, all the media coverage of it can be considered routine, and a parroting of marketing messages. I am not sure if this future film has lasting notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and of course this page will be kept. Your reasoning is guesswork, and the page has enough solid sources. This does give us a chance to discuss the film, and maybe give the opposing guesswork. Robert Rodriguez and John Malkovich are professionals, proud professionals. They were approached to do this interesting film, and probably were thrown a whole lot of money to do it. Rodriguez is almost unique among major filmmakers in that he actually has made one-man films and has everything he needs to film, edit, score, and do the other in-studio tasks right in his home. He has the tools he needs to do this project and knows how to use them. The overall plot core, 100 years, probably emerged with an interesting premise and amazing acting and dialogue from this two-man creative team. Hell, you can turn the camera on Malkovich and let him ad-lib and spontaneously interact with his environment for two hours and come out of that maelstrom with 20 minutes of useable footage. These guys are good at what they do, and they are not going to agree to punk their ancestors, the press, 1,000 other invited guests and their legacy for the laughs. Instead they have probably come up with an interesting, well-made, well-edited, and well-written, acted and scored film which will be highly reviewed in 2115. This article will probably be featured on Wikpedia that day, and the readers skinscanning and eyeballing (literally) the holographic surround-life 5D brainwikilinked page may ponder what wonderful films Rodriguez and Malkovich could have made with the tech of today. Randy Kryn 02:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see. On the plus side, the entity meets WP:GNG, receiving much-more-than-passing-mention description in several highly notable publications such as Variety and People. Generally, meeting WP:GNG is a strong indicator for keeping the article.

On the other hand... first of all, the entity does not appear to exist. There's no evidence that it does exist (no on has seen it, and AFAIK there are no reports from the production which indicates that production ever occurred. Furthermore, it would be unlikely for any commercial organization to put sufficient resources to make a film into something which nobody alive will live to to benefit from -- the stunt works just as well whether or not the film exists. Given that, the burden of proof would have to be on anyone contending that the entity exists.

"Not existing" is not deal-killer for an article (lots of things that don't exist are notable), but it might be for a film article. WP:NFF says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". None of the sources indicated that principal photography was ever undertaken. NFF also say "[F]ilms that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Note that is says "unless the production itself is notable" -- something reported about the production itself, such as a scandalous romantic liason among the stars, that sort of thing. Nothing about a notable publicity campaign for the film being a factor.

So, if we follow our usual approach to films, since there is no film (probably) we can't call it "100 Years (film)" -- it must at the least be moved to "100 Years (publicity campaign)" or something like that. Since it's a publicity stunt / advertising campaign, it's a lot more ephemeral than an actual film, so a good argument for deleting it on those grounds even though it meets WP:GNG could be made, I think. Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Meeting WP:GNG usually negates the deletion request, as that alone 'saves' the page (depending on the meaning of 'presumed' assumed). As for a proposed title change or deletion for not existing, you make a good point in that absolute proof of an existing film has not been sourced (as far as I know, haven't read the sources). Is the word of the two principals enough? Probably. They did release three trailers, although none show any scenes from the film. They did at least that much work. If Rodriguez made the film himself, directed, edited, co-wrote, did the music, sound, lighting, etc., which seems likely, all we need is his word. If that is in the sources, then the present name seems fine. Randy Kryn 03:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In context, WP:NFF explains its reasoning: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." The reliable sources uniformly say that Malkovich and Rodriguez made (past tense) the movie. Maybe Herostratus is right and Variety, People and Entertainment Weekly are wrong. I'll take the reliable sources, personally. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but sometimes sources have be looked at a little bit. WP:RS does not encourage us to say 1) Variety is generally reliable publication and 2) Variety used the verb "made" in their article, and so 3) we can and indeed should tell the reader that film was was made, even if it probably wasn't. There is no source of which it can be said "if it says so there, we can stop thinking: it's true, period". If the film was made, who was the cinematographer? Who was key grip? Who was film editor? Who who did casting? And so forth. You can't answer these questions because (I suspect) there is no answer. We shouldn't tell readers that something is true when it very probably is not, and we should't allow our own procedures to lead us to do that.

Reading the sources, it sure looks to me, in context, that these publications are just reporting what Malkovich and Rodriguez are telling them.

Variety says "have made a movie" without further elucidation, but then flat-out admit they are using the Gawker blog io9 as a prime source ("The film, aptly titled “100 Years,” is set in the present but won’t be seen until Nov. 18, 2115, according to io9" [emphasis added]). The io9 piece begins "Think the secrecy around the biggest Hollywood blockbusters is crazy? They don’t come close to what John Malkovich and Robert Rodriguez are doing." Doesn't that make you a wee bit suspicious? Sounds a little bit like the secret plan to defeat ISIS or whatever. It could be secret because, after spending millions of dollars making it, the Rémy Martin corporation chose to sink that cost for 100 years for no benefit (they get the same buzz whether the film exists or not), but Occam's razor leads me to be believe that it's secret because it doesn't exist.

People says "Malkovich and Rodriguez have finished said film". I don't believe them. People is generally reliable for celebrity gossip type news, but I don't trust them on this. The New Yorker would have had someone ask where and when the film was made and call up hotels in that town to independently verify that the production company had actually rented a bunch of rooms for that period -- or something, whatever they do (they're very rigorous). Did People do this sort of fact-checking? I don't trust People to that level. They say "On Wednesday, the Oscar-nominated actor and Sin City director announced they had teamed up with Louis XIII Cognac to create a film..." "Announced", indeed.

Entertainment Weekly -- again, I guess they're maybe reliable (dunno) but they're sure not Der Spiegel -- says "made a film", but again I get the vibe that they're just passing on what Malkovich and Rodriguez are telling them. Here indeed we have "Per a press release, 'to ensure that 100 Years remains secure until its official premiere,' the project is being 'held in a special safe...". Oh, OK, a press release. Well if it's in a press release it must be true. Phht. Herostratus (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice research. Yet, because Rodriguez has the in-home resources and has proven that he is technologically savvy enough to use them and make a complete film single-handidly, and Malkovich wrote the film and claims he completed his performance, their word will have to do. The sources trust them, neither has publicly complained that anyone is taking their assertions out-of-context, and someone even created a poster and trailers. Since the intent was to make the film and then tuck it away for 100 years we can't source anyone else who has seen the film. Pure guesswork on my part, but I don't think these two professionals would participate in a scam, so if they say the film is in the bulletproof-glass protected safe, and that carried enough weight to convince the sources, the sources seem to be enough to back-up this article's title and its claim to notability. Wikipedia has many other articles on upcoming films, and no policy exists which includes a release-date time limit. Anyway, Rodriguez's descendants will be in the audience along with 1,000 others, so his and Malkovich's reputation will be on the line in 2115. The release will probably encourage Rodriguez and Malkovich film and body-of-work retrospectives, and they both know that. Likely the only thing that will be a scam that day will be the price of popcorn. Randy Kryn 13:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have trouble following what you're on about, but it's not a "scam" if there's no film. It's a perfectly respectable publicity stunt, and I'm sure they were well paid paid for it -- they probably think it an interesting and amusing thing to do, and fine. Actors participate in advertising campaigns all the time. (It will be a scam 100 years in the future if people really are sold expensive tickets to see what they are told will be interesting full-length film and are instead shown a blank screen. I don't consider that likely.)

Again, "no film" does not necessarily mean "no article". We do have articles on notable advertising campaigns and publicity stunts. But since these tend to be ephemeral the bar for keeping them should maybe be higher than for actual films (which have actual lasting existence), higher than than "meets GNG in a couple passing magazine articles of the day" maybe, so... Herostratus (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 3.5 independent reliable sources say the film was made. The film passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about 100 Years (film and publicity stunt). Or is there a more civil way to say ~~'publicity stunt'~~(see below) that would cover all points of view accurately and adequately. If you all agree maybe we can end this discussion, change the title, and see if anyone objects. If so, it can go to an RM for a wider discussion. Maybe this makes sense, and covers all bases. Or it doesn't, and we continue on this interesting page. Randy Kryn 19:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe 100 Years (film and publicity event) would be a better descriptive title. I checked the John Malkovich filmography and there's a character listed for his role in the film: Hero. It's not sourced, so either it's fake Wikipedia or it resides as a fact somewhere. If true, announcing his character's name or on-screen role gives further proof of the film existing. Randy Kryn 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDb page for the film lists the roles as "Hero Girl", "Hero" and "Bad Guy". (I'd be interested in what 2115 audiences make of the chauvinism, but that's off topic.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Existing sources are enough, but there are plenty more out there, like The Washington Post, NME, Vanity Fair, etc. It's discussed as a "film", and its viability as such is not dependent on its viewability: a lost film is still a film (and we certainly haven't ever required information on key grips or film editors to verify). If all the disparate sources call it a film, and none call it a mere "publicity stunt", then we can't be the ones to make that call. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well but the Washington Post says "Does the movie even exist? Malkovich started opening up about the 'terrific, emotionally charged' film to People back in November, so maybe it does." Okey-doke, maybe it does -- who knows? NME says "According to a press release (and reported by Entertainment Weekly)..." so all this is just a circle jerk. It's fun, it's fine. They're having fun with it, Malkovich is having fun, it's good fun. Remy Martin is getting some good publicity, and fine. There's nothing evil going on here.

But there's no film (probably). Since there's no film (probably) we shouldn't tell our readers that there is. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and clarification: You feel the movie does not exist. Reliable sources say it does. You say Wikipedia is saying it exists? No, we are not. Much as Wikipedia says that reliable sources say that HIV causes AIDS, Wikipedia says that reliable sources say this movie was made and locked in a safe.

You feel it does not exist because, eh, why bother? And there's no evidence of location shooting, no known key grip, no receipts for gaffer's tape, etc. In addition to the usual "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", I'd like to point out that I made a movie at my nephew's Boy Scout event a few months back and locked it in a vault/cloud. No evidence of a location shoot, key grip or gaffer needed. (It would probably be easier for me to make that up than actually do it. Does Occam's Razor suggest that movie doesn't exist?)

From the website, we can see that there was some production work (with green screens, etc.) done for the trailers. Wit would have been a trivial matter for them to have shot an extra 30 seconds of the cast apologizing for the way we were about to leave the world, then let the camera roll while they settle in for a few rounds of drinks and drunken conversation. Save that footage to a memory card, toss it in the safe and Bob's your uncle.

Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources have to say about notable subjects. Jerry Lewis allegedly made a comedy about the Holocaust and has spent the years since keeping it from surfacing. Independent reliable sources have covered it and a film by Lewis is assumed to be notable, so it has an article. The names attached to this film say it is likely notable as well and there is sufficient sourced material to write a short but reasonably detailed article. It sure sounds to me like your father has a brother named "Robert". - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources say it does"... I can't agree. No source has made a positive statement of belief in the existence of the film. We don't just say "X said Y, X is a reliable source, so we can say Y". It's harder than than that -- there's no source which gets a free pass like that. My reading of the sources indicated that they are just credulously passing on what they're being told in a rather offhand way. Doing a kind of "internal forensics" on the source material, there's no shred of evidence of any rigorous digging into the matter, or of actually much caring.

The Washington Post, which is a better source than most or all of the others here (which tend more to be gee-whiz gossip outlets), said "Does the movie even exist? ...maybe it does." which is hardly a ringing endorsement and is probably a better way characterize the situation.

FWIW the Boy Scout event movie you describe also does not exist for Wikipedia purposes. An attempt to defend an article My Nephew's Boy Scout Event (film) would fail on notability grounds, but as a though experiment assume it was given a WP:IAR pass on that for some reason. I assume it would then fail on proof-of-existence grounds, if nobody was able to come up with any evidence that it existed.

But "let the camera roll while they settle in for a few rounds of drinks and drunken conversation" or something like that, that's a good point. So I withdraw the Occam's-razor argument, and confess that logic would be consistent with the existence of a film-length amount of footage which could be called a "film". Herostratus (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above discussion, appears to meet WP:GNG. Need to heavily reduce advertising tone of article, as part of its intent is clearly promotional. Ies (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a lot of reliable sources User: 32zel (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.