Talk:Trial 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

Law B‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

November 2007[edit]

This material had been in Anatomy of a Murder. I worked hard on it and think it could be of some use. It was edited out (partially at my suggestion). Nevertheless, it was too good (IMHO) to just leave on the cutting room floor. There is the germ of a good idea, but it will need more work.

I know nothing about starting a new article (this is a first time for me). Feel free to change the title and fix it up.

Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]

Is M (film)[edit]

either an Englisn or English language picture. Seems to me NOT. Carptrash (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a German film, in the appropriate language of course. Are we limited to strictly English Language films here?

Best 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]

NPOV and it reads "like a review"[edit]

I note that we've now gotten a note that says that we have NPOV on the military films. At the top, we were told that the piece "reads like a review." There seems to be some conflicting sentiment here. Either way you've got us at doing something wrong.

One of the real problems with WIKI is exemplified by this basic conflict. You may have a point, but it would seem likely that you don't both have a point.

It a very easy to rip up material and cite "the rules" as though its not YOUR decision.

However, it would be much more helpful if you made a positive contribution to the article, which actually does have some uses and some merit to its observations. It would be better to help us improve the article, rather than to simply excise it or delete it.

It's easy to put out a candle, but much harder to build a fire.

That's my thought for the day. Best regards to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]

Paths of Glory[edit]

Why is this movie listed twice, the second time in a list of military trial movies that is preceded by an explanation that they may have been omitted from the main list because of their nature? Paths of Glory is indeed on the first list. If it is going to be included twice, it ought to have the military trial movies explanatory paragraph changed so that it does not directly contradict itself. --12.217.237.175 (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two other candidates[edit]

There are several versions of Mutiny on the Bounty. As I recall, one of them has some pretty good courtroom scenes, taken (seemingly) from transcript. Can't remember which of the many, but it is worth thinking about.
There was also a television miniseries, taken from a play as I recall, called The Andersonville Trials. It was exceptionally good, although not a 'film.' 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

And there's The Rainmaker (1997) which I think should be listed as long as A Civil Action is. Oliver9184 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle on 34th Street[edit]

Doesn't Miracle on 34th Street count as a trial movie? PennsylvaniaPatriot (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. Add it if you want. Happy editing and cheers! 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Other list[edit]

The following was just removed:

"The most comprehensive listing of legally-themed movies appears at the The George Washington University Law School movie list:[1]."

The list did exist. I don't know if it was moved, or if it might still exist at Internet archive or somewhere like that. It is worth salvaging. This is a situation of presumed WP:linkrot. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal drama[edit]

Picked up and added a citation to Further Reading from the above article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[edit]

Text and Reference copied from Trial film to Kenneth Ross. See history of former article for a list of contributors. 7&6c=thirteen (☎) 17:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Text and Reference copied from Trial film and Kenneth Ross to Kenneth G. Ross. See history of former article for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of materials[edit]

The deletion of all this content was in error. I restored it here. It belongs in this article, and will aid our readers to navigate the content and find relevant films. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]