Talk:List of lost films

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger[edit]

  • Oppose There's plenty of material to justify two individual articles. Lugnuts (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NASA[edit]

Didn't NASA loose footage of the moon landing/walking? Seems like a serious omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.112.183 (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a film in its own right though. Any WP:RS to back this up? Lugnuts (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thou Shalt Not Kill[edit]

I would like to request the inclusion of a 1915 film about Leo Frank by Hal Reid called thou shalt not kill. HernandoMaya (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silentera.com doesn't have it. IMDb does[1], but has no info about its status. We can't really do anything without a source. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbeat in the Brain[edit]

OK, so there seems to be a misunderstanding about this film not being lost anymore, as it was due to be shown by its subject, Amanda Feilding at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in 2011. I edited this page accordingly, to remove it from here as a "rediscovered film". However, looking further into it according to the link below I see that it would appear Ms. Feilding did not attend the event. And so I assume the film has not been shown. I assume it still classes as lost if it hasn't been shown? http://www.ica.org.uk/?lid=28340 I just want to make it clear that I'm not involved in an edit war here, and the anonymous IPs who edited this page recently are not connected to me. I think the page on Heartbeat in the Brain should be corrected so people don't keep trying to edit it out of good will. Kaleeyed (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes (1916) Silent Film[edit]

It is written on the article of the said film that the film is lost. Could this be included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.219.147.42 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra (1917) Silent Film[edit]

This lost film had a then-huge budget of $500,000, starred Theda Bara and was directed by J. Gordon Edwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcas2000 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About 40 seconds of footage exists, so it's in List of incomplete or partially lost films. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1931[edit]

What is wrong with the 1931 section? I have tried fixing it, but nothing has worked.--MaxOfTheDead (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "The Last Hour" I cannot figure out the problem either. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Hollywood[edit]

Any suggestions for films from the Dutch East Indies (for example; other countries and colonies may have a similar situation). Most (if not all) of the films produced there have been lost, although the only one stated explicitly in a source that I've found in Terang Boelan. Heider states that "films made (during the Dutch East Indies period) are lost", although this cannot be entirely true as a reel from Berdjoang was screened in Japan in 1997. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Range of Changes Too Aggressive[edit]

I think the newly added idea that a lost film "is defined as one of which no part of a print is known to have survived" is too limiting. Certainly the 40 second fragment of "Cleopatra" does nothing at all to convey what the three-hour spectacle was like, and Anthony Slide, who discovered it, has stated that he believes it to be an outtake. There is no reason why certain titles can't be in both the "lost" and in the "incomplete" lists other than a kind of fascism imposed by a Wiki editor who has lost sight of the sense of purpose behind Wikis. Migrating the films from the 'teens to their own seperate entries has marginalized those entries; if length was a concern then it would have been smarter to divide this list into "Lost Silent Films" and "Lost Sound Films" lists. The Lost Silent films list would be much longer, but at least the temporal context that gives it comprehension would be retained; what you have now is a lost sound films list with the first two decades of lost silent films stranded at the top.

We are now lacking the entire decade of the 1950s, and there were at least four entries there before. There does not need to be the concentration of early Méliès shorts at the start, as he has his own, very sketchy at present, Wiki filmography in which these titles are present. This list ought to be for films that are actively being sought, or maybe should be sought; it is not designed to accomodate every lost film ever, but it should include significant, and possibly significant, titles that are. Moreover, films that exist only in less than five percent of its running time should also be considered "lost" as we cannot, from viewing the clip alone, determine what the overall production was like. There are dozens upon dozens of reels in the Library of Congress of short strips of scenes from lost Vitagraph and Selig productions, but this doesn't make them any less "lost." We can see the camera set up, but the scenes do not move -- they are too short -- and there is no story continuity. This page was once useful, but is now an uninformative mess.Pinikadia 18:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

  • If sources defines lost films as this article does, per WP:OR we're not allowed to make our own definition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) First, the second list contains not just "incomplete" entries, but also "partially lost". What's the point of duplicating entries on two lists? Can one film be completely and partially lost at the same time?
Second, having the list split up into silent and sound films doesn't solve the problem of sheer length. The silents already run over 150K. WP:SIZESPLIT says that >60K, articles "probably should be divided". If you want to split the rest off into other sublists for "temporal context", be my guest.
I got rid of the the two 50s films because Une Visite isn't lost (as its article plainly states, "in 1982 he made a 35mm print of the film and screened it for friends"), while The Miracle of St. Anne supposedly has a surviving short clip. I haven't added it to the partially lost list because I'm unable to find any source for that claim. Perhaps that one should go back onto this list for now.
Who gets to determine which films are "significant" or the definition of "lost": you or the references I've used? Most of the entries I've added already had articles; their creators and reliable sources thought they were significant enough and lost enough.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the Library of Congress unidentified footage.
Just how "useful" was this page before? Most of it was unreferenced and in no particular order within each year. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was useful in the sense that when you went to it, it was a list of lost films that you could see at a glance. Now, it is as I described above. I regret that you have resorted to a personal attack against me without listening to what I've said here -- I have added a few films to this list, all which were sourced, and did nothing to dominate this project or to make global decisions regarding it. It was still evolving, and people were still contributing to it, and at least the entries were organized within a year, which was fine. But you have taken it over, and it is now less useful.

You do not understand what a "lost film" is. You have redefined the term from what film archivists -- who coined it, and use it for their own purposes -- define it as. A film is lost if the surviving material -- whether some, or none -- is insufficient to convey the content of a film. Some short fragments of films as we have for "The Divine Lady" (1928) or "Lebendige Buddahs" (1925) actually do convey the style and overall content of a picture pretty well. But the shreds of Technicolor that exist for "Red Hair" (1927) do nothing to tell us what that film was like. You'll often hear an archivist say something like, "Yes, we have the Stan and Ollie sequence from 'The Rogue Song.' But remember, it's still a lost film." What I ask is that you not re-define for the archivists, and for the rest of us, what a lost film is.

My comments go toward the practical need for a lost film list in the first place. The MOMA book "Lost Films" from 1971 -- and a fair number of those have been found by now -- and Frank Thompson's book "Lost Films" both contain films that had some extant footage. If you check the lost films lists from AFI and elsewhere you will find that they do not exclude titles from which some footage is known. The purpose of a lost film list is to alert others that a title is regarded as missing in case footage turns up somewhere, which it often does. It is not to enumerate every film that is completely lost; such a list would run hundreds of pages, and contain many dozens of films from companies like Lubin, Selig and Vitagraph among others. Some selectivity and common sense should be involved in deciding what goes in, and why. Listing all of the lost Méliès films, as you have begun to do, would add about 280 entries to this list, and if you did that for everyone, how useful would it be?

Finally, it looks like you will have to remove "Arrivée d'un train gare de Vincennes" from this list, as part of it has been found in an old flipbook. I just confirmed it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTqQeCJLHdE Pinikadia 04:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point. A single list of partially or totally lost films would far too long for one article. They were already split into two lists before I even came along. You want to impose a judgment call - whether there is enough surviving footage "to convey the content of a film" - rather than an objective standard - whether there is any surviving footage or not. That's just totally unworkable.
"Personal attack"? I see you attacking me - "You do not understand what a 'lost film' is." Where am I assaulting you? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lost" as in "known to be destroyed" VS "Lost" as in "missing"[edit]

I'm curious if the two meanings can be differentiated, as I think the division would be valuable (if possible). There are lots of restored films that were thought to be lost, many of which would fall under the latter category of "missing", with only a rare few being films that escaped a known destruction of prints. And on the other side of it, there are a number of films listed here whose complete destruction is well documented. In other words, they're "lost" but we know exactly what happened to them. 2602:306:BCF1:94B0:F13E:92DD:631A:36B8 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you could source any film in general release as having every print "know to have been destroyed". Nobody kept track of old movies that carefully back then. The only ones I could see that could be documented are one offs like Too Much Johnson, where there was only one or very few known prints. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. Outside of films destroyed by the North Korean government and the Nazis, I've not heard of many cases of all copies of films being destroyed on purpose. However, lost is lost, if it's down to the nitrate reels disintergrating over time, or being destroyed by human hands. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Gogola the lost bollywood film[edit]

I have got some information about this film like some music and info please see this and let me know hope this information would be helpful >> http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/43619/Bollywood-Godzilla-GOGOLA?page=1#.Ubd-1_nLqzk >> http://pedrotheapebomb.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/fun-with-filmi-ads-the-bollywood-godzilla-gogola/

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi0DkCJZ3o8

>> http://atulmovies.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/gogola-1966/

the move coms under list of lost films — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkhet (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork (Sam Raimi)[edit]

How come it is "lost" when it is even in Youtube?--RicHard-59 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, along with another error. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden material[edit]

Looking at the edit section, there's a lot of material which I can't see on the main page. I don't know how to make this visible, and as it seems to be a lot of unsourced films, is there a reason it's hidden?Killer Moff (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's In The Bag[edit]

Should this be removed from the list now that it seems to be out on DVD? 68.156.95.34 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cat's out of the bag now. Too early to include it in the List of rediscovered films or List of incomplete or partially lost films (Renown says their version is only 63 minutes long) until better sourcing can be found. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lost early Disney animated shorts[edit]

Okay I know there are still a few out there-but what are they? (I've looked on the 1920s lists and don't see them listed or I have missed them). Though I do know they have found a few in the past 20 years. Wgolf (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Films never released should not be listed[edit]

Okay I can understand the reasoning behind them being here-but if the film was never released should it really count as a lost film? Wgolf (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Era website no more[edit]

Just found out that the Silent Era website is no longer live. The homepage has this message: "Silent Era has discontinued publication. We thank you for your readership and support." All the links are dead, but can be found via the web archive. Rats. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here Comes Sophie[edit]

I'm taking this entry out. Looking at the sources cited, it's to another wiki. They cite the French Wikipedia, which reveals no sources, a blog and a forum discussion. Pending anything more reliable and notable, I don't see any reason this should be listed. Killer Moff (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template Message[edit]

According to the template on this article, many of the movies listen in this article should be deleted, because they have since been rediscovered. I actually took the time to inspect this article, and every other article that lists completely lost movies to see what movies were wrongly listed. Over the course of several hours, I removed twelve movies. Is it acceptable to take down the template message?

Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of lost films. 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) 02:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xevious[edit]

Is that really 'lost', as in there are no copies of it anywhere? Bkatcher (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the information I've seen says that the home release was scheduled, but cancelled. This is not lost. Even though we can't watch it, unless the studio confirms that they don't have a copy, it isn't regarded as lost. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's never gotten a home release anywhere, the now-defunct production company or Namco or anybody involved don't seem to have a copy, and the only proof of its existence is the promotional material. What else is there to say about this? Namcokid47 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, a reliable source that says that the film is lost. Otherwise it's a combination of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which is against policy. As you say, there is evidence of existence. Given how recent the film is, the onus is on the person making the claim to show that it truly is lost rather than not available. --Killer Moff (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tebaatusasula[edit]

Does this film belong here, somewhere else, or not on here at all? It looks like a YouTube film, and the trailer survives. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD (Now You're Practically Dead)[edit]

Quick question.

NYPD (Now You're Practically Dead) was being filmed in New York City in December 1968.

Very little is known about it - no director, no footage has ever surfaced. But what is interesting about an otherwise uninteresting filming, is that Bruce Springsteen was filmed with his then band, Earth, lip-syncing during a scene in the Fillmore East.

The filming is listed in my biography of Springsteen, as well as the biography by Peter Ames Carlin, and information in both books came from members of Springsteen's band. Numerous other people who are still alive were present at the filming.

Does this warrant entry on the list?

CraigS1969 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda has been found for 7 years its not lost[edit]

they found it in 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LostMediaFan (talk • contribs) 01:20, September 10, 2021 (UTC)

Well, then please provide a reliable source. I tried and couldn't verify that claim. Meters (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources?[edit]

Multiple films inserted in the section dealing with the 1890s cite a site called "Silentera.com" as their source. Simply because of the fact that these citations were created 10 years ago, I am concerned that this source may be outdated, expired, or otherwise unreliable due to the amount of time that has elapsed. The source seems trustworthy, but I would prefer the advice of others instead of trying to go with my gut. R23$94ACQ3R (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And something else: another user (whose account is now defunct) stated some time ago that this website is no longer operational. This is not true. It is accessible online, and has been renewed into 2023. R23$94ACQ3R (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


La Stirpe de Caino 1971[edit]

In the giallo genre there is at least one lost film, La Stirpe de Caino from 1971. IMDB [2] does not directly state it is lost but other sites do, and nothing exists except for publicity shots. Might be worth adding? One of the only lost films of its genre. GG360 (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_lost_films&oldid=1202640972"