Talk:Reel

Older discussion

i moved the article about the reel type of dance to reel (dance) because i belive that the dance is not the primary meaning of the word (and yes i had to change a hell of a lot of links to piped links.) no doubt people will tell me if i screwed anything up

I would like to see this moved to reel (object) and the other meaning moved back here. It is evident from the links to the two pages that the reel (dance/music) is overwhelmingly the more used definition on Wikipedia. zoney ♣ talk 23:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

whilst the dance/music definition is widely referenced in wikipedia the object definition is the one seen in everyday life and is a term used in many fields. All of the articles referencing the dance definition were from the field of music and dance.

also unfortunately moving back would be a difficult process i belive from what i ahve read about moving that after moving this you would have to delete the redirect stub before moving the other page back Plugwash

The article should stay as it is. A reel is primarily what is described here; the dance was named after it. --b. Touch 19:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No real opinion on moving the article, but it's not a difficult process. It's more complicated than a normal move, but not really a big deal. I tend to think this should be a straight-up disambig page though, with links to both articles. Tuf-Kat 22:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

mmm i tend to think that making a full disambig page for just two entries isn't exactly worthwhile (it means everyone will have to follow a link rather than just some people) Plugwash 10:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1000' Reels?

This may be a dumb question, but are 35mm prints really shipped on reels that only hold twelve minutes of film? I was a projectionist for a few years, and we almost never got movies that took up more than six or seven reels, yet nearly all of our movies were longer than 72 or 84 minutes. (The octagonal shipping cans held three or four reels, and very few movies, if any, came in more than two cans.) Rocky Horror came on six reels, and that's 98 minutes. My estimate was always an upper bound of twenty minutes per reel, and film travels at about one mile per hour, so in my estimation a reel held about 1600 feet. --Jere7my 20:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could well belive that like with audio tapes as materials technology has improved it has become possible to cram more onto a standard size reel without making the film too vulnerable to breakage.

Not fair use?

Is not the use of excerpts for show reels considered "fair use" straightforwardly?

Then this part should be reworded: "While the usage of video excerpts on such showreels can be regarded as a breach of copyright,..."

IANAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.27.136 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film reel

Should Film reel redirect to here? (it currently redirects to Developing tank). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That baffles me, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More pictures

There are a number of types of reels mentioned but without photographs.

Merger proposal

I propose that Showreel (actors) be merged into this article. The article content at Showreel (actors) is essentially duplicated here, and the material would be better here. wia (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think it should be the other way around. The content here should go to Showreel (actors). The discussion of actors' reels in an article about reels in general (which includes topics that have nothing to do with film reels) is a bit incongruous. Showreel (actors) is the place for that material. I'm going to go ahead and make the change. wia (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The change has been made. wia (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]