Open main menu


some historical films require updating... - 'drama' → 'docudrama'Edit

Fact-based historical films based on real-life events are more precisely defined by the genre 'docudrama', instead of simply 'drama'.

I believe making this distinction, and making it early, is important because it allows readers to instantly ascertain whether a film is fact-based, even when just viewing the small amount of text one sees when hovering the mouse over a film ref. e.g. 'The Report is a 2019 docudrama film written by ...'.

I am using the search "drama"+"historical"+"film" to find and update films. Search term suggestions welcome.

Films with largely fictionalized stories may not qualify as being a docudrama, instead being a 'historical drama'. Guidance on the distinction can be found here and here – some excerpts:

  • a docudrama strives to adhere to known historical facts, while allowing a greater or lesser degree of dramatic license in peripheral details, and where there are gaps in the historical record ... historical fidelity is the keynote ... is generally distinguished from a film merely "based on true events", a term which implies a greater degree of dramatic license
  • A docudrama, in which historical fidelity is the keynote, is generally distinguished from a film merely "based on true events", a term which implies a greater degree of dramatic license; and from the concept of "historical drama", a broader category which may also encompass largely fictionalized action taking place in historical settings or against the backdrop of historical events.
  • Some works attempt to accurately portray historical events or persons, to the degree that the available historical research and the length of the work will allow. These types of works are also known as docudrama ... Other works are fictionalized stories based on actual people or events
  • "historical drama", a broader category which may also encompass largely fictionalized action taking place in historical settings or against the backdrop of historical events"

Please note that, by convention, the following genres take precedence over both 'docudrama' and 'historical drama', where a story leans strongly towards that category:

  • 'musical' - (e.g. 'The Sound of Music')
  • 'biographical film' – when a film concerns the life of a non-fictional or historically-based person or people (e.g. 'Braveheart')
  • 'war film' – when a film concerns warfare (e.g. 'Dunkirk')
  • 'comedy'
  • etc...

The genres are listed in order of priority, from highest to lowest — notice that Braveheart is a biographical film, as opposed to to being labelled a war film; and 'The Sound of Music' is a musical, as opposed to being labelled a biographical film.

========== Discussion: ==========
I'm fairly sure docudrama is the correct genre for 'The Report (2009)' as the script does seem to revolve around actual events... thoughts?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell with a search engine test, both drama and docudrama are acceptable. It's not like saying "drama" prohibits it from being based on real-life events (since we explain this in the next sentence or two anyway). I do favor "docudrama" as simply more precise. I am not seeing any dispute in that article's edit history, so I suggesting being WP:BOLD and making the change. If it is disputed, this can be discussed further on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Change made. Looking for other films manually... slow. Other thoughts: films with the genres such as 'biographical drama'/'biopic' should probably remain that way rather than 'biographical DOCUdrama', which would indicate the fact-based nature twice. I have changed the heading of this section to indicate that more updates may be required. (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say that we do not need to ensure "docudrama" or "historical drama" on a universal basis. I think that oftentimes, the first or second sentence will indicate if it is based on real-life events or not. The Report could easily have had that done (though I support the "docudrama" use). Don't sweat yourself too much with that kind of thing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Good point. A universal update wouldn't be feasible anyway without large scale support. That said, I do want to ensure that film entries (like The Report) that currently don't mention their real-life vs fiction status are labelled as such. One should be able to check the nature of a film in the small amount of text one sees when hovering the mouse over a film ref. (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you. The fix to The Report was good. On Wikipedia, sometimes I am simply in reading mode about different films, but when something is off, I can switch to editing mode and make the improvement. You can usually make a change like that without issue. If there is resistance for some reason, you can use WP:3O or post a neutral notice here at WT:FILM. Maybe there's a good reason for the resistance, maybe not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hm, the period drama page contains a contradiction discussed here. Suggestions anyone? (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A film isn't always automatically a docudrama just because it's based on real events; to be a true docudrama, a film has to be told in a certain specific way, such as blending scenes of straight documentary with dramatic reenactment. The term does not just mean every historical film that happens to be about a real person or real events, because even a historical drama film can be purely narrative invention rather than literal documentary. Yes, in actual practice the distinction gets muddled — just as the distinction between mockumentary and docufiction often is — but our job as an encyclopedia is to be more careful about upholding the distinction. It is certainly an appropriate term in the case of The Report, which is actually literally based on a government intelligence report, but we would not consider Lawrence of Arabia or Vice to be docudramas just because they were based on real people. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


I found this website a while ago. It's great for VHS/DVD release dates(I've barely scratched the surface here). I propose we add this to WP:FILM/R. Timur9008 (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The site does not work for me, looks like a dead domain... BOVINEBOY2008 13:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Its the online version of the Video Store Magazine. I've used the Wayback Machine. Been creating home video sections for various films(past films). I've searched under Product here[1]Timur9008 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thriller drama?Edit

Hi folks, I'm looking at Category:2010s thriller drama films and Category:Indian thriller drama films. Aren't thrillers almost always drama films? Anybody know why we need the extra specificity? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the synthesis of two separate genres to me i.e. a made-up sub-genre. I have never come across such a genre anyway. If you check the sub-genre listings at and you will see sub-genres such as psychological drama or psychological thriller (which both share elements). Even if something is classified as a thriller and a drama, you shouldn't be merging them into a single category unless such a sub-genre exists. IMO the categories need to be upmerged to the parent categories and then deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I see what to me looks like a similar issue with Category:Action drama. Aren't most action films dramas unless otherwise specified? Die Hard, First Blood, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Matrix, any Avengers film? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that these so-called drama sub-genres need to be upmerged. Just because there is a set of drama sub-genres doesn't mean that drama needs to be juxtaposed with any other primary genre to add to that set. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed a trend of creating genre mashups, where two random genres are combined. I think many of these categories are pushing the boundaries of "is this really a thing?". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Genre stuff and categories in general ain't exactly my comfort zone or area of expertise. Is this something I could leave here and entreat the issue to the lot of you as I quietly tiptoe away? I promise I'll be here for you when you need help dealing with Indian film article stuff. Hmm? Hmm? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It is true that thriller films are usually dramas, but thriller comedies are also possible if less frequent — see also Category:Comedy thriller films, which is certainly less populated than the drama subcategory, but is not entirely unpopulated. (Action comedy films do also exist, for the record.) I do, however, agree that creating separate genre-intersection subcategories for every possible combination of genres is sometimes excessive — I just don't know, given the existence of thriller comedy films, if that's true here or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Gallery cruft on cast sections of Filipino film articles?Edit

Can anyone look into these articles? Some IP-hopper's been insistently adding portraits of most if not all principal cast members, and I'd like your opinion on whether this is necessary or flat-out unneeded and unencyclopedic. Also tagging @WayKurat: as he has also encountered such edits lately. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Your first and third link are the same, and the article only has one photo (depite using the "multiple images template") which is of the lead actor and therefore perfectly reasonable. I agree that the middle one was excessive, though images of the three main actors would probably be fine. Placement and layout could maybe be improved though. PC78 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Should we settle on a consensus on what is deemed excessive though? I've noticed that in most if not all film article pages, galleries of cast members are sparse if not absent even though the images in question are mostly freely licenced. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest three cast photos as a maximum so as not to distort the page formatting, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • My 2p on this is that, are the images necessary to provide context to the reader? I've noticed that, even if the images in question are freely-licenced, most film articles typically don't use photos of cast members unless if it is either properly laid out or added for people to better understand the subject; the IP simply threw up a gallery of principal cast members even if I don't think that such a gallery is needed at all. All the anon did was add a bunch of images, then the caption "X plays character Y" or something along those lines; if it was something like "Vice Ganda's performance in Fantastica received mixed reviews from critics..." to further justify his portrait on the article, I'd give it a pass, kind of like how images were used in Real Racing 3 where a detailed explanation is added in the captions. Like with the cast member cruft in the articles in question, it would be equally incessant to see an exhaustive gallery of cars used in the game, even if there's no licensing restrictions as far as fair use is concerned. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Another Tarantino article nominated for deletionEdit

Mentioning the name of various film reviewers in critical reception section, when rottentomatoes, metacritic score is availableEdit

For years Wikipedia film editors mentioned the name of critics in film articles' critical reception section. Nowadays there are many notable TV media, newspapers and entertainment channels, including notable youtube channels. We can't enter the name of every notable movie review in that "critical reception section" of movie page. Now the debate will be which reviews should be selected among almost 300 notable reviews in case of movies like Avengers, Harry Potter, Avatar, Lord Of The rings.

So, I suggest that if rottentomatoes final review is available, along with Metacritic score, let's avoid mentioning some individual critics in critical reception section as:"Peter Gomes from this channel gave this review"; "Wilson Scott from that newspaper gave this review".

There are some editors, who have preference for a particular movie critic, there are many movie critics who are not notable, but the news channel or newspaper, in which the post their review, is very notable news channel and newspaper. So, even they cannot be ignored.

Nowadays Hollywood movies are being reviewed by movie critics outside USA in countries as China, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, Brazil, India, Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:6089:4CA7:7154:F13B:B7A0:6B49 (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hard no. We can't just use the agrregated scores, that gives pretty much no context for readers, it just becomes arbitrary numbers and small comments.★Trekker (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
No One of the main points of notability for film is the existence of published reviews by recognised professional critics. Agregators don't substantiate the basis of their scores. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
If you are quoting somebody's opinion rather than just describing a general sentiment "in prose" attribution is important. I agree that we should refrain from name-checking just for the sake of it though. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No, if a critic is writing for a reliable publication his name and the publication need to be given for the review .The critical reception can still give the rotten tomatoes and metacritic aggregate and consensus before giving a sample of quotes from reviews or summaries of reviews but not every rs review has to be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
While I am sympathetic to this suggestion in general, sampling reviews is an acceptable part of reporting critical reception. As with any other topic, editors need to decide what content and how much content to add. If Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic were more analytical of the reviews they collect, like identifying trends or divisions, and reported prose about that, I could see us referencing these to provide an overview without much of a need for sampling individual reviews. However, both of these websites are commercial in nature and provide a flattened perspective, like Rotten Tomatoes having their percent based merely on the fact that a review is positive or negative and nothing in between. Metacritic is not as problematic, with a "mixed" reviews middle ground, but sometimes it can have an overall score that differs from the quantity of reviews, e.g., being mixed overall despite more positive reviews than mixed, due to its weighting system. It really should depend on the film article to have a mix of the aggregators, any high-level summaries of the reviews (outside the aggregators), and review sampling. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd have to agree with everybody who's responded. Quoting passages from a selection of critical reviews is an important part of demonstrating that a film is even notable enough to have an article at all — see WP:NFILM, where "has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" is one of the notability criteria, and some films would have a hard time meeting any other notability criteria at all if we deprecated critical reviews. So simply collapsing critical response into just its overall score on an aggregator, while eliding any actual citations to any specific reviews, is not helpful. It is indeed important that we take steps to manage the number of reviews being quoted in any given article instead of just indiscriminately listing every review a film ever received — for example, if a film receives over 100 film reviews, then we could apply an "only quote the reviews by critics who are actually prominent enough to have their own standalone Wikipedia articles about them" filter, or we could sift for "only reviews which offer a profoundly original insight into the film's contextual importance", or some other method of picking and choosing which reviews to quote and which to just skip. But deprecating the use of film reviews entirely, and using only the film's aggregated Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores as the sum total of its critical reception content, no. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

List of film director and actor collaborations at AfDEdit

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It (2017 film)Edit

The box-office section is very big, if someone is interested in putting a machete to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


I've just created an article about the film The Obituary of Tunde Johnson, which premiered yesterday at TIFF, but I need a bit of help with something.

Since for the most part I normally only start articles about Canadian films (with the occasional exception for LGBT-related international films), I'm not familiar with the process of adding American films to the "List of American films of [Year]" lists since they're structured differently from the Canadian lists. Firstly, is the USian practice to list films under their original premiere date on the film festival circuit, in which case the film should be added to List of American films of 2019 under September 8, or is it to list them under commercial release dates, in which case we have to wait since a comercial release date isn't known yet? And secondly, even if we do go with the original premiere date, the American lists are coded so differently from the Canadian lists (rowspanning for month and days, whereas we just list the Canadian films alphabetically) that after several attempts to revise my prior attempts I still can't seem to add it without breaking the table.

So if the practice in the USian lists is to add the film at its initial film festival premiere date instead of holding off for commercial release, then could somebody who has more experience at editing the USian film lists add The Obituary of Tunde Johnson under September 8? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyone? Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Bearcat: - how does this look? Feel free to add any missing info. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Doctor SleepEdit

Regarding Doctor Sleep (2019 film), there is a dispute about whether or not to identify Cliff Curtis in the film infobox due to differing presentations in sources. Editors are invited to comment. See the discussion here: Talk:Doctor Sleep (2019 film)#Starring. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors are invited to comment to break a stalemate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Umbrella EntertainmentEdit

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article and assessing it for notability? It was prodded for deletion a few days ago, but de-prodded earlier today. I've been looking to see if I could find any WP:CORPDEPTH type coverage which might show that the company meets WP:NCORP, but haven't had a lot of luck. I'm finding official websites, some press releases/interviews and mentions on what appear to be questionable sources (i.e. sites which look to be WP:UGC type of stuff), but mostly these seems to be trivial or about the films the company is releasing. I'm not really finding anything significant about the company itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not finding much either. There are some marginal Google Books search results. While this isn't the best article, maybe redirect that article to List of film distributors by country#Australia and add an inline citation for it? (Not that the other companies listed have citations...) If others can find sourcing to reflect notability, I can change my stance. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox filmsEdit

Should the distributor of a film released—according to poster billings, press releases and official sites—by 20th Century Fox or Fox Searchlight Pictures after they were acquired by Disney (such as Dark Phoenix, Ad Astra, Terminator: Dark Fate, Ford v Ferrari, Tolkien, Ready or Not, Lucy in the Sky, Jojo Rabbit, A Hidden Life) be stated as "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" in the infobox and the body of the article (where preceded by "distributed by")? Nardog (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • No, credit "20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures". By that logic any subsidiary like Focus Features, New Line, Picturehouse, Columbia, Screen Gems, TriStar, DreamWorks, Miramax, Dimension, Paramount Vantage, Summit, etc. etc. cannot ever be stated as the distributor of a film released when it was part of a big studio. And we weren't (and aren't) even crediting Fox as the distributor of pre-merger Searchlight films. AFAIK no report has come out saying Fox's distribution arm has been fully merged with Disney's (see Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney and e.g. this THR article on Aug. 29, which says "the Disney and Fox film studios continue to consolidate their operations" [emphasis mine]), and what is credited as the distributor (presenter) in billing blocks and press releases and on official sites must take precedence. Crediting Disney as the distributor is not helpful to readers either, because the production and marketing of the films were developed under Fox months if not years before the merger, giving the false impression that Disney was solely responsible for releasing them. Mention Disney only when the context calls for it, e.g. each studio's first post-merger release.

    Context: A group of IPs has been repeatedly inserting "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" in infoboxes and prose without an explanation or citation. I haven't checked all the articles, but on Lucy in the Sky alone, we've got [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Given the breadth of the affected articles, given they are IPs, and given the tepid response I got last time I brought this up (h/t MarnetteD), I want to ascertain the consensus of this project on this rather than potentially bring on a futile edit war. Nardog (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • IMO the field should be limited to the original distributor of the film at the time the film was released. Other fields in the infobox use that criteria. Studio changes/mergers/buyouts etc happen all the time and they aren't relevant to the making of release of the film to theaters. I'm not sure if that is a support or oppose to your RFC Nardog so my apologies for that. MarnetteD|Talk 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    @MarnetteD: If reports and promotional material are any indication, 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight Pictures still exist (and the latter is likely to continue to exist[8][9]), and the billing blocks on the posters explicitly say "Twentieth Century Fox presents"[10] or "Fox Searchlight Pictures presents"[11]. Sure, they are now part of the Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures group, just like Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm and Pixar are (which only produce films) and Touchstone and Miramax used to be (which both produced and distributed), but crediting the group as the distributor is no different from crediting Universal as the distributor of a Focus film or Sony of a Columbia film, or (for films from certain periods) Paramount of a DreamWorks film, Disney of a Miramax film, or Fox of a Searchlight film. Nardog (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for being thorough Nardog. This just confirms my belief that the filed should be limited to the distributor at the time of the films original release. The constant changes based on business mergers etc create a WP:INDISCRIMINATE situation. If the consensus is to limit the field to this the documentation at the infobox film will need updating. MarnetteD|Talk 20:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    So even films released after the merger, like Dark Phoenix and Ad Astra, should have 20th Century Fox as the distributor? El Millo (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    MarnetteD, as Facu-el Millo has pointed out, the RfC is specifically about the films produced by (and credited as released by) 20th Century Fox or Fox Searchlight and released after the merger with Disney. We're not talking about Fox films that came out before that, and their distributor credits have not been retroactively modified to Disney. Nardog (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    So I did miss the gist of the RFC. Again my apologies Nardog. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Crediting Disney as the distributor is also dangerous in the long run because the rights to films often get moved around in batches. For instance, Disney no longer owns the rights to the Miramax titles. If we had stated Disney as the distributor of the Miramax films which were released during the period it was owned by Disney, that information would have been lost and readers wouldn't have been able to immediately tell which films still belonged to Disney and which ones didn't (especially the acquisition titles, for which Miramax's name wouldn't be on the production companies list). The same thing could happen to Fox or Searchlight (though one is much more likely than the other!). And, like Miramax, Searchlight doesn't produce all of its films. Nardog (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    Should we just change it back to 20th Century Fox then? El Millo (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's what I've been arguing the entire time. Nardog (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Film".