Talk:Biographical film

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film

The article defines a biographical film as a movie based on an event that actually happened. If this is the way we define it, then we should remove the faith-based ones. I noticed

It also says "These may present the events as they actually happened, or may alter the truth for other purposes." and it looks like the Jesus film was removed. --68.198.246.166 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone did that just recently. I'll remove the dispute. Teply 00:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this. If

Jesus of Nazareth could also be considered the same. Both men are historical figures. 66.109.99.18 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Even if Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure (and that's not at all clear; doubts seem to surround the historicity of most ancient religious founder figures, but Jesus is by far the most prominent and discussed case), scholars seem unable to agree on just about anything about his life, since it is so heavily mythologised (even if there was an historical personality at its core). So I must agree with the original poster that a film based on Jesus' purported life is as faith-based as one about Moses (now thought to be purely mythical) or Buddha (also suspected to be ahistorical).

When Jewish scholars reject the historicity of Abraham and Moses, when even a Buddhist scholar can admit uncertainty about the historicity of the founder personality of Buddhism, and an Islamic theologian, despite remaining Muslim, outright states that he has come to the conclusion that "Prophet Muhammad likely never existed", plainly asserting that "[b]oth [Alexander and Jesus] are historical figures" without a shadow of doubt, despite all arguments to the effect that this conclusion does not at all follow from the available evidence in the case of Jesus, in stark contrast to Alexander's case, is simply ridiculous. In fact, the difference between these exact two cases has been pointed out time and again: Jesus is nowhere as securely historical as Alexander, he is nowhere close to be as well documented as a historical person with a consensus biography. Most scholars do believe that a historical person lies behind the Gospel narrative (or narratives), but they also agree that the Gospels cannot be treated straightforwardly as a biography, and thus, not enough is known about Jesus as a historical figure to write a biography, let alone a biographical film; in fact, films about Jesus seemingly (almost?) invariably include various supernatural elements of his story (as related in the Gospels), which disqualify any such film as historical drama. (An impartial observer could never conclude that there is any certainty about any biographical details regarding Jesus given that there is not even a consensus definition of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person in the first place. Every scholar has their own version of Jesus, suspiciously apparently always created in their own image. There is no need to have any firm opinion on the matter of historicity to admit as much!) In short, the Gospels are not history, and therefore a film based on them is not historical. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted many pictures when I redid the list of significant films, either because they were historic films that did not tell one character’s life story (Good Night and Good Luck, Schindler‘s List) or merely films based on true events (Catch Me if You Can, Erin Brokovich, Mar adentro). I also made the list more exclusive to films of significant acclaim or historic value; I got rid of the many 2000s-era films on the list that are more recent than significant .

I am not a film scholar nor have I seen every film I deleted (I went based on synopsis from that film’s page some of the time) so if anyone has a good reason to add or re-add a film, please do.

How about a line or two about differences in pronunciation? Is it a bi-o-pick or does it rhyme with myopic? 67.39.182.93 06:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also curious about the pronunciation...does anyone know?

This is the reason i came here. should definitely be addressed. 71.110.68.228 17:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. it's why I'm here. Nearly and year and still not addressed. This term must be used in Hollywood conversations. anyone? Scarykitty 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just listened to the audio commentary for Gods and Monsters, and director Bill Condon pronounced it the same way Merriam Webster's 11th Edition dictionary did. Sadly, IPA is far beyond my comprehension, but much to my chagrin, the "o" was long. Drakkenfyre 04:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely got to be long, etymologically. And I'd say Merriam-Webster's is a good enough source to justify at least removing the incorrect pronunciation currently given on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.71.121 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also came here looking to clarify the pronunciation. From what I can tell there may be a British English vs American English divide. My English friends insist is pronounced to rhyme with myopic. However i have heard Americans on television pronounce it bio-pic. For what is it worth as a linguistician there clearly are two approaches to the pronunciation. 1. Based on the etymology it should be stressed on the letter "i" because it comes from "biographical picture". 2. The pronunciation stressed on the letter "o" seems to be by analogy with scientific terms such as myopic or biotic or even biology.

In my opinion the former should be preferred however both pronunciations are clearly in usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.247.226 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC) I have observed both pronounciations in common usage. --Replysixty (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder too about the pronunciation. I think it should be bio-pik. As it really is a contraction or the words biograpical and picture. To me biopic rhyming with myopic, makes it sound like two (bi) opics, almost like two views. Also, how long has this word been in use? I am just recently coming across it. And originally thought it meant two views or a second view of something. Flight Risk (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't seen Manchurian Canidate, but I've read that it is a biopic. Anyone know?--24.137.137.204 05:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. it isn't.

No. It's not --Replysixty (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

biography films 41.114.175.160 (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great almost certainly was bisexual - certainly the ancient sources depict him as such. It seems deceptive on our part to imply that a bunch of homophobic Greek assholes are the ones who have accuracy on their side here. Stone's movie may have had some historical inaccuracies, but depicting Alexander as bisexual was not one of them.

--Cab88 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that this article has encyclopedic value at all. There's considerable uncited conjecture, including a History section that I just deleted, making the wild claim that pictures have more money now (not necessarily true), and therefore can be more accurate (definitely not true). The idea that a biopic is somehow more difficult to act seems dubious. That two scholars should be picked out for their theories that verge on fandom seems possibly

The comments just above by Cab88 demonstrate how there is no clear, standard and stable opinion on how "true" each film is. In this sense, the material is contrary to what Wikipedia wants.

Even more broadly, one of the first lessons from historiography is that there can be many legitimate points--of-view about what are regarded as facts. Biographies, biopics, and fantasies are more-or-less representational. There's no reason for an encyclopedia to indulge in constrasting the factuality of pictures that may have largely been intended simply as entertainment.

As a whole, then, the article isn't much more elevated than fandom, and could be reduced by about 50% with no harm to meaning. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree with your proposal there. This particular article has many issues in its writing, but a "biopic" is a widely used term, and even has an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary http://www.wordreference.com/definition/biopic

Perhaps there truly is not enough information out there to write a well researched and thoughtful encyclopedia article on biographical films but to not acknowledge their existence is far less responsible.

I certainly agree that this is a difficult article, but our response to that should be a desire to work more perniciously and in tandem to research and logically present the information, not to eliminate the article entirely

Well, I'm deleting the "Criticism" section as my contribution. I see no value in it as is. Maybe if it was a thoughtful analysis from someone with a degree in film studies or something, but a famous loudmouth who's known for spouting moronic shit apropos of nothing isn't someone we want to hear from, and the quote itself doesn't add anything substantive regardless of who it's from. -ShorinBJ (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this article use to include a list of notable film portrayals of Nobel laureates. The list appears to have been removed because it didn't belong here. However, some good arguments were made about the importance of such a list. (Note, I wasn't involved with any part of this discussion or process). Would anybody oppose me making a separate article to host such a list? Webster100 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 18 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VetNurseJess (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jneezy504 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]