Talk:List of historical films set in Near Eastern and Western civilization

missing film titles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Jones_(film) should be added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbeard_the_Pirate should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.148.231 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Richard_and_the_Crusaders should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.148.231 (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

East of The Sun, West of the Moon about Assizi...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.230 (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Italics

All of these film titles need to be in italics. I'll do my part, but there are a lot of them to be sure.

Definition

Ok -- I think we need definition here -- are these films based on actual historical characters or events -- or just any crap set in the past? My vote is for the former, in which case GWTW and Barry Lyndon (although it is at times brilliant) should be ousted. They're based on books, not actual events or persons. I would vote to leave in the Shakespeare, though, since it is drama about historical people and events...opinions??JHK

But Shakespeare's take on history is as dubious as say the authors of the screenplay of Pearl Harbour... His stuff is politically motivated (e.g. the blackening of the character of King Richard III, etc). One in, all in... I do think we can accept that while Robin Hood, Men in Tights, (amusing though it is), probably doesn't belong here, Monty Python and The Holy Grail which makes some fairly heavyweight points about historical social and political conditions as well as the nature of history itself probably does. sjc

I agree about Shakespeare's motivations, but maintain that, since his historical plays are about real people, they go here -- they're actually great for teaching Tudor/Stuart politics -- and for teaching how we need to be critical of our sources. I would also keep Holy Grail and Life of Brian -- but not Ben Hur. And would keep Pearl Harbor -- it happened, and it's interesting to compare with Tora Tora Tora...JHK

My understanding is that historical drama is separated from Docudrama by the former being fictional events in a historical setting and the latter being based on true events. So Titanic would be a historical drama as the main plot of the movie, the story of Rose and jack, was fictional, whereas something that was about true events, such as Ray, is docudrama. Even though it took some liberties with the material, the main plot really happened. So in short, historical dramas get their setting from history and docudramas get their plot from history. Ace of Sevens 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this excellent list divided into two classes: (1) Dramas that adhere closely to historical events and (2) dramas that are stories based loosely, or closely, on historical events and personages. Thus, Zulu and Zulu Dawn would be Class 1 but the almost entirely fictional Shaka Zulu would be in Class 2. Docudramas of the kind shown on B.B.C. Knowledge, History Channel, etc., would go in Class 1. Class 2 would also also provide for the Errol Flynn / Olivia de Havilland "historical" movies that have been left out (e.g., other versions Charge of the Light Brigade and Robin Hood are included but not poor ol' Errol's; even, ugh, They Died With Their Boots On would be eligible for Class 2 inclusion). User:Mzee Mvuvi

Prehistorical films and films based on greek mythology are per definition not historic. The content of this page has nothing to do with its title! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.254.149 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Look here, who on Earth decided that "Pope Joan" was an historical film? It is pure fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.198.58 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

we need to be more strict about time period

I propose that all World War 2 films are merged and linked with the article labelled List of World War II films You can see that once you look there, how big of a task it would be to list them all.

I would support that. There are just too many to include them in this list without completely overwhelming it. Matthew Dillenburg (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I would also support that! DannyLee9 (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

All films need dates. Each section needs to be ordered, either by historical time period, which may be difficult, or by date of film, or in alphabetical order. There are other minor formatting issues that will be encountered by anyone attempting the above cleanup. Yworo (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to have it by historical time period, but more accurate. Not a film listed for 300 BC followed by a 1000BC. These lists are a mess and outdated, but are still more precise. http://www.vernonjohns.org/snuffy1186/movies.html--98.64.19.42 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of good order, I guess I'll come back to wikipedia for this. The movies should be in a sortable table, to be ordered by time period (earliest possible time period in case of ambiguity), release date, or title, with a section for notes. Tealwisp (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate anyone's help building this table in my userspace at User:Tealwisp/Miscellaneous Construction Tealwisp (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The table is a really good idea, and I'll try to help out with that now that I've kind of got the hang of the formatting.Matthew Dillenburg (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel I should propose that the BCE/CE format be reverted to BC/AD since there has not been obvious discussion and consensus which should have happened as stated in WP:ERA. If there has not been any discussion then the date formats will be changed to the latter. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a noob at editing, but how can Ivanhoe (1962) starring Elizabeth Taylor have been missed?Thorsson64 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We could quibble over any number of dramas included or excluded but I think one is worth mentioning because of what it says about the cultural orientation of the list and of discussions in general about movies and literature. The movie is The Messanger, the life of the Prophet. How many other dramas from Asia and Africa have gone unnoted? User:Mzee Mvuvi

2001 Prehistorical?

How is 2001 set in a prehistorical time? There is a few minutes at the very beginning that would be "prehistorical," but this is only a few minutes, and the rest of the movie (the by-far overwhelming majority) is set in the (at the time it was filmed) future. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion!!! - Column with Country of Origin/Language

And possibly other details as well like whether an entry is a tv series like "The Tudors" for example. That way the list will be more comprehensive and useful. Many thanks! DannyLee9 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire list needs clarification, especially "Films set in the later 20th century"

This list is too unwieldy in its scope - it needs to be broken down into sub-sections. For example, a list called "War Films" could surely encompass the majority of the films here. Another list could be "Historical television dramas" - The Tudors, for example, is not a film.

However, the worst culprit is the Films set in the later 20th century section. How on earth can films like Open Water, Quiz Show, Great Ball of Fire and The Social Network be included on this page? These films cannot sit comfortably in a section predominantly made up of war films, and their inclusion is frankly absurd. Adam1516 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Social Network ?

Facebook doesn't have anything to do with a historical event that involves power/territorial changes. It has been removed.

Why do historical events need to involve "power/territorial changes"? That seems like an arbitrary and restrictive definition of historical films...Ballofstring (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of a social website's popularity it isn't a part of history, including movies based about them. --94.68.177.119 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything is part of history and if a film is overtly set in the past then it is a historical film. It doesn't matter if its about a king, a merchant, or a housewife, and it doesn't matter if its set in ancient Egypt or the late 1990s. The Social Network is restored.theBOBbobato (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it an absurdity that this film can be classed as historical drama. Most people have a good idea what historical drama constitutes, and this is not it. Ridiculous. Adam1516 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean, but it would be difficult to set up a rule for what is and isn't a historical film. What would be the cut-off point - films set how many years before the film was made, films set in how different a period? Does it have to be set before living memory? Films with what subject matter? If historical dramas ought to be about war or big social movements, are Pride and Prejudice or the Name of the Rose not historical then? What about The Help? It's better - and safer - to just use the most objective criteria possible.theBOBbobato (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of historical-fiction. It might be useful to look at [1] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

List of historical drama films → List of historical films – While the term "historical drama film" can be valid, I think the term "historical film" has much more common use. Searching the current term in Google Books does not show many good results. When one searches for the proposed term, there are numerous results, even books with "historical film" in the title. It is the same case when looking in Google Scholar and Amazon.com. I think "film" in "historical drama film" was an excessive modifier since "historical drama" can refer to a film (though not always). However, just "historical drama" already refers to historical fiction, which makes sense as a broad topic. That leaves "historical film" as the best option. I think it is beneficial to shorten the term to both be more concise and to be more in line with reliable sources. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree "Historical films" is overly ambiguous; it can also refer to very early films, or films of substantial historical importance. I believe the current title is clear and appropriate. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)