Talk:Epic film

message: I'm concerned that this page lacks sources for describing epic films.  As I can understand that the terminology is used, I believe such sources exist, but they should be referenced.  Here's some I found:
http://www.filmsite.org/epicsfilms.html
http://www.epinions.com/mvie-review-6829-8A8EB97-391C90BC-prod5
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/movies/epics/epics.html
But I'm concerned that they lack enough substance to merit inclusion in this article, so I'm wondering if anybody has some print sources?  Films are a serious subject so there must be something somewhere, right?  FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I removed this: "A film parodying the epic film genre was released in 2007 under the title, Epic Movie. The film spoofed such epics as Nacho Libre, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Snakes on a Plane, X-Men, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Cribs, and Borat." I don't think this has any place in the article, plus Snakes on a Plane and Cribs are hardly place emphasis on human drama on a grand scale.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.94.76 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoof 

message: old woman tells of her obviously insanely romanticised and idealised memory, of being an average girl on a cruise, meeting The Great Romeo and having something of an affair with him on the ship. then the ship crashes and sinks, he dies, she's saved.
how the hell is that an epic film? it's just a mental porn movie for women, with the usual extremely thin and completely unrealistic plot.· Lygophile has spoken 15:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Titanic is clearly not an epic, regardless of if bozos at AFI think it is. Nor is it a great film, in fact it wasn't even a good one, state of the art fx notwithstanding. It IS long, and about a famous event...that doesn't make it an epic. One might as well call West Side Story an epic due to it's length and important subject matter. I'm not about to remove the movie from this section as it will merely start an edit war which I won't win...but for anyone interested in so-called "epic" films, this shouldn't be classified as one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.228.36 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titanic? 

message: The Dark Knight movie the "Crime epics" Is that the section does not need to take place?--Olağan Şüpheli (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dark Knight 

message: I think this article has its heart in the right place, but it needs to be more consistent as to what is and isn't an epic.  The first paragraph under "Genre Characteristics" provides an excellent definition of epic film. The following is a key part of the definition: "the central conflict of the film is usually seen as having far-reaching effects, often changing the course of history." By that standard, Gone With the Wind, Cleopatra, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and The Ten Commandments are all epics.  
However, it's difficult for me to see how any of the crime films described as "epics" meet this threshold. Certainly, there is nothing epic about The Departed, however fine it may be as a piece of cinema.  And as for Goodfellas -- I love that movie, but in no way is it epic! The major exception that I would recognize is the Godfather series, because it sets organized crime in a sweeping historical narrative, and in that sense has an epic scope.
I think the existing text about crime films under "Genre Characteristics" is a good statement of the pros & cons of defining a special subgenre of crime epic.  If the additional section about "Crime Epics" is going to remain in this article, it should certainly be tightened up to eliminate the decidedly non-epic examples.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuvan Dihn (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, Goodfellas is no more an "epic" than "Titanic"...see above discussion. I think there should be a major reexamination of this genre of film.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.228.36 (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Goodfellas Really An Epic?? 

message: I'm disappointed to see a lack of Chinese cinema mentioned within this article, regarding what qualifies as an epic. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Hero; Red Cliff; House of Flying Daggers for starters are some pretty big films that are known to be wuxia epics, differing greatly from wuxia films of the past. Yet for some reason, there isn't a section mentioned here?--ThePhantasos (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese Epics

message: I fail to see how this "topic" merits its own entry. Whether or not a movie is "epic," seems to me to be entirely determined by marketing, budget, and public perception. The first and third of these factors are unquantifiable, and all three are external to the actual content of the film. I agree with Thuvan Dihn that this is a noble attempt but the question of what is and is not an "epic" film is so wholly subjective as to make futile any attempt at classification.
:It seems every damn movie that ever had a wide shot is now an epic. 
At this point in our cultural history "epic" is more of an adjective than a genre. Hisotterness (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance

message: According to me, one of the criteria for epic films is that they have to be big budget films. The Harry Potter films have never struck to me as being big-budget. In fact, most of the box office success of HP is due to the popularity of the books. If they really are big-budget, then the effort put into film-making is very poor (especially with the special effects). In that case, can the HP films be really considered as epic? Even the Oscar record of HP films is very poor. 59.184.149.66 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although epic films are often big budget, that is not what makes them epic. Nor is it the Oscar count. It is the scale of the film which makes it an epic. The more people on screen, the more locations, the longer the time frame and the longer the running time are all factors.  Admittedly, it usually takes a lot of cash to get all that on the screen. I don't think that the earlier Harry Potter films are epic but Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 do have epic qualities. The fate of the (make-believe) world is at stake, enourmous cast, loads of locations and, taken together, the run-time is over 4.5 hours. Btw, it cost $250 million to make. Stanley Oliver (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

text: "The Harry Potter films have never struck to me as being big-budget" - The cheapest movie was $100,000,000 and the most expensive was $250,000,000 (Half Blood Prince) - So yes. Big budget. --188.223.69.30 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Harry Potter really epic?? 

message: This article is rubbish. Too much subjective inclusions and too many exclusions. That's just my personal opinion. So Original research in this article must be a serious issue. It needs a lot so work and a lots of changes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.28.86 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; it's almost as if some people think that the term "epic" means a great film.  Obviously not the case if you have ever sat through epics like The Greatest Story Ever Told, Heaven's Gate (film) or The Postman (film).  Conversely, many of the films included in this article, e.g. Full Metal Jacket, Heat (1995 film), Goodfellas and L.A. Confidential (film) are not epics, great films though they might be. None of the Wiki articles on those films refer to them as an epic. This article needs to be re-worked. Stanley Oliver (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too difficult to define 

message: Epic? Yay or nay?
--70.181.69.222 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: oh hell yes. i was shocked when i saw it was not on the list :O  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WichitaQ (talk • contribs) 02:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The battle scene sandwiched in the middle is definitely epic. The beginning and end I would not call epic. It's not clear to me if the movie is epic or not though. I'd lean towards yes, I suppose. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Due to the enormous difficulty in defining this genre, lots of films were cut in a massive purge of the article. Not sure if this was in the old version or not.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

message: Editor Andrzejbanas has recently started a series of mass deletions from the article without discussion - partly because he ascribes to a narrow definition of the term epic, but also (and more disturbingly) as a way to make a WP:POINT in a content dispute on the 2001: A Space Odyssey article. This is IMHO a serious breach of ethics and civility, and I've restored his removals. Since he believes this needs to be discussed, I've created this section just for that - as the same standards he expects to apply to other editors also apply to him. So - stop edit-warring and discuss it, pal. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I clean genre articles all the time. See the list of horror films and whatnot for example. Don't revert uncited material. Uncited material is to be deleted. 
Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Per recent edit summaries from the edit-warrior in regards to citations from a contested source, i.e. Allrovi, he claims that "WP:FILM considers it a reliable source" - however, since this is a discussion about genres, I think it's relevant to point to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 37#AllRovi (again), where the consensus seems to be that while Allmovie is fine for reporting factual content, genres can be subjective. This discussion offers something similar. Someone needs to take a step back and think before continuing. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a source is still better than no citation at all. As I've stated on the 2001 page, several of the definitions of the genre from similar sources online, I was making it easy by using one. If you are uncomfortable with this, be bold and provide expanded cited material. I'm just making it simple and not with incorrect information. If you need more weight in my direction, you can at least adress the quote above and stop littering my wall with accusations of vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As people are reverting me, without following up on discussion on the talk page and accusing me vandalism (which I still don't understand) than I'll be reverting this page in 3 days if there is no discussion. Any revert after that will be considered vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If material is uncited and Andrzejbanas is removing it, restoring it is incorrect. If you want that information in, source it, otherwise Andrze is correct to remove it. Claims that he is doing so to support his personal stance are somewhat rendered moot when you require that uncited information there to support your personal stance. As for 2001, a quick check shows neitehr IMDb nor Allrovi are calling it epic so where is the term coming from? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because genre is so subjective, this is exactly why any examples should be sourced.  Any examples which are not should be removed until sources can be found, and any future unsourced additions should be removed immediately.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is subjective but you should at least find some basic definition. If there is none at all and it's not clear whether someone up their own. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this edit, it seems that my edits will not confuse people and have people editing this article at random. If there is no further argument, I'll be editing it tomorrow. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent mass deletions 

message: The title of this article is 'List of Epic Films'. But it doesn't contain a list. Seems sort of misleading 60.242.167.154 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Um, it's not a list?

message: Maximilianklein (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WorldCat Genres

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Article serves zero purpose, the term is difficult to define-- everyone's opinion of "epic" is different. 72.16.17.161 (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A definition not being straightforward does not mean there is no way to write a Wikipedia article about it. Amazon.com and WorldCat.org show books written about epic films. I'm sure that in a dream article, we would have a section that discusses different ways to define a film as an epic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move for deletion 

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see [[talk:epic poetry] -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|Epic}}"

message: As it is right now, epic film is ... rather problematic at the very least, to put it mildly. It has a lot of text but little real content. Yes, “epic” is an adjective which can be applied to “film”, I do not dispute that. However, if “epic film” really is a genre, such as Western (genre) is, then there must be some clear criteria by which it is defined. Although many film titles are given as examples (e.g. “such as”), a clear definition can not be found anywhere. There is one question which has to be asked:
: What makes a film epic?
Or to put it differently, why are epic films epic, and other films not? As long as this important question remains unanswered, this article seems destined to remain not really informative, and Wikipedia might be better off without it.
Michael! (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this article is an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Eric talk 03:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm in the middle of creating an epic list that will soon be important, can you help me out? 2600:6C5A:407F:4027:4873:1825:12DE:B6C3 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The merits of this article 

message: Per WP:NOR, I've been bold and decided to remove the “subgenres” section entirely. “This section needs additional citations for verification.” and “This section possibly contains original research.” template messages have been in place since 2015, but several editors have been pointed this out years earlier, here on this talk page (see above); here is just an example:
: [...] I utterly agree it just reeks of OR [...] (WickerGuy (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Gone with the Wind has been described as the archetypal romantic epic.http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1485804.html
The source cited is some kind of online movie review about Australia (2008 film); unfortunately the statement referenced does not appear in it.
Taking everything together, I believe there is no good reason to maintain this apparent original research and many reasons to have it removed, which I've done; it ought to be uncontroversial. Michael! (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed entire “subgenres” section 

message: I have raised an issue at Category:American epic films concerning the load of films labeled as "epic". Anyone care to come with an opinion? (I'm positing this here due to the software telling me that cattalkspace is usually not watched.) Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 21:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the middle of creating an epic list that will soon be important, can you help me out? 2600:6C5A:407F:4027:4873:1825:12DE:B6C3 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This category is a mess