Talk:Biographical film

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Manchurian Canidate 

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.
 - Biographical film → Biopic not moved as no consensus. Keith D (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose — I think that this term is too casual for use as a title of an encyclopedia article, and also not widely enough recognized outside of a cinematic context. ENeville (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
From WP:RM:
*:Biographical film → :Biopic —(Discuss)— "Biopic" is by far the more commonly used phrase for a film whose subject is an individual person, as evidenced by a Google search. —Skomorokh 21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: biography films 41.114.175.160 (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose — I think that this term is too casual for use as a title of an encyclopedia article, and also not widely enough recognized outside of a cinematic context. ENeville (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
From WP:RM:
*:Biographical film → :Biopic —(Discuss)— "Biopic" is by far the more commonly used phrase for a film whose subject is an individual person, as evidenced by a Google search. —Skomorokh 21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: biography films 41.114.175.160 (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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. john k (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deception 

message: I have some issues with the way the"Controversies over veracity" section describe some of the controversies such as:
* "...a team of Greek lawyers threatened to sue the makers of Alexander for implying that Alexander the Great was bisexual" wrongly implies that most historians agree that he was not bisexual which is not what I understand to be the case.
* Regarding the the movie Hurricane, the line "Several details were altered to enhance the image of Carter and details about the police procedures that lead to the conviction conflicted with court records." has a couple of issues. First, I'm concerned that the line "Several details were altered to enhance the image of Carter" could be read as "they covered up horrible deeds in Ruben Carter's past to make him look like total victim of racism" due to it's extreme vagueness. Also the part about the details of the investigation as shown in movie conflicting with the court records suffers from the problem that there is still a major controversy over exactly what how the police conducted the investigation and as I understand it the court records are not necessarily considered to be in accurate source for details on the police procedure by supporters "Carter was framed by a racist cops" view.
* Finely, in regards to Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, When it says "Some biopics purposely stretch the truth. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind was based on game show host Chuck Barris' widely debunked, yet still popular, memoir of the same name, in which he claimed to be a CIA agent,..." my issues resolves around the issue of whether he was a CIA assassin or not. The issue of whether his claim to be an CIA assassin is one that impossible to prove or disprove and as far as I know no one has ever definitively debunked the claim though it's widely considered to be most likely made up. Berris himself made contradictory statements both supporting and denying the truth of the claim. While the CIA denies he ever worked for them, it is standard policy at the CIA to never confirm someone as having been an assassin for them so that means nothing. While I'm doubtful of his claim myself, I think it's probably more accurate to describe the claim as having been discounted or disbelieved by most people rather then debunked which implies definitely proof his claim was false. It is also inaccurate to say that the movie "...purposely stretch the truth" since it was based on the  Barris' memoir and just simply repeated the claim from the book so it's not like writers of movie script made up that claim themselves. 
--Cab88 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV of controversies section 

message: 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 WP:BIAS.
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)
thread_title: Article for deletion?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notable film portrayals of Nobel laureates 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jneezy504 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse-2002