Talk:List of musical films by year

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hamilton should be added to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:F73B:9CB:5D9E:881A:21F7:10F (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking down by year[edit]

I'm not quite sure why only the 1990s and 2000s lists are broken down by year. They all should be. So who wants to volunteer? 23skidoo 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would be me, then! ;-) 23skidoo 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Setting a criteria[edit]

As I was reorganizing the page (see above) I noted (and removed) a number of titles that really weren't musicals. There may have been rock songs on the soundtrack, but you didn't see anyone actually performing or doing dancing, or what have you. There are also a few films listed that really had only one musical moment -- I'm thinking of Not Another Teen Movie and Team America World Police, both of which have one song each, played for laughs. I think ther e should be a criteria established for listing films here. My suggestion would be that music should be a major part of the film, and the movie should have at least 2 musical numbers to qualify. There are a couple of Garland/Rooney Andy Hardy films that don't qualify because they just do one song. Several Elvis films similarly don't count because Elvis just sings the title track over the credits and nothing else. Thoughts? 23skidoo 01:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up question, what about made-for-TV movies and short films? I've seen a few TV movies added to the list but in my additions I have intentionally avoided them for now. 23skidoo 02:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these musicals probably aren't musicals. Before Chicago, I had never once seen a musical in a movie theater. But to look at this list, it's as if musicals have never stopped being popular. Perhaps this page should be seperated into: Animated Musicals, Movies with one song (and is on a stage and really happening), Movies with a pop song sung as background music (probably shouldn't be on this list), Hollywood musicals (so you know it's not some movie that was shown in a single theater), Non- Hollywood ( Bollywood doesn't seem on this list), and other (movies that were shown n screen).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.73.233 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

Why were Chicken Little and Meet The Robinsons taken off the list?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.141.176 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

The musical film entry states in its first paragraph "The musical film is a film genre in which several songs sung by the characters are interwoven into the narrative. The songs are used to advance the plot or develop the film's characters. A subgenre of the musical film is the musical comedy, which includes a strong element of humour as well as the usual music, dancing and storyline" Many of the films in this list clearly do not fit that criteria. Which is correct, the list or the entry? The two seem to be at odds at the moment. Cheers Deckchair (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are correct, there are a lot of films on here that should not be on here. Step Up and Take the Lead for example are NOT musicals. They are dance films sure, but nowhere in it does a character sing a song that is part of the narrative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.250.38 (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concert films[edit]

Do films such as The Last Waltz and Woodstock belong on this list? I'd argue that they don't. Will be happy to take a pass at removing a bunch of other performance documentaries like this if anyone doesn't object.PacificBoy 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more I got looking at this page, the more the whole concert thing was starting to bug me, so I was bold and started stripping them out.PacificBoy 01:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do the 10th and 25th Anniversary Concerts of Les Miserables fall under this category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.18.228 (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional categories for exclusion[edit]

Okay, so beyond my issue with the concert films, I'd like to propose removing some of the following:

  • Bollywood films (there are only a handful here, and if we open the floodgates, there will be a gazillion to add.
  • Movies in which the action is accompanied by music, not sung by the characters (i.e. Saturday Night Fever)
  • Movies in which the characters do sing, but only in the idiom of a performance. I've already taken out many biopics that fit this criteria, such as Coal Miner's Daughter.
  • Made-for-TV or direct-to-video animated films shorter than feature length (i.e. the stray Winnie the Pooh titles)

Any thoughts?PacificBoy 01:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've made a large number of edits recently to remove titles that I don't believe are musicals. I agree with removing movies that are concert footage or documentaries. I also agree with removing movies where the characters sing in the context of depicting a performance. As well as biopics, I included portrayals of fictional musicians (e.g. All You Need is Cash, Velvet Goldmine, Hustle & Flow) or semi-fictional ones (e.g. 8 mile, The Rose). This type of movie usually has the same musician(s) performing all the songs, as opposed to songs sung by characters who otherwise aren't musicians in the movie.
In my opinion, it doesn't count if the characters are musicians and are performing as part of the plot. Musicals are movies where the characters often bust out in song for no apparent reason, abandoning dialogue for song in advancing the plot. I used my intuition rather than a definition. To misquote Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I hate it".
If there's disagreement with the edits, I hope they're not reversed en masse, but rather that editors take the time, as I did, to consider each edit on its own merits. Willondon (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good start might be to agree that a "musical" is not simply a movie that has a lot of music in it. I think the best criterion is a movie that changes the narrative mode from dialogue to song at some point. I can accept Monty Python's The Meaning of Life as a musical because characters do bust out into song, even though it plays a very small role as a narrative device. On the other hand, I removed Neil Young: Heart of Gold. Seriously?
You're right. A consensus on definition of a musical is seriously needed. I admit to editing this page as a hater of musicals, but surely those who appreciate musicals can't be happy either with such a dilution of the term. Willondon (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be careful with removing movies "where the characters sing in the context of depicting a performance". "Sound of Music" is clearly considered a musical and most if not all of the musical numbers in it are actually musical perfomrances for the characters and no not necessarily move the plot ahead. 204.124.67.250 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Not sure how to handle that exception, though. Willondon (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Fever[edit]

Saturday Night Fever is not a musical film. It is a film with music in it, but this does not make it a musical. The characters do not sing or perform music as part of the narrative (or otherwise), they simply go to nightclubs where music is played. As for it being turned into a stage musical in recent years, this does not mean that the original film was a musical. For example, Sunset Boulevard was a film drama that was later turned into a stage musical, but there is no singing or musical performances in the film version. Even Spiderman has been turned into a stage musical now, but I would hardly consider any of the cartoons or live-action films to be musicals. 5.68.199.196 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the lede in Musical film states: "The songs usually advance the plot or develop the film's characters, though in some cases they serve merely as breaks in the storyline, often as elaborate "production numbers"." This is exactly one such case. Music is what SNF is famous for, and I guarantee that the sources that are already present in the article support this notion. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A film about (or containing a lot of) music is not necessarily a musical. The American Film Institute categorises SNF simply as a "drama", not a musical (it categorises films such as Grease, The Sound Of Music, and Chicago as musicals). The actual songs on the SNF soundtrack don't advance the plot, develop the characters, and aren't breaks from the storyline. They support the film in the way any film soundtrack does, by providing music cues for different scenes. Famous as the soundtrack is, the songs simply form part of the setting (nightclub life, etc). As other examples, "Flashdance" and "Strictly Ballroom" are not musicals either, even though both contain a lot of music and we see characters doing plenty of dancing. Like SNF, they can be described as "dance films", but not musicals. 2.124.230.240 (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since Britannica says it is a musical film, and several books [1] [2] [3] agree with it, we should pass that notion to our readers, rather than wasting our time opining on the merits of what constitutes a musical film. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica also incorrectly states that Saturday Night Fever came out in 1978 so it's hardly a model of accuracy. And I rather think the aforementioned American Film Institute trumps it and the book sources hands down as a source (in fact, the third book source you gave was simply a quote from Cher who had nothing to do with the film). It seems the British Film Institute doesn't consider SNF to be a musical either, and simply lists it as a drama. 5.66.212.119 (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A one-year margin error does not dismiss a source as valid and respectful as Britannica, especially considering their list of contributors. I understand where your objection comes from, but as a modern online encyclopedia, we cannot confine ourselves to the same old standards and definitions when they keep changing. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we can see an error within a source, even a single error, then it casts doubt as to the integrity of that source. No matter how minor it may be, it should make us question what else they've gotten wrong. If we then proceed to use that source to support a particular claim, we could potentially be propagating misinformation, which is something Wikipedia should avoid at all costs because it damages its own integrity. Different sources have varying levels of credibility. In this matter, I have yet to see a more credible source than the American Film Institute, and as far as films go, it really doesn't get much higher than that. The list of contributors you point to on Britannica might look impressive, but none of those names are credited with writing the "musical film" article you linked to, nor are any of them actually involved in the film industry. That article is simply credited to "The Editors of The Encyclopædia Britannica" which does not necessarily mean it was written by experts, and considering they got the year of release for SNF wrong, it suggests poor editorial oversight which is a key requirement for reliable sources on Wikipedia. 5.66.212.119 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Films in development[edit]

Let's talk about films "in development." Studios make announcements all the time about projects they are developing, but that is no guarantee that they will enter production. There is no reason they should be listed until production starts, at a minimum, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF, unless there is absolute certainty that they will be produced.

And to be absolutely pedantic, film projects in development are literally not films yet, and if they have no release date, they have no year, so including them on List of musical films by year makes no sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that films should only be included if production has started or if there's a scheduled release date. WP:CRYSTAL states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." There is no certainty that these films will ever be made. In fact, it seems more likely most of them will never be made, such as that Beyonce-led Aida that was announced 12 years ago and is still listed here as "in development". Bennv3771 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020[edit]

Missing the 2019 Musical "Stand!" and the 2020 musical "Ode to Passion" Elgatoloco39 (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Or links to Wikipedia articles about them cause that is the standard for inclusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ADD MISSING MUSICALS[edit]

This page is bias and missing musicals. Please update or I will report it. Elgatoloco39 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add any missing musicals. Also, can you explain what makes this list "bias"? Trivialist (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020[edit]

Reshmant Raul (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new musical Pixar film so yes, I want to edit.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021[edit]

You could add "Phineas and Ferb: The Movie - Candace against the Universe" in the 2020 section and "Tick tick... BOOM!" in the 2021 section. Also Vivo has already been released 2804:1B1:C480:83DD:2195:6924:5F66:D64 (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add- Yentl, Barbara Streisand[edit]

Add- Yentl (Barbara Streisand) 2601:681:4580:23D0:DFA:3AC7:E75D:272 (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023[edit]

Please, put movies that have now been released in the 2023 section (examples: Wonka, Wish, etc...) Kikiwiki el Wikipedio (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024[edit]

Unblocked me please 2601:140:9300:7990:79F3:745D:9041:1EB9 (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. You are not blocked, this page is simply locked to users with accounts of a certain age and number of edits. —Sirdog (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_musical_films_by_year&oldid=1219976250"