Talk:List of films with longest production time

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

The Irishman[edit]

Should be removed. This is not a list of "production hell" films; the Irishman shoot was 9/18/17 to 3/5/18, less than 6 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9A93:B800:FC52:F7BF:DE1F:439C (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Trivialist (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Documentaries OK?[edit]

Is it OK for this list to include documentaries? I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be except for maybe a lot of documentaries might fit the bill. Popcornduff (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornduff: I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long as its verifiable that filming took several years, not the making of the film in general. I mean, we have Hoop Dreams in here already and that's a documentary. But yeah, I'm scouring the internet for some more sources and films now, and we've been getting some good help as well. Sock (tock talk) 14:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the Up Series hasn't been added yet? Admittedly it's really a series of films... Popcornduff (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You answered your own question. It is a series of films and not a single film, thus not what the list is designed to cover. Listing film series will only open the door to every film that had a sequel being listed too. If you ever see the Police Academy movies on this list you will know it has jumped the shark. 99.192.93.180 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's exactly why it hasn't been added. This list is meant for singular films shot over several years. If we include the Up series, we may as well include the Harry Potter series. It's filmed once every seven years, but it's a different film for each time that happens, so it's ineligble. That might be worth adding to the lead, actually. Sock (tock talk) 14:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All sensible, and a good idea to add this to the list, as I think a lot readers (and editors) would expect Up to be in there - it's the most famous "thing filmed over a long time" thing until Boyhood came along. Popcornduff (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One documentary that should be added that is "Dig!". Maurizio689 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful lists[edit]

Went ahead and gathered a few variations of this list for us to pull films from. We'll probably need better sources than these, but it's a start.

The FSR one might be good, since that's consider a reliable source, but again, I don't know if it applies to what we're looking for. Sock (tock talk) 14:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the list and the lead description[edit]

Since this is a new page with a minimal description in the lead, it is worth starting a discussion of what the proper scope of the list should be and how to describe it in the lead section. To that end it is worth noting how the page came to be. For those who don't know, the page was created in response to a discussion on the talk page for the film Boyhood. So the foundational idea for the list was to collect films that were similar to Boyhood in the length of filming. In the discussion on the Boyhood talk page editor Betty Logan made this comment about the creation of this list page:

"We may need to come up with a better title. Something like Eyes Wide Shut, which shot continuously for 2 years would qualify (but probably shouldn't), whereas something like Cast Away, which had a short production break would not (but arguably should be on such a list)."

I share her concern and her assessment of the two films she mentioned, although it is not obvious to me what page description would include one and not the other. I suppose one way to try to help establish the scope of the page is to consider the various reasons a film might take several years to shoot. Among the main reasons I can think of are these:

- Financing problems (see Eraserhead). This probably would be a reason for a lot of independent, low budget, or first films taking a long time to make.
- Scope of the subject matter (see Hoop Dreams). A lot of documentary films that follow the lives of people might fit into this description.
- Planned multi-year shoots to reflect changes over time (see Boyhood, Cast Away, and Everyday). Amazingly, Raging Bull managed to shoot the fat De Niro scenes only four months after the rest of the film was made, but the aging of characters in Boyhood and the weight loss of Tom Hanks in Cast Away took considerably more time and involved planned breaks.
- It just took that long (see Shoah and Eyes Wide Shut). Sometimes it just takes a long time to make a film. This is the hardest kind of case to consider for this list because it seems that there just has to be an arbitrary cut off point for what is and isn't long enough to count.

There probably are other reasons a film might take multiple years to shoot. (Do re-shoots count? Do anthology films like Coffee and Cigarettes count? Do re-releases with new footage count?) I don't know what the scope of the list should be or how to describe it, but I think this covers the questions to consider in trying to decide that. 99.192.93.180 (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go through my opinion of all of your points in order. Thank you so much for all the interest! I'm glad this page is attracting some people to it.
  • I don't know that I agree with Eyes Wide Shut being excluded, but I agree that Cast Away should be included. Eyes Wide Shut filming for two years is absolutely notable in my eyes, and seems to be a great example of the variety of reasonings for long productions (like you said, it just took that long). I don't see why a film that took two years or longer to film wouldn't be acceptable.
  • Financing problems is surely an issue, and great suggestion for expanding the lead!
  • Again, great point which could certainly help the lead.
  • The planned multi-year break is also an interesting tidbit, since there are a few films that have done it. Seriously, I can't thank you enough for pulling this together. I've been stumped on the lead since I made the list.
  • As I said above, I think "it took that long" is a great addition to this category, since some filming periods go on for an exorbant amount of time.
All in all, I agree with you on a lot of stuff. In my opinion, re-shoots should count, anthology films should count, re-releases with new footage should not count. For instance, in the case of something recent like Mad Max: Fury Road, filming initially took place from July-December 2012, then re-shoots were done in November 2013. Say there had been more re-shoots in mid-to-late 2014, and I think that we'd have something warranting inclusion, since the film still hasn't been finished and is still filming. For anthologies, it still counts as a film, regardless of it's separation. Something like Movie 43 would be warranted for inclusion, since it took about five years to get all the sketches filmed. However, since a re-release with new footage is the same film with some new stuff, I don't see its validity. The film was already released, then new footage was shot and added after its release. It's no longer the same production span, in my opinion.
Again, thank you so much for all of your insight and thoughts. They're immensely helpful! Sock (tock talk) 16:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a very thoughtful post here.
To my knowledge, two years is an unusual length of time for a movie shoot, and so seems an appropriate cut-off point. It also means "several" means just that - more than two - and we don't have to rename the article. Popcornduff (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead could become something like: "This list includes films shot over two or more years. It excludes film series shot over several years, such as the Up Series and the Harry Potter film series." Popcornduff (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would the The Lord of the Rings (film series) qualify? ("the entire project took eight years, with the filming for all three films done simultaneously and entirely in New Zealand, Jackson's native country.")--Lapadite (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is basically the same thing as Up Series. Unless one of the films took three or more years to film (which, given the timespan, is completely possible), we shouldn't include it. We certainly wouldn't include all three, just the ones (if they exist) that took 3+ years to film. Sock (tock talk) 19:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good points 99.192. Regarding Eyes Wide Shut, if shot over 2 years, it would automatically disqualify as 2 isn't "several". I suppose we should also establish in the lead that "several" would comprise 3+ years. A film like Coffee & Cigarettes qualifies as the director shot the film, or the vignettes that comprise the film, over a couple of decades. I don't think productions that are delayed for financial reasons should qualify merely because that delay leads to prolonged filming.--Lapadite (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lapadite77: Good point on Eyes Wide Shut. I also forgot to acknowledge that part, that I think Coffee & Cigarettes would warrant inclusion. However, I disagree that financial troubles causing filming to take years shouldn't be included. Why do you think they ought to be excluded, Lapadite? Sock (tock talk) 18:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sock: Well, it's an external, undesired circumstance that causes a delayed production, and it typifies numerous independent films. I don't believe it should be the reason for inclusion in a List of films shot over several years - which implies or should imply the shooting over several years was deliberate in some way, presumably (but not necessarily) for creative reasons. Found a source for Coffee & Cigarettes, [1]: "Remarkably, Coffee and Cigarettes has been nearly two decades in the making: The first segment, featuring Roberto Benigni and Steven Wright, was shot in 1986; the final six were completed in early 2003." --Lapadite (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the list implies that the shooting over several years was a creative choice. Surely the list is still useful if it contains both? Films being shot over several years is notable whether it's deliberate or not. Popcornduff (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily creative, but not for films whose production is prolonged solely because of external, financial circumstances. Just my view of it. I don't believe it should include them (if it's the sole reason), primarily because, like I said, numerous independent films would qualify, by nature of the industry. --Lapadite (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, I was being pretty dumb there. Three or more years would obviously be a better definition of several years.... Popcornduff (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is agreed upon, the criteria for inclusion in the list should be stated in the lead, so there's no confusion or future arguments over why a film is included. --Lapadite (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Sock (tock talk) 19:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

I've no idea how categories work on Wiki. Should we have a "films shot over several years" category that could be added to the Wiki articles for the films on our list? Popcornduff (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thief and the Cobbler[edit]

That film took 30 years to make! Surprise it is not on here. (Though I do have to wonder how animation films work-since there are so many cases where they are years in production then abandoned, ect) Wgolf (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The King and the Mockingbird[edit]

Same goes for The King and the Mockingbird, of which the interrupted production spanned thirty-two years (1948-1980). Animation films are not “shot”, but surely these would be worth including? 85.68.124.14 (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@85.68.124.14 and Wgolf: If these films were shot (principal photography) over three or more years, then they would qualify. Cite reliable source(s) supporting this. Lapadite (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article[edit]

I was thinking the page should be moved as the title "over several years" suggests it excludes longer periods than "several" (i.e., "more than two but not many"). I propose renaming it to "List of films shot over three or more years", as the article intro states. Is there support for this? @Popcornduff, Sock, Maurizio689, and Wgolf: Lapadite (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I didn't get an alert for this - no idea why. Maybe other people didn't either?
Anyway, I have no objection to this suggestion, but I don't feel strongly about it. I suppose "three or more years" would be more specific and probably a slightly more useful title. Popcornduff (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; for example, 18 years, the longest on the list, is not really "several". Notifying participants @Sock, Maurizio689, Wgolf, and Fortdj33:. Lapadite (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I doubt the more accurate title would be controversial, I'll go ahead and move the page. Lapadite (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of films with longest production time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkovsky films[edit]

AFAIK, two films by Andrey Tarkovsky belong on this list, being Mirror (1975) and Stalker (1979). --2003:EF:1703:A576:7932:C747:5BAA:A645 (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foodfight[edit]

Foodfight belongs on this list, I might add it when I have the time but reader feel free to do it yourself if it's not on there yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.184.89 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Inclusion of Kill It and Leave This Town[edit]

According to the film's maker, Mariusz Wilczyński, he stated in interviews that the film Kill It and Leave This Town took him fourteen years to animate. [2] and [3] (both sources are in Polish). Should this be included on the list? Anonymous 7481 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings series.[edit]

Greetings,
It is my understanding the entire story arc of The Lord of the Rings (film series) was filmed at once then the sequels were edited and released over several years. If I am wrong, please ignore me. (I do not know about The Hobbit (film series).)
Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5-25-77 & a tip[edit]

5-25-77 appears to have premiered 5 years ago, according to its own page! This may not mean it's actually done, but it does mean it has been displayed once in a finished state and thus the total time could be rolled back to 13 years.

Also, material for the short documentary Brillo Box (3 ¢ Off) appears to have been filmed between 2010 and 2016. I can't find an article covering this, but the box sold in Nov. 2010 and the director confirmed production began shortly before the sale in a 2017 interview held in anticipation of its premier. It's a shame there aren't better sources! — VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft: The Movie[edit]

Production for this movie hasn’t been started yet, but it was first talked about in 2014. 66.68.137.222 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not umcommon for films to be under discussion or development long before they actually enter production. I don't know specific details about its production, but I'm guessing it's that. Trivialist (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead description un-parseable?[edit]

> "The list excludes projects comprising individual films not shot over a long period, such as the Up series, The Children of Golzow, or the Harry Potter series."

What does this mean? Is it just trying to say that it's a list for individual films, not for series? If so I wouldn't think the 3 (very specific and varied) examples are necessary for telling people what a movie series is. If it's supposed to mean something else I'd love for this to be re-worded, but I'm unable to take a crack at it as it's so cryptic I can't tell what the intent was in the first place. Have sat here with another person for ten minutes trying to figure this one out and we're both stumped. SophieAmity (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_with_longest_production_time&oldid=1215807227"