Talk:Survival film

Removal of films

I have removed films from this list due to lack of references (and some references being weak). The removals can be seen here. I looked up a sample of the unreferenced films, and while many appear to have elements of surviving something, not many were actually being called survival films. To include a film on this list, it has to have been called a survival film or survival movie by reliable sources. (I think "survival horror film" is okay too.) Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed more unsourced listings, some which could be restored if there is a source supporting this classification. The removal can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed here unsourced listings and listings whose sources did not actually call the films survival films. I tried to find better sources but usually could not. It does not mean that they cannot be read as survival films, just that no one in the real world has explicitly classified them as such. Removals include The Descent, Far from Home: The Adventures of Yellow Dog, Finch, Friend of the World, The Last Descent, Miracles Still Happen, Moon, Survival Family, and Underwater. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today I removed unsourced listings as seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what qualifies as "source". You will not find a clear "This is a survival movie" quote for all movies. Not to mention, "Jaws" is a movie fighting a shark, they could just stay out of the water, so why is that a survival movie? Trodjawed (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Crusoe on Mars

Why was Robinson Crusoe on Mars 1964 removed from the list? There are sources that call the film survival film: http://filmjunk.com/2011/01/13/robinson-crusoe-on-mars-blu-ray-review/ https://theuraniumcafe.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/robinson-crusoe-on-mars1964/ --Tochni (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tochni, I did not find these sources reliable. If you look at the "References" section, the sources are books and periodicals, along with Indiewire, which is considered reliable. I just looked again, though, and found a source to use to warrant inclusion. I am wanting to keep the sources high-quality here since a lot of films can involve surviving but not actually be survival films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Phillips - a "survival" film?

I would rather consider this film a kind of action or hostage drama/thriller. Arguing that this film was a "survival" drama, would basically make any hostage drama a "survival" film. I don't think that this is suitable. We could add numerous films to this list, for instance Panic Room or Die Hard as all the victims basically try to survive... Even if certain websites/sources call this film a survival film, it may conflict with the definition. (Sobchack explained, "Most of the time in a survival film is spent depicting the process whereby the group, cut off from the securities and certainties of the ordinary support networks of civilized life, forms itself into a functioning, effective unit.") Feel free to comment on my suggestion to take this movie off the list (before I delete it). I would like to hear a few more (dis)agreeing arguments before though. Thanks Syncrow (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have to understand that genre is fluid. There are films out there that may belong to multiple genres or not really one at all. I'm sure that Captain Phillips can be categorized in several different ways, and that does not mean there cannot be overlap. If The New York Times considers the film a survival film, then we can't really dispute that. In addition, it looks like other sources also call it a survival film: [1], [2], [3], [4]. It might be that we need to add other definitions of "survival film" to the article. Sobchack defined it in his 1988 book, but time has passed since for the genre to evolve. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm warning you... ;-) if we accept just any hostage film, or film where somebody finds himself/herself in a dangerous situation, the list will be endless. The fact that the reputable source New York Times calls it a "survival film" does not automatically qualify for that depending on Wikipedia's own definition. The journalist's in the New York times are not necessarily scientist. There are lots of Westerns in which people try to survive. I think being cut off from technology, people, supplies helps defining the genre. And I can already announce countless entries, if our definition remains so vage... ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syncrow (talk • contribs) 15:24, January 29, 2018 (UTC)

We don't have a limit on space for lists, and listings have to be verifiable per Wikipedia's policy. There is not a scientific process for determining of a film belongs to a particular genre. Wikipedia does not have its own definition for survival film. It only summarizes what has been written about survival films, including Sobchack's 1988 book and the periodicals that discussed the survival movies around 2013. We can combine different definitions in one place and provide in-text attribution for who framed a survival film as such. We as editors can't override what reliable sources state. Our job is to summarize what the world out there is saying. There is likely overlap between hostage movies and survival movies, but there are some hostage movies that aren't survival movies. We could plausibly have both lists (not sure what is out there about hostage movies), and some movies will be on both while others will be on one or the other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential additions

Both The Reef (2010 film) and Open Water 2: Adrift are survival films, but unfortunately I cannot find any sources to describe them as such. However I am recording them here in the hope that sources will become available at some point. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkirk is referenced as a survival film here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_(2017_film)#cite_ref-Travers-2017_177-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AAD5:9E00:7DE9:3A7F:375F:5A44 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FilmStruck

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious omissions, likely numbering well into the dozens

I added the incomplete list template so readers will realize that the current list is only a small slice of survival films out there. If I had the time, I could spend hours and hours adding every one I can think of but ideally this could be done piecemeal over time by many editors. Just a few that came to mind while perusing this list: The Towering Inferno, Deep Blue Sea, 47 Meters Down, and Oxygen. Incerto501 (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources to support adding titles as explicitly survival films. For some films, other genres may take precedent. For example, The Towering Inferno is more known as a disaster film, and disaster films usually have a survival element involved. (Though some sources do recognize some of these films as survival films too.) A film like Oxygen has that element too, but reliable sources tend to call it a sci-fi horror or sci-fi thriller film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an Oxygen link: https://deadline.com/2021/05/oxygen-alexandre-aja-melanie-laurent-interview-netflix-1234754548/. I just looked at the American survival films category - which I can't link to for some reason - and see there's films there that aren't even in this page (like 47 Meters Down and 47 Meters Down: Uncaged). Shouldn't we make sure we're in agreement here before removing the template? We're talking upwards of 50 omissions here. I'd say that qualifies as a fairly incomplete list. Incerto501 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the template for the time being even though I disagree with it. I looked all over for lists of survival films and compiled them here. I feel like if a survival film hasn't been on any of these lists, it is less important than the ones who have been on them. Like one would see The Towering Inferno on a list of disaster films and not a list of survival films.

Regarding linking to categories, insert a colon at the beginning inside the brackets, and you can link to the category page like this: Category:American survival films. However, categories are notoriously subjective and hard to monitor, so films being in a category does not explicitly mean they belong. I actually prefer lists for that reason, since in them inline citations can be required to separate the judgment from the editor's own opinion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came across as obstinate, it's hard to communicate tone through text. I'm just legitimately trying to find the best course of action here. You sound like you know about the criteria of these lists more than I do. I see what you mean about Towering Inferno being classified primarily as a disaster film than survival, although I think most every disaster film is also about survival generally, right? I can start checking the sourcing of the American survival films category to see if we can move any over to this page. Thanks for the tip about linking the categories too. Incerto501 (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Dangerous Game

The movie that started this whole genre is called ‘The Most Dangerous Game’, and was made in 1932 on the same sets as King Kong (although the sets were actually built for TMDG because the producers still hadn’t given the green light for King Kong) by the same directors and production company, and with several of the same cast. It was, in turn based on the novel by Richard Connell. 86.92.25.8 (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wording from book

Andrzejbanas, are you able to replicate the wording from the book? I added that paraphrased text a while ago but can't seem to access the original text again. I can try to revise the text here based on it. I see one snippet that says "second large category of adventure films--the survival films" but can't seem to view the rest of it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, specifically it states "As noted earlier, the adventure genre is really a grouping of several more defined genres - the swashbuckler, the war film, the safari film, and the survival film." Might be a bit on the nit-picky side, but sub-genre sounds like its saying something that belongs to adventure films, while this sources seems to be saying the opposite. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am reading it one way, but I am not seeing how it says the opposite? We don't have to say "subgenre" specifically, but the text seems to say that in a hierarchal sense, "adventure film" would be on a higher level, and the named films are on more specific levels under that high level. This is reflected by the other text I quoted above, that "adventure films" have multiple categories, and the "second large" of these categories are survival films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think it has to say subgenre either specifically, the topic on hand with the source seems to be discussing the adventure film genre and is more so talking about it actually being "more established genres". In other words it seems to be saying war films, swashbucklers, and safari films are their own things. I kind of see what you mean, but if we go by that ruling, it would also be applicable that in this authors opinion that the war film is also a sub-genre of the adventure film, which I think we'd both agree is not what they are saying. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I see what you're saying, the author is essentially stating that adventure film is not really its own genre (at least in this context?) but really a collection of distinct genres. Right? Trying to rephrase to make sure I understand correctly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for your patience. That's basically what I'm reading it as, as I can't imagine they are saying war films are sub-genres of adventure films. I mean, I'm sure we could see someone saying that, but this is why i'm leaning towards this definition. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I agree with your reading and decided to drop the sentence. Unless you think it can be re-worded some other way? Based on the correct reading, the information doesn't feel in scope for this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking of re-wording it but I can't really find it useful in terms of the scope of the article either. It would fit maybe a bit better in the adventure film article, but that one already does a decent job of going over the complicated nature of "adventure film" from more contemporary sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]