Talk:List of New Zealand films

Lincoln County Incident
I have removed this from the list, as I don't think it qualifies as a feature film. Although a very ambitions one, it was a high school production (I think shot on VHS), about an hour long. It had little or no dialogue, good use of atmosphere and music. dramatic 10:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Film Commission Funding
Marking those films which were not funded seems a little bass-ackwards, as it requires marking all films made before the commission came in to being, plus a fair few others. Better IMO to get a definitive list of funded films and mark those.dramatic 10:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of Columns
This list sufferes badly from having too many (and largely unpopulated) columns, making them all too narrow on most displays. I propose dropping the cast column, on the following basis:
 * 1) Cast ought to be listed in reasonable detail in the film's own article.[1]
 * 2) It isn't at all clear how many cast members should be listed. Lead vs supporting roles are not well indicated in most of the references, so verification only comes from viewing the film - a primary source, so not an acceptable source for Wikipedia.
 * 3) A large number of New Zealand actors are redlinks anyway.

The Genre column is potentially more useful, but largely empty, and assigning genre for films not listed in the main guides is rather subjective.

[1] If nobody objects, I shall start removing the cast column in a couple of weeks. I will do it a decade at a time so that I can create articles for redlinked films where the cast is currently listed. dramatic (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this proposal is a good idea and will improve this list.- gadfium 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To Qualify as a New Zealand film
In response to Gadfium's comment on the editing page...

I must make the point that to qualify as a New Zealand film a number of criteria must be passed which also includes (in the case of LOTR) that the financing be primarily from New Zealand though not necessarily from the NZFC. As the funding for the LOTR films is largely from America it goes to say that LOTR does not qualify as a New Zealand film.Savre (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed LOTR and Narnia as they were funded by Newline and Disney. Not sure about 30 days or Perfect creature. This list should only included Films that comply with the NZFC act etc instead of being filled with those films that are not New Zealand made but only filmed here. Maybe a new list or another section for (OVERSEAS) FILMS FILMED IN NEW ZEALAND. Savre (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does this idea come from, that the status of a film depends solely on its funding? Please quote the relevant policy.- gadfium 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not solely funding but this is an important factor. To qualify as a New Zealand film a film needs to have significant New Zealand content e.g. ownership, funding, primary shot locations etc. LOTR is owned by Tolkien estate, film rights owned by Timewarner and funding from Newline (owned by Timewarner). Though it was filmed here LOTR would also need to meet the previous criteria in order to be considered a New Zeland film. LOTR IS NOT A NEW ZEALAND FILM SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS FILMED HERE. Savre (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On that basis The Piano cannot be on this list either, since it was made with majority Australian and French funding, or Whale Rider which had significant funding from Germany - or the very first film on the list, Hinemoa (1913 film) which was merely exploiting New Zealand's 'exotic' (at that time) nature. This is a list of films produced or filmed in New Zealand. Its primary reference is a list produced by the New Zealand Film Commission which includes obviously overseas productions like Sands of Iwo Jima or The Rescuers (and notes them as such). The NZFC obviously considers that all contributed to some extent to the growth of a New Zealand film industry. LOTR was not only filmed here, it was largely made by New Zealanders (even the majority of the film's individual award winners are kiwis). dramatic (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons the NZFC was made was so that overseas film makers cannot get funding from the NZFC for the films they made in New Zealand. A film needed to have specific content to qualify outlined in the NZFC Act of 78. See Section 18 of the New Zealand Film Commsion Act for more details. It can be found here->  Kia Ora Savre (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That gives criteria under which the NZFC will fund a film. This is a list of New Zealand films, not just a list of films that the NZFC considers funding. Why should we adopt the NZFC criteria as ours?
 * Even on the basis of funding, LoTR may qualify as a NZ film or series of films, as I recall it received substantial tax breaks from the then government.- gadfium 04:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. Firstly i'm glad someone posted on this page cause nobody seems to want to enter any discussions i try to start. Anyway i'm a bit busy so this will be a quickie post. Firstly the page title and definition seem to contradict each but i see why. I kno i get it. A list of films but we may aswell include all films made in NZ aswell cause then we'd need another list. But let me say that the NZFC is the highest authority of NZ cinema in terms of governmental institutes. Also that funding is not the sole criteria for defining a film as the writers, producers, director, actors, financial supporters are also considered when defining a new Zealand film. The section 18 of the NZFC act does not explain fully this idea, it is dotted throughout the act, but the point to make is that the NZFC wanted to define New Zealand film so that we can market NZ films around the world as being of New Zealand. GET IT?  Anyways my point was that if this was a list of NZ films then it should only include films which are of NZ. I was going to suggest a change in definition but the page kind of needs to include films filmed here i suppose cause its easier. Phew! So much for the quickie reply.Savre (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see the point that a hypothetical film shot here but set in another location/culture on Earth should not be called a NZ film. But what if the location isn't earthly at all? These need to be considered individually. Star Wars Episode II and The Matrix are clearly NOT Australian films - they are just Hollywood transplanted. There are certainly films on this list which need removing: Map of the Human Heart (NZ director, but not made here). And I think that LoTR is an exception. It was made (rather than paid for) by Wingnut Films, a NZ company. And the New Zealand scenery is a major and much-discussed feature of the films. The 'New Zealand is Middle Earth' theme was very strong here - We even had Gandalf, Frodo and Aragorn plastered all over the planes of our national airline. The later Wingnut production, King Kong is an edge case - there is much more studio and CGI work rather than NZ scenery, and it is set on earth. The Lovely Bones would not qualify on the basis of location or culture, but Peter Jackson bought the film rights, so it is NZ produced to a greater extent. And lastly, an interesting case is The Silent One - Made in the Cook Islands and about pacific rather than NZ culture - but funded by the NZFC.

dramatic (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If funding is the criteria, the list would be much shorter than it currently is. Most of the films listed here were at least partly filmed in NZ, but not made in NZ or funded there. Such films as Bridge to Terebithia cannot be considered NZ films.125.237.105.102 (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Decades
Does anyone really think that 1990 is in the 1980s not the 1990s? I am going to add Tracker as it is set in NZ and a British/NZ co-production. Also it is a 2010 film so is in the 2010s not the 2000s Hugo999 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See decade, and 1990s. It's generally accepted that 1990 is in the 1990s. Decades differ from centuries, primarily because decades are not referred to using ordinals eg as the 200th decade (which would be 1991 to 2000).- gadfium 05:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jurassic Park
I don't want to add anything to this article as what is/what is not an NZ film m is making my head spin, but somebody who is in the know might want to consider the Jurassic Park trilogy. I know part of some of the films (at least the large tree forest in the third) were shot in parts of New Zealand. I don't know if this qualifies as there are so many if-sos and fact-sos.TeigeRyan (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of New Zealand films. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203060459/http://www.filmnz.com/introducing-nz/film-industry-history.html to http://www.filmnz.com/introducing-nz/film-industry-history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014101140/http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/tracking-shots/close-ups/hinemoa.html to http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/tracking-shots/close-ups/hinemoa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829020326/http://events.filmarchive.org.nz/event.php?eventInstanceID=1412&eventID=288 to http://events.filmarchive.org.nz/event.php?eventInstanceID=1412&eventID=288

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of New Zealand films. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130407050749/http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/tracking-shots/close-ups/NZRomance.html to http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/tracking-shots/close-ups/NZRomance.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100518234342/http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/getattachment/1ae13826-36fa-42df-a54f-61397a40aed7/Feature_Films_since_1940_by_year.aspx?disposition=attachment to http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/getattachment/1ae13826-36fa-42df-a54f-61397a40aed7/Feature_Films_since_1940_by_year.aspx?disposition=attachment
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100604062940/http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/FilmCatalogue/Films/A-woman-of-good-character-aka-LIZZIE.aspx to http://www.nzfilm.co.nz/FilmCatalogue/Films/A-woman-of-good-character-aka-LIZZIE.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Telemovies
I think this should be a list of feature films, not TV movies. Unless works listed here were primarily created for screening in movie theatres I suggest they be removed. Exceptions to this rule could be (for example) An Angel at My Table or Bread and Roses which had dual histories as film and television projects. Quilt Phase (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TV movies removed Quilt Phase (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition of "New Zealand Film"
I just removed "Sands of Iwo Jima" because it is not a New Zealand film. Suggest re-wording of article definition to remove "filmed in New Zealand". My feeling is this should be a list of films produced or co-produced by New Zealand producers or production companies.

I guess this means the Méliès films and others should be removed, even though they remain of interest in early New Zealand cinema...

Quilt Phase (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)