Talk:Mongol (film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:13, 27 August 2008

Film: Chinese / German / Soviet and post-Soviet Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Chinese cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force.

Central Asia Unassessed

	Asia portal Mongol (film) is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Washington post

This article was mentioned in the Washington Post: "How the East Was Won: The Romance Of Genghis Khan". Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cost?

How much did it cost to make? Text says $20M, box says $10M. CsikosLo (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Two main actors were Japanese and Chinese, rather than Mongolians (the others don't have a page yet). How come they spoke Mongolian? I don't think there was any dubbing going on, or was there? Junes (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

historical accuracy

Having just seen this movie and having previously read accounts of the life of Temuchin in scholarly works based on the Secret Life of Ghengis Khan I can say that this film is rife with historical inaccuracies. Do I need to cite a reference to an academic who also believes this to avoid WP:NOR? Master z0b (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already cites (although not very formally) a publication in which the director admits to having taken artistic liberties with historical details. If you want to expand on that, then you'll have to cite someone, which doesn't necessarily have to be academics. That shouldn't be very difficult, as it is well known and published that the primary goal of the makers was to tell a catching story, not to create a historical documentary. --Latebird (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the director isn't contending that it is historical accurate, citing inaccuracies is a npov problem. Someone complaining that a movie wasn't what it didn't claim to be is hardly relevant.--Crossmr (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking artistic liberties is not a shame, and we don't need to blame anyone for it. But then, readers might still be interested to learn about the most important points where the plot deviates from recorded history. Especially when also explaining the reasons, I'd expect this can be done in an entirely NPOV way. --Latebird (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :The article already cites (although not very formally) a publication in which ''the director'' admits to having taken artistic liberties with historical details. If you want to expand on that, then you'll have to cite ''someone'', which doesn't necessarily have to be academics. That shouldn't be very difficult, as it is well known and published that the primary goal of the makers was to tell a catching story, not to create a historical documentary. --[[User:Latebird|Latebird]] ([[User talk:Latebird|talk]]) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 ::If the director isn't contending that it is historical accurate, citing inaccuracies is a npov problem. Someone complaining that a movie wasn't what it didn't claim to be is hardly relevant.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
+:::Taking artistic liberties is not a shame, and we don't need to blame anyone for it. But then, readers might still be interested to learn about the most important points where the plot deviates from recorded history. Especially when also explaining the reasons, I'd expect this can be done in an entirely NPOV way. --[[User:Latebird|Latebird]] ([[User talk:Latebird|talk]]) 22:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)