Talk:Lage Raho Munna Bhai/Archive 1

What is needed here

Based on FAs like Star Wars I. I say:

• A section on production, media hype etc.
• Expand the synpopsis so that it tells the whole story. That's what the spoiler warning's for. But if you just want to read the story then you should have information to read.
• More on the box office release, inc. media hype, DVD release.
• The Gandhi section looks good but should be expanded
• Similarities and differences with the first one. Not only on the plot scale (where similarities were minor) but in terms of directing, actors etc.
• Pictures and stills from the movie.

Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great game plan as long as these additions are based upon credible and verifiable sources - I look forward to reading the contributions you will make in these areas. A few things to keep in mind:

• While I do agree that the plot summary could be expanded, I don't agree that is should tell the whole story. A summary is a teaser which provides important plot points and themes without giving away crucial details or endings (as with a good film review). That being said, I do agree that expansion is a good idea.
• Adding images is fine as long as copyright policies are taken into consideration. You can review them here: Wikipedia:Image use policy. Good luck!-Classicfilms 01:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, fellow editors,

about the spoiler issue: I think since a spoiler warning is given, one could reveal the entire plot, instead of just "teasing" it. IMO WP isn't an online shop or a movie distributor who just tells a part of the story and leaves the ending open so people go and buy the DVD/watch the movie in cinema. And, to add something corny, Wikipedia aims to be a collection of all human knowledge and the entire summary is part of it. :) No, seriously, in most featured articles the complete summary is given too, and "Lage Raho ..." has definetely the potential for becoming featured. What do you guys think? Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 16:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Plumcouch - thank you for raising these issues. If you would like for this to be a featured article then I believe we should focus on the other points raised above by Nobleeagle such as detailing elements related to production, release, Gandhi etc. In terms of the synopsis, this isn't a matter of an online shop. Rather, it is important that we maintain a high standard in the development of WP articles by offering sophisticated plot summaries (as you will find in encyclopedias of literature and film) which present action in a thematic manner, rather than simply a retelling of the events in the manner of "Cliff Notes." In other words, if a point is important to the understanding of the basic plot elements it is worth mentioning. Revealing the end of the story does not contribute to an article and may irritate readers. -Classicfilms 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This encyclopedia offers a good model of literary plot summaries (which are not very different from film summaries) and may be available from your library. I own the 1999 edition but I believe there is a more recent one available as well: Serafin, Steven R. (ed.). Encyclopedia of American Literature. New York: Continuum. <http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0826410529-0>. -Classicfilms 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Classicfilms, I'm all for full summaries, because when I go to Wiki, I expect every information there is about the subject - and the before mentioned Star Wars article has a complete summary, too. However, if we can't decide which way is the best, why don't we ask over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films what their recommendation is. What do you think? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it should be a group decision. Encyclopedias are summaries, never a substitute for viewing a film or reading a book which is something that should be kept in mind - and in terms of quality I think you raise valid points for other parts of the article that need to be improved and which I think the group should focus on as well. -Classicfilms 20:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should ask Wikiproject Films. In my opinion, if someone's already watched the movie but want the plot without having to spend 3 hours again, they should be able to come to Wikipedia and read the plot. If someone hasn't watched it, the spoiler warning protects them from the ending. From WP:SW: Not all visitors will recognize the nature of Wikipedia, which strives first to inform, spoilers or not. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The exact details of the ending aren't coming to mind (after the marriage part), could someone please fill it in? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Does everyone agree that it would be better if trivia were merged with sections which deal with that type of triva? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Long

Don't worry about it if the article is getting long and please do not REMOVE information into nothingness simply because the article is getting long. Lots of Featured Articles are WAY longer then this, I think the way the article is progressing, we can submit it to WP:GAC soon with a bit of work. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Production

Can anyone find sources relating to Production of the film, almost every other good film article has a good section. All that is needed is sources, I'll work on the actual text to go in the article if you want. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing on production of this movie. Didn't even find info on when they started filming or script development. Is there maybe some kind of companion book made or maybe, someone has bought the DVD and "production info" is part of the extras? Anyone? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 12:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Certification

Does anyone know the Canadian Certification for Lage Raho Munna Bhai, I'd imagine it would be PG, the same as the United States, but I just want to check. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots of the film

Does anyone know the policy for putting film screenshots on Wikipedia? Let's make a list here of what screens would be necessary. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Screen or combination of screens or something off the internet showing the entire cast instead of just one or two people.
• Screenshot of Dilip Prabhavalkar as Gandhi
• Screenshot of Second Innings House

Template:Film-screenshot can be used as a fair use rationale.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dwaipayan's right. But we need to take care that the number of such screenshots remain limited. Reg. the preparation of a collage using the copyrighted images, I'm pretty sure it is not allowed. Image:Gandhicomparison.jpg is quite borderline, I think.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 13:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh...I thought it wouldn't matter much because one's been released into Commons...anyway, if it's borderline then it's still manageable. I think we just need a couple of screenshots for synopsis, one for a broader range of cast and one from some song for the soundtrack section. I took a look at some different articles and they tend to possess even more shots. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Munna Bhai

Is the "Bhai" part of the name? Is that why it isnt translated in "Carry on Munna Bhai"?--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bhai is a slang term meaning "Bro'".

Good Article nomination

I have passed this article as a Good Article under the relevant criteria. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the good work! Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} ! -Classicfilms 04:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

DVD

I own the "official" NTSC dvd release from EROS Int'l, and it is, as stated in the article, something of a travesty. The NTSC release is 29.970fps, converted from a 25.008fps (yes, really, 25.008) PAL DVD, and it is badly interlaced and there is distortion to the extreme left of the frame, which has been "compensated" for by centering the frame in such a way that the leftmost 15% of the picture is not visible during viewing. The program stream has been improperly handled otherwise, causing chapter seeking to fail about 90 minutes into the film (at the vob boundary), and causing timing information to be unavailable to the DVD player. There is also distortion at the beginning of the second vob due to a damaged or missing key frame. There are problems with the audio that I find it difficult to characterise, but among other things I believe that the surround channels are missing from most of the audio track.

It is a shame that this wonderful film is being served so badly by it's distributor. EROS is developing a well-deserved reputation for destructive handling of the films entrusted to them for distribution. If you wish to purchase this film try to acquire the PAL version, which is much less badly damaged than the NTSC version.

131.215.115.31 19:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Munna Bhai series page

Since the information in "general background" is repeated on a number of pages, I will move it to the Munna Bhai series page. -Classicfilms 16:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Qualitative Cinema?

One of the reviewers says it is a "a sparkling example of qualitative cinema". I am not sure qualitative cinema is a term. Qualitative is usually used only in contrast to quantitative, and in this respect, all cinema is qualitative. I suppose the reviewer wanted to say "quality cinema". Wouldn't something like "a sparkling example of qualitative [sic] cinema" be better? -- Longhairandabeard 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you google the phrase, "qualitative cinema" you'll find a number of entries which use it such as this one - so I wouldn't rephrase it - if you find a better quote from this review and want to substitute it, that is fine as well. -Classicfilms 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is a term then.. huh.. -- Longhairandabeard 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)