Talk:Mongol (film)/Archive 1

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)

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

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * If you can find sources detailing why the director changed things, then add them, but otherwise simply listing differences isn't the place of this article unless it were billed as a historically accurate film that critics were regularly complaining about. Unless there are critics devoting coverage to the historical accuracies an editor doing so is placing undue weight on that aspect and it is a violation of npov. We can't go in to extensive coverage of aspects of subjects that the reliable sources don't. To do so approaches WP:SOAPBOX issues.--Crossmr (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are inded critics who go into those details, so that shouldn't be a problem. --Latebird (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as reliable sources are cited for each inaccuracy it can be mentioned, but it should be mentioned in the context that the director stated it wasn't his aim.--Crossmr (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think I have ever read a piece of historical fiction on book that has not taken artistic liberties to make a story, whether that be about the Crusades, Rome, or Ancient Greece.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.6.79.200 (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No other documentary I have watched has mentioned any enslavement amongst the Tanguts (western Xia, Xi Xia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be a long section, this film deviates from history so much you'd probably find it easier to list the differences between it and an episode of Seseme Street. -- Joey Roe  17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)