Talk:The Other Boleyn Girl (2008 film)

Added category
I have categorized this page as requested by Category needed. If anyone has a more accurate category for this article, please feel free to add in the necessary details. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What did I miss?
Wasn't Anna _married_ to the king? Why only "one-time mistress"??... -- NIC1138 03:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This film is about Mary Boleyn, Anne's sister. 205.167.180.132 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the music composer for this movie was Edward Shearmur... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.164.140 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anglocentrism
The article states that the film stars "foreign" actors. I assume that this means "non-British." Just to point out, the vast majority of the world considers British "foreign." Perhaps a better word or phrase could be found? 69.19.14.37 (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, it was Scarlett Johansson herself who used the word "foreign" in the interview cited, which is probably why the word found its way into the article. It reads fine to me now that it has been established in reference to British history and put in quotation marks. 79.75.32.176 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Budget
The article states the budget as: £20m/$40m

We have to be more specific than this as to which currency is being represented. NorthernThunder (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Rotten Tomatoes as a reference
Rotten Tomatoes includes a lot of reviews from critics with questionable credentials writing for vanity (their own) websites. How can this be considered a reliable source? At least the reviews at Metacritic are written by professionals for mainstream publications. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a reliable source for confirming what the Rotten Tomatoes rating is, at any rate. Last I checked, RT does have standards in place for what critics can be listed there; you can't just throw up a geocities site with a single review and be included. I don't see any reason not to include RT alongside Metacritic when discussing a movie's critical reception; you don't have to work for a newspaper or magazine to be a critic. Propaniac (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The film is unrealistic in details
It goes without saying that all British actresses and actors have a set of perfectly even white teeth. But in the 16th century that was very unusual even among the royalty. The toothbrush was invented by the Chinese only in the 15th century and for a long time since then it was unknown in Europe. It was not uncommon even among kings and queens to have missing teeth. As far as the ordinary folks, it should be noted that in the 16th century there was a great number of amputees on the streets because medical knowledge at that time was not as advanced as it is now. Most of the time doctors simply amputated limbs because there were no effective medicines and treatments against many diseases. Also, taking daily showers was not an option for most people in the 16th century, so they didn't look as fresh and clean as the characters in the movie do. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * its based no a novel, not history


 * But the novel is based on history. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It goes without saying that movies whitewash history all the time. -70.107.231.195 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary
The plot section seems incomplete. It doesn't mention Mary's first marriage, or that she was married when she took up with the King. I came here to read about her marriage and what happened to her first husband (from the movie's perspective, not what ACTUALLY happened to him historically) and didn't find anything. Did they just ignore that she was ever married or did it mention his death in the movie?--Videojournalist (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy?
Can something be done about the huge lump of unsourced information in the "Historical Accuracy" section? EttaLove (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of removing the entire section. Apart from being completely unsourced and excessively long, the article about the novel already has a section like this. --SilentAria talk 11:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody returned it, without bothering to cite it of course, so I've removed it again. Yworo (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple of articles that could be used to have a sourced section: The Times and The Guardian. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the insights of Alex von Tunzelmann unnecessary in this and also not based on any referenced fact. There are many depictions of Henry's lovers and wives, which suggest they are essentially calculating women who slept around to raise their status rather than potentially being victims of Henry. It doesn't sit well with me and the jokes about hackney and being fun to ride written by a man may be funny to some, but is a bit offensive. 84.70.117.92 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Other Boleyn Girl (2008 film). 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/20090221095627/http://getfrank.co.nz:80/interview-eric-bana-the-other-boleyn-girl/ to http://www.getfrank.co.nz/interview-eric-bana-the-other-boleyn-girl/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627174425/http://uk.rottentomatoes.com:80/m/other_boleyn_girl/ to http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/other_boleyn_girl/

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) 08:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)