Jump to content

Talk:Arn: The Knight Templar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ive heard that the bugdet is more than 210.000.000 SEK, It's not official what the sum is yet but maby someone who knows can add "210000000 SEK (or more)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.212.170 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish article mentions two characters called Masters at Arms. What is a Master at Arms? According to the English Wikipedia, it's something that has to do with the navy! Please explain what a Master at Arms is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.211.203 (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

[edit]

Are the languages in the film really Swedish and English. In the books, the language used for all communication with non-Scandinavian Europeans is Latin and sometimes French and the language Arn speaks with the Saracens is Arabic. Has this really been mady into English? If so, pardon my language but what a cr*p decision, totally ruining the film. They might as well have thrown in machine guns. If that really is the case, I suggest a paragraph in the article about it as it violates both the books and the authencity. JdeJ (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,they are speaking English in some parts of the movie,which was shown in the trailer!

They speak Swedish, English, Latin, and Arabic. The English dialogue seems rather arbitrary, but seems to happen most often when there are multiple cultures present. Elecmahm (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America?

[edit]

Will Arn be released in America?I live in Sweden but I`m just asking,becuse they really need to fill that budget! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.144.148 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The movie is available on Netflix. I just watched it. :) Elecmahm (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

[edit]

A user who probably has the best intentions keep reverting my edits saying that film used extensive English dialogue. I find this weird, and the argument to "source it" bordering on the ridiculous. Yes, we need sourced facts. On the other hand, when we're speaking about a well-known film, we usually don't source every statement, not if the film itself sources it. Look at any film at Wikipedia and you'll find that the plot is usually described. We don't put a source after every single sentence, for the simple reason that it can be found in the film itself. This is the case here. What I find rather hypocritical is that the user keeps reverting to a version that is just as unreferenced, rendering his arguments about sources null and void.Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references you have chosen are in Swedish and therefore unverifiable on English Wikipedia. If you need assistance on what is considered reliable, please read WP:V and WP:RS. I am of course assuming good faith, but I will be reverting once more and adding sources (in English) to the original paragraph so it is sourced. The arguement that you are attempting to add is a claim about "the director's decision to use english" and that is why it must be sourced - without a reliable source, it is an assumption. The original paragraph only argues that Swedish, English, Arabic, Latin and French are used, which is obvious to anyone who has seen the film. Having seen the flim several times, I am at a loss as to how you would describe it as using "extensive" english dialogue in "most" scenes, as the majority of the dialogue in the film is in Swedish. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed good faith, but it appears as if you have personal agenda. Your last edits come pretty close to vandalism, by removing sourced facts and replacing them with unsourced facts. First and foremost, references in Swedish are perfectly valid. Look around English Wikipedia and you'll find a fair share of references in other languages. References in English are of course prefered on English Wikipedia, but that does not rule out other languages. You link to WP:V and WP:RS but obviously you didn't bother to read them. If you had you would have seen that they say the opposite to what you claim. Instead of your (rather arrogant and chauvinistic) argument that only English sources are accepted, they make it clear that sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable.
As we're discussing a Swedish film, made in Swedish by a Swedish director and based on Swedish books, it only natural that most sources about the film are in Swedish, as were most reviews. I have reverted your edits to reinsert the facts and the sources. If you remove them again, I will consider it as vandalism and deal with it as such.Jeppiz (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with WP:NOENG, please provide a translation of your sources to confirm that they actually deal with the topic at hand and back up your claims. I certainly do not have a "personal agenda" as you have claimed, and my edits do not constitute vandalism in any sense of the word. I simply want the article to accurately reflect the film. Any person who has seen the film can tell you English is not used "in most scenes" as you have added, so I am understandably skeptical of your sources. Instead of starting a battle of childish insults, I think we coud both use a re-read of WP:EQ. I look forward to reading your sources. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, we are both capable of discussing this in a friendly manner. I can certainly understand your skepticism about "most scenes" and I'll change that right away. It was careless editing on my part. As for WP:NOENG, it states that

When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.

As the documents are rather long I rather not translate all of them, but if you specify what it is that you question (apart from the "most scenes" that I'll change now), I'll gladly translate the relevant parts of the sources.Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The specific part of the references I would like to see is the section which says the use of english was a decision made by the director. It was my primary reason for reverting your edit, so as long as it is proven that the reference deals with that point and confirms it then I am more than satisfied. I am glad we were able to reach a mutual agreement on this matter. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: One film or Two?

[edit]

While I applaud WP:AGF edits and believe the Summary could use work, the plot of the sequel movie should not be incorporated here as it is a distinct film from this one. Jun Kayama 16:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a re-cut version of this film, under the title "Arn - The Knight Templar", which included the entire storyline of the two films in one. It was very cut down, to fit it to two and a half hours, losing a lot of the plot on the way, but the cut seemed legit and professional. --Tokle (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 139 minute cut referenced here (the one released on 25 December 2007) is the original first movie, which did not include plot from the sequel. I've edited the summary to indicate there's a single movie version of which encompasses all three novels of the Crusades Trilogy, the 130 minute version referenced here [1] which combines both original movies. There is also distribution available in 2 x 100min or 6 x 45min format for television.
But the original Tempelriddaren movie was just the first two books and did not feature the Battle of Hattin or Arn's death. What benefit is there in editing the summary for the 130min recut version when the details box is for the original 139min release? Jun Kayama 00:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arn – The Knight Templar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arn:_The_Knight_Templar&oldid=1199008398"