Talk:Arn – The Kingdom at Road's End

This page was proposed for deletion by Donaldd23 (talk · contribs) on 29 July 2021.

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Nordic cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The Plot is the same as the first movie!! Is it really so, or an error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.216.152.32 (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree - the plot appears to be wrong as it explains "Arn - Knight Templar" not this movie Pdhooper (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Arn – The Kingdom at Road's End" is definitely notable

Hi. I can see that Donaldd23 has proposed a deletion of this article. I couldn't disagree more. Even though "Arn: The Knight Templar" (Arn 1) and "Arn – The Kingdom at Road's End" (Arn 2) is combined into a single cut for the English/International release on DVD, this isn't originally the matter. Both movies are independent (though connecting the story together) just like the Star Wars movies 1-6. Arn 1 could be seen in European cinema theatres from 2007, and Arn 2 in the cinemas from 2008. Later the two movies were combined into a tv-series. Still, "Arn – The Kingdom at Road's End" is definitely notable on its own. --BrianRasmussen (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrianRasmussen: Can you please provide citation indicating its notability? We need to show that this film has significat coverage by independent sources in order to establish that it needs a stand-alone article per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 13:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovineboy2008:. Is this source (Svensk Filmdatabas) acceptable? It even shows that the movie got the "Audience Award" in Stockholm 2009. --BrianRasmussen (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does certainly help, but a database listing is not significant coverage on its own. See WP:NFSOURCES. What really we should see is critical coverage (professional reviews), interviews with the crew about the film, interpretation or analysis of the film by professionals, or articles about the impact of the film (box office earnings, cultural impact, etc...). Usually the easiest to find is reviews, although they need to be written by nationally recognized critics, not just a blog or letterboxd style review. BOVINEBOY2008 15:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovineboy2008: How long do I have to find a "significant source", before the article is deleted? I may have found a book containing a professional review, but I have to order and buy it first (as a hardback). It may take some time to get, and perhaps a day to read it. I live in Denmark and the book is sold from Great Britain. Best, --BrianRasmussen (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on Wikipedia, there is no deadline. The article is no longer proposed for deletion since you removed that template. The only way it would be deleted at this point would be if someone nominated it for deletion, which would be followed by about a week for discussion. However, this discussion would certainly dissuade editors from such a nomination as there is active work to establish its notability. You could place the {{Under construction}} template on the article if you are concerned that it might be deleted before you are able to locate the source. Additionally, you could drop the title of the source here or at WP:RX for help getting to the source. BOVINEBOY2008 14:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the deadline matter. :-) I don't think I will put the "Under construction" template on the article right now, but wait until I actually get the book. It wouldn't be fair to others if they want to add anything useful to the article. Regarding the name of the source, I can easily give you that: Return of the Epic Film: Genre, Aesthetics and History in the 21st Century (March 11, 2014) by Andrew B. R. Elliot, (ISBN: 9781474402842): https://www.worldcat.org/title/return-of-the-epic-film-genre-aesthetics-and-history-in-the-twenty-first-century/oclc/913446531 Maybe I will make a notification on "WP.RX". Since buying this book is my own expense, I hope wikipedians will respect that I prefer a hardback version and not an e-book copy, though it would make it way faster to examine. Elliot's book should arrive at my address between August 13th and September 1st 2021. Best, --BrianRasmussen (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you the best with your investigation! Let me know if you need any other guidance. BOVINEBOY2008 15:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovineboy2008: I have finally read the book, and written something under the paragraph "Reception". --BrianRasmussen (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovineboy2008:, @BrianRasmussen: This is definitely a separate movie. Just because an English release merged the two films doesn't mean this is just one film. See, for example, this 2008 article (https://www.expressen.se/noje/recensioner/film/arn-riket-vid-vagens-slut/) from one of the largest Swedish daily newspapers ("Expressen") from which it can be deduced that it is a sequel. I used google translate to translate the Swedish language and the article says:

"Arn rides again. And he's been sharpening the sword since the last time. The second half of the story of the Crusader from western Götaland – and his faithfully waiting love – feels more fulfilled than the first. The new film is further development as much as continuation. Here it all begins in the Holy Land, Arn is a respected warrior but increasingly a man of peace. The battles have weight, the darkness is not only in the mind of the weary knight. Then there will be homecoming and re-union – light, joy and folk vieton. Not necessarily the film's weakest party but probably what caused the biggest problems, the color scheme is bright and warm as in shampoo advertising – and need to be so that the image can then darken again. It does. The war between religions in the Middle East are replaced by battles between Nordic royal families. Ice and snow instead of sun and sand – the adventure has become a drama of destiny.

Anyone who didn't like the first movie might have problems with this one too, the style is the same. But whoever was positive will like this one even better. It is more stable, more balanced – elaborate."

--> So the Swedish newspaper article definately considers this to be a separate movie. -- fdewaele, 26 August 2021, 13:06 CET.

@Fdewaele: I agree with you, and your link to "Expressen.se" underlines it further. The author Paul B. Sturtevant even characterizes Arn – The Kingdom at Road's End as the movie in which the whole story becomes an epic. I interpret his analysis in this way: Arn: The Knight Templar (Arn 1) is the movie where Arn's philosophy (and the Swedish national identity) is under construction whereas in Arn – The Kingdom at Road's End (Arn 2) his philosophy (and the national foundation of Sweden itself) is accomplished and born. The title "the Kingdom at Road's End" is an allusion to the end of tribal division among the Swedes, and the birth of a common Swedish identity/the contemporary self-image of Sweden. It's really not the same Arn (Sweden) we see in Arn 1 and Arn 2. --BrianRasmussen (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]