Jump to content

Talk:Beowulf (2007 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBeowulf (2007 film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 28, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Headlines

[edit]

1

[edit]

2

[edit]

3

[edit]

4

[edit]

5

[edit]

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6

[edit]
  • "Beowulf violence 'shocked' Jolie". BBC News Online. 2007-11-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

- Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 12:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to article

[edit]

I would like to open discussion on a few points regarding this article.

a. Cast list - I'm not entirely certain its present state conforms with Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, which discourages use of a list. I would like to propose that the Cast section be altered to better adhere to the suggestions given here which encourage prose (the existing commentary on the first two characters is a good start). One possible suggestion would be to convert to prose after the film is released and more is known about the characters.

b. Under the Production section, there is a part of the first paragraph which reads, "Their objective was to better connect the third act to the second, which is separated by fifty years in the poem. This was done in order to offer the filmmaker's interpretation for possible motivations behind Grendel's behavior..."

Since the "Acts" occur in the film, not the poem, I think that this section needs to be re-written in the following way for clarity:

"Their objective was to offer their own interpretation for possible motivations behind Grendel's behavior as well as for what might have happened during the time when Beowulf was in the cave of Grendel's mother (choices which they justified by arguing that Beowulf was an unreliable narrator). This also helped them to better connect the third act to the second of their screenplay (which is represented in the poem by a fifty year gap)."

c. The following section was removed. It is not uncommon for articles on films based upon classic works of literature to ask if the actors had read the works. The text can certainly be tweaked but I do feel that the information fulfills Wikipedia guidelines and should appear in the article somewhere:

"Actors Ray Winestone and Anthony Hopkins stated in an interview that they had had not read the original poem Beowulf but liked the script created for the film. Angelina Jolie also stated in the same interview that she had read Beowulf years ago but could not remember it well, until she read the script and was able to recall basic themes. [1] Zemeckis said he was not a fan of the original poem, but absolutely loved Gaiman and Avery's screenplay." [2]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Sheila Roberts. "Cast of Beowulf Interview". Movies Online. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
  2. ^ Tom Ambrose (December 2007). "He Is Legend". Empire. pp. 139–142.

-Classicfilms 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added point "b" above since it was a matter of grammar and clarity. I'll wait one more day for point "c" above - if there are no comments on it, I'll add it to the article as well. -Classicfilms 13:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I restored point "c" above. It may work better in a different place in the production section so if someone wants to move it to another part of the production section, please do. But the text is relevant to the entire production section and is sourced so I don't believe it should be deleted. -Classicfilms 15:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformat cast section to paragraphs

[edit]

The cast section is shaping up quite well. I thought that it was a great idea to move point "c" above to the cast section. Since there is now so much text, at least for the two lead actors, I would like to propose that we start to reformat the section and convert it from a list to paragraphs to better adhere to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. -Classicfilms 21:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Go for it! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erik - Thanks. I made the changes. Please take a look.-Classicfilms 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I was thinking something like The Dark Knight (film) in which there would be some form of a secondary list provided (as to encourage expansion) after the major prose paragraphs. I have a feeling that in the citations above, there would be even more detail for the secondary characters. One thing I'd like to suggest is to avoid listing minor cast members indiscriminately, like the last half of the names shown. It'd be best to wait until people see Beowulf so it can be discussed what roles are major, as a film can otherwise have quite a long list of cast members. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erik, Sure it all sounds fine to me. My goal was to simply clean it up a bit - I think your suggestions are quite sound. Why don't you go ahead and make the changes? -Classicfilms 23:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have restored part of the list. I think that we can probably add more content to the first four bulleted entries -- not sure about the rest of it. Some entries may be more relevant than others if their characters have their own Wikipedia articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! And yes, I agree with your other points as well, particularly concerning Anthony Hopkins since (I am assuming) it is a key role. Thanks for your help and suggestions. -Classicfilms 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added text for Hopkins and Malkovich and converted their entries into paragraphs. I also added a subheader so that the remainder of the list is not floating in space, but feel free to revert if you don't like it. -Classicfilms 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

[edit]

I would suggest phasing out the review from Ain't It Cool News when other reviews are published. AICN is hardly the gold standard when it comes to critical reaction, and there will be many suitable replacements. Just wanted to make that suggestion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empire shared many of Knowles' points, and knowing everyone has a thing against him, I thought it was ok to remove him now more reviews are flooding in. He may return unless someone else praises Glover. Alientraveller 17:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the review from The New York Times. It should replace something like IGN. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I replaced IGN with the New York Times review. --- Classicfilms (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? For the sake of it? Heh, keep it unless someone else has the same point of the film being a living painting. -- Alientraveller (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times is authoritative in having mass circulation of its film reviews compared to IGN, whose reviews are only published online. How about this -- we add on the review from The New York Times and keep the IGN review, and after the film has been out for a week or two, we can re-evaluate what reviews would be best used. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you assume a publication is any more reliable or authoritative than an internet source, simply because it is more widely circulated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.140.70 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

[edit]

The date here says the 16th but I saw it last night (14th) here in Korea. Mithridates 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://imdb.com/title/tt0442933/releaseinfo It was released on the 14th in a few Eastern Asian countries, the 15th in Germany and a few more places in Eastern Asia, and the 16th in the UK and the USA. Puceron 08:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making of book

[edit]

I just had a look in my local shop and saw The Art Of Beowulf (ISBN 0811860388), which is a fantastic look at the film's symbolism (if you thought it's locations were just a hall, cave and castle, think again). I'm not sure when my local libraries will stock this, so I recommend anyone to pick it up and cite it. Some things I gleamed:

  • Grendel's cave is actually a prehistoric monster, entombed and fossilized in the earth. It's rib cages become a subconscious part of Beowulf when he rebuilds the hall.
  • The cave's opening is foreshadowing of a vagina because of what Beowulf decides to do...
  • Grendel's design embodies "living pain".
  • The movie has variations on thirteen sets.
  • Beowulf's castle shows that his life's work is done, it is secure and strong.
  • The horn Hrothgar gives to Beowulf symbolises his curse.

Alientraveller 14:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The span of time before Beowulf fights the dragon similar in film and poem

[edit]

As I understand it, the period of time between Beowulfs two main battles (vs. Grendel/Grendels mother, and vs. the dragon) is similar in the poem and the film. In both cases the latter battle occur a long period of time after the first one, and after Beowulf has reigned as king for many years. Therefore, the part of the introduction to this article which states this element to be one notable difference between the poem and the film is in my mind wrong and should be deleted.

193.217.153.220 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the actual words are “hund missera,” which Robinson translates (half in jest) as “a hundred semesters,” to emphasize that the poet was not aiming for numeric precision, but to convey that Beowulf was now an old man, though still active. I’ve replaced this part of the summary with the far more important (but unavoidable, for Gaiman and Avary) deviation that Beowulf is king of different kingdoms in the poem and the movie.
—FlashSheridan (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical References

[edit]

Aside from the man speaking of Jesus in the party, King Hrothgar not wanting to switch to the new Christian God and the church being burned by the Beowulf's son, the way Unferth treated his slave moments after asking forgiveness from Beowulf seems nothing short of a nod to Jesus' Parable of the Unmerciful Servant. There may have been other Bible analogies in this poorly done film but I didn't catch them. Were there any others? And should they me mentioned in this article? --Is this fact...? 11:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a bit of original research. Nonetheless, there is indeed of a lot of analysis of how this adaptation takes back the original myth from the monks who wrote it down. Alientraveller (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comparison with original work

[edit]

The section below, which discusses the differences with the poem Beowulf, was removed. The argument was made that this information exists in the Production section. However, the Production section only briefly refers to two elements mentioned below: a general reference to Grendel's motives as well as to the relationship between Beowulf and Grendel's mother. It does not refer to a number of the other significant differences which are listed in the section below.

It is not uncommon for a film to deviate from the novel (or in this case, poem) on which it is based. A standard example is the novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and the film on which it is loosely based, Blade Runner. Both are notable works in their own right, but are very different. Virtually every article ever written on either the novel or the film, including the articles written for the Wikipedia, note these differences.

Another example is the book, The Godfather (novel) and the film, The Godfather. Again, both articles reference the differences, and the film article has a long section devoted to them:

In the same fashion as the works listed above, the differences between the poem Beowulf and this film should be referenced, particularly for readers who have not read the poem. The section below is open to tweaks and re-writes, but should be restored in some fashion to the article.

Comparison with original poem

[edit]

While some of the film remains true to the poem Beowulf, the plot (particularly in the second half of the film) deviates significantly from the original, and certain elements were created specifically for the screenplay. Deviations from the original work include the style and tone of the dialog, the hedonism in Heorot, the portrayal of King Hrothgar as a "drunk," the elimination of his three children (two sons and a daughter) with Wealtheow, and his suicide. These deviations also include which kingdom Beowulf rules, Grendel's mother's seductions of Hrothgar (making him the father of Grendel) and Beowulf (making him the father of the dragon) as well as Beowulf's marriage to Wealtheow. Finally these deviations include the elimination of the long battle sequence between Grendel's mother and Beowulf (which ends with her death) as well as the introduction of his mistress Ursula (a character who does not appear in the original poem). The filmmakers argue that some of these deviations are their corrections to the version offered by the original poem, with the movie depicting events which could not have been known to the poet.[1]

  1. ^ Jeremy Smith (2007-07-30). "INTERVIEW: NEIL GAIMAN AND ROGER AVARY (BEOWULF)". CHUD. Retrieved 2007-11-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

-Classicfilms (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with comparing two primary sources -- the source material and its adaptation -- is that it is making a comparison between the two, where one did not exist before. This can be seen as original research. In addition, considering that there will undoubtedly be differences between the source material and whatever adaptation for creative and conventional reasons, a list of differences subjectively determined would be highly indiscriminate. If only the content will be looked at for either primary source, then the reader/viewer can perceive these differences themselves. Wikipedia's approach to fictional topics is to provide real-world context, and the best way to include the most important differences is by using the scope of verifiability. Context about how and why these changes took place provide an intrinsic understanding of the difference, not mere surface details. Personal examples of where this has been done would include Fight Club (film)#Writing, Road to Perdition#Writing, and The Seeker (film)#Writing, to name a few. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation and examples, that helps. I think that it is a great idea to add a "Writing" section similar to The Seeker (film)#Writing to the article. The paragraph above which was removed could be re-written to reflect these two sources:
From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/movies/s_539150.html
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
http://blogs.jsonline.com/dudek/archive/2007/11/16/the-real-beowulf.aspx
-Classicfilms (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it, I moved it. There's now a more cohesive section focusing on the writer's interpretation and the academic reaction. I thought it'd be worthwhile, this being a bold new take on the tale. Alientraveller (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reading the Differences from the poem section it occurs to me that perhaps this section shouldn't contain opinion, but fact. Michael Morpurgo and the other gasbag academics aren't just citing what they interpret as differences, they're pontificating their irrelevant personal opinions (indeed, the Burton Raffel version of the fight with the Mother in the original text reads rather racy while other translations strain to keep it straight). I would like to see the section shortened to exclude those last three flabby paragraphs. WikiTracker (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution such an opinion -- calling them "gasbag academics" doesn't show a neutral judgment of how to handle the content. If anything, it is more relevant how the film is perceived by others than how the filmmakers intended it. For example, the author of Fahrenheit 451 meant to comment on televised media, but obviously many others have instead perceived it as commentary on censorship. I guess I'm OK with the move, but I didn't mind the section as it was before. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was neutral in moving all of the academic opinions, which are just that -- OPINIONS. They don't serve to list the differences in the film and poem, but to pass judgement on the differences. I think it is a mistake to leave these critical opinions in this section where they simply do not belong. Place criticism where it belongs. (By the way, I never meant to imply that all academics are gasbags, but the reactions shown here, both positive and negative, are about as meaningful as a thumb up or thumb down by a TV critic, which is why I used the legitimate term "gasbag", which by definition means "One given to empty or boastful talk."). WikiTracker (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Differences from a poem" needs to be perceived as more than either just background or just reception. Considering the premise of the film, such a section seems appropriate, having information about the intent and the perceptions. I don't think that the academic opinions truly belong in "Critical reception" because they are not opinions that are frequently seen among films. Thus, I think the distinction is important. We cite film critics all the time, and these are not the kind of people aren't film critics. They're perceiving the film through a historical lens, not to pass some kind of judgment on the general quality of production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "academic" Steven T. Asma isn't an author with any relevance to Beowulf, and the link provided to the referenced article is a pay site. I would like to nominate removal of the Steven T. Asma paragraph and related quotes as irrelevant and only serving to needlessly lengthen this article. If there's no objection, I will remove it. WikiTracker (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this removal and agree with the points Erik made above. As this is a section which allows scholars to respond to the changes made by the filmmakers, Professor Asma is qualified to comment on Beowulf. Asma's essay was published in the December 7, 2007 (p.B20) of The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is a hard copy publication available in any library (its online form is a reduced version of the full hard copy edition). Reference #17 lists the hard copy information so a user can look it up if s/he does not have online access. As there is nothing in the guidelines that states a reliable source must be online, a hard copy reference is perfectly acceptable. As for the other quotations, they are necessary in order for the section to comply with WP:NPOV to offer differing perspectives. For these reasons, I would strongly object to the deletion of this section. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While there may not be anything in the Wikipedia guidelines that states a reliable source must be online, it certainly doesn't help if it isn't -- and a pay site for that material is very much against the principles of Wikipedia. Did you actually suggest that people go down to the library to check your source?! What if my local library doesn't have the December 7, 2007 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education? What if I have no legs to walk, to get to my local library? What if I'm in a remote location, like the South Pole? It's not appropriate, or in the spirit of Wikipedia, to reference a link to a pay site, imho. If his opinion really mattered, it would be freely linkable. Why isn't it? WikiTracker (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the Chronicle of Higher Education is a verifiable source which complies with Wikipedia guidelines below - guidelines which clearly include hard copy sources:
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers [...] Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources
I will remove the link itself since that is what appears to be objectionable, but as WP guidelines support the Chronicle itself as a reference, the hardcopy version of it should stay. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An additional comment - I would like to note here that the article on the poem Beowulf uses a number of hard copy sources in its "References" section. It therefore makes sense that an article about a film based on the poem does as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I reverted it per my edit summary. This isn't a big section, and we combined both relevant discussions of the film's differences together for the sake of sectioning a general reading. Alientraveller (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times review

[edit]

The following review was removed. As it is one of the most notable sources I think it should be restored. -Classicfilms 03:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times critic Manohla Dargis also argued that, "Stripped of much of the original poem’s language, its cadences, deep history and context, this film version of Beowulf doesn’t offer much beyond 3-D oohs and ahs, sword clanging and a nicely conceived dragon, which probably explains why Mr. Zemeckis and his collaborators have tried to sex it up with Ms. Jolie, among other comic-book flourishes." [1]

  1. ^ Manohla Dargis (2007-11-16). "Confronting the Fabled Monster, Not to Mention His Naked Mom". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-11-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
I restored both the NYT review and the NPR review, each of which complies with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and both of which are highly notable sources - both the critic as well as the source. -Classicfilms 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to speak up belatedly, I'm fine with this. Both are reviews with wide circulation, making them more reputable than most reviews that can be found on Rotten Tomatoes. I'd just suggest that the re-added reviews say something new about the film; redundant opinions may have been the reason for its removal before, but I haven't looked at the page history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback Erik, that was helpful. I tweaked both quotes - take a look when you have a chance. Regards, -Classicfilms 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We unfortunately risk bloating the section. I'm tiptoeing over whether to axe Turan or Dargis, because both repeat the same point really. Alientraveller 16:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turan and Dargis are highly notable sources and make different arguments, one concerning audience, and the other concerning the changes from the original source. If the section needs to be reduced, I'd cut back on the Empire review, which resembles the Rolling Stone article or the Total Film article which matches points in the Variety review. In any case, none of the reviews should be eliminated without Wikipedia:Consensus. -Classicfilms 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a popularity contest, just to be sure. OK, Ebert may be a Pulitzer-prize winner, but his review was pretty bizzare. I'd trim that, maybe cull Total Film (because we need at least one British review). How's that sound? Alientraveller 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just concerning my vote, I would eliminate Total Film. As for British sources, there is also the BBC review which has yet to be added, http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2007/11/12/beowulf_2007_review.shtml
Ebert is a highly notable source, but I do agree that this particular review of his doesn't say much except for the fact that he believed the film to be a satire. Did At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper offer a more comprehensive review? If so, that could replace Ebert's stand alone review. However, since this is a matter of Wikipedia:Consensus, I think that we should wait to hear from other editors for at least a day or so before removing reviews. -Classicfilms 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another British review. It is from The Times:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article2870848.ece

-Classicfilms 18:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Total Film review and trimmed the Ebert reference. -Classicfilms 18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Plot section

[edit]

The length of the plot section is rather excessive considering that the basic story is very well known. I've attempted to shorten and clarify it a bit, but more editing would be welcome. I do not, however, think it does much good to say that the section is too long when reverting it to an even longer version, as Alientraveller has done. Perhaps this was a mistake, though. In any event, I've restored my (somewhat) shorter version of the plot section. CKarnstein 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-Ray release date

[edit]

When is this coming out on BD? After BD won the format war, Paramount said they would return to supporting it, so.....when's it coming out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowderedToastMan (talk • contribs) 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is out now, it is an epic movie, eh? -Hardtosay11 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

loosely base on?

[edit]

From the opening "Beowulf is a 2007 motion capture film loosely based on the Old English epic poem of the same name". I think it is fair to say that Beowulf (2007 film) is based pretty squarely on the Beowulf story. Nothing loose about it in fact, it seems to be directly based on Beowulf. JayKeaton (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it. I just finished reading the Beowulf and read some critical reception on it, and this movie DEFINITELY very closely based on Beowulf. JayKeaton (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Beowulf (2007 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
You have to remove it from GAN in that case... Anyway, I see other issues as well besides that with this article, such an inadequate references for some areas and unformatted references. Just re-nom upon fixing that stuff. Wizardman 02:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image File:Beowulf cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beowulf (2007 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Beowulf (2007 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beowulf (2007 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beowulf_(2007_film)&oldid=1206250970"