Talk:Pulimurugan

Lead Section

Dear editors, I think there are few sentences in the lead section which I do not think should be included. Consider the revision here - [1] Both, about the camera and fight DOP, have been discussed in the body. Also, neither are relatively significant to be included in the lead, per WP:FILMLEAD. It can be discussed to be included AFTER the film releases and if applicable. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb? Charles Turing? Best, Nairspecht Converse 16:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems like padding to me. Is there anything revolutionary or noteworthy about this camera? Like, are we talking about IMAX or Cinemascope here? Or is it just a regular camera? I don't think that stunt choreography really belongs in the lead either. Nothing about either topic is found at MOS:FILM. I'd recommend opening a discussion at WikiProject Film to get more input. This may surprise some editors, but Indian films fall under the scope of WikiProject Film... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Notable people can be identified in the lead. He is the highest paid stunt choreographer in India and it is an action film. And his mention is in the second para about the production. For inclusion of the camera, see Thuppakki. The camera used in this film is an upgraded version of it. More over, it's part of production which is per WP:FILMLEAD.--Charles Turing (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What part of WP:FILMLEAD are you referring to as basis for the inclusion of the camera in the lead? I don't see anything in the guideline that would necessitate inclusion of a camera type, especially without any context. Your example of Thuppakki is not a great one, since there is very little context to explain why we would care. The only thing that might suggest that it was noteworthy there, is that it's alleged to have been the first use of that camera in India. Even then, so what? What's revolutionary about the camera used in Thuppakki, that we need to know that it was the first usage? If it was the first IMAX film produced in India, that might be noteworthy, because IMAX is an expensive, revolutionary format. If the film was produced on an iPhone 5, that might be noteworthy as it was in Tangerine (film), because it's unusual. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to include the bit about camera because it's nothing extraordinary. It's just a camera used by filmmakers to produce films. It's not like when Tarantino used the 70mm film for his last, now is it? However, AFTER the film releases and IF the film receives a nod or an award for DOP or special effects or anything related to the camera, then we can probably think about adding it. Otherwise, it's just padding, as described above. I think you have convinced me (and other readers) about the stuntman, but I definitely think the sentence needs paraphrasing. Best, Nairspecht Converse 06:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2016

The title song - Manathe Marikurumbe - song which is actually written by Sri. Murkan Kattakkada. But it is represented/mistake in the site as Rafeekh Ahammed.

Sanuraj1983 (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2016

For filling Plot - if possible unprotect that section. 117.207.233.40 (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You can suggest it here. We will be glad to copy paste it to namespace. Best, Jean Stair (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2016

In last paragraph of casting it is stated that Makarand Deshpande was confirmed to play the antagonist in the film" but in the film he is secondary antagonist. The main antagonist in the film is Jagapati Babu, so please change it to "secondary antagonist or one of the antagonist in the film." 202.88.250.89 (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: We shouldn't be using interpretive labels like protagonist, antagonist, secondary antagonist. See WP: ANTAGONIST. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over re-recording

To facilitate discussion and to prevent needless edit warring, re: this matter PlutoniumBackToTheFuture I'm curious if you might be misinterpreting what was being stated in the article. The article says that Sunder did the re-recording i.e. the mixdown of the film, but your original reversion explains the removal with the justification "The director's claim of Sunder soley programming the bg score is contradicted in the film's end credits. An additional keyboard programmer has been credited." That doesn't seem consistent with the statement since keyboard programming and audio mix are unrelated processes. So my feeling is, if this was a misinterpretation, the content should be restored. I don't speak any Indic languages, so I'm useless in translating the relevant source. But if anyone thinks that would help, sometimes these things are a matter of misinterpretation on both sides. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I could not see any reason to remove that sourced content based on an original claim by an editor. If the editor have "any kind of" evidence or a materiel to support the claim, content can be removed or altered based on that. In fact, it was altered to facilitate the claim by PlutoniumBackToTheFuture, in case it was true. To non-Malayali readers, in the source, cited content is in the 2nd and 3rd paras from last. It translates as, "Gopi Sunder surprised me during re-recording....no music director in the world would have done re-recording like this. Only Gopi's fingers touched (sic) re-recording. Usually it's done by assistants. Worked on each of the tracks with patience. It was a "one-man re-recording". It would be the first incident in the world", said by director. 2405:204:D008:1DC6:4C5:A34F:BE0A:18AE (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the translation. This isn't original research, since a film's credits can absolutely be used as a reference. If someone said "John Doe was the only writer on the film" but the film credited two other writers, it would be reasonable to include the names of everybody and to discount the odd statement or to explain the discrepancy. What seems more likely in this case, is that Plutonium misunderstood what was being claimed, and couldn't verify his understanding of the claim. Unless I'm missing something it seems like an honest mistake, but I want PlutoniumBackToTheFuture to participate before restoring the content and unprotecting the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, firstly, what they are referring to is the film score. The term re-recording is informally (an intentional mistake) used as a synonym to film score by some Indian film technicians. This intentional mistake has eventually become a habit in conversations between technicians. The audience sadly misunderstand this. They think, that re-recording is the real synonym to film score (or background score as it is referred to in Indian cinema). But the issue here is different. Let me make it clear that there is no misunderstanding. The director says that his commissioned composer Gopi Sunder composed the film score and programmed it, all alone. But the end titles scroll of the film contradicts this statement, as a second keyboard programmer (apart from Sunder) has been credited. So, I've made no mistake here. Gopi Sunder was commissioned as the composer of the movie, i.e, for the score and song compositions. He was not involved in ADR, Foley or Re-recording mixing. Every member of the sound department has received credits in the film. Thank you for seeking clarification! PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not familiar with these technical processes. The director said, Sunder "re-recorded" the tracks solely, not "programmed". But I don't know if programming and re-recording are the same or "re-recording involves programming", in that case you will be right. You said Sunder is not involved in ADR, Foley or Re-recording mixing. Does "premixing" a part of any of these process ?. Then Sunder was involved in it, as there is a video where he is seen premixing in the studio. 2405:204:D008:1DC6:4C5:A34F:BE0A:18AE (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Since I don't have any information to answer your questions and I'm mostly just here in a moderator capacity, one question I have is if the statement could also just be hyperbole? I mean maybe the guy is just super-exaggerating Sunder's participation. It's not like that would be out of the question in the film business. People kiss their bosses asses all the time. Just sayin'. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, frankly speaking, most of his post-release statements about technicians, especially Sunder did seem so. Blatant statements without research. In this video interview, at 30:40 he starts his hyperbole about Sunder. He uses the term 're-recording' while mentioning how Sunder composed the score, piece by piece, without delegating programming duties to assistants. He also makes another ridiculous claim that it is possibly the first time in the world! It is acceptable, if he never knew about Vangelis having done that in Blade Runner (1982). But he should have known about a few composers having done that in India in the past. A. R. Rahman had done so in the early '90s. Apparently Ranjit Barot too! In Malayalam cinema, composers like S. P. Venkatesh, Rahul Raj and Sooraj S. Kurup had done so when they were given favorable scoring time. It is sad that some directors refer to background score as re-recording even in interviews. They simply refer to the real 're-recording' as 'final mix'. But there is real professionalism shown in some films in which the re-recording mixer is appropriately credited as the 're-recording engineer'. But that culture is yet to catch up with directors who predominantly focus on Masala driven pop-corn entertainers. Nothing personal against the director. Just against disproportionate exaggeration! PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

PlutoniumBackToTheFuture, come back to our discussion. You are little deviating from the real topic to a general discussion about re-recording and film score. We have something specific here to discuss. You haven't replied to my query, this discussion should be actually over by now. The dispute is, you said a keyboard programmer is credited in the end. I believe he is part of music "programming" process. Right ? Now, my question is, is programming a part of "re-recording" process or is it another process ? Because, the director said Sunder solely done "re-recording" not "programming". Please give a direct answer. 2405:204:D086:79CC:A107:7612:F084:F98B (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not deviating from the topic. In fact, I suggest you to get back to my previous post about the term re-recording being wrongly used as a synonym to film score. The answer for you, again - NO. Programming isn't a part of re-recording. The director is referring to film score when he says re-recording. You can also check the this video interview, from 30:40, where the director says the same. He talks about programmers who are usually involved in 're-recording', and how Sunder alone worked on the keyboard for 35 days to complete the 're-recording' of the movie. The entire point of the discussion is to make two things clear. 1: film score and re-recording are not the same, though they are wrongly treated as synonyms here, including in the source (text interview) you have provided. I have provided a video interview in which the director does the same and talks about programmers. 2: Sunder has not worked on the film score alone as the director has tried to convey. The film's end credits contain the name of a second keyboard programmer. I hope I've cleared your doubt. Else please read this discussion from the beginning. Thanks for responding. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I watched the interview. Sounds like the director is misusing the word "re-recording" for film score. So what he actually intended to say was, Sunder "solely" done all the work for film score, which is not, as you said you saw a credit for an additional programming assistant. I think the picture is clear now. 2405:204:D187:EAC:F1E7:990B:EFC6:3CD6 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Just so I get this correct, my interpretation is: You are both are in agreement that the content should be excluded as it is unclear and/or dubious what the quoted person is saying. Correct? If so, thanks for the polite discussion. I'll unprotect the article. I hope you both remember to come here next time after the first revert, per WP:BRD. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Leopard or Tiger

This is to inform all editors who are planning to or already done changing the English translation of the title Pulimurugan from "Leopard-Murugan" to "Tiger-Murugan". The title "Pulimurugan" is the combination of two words - Puli and Murugan, the former is an animal and the latter is a person's name. Pulimurugan is the film's leading character Murugan's alternate name/nickname. Puli is the Malayalam word for Leopard, there is a common confusion that Puli is Tiger. The Malayalam word for Tiger is "Kaduva". Another twist is that the film deals with tigers not leopards, but there is also an alternate name for Kaduva in Malayalam - "Varayan Puli" (Striped Leopard) and the film uses this name. 2405:204:D008:1DC6:4C5:A34F:BE0A:18AE (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you think the translation should be Leopard, not Tiger? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not "I think". It is. 2405:204:D086:79CC:A107:7612:F084:F98B (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

While Varayan Puli would be Striped Leopard for most people, in the movie it is a reference to the tiger. For people who have seen the movie, the character played by Nobi has the same doubt, and he is told off by the tea shop owner played by Sasi Kalinga and the police man played by Nandhu that the villagers use the term to denote man-eating tigers. And the entire premise of the movie is based on Mohanlal fighting man eating tigers, with leopards nowhere to be found. So while in a purely literal sense it would be okay to say that Puli-Murugan is Leopard-Murugan, in actual fact the proper translation would be Tiger-Murugan. Jupitus Smart 07:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the purpose of English translation is to translate the title, what the foreign word(s) mean in English. What it meant in the film can be said in another note in the article or as a footnote beside the title. "Puli" is leopard, if we write tiger instead, it will be an incorrect translation. --2405:204:D184:36A5:A43D:2420:AE40:2FE (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Violence against women

Recent removal of a potential review and the violence propagated against her is an important history with the film and its impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.167.202 (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this a joke ?. Who is that reviewer ? is she a professional critic ? a notable public figure ?. The critical reception section of the film is for adding professional critics reviews. It is not for adding opinions of a "nobody", a random person, who posted a review in their Facebook wall. RIP Indian media, for giving undue weight for a nobody's criticism on the film, who might have done that for cheap publicity. Are you the person who wrote it ? I seriously doubt that. Anyway, Wikipedia does not care a random person's opinion. I doubt even outside Wiki anyone even care that. A lots of people comment about a subject through their social networking accounts, Wikipedia is not the place for dumping that stuff. --John"Eddy" (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Promotion of thematic violence and other outcomes: http://english.manoramaonline.com/news/kerala/pulimurugan-imitation-goes-wrong-class-4-girl-blind.html

Notability dominates contents. Beware of angry mastodons and single purpose accounts.103.196.230.41 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What does that even mean ?. And DO NOT add anything to or edit the comment of another user. I have moved it above your comment. Are you both the same person ?.--John"Eddy" (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have the news article that reported boy caught maiming a cat replicating scenes from the film.103.196.230.41 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What is your real interest.? Seems like you are struggling hard to defame this film. If you have any aversion, Wikipedia is not the stage for it. You want to add a kid injured while imitating a scene, a child maiming a cat. seriously ?. Is this all you got ?. That's what children do, they imitate films and sometimes gets injured. These are common, manoramaonline.com reported such an incident because Pulimurugan is a popular film and they knows how to sell it to boost their page views. If you want to add anything, the content needs notability, and it is only one among the other requirements. Unless you have something really notable, say the Colorado shooting incident of The Dark Knight Rises, you are not welcomed to add it. --John"Eddy" (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

To the OP, I removed the content because it was incoherent, but also because there was no clear reason why an encyclopedia should care. A random person expressed her opinion and was met with trolling from disrespectful internet users. That could describe any response to any film. What is the 10-year value of this information? Will we care 10 years from now? Doubtful. Now if the film had spawned some sort of major event--rioting, demonstrations, a women's rights movement--that might be worth mentioning. But misogynistic internet trolling? Same with the cat thing also mentioned above. Wikipedia is not a historical archive for every event tangentially related to the subject. We only care about the most important events. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Release

The total gross is wrongly quoted as 1000 crore in the release section. Would be nice if someone corrected it Arjunbala9899 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Total Box office collection for Pulimurugan

1) Is there any authentic proof for the total box office collection of Pulimurugan ?

If available, the link can be cited in the reference section. As we can't rely on primary sources (like directors, actors, producers, etc) for box office figures, authentic proof reference is required to support this fact.

If there is no authentic reference available, box office figures should be removed from wiki page.

2) Is there any independent body (unbiased) that publish the box office collection for films ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tousifmt (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tousifmt: I'm not clear on what you'd consider "authentic proof", but to answer your question, there is no central independent auditing performed in Indian cinema. Western markets are lucky to have BoxOfficeMojo.com, which presents a centralized list of figures that are generally considered reliable and accurate. In Indian cinema articles, we typically get our financial figures from reliable published mainstream sources, (newspapers and reputable entertainment magazines) but ultimately they are all estimates, and thus, should all be taken with a grain of salt, as a number of factors can contribute to inaccuracies. Some of these factors include straight-up corruption, blindly reporting figures without independent verification, and republishing claims made by primary sources. Sometimes poor journalism obscures the source of the data. For example, a newspaper may publish a really high first day figure that is also being touted by the producer, but the newspaper may have forgotten (intentionally or otherwise) to mention that the source of the data is the producer. Kabali is an example of a film that was getting really high box office figures--like ₹600 crore, when it was very obvious that reputable sources like Financial Express/Indian Express were silently lumping in 200 crore in pre-release income, which is never included in box office gross, and in some cases they were just parroting the claims made by the producers. Anyhow, unless you have a persuasive case for why we should ignore Catch News's estimates, the content should remain. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: An irony is, this user Tousifmt who said "we can't rely on primary sources (like directors, actors, producers, etc)" made a semi-protected edit request in another film article for updating its gross using a direct source from its producer's facebook page. : ) 112.133.248.3 (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Lol. Of course... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no irony here. I was not aware of the guidelines on the sources which is accepted by Wikipedia community for movies. Admin "Cyphoidbomb" has provided me a reference to the guidelines on acceptable sources guidelines for box office collection in the semi-protected edit request that you have mentioned. Going forward, I will refer the guidelines section for any box office related information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tousifmt (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

About box office collection

There is no trust full source about Pulimurugan cross 150 cores at box office. Still this page shows wrong information I eaven talk with products company from their part also they said it is just 100 crore business Then why people exaggerated it Rajivkodiyathoor (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

176.205.239.2 (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Please allow us to edit this page.

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)