Jump to content

Talk:Sword-and-sandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sword and sandal)

Definition of the genre?

[edit]

I've heard of Ben-Hur, the 1960s Cleopatra, Spartacus, etc, being called "sword and sandal", but this writeup seems to exclude those? Stan 03:31 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've never really seen the phrase used of anything but a low-budget Italian picture. They obviously relate, at least as homage. You also could get some spill-over from loosely Biblical stuff from the same period; you mention Ben-Hur; a film like The Silver Chalice might conceivably also count. I guess it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to define the genre in such a way that includes The Ten Commandments as well as Hercules Versus the Moon Men. -- IHCOYC 04:23 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'd never thought about how an official definition might read. I guess if I had to make up something, I would say "characters from ancient times heroically acting according to 20th century mores". I've never seen or even heard of (that I remember) any of the low-budget Italian flicks, but I have heard "sword-and-sandal" used by critics, as a generic pejorative for any pre-medieval flick. Stan 06:02 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
IMO "Sword and sandal film (Hollywood)" or something to that effect needs an article, badly. Great respect to the folks who did all the Pepla research and writing here, but I only got here in the first place because I wanted a list of the Quo Vadis -> Cleopatra Roman/biblical films of the 50s and early 60s; it never occurred to me this wasn't the original or exclusive sense of the phrase. If the term was originally meant for Pepla that's certainly valid but it's at the very least become commonplace in North American pop-culture in the sense of that specific (Anglo-American) film craze. Here it's essentially preambled that, "no, those are period films (no wiki article)" which is a bit jarring.
As a result there are also lots of misleading misdirects, probably by people who didn't read this. (IE, the article on Cleopatra, "The arduous process and enormous cost of completing Cleopatra resulted in the end of the sword and sandal epic.)
Maybe just disambiguate? 142.167.180.221 (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page just needs to be retitled as it describes the peplum cycle[1] rather than the sword and sandal genre[2]. Dirk2112 (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.spreety.com/Gen/Glossary-film-cycle.aspx
  2. ^ http://dictionary.babylon.com/film%20genre
I think if we change the title as Dirk2112 suggests, it would be very difficult to justify the inclusion of several films listed here that take place in various post-Dark Ages periods without, however inadvertently, making a case that applies to spaghetti Westerns as well (this has been in my mind for some time; it took Dirk to inspire me to post it). The four Sandokan pictures, set in the "late nineteenth century," two of which don't feature a body-builder type in the lead, seem particularly problematic in this connection. The other two of those star Steve Reeves, which makes leaving out his Italian-made oater, A Long Ride from Hell, quite difficult. Don't misunderstand me, I concede that we don't want to count those. However, if we define the genre as some people on this page insist (with "cheap" and "Italian-made" as far more important terms to it than "ancient Greco-Roman setting and/or musclebound demi-god as hero"), we will be hard-pressed to avoid it. I honestly feel that Ray Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts, which actually features Hercules as one of its characters, and George Pál's Atlantis, the Lost Continent are more within the genre than the aforementioned Sandokan pictures, or Reeves' Morgan, the Pirate, co-helmed by Hollywood director André de Toth! --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "sword and sandal" refers only to low-budget, cheesy European take-offs of the big budget Hollywood Period or Biblical films. Since these low-budget Euro-films are meant to imitate Hollywood product, the category obviously cannot include the actual Hollywood films which they attempt to emulate. The term is used in a denigrating fashion, to put down the European films as inferior (in other words, to define the films as nothing more than a bunch of guys with swords and sandals). Hollywood films set in Greco-Roman or Biblical times or the Middle Ages, etc. are classified as period, or Biblical, films, and certainly deserve their own wikipedia entry (perhaps under "Hollywood period films"). The reason Steve Reeve's Sandokan films are included (and not his spaghetti western) is because the Sandokan films are set in primitive, barbaric times in a society very similar to that found in the peplums (ie: pirates using swords and bows and arrows). The peplum encompasses films of varying ages and periods (not just the Roman era per se), so long as the characters use swords and sandals (Romans, pirates, Biblical characters et al.)(Frank Verzyl) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.74.32 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, well, Frank Verzyl is back. And with a new definition to eliminate non-Italian cheapies. Since Ursus in Quo Vadis was depicted as a very strong mortal man rather than a demi-god (or semi-god), he hardly counts as an inspiration for this genre, which in the modern sense began with the Steve Reeves-starrer Hercules. Furthermore, Italian Maciste films pre-date the "big budget Hollywood Period or Biblical films" you cite as such by decades, in the silent era in fact. The "late nineteenth century" setting of the Sandokan films is no more or less a "primitive, barbaric time" than the US Old West. As for swords, genre historian Stephen Flacassier correctly criticized Lou Ferrigno's frequent use of the weapon in Luigi Cozzi's Hercules as out of step with the original films, and inspired by Conan the Barbarian. Therefore, they are not inherent to the definition. The non-Greco/Roman set pictures that definitely fit this genre feature a muscleman (usually if not invariably Maciste in the original Italian version) dressed in what Flacassier called the "skirted brief" of the Greco/Roman set films (worn by charcters other than the beefy heroes there) and quite anachronistic in these others, which he also admitted. Repeatedly asserting the Italian origins and cheapness are part of the genre's definition doesn't back it up, and it doesn't appear to be correct on the face of it. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brycedavid (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC) The term 'Sword and Sandal ' does not refer to 'low-budget, cheesy European take-offs of the big budget Hollywood Period or Biblical films'. Obviously the person or persons who manage this page know nothing about the genre. The term 'Sword and Sandal' was coined by the popularity of Arabian adventures made in the 1940s, including Arabian Nights or Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. Since then the term has been used to describe every type of film including big budget Hollywood films. And the content on this page contradicts the page itself by listing only 'cheesy European take off of Hollywood films' and say they are Peplum but then only call the page Sword and Sandal. How can a 'low-budget, cheesy European take off of Hollywood films' happen when the genre was basically re-booted in Europe in the late 1940s? Fabiola was released in March 1949, before any other film made in Hollywood, including Samson & Delilah or Quo Vadis? (which, btw, was made in Italy). Fabiola included big spectacular scenes in a Colosseum which were re-used in Hollywood released films like Androcles and the Lion. Other films with spectacular scenes followed including Sins of Pompeii and Messalina (1951) all made before or at the same time as Quo Vadis? and the other Hollywood films made afterwards. Theodora - Slave Empress (1954) featured the first chariot race since the silent era, 5 years before Ben-Hur (which, btw, was made in Italy) and I guess according to the logic of this page, Theodora - Slave Empress is a 'low-budget, cheesy European take off of Hollywood films'. How can Hercules be a 'low-budget, cheesy European take off of Hollywood films' when there were no Hercules films made in Hollywood before the Italian one? How can Maciste films be a 'low-budget, cheesy European take off of Hollywood films' when Maciste is a strictly Italian hero from Cabiria which continued during Peplum explosion after the success of Hercules? The logic behind the reasoning taken from this page doesn't make any sense at all. The term Peplum was coined by French film critics and the term is mainstream there. The term is all inclusive, from Arabian adventures to big budget Hollywood films to 'low-budget, cheesy European take off of Hollywood films'. It was even used by a French film critic at Le Monde to describe the $250 million Hollywood-made John Carter [1] and yet this Wikipedia page categorically refuses to accept the French definition of a Peplum, you know, the ones who actually use the word today and have popularized it. Several French books on the Peplum genre were written and they all include big budget Hollywood films. [2] "Le peplum l 'antiquite au cinema" shows two big budget Hollywood films on its cover. There's another book, 'Le Peplum' [3] which I have and it lists films like Quo Vadis and the Ten Commandments. So the term Peplum, according to the French, is all inclusive. The decision to exclude many films, including big budget Hollywood films, from either terms 'Sword and Sandal' or 'Peplum' from this Wiki page simply reeks of elitism and condescension. A Wikipedia page should be objective and this one is certainly not. If this page wants to list ONLY Italian-made films of the Peplum genre, several of which were not 'low-budget, cheesy European take off of Hollywood films' but films unique to their culture since it's part of their history not Hollywood's, than there are several corrections to be made, including the title of this page but the listing on this page doesn't wholly match the terms 'Sword and Sandal' or 'Peplum' because it's excluding too many titles and it is too narrowly defined.[reply]

Peplum?

[edit]

I was looking for information about peplums - "a flared ruffle attached to the waist of a jacket, bodice, etc". So why the hell was I redirected here? 81.19.57.146

Peplum is probably taken from the Latin meaning "robe of state." In film costuming, it refers to those over-the-shoulder tunics worn by Hercules, et. al. It's a kind of stereotype now, so much so that mainstream films like "300" have guys wearing Peplum-type costumes. In actuality, most Greeks wore the Khlamis (mantle), a simple garment suited for their hot, dry climate. Problem is, the Khlamis really doesn't leave much to the imagination -- it's a shortish mantle worn without underwear. The Ancient Greeks had no problems with male nudity, but modern American audiences won't stand for it. Oydman 03:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican sword and sandal films?

[edit]

In the cinema museum in Mexico City's Chapultepec Castle, there are posters and stills from Mexican-made silent films that patterned themselves after the Italian films of that same era but which used Aztec settings as the Italians had used Greek and Roman settings. Any information about this?

Intro Quote

[edit]

Shouldn't the line below it read "Captain Oveur (played by Peter Graves) ..." Lars T. 22:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period Films vs. Peplum

[edit]

I'm not really clear on the concept of peplum, but to me Sword and Sandal refers to the escalating series of high budget pictures starting around Quo Vadis ending around the The Fall of the Roman Empire that the studios used to showcase new technology and spend a lot of money. I'm going to add a paragraph to that effect, if someone more qualified can change this assessment feel free, but these pictures must fall under some heading.


The difference is that films like Quo Vadis, Sparticus, Fall of the Roman Empire, Cleopatra, etc. were PERIOD films produced by big studios with name actors and real budgets. Peplum refers to cheap Italian genre films, often with a burly bodybuilder as the lead. The big Hollywood Period Pictures of the 50s and 60s were more often than not based on popular historical novels (or the Bible), while Peplums ripped off various bits of classical mythology and whatever else they could think of to cobble together a plot.
You can really spot the cheapness of the typical Peplum film. I've seen several Italian-made films of this type, and I believe they all rented their costumes from the same costume place. Many helmets look the same from film to film, for example. They also dub the dialog in ways that range from comical to merely poor-quality. Many studios didn't bother to record background sound, so there's music, dialog, and maybe a Foley effect or two during swordfights. Peplum directors were also known to rip off other Peplum films if somebody came up with a cool shot. They say a mob rushing the gates of Troy was later (flipped horizontally?) used as people fleeing from Pompeii. Whatever saved a few lire.

Oydman 03:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]

Although most examples of peplum were produced in Italy, Retro Studs (2002), David Chapman's collection of film posters and capsule bios of the genre shows that the genre wasn't completely centred there. If anyone wants to update their knowledge of this genre, I've added his book to a bibliography section. Hope it helps. You might also want to have a look at Hillman and Gunsberg's papers on the issue if the relevant books are in any adjacent university or public libraries.

User: Calibanu 13:14, 21 April 2006

Cleanup Tag

[edit]

Article needs formatting help. Capitalizations, list formatting, wikilinks, shorter section titles. -- Stbalbach 11:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs massive reorganization. How much about these Italian flicks do we need to know? They should probably have their own article. --Bobak 23:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have their own article here! The peplum genre refers only to Italian-made sword-and-sandal films that were originally shot in the Italian language and later dubbed in English for distribution overseas. If the film was not originally an Italian film, it should not be on this page at all! I don't think the people commenting realize that the peplum is a uniquely Italian genre.

Modern S&S

[edit]

Regarding the section below, this seems like Original Research. Anyone can say any film they want is a "S&S" film. Lord of the Rings? No way. It's really not up to us to decide, it needs to be sourced.

In my opinion, the list looks good save for LotR, the Merlin films, and Pathfinder.

After the revival of historic epics in 2000 by the Ridley Scott film, Gladiator, sword-and-sandal films became a big hit, and many followed in the wake of its success. Some of these include:


For the record: Peplum was CHEAP. These films were done for the merest fraction of what the big Hollywood Period Epics' budgets. Sets were generally simple: a couple of columns, a throne, and some guards made a throne room set. Much of the action took place out in the woods or a grassy field. A battle scene might have a couple of dozen stuntmen and last five minutes. LOTR or Gladiator are FAR beyond the scope of Sword and Sandal. If a true Peplum film were possible today, it would be filmed in Romania or a former Soviet Republic and star someone like Dennis Wolf, 2005 World Amateur Bodybuilding Champion. Unfortunately, these type of low-budget films generally go straight to DVD. Give me 2-3 million and I'd make a film worthy of the Peplum name with him! http://www.dennis-wolf.de/gallery_cover.html
"Peplum was CHEAP." So what? The vast majority of horror films have been too, but that doesn't mean The Exorcist shouldn't be considered one. Budget is not part of this—or any—genre's definition. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The peplum genre refers to mainly Italian-made movies that were filmed in Italy in the Italian language, and were later dubbed in English (much the same way that the phrase "spaghetti western" refers only to those low-budget westerns filmed in Italian that were later dubbed in English). I don't think the people who are trying to include these Hollywood and/or British movies into the list understand that the peplum is not just a film about the Roman era, but that it must be an Italian-made film that was originally shot in Italian. The budgets of the films have nothing to do with it, nor does the subject matter. Roger Corman's ATLAS might possibly be includeable since it was filmed in Athens, Greece on a shoestring budget and starred Michael Forest (who later appeared in many, many Italian movies), but certainly not Hollywood or British films such as CLASH OF THE TITANS, GLADIATOR or Liz Taylor's CLEOPATRA. That would be like including Clint Eastwood's "UNFORGIVEN" on a list of spaghetti westerns simply because it is a western. Peplum refers only to Italian-produced films that were shot in Italian language and later dubbed in English for distribution overseas --User: Frank Verzyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.74.237 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary: genre--"A category of art or literature characterized by a certain form, style, or subject matter." Sorry, but no mention of language or national origin; besides, it is my understanding that these films, plus European Westerns and horror films, are done with no sound equipment at all, so they weren't "filmed in Italian" but have all dialog tracks recorded in post-production. As for your example of Unforgiven, you are going the other way, as spaghetti Western is a sub-genre of the major Western genre, eliminating your claim. Sorry, but while the two Harryhausen pictures, Pal's Atlantis, and Gladiator may technically not qualify, they are relevant to the article, as none of them is "just a film about the Roman era" (which many pepla aren't, anyway), but are fantasy-adventure films tying into the ancient Greco-Roman mythology, which does characterize many of them. The Liz Taylor Cleopatra is more of an historical soap opera, so definitely doesn't belong here, any more than any filming of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar or Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the spaghetti western is a sub-category of the Western film genre, just as the peplum was the Italian sub-category of the Period film. That helps my case, it doesn't contradict it. If you want to create a page that includes all of the films ever made that pertained to ancient history or Greco-Roman history, then create one. But the peplum entry should only pertain to "true peplums" (low-budget Italian-made historical fantasies) and not be stretched to include big budget American or British period films, because those films were not peplums! Also not all Italian films were filmed silent. There are many Italian films that exist today only in Italian because they were never dubbed in English. Many Italian films were filmed without much regard for the on-the-set sound recordings being pristine, true, because they were generally later released in so many different languages, most of them had their soundtracks drastically fixed up or corrected in the editing stage. But 90% of the actors were speaking Italian while the filming was being done. The American or British leads may have been speaking gibberish or counting to ten; this was true of many Japanese films that starred foreign actors as well --User:Frank Verzyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.206 (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, Peplums and all the rest were filmed silent. In fact, dubbing was the norm in the Italian film industry up until about ten years ago. Most actors just spoke their native language on set or simply counted an appropriate number of beats for their line out loud in their native tongue. "Uno, dos, tres..." Some actors came back to help dubbing in the languages they were fluent in, some did not. Some actors, like Terrence Hill, were really helped by others dubbing them. Anyway, you do raise a valid point about what language we should credit them to. I've always considered Italian to be the "native" language since a)it was the once guaranteed to get dubbed and b)it seems more effort was spent on the Italian dub in many cases. Of course, neither criteria I've given provides a clear cut answer for any film, but hopefully it provides the beginning of a framework to discuss this. Monkey Bounce (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled "Goliath"

[edit]

Since the Steve Reeves vehicle we know as Goliath and the Barbarians was so titled in the US because its distributors wanted to evoke his Hercules films, but Joseph Levine claimed to own that hero's name (BTW, this is the first I've heard that), wouldn't that also be the solution to the supposed mystery as to why The Revenge of Hercules was released here as Goliath and the Dragon? And shouldn't the article reflect this, or at least not imply there's no suspicion of it? Ted Watson (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Burke

[edit]

The text referred to "...Italian muscleman Samson Burke...." but both the IMDb and the booklet by Stephen Flacassier listed in the bibliography say he is Canadian, hence my revision. However, I have seen two films with "him," The Three Stooges Meet Hercules and his Ursus entry, and they do not seem to be the same man. Note that Ursus is dated 1961, and Stooges a year later. But in the earlier film he sports a great deal more beef, looking more like an over-steroided fugitive from the bodybuilding contests of the post-Arnold Schwarzenegger/Lou Ferrigno era, than the Steve Reeves look-alike in Stooges. Furthermore, the latter looks a great deal more than one year older. How and why would--or could--he lose so much muscle in such a short amount of time? As "Ursus" is clean-shaven while "Hercules" is bearded, I can make no truly definite statement about the facial features, but they do seem dissimilar. I strongly suspect that "Samson Burke" is something along the lines of a house name, used by at least two different men, but I am not putting any such statement in the article.

BTW, there is one film not listed here (unless it's just a case of this one alternate title for it not being given), but which should be in either the "Gladiator" or "Other" list, and has quite a controversy attached to it. The only known English-language title is My Son, the Hero. For years, it was reported to have been dubbed with "comical" Yiddish accents, but in the early 1990s it turned up on TNT cable, with a typical dialog track. Subsequent commentaries (e.g., the Flacassier work) have said it never had such voices, but what other explanation is there for that title? I submit that there were objections when it opened, it was pulled, and eventually surfaced with the European English audio (I read somewhere a long time ago that the continent's cheap action/adventure flicks, whether they be these pepla, spaghetti/sauerkraut Westerns, crime pictures [e.g. Germany's Doctor Mabuse series], spy spoofs, or horror movies, had English-language tracks made over there, hence Mario Bava's Black Sunday has two, the official one and an alternate made by the US distributor). Does anybody have any information about this film to put in the article, as I no longer have my copy of the Flacassier booklet?

One other film suggestion: Roger Corman's Atlas (1961), starring Michael Forest, not to be confused with pepla star Mark Forest. It's just as deserving of mention as the Stooges film, if not more so, since it's serious. Ted Watson (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation to the reports of comical dubbing of 'My Son The Hero": The US coming attraction and lazy so called film reviews are the culprits. It was for the US coming attraction for the film that new, so called 'funny' voices were recorded. Often labeled as 'Yiddish' or 'Jewish'. The film was very hard to find for many years, but the coming attraction was out there in fan compilations. So instead of tracking down the film to form a real opinion, they just based their entries on the coming attraction. Another example is how many reviews stated the film featured statues that come to life, a scene in the coming attraction. But you have to watch the film to know that the characters are hiding inside the hollow statues and burst out. A bit different from them 'coming to life'. The bad info was passed from one author to another just copying what others had written without checking it's validity. After a while, enough people had repeated it that the 'funny voice' soundtrack was believed to be fact, when it never existed for the real film. Not a case of outcry and objections that removed an offensive voice track, just lazy writers who found it easier to speard ignoracne that doing their job and getting it right. Stephen Flacassier 6/6/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.62.142 (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Flacassier. I have been on a voluntary sabbatical from Wiki, hence my delayed response. However, I must submit that the existence of such a trailer and the film being released with an appropriate-to-that-approach-but-not-otherwise title are compelling evidence that the entire picture was prepared in that form, but not put into general release. Perhaps the US distributor had a firm release date commitment, and consequently not enough time to refilm the title, while they could throw the European-made, genre-typical soundtrack on the movie in place of theirs. I remember Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel re-reviewing A Rage In Harlem on their TV show because they had learned that the print which was shown at the critics' screening they had attended was not the general release version, and that the differences were substantial. Movies do get noticeably altered at the proverbial eleventh hour. Furthermore, my bottom line was that, regardless of the reality behind the "Yiddish dubbing" story, the film belongs in this article, and I was asking that someone who knows more of its specifics than I do, such as yourself, put it in. That request stands. Ted Watson (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section?--English language productions

[edit]

After mentioning Roger Corman's Atlas (1961) in my inquiry about the possibility of at least two different men "acting" under the name Samson Burke, I have though about other films that seem to be of this genre but are USA or Brit productions, in English. Along with Corman's picture, The Three Stooges Meet Hercules and Hercules and the Princess of Troy (besides ex-Tarzan Gordon Scott as the hero, this unsold US TV series pilot featured such Hollywood figures as Diana Hyland and Paul Stevens) already mentioned in the article, there are:

I had another in mind when I started, but I'm darned if I can remember it now. Anyway, does the idea of such an additional section sound good? Ted Watson (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Barbarian Queen relevant?

[edit]

I see that Barbarian Queen has been deleted from the list of "1980s" films again. I strongly recommend that the editors involved in this admittedly small scale edit war discuss why each thinks the way he/she does about it. I will point out that the article for the film itself says it takes place in the Roman Empire, as does the IMDb, which is at least the beginning of a strong argument right there. However, I have never seen the picture myself (I think), and merely ask the editors to discuss and settle their disagreement here. Ted Watson (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to Ed's concern re: Barbarian Queen the whole list of 80s films inspired by Conan the Barbarian that featured female leads. Barbarian Queen 1, Barbarian Queen 2, Warrior Queen, the Xena TV series. Warrior Queen was set in Pompeii and was about the Roman's living there just before they got ashed. Xena features Rome and Roman characters in many episodes. I find my eyebrow rising at the fact that these CLEARLY sword and sandal movies and TV shows with female leads have gone unmentioned, while Ator 1-4 and every last pepla is included. What, somebody around here doesn't like girls?User:Pat Powers

The page is about the peplum sub-genre (which is sometimes referred to as sword and sandal in film reviews). The Xena TV series hardly qualifies as an Italian-made, low budget Italian movie, nor were the episodes originally filmed in the Italian language. "Barbarian Queen" was an American production filmed down in Argentina, which is in no way connected to Italian cinema. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.201 (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Heaven

[edit]

I would remove this from the list. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.49.139 (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article on this film, and since you are not suggesting removing King Arthur as well, yes, I do object. Both or neither, no objection. Ted Watson (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say both. 62.47.47.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people understand that "peplum" refers to Italian-made films. Read the peplum article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.50.216 (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Hercules Scene 01.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. --13:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


References from Frank Verzyl

[edit]

The explanation sentence about the references being "impeccable" is out of place on this page. The sentence is not needed and the actual sources need to be linked at the bottom. However I am reluctant to delete it myself until the person who originally sourced them can say who Frank Verzyl is and where the references actually come from. If he can be shown to be reliable then that would be more useful than just a deletion. Quoth 31 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...no offense but, sorry, I can't find this. At the end of the intro to the sub-section on the "Hercules series" there is indeed this parenthetical aside: "Filmography info on this page supplied by Frank Verzyl." I just can't find any other mention of him at all, let alone something about him (or any other source) being "impeccable," nor any indication in the History logs of such having been recently removed. May I ask where this is (or was)? (This is not to deny your point about a ref cite being infinitely preferable, of course; well taken.) --Ted Watson (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The line that I thought was out of place is right above the parentheses "The information in the filmographies on this page were taken from impeccable Italian film industry reference sources which are much more accurate than the information found on imdb.com and fan websites. (Filmography info on this page supplied by Frank Verzyl)" As I say I can't see any reason why this should be on the page.Quoth 31 (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, my apologies. A check of the History listings for this article indicates that virtually all of the initial and substantial work here was done by anonymous IPs. Whether "Frank Verzyl" is the name of one who shows on a particularly large number of those entries or was meant as the IP(s)'s information source is completely unclear. Is this man an "Italian film industry source" or someone who had access to such? As I indicated in other threads, some of this information is suspect: Were there two different muscle men using the name "Samson Burke"? Is the film known in the USA as My Son, the Hero represented on these lists under another title or completely unacknowledged? To the latter question, if the claim of "Italian film industry sources" is indeed correct, then it should be here under its originally intended English-language title (as probably seen in the UK/Ireland, South Africa, Australia/New Zealand, with the conventional dialogue track heard when TNT aired it in the early 1990s, the only time I have ever encountered the film itself), but none here seems likely to be it. Indeed, another quick check, this time of the IMDb, lists My Son, the Hero as Arrivano i titani (1962) (lower case initial letters theirs), with two other English titles (for a total of three), Sons of Thunder (UK) and The Titans (USA!). Two second-rate muscle men-actors are listed in the cast, Giuliano Gemma and Serge Nubret (while this article currently does not mention either of them, each is discussed in the Stephen Flacassier booklet listed in the "Academic bibliography"); just try and find this film here. Hence, I say the info is suspect (but admittedly, the IMDb's attributing The Titans to an American release is itself suspect). Let's hope someone comes forward about Veryzl, and soon. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As further note, I can't find Frank Verzyl on the internet anywhere, and he doesn't appear on the Italian version of this page. Do you know if the information that is attributed to him is correct? Is there another source that can back up the information? Either way I'm going to take out sentences that refer to Frank. The original person can either explain who he is here or post a link to his information, or other sources need to be found. Quoth 31 (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that My Son... has been added to the "Other..." list. Thanks to whomever. I have also noticed four postings here (in various threads) "signed" User:Frank Verzyl! Obviously, he did it totally incorrectly, as that is red every time and each also has a 'bot-added IP sig to the supposedly "unsigned" post. One of these has an entirely different IP number from the others, but is not significantly removed by date (all January of this year). He is, in fact, the person who has been insisting that "low-budget" and "Italian-made" are parts of the genre's definition. So now we know that Frank Verzyl is just another Wiki-editor. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Samson series" sub-section

[edit]

Do the five films stated to be a "Samson series" actually qualify as one? I know that Hercules, Samson and Ulysses actually features a version of the Biblical figure, and Stephen Flacassier's booklet includes another one that I'm not certain is here. According to him (I no longer possess my copy) it was a comedy and its characters included several other of these main heroes, if not all of them; according to him it had a scene with Delilah giving him the famous haircut. The list of characters in the title ...Invincibles would seem to make it a prime candidate to be that one, but IIRC, Flacassier attributed its official English title, Samson and the Mighty Challenge to another film. Neither Samson vs. the Pirates nor Samson vs. the Black Pirate seem at all plausible suggestions, and Samson doesn't seem likely either. Can anybody answer these questions, please? --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Samson and the Mighty Challenge" was the alternate US TV title for "Hercules, Samson, Maciste and Ursus: The Invincibles". That's the film you're thinking of, featuring Delilah and the haircut, and it was a comedy. The 5 Samson films are grouped together as a series because they were the only films made in Italy intentionally to be "Samson" titles, even though the character was very different from film to film.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.50.216 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules derivatives—two more?

[edit]

I think that both Hercules and the Princess of Troy, a made for US TV series pilot, in English, and Hercules the Avenger, described as footage from two other Herc films re-edited (and implicitly re-dubbed) to make a new movie for US TV release, should be in the "Derivatives" sub-section, as both fall short of being legitimate feature films, each in its own way. However, since the latter actually has an original Italian title, which translates directly as Challenge of the Giants and is completely different from the US release title, that description is certainly called into question. I cannot reconcile the existence of an original Italian title at all, let alone one so different in meaning from that of the US release, with the described origins. Anybody got any ideas about either or both of these? --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the show was never picked up, "Princess of Troy" was distributed to US TV as a movie, and "Avenger" was released in Italy as a movie ("Sfidi dei Giganti") and on US TV as a movie under the title "Hercules the Avenger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.50.216 (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Maciste film?

[edit]

The last film entry on the Maciste list contains a parenthetical aside which reads: "This Maciste film was made up almost entirely of re-edited stock footage from two older Maciste films, Maciste contro i mostri and Maciste contro i cacciatori di teste." Since the first is listed here as starring Reg Lewis and the second Kirk Morris, how is this possible? I've seen both of these, and the first seems to be set in prehistoric times while the latter is in the South Seas, possibly even post-Roman Empire. The idea of a new film constructed out of these two (assuming that the given US release titles are actually theirs) is very difficult to believe. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lord of the Rings

[edit]

Listing Lord of the Rings as sword-and-sandal? Are you kidding me, LotR is high fantasy. If you want to put in everything with swords and mystical beings then you might as well put every fantasy book and movie in the sword-and-sandal list. In the meanwhile I'll be listing the Mona Lisa as a scientific theory. 80.60.87.138 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be protected

[edit]

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Hercules

[edit]

The Sons of Hercules series was an Embassy Pictures TV package, not American International Televison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.187.57 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come out 71.190.53.202 and talk

[edit]

Hi 7, you've removed the categorisation edis of sword and sandal which would be informative to those seeking films on a particular epoch of history. Just why have you done this? Come out and fight!Foofbun (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing this page or you will be reported to wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.53.202 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Trim and tidy" of the intro

[edit]

Hi, just gave this a pretty severe trim. A couple of points to consider before reverting any of what I've done - (a) The intro should be an overview of the article, (b) we generally avoid wikilinks and refs/cites. Note that a consequence of (a) is that we shouldn't have stuff in the intro that's not covered in the body first. (Oh, and there is no reason to mention "spaghetti westerns" in the intro - even once). - Snori (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.lemonde.fr/cinema/article/2012/03/06/john-carter-peplum-cosmique-et-numerique_1652129_3476.html
  2. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Le-peplum-antiquite-cinema-cinemaction/dp/285480919X
  3. ^ http://www.amazon.fr/Le-péplum-Laurent-Aknin/dp/2200242867
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sword-and-sandal&oldid=1201500352"