Talk:The Great Wall (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

In what (dynastic) time period is this movie set exactly?

I'm seeing conflicting reports on this.

The article here says the Song Dynasty (960 - 1279 AD), yet this website and some others say it is set in China during the 15th century, which would be the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644 AD). So what's going on here? Why the discrepancy? Some clarification on that would be highly appreciated.

The Ming Dynasty wouldn't make sense if these Europeans are looking for gunpowder, since gunpowder warfare already existed in Europe by the start of the Ming, yet I don't think a monster movie with dragons is going to care much about historical accuracy. Yet the Song Dynasty didn't even fully control the Great Wall, it's northern neighbors the Khitan Liao Dynasty and Tangut Western Xia had control over it. So that's one indication that the Ming Dynasty might be the correct time period they're going for. Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I don't think we need to engage in historical analysis about how much of the wall was controlled by what state at what time, because the film is likely going to be basically a fantasy work with little relation to its purported historical setting. This is the case with several other Zhang Yimou period/action films, where the period in which the film is set is determined by some opening narration or the like, but has virtually no impact on the story. The "15th century" thing might just be a mathematical extrapolation from the assumption that the Great Wall was a single continuous project initiated by Qin Shi Huang in the third century BCE and the film takes place 1,700 years after this, based on the tagline appearing on the poster. I don't think we should fret over minor issues like this until the film comes out -- if a source says it is set during such-and-such dynasty, we should use that, but we should keep all analysis of the plot of the film to a bare minimum because we know for a fact that none of the authors of the sources have actually seen the film yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess we'll just have to wait and see when the film debuts next year. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What I meant by "I don't like it", and why in this case "I don't like it" combined with the fact that it is a COPYVIO is a perfectly valid reason for removal

@SWF88: Re this. Learn to read other users' comments, or, if you read and understood what I said and misrepresented what I said on purpose, then stop deliberately misquoting me. I said that because "I don't like it" (I think it is a misrepresentation of the source), I am not going to go out of my way to rewrite it so it is not a plagiarized quotation with no quotation marks. I "don't like it", because it is a misrepresentation of the source and so does not belong in the article as written. I don't have the time or inclination at the moment to fully and accurately summarize what the source does say right now, so I felt that the burden should have been on me to do so and I would not have removed it again, if it wasn't a blatant copyright violation. Fix the wording now, or I will request that someone else revert again, as my 1RR prevents me from reverting you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@SWF88: Re this. That's clearly not enough. It also doesn't address the fact that the views expressed in the article are still misrepresented. This is not the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

what do you propose i do. write xy 'mostly agrees, except for the fact that Wu failed to adress...?'. SWF88 (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Something like that, yeah. Accurately summarize what the source says, not just cherry-picking the bit where he appears to disagree with her and to imply he's belittling her ability to analyze the issue correctly. And also don't plagiarize his exact words. That's probably the most important. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

doneSWF88 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@SWF88: Are you still not realizing that the text is still blatant plagiarism? The (relatively good, in terms of content) poorly-written text you just added is the only text that isn't lifted directly from the source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

i have a feeling you just want me to remove it. how would you re write it then? SWF88 (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You're asking me to do your work for you, and you still don't seem to get that you can't just take an author's exact words and post them on Wikipedia as though they are your own. I guess if you still don't understand this I'll have to take it to a noticeboard. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The original source's text read:

address the fact that the white savior narrative plays into a structure of systemic racism that doesn’t exist in the same way in China, because in China the ethnic group that has historically oppressed minorities, held political and economic sway, and dominated mainstream culture is not whites, but Han Chinese

The text as you initially inserted it into the article and which I removed, read:

addressing the fact that the white savior narrative plays into a structure of systemic racism that doesn't exist in the same way in China, because in China the ethnic group that has historically oppressed minorities, held political and economic sway, and dominated mainstream culture is not whites, but Han Chinese

The text, as you "corrected" it so as no longer to be plagiarism, read:

address the fact that the white savior narrative doesn't exist in the same way in China, because in China, Han Chinese are the ethnic group that has historically oppressed minorities and dominated mainstream culture, not whites

The current text, following your most recent edits made under duress, reads:

address the fact that the white savior narrative doesn't exist in the same way in China, because in China, Han Chinese are the ethnic group that has historically oppressed minorities and dominated mainstream culture, not whites

Can you not see that taking this huge block of text, copy-pasting it into the article, and not marking it as a quotation, is a copyright violation? Seriously, I learned not to engage in this kind of plagiarism when I was in junior high school.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

and yet you haven't learned WP:Personal. btw thank you for copy pasting my own work. I can now show that I changed the text enough, that it isn't even close paraphrasing. SWF88 (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

and yet you haven't learned WP:Personal To what are you referring? I don't understand. Did I say something that you took as a personal attack? That's a pretty bold accusation. If you are referring to my stating that I learned not to post someone else's words as my own in middle school ... well, I did. I don't know when you did. It seems to me like you haven't even now, though, as you appear to be claiming that some version of the above is a "paraphrase" and not a plagiarized piece of text that is a direct quotation without quotation marks. The only way you could legitimately claim it isn't even close paraphrasing would be that you have distorted what the source actually says. You did distort what the source says, but that doesn't mean that you didn't also copy-paste a chunk of the source's text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@SWF88: This is getting ridiculous. Rewrite the entire sentence in your own words, or I will remove it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think that Hijiri 88 ought to read WP:Personal --1.180.215.86 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Christian symbols obscured in promotional materials

Pedro Pascal clearly wields the sword of a Knight Templar in the film, but in promotional materials (such as the large standups in theatre lobbies), the easily recognizable Templar Cross is obscured in a very overt way, literally just the cross and nothing else, by the tip of a sword blade wielded by Jing Tian. Combined with the depiction of the Chinese Emperor as a sniveling coward, it begs the question of being the result of PRC-mandated propaganda. --68.233.191.45 (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Do you have a reliable news source that describes all of this? Otherwise this conversation is pointless, since the talk page has only one purpose: discussion on how to improve the article. I heavily doubt there are any academic works on the subject thus far, such as journal articles discussing recent and contemporary cinema. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately, the fact it happened is not in contention, as the image is more readily available elsewhere now. One can now clearly see the blade is NOT wielded by Jing Tian (her sword is not drawn), but is a second wielded by Pascal (more visible in other variants of the image) and aligned just so the symbol is obscured. Given this, and the prominence of the symbol upon the hilt within the film, the image itself easily leads one to assume purpose behind the symbol being obscured in such a way. It certainly seems worthy of further discussion (if not the conclusion drawn - which seems plausible to say the least) if not also inclusion within the article. --68.233.191.251 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

For an example of the symbol, it's not obscured in another image published in another market.--68.233.191.251 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop right thee. This is your own Wikipedia:Original research, which is not acceptable for a discussion here or in content found in the article. What you need to focus on are Wikipedia:Reliable sources that discuss the topic in a meaningful way. And no, blogs are not reliable sources. So, unless your musings are somehow covered in some news article that talks about this movie, I see no reason to continue this conversation about your personal anecdotal observations (even if this was the clandestine intention of some Chinese government censor, you'd need a reliable source citing it...otherwise this is just a big waste of your time and the time of anyone else bothering to read this section). Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Genre in opening sentence

The opening sentence identified the film as an "epic historical fiction action-adventure monster film". Per WP:FILMLEAD, we need to identify "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". Furthermore, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." There is no such thing as the mashup above, which has also been called "genre bloat". We need to narrow it down. To start off, here are the search results I found:

• Monster film/movie: 46,900 results (3,090 in news results)
• Fantasy film/movie: 58,600 results (1,120 in news results)

Among top critics at Rotten Tomatoes, The Hollywood Reporter calls it a "monster movie". Variety calls it a "period fantasy-action" film. "Monster movie" seems suitable especially because we can convey the premise right after the opening sentence to indicate the time and setting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur, the premise can convey other genres. They are also listed as categories at the bottom of the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I would find that "historical monster action film" would very appropriately and concisely describe the film, while being inclusive to news sources' descriptions of it. Additionally, while "epic historical fiction action-adventure monster film" is lengthy and unnecessary, "historical monster action film", I think, is a fine length that isn't bloated. "Monster film" is a very simplistic view of the film's genre, and could make this seem, at first, indistinguishable in tone and classification from something like King Kong or Godzilla, as all of these films have different sub-genres that should be noted. –Matthew - (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There is zero basis for "historical monster action". We as editors cannot make up a mash-up of genres that are not otherwise connected to each other. That is what the guideline says. Furthermore, just "monster" is acceptable by many sources, and there is no reason to reject that for something originally researched. It's a frequent problem in film articles lately where editors keep adding modifiers. The guideline is intended to ground the proper description in sources, not based on our whim. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Controversy?

Doesn't a lot of the 'controversy' miss the point? Many of the people criticizing the casting are themselves white, and most of the sources point out how few of them are Chinese (Asian-Americans are not Chinese), and a lot of the same people don't realize China is and always has been a polyethnic society and say things like Xinjiang is obviously not part of China because the Uyghurs don't ”look Chinese” (this racism was broadcast on a mainstream Irish radio program five or six years ago, and I imagine it's a view still quite common there). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If there is a lot of media buzz recording what Constance Wu had to say about the film, then it is somewhat noteworthy for the "controversy" section, but quite honestly there's isn't much to report there until the film actually comes out and the serious film critics weigh in. The fact that China was polyethnic and even multiracial given the presence of various Indo-European peoples like Tocharians and Sogdians (indigenous to the region, not just foreign communities like the Italians in Yangzhou during the Yuan period) actually has no bearing on what to include in the controversy section. The controversy section should only include newsworthy comments by other celebrities or well-known film critics, whether their opinions are misguided or not according to our own opinions as editors of this article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Constance Wu in particular, just the controversy in general. It's obvious that there is media coverage of the whole affair, but the media coverage is in several cases (the BBC, as well as this guy -- a self-published YouTube video, but the author is a semi-notable and respected film critic) careful enough to note that all of the criticism of the casting is coming from westerners, and a lot of it seems to be premature in its assumptions that (a) Damon plays the protagonist of the film, (b) Damon's character was originally supposed to be "ethnically Chinese" but the part was changed to a white guy ("whitewashed") for marketing purposes, (c) the "white guy" version of Damon's character is meant to be European rather than a member of one of the myriad ethnic groups of north, central, south and west Asia who were in contact with the Chinese state during or shortly before the period in which the film is set and who do not "look Asian" in the sense the people criticizing the film mean. I'm still pretty confident that within a year or two of the film's release, this will wind up being another Iron Man 3 situation where the people who look at the film in exclusively "colorblind casting" vs. "whitewashing" vs. "pro-Asian-American affirmative action" terms rather than with careful eyes will be biting their tongues because it turns out that several of their premature assumptions about the film were outright wrong.

Of course, sources written by reputable scholars who have already seen the film do not exist yet (why if I had the power I would delete every article on a film, book or video game that has not been published yet), but many of the reliable media outlets are already being careful about this.

I also acknowledge that some of the critics (like Wu) are not actually talking about this film in particular but about western culture's embedded racism. I honestly think sources like this that aren't actually about the film should just not be cited in this article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 said, "I'm still pretty confident that within a year or two of the film's release, this will wind up being another Iron Man 3 situation where the people who look at the film in exclusively "colorblind casting" vs. "whitewashing" vs. "pro-Asian-American affirmative action" terms rather than with careful eyes will be biting their tongues because it turns out that several of their premature assumptions about the film were outright wrong." And so I commented that he was 100% correct that "their premature assumptions about the film were outright wrong". I agreed that the media's perception was unfounded. I couldn't have, as you put it, "disparage[d] subjects of [the] article" when the subject of the article is the film The Great Wall and I never said a negative thing or belittled the film in any way. Maybe, EVERGREENFIR, you should have taken the time to read what I commented on before jumping off your high-horse and delivering "justice" when it wasn't warranted. - Tobiasthered

@Tobiasthered: Thought yamato's opinion ([1]) was mentioned in article. Regardless, you cannot use this space to call people you disagree with names. BLP applies to all of Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I can understand why you thought Yamato may have been mentioned, as I specified her name as a face for the many opinion pieces written after The Great Wall's first trailer release. But I do want to just clarify that I never used this space to call anyone names. I did call the media's opinions "idiocy" and "petty", though. Also, I'm not sure how this applies to BLP, when Yamato was originally the only name I said and she doesn't have a Wikipedia Biography article... All that aside, thanks G Money!

- Tobiasthered

the staring order of infobox about Andy Lau

What I did [2] was to restore the article to the original version. This article was changed by user Soangry without any reason. See his first edition [3]. Then see the original version of this article [4] before his edition. He changed the staring information of infobox without any reference. I restored this change. Moreover, the leading of this article indeed claim "The Chinese–US co-production also stars Jing Tian, Pedro Pascal, Willem Dafoe and Andy Lau." Hence, Andy Lau should be the major actor. We should restore to the original version. Miracle dream (talk)

Andy Lau is indeed a major actor and that is why he was given a special last billing prefixed with "and" at the end of the credits. If the entire cast is listed on the infobox, Lau should indeed be listed last. Soangry (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

In the film poster's billing block, which is the standard rule of thumb to reference, Andy Lau is one of the five cast members mentioned, so he should take precedent over the eight actors who were not. This is further confirmed by how Variety reports the credits at the end here, "Matt Damon, Jing Tian, Pedro Pascal, Willem Dafoe, Andy Lau, [etc]". So I concur that the original version is acceptable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Based your argument, you confirmed Andy Lau is indeed a major actor and is one of the five cast members. Hence, why did you think he should be placed in the last. It seems he should be placed at the 5th as the original version. Miracle dream (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, June 23, 2017‎

I've restored the original placement of Lau since I weighed in as a third opinion and since there has been no rebuttal. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Introductory Summary

I would like to make some changes, with all due respect, to the article's introductory summary by adding:

The fact that the screenplay was by big name Hollywood industry veterans (Tony Gilroy/ Bourne films & Doug Miro/Narcos).

The fact that both Zhang Yimou and Matt Damon stated that they accepted to work on the project for the chance to work together (per Hollywood Reporter).

The astounding fact that a relatively unknown actress was cast on par with Damon's character (as Supreme Leader of China's Secret Army!!!), while industry veteran Andy Lau and hottest rising star Eddie Peng were given supporting and bit parts respectively.

The fact that the costume design was done by Mayes C. Rubeo of Apocalypto and Avatar fame. Given her credentials, it is CRAZY that she doesn't have an English language wiki entry as of this writing. Avatar is currently NUMBER ONE on the list of All Time Worldwide Box Office hits.

ALSO, in Controversy

unless a quoted source specifically uses the modifier "white", we should be saying European or European-American, when that's what we mean. Even to say "western", when we mean indigenous or diasporic European, is grossly inaccurate -- since both Europe and the Americas have also many ethnic African/Asian citizens -- and Australia is close to as far east as you can go on the map.

now that we have all seen the film, it seems interesting to note that, particularly in the context of allegations of White Supremacism, there was a clear reference, in the climax of the film, to Moby Dick and how best to hunt a whale. This is surely a detail that contributes significantly to discussion about the film's relative standing as a "tentpole" for the future of global film.

Fb2ts (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Better sources needed

Quotes from a (clickbait) article cited as reference:

The movie likely will end up with losses of more than $75 million, sources say, and Universal Pictures will be on the hook for at least $10 million.

What source?

Adds one Hollywood executive who has dealt extensively with China, "There's no question but that it's a failure."

And who is this mysterious Hollywood executive? Macaldo (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Matt Damon's personal note

The mention of Damon's daughter's joke, while as enjoyable as the interview with Marc Maron was, adds nothing of substance to the article. Reflections of Damon's personal life are best left to interviews such as the one from which this anecdote came. Suggest deletion. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

First it is incredibly sloppy to reference a podcast of more than an hour long without specifying at what point the relevant information occurs, so I have instead added a reference to The Hollywood Reporter.[5] Secondly I think it is worthwhile (it significantly improves encyclopedia readers understanding of the subject) to note that Damon knows the film is bad. The joke does not necessarily need to be included but it is as good a way as any to show the point, editors might consider rephrasing to instead emphasize that Damon felt it important to be professional and to continue working hard despite "knowing you’re in a turkey". I would strongly disagree with the suggestion to delete it entirely but rephrasing to make the same substantive point in a more serious way remains an option. -- 109.77.207.247 (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)