Talk:King Solomon's Mines (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Dab This article has been rated as Disambig-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Out of curiosity, Sjc, what do you intend to put at King Solomon's Mines? --Brion

Er, the book on which the film was based. I didn't even know that one of the most significant reads of my childhood had been filmed. There are also the historical (perhaps real) King Solomon's mines at (perhaps) Timna... Curiosity satisfied? user:sjc

The mines are mines, not Mines, so far as I know. Are the book and films so wildly unrelated that it makes sense to give them separate articles? At the moment the novel article is just a cropped-down version of the movie article that doesn't give as many credits. I wouldn't separate Ronald Reagan into Ronald Reagan (actor) and Ronald Reagan (politician), would you? ;) It seems like a duplication of effort for little benefit. --Brion

They have virtually no correlation in terms of plot. Moreover KSM is a significant work of literature. The film has no real bearing on what most people who have read the book think it's about and a distance is more than warranted. user:sjc

Very well. In that case, "A film was made of the book in 1950 which won the Oscar for Best Film, and an article about it may be found here. There was a later film starring Kathleen Turner." should perhaps be clarified! --Brion

I didn't put the bit about Kathleen Turner in. Someone edited it while I was tidying the links up. The edit DID NOT APPEAR in Recent Changes. Is this a bug? user:sjc

Didn't appear when? Before the change was made, or after? ;) It's there now, it just occurred shortly before you went in to make your change (and likely after you had last loaded Recentchanges). However my point was not about Kathleen Turner, my point was that it says "A film was made of the book", while you're telling me the film and book "have virtually no correlation in terms of plot". --Brion

[edit] 1985 version

One of the worst films I've ever seen. JHCC (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Disagree with split, at this time. Until the article has matured, there is no reason to add extra navigation complications. At least now we have the context and ease of navigation of listing all the movies in one place. -- Stbalbach 03:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Unless the articles can be expanded, it'll produce 4 stubs. Lugnuts 16:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've completed two splits to date. They're stubs, yes, but no worse than a lot of other stubs already out there. This way has the added bonus of not having to mess up the page layout with multiple film-infoboxen. --Agamemnon2 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, at this point this page should become a disambiguation page and the remaining articles should have their own articles created. I've changed my mind and believe each film should have its own article, it makes it easier to categorize and sort Wikipedia and removes duplications. -- Stbalbach 14:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] badly made film

look, it's perfectly acceptable to say that a film is of poor quality and is badly made - I have not even seen the film but clearly it is one of those "so bad its good" type of films, a "snakes on a plane" type film, just look at the comments on IMDB. This POV stuff is really going too far - if you think this is somehow controversial and that some people think it's a fine quality film than please show me and Ill reconsider how to re-word it, but sometimes, things just are factual and true, even if they are "opinions". -- Stbalbach 14:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that you say you haven't seen the film answers the question, doesn't it? (Pally01 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

I don't base things on my personal opinion, if I thought it was bad has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure what your logic is - you say "bad" is my POV, then chastise me for not seeing the film and basing it on my opinion. I already mentioned "look at IMDB" - clearly this is a bad film - but if you want to take it to the next level, so we now have professional reviewers calling it a bad film. IMO it's already way too much detail and information in this article just to justify the clearly accurate "bad". -- Stbalbach 13:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)