Talk:Curse of the Golden Flower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] Rewrote

I just got back from the movie. The synopsis was wrong in several details, and the English was a bit shaky in places, so I rewrote and copyedited. The one major thing I changed was removing all the references to the Later Tang dynasty. The film gave a date, but not a locale. The Later Tang were barbarian invaders from the north, ruled only northern China, and only lasted thirteen years. Since all the characters in the movie were completely Han, I can only assume that the film takes place in a never-never-land kingdom that was just one of the kingdoms to spring up following the end of the Tang dynasty. I think it's much safer to say that it took place during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period and leave it at that. I'm guessing that this was the director's intention, to leave it unmoored in history. Zora 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed some errors in your copyediting as well, unless they were intentional? For instance, the empress intended to put the second prince to the throne, not the crown prince. "Hence the Emperor of the film is not an emperor of the great Tang dynasty, or of an undivided China", or a "divided China"? I also feel the "corrections" to the language a step backwards in many instances. Expressions like "influenced by very real history of " and "This happened before the film had even been released!" are unencylopedic. Also, please be careful when rewriting existing text, because you often end up changing its intended meaning. You changed "There was extensive use of Gold throughout the film" to "The Emperor and his Empress are frequently shown wearing gold-colored costumes embroidered with gold thread.", but the relevant source says no such thing. For this reason, I am restoring quite a number of edits.--Huaiwei 12:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, it is a historical fact that the year 928 is not during the Tang Dynasty period, so your points above are mere assumptions until proven.--Huaiwei 12:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Huaiwei, you have restored a synopsis that is very badly written, too long and boring, and ungrammatical. I see nothing wrong with "influenced by the very real history of" -- that's perfectly correct English. You may not be familiar with the construction, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. Ditto "this happened before the film had even been released." Again, perfectly correct English, and very formal and encyclopedic. But I'll rewrite if you don't like it.

"Extensive use of gold" -- your construction is ambiguous in English. There is gold the color and gold the metal. It was not at all clear what you meant, so I wrote to encompass both meanings. I'm willing to change that -- I'll look at the original article, if it's in English.

You have also completely misread my note re the dynastic period. I did not claim that the film took place during the Tang dynasty. Someone else had written that it took place during the Later Tang -- it didn't. Those were Han, not invading nomads. The film takes place in never-never-land, not in real history.

As to the Empress's intentions: she TELLS the crown prince, her stepson, with whom she is having an affair, that she intends to place him on the throne. I didn't see anything in the film that suggested that she had any other intentions. Why would she have been so insistent on getting him to wear the chrysanthemum scarf if she intended to kill him and place her own son on the throne? Why didn't she promise the throne to her son, if that's what she intended?

I restored my version, but I'll work with you to fix any sore points. Please don't make reversions without noting them as such. Zora 03:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes that may address your concerns. I found the Straits Times article online and quoted directly from it, which may resolve any issues re what the historian actually said. The article is ambiguous, so we should just quote the ambiguity. Zora 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
AAAGH! Is my face red! I checked the movie's website and found that I was mixing up the princes' names. Huawei, you were right and I was wrong. I fixed the article to make the singer the middle son. Zora 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed plenty of the previous edits as per edit summaries. You may wish to invite third-party opinions if you feel your poise was more encyclopedic than the current version. The use of expressive and superlative terms are still unencylopedic even if this is a movie article. May I also point out that making direct quotes from copyrighted sources flouts a basic wikipedian policy and will be removed immediately, as I had.--Huaiwei 16:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
As for your claims that the movie was not set in the Later Tang Dynasty period, please check your facts, in particular the official movie synopsis in the official movie site. From this and other major factual errors about its plot, I kindof wondered if you actually understood the movie you watched. Are you Chinese?--Huaiwei 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not Chinese, I can't read the official Chinese site, and I watched the movie with subtitles. Nonetheless, I think I understood what I watched -- and I think I understand how to write film articles, having worked on hundreds of Indian cinema articles over the years. I'm also a native English speaker and a professional copyeditor and proofreader; I have to think about what's correct and what's readable. Long synopses are not readable. They induce MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over). In fact, the WikiProject Film has long discussions about how to discourage editors from writing long synopses.
You are wrong about citations -- completely wrong. I have worked on hundreds of high profile articles and have extensively used quotes -- in fact, we're encouraged to use them, if they're short (fair use) and properly attributed. See WP:CITE.
If you are breaking up the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period into smaller tranches, the Later Tang did hold power in large areas of northern China for thirteen years (923-936), covering the year, 928, in which the action is supposed to take place. However, any sentences that imply that the Emperor of the Film is an emperor of the Later Tang are wrong. The Later Tang were invading barbarians. Their dynastic history is nothing like the plot of the movie. If you want to say that the film took place during the time that the Later Tang controlled much of China, you can, but you have to make it clear that this court is not the court of the Later Tang, that it is complete invention. The "official movie site" in English says nothing about the Later Tang. If you're going to cite the Chinese site, then translate their exact wording. It is possible, you know, that they got the history completely wrong. They did so with many other details. That's typical for filmmakers -- they're more concerned with the overall effect on the viewer than they are with historical accuracy.
Huaiwei, I'll try to work with you, but I can't let you own the article. So far, all you've done is revert to your version, erasing all my changes. You aren't being collegial and you're insisting on a version of the article that is not useful to the majority of the readers who will be consulting it. If you want this Chinese film in wide release to succeed in the US, UK, Canada, etc., then surely a readable article in the English-language WP will be helpful. What you write about this film in the Chinese WP is up to you and your colleagues there. Zora 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
First and foremost, please do not go into this common path of accusing others of "owning" articles, because the very same charge could usually be directed at the accuser. I also find it curious and incredulous, that you somehow belived I have an agenda in "promoting" this film for "success" in English-speaking countries. I am sorry, but I am hardly interested in this. I contribute to wikipedia based solely on my interest to share knowledge in an open environment. I watched the movie, was moved somewhat by it, and decided to write about it. Nothing more, nothing less, so please do not ever suggest anything otherwise. I am greatly disturbed and insulted by such suggestions.
I do not need to know your past experiences in writing film articles, or your background as a copyeditor and proofreader. The product of your work in this article alone is enough. If this is the kind of tone and language you are using for the tones of film articles you wrote, then I suppose some copyediting work is in order. May I just remind once again, that this is, first and foremost, and article. You simply do not add peacock terms all ove the place, and claim it as the result of extensive article-writing experience. Proper citation does not involve copying an entire text and planting a source, all without clear demarcation to indicate the copyrighted text was copied wholesale. I wonder which kind of academia you came from, but in my varsity, even cited sources must be paraphrased where possible, and demarkated clearly either by punctuation, italics, indentations, etc, if they are direct quotes (even then, they should not be several paragraphs long). Of coz I am not expecting this kind of rules to be applied here, but you get the picture.
I further find it incredulous that you could claim the non-existance of text in an English site, when it is clearly there. The only reason why I did not directly cite it is because it is a flash file. As I have already mentioned, please check the official site (in English) [1], hit "synopsis", and read the English text for yourself. And I wonder if you actually understood Chinese history of that period, and if this has anything to do with "babarians". The movie has never claimed the Emperor is from the Tang Dynasty, so why the need for the sentence "hence the Emperor of the film is not an emperor of the great Tang dynasty, or of an undivided China," when the introduction clearly indicates the period the movie was set in? (and notice the word "great", another example of peacock terms you tend to introduce into the article)?
You may not like my removal of most of your edits, but as I have also pointed out before, feel free to request for third-party views here if you contend that you could write better film articles than everyone else. I will continue to write as per wikipedia guidelines and manual of style, and I will continue to contribute based purely on my love for writting and co-sharing information. I hope you may be equally motivated in this regard, and have a great new year ahead. :)--Huaiwei 16:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Huawei, I did read the English text of the synopsis. It didn't mention anything about the dynasty (or the year -- you say that was in the film -- I'll trust you on that, as I don't remember that opening screen all that clearly. I don't understand the accusation that I use "peacock terms" at all. "Great" is not a peacock term. Your complaint re the citation just doesn't make sense. I didn't cite the whole article, I used a fair use section, and I indented the quote, which is a commonly used method of indicating a quote. I have used it in many articles and no one has complained. You're grasping at straws here.

I'm working on many other articles, but I'll see if I can get someone from the film community to come mediate. Zora 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I agree with Zora that the synopsis is very MEGO-inducing, and judging from my personal viewing of the movie (I watched it twice, but had to rely on subtitles because my Chinese is terrible, and what little Chinese I could understand was pronounced in a very odd accent), the synopsis does seem to contain a number of errors related to the plot. Huaiwei is right, however, that the movie claims to be set in the Later Tang Dynasty - it says so right at the beginning, IIRC. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the current plot summary is fine. It doesn't have any interpretation, but could be shortened slightly. 68.162.41.26 23:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have an objection if trimmed the plot synopsis down a bit and removed some of the more flowery prose? For example 'lowly captain' - a captain is indeed lowly compared to an emperor, but it's quite high compared to a commoner or a private. I'd just leave it as 'captain'. Oni no Akuma (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Budget?

This movie looked really expensive to make. Anyone know a figure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.24.235 (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

$45 million US, the most expensive Chinese movie to date according to an article I can't find right now (at work...) :) blodulv 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not emperor of Later Tang, but king of Later Shu

According to the detailed movie novel [2], the story happened in the kingdom of Later Shu, a kingdom located in Sichuan and started from the same period of Later Tang.

I would suggest to change those titles to kings and queens. --Mongol 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you people seen the movie? At the begining it says 928 AD Tang Dynasty China. Now as we know the Tang Dynasty last form 618 to 907 so it couldn't possibly take place during the Tang Dynasty. But since the film is set in 928 AD that means it took place during the Later Tang Dynasty. Also did doesn't matter what it says in the "Movie novel" (Which by the way isn't in English so it is not a very useful scource for the English wikipedia). What matters is what they say in the movie, and in the movie it says it is set during the Tang Dynasty. I would also like to mention that this movie is fictional and if says it is set in 928 AD Tang Dysnasty China even though it is not accurate it doesn't matter because it is fictional. I suggest that the part in the plot section that says Later Shu Dynasty should be changed to Tang Dynasty or Later Tang Dynasty, but Later Tang Dynasty would be the most accurate. Daniel Chiswick 23:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationships

I think background information on family dynamics, Confusianism, etc. will be helpful for understanding the movie. Especially for Americans (who are not familiar with ancient traditional Chinese culture) there should be some discussion of the notable things: the crown prince and chan, him and gong li, when the king beat his youngest son to death, etc. This movie really depends on the destruction of the family, other family-relationship ideas, so a lot of it goes over your head. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jclf19k (talk • contribs) 06:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, that would be a great help to the many of us who do not have the background knowledge, and I feel would be entirely appropriate for a wikipedia article. However, as one who is lacking such understanding, I can't contribute to it. Please add what you can. Thank you. --Fitzhugh 05:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine every hour, or every two?

This article says she is forced to take the medicine every two hours, yet in the movie it clearly says every hour. I wonder if that is because of a difference in translation and time-keeping methods? Would the "hour of the snake" (for example) last approximately two "modern" hours, leaving this correct, or is it wrong? Please fix or clarify if you can. Thank you --Fitzhugh 05:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. one shíchén (which is seldom used in modern chinese today) is equal to 2 modern hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.13 (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silly Error & History

This movie appears to use parts of the many doors etc of the Forbidden city as a backdrop and so implies , the emperor/King is one of the kings/emperors of China.

And esp the huge nos. of the cast and extreme decoration become silly to the point of insanity as they are pointless...

E.g. having 50-200 concubines might be possible but having 1,000 is simply silly and having not 500-1000 but 100,000 in the court yard to stand silent while the Royals have a meal etc is more of the same extreme exaggeration that I suppose was meant to impress with past Chinese supposed history and glory of its kings and emperors.

But intead the whole of it is so absurd it does not impress, it becomes insane in its crazy no.s and extravagance.

DO YOU REALLY believe that 1000 ladies in waiting / concubines got up at 6 in the morning to be hugely extravagantly dressed up to then stand all day long waiting about the Emperor and doing nothing.

All silly. If true, it was truly insane.

And an ongoing feature of China today as the present intent to have a China crew race up Mt Everest with the Olympic torches as part of the Olympics in 2008. Entirely - NOT impressive - but INSANE due to the huge huge danger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.208.83 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need sections on Sets and Extras

Unfortunately, that comment above is the only mention in this article so far of what makes the movie memorable -- all that over the top imagery. The reds and yellows and pinks almost burn their way through the screen. Obviously a major goal of the film is to impress, to show off the traditional center of China in the brightest possible light.

The use of massive numbers of extras (how many real, how many computer I am not qualified to guess) is also very distinctive. There is a strong echo of modern China in much of it, with so many people moving in regimented unison. To me the most memorable scene of the movie is the parade of cleaners and decorators following the combat scene, in which one group drags away the corpses, the next rank continuously arrives with buckets of water, and behind them another group unrolls a fresh carpet and arrives with fresh clay pots of chyrsanthemums. I feel that there is a message to be inferred from this, though I am not qualified to do so - one can only imagine the scent of the wet and barely-washed floor permeating up through the gay scene of carpet and flowers, or whether some more recent events inspire the metaphor, or whether this is to be taken as a good sign of rapid restoration of normalcy or a bad one of lingering horror (or both). It seems as if the steady regimented tromping of ten thousand feet as they rush orderly through the scene is the definition of the empire.

I'd love to see an expert take apart this film. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)