Talk:Salman Khan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dear Editor,

          Salman wasn't born in Mumbai, he was born in Indore at Kalyanmal Nursing Home.

Please correct it.

Nilesh Rathi

Thanks. Made the change. Jay 09:45, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Removing provocative Arabic script addition

User Elyaqim added Arabic script notation to the pages of three Bollywood movie stars -- the three Khans (Aamir, Salman, Sharukh). As this is unnecessary and provocative, I have taken the notation and moved it to this discussion page. IMHO, either we have both Arabic and Devanagari script (though I don't see the need) or we have neither.

Here's the addition:

(سلمان خان)

Zora 01:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

dear whome it may concern to slaman khan is a muslim so then why dont the peopple who make films taht slaman acts in why dnt they let him act a role of a pakistani hero and not indian? and also indian peple should help the pakistani peopple to improve there films

The person responsible for the preceding addition deleted all previous material on the Salman Khan talk page, possibly out of ignorance as to how Wikipedia works. I have restored the deleted material. Zora 20:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gossip column material edited down

Hullo other editors! The article has recently been expanded with lots of gossip column material re Salman stalking Aish, fighting with Shahrukh, etc. I edited it down drastically, giving summaries rather than all the ugly details. The article reads better and just seems more ... encyclopedic that way.

However, it might be a good idea to link to some outside sites that DO give all the ugly details, in case readers want to follow up on this. Anyone have any candidates for links? Zora 21:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article is still lacking in narrative style and contents.Holy---+----Warrior 16:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Jellyfish's addition

Jellyfish, a new editor, added a para re Salman being known for his kindness to people. At least part of this seems verifiable to me; I've read an interview with Hrithik Roshan where he said that Salman gave him weight-lifting lessons and encouraged him to act. But the part re Salman visiting cancer wards and such is new to me. Maybe I'm just not reading the right gossip sites <g>. Could Jellyfish sent me to the right ones? As the para reads now, it seems like a fan attempt to deflect attention from the publicized problems. But I could be very wrong ... Zora 23:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: References

http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k4/feb/feb246.htm Salman Khan, who came and auctioned a Zee Cine Award for a cool 450,000 dirhams, raising money for a home for the aged in Mumbai, India.


http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/28varsha.htm

To give just two instances from the publication itself: "On the other hand, he's been raising funds for Kargil victims, doing his bit for Cancer patients, and generally just being a good boy" (Times of India, August 4, 1999); "One little-known aspect of Salman's life is his various acts of charity. Besides being very generous with his donations, the actor visits AIDS and cancer patients every week" (Filmfare, July 2002 issue).

http://www.indianngos.com/c/cpaa/

Thanks, I appreciate the extra effort. I'm glad I left the para then, as it gives a more rounded picture of Bollywood's bad boy. Zora 02:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Nilay's additions

Nilay, I moved one of your additions, re Salman's physical measurements, up to the new "Trivia" section. I left out the other bit you added, re his favorite things. It seems like it might be a copyright violation, it's something that could change at any moment, so unencyclopedic, and there are a lot of commercial brand names in there. I left the physical measurements bit, but I'm not sure that this is either encyclopedic, or permanent enough to merit inclusion in the article. Three months of eating heavily and not working out and all those measurements could change! I'd like some input from other editors before removing it, however.

The award stuff is useful -- thank you for adding it! Zora 06:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Blackbuck

contrary to what the clueless newspaper websites are calling them, Blackbuck are not deer, they are antelope (a kind of gazelle). The deer are something he shot on a different occasion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-organized

Too many anons were adding the info re the recent jail sentences to the article, even though they were already there. It struck me that the article was badly organized if the anons didn't see the info. I re-organized. This may not be the best way to do it. Anyone else have any ideas? Zora 10:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC) "salman has a heart of gold" renowned film director ravi chopra "syed yasir ali"

Highest grossers

I removed all the notes about the movies' net gross. Not only that these kind information belongs into the movie articles, but also I think they are fan glorification in order how "great" a star is compared to others - no other filmography features the net gross. Besides that, Dilwale Dulhanie Le Jayenge was the most successful movie in 1995 and Saudagar the most successful movie in 1991. See [1] and [2]. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word "Remake" vis-a`-vis Salaam E Ishq.

Hi! Plumcouch,

Useage of the word Remake while referring Salaam E Ishq in relation to Love Actually is highly objectionable.

Supposing the film is a pure remake, is like supposing Love Actually's script being stolen from Nikhil Advani's personal Diary.

None is the case here. The film is best defined as- loosely inspired by Love Actually.

reference- Nikhil Advani's Interviews on India FM-http://www.salmankhan.net/forthcoming/salam-e-isq.asp

Following are some Excerpts from the Interviews-

Nikhil Advani's Interview about Salaam-E-Ishq By IndiaFM News Bureau, July 8, 2006 - 02:48 IST

Q: Can you tell us a bit about the story?

A: Well as the title suggests it is a tribute to love, it revolves around several couples and their love stories.

Q: Is it inspired from "Love Actually".

A: Yes, Actually.

Salaam E Ishq Indu Mirani Saturday, April 15, 2006 21:46 IST

Q: Is Salaam-e-Ishq based on Love Actually?

A: It’s not possible to pick up a Hollywood film and just copy it simply because western narratives take a lot of things for granted. Like you make a guy wear a suit, carry a briefcase, make him walk down Wall Street and you know he’s a banker. In Hindi cinema the background has to be established.Saurabh Shukla, Suresh Nair and I thought about the six great relationship stories we know. We then chose the six most interesting, that’s how the film was conceived.

The inclusion of a Picture by a fellow Wiki' Editor from Salaam E Ishq is as fair as using The Main Old picture taken From Lucky, No Time For Love which was released in 2005, Labelling the film as a remake for including a picture by someone else is not justified.

A remake is defined as a new version of a previously made Movie. Usually a shot for shot recreation in the same language and by the same film Industry.

For Example Oceans Eleven 1960's remake in 2001, Psycho 1960's remake in 1998 -English-Same Language/ -Hollywood- Same Industry.

Definition of Remake cited-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remake

While an Adaptation is a Movie which has been Loosely inspired from the original with quite a few changes, like Language for instance, as well as other changes like the Main plot.

For example Bollywood's Omkara which is an adaptation of William Shakespeare's play Othello.

Akira Kuruaswa's Ran which was based on Shakespeare's King Lear.

While his own Seven Samurai inspired Ramesh Sippy's Sholay and RajKumar Santoshi's China Gate which had similar plots.

Definition of Adaptation cited here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_adaptation

Remakes are usually done with permission of the Production company/Producers that hold the rights of the Original.

A remake is considered an inferior copy of the Original by the viewers, hence labelling the film as a remake prior to its release is a serious allegation which can be viewed as an attempt to defame not only the Film but also all those who are associated to it.

If you have concrete proof that it is a scene by scene dialogue by dialogue copy of the Original,

then not only will I withdraw my protest, but also the producers of Salaam E Ishq might hear a word of protest from the producers of Love Actually.

Till then, calling the film an inspiration (proof cited) will only be fair.

Free rights should not be exercised to malign someone by twisting the truth.

Thanks, Best regards,

Slytime.

Hi, Slytime,
you're definitions about remake and adaptation are absolutely correct. I added as much info as I could on Salaam-E-Ishq to justify the fair-use of Khan's SEI-pic (I don't care if it's a remake or an inspiration - we'll see that when the movie comes out; and I don't give too much about what directors say about their inspirations - see Sanjay Gupta's latest Zinda (film) and it's comparison to Old Boy.) As for the Lucky-pic: I'm still trying to find some info on the movie (besides the mention of it's existence), so we can keep that pic too (as it shows Khan more or less how he currently looks). Maybe it would be nice to have a pic of Khan when he was young and just about to start his career - like we have in Farida Jalal's article. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 14:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi! Plumcouch,

Maybe you don't care whether the movie is a remake or an adaptation, but readers worldwide, who refer Wikipedia as a knowledgable and reliable source, do.

There is a lot of difference between their meanings as much as between make and break.

Sanjay Gupta's work cannot be compared and referred to Nikhil Advani's work as they are both different individuals and so has been their work.

The contribution of the Editor who included SEI's pic is as much valued and appreciated as your contribution of the L'NTFL picture.

However, the latest pic stands more relevance to the readers vis-a-vis present times, irrespective of the Star's looks which have only gotten better with the passage of Time.

Thanks,

Best Wishes,

Slytime.


Hi, Slytime.
By mentioning that I don't care if it is an adaptation or a remake, I meant, that nobody knows. Sanjay Gupta claimed that his film wasn't a remake, but a homage - apparantly, Old Boy's copyright holders didn't think so and he got sued. Nikhil Advani may claim that his movie isn't a remake either, but since no one has seen the movie, Advani can say almost everything about his movie - since people can't proof otherwise. Once the movie is out, I very much care if it is an adaptation or a remake, but currently, most statements are mere speculation, IMHO.
I agree that Gupta and Advani are both indivuals, but both of them are directors - and in order to stay neutral, they should both be treated the same.
As for the pictures - choose the one which you deem fitting; I think Khan looks very much the same on them, but on the SEI-pic, he kinda grimaces and it has a bad resolution. Maybe a better SEI-pic can be added when wallpapers are out on the net. Otherwise, I think there are few pictures which show him sporting his short-hair-look or even his bald head; and there are no clear pictures of him acting in Baabul or Jaane-E-Man, so in order to replace the Lucky-pic, I suggest we have to wait for the press kit to be released. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 16:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello! Plumcouch,

I fully understand your point of view. However, at present there is no reason for us to distrust Nikhil Advani's words simply for the fact that Sanjay Gupta is Such a good filmmaker.

But in order to stay neutral, since Salaam E Ishq is yet unreleased, we'll have to give some credibilty to Mr. Advani's statement.

For instance prior to his maiden release, Kal Ho Na Ho was speculated to be a remake of Anand-(1970).

On release, It turned out to be an Original effort as claimed by the Director.

Therefore, as for now, one can safely go by Mr. Advani's word as the most reliable source, rather than other speculations.

As for the Photographs, I personally have no issues with either of them.

At the time of your contribution, it was probably the best available original, so both are equally good efforts. With limited availibilty, They seem to be the best as yet.

Salman Khan is rated as the most good looking actor even without hair, so it doesn't make any difference, shaven pate or not.

One, from his early days will certainly add nostalgic value, ie. from Biwi Ho to Aisi or Maine Pyar Kiya days.

Everything will be fine as far as you correctly pointed out, the resolution is good.

In case, you were looking for some info on Lucky-NTFL.

Alow me to share some info, in case you missed it-

Results- about 57,800,000 for Lucky no time for love. (0.38 seconds) on Google.

The movie is still popular amongst youngsters as Sneha Ullal has become a household name in India.

It was nominated for the Best Music category at the Annual Filmfare awards 2006. Music- Adnan Sami.

Planet Bollywood rated it as one of the best Music albums released in 2005, with several chart bursting numbers.

Despite its modest success at home, The movie did an outstanding business overseas-

Infact, both the Salman starrers 'Maine Pyar Kyon Kiya' and 'Lucky-No Time for Love' have fetched one of the best collections in UK (2005)for a Bollywood film in the opening weekend. While 'Maine Pyar Kyon Kiya' earned 148,298 British pounds (nearly Rs 1.2 crore) in its opening weekend from just 35 screens, 'Lucky' earned 122,913 Pounds in its opening weekend from just 29 screens with a per screen average of 4,238 Pounds, which was better than the performance by films like Vipul Shah 's Waqt – A Race Against Time , Karan Johar 's Kaal , Yash Chopra ‘s Bunty Aur Babli , Vidhu Vinod Chopra 's Parineeta , Shah Rukh Khan 's Paheli and the Sanjay Dutt - Shilpa Shetty starrer Dus .

At home it ranks as the 27th all time Best Opening Film (first 7 days) at the box office-

Lucky No Time For Love- 09 Apr 2005- 382 cinemas- Net Gross-10,21,00,000-

Further, one can find references of the movie's existence also at-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky:_No_Time_for_Love

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449306/

http://www.indiafm.com/movies/cast/7295/index.html

http://www.planetbollywood.com/Music/Lucky-NoTimeForLove/

http://www.apunkachoice.com/scoop/bollywood/20050728-0.html

http://boxofficeindia.com/openingweek.htm

Meanwhile, I shall also, look out for some good resolution pictures.

Thanks,

Best regards,

Slytime.


Hi, there, Slytime,
all right, I'll incorporate bits of the information you provided on Lucky in order to justify the fair use of Khan's first pic. As for Khan's "bald" status - just thought it might be interesting to show the "phases" he went through - or the different looks, but the article isn't really long, so I guess two pictures are the most we can add.
About Nikhil Advani: you're right, there's no reason to distrust his work, but I'm kinda careful when it comes to director statements, especially because of Sanjay Gupta. I think, if directors steal an entire movie, it gives their entire industry a bad name and Bollywood produces such great movies, and yet, in the Western hemisphere (where I live), it is almost always associated with "Oh, the guys that steal entire movies, insert some songs and call them Indian." and I think that's kinda sad - so sorry for the overly pessimistic attitude towards Nikhil Advani.
Again, thanks a ton for Lucky-info. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 23:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. BTW, Sneha Ullal is a household name in India? Any new movies for her? I liked her quite a bit, but couldn't find any info on her future projects (if they even exist). Do you know anything?


Hi! there Plumcouch,

Absolutely no need to apologise mate. The thought alone counted. There was no ill will but an opinion which was formed due to set precedents.

I am hopeful that SEI will stand on its own merit, we will have to wait and see. I'm sure Nikhil Advani won't let the expectations down, he comes with a tag of a Highly Talented Individual. With Kal Ho Na Ho he has established a reputaion for himself which will be tested for sure.

About Sneha Ullal, she certainly holds a lot of promise.

I noticed your contributions to her page, it's good work, keep it up.

The Movie Lucky-NTFL had generated a lot of Interest amongst the younger generation, who were keen to see this young girl paired up with Salman. There were reports that she resembled Aishwarya Rai a lot, though Salman believes she resembles yesteryears actress Nadira (Farhat Ezekeil Nadira) more, which is a flattering compliment considering Nadira's beauty.

See- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadira_(actress)

You'll find more pictures of Late actress Nadira at google, which throws more perspective on their resemblence.

A brief background-

While Salman's home production was searching for a suitable cast, since the role required a young girl, Arpita- Salman's little sis discovered Sneha near her college.

The resemblence to Aishwarya Rai was striking thanks to light eyes and fair skin, though individually Sneha has held out on her own now.

Incidentally Aishwarya Rai was also said to be a Lisa Ray look alike in her early modelling days due to the same reason. (light eyes, fair skin)

Also John Abraham was considered a Marc Robinson lookalike during old times.

Rishi Kapoors daughter Riddhima Kapoor, who's happily married now and is a loyal fan of Salman, was Salman's first choice for the role, however, Ridhhima never wanted a Film career, so she had to turn down the offer.

The resemblence to Aishwarya was incidental and was picked up by the press to create enough hype prior to its release. The film was marketed very well by T-series.

The highlights were, Salman giving a chance to Debut Directors, Vinay Rao and Radhika Sapru who had only made a video with Salman before, Honey-Honey. People say Salman doesn't plan his career, today they say Lucky-NTFL wasn't a biggie of Salman, but they forget Salman valued their potential more than anything.

The film was eagerly awaited since Sneha was kept well under wraps, people wanted to judge for themselves, how close the resemblence was. Today there's hardly anyone in the country(India) who doesn't know Sneha Ullal. The movie met modest success and has been viewed on Television by all of those who missed it on the theatres, plus the chart topping music videos also played their hand in providing great visibilty to Sneha. Hence she has become a household name and is instantly recognised by all.

She's been careful of picking meaningful roles so she hasn't signed films by the dozen.

Post Aryan, she's doing another Movie called Kaash Aap Hote

citation- http://www.bollyvista.com/article/a/32/6908

We hope to see more of her evolution as she's only 19 yet, and as she has a lot of growing up to do, to catch up with Ash and Nadira in terms of age, it will be interesting to see the metamorphosis of comingup resemblences in the process. (The press certainly has their work cut out)

There is no doubt she'll make her own mark.

Any individual that resembles Nadira and Aishwarya is blessed nevertheless.

With Aryan she will come to be known of her own, she is indeed an awesome find.

Best regards,

Slytime.


BAJIRAO MASTANI

Sanjay Leela Bhansali had originally planned to work on B-M post Black in 2006, then Saawariya happened and he has now put off the project temporarily.

Shivani Kapoor, the London based supermodel has been signed to play Mastani. This film will mark her debut in Bollywood.

According to Bhansali, he plans to realize the project in 2007, after he finishes Saawariya.

News Links-

[3]. [4].

-LuckyS


ALL ABOUT PREM

Starting with the definition of TRIVIA

Noun 1. trivia - something of small importance .

Cited from-http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Trivia

Trivia are unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information.

From-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivia

unimportant matters : trivial facts or details

From-http://m-w.com/dictionary/Trivia

Mr. Plumcouch, It baffles me, how can you demand sources for the section Trivia, there is no Article which cites complete sources for the Trivia section.

If you look carefully at Shahrukh Khan's article for instance, there are many facts presented which lack citations even on the main section.

If you look at Amitabh Bachchan's Article, (only two citations) the Trivia section is full of contributions from Editors who have poured in their local expertise on the subject.

Sitting on a couch in the Western Hemisphere cannot match the Knowledge-a Local Editor posseses on Locally based subjects.

I have noticed the History of your contributions since 2003, and you seem to be content in describing Salman Khan's career in exactly 4 sentences.

If any Editor tries to expand it, you have problems, despite the fact your contributions to articles like Shahrukh Khan has no such issues.

What does it indicate? There is a certain Bias against Salman Khan here.

Well Salman Khan is no Plum but one of the most currently successful Superstars in India.

See Box Office India for his status. His Hum Aapke Hain Koun is listed as the 4th Highest all time Grosser in the History of Bollywood.

Ahead of any other Khan or any present actor in Bollywood.

See-http://boxofficeindia.com/alltime.htm

I'm afraid, you cannot mantain double standards to Salman Khan, even if you don't like him individually.

The language in the contributions you have used in his article oozes of bias against him.

If you ask for citations for the Trivia section, better provide sources for each and every sentence in the Shahrukh Khan article and the Trivia section in Amitabh Bachchan article.

If you can, then I shall provide you the same for Salman Khan Title Prem in Trivia section.

It is not possible for an editor to come up with sources for every information provided, based on practical and local knowledge gathered from years of reading Newspapers, biographies and other sources of reliable information and certainly not from film gossips.

Let me throw a challenge to you.

1) If you can prove that lead Characters were popularly titled PREM in Bollywood Cinema before Maine Pyar Kiya, 1989. I shall revoke my claims. You can use Wikipedia to verify every actors Title Name before 1989.

2) If you can prove that babies were popularly named Pran, till date after the veteran actor, ( You won't find even half a dozen) I shall rubbish my own claims. This was an excerpt from an Interview with the actor himself in a leading Indian English Daily few years back. Pran himself providing the Interesting Trivia about the name being unpopular amongst baby names. Where can one source that article from now? If I knew you will ask for it then, I could have cut it then.

3) If you can prove that Amitabh Bachchan has not alone popularised the Title VIJAY the most in India Cinema, I shall revoke my claims. {It is a locally known fact in India}

You can use Wikipedia for the same. That is all that I have meant there.

Better sense will prevail if you understand the fact that Local knowledge is superior to Alien knowledge. And that, it is virtualy impossible to produce sources to every information in the Articles.

That way Lord Gautama Buddha's teachings can be rubbished by someone like you, as all his teachings were recorded later by his followers by keeping memories of his Oral Teachings.

-LuckyS-

Hello, LuckyS,
Information about the popularity of given and first names should go into an article of the name. For an example, see article Eric (name) or Sundeep. Claiming that Salman Khan has influenced the usage of a certain name is a far claim; I believe this needs a reference. As for the other articles: lots of articles lack of references - people are constantly working on that. I just happened to stumble over Salman Khan's article.
As for "knowledge" a Local Editor posseses on Locally based subjects", please see here: [5]
I was among the editors who looked after the article so it hasn't just "four lines": [6]

[7] [8] [9] [10]

Male leads with the name Prem before 1989:

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

As for Amitabh Bachchan popularising the name Vijay: If you can provide references, just add the info to the article Vijay (name) or newly create it.
Knowledge is never surperior or inferior, it just is. If you disagree with my oppinions, why don't you contact users User:Zora, User:Slytime or User:Pa7, who are very active in the project Indian Cinema.
Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Plumcouch,

That, writers didn't Title Salman as Prem since Maine Pyar Kiya isn't a far claim, there was seldom any during the reign of Prem Chopra and there is seldom any after Maine Pyar Kiya. The actors Filmography reference proves it.

Characters are often written with the Star's Image/ popularity in mind. And as of now, Salman is undoubtedly one of the most Polular if not the most Popular Actor in India. These things are noticed by cinegoers but not always recorded, unless an Original work is published by themselves, or else it wouldn't feature in the Trivia section.

Somehow I find it difficult to digest that you took care of the article, anyhow I have trimmed down the trivial matter follwing your protest. In order to be Neutral to you.

You know that you haven't demanded the same strictness to the other articles that you've contributed to, for some reason.

How do you cite news from a hard copy?, how to verify it?, or only Online stuff is to be believed?

-Best Regards

-LuckyS-

This discussion is completely ridiculous. Its not about whether Salman Khan really popularized the name Prem or not, its about whether it is worthy enough to include this piece of information in this article? Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The information being made available here should be credible and noteworthy. And LuckyS, why are you become so passionate about this small thing? And by the way, most of the times, it's the director who gets to choose the name of the character not the actor who is protraying the concerned character in the film. Another point, Salman Khan has popularized a lot of names like Raj, Sameer etc. What's the big deal about Prem? --Incman|वार्ता 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

~As far as the credibility of the information is concerned, have closer look at the Filmography section of actor Salman Khan, [16] and you'll notice how many times Prem has been portrayed by Salman. 11 times so far and still counting. It is a creditable noteworthy achievement. If you are an avid follower of the Indian Cinema. That's the difference.

If you are unaware of the definiton of an Encyclopedia then read this-

An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.[17]

Wikipedia is no different encyclopedia. The copyright doesnot belong to a few self styled guardian Editors alone.

I'm as passionate about this detail as the original contributor of it, which was not me, I'm only backing him/her.

Its not whether Salman is more effective while playing Prem, It's like, whenever Amitabh played an angry character, screen writes preferred naming him Vijay.

It's not the director or the screen writer who plays the role on the screen but the particular actor who popularises it eventually. And both screen writer and Directors keep the actor and his image in mind while naming his onscreen character.

No other actor has popularised the romantic lead called Prem more than Salman, and no other actor has popularised the screen name Vijay more than Amitabh Bachchan.

True, they have successfully played and popularised other screennames as well.

Still, it is a worthwhile mention as a fact in the form of an encyclopedic entry that they popularised a particular screen name, more than any of their contemporaries .

Best regards,

-LuckyS.