Talk:The Legend of Zorro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Move

Name is properly titled: The Legend of Zorro. [1], [2]. K1Bond007 00:35, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 22:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce?

Potential goof? Was there such a thing as a divorce initiated by the *wife* back in 1850? I'm not sure which laws applied at that point in the film--probably still the laws of Mexico? But as far as I remember, the cause of the emancipation of the woman wasn't very far advanced at that time yet... any experts on this?

The laws of the United States applied then seeing as it was an American possession. However, Mexican law applied to all contracts initiated prior to America acquiring possession of the state during the Mexican War. Here, the marriage occurred in 1840; thus, Mexican Law applied. In California in 1850, there was wife-initiated divorce. However, oddly enough, the courts maintained that a marriage initiated by the Catholic Church or that was between two that were "faithful" to the Church was inviolate and could not be dissolved by the state. Thus, the movie is not incorrect assuming that the marriage was not contracted inside the Catholic Church and was not being maintained by two "faithful" to the Church. However, the fact that they were later re-married by the priest makes it all highly unlikely. The community property laws of California made American divorce immediately very popular.--wilkyisdashiznit 23:08, 6 January 2008

[edit] Spoiler

I'm adding a spoiler tag to this article, the goofs contain information regarding the ending. (I haven't seen it yet, and this article just spelled out what is going to happen at the end). Then again you can say that I shouldn't be looking at the article, or that I should expect what happens, but I still believe it deserves a spoiler tag. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Another anachronism, just for the record

Since there are so many historic anachronisms noted in the article already, I see no reason to add this one but, sure enough, the president welcoming California to the union (in 1850) was Abraham Lincoln! --JWMcCalvin 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It was Lincoln, the DVD commentary acknowledges, but not yet President Lincoln. And yeah, Lincoln never went to California, but it's fiction, hombres! Mdiamante 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offenses against Horse Sense

  • After a long hard ride, Alejandro does not give Tornado a much needed rub-down. This is an atrocity.
  • Tornado catches up with the anachronistic Train, which has quite a bit of a head start. Is he a superhorse from Krypton?Das Baz 19:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alejandro de la Vega

I don't think that Alejandro de la Vega's name change constitutes anachronism. Clearly Elena comes from a more powerful family than Alejandro so it's quite all right for Alejandro to take up Elena's last name as his new last name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.20.53 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 3rd Film?

Is there a possibility of a 3rd film? it was said in a documentry od the 2nd DVD that the reason they didnt use a deleted scene with the grown up son writing the history of the second film was because they then couldnt use Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones in a future film. Lovingnews1989 09:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting on whether to become part of the US?

Did this really happen in history? I thought California was conquered by force? Isnt this the major deviation from history?--Burgas00 22:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No. California was conquered by force but was then ruled as a conquered territory by a military governor. There was a constitutional convention in 1849, the year before the movie indicates. The following year, Congress would admit California to the Union. In addition, Maryland-born Governor Riley and Kentucky-born Abraham Lincoln also were not Hispanic. Lincoln never came to California and an attorny from Illinois would have had no authority to admit California into the Union.--wilkyisdashiznit 23:28, 6 January 2008

[edit] Good news links for a production section

IGN Movies See especially Elena in a Zorro outfit? and Hopkins cameo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdiamante (talkcontribs) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)