Talk:The Mask of Zorro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mexico Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Mask of Zorro article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.
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.
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.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): New Zealand cinema task force

[edit] Clarification

Was Montero in any of the Zorro stories or TV shows?

~NewGod_KingKirby

Good question. The "base" story -- The Mark of Zorro, which has been filmed three times -- has Zorro facing off against a corrupt governor, but in one film he's named Alvaradro, and in two Quintero. The actual last Spanish Governor of California was Pablo Vicente de Solá, who has no article as yet. The earlier films do not seem so closely tied to the Californio/Mexican independence movement, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo lists the movies budget at 95 million, but this page lists it at 65 million. Which one is correct?

[edit] DVD?

Will there be a DVD?

[edit] Famous scene involving undressing of Catherine Zeta-Jones

Having spent a day away from the article, I'm disappointed by the rush to judgement to remove this section from the article I've added over the past few days. I thought Wikipedia wasn't censored, since I got the info from the Internet Movie Database and E! TV's "Sexiest" series. What's the deal? 70.129.43.110 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with your edits is that you didn't provide a secondary source for the dubious information you contributed. If you could have added, perhaps, an external link, I could have cited it, and the section might work. I've had to deal with this kind of stuff before, so, believe me, making such a section encyclopedic can be achieved.

Another issue with this section was that it dripped of personal opinion and original research. While your ogling of Catherine Zeta-Jones is understandable, this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. The strange thing is, I do remember reading, at the Internet Movie Database and Filmsite.org, about this film being one of the more notable "romantic" scenes of film history, so your edits may not be entirely misinformed. I think I'll surf the Web and see if I can find those pages. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the text, and prepared a really long response that Cinemaniac seemed to echo well. Because of the edit conflict, I'll just summarize. Problems with NPOV and weasel words in the wording, lack of sources, lack of notability, some trivia present (why is Zorro not wearing gloves so important to the article?). My best guess is some of this could be integrated into a "Production" section, re-written with references. Don't think it belongs in Historical and cultural references. CM (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Movie articles aren't my specialty, and to see something with so many problems and no ref to check against, I felt removing was the best course. I'm trying not to be edit conflicted again (hence two replies), but I'll leave it at it didn't look encyclopedic at the time, especially since some of it was part of a trivia section deleted some time ago.--CM (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

i don't have the exact URL, but if you go to the IMDb "Goofs" page, you'll see a lot of this info there. Maybe copying and pasting that here was not the best move. Oh well... I'll re-add til I can think of something better. 70.129.43.110 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

After doing a Google search, I found this page that supports one of the statements in the new section as being one "erotic scene from the '90s". And thanks, 70.129.43.110, for providing the URL for the IMDb "goofs" page; I can now use that to provide an in-text citation. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, user contributed websites like IMDB are usually not reliable if I remember correctly. Something with a bit more verifiable would be better.--CM (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to rename the section to something more encyclopedic, as I'm sure "Famous scene involving undressing Catherine Zeta-Jones" could more appropriately be trimmed to just "Famous scenes".

BTW, I'm sorry my response caused an edit conflict with your intended reply; I tend to respond quickly to something that piques my interest from the "Recent changes" list, but I'm glad that I, at least, reflected most of what you would have said. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

One sentence should be enough to address this scene and its appearance on the erotic moments list. The information about continuity errors is, IMO, not notable. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Only one sentence?! Com'on! I think it could be a little longer, don't you? I mean, I'm sure a lot of readers would like to know how this scene exactly unfolds, including its mechanics and the actors' emotions during the scene. After all, no man can look at Catherine Zeta-Jones dressed in nothing but some frilly pantaloons, with the locks of her hair positioned just right to mask the peaks of her sumptuous breasts, and not be enticed. 70.129.43.110 (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This should suffice: "Note that Zeta-Jones appears topless, but with her long hair fully covering her breasts. She turns to get a hat to cover herself - as she turns back, quite a bit of the front of her right breast is visible, although her nipple appears to be hidden by hair (difficult to tell because it all happens so quickly)." I hope that what I've added works. 70.129.43.110 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit concerning this matter looks like male gaze and nothing more. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor is it a collection of miscellaneous facts. No matter how beautiful Catherine Zeta-Jones is and the notability of the scene, I don't think we need a whole section devoted to trivial facts concerning it. One sentence describing this scene and its making the erotic scenes list would probably work best.

BTW, I haven't been able to find any reputable source verifying the "fact" that Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones were sexually aroused during the filming of this sequence. Since you said you saw such info on "E!" TV, perhaps I should look under Google Video. Still, I don't think such information concerning actors's emotions is necessary. If anything, that would probably belong on those actor's Wikipedia pages, but not here. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The section has since been trimmed down to a few sentences, with the continuity errors converted into footnotes and most of the {{fact}}-tagged statements cited. I think it looks a lot better. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 04:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well after a month since this section's inception, the sentence concerning the two actors—especially Banderas—allegedly getting "sexually aroused" is still unverified, and I have a mind to just zap it from the article, but I'll give it about another month or two. If it's not sourced after that, I'll try to hunt it down, but if I still can't find a source to cite, it'll have to go. Sorry, 70.129.43.110. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I've cited the appropriate source for those previously dubious statements, as you can tell by this diff. Congrats, 70.129.43.110! The section you helped create has now been fully cited! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)