Talk:King Solomon's Mines (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Untitled

There are, in fact, at least SIX filmed versions: 1937, 1950, 1985, 1986 (TV), 2004 (TV), and Watusi , 1959.JRClegg (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

1985 version

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Split and disambiguated.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]