Jump to content

Talk:Enthiran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 220.225.218.253 (talk) at 03:43, 14 October 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Nvarma85 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NEW UPDATES

Enthiran has opened with collections of Rs.208 crores worldwide(14 days nett). Check this Hindustan Ties link

Rajnikanth beats the Khans

Please update the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.178.22 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed review gang which is user reviews, not professional critics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthiksriram (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Review Gang link which was a self promotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthiksriram (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for the recent 3 days ago it was said that the endhiran film will be released on 8th of october 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.136.224 (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its 1st October according to Sify.Mr.Saxena just confirmed this yesterday.-Raghavan(Talk) 01:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REVIEW: Yesterday(30-Sep-2010), we had seen the much hyped Enthiran at Singapore at 8pm. Before getting into the review, Just an quick update on the hypes at Singapore. All the shows for next 3 days are fully booked around 11 cinemas.And they are running around 8 shows per day.

Now, the review..

It's a Tamil Toy story. Vaseikaran(Rajanikath), a scientist invents a ROBOT for a noble cause to serve Indian Army to avoid human death in war.Before getting the aprroval from the Govt, he wants to try out the Robot (Chitti) in common public.But Robot fails when it comes to human emotions, where it acts a machine.Chitti is just animated robot person in this movie.Then Vaseikaran start loading data about human emotions to Robot. Now Robot started taking over Vaseikaran by getting love with his girlfriend and started encouraging all to start love and stop war.Scientist got wild with the behaviour of ROBOT and dismantle it throwded it in bin. Now, it's the turn for Villan to pick up the ROBO and give life with additional data loading of human destroying.This ROBOT started distrubing the whole system. Finally, Vaseikarn came for rescue and win over the ROBOT.

Now Review in detail..

First it's a appreciable attempt by Shankar in Indian cinema.The CG works are great but still it would have been better. The concept of ROBO model helps shankar in many ways, b'cas We have our serious doubt that, Rajini is not used in many screens(Chitti ROBO), where Rajini mask has been acted. We can feel the body language are totally different,mainly in the screen at the Old age home/hostel wheren Chitti Performs dance and other funny sequences.Ash looks cool but there are places too where we can feel she is getting older.. Rajini.. in 3 different roles.. The master piece in the villan chitti role.. It comes quite natural to him. That is the real treat to his fans. Rajin as Vaseikaran, the look is not so great.Shankar might have thought of other options for the scientist look.Rajin as Chitti the Good Robo, the sitiuations are good and comic,enjoyable. Tne movie get bored in between. The songs are not jelled with the movie. I think Rajini has worked hard in the Chitti the villan. But it looks more a like human not a humanoid. Shankar maintain the look and feel of Good Chitti as humanoid and made Rajini to perform like that, which missed in case Chitti the villan.

It's a Time Pass..No big logic in the story... A complete family package. looks lengthy.. can be trimmed a bit.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.133 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 207.6.151.57, 15 September 2010

sept 24 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.151.57 (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Demon947, 17 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} budget 225 crores prints 2250

Demon947 (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hein

(Brian Chris Lance (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The Action director of this Endhiran movie is not Yuen Pin or whoever, it is Peter Hein, please have this corrected as i am not sure how to edit the same.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran → Endhiran — According to the IMDB page, Endhiran is the official title of the movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305797/. Nvarma85 (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Archive of previous successful move request in the other direction (Endhiran → Enthiran) of 5-16 August 2010. Fæ (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: From the same 'Sun Pictures' press release for the media (print, web and other), is this latest press release. The 'About us' page of Sun Pictures mentions 'Endhiran (The Robot)' About Sun Pictures. Can we atleast consider the move now? Nvarma85 (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same press release uses Enthiran as well as Endhiran. Obviously the transliteration is interchangeable but the issuing studio uses Enthiran more often. Unless you can find a definitive statement about which is the 'correct' English spelling then moving it seems pointless.
If you check the talk page archive, the article was moved from Endhiran to Enthiran in August. There would have to be a very well sourced rationale to move it back again. Fæ (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Since both versions are used in both Sun pictures site and Director Shankar's blog, I guess they are interchangeable. Although a google search ([1]) tries to correct 'Enthiran' to 'Endhiran'. Not a big deal I guess. Nvarma85 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

INR to $ Conversion

Just curious to know why we cannot add INRConvert template, which also shows in US dollar conversion as well as in INR, I tried 2-3 times to add but other editors reverted it. I think it was good idea to add on English wiki as $ is international currency and better to understand than Indian currency(no offence I m Indian too). If we can discuss it will be good to understand why? its not relevant to add in this article. KuwarOnline Talk 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why include dollars when the producers of the film paid in rupees?. It isn't necessary for readers to know how many US dollars the film would have cost in today's money, for the same reason that articles on Hollywood movies don't need to show how much they would have cost today. Whats important is that we have a source which says R162 crore were spent but doesn't mention any other currencies. If there is a reliable source which gives a dollar value then we can include that but as it stands there is no compelling reason to use the convertor. Also you should have waited a few more days before readding the convertor. Green Giant (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Kuwar on this but not so much so that I'd ever actually bother editing it in. I know absolutely nothing about Indian currency and its economy. Seeing R162 means absolutely nothing to me (and I would suspect to most non-Indian English readers) and so much so that it's hard to see the point in including it in the article. Having the conversion built in actually makes that piece of information meaningful. As for converting old figures to contemporary values I think that's a good idea but less pressing. I think a lot of people have a better feel for how currency values change over time even if it's not a specific conversion in mind. They'll at least know that having a million dollars in 1900 is a much bigger deal than having that same amount today. With Indian currency (sans conversion) there is nothing similar to go on. R162 could be $1,000 or a billion dollars relative to the Indian economy. Also, even if you don't think it's necessary to add the conversion template I'm not sure if I see how adding it would make the article worse. And off the top of my head I don't see how this so different than using temperature conversion templates. SQGibbon (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not whether anybody knows about the rupee or the Indian economy. It is simply a matter of what the source says and in this instance it says "R162 crore". It would be acceptable to change that to "R1.62 billion" to make it more clearer for readers but beyond that we should only include a dollar value if the source gives a figure. At the time of writing, the dollar:rupee rate has changed from 46.845 rupees per dollar to 44.35 rupees per dollar in just one month, which means that if we had left the INR convertor in place it would have shown roughly $34,582,132 on 1 September 2010 and $36,527,621 on 1 October 2010 - a difference of roughly $1,945,488 (almost two million dollars). What exactly is achieved by showing such huge differences, other than confusing uninformed readers?
As for SQGibbon's last question, conversions between temperature scales don't fluctuate from day to day the way currencies do, so for example 32°F was 0°C yesterday and today, and it will be tomorrow and the day after; therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use that conversion template wherever possible. Green Giant (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "R1.62 billion" is any more meaningful or useful than "R162 crore". Anyway, if I'm reading the conversion page correctly then I think the conversion is done only once -- the instance when the template is first called, meaning that the value would not fluctuate. This leads to the question that if an editor did the conversion manually and included that figure with the article is that acceptable? If it is acceptable then using the template just makes things easier.
And then on second thought, given how often the budget and gross values get vandalized this would mean the conversion would continue to fluctuate all the time anyway which would undermine whatever usefulness it might have had. Oh well. SQGibbon (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added just for International viewer who doesn't understand ₹, why we need to add? let me explain, this wiki is written in internationally known language called "English" and if we add something that doesn't understand by rest of world, what point in adding it?, just for India?, I don't think so its just Indian wiki(again don't get me wrong I m proud Indian too). If this is Hindi/or any native language I never thought of adding it in first place because the viewer are mostly Indian. But in this case its viewer are international not just Indian, so adding $ conversion makes more sense here. Specially for this article as this(movie) will be released at large scale in rest of the world which means more international viewers. No offence, thanks KuwarOnline Talk 08:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, first of all, why do you keep supposing that people won't understand what the Indian rupee is? If they don't know what it is then isn't it obvious that they would easily find out what it is using Wikipedia itself? Also, what does the fact that this article is in English have to do with the currency?? Doesn't make ANY sense. Just because the viewers of this article are "international" there is no compulsion on Wikipedia to convert currencies to US Dollars. Only measurements (such as weight, length, volume) should be converted. EelamStyleZ (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, well my point was if we use international language than our own language then why not international currency? I m not saying that we should remove ₹ I m saying just add converter or add $ in braces. So the rest of the world will know that this is also costliest film or Indian too developed costliest movies not just cheap ones. Yes there is no compulsion about it, but again if we think deeply why we written this article? or what Wikipedia is? then answer probably would be same i.e. providing information/knowledge to the world. I was just trying to make it simple to read. Again no offence :) KuwarOnline Talk 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets clear up some misunderstandings:
  • When editing Wikipedia, you should assume that the readers will be completely uninformed, and that goes as equally for US dollars as Indian rupees. You should not assume that readers will necessarily have a grasp of what the dollar is, because not all English-speakers are Americans; in the UK a dollar value won't mean anything until it is converted into pound sterling.
  • The US dollar is not the international currency, it is the largest reserve currency (forming about two-thirds of reserves), but the Euro is a significant challenger, forming about a quarter of reserves; so if we must have a conversion to dollars, why should we not also have a conversion to euros?
  • English is not the definitive international language; it is just one of several widely-used languages which could be regarded as international; thats why the United Nations uses six official languages (Arabic, Chinese Mandarin, English, French, Russian, and Spanish)
If the output of the template will not change, which conversion rate would you suggest? The current rate in {{INRConvert/CurrentRate}} is relevant only if the film was paid for during the last month. The relevant rate would have been the rate when the film was paid for. We can avoid this by simply sticking to what the source says. If you can find a reliable source which gives both a rupee value and a dollar value, then that can be included in the infobox. Green Giant (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't agree with adding US dollar figure to the infobox. A conversion can exist in the body paragraphs of articles, but it seems a bit too detailed when it is added to the infobox. By the way, I still don't understand the real reason to keep the US dollar figure, other than the attempt to keep the article "international", which doesn't seem to justify the need for it. An Indian film deserves its budget indicated in Indian currency, while a French film requires its budget in French currency, UK film in pounds, and so on. Adding the USD value of Enthiran's budget would require all non-American film articles to have their budget values listed in USD. It's better we stick to a similar format of infoboxes in articles and just keep the budget value in the currency of its native country. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on adding native currency, I never said we should just add $(see my above comments), the only one reason behind this was to keep this article as much as readable to everyone, as I said $ is internationally more known than any other currency in world. I know that English is not officially recognized international language same like Hindi is not official national language(ref1 ref2), but still we treat Hindi as national language and widely spoken than any other language in India. Again if this article is part of Hindi Wikipedia then I never thought of adding it. Anyways don't wanna fight over it, Lets keep it as it is. KuwarOnline Talk 08:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is no fight of course, we are building consensus which is good. But adding USD value would sort of defy Wikipedia's neutral point of view rule, which is important. I think we can agree with USD conversion in the body paragraph, but just not in the Infobox. It is taking up space and extra lines and making it larger. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of bias in the artilcle

this article doesnt look like a wikipedia article, rather it looks like a movie review by a critic.. kindly update this article according to wikipedia norms and rules.. please.. let it be neutral.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobystones (talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran was released in the UK on 30th September...

Although on the net it says 1st October, I personally saw it in the UK on the 30th September at 7:40PM. And the first show was at 5:45PM. I still have the ticket from the cinema. Does that count as advanced screening? Or is it an official release? ~~ Sintaku Talk 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Chbabbu, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} look at this link, and add data to it. http://www.dailypioneer.com/287164/Robot-raises-filmdom-cine-goers%E2%80%99-euphoria-to-new-heights.html

Chbabbu (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Plot section

Have added a plot section to the page. Have a look and feel free to modify if it appears too long.

V.siddhesh 16:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.siddhesh (talk • contribs)

I think the plot section is quite weak. There is too much detail in some parts and you can't finish off the section by saying 'the rest of the film explains it', that defies the point of a plot section. Also Chitti does not start to fall in love with Sana after she kisses him, he has to be programmed with emotions and human feelings first, which Vaseegaran only does after Chitti obeys a command to attack him and thus Bohra proves the robot is not ready to be used in the army. You should also explain things like what the DRDO stands for. The bit about the girl who Chitti saves from the fire when she is naked is strange as well, she doesn't commit suicide, she runs out into the road and gets hit by a truck! I'm not sure how that qualifies as suicide. Would you like me to suggest a re-write? I can't edit the page myself. Mymindsmine (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response, i got busy and never saw the wiki page till today. I guess its been re-written already. Siddhesh (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Gopschennai, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10677952 budget 225 crores ONE DAY AMOUNT= PRINTS 2250 X 4 SHOWS X 500 SHEETS X 150 RS=67.5 Cr Per Day Gopschennai (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You simply provided a link. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to assume that the film received 100 per cent attendance in Tamil, Telugu and Hindi versions. The film reportedly received only 10 per cent attendance in Hindi version due to bandh in north India.
You seem to assume that all screens have minimum of 500 seats. It is incorrect. Most of the multiplexes have maximum of 200 seats.
You seem to assume that all classes of tickets were priced at Rs.150. It is incorrect. The maximum ceiling on ticket price is Rs.120. Anwar (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 115.242.238.238, 6 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} This movie if not an exact remake, it is inspired to a very high degree and is based on the main plot of the moive called Hollywood, made by Upendra in Kannada. This is an important note to mention, and necessary to credit the original story writer. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_%28Kannada_film%29

115.242.238.238 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You would need to provide a source that states this movie is copied from another. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Aarudhnatraj, 8 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change DRDO to AIRD (Artificial Intelligence Research and Development). Only, the AIRD is depicted in the film, not the DRDO. Aarudhnatraj (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Welcome. I've removed the reference to DRDO, but adding AIRD requires some reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Vedaj89, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "His senior and head of the DRDO, Mr. Bohra" to "His senior and head of the AIRD (Artificial Inteligence Research Directorate), Mr. Bohra" because DRDO is a real organisation which is not mentioned in the film; it is AIRD (a fictitous organisation) which is repeatedly mentioned in the film. The following changes are to be made under the Plot section vedaj 12:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)  Done Welcome. I've removed the reference to DRDO, but adding AIRD requires some reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endhiran first weekend and first week collection record surpassing all indian box office record creating new history

It is very very sad on you Anwar (talk) and I have no idea how you will allow good edits in future by anyone, even after giving sources. You are not ready to accept the facts. Its very very unfortunate to be reviewed in this bad manner. Never in wiki I went through like this. Please if you beleive you are a true wikipedian try to go for a consensus before adding what you feel is right ,which is against the whole world and sources. very bad and feel sorry !!! In your references 5 6 7 8 no where it is saying 62 crores. But the link I gave New Delhi Chronicles.com clearly says 950 million Indian rupees = 95 crores. Why you are not taking it. Then what beleive I have on those sites you added, especially when you are not ready to accept India's prime Times of India. In the first week the film netted 117 crores which is higher than Dabangg 82 crores - TOI explains it clearly. So mention that fact also along with, it equalled to sivaji life time collection. You are very much eager in adding all negative aspects of the movie, saying not doing well in delhi/punjabi etc., instead of positive reviews and collections. Note that Despite being a tamil movie it created history in Indian cinema which no bollywood movie will do in India as a whole. 

You are so one sided and playing with your admins power. Too bad and soon other editors will raise question for sure.!!!

Anwar (talk) is neglecting all proper sources and doing edits without consideration of others.

Ungal Vettu Pillai 14:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)

Anwar IS NOT ADMINISTRATOR. TO CHECK IF SOMEONE IS ADMINISTRATOR, GO TO THIS OFFICIAL LINK [2]. Search there to verify if one is a admin or not. Surely Anwar isnt in the list. If you suspect that [[User:Anwar saadat|Anwar] has multiple accounts, you may complain about this! More than one accounts is not allowed by wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varanwal (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Janagarraja, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} the gross revenue is 117 crore in one week

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Bala1985ji, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Request to change the Box office Collection Information: Endhiran has collected 117 Crore within 7 days. It's a first Indian film to cross this mark within in a week. The recent hit Dabangg has collected 82 Crore. So, this the biggest hit of Indian film in terms of net collection. The film has got a net collection of Rs 60 crore in TN, Rs 30 crore in AP, Rs 8 crore in Karnataka, Rs 4 crore in Kerala and Hindi version Robot Rs 15 crore. Looking at the trend the film has crossed Dabangg's two weeks net collection in its first week itself.

The film had definitely grossed Rs 260 crore which was more than the entire collection of Aamir Khan starrer 'Ghajini'. Bohra said, The film has easily made a gross collection of Rs 200 crore plus which is nearly double of Dabangg." Link: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News-News-By-Industry-Media/Entertainment-Entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms Bala1985ji (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done:The article seems well-cited. It is clearly mentioned that Endhiran has collected Rs. 117 crore indeed. For non-Hindi films, nett is the same as gross. That seems to be the source of your confusion. Thanks.CuteRobin (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Request to add information to Box Office Collection Information: The dubbed Hindi version of the film Robot too has done a business of nearly Rs 30 crore in the first week. Robot has broken all the norms of a dubbed film. No dubbed film crossed even the one crore mark. Link: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News-News-By-Industry-Media/Entertainment-Entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms

 Not done: The official web site of Bollywood's largest trade network - boxofficeindia.com - is giving a different picture. The Hindi version of the film is not quite doing brisk business. CuteRobin (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well Cute Robin; nowhere in the boxofficeindia.com site, it says that its official or like that! you are making up your own story! at the link http://boxofficeindia.com/cpages.php?pageName=about ; it says that . The numbers on this site are all indicative as actual numbers are rarely given out by producers and distributors. The site also says in its disclaimer, "YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BOXOFFICEINDIA.COM AND ITS AFFILIATES DO NOT CONTROL, REPRESENT OR ENDORSE THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE AND OTHER USER AND MEMBER GENERATED PAGES AND THAT ANY OPINIONS, ADVICE, STATEMENTS, SERVICES, OFFERS OR OTHER INFORMATION OR CONTENT PRESENTED OR DISSEMINATED ON THE WEB SITE OR ON ANY OTHER USER OR MEMBER GENERATED PAGES ARE <THOSE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AUTHORS WHO ARE SOLELY LIABLE FOR THEIR CONTENT.> " which clearly shows that its no official data whatsoever! So you guys don't go on discrediting the correct links given by us! Varanwal (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am tending to side with other people who have raised their concerns about CuteRobin. In fact I question CuteRobin's neutrality when he/she is defending the edits. The following link also talks about collections. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/media/entertainment-/entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms Also BoxOfficeIndia is not an authorized or official site for India box office collections. So point being if you guys think economic times is not a site that can be trusted then BoxOfficeIndia should not either. Either remove references to Endhiran collection or update it with the information from Economic Times. MRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.245.9 (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 114.148.174.116, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please edit the first weekend collection details as it was mistakenly mentioned in the article that only 62 crore rupees were collected instead actual amount, 95 crore the highest amount collected by any Indian movie till date during first weekend of the release. There are few References given below. http://www.abcnews.in/entertainment-news/rajnikants-endhiran-surpasses-dabanggs-collections-7805/ http://mytamilchannel.com/index/endhiran-surpasses-all-records-of-box-office-collections-in-the-opening-weekend/ http://www.moneylife.in/article/78/9679.html 114.148.174.116 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CuteRobin (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 122.26.32.240, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

After reading this article, For me, It seems this article is not neutral especially about the box office collection information.there are so many articles in the web and various Indian newspapers have already published an article in their website about endhiran movie box office collection that has set a new record in the Indian cinema box office collection but i cannot see those information in this article and the box office collection collection information mentioned in this article is incorrect. There are many website publsihed information about the first weekend collection that Endhiran has crossed 95 crore rs just in the first 3 days of the release. Few References http://www.abcnews.in/entertainment-news/rajnikants-endhiran-surpasses-dabanggs-collections-7805/ http://mytamilchannel.com/index/endhiran-surpasses-all-records-of-box-office-collections-in-the-opening-weekend/ http://www.moneylife.in/article/78/9679.html

please.. let it be neutral and do not damage wikipedia's reputation .

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rs-117cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6716660.cms

The above link is from a reliable and one of the most trusted news channel in India . It clearly says , Endhiran movie has set a new record in terms of first week collection , but the way the article is written is not to give credit to Endhiran move but it suppose to .

The article goes and saying the following : Endhiran falls short of Dabangg opening]</ref> In the first week, the film grossed Rs. 117 crore from all versions thus matching the lifetime business of Sivaji.

I think, The above sentence not reflecting the new record made by endhiran instead it says dabangg still own the record and endhiran has just passed Sivaji movie collection.

I repeat it once again that , as per the above mentioned times of india's article 9http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rs-117cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6716660.cms), Endhiran movie has set a new record in terms of first week collection for any indian movie including debangg movie ,therefore please modify the article accordingly to give credit to endhiran movie for making new record as it deserve for that.

in terms of first weekend collection, there are so many news channel and web sites mentioned that endhiran collected 95 crores in just 3 days and this is also a new record in indian cinema history(please refer the above links provided) but if you don't agree with the reference links (then how can i agree with the link which the article provided for dabangg movie collection) then please consider to remove the first weekend collection information as the current first weekend collection information in the article about endhiran is conflicting with other websites and news channel's information.Moreover, the first weekend collection information is not required at all since Endhiran movie has already set a new record in terms of first week collection for any indian movie including debangg movie and endhiran is expected to make a new record in gross collection as well.

122.26.32.240 (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thought about Wiki was that anyone can trust the wiki content. After reading this enthiran content, it's proved that I am wrong. Now I believe that wiki can be edited by anyone to show their personal view instead of the actual fact. Shame on Wiki because of some editors.

 Not done: Your request spends more time accusing others of bad faith than it would have taken to simply make a specific request in a 'please change X to Y' manner. Please use less unhelpful rhetoric and just state your request and the sources which back it up. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Bonqwert, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The last dialog "it started to think" - should be "i started to think"

Bonqwert (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks. Anwar (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot is a copyvio

This movies plot in Wikipedia is an exact copy of this blog, Need to rewrite...--Kalarickan | My Interactions 10:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC) The critical reception section is mostly about the Hindi version. Given that the article is mainly about Enthiran, the critical responses could be from Tamil and Telugu sources as well.[reply]


Edit request from 152.51.48.1, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Where to change: Box Office 1. The film grossed Indian rupee62 crore from all versions in the first weekend, second only to Dabangg's Indian rupee65 crore haul.[63][64] 2. In the first week, the film grossed Indian rupee117 crore from all versions, matching the overall business of Sivaji.[65]

What to change: In the first section, when you compare Enthiran with Dabangg, then in the second section also, you should have compared it with Dabangg. But you have compared it with Sivaji. The sentence flow is incorrect. So,in the second section, please compare enthiran with dabangg not with sivaji. As shown below

1. The film grossed Indian rupee62 crore from all versions in the first weekend, second only to Dabangg's Indian rupee65 crore haul.[63][64] 2. But, In the first week, the film grossed Indian rupee117 crore from all versions whereas Dabangg collected rupee82 crore.

Referencehttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/media/entertainment-/entertainment/Rs-117-cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6717883.cms

152.51.48.1 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done In part. The sources do not compare this film's one week box office to Sivaji, so I will remove that, but the one week numbers do not change the weekend numbers, so saying ", but " in inappropriate. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed reference to Sivaji. But I have retained reference to Dabangg as it is explicitly cited by several authentic sources. Also, it is misleading to compare the nett collections of Enthiran with nett collections of Dabangg as the former enjoys zero rate of entertainment tax. Comparison of gross figures will suit this case but we have no reliable gross data as of now. This is a peculiar case. Anwar (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source at the time made the claim that the one-week gross surpassed Dabangg, so including that was NPOV. Your removal of it and your explanation here are not. Please consider undoing some of your recent changes, like "correcting" the spelling in the reference titles. Celestra (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed Endhiran to Enthiran to maintain consistency of the article. Hope it's not an issue.Anwar (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you changed the title of a source, it is an issue. The title of the source is whatever it is; it is not for us to correct the title. Celestra (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My stance is vindicated here - However Endhiran's first week gross is less than Dabangg's 120 crore opening week gross last month across India... But once again, segments in media are talking of nett collections or shares of Enthiran and comparing it to bollywood hits without explaining the real dynamics of these type of figures. It's worth again pointing out comparing nett collection of a Tamil film from Tamil Nadu to nett collection of a Hindi film is a false comparision; as are some other points of relative ignorance out there about economy at large. For example UP state, which has a higher GDP than Tamil Nadu overall, has nonetheless historically imposed a very high entertainment tax on cinema of Hindi films compared to the reverse policy of zero amount that Tamil Nadu government imposes on Tamil films... So a Hindi film that reports Rs. 20 crore nett collection in UP has actually generated close to Rs. 35 crore gross in UP box office because of 60% entertainment tax imposed by UP which means the gross is almost 1.7 times the net collection reported from there; whereas due to 0% tax for Tamil films in Tamil Nadu, a film which claims the same Rs. 20 crore nett from Tamil Nadu has only infact done Rs. 20 crore gross business also. Gross is the figure that's actually being generated from ticket sales not nett. Gross minus entertainment tax of a given state = nett. So the nett is the gross for Tamil films in TN whereas this works out quite different for Bollywood films in much of the Indian North and beyond (ex. Maharashtra).Anwar (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then in addition to the claim made by boxofficeindia that it surpassed Dabangg, we should add a disclaimer that the gross is calculated differently with your source supporting that. Celestra (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be verbose. I think it is better to sit out the next couple of weeks maintaining the status quo. As more information becomes available about the box office performance of Endhiran, the box office section could be updated. Now, it's hardly ten days since release.Anwar (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that the entertainment tax is not collected only in Tamil Nadu. But the rest of world puts entertainment tax. So enthiran's 117 crore net is not actually equal to gross and gross must be more than 117.

Edit request from 122.26.129.29, 12 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I don't understand the reason to give importance to dabangg movie in Endhiran article.

As for as First weekend collection is concerned, it is said to be Rs 95 crores there are so many websites that support this fact but the first weekend collection information itself is not required to be mentioned in the article for the purpose of promoting debangg moview in the article instead endhiran since endhiran movie has set new one week collection record compare with all indian movies.

If you want to support debangg movie or criticize endhiran movie then please start your own website or blog and upload your view there , please don't use Wikipedia for your personal view.

Editors: Celestra and Anwar looks like these two are editing this article without neutral and they are using this space to promote their view by supporting hindi movie particularly khan's movies.

I will request all other neutral editors to edit this article with best of the actual fact details . 122.26.129.29 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is not a place for requesting the deletion of an article. --Stickee (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Box office split

User:Eelamstyle seems to have some problem in splitting the box office section into two - India and Overseas - like Bollywood film articles. He is trying to bunch all info together. It is difficult to read. Any thoughts? Anwar (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Anwar, first of all, what do you mean "it's difficult to read"? You're splitting two small paragraphs into different lines of paragraphs that are made up of one sentence each--how in the world do you see that easier to read than two simple paragraphs. The first paragraph describes Enthiran's box office results in India while the second one describes its business overseas--it's DEAD SIMPLE that way, so I don't understand why you think two short and simple paragraphs are "difficult to read." Plus there is no rule on Wikipedia that tells editors to have Box office sections of Bollywood films split with subheadings as "India" and "Overseas"--it's optional to do so when necessary. What if we only had just one sentence of info for both India and Overseas business of Enthiran? Would you still give them subheadings just for one sentence information? Use your common sense. If the Box office section is made of multiple paragraphs (more than 2 that is) we can give them appropriate subheadings. Right now, with the two simple paragraphs, one describing Indian business while the other describes overseas business, it's perfectly fine and clear. Subheadings aren't necessary at the moment unless you find more information that requires more paragraphs, like I said. Also, why do you keep reverting edits by other constructive editors--that just shows you want articles to be kept just to your satisfaction. I added lots of sourced information and fixed up lots of grammatical mistakes which you kept deliberately reverting to your messy versions with split up paragraphs and lines, causing an edit war. If you want to update gross information like you usually do, or anything else, that's totally fine, just stop removing other's good faith edits. I'm hoping you will conform. EelamStyleZ (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will remove the subsections if it's such a bother. If the paras are small now, expand it adding more links in the future. Big deal. Anyway, I have also removed the conversion tag. But some IP is putting it back. So, you still have a battle at hand. That IP is not me. Also, I did not remove any refs you might have added. May be other IPs are busy doing that.
If you have a problem with only the Box Office section, do not blanket revert the article. You are removing the spelling corrections and other important ref links.Anwar (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movie collection record and costliest movie ever in India

This article is under strong scanner of very very bad editors/reviewers. Totally in-acceptable edits are done in this page. I would like to provide some most reliable/verifiable source here for other true/genuine administrators to have a look, to claim my point here. I am posting the original references/sources along with their About us/Contact details for their trust and verifiablity. All these sites are India's most trusted ones with hundreads of reporters,workers generating news.

http://www.bollypatrika.com/2010/10/11/box-office-report-endhiran-robot-rocks-and-crook-disappoints/ http://www.bollypatrika.com/2010/10/10/endhiran-box-office-whooping-117-crores-in-first-week-for-robot/

http://www.bollypatrika.com/about/

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/media/entertainment-/entertainment/Indias-most-expensive-film-Robot-sets-box-office-record/articleshow/6701064.cms http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6726467.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rs-117cr-in-just-7-days-Robot-Rajini-smashes-all-records/articleshow/6716660.cms

http://www.indiatimes.com/aboutus.cms

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/bollywood/Rajinikanth-beats-the-Khans/Article1-608663.aspx http://www.htmedia.in/Section.aspx?Page=Page-HTMedia-AboutUs

http://www.moneylife.in/article/78/9679.html http://www.moneylife.in/about_us.html

http://www.ndchronicle.com/news/Robot_or_Endhiran_box_office_collection_cross_Rs_117cr_in_just_7_days_1286649579/

http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?ID=ENTEN20100154445&keyword=regional&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/corporatepage/index.aspx

http://entertainment.in.msn.com/southcinema/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4256775

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/regional-goes-global/410296/ http://www.business-standard.com/india/common/aboutus.php

I want justice in this article to be done sooner. Please some administrators take care of this. Many people have faith/trust/truth on wiki articles and please restore them by removing all irrelavent/incorrect/inappropriate edits being done here. Interestingly many people are not permitting the valid/correct statements for their own benefits and against neutral point of view.

Please take serious steps on this. Many thanks !!!

--Ungal Vettu Pillai 05:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats lots of reliable reference, what you wanted to change in article, please let us know so we can correct. KuwarOnline Talk 08:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Firstly I want to include these in the article. In the lead "Upon release, it enjoyed critical acclaim and commercial success across the globe[5][6][7][8], collecting an unprecedented Indian rupee 95 crores in the opening weekend, breaking many records at the box office within the first week of its release. Eventually it went on to become the highest grossed Indian film Indian rupee with 117 crores in its firstweek, breaking the records earlier held by Dabangg. Note here: the reference number must be kept as where I did here, bcoz all those 5 6 7 8 proves it is critically & commercially successful across globe. But does not reveal about number 62 crores as present form. But the sources I provided clearly says it has got 95 crores in opening weekend and 117 crores in first week.
Also in the lead "Produced by Kalanidhi Maran and Hansraj Saxena, it is known for being the most expensive film in Asia ever made, officially budgeted at ₹162 crores.". NDTV source clearly proves it.
Finally if you raise any question further on verifiability then I have same 100% doubt on all those links you provided or already listed. I am not ready to accept Boxofficeindia.com if you are not ready to accept Times of India/Economictimes of India/NDTV/moneylife/hindustantimes and all etc., Please do not mistake me that I want to compare endhiran to dabangg. But the fact should be accepted whatever it is beyond our own likes/dislikes. I feel Endhiran facts are all missing and less focus given to it comparing to the previuos record collection movie from India Dabangg. Because too much facts inserted in second-lead-para of Dabangg's collection, whereas no one letting/permitting endhiran to be edited in correct way with neutral view itself.
Do not be one-sided and rude here by not accepting/considering others concerns with all source given following wiki rules. Already among many endhiran lead paras have created a big big worst dis-respect for Wikipedia becoz of its worst edit, showing incorrect data/facts. I hope you understand me. wikipedia is for all than you/me. Thanks !!

--Ungal Vettu Pillai 10:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Enthiran is not the most expensive Asian film. That honour belongs to Red Cliff. Your links point to tabloid not specialist trade web sites like boxofficeindia.com, ibosnetwork.com. Stop trolling. Anwar (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this table to the article

Global Box Office Tally
Territory Screens Screen % Gross
(₹ crore)
(7-day total) 		Gross % Trade Note
Tamil Nadu 555 25% 57 39% Hit
Andhra Pradesh 525 23% 34 23% Hit
Kerala 128 6% 9 6% Hit
Karnataka 45 2% 2 2% Hit
Rest of India 700 31% 15 10% Flop
Domestic Total 1,953 87% 117 80% -
Rest of the World 300 13% 30 20% Hit
World Total 2,253 100% 147 100% -

Adding this table gives a clear picture of the film's performance in several markets. As the film has been declared flop in Bollywood, it is unlikely to reset any record. It is unfortunate.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enthiran&oldid=390630785"