Talk:Ator

	Film portal This article 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
	This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Untitled

no reason why detail can't appear on two pages -- especially when the the details differ, and actually cover different films. (Ator 2 vs. Cave Dwellers)

not a question of "can" or "can't" but "should" or "shouldn't". Material about Ator as a character should appear on the Ator page. Material about bloopers that happened to happen in the films where he appeared is irrelevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscholarship is always irrelevant. Congratulations, AF.

If you want to actually help Wikipedia, why not try adding material that Wikipedia doesn't already have, in places where it is appropriate? If you just want to swing your mighty "I can point out errors in a film that Mystery Science Theater 3000 pointed out for me" wang, why not find somewhere other than Wikipedia to do it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You're very well informed; and very smart, too! Please provide any other free anaylsis. Thanks.

Sure. Try going to List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, finding a red link for an episode you know, and starting an article on it. Remember to put [[Category:MST3K movies]] at the end of the article. Also keep in mind as you write that the article is about the movie itself, rather than the episode MST3K built around the movie; while its appearance on MST3K may be all that makes the movie notable, try to keep the comments relevant to the movie itself, not just to MST3K's rendition of it. Good luck! -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

whoops; you went a little bit far with the conjecture -- i haven't seen that episode of mst; my friends and i bought a blademaster vhs tape in the dollar bin one night in 1994. BTW -- i have a large number of scientific journal articles in print; your encouragement to write is cute, but you're too late. don't be so serious, homie.

Ridiculous

This film is not a parody of Conan, and the article is even wrong about the demographics of Conan. Was there a lick of research here? If we are going to say Ator was borrowed from Conan, then so was Krull and a host of other fantasy heroes. Conan was Cimmerian from the Hyborean age, not European in any form. Jeesh! 99.24.188.140 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the author(s) is/are thinking of the first Conan film, which the first Ator movie clearly mimics, and not the character as a whole. That being said, the rest of your points still stand. Conan of the stories is proto-Celtic, while Schwarzenegger is Austria, so neither of them are "East European" as the article claim. Both the Conan films and the literature take place in a specified part of prehistory, not "an unspecified time periods based on the Middle Ages". Furthermore, the film took more from early Asian culture than medieval Europe, whereas the literature took inspiration from a multitude of different cultures from human history. I'll clean this up shortly. --Painocus (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect IMDB Information

The entry for Ator l'invincibile 2 stated "It has remained in the top twenty of IMDB's Worst Films List ever since the website's creation." Not only is this not cited, IMDB's Bottom 100 list (the site does not have a "Worst Films List") has the film listed as #44 (under the title "The Blade Master (1984)"). Last I checked #44 is not in the top 20.

Source: http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.50.157 (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]