Talk:Flesh and Blood (1985 film)

	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 Spanish cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Landsknecht?

In an earlier version of this article, it was alluded to that Capt. Hawkwood was loosely based on the historical Sir John Hawkwood, an English condottiero. I can see removing that, as there is little similar between the fictional and historical figures other than the sharing of a surname and their employment in Italy. However, now someone has added the statement that the mercenaries depicted are landsknecht. Is it ever stated in the film that they are anything other than simply mercencaries? Not all mercenaries were landsknecht; would it not be more likely that they were condottieri (due to the location and time period)? Or perhaps some other mercenary group not at all related to either of these? Landsknecht were known for their flashy dress, as were Swiss mercenaries; the characters in the film are rather grubbily attired. We need a source for citation, please. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog in the well

"In a last-ditch effort, Hawkwood flings pieces of diseased, dead dog into the castle via catapult. One chunk lands in the castle's well, near the chained Steven, effectively poisoning the water supply."

It didn't happen this way. The pieces of dog all land in the courtyard. They are all burned by the inhabitants of the castle, except for one piece that is overlooked. This one is found by Steven, picked up with a dagger and thrown in the well with the intention of spreading the plague. I have watched this movie yesterday, so my memory is still fresh on this. Codegrinder (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

& or +

Which should connect the first and last words of the film's name? Alastairward (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should definately be "+"

Could we change the title to "Flesh+Blood" then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.12 (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal

I doubt that the Cardinal is a real one. Isn't he just a mystic dressed as a cardinal? --Error (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always wondered if was myself perhaps he once was or more likely he is an unhinged former mercenary who stole the clothing. But since it is not stated either way we cant really say. 71.222.90.173 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article to use + sign

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move to Flesh and Blood (1985 film) per discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh & Blood (film) → Flesh+Blood – According to multiple sources, the first two of which I would call highly reliable on such details,

The IMDB
Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide
allmovie.com
A contributor two sections back on this talk page

the title of this movie is spelled with "+", not "&". And the article's text currently uses the "+" sign also.

So the article title should be changed to match.

There is some disagreement between sources as to whether there are spaces around the "+" sign. Maltin's guide and allmovie.com use spaces; the IMDB does not, and the article currently does not. The image of the poster or video box at allmovie.com pretty clearly does not have spaces, so I think that must be the correct version. I therefore suggest renaming the article to simply Flesh+Blood.

Currently Flesh + Blood is a redirect to the Flesh and Blood disambiguation page; I think it should be changed to redirect to the film, as this is apparently the only one of the disambiguation targets that uses the + sign. It would not hurt to have Flesh+Blood (film) and Flesh + Blood (film) as additional redirects; alternatively, one of these could be the new title.

This should be an uncontroversial move, but I not (and will not be) registered with Wikipedia, so I can't do it myself.

--65.94.113.134 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it should be Flesh and Blood (1985 film) per MOS:TM. The plus version should remain a redirect to the disambiguation page -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree it should be Flesh and Blood (1985 film). I changed the lead to say (stylized as Flesh+Blood). See Snow White and the Huntsman. — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:TM stylized name not necessary, not encouraged.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]