Talk:Krull (film)

Based on a Book?

Is it? Is there a book version? (and I don't mean a novelization of the movie) 66.189.38.183 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Crunch Wrap Supreme?

I laughed at the reference, but I'm not sure the similarity of Taco Bell's Crunch Wrap Supreme is really all the pertinent to this article.

Alan Dean Foster

The IMDb listing for Krull only mentions Stanford Sherman as the writer, but this article also credits Alan Dean Foster with a novel credit. This implies that Foster wrote a novel and Sherman based his screenplay on the book. However, the Alan Dean Foster article lists Krull under his "Media Novelizations," which suggests that Sherman wrote the original work, and Foster based his book on the screenplay. The question is this: Is Foster's book the adaptation, or Sherman's screenplay? If Foster merely wrote the adaptation, he should be removed from this article. -- Fogelmatrix 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a novelization. I own a copy of the book. Its currently in storage so when I get a chance to get to it, ill verify this. Out of interest, AD Foster wrote alot of book version of movie, including the aliens movies.--Dem 12:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Plot

I removed the link to the page on glaives, because the one in the movie has nothing to do with them. -Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.1.161 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I hate film plots that are left hanging, so I finished off this one as I watched it (slightly tired) so please do give it more than a brief scan if you've just watched it and edit as necessary Alastairward (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fire Mares

Previously in the Production section:

• The Fire Mares, steeds that travel so fast they leave a trail of flame and can defy gravity, are played by Shire horses.

However, I just watched the making-of featurette on the DVD, and they say there that the horses are Clydesdales, which are a slightly different kind of horse. I'm changing the text, but I wanted to save that here on the off chance the actors didn't know what they were talking about. brain (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Score / Soundtrack / Music

"The film's most distinguished features include a robust score by James Horner..."

The score was lifted quite heavily from the score Horner did for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.45.29 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an editorial slant in the Music section. I am inferring that one could not tell the difference between two different movies by listening to the music. Does the article intend to say that some of the same musical themes from Wrath of Khan also are played note for note in Krull? If so there needs to be a citation from an article that says just that. Thanks much, Group29 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the claim is in relation to Horner's well-known practice of re-using partial themes in his own music in different scores. One can hear the difference between the two scores, but there are also portions that are remarkably similar. Makes sense to slap a cite tag on it since right now it stands as original research. There are some soundtrack websites out there which have written on this before, so we should be able to dig up a source. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked for a source on this last week, but didn't find anything super sterling in terms of reliability at the time after a cursory search. There's surely something out there though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

i would like to add this actor to krull page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Battley

Any one who has seen the movie knows David played a main characterand he should be added to the krull page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.194.15 (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rooms with spikes

Does anyone else think that the scene where Torquil and the others are trapped in the room with the spikes that slowly extend and kill one of them influenced the similar scene in Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom? Worthy of a mention? VenomousConcept (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Krull was released in late July, 1983, while principal photography on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom wrapped in mid August. While it's not out of the realm of reason, it's pretty unlikely. In any case, without a proper source, it's no better than speculation. Grandpallama (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Shooting lighting out of his arse"

"ability to project flame" This comes out of nowhere and would get a big WTF from anyone that didn't see the movie. This really needs to mention this comes from the flame from the wedding ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.110.146 (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Reception

The "Reception" section for Krull notes that it got pretty lousy reviews. However all the quoted examples seem rather positive. Shouldn't there be some contemporary examples of more negative reviews? StoneProphet11 (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Be bold. Grandpallama (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, be accurate. The film received relatively good reviews. The Rotten Tomatoes counts are dominated by a technically inferior home video release, which was later replaced by a repaired version. The fact that one editor is obsessed with privileging the opinions of non-notable bloggers and online commenters over the opinions of highly notable, highly competent critics doesn't justify riddling Wikipedia with inaccurate commentary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That is patently and absurdly false, as I have advised you on more than one occasion, including on your talkpage when you were warned about edit warring on this page, misrepresenting Maslin as having highly praised the film, and not engaging in discussion. It's a bizarre claim to suggest that Siskel & Ebert and John Kenneth Muir (as well as the aforementioned Janet Maslin) are not highly notable, highly competent critics who gave negative (or in her case, lukewarm) contemporary reviews of the film; it's equally bizarre that you continued to claim RT distorted contemporary reception, even though a significant number of the reviews that it included were--surprise--contemporary. The reason the film got lousy reviews but the article (previously) had only positive quotes is because of your odd refusal to accept consensus. I'm glad there has been significant cleanup since then, although the Maslin quotations still erroneously suggest she wrote a more glowing review of the film than she actually did. I see you only showed up on the talk page three years later to sling some unsubstantiated and borderline insulting claims around. Grandpallama (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Connection to Discworld

The first Discworld novel, The Colour of Magic, was published in November 1983, a month before the film came out in the UK, and features a kingdom named Krull. Is there any connection between the two? I haven't seen the film (or read the plot synopsis here due to spoilers) but even so, the names seem to be just a coincidence. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest is anything other than a simple coincidence. The sound of the word Krull evokes other words like skull or cull, and sounds close enough to an English word so the writer may have created the word. It isn't in the dictionary making easier to copyright or trademark which helps. The alien race of Skrulls first appeared in Mavel comics in the '60s but there's no reason to believe there's any connection there either. The character Kull predates them all given the mashup of sci-fi and fantasy maybe that was an influence, but who knows. Apparently Krull is a surname of German origin, so another possibility but nonetheless coincidence is still by far the most likely answer. -- 109.78.201.130 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Budget

• The Infobox currently claims that the budget was $47 million but no reference is provided.
• The article text says the budget was $30 million according to Starlog magazine.
• Another part of the text mentions "reported budget of over $45–50 million" (and it is strange to be "over" when giving a range). It isn't clear where these figures come from either.
• A review from Variety magazine says the film was "Lavishly mounted at a reported cost of $27 million"

Box Office Mojo does not list a budget figure. The Numbers does not list a budget figure. I know it is not a reliable source but IMDB lists the budget at $47 million.

It wouldn't surprise me if the $47 million figure came from Wikipedia editors looking at $45-50 and taking an average, then someone else rounding down. Can anyone clarify where any of these figures came from? (It looks a lot like IMDB.) If these figures cannot be reliably sourced then they should be disregarded. With any British made film we must also be careful that figures listed as in British pounds £, did not accidentally get changed to US dollars $ thereby falsely inflating the costs. ($50 million seems unrealistically huge for a film of that era, $27 million is still a huge budget for a British made film in the 80s.)

Variety magazine is by far the most reputable source, and Starlog magazine have a very similar figure but rounded up to the nearest 10 million. While Template:Infobox film warns against cherry picking sources, we shouldn't give undue weight to unreliable information, and Infobox documentation shouldn't trump the basic rule of reliable sources. Can anyone provide more reliable sources, or give any good reason why this article should not consistently use the budget figure of $27 million? -- 109.76.138.146 (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the article history and for a long time both the Infobox and the text of the article include the range $45-50 million. It goes way back and $45-50 million budget range was added by User:Inkspot in 2006 when the Infobox was added. In 2013 there was an edit that requested a citation for the claimed budget range. In 2015 an anonymous IP Editor arbitrarily and with no explanation split the difference and changed the budget in the infobox to $47.000.000 and subsequent edits in from the same IP block made corrections, and only in 2018 was it changed from $47,000,000 to $47 million. These figures have no credibility.

Starlog magazine put the budget at $30 million, specifically Starlog magazine 76, November 1983. This figure is repeated three times, the article subheading reads "Creating a $30 million world for a laser-and-lance fantasy can be an earth-shattering task." and the figure is mentioned twice more in the article text on the same page. (Somewhat confusingly the named reference for this information is "Naha49", but the magazine page itself has the number 48 at the bottom corner of the page, and the archive lists it as page 47 because Starlog magazine counts the cover as page 1. I'm not entirely sure how best to clean this up without having to deal with {{Sfn}} or {{Rp}} so I'm definitely leaving that for someone else to fix.)

Variety magazine put the budget at $27 million in an article dated December 31, 1982. While I still think Starlog were rounding the budget figure to the nearest 10 million, and that the "industry bible" Variety is a far more credible I suppose listing the budget as a range $27-30 million would be ok, and I'm going to make that change now. -- 109.78.201.130 (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)