Jump to content

Talk:Solomon Kane (film)

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

Budget wrong

[edit]

Hi everyone, sry if I'm doing this wrong (new to wikiediting) but I've just seen the movie and then looked up this page and noticed the wrong budget. I hope someone who knows his way around wikiediting can include this information in the article.

While Michael J. Bassett succeded to make this movie feel like a "big" picture, even more a good one, it is not in terms of it's budget it seems. This is what he has to say on his blog on that topic:

(Tell us how you went from voicing and operating Scally the Dog on CITV to writing and directing a 40 million dollar action adventure film?) "Oh boy, I wish it had been $40million dollars…Every time I read a budget number for Kane it seems to have doubled… The producers wouldn’t thank me for offering an exact figure, so I won’t but just don’t believe all you read."

Also from the sounds of it on his blog he is facing the same "issue" in terms of budget with the second movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.239.4 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100 Million Krüger-Rand obviously went into the pockets of the critical reviewers...--77.187.145.220 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You tube

[edit]

The link now come up with removed due to coyright violations, this link should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero Films?

[edit]

I'm not so sure this should be considered a superhero film. Having read a bit of Conan and considerably less Solomon Kane, it seems like he's just a 16th-century incarnation of Howard's usual "ultimate badass" character (Kull, Conan, Bran Mak Morn). Since I checked, and Conan didn't make the Superhero Films list, why should Solomon Kane?70.62.62.18 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point very well taken. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening scene gaffe

[edit]

This movie opens with a subtitle that showing the year to be 1600 while also showing a man of war flying a Union Jack. Now first of all the Union Flag wasn't even conceived til 1603, and even then, Royal Navy ships would use a White Ensign.

Worthy of mention in the article? I never studied history at school past age 13 and even I noticed this error right away! JieBie (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather silly anachronism. I think its worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could be included but you'll need a valid reference for it (otherwise it is Original Research, which will probably be deleted). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Original Research is irrelevant here. There are two facts - the film shows a date of 1600; in this case the film is its own reference. Second, for the Union Flag, just go to the Wikipedia link, where the history of the flag (with numerous refs) can be seen. Ergo, one date clearly contradicts the other, and there is no original research or synthesis made. But still I doubt its worth mentioning in the article. The Yeti (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, on 12 April 1606, the Union Flag was instituted by King James I, to represent the regal union between England and Scotland. This royal flag was at first only for use at sea on civil and military ships of both England and Scotland, whereas land forces continued to use their respective national banners. In 1634, King Charles I restricted its use to the royal ships. 87.211.40.7 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Taskforce / American Films

[edit]

I've removed the American Taskforce item from the WP:FILM banner on this talk page but I have left Category:American films on the film page itself. Solomon Kane was not produced by an American company, was not filmed in America and its principal cast and crew were no American; so, it is not within the scope of the task force. The category might have other requirements of which I am unaware. The source, Robert E. Howard, was Texan (which might count) and I think that the rights holders, Paradox, moved from Sweden (I think) to Los Angeles at some point (which might also count if I am remembering correctly). I might remove the category later depending on future information or investigation, so if anyone supports or opposes this, feel free to comment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and now I have removed the category. I looked through the cast, crew, production companies and filming locations without finding anything linking this film to America. Other websites show it as "British/Czech/French." So, that's what I'm going with for now. Revert if you have better information. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening scene... gaffe? no, definitely a loud mistake!

[edit]

A warship is seen attacking the Norh African coast at the very beginning of the movie... but it's a 19th century ship! in an early 17th century battle??? The bow is clearly an 1820s style bow, like in the Belle Poule... Kintaro (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also flying the Union Flag (of Great Britain) several years too early... Argovian (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 1600 north African corsairs were more likeky to be raiding Britain than the other way round. This problem was not sorted out until they messed with Oliver Cromwell --Streona (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bust My Britches

[edit]

What. Was there a movie on Solomon Kane? Where? Was it shown in the US, 'cause I never heard of it! This is terrible. I suppose there wasn't enough money left over for signifcant advertising; or maybe "The Watchmen" movie over-shadowed it. Purefoy is an excellent actor and a crowd-pleaser here in the US. So, once again it seems passing strange that this movie went unnoticed. I mean, it's not even on cable here in the northeast. Oh, well. Time to rent the DVD. But a curious thing: If it was shown in the US, what was the bottom line in theatre receipts? I'm flabbergasted at this because weather the critics know it or not the title character hit a pivotal nerve in American history and folklore, like the Salem Witch Hunts, McCartheyism, and religious intolerance, among other themes close to any true-minded American mentality. 69.126.238.184 (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Vertverser[reply]

I remember when this movie's commerical aired on Tv, what most ppl thought of this movie was like: " meh "

and watched other movies like Watchmen instead.


Im very suprised about the high rating in the "Roten Tomatoes", ahem i just saw it on Tv. ( SVT 1 ,swedish tele )

and it was like a bad mix of Van Helsing,LOTR meets the Pilgrims with silly christian morality, bad and very silly "good vs. evil" dialogues/story movie..

I'd rate it 2.5/5 , mainly for the good sceenery.

What i was really suprised to see in this movie, was Pete Postlethwaite , because i thought he died ~2009, but i see now it was in 2011, shame, he was a pretty good actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byzantios (talk • contribs) 22:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has been screwing with the cast list

[edit]

I'm fairly unfamiliar with Wiki-editing (not done it for ~7 years) so forgive me if this is the wrong place.

Someone has clearly been having a laugh and attributing a huge number of people to roles which didn't exist, and as such they were not in the film. Most egregious was mention of Sammy L Jackson.

I tried to undo changes from the joker who did this (Mateus Marcelino dos Santos) but it refused to do so for some reason. I'm leaving it untouched for now, just in case someone else is in the middle of editing, plus I don't have the time, but I'll pop back and rectify this week when I get a moment.

It's one thing (not that I'd condone it) to vandalise a page for humour, or even with a political point, but this is neither funny nor inspiring ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.196.102 (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Monastery in 1600 ?

[edit]

Weren't they all dissolved/illegal?--Streona (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Solomon Kane (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solomon_Kane_(film)&oldid=1205355149"