Talk:Dhoom 2

Comment by Bluerain

I recommend this article be deleted, till the movie releases, or atleast till its advertisements start appearing in the media. As such this article is nothing more than speculation. I am new here, so I'm really not aware of the procedure of deleting pages. Also, if Wikipedia does not mind articles on future films being posted, I'd still atleast recommend this article be extensively edited. I'd do it myself, but frankly, this being my first post, I'm scared! --Bluerain 13:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Another sequel may be produced if this film becomes a success." --What? How is this trivia? If it really belongs here, then this should be in the trivia section of every movie ever made.

Alright, I cut off quite some stuff, and cleaned up the article. About the 'Rumoured Plot', I really don't know where that came from, so I've left it on from the last edit with some minor changes. --Bluerain 13:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Download link

What is rapidshare link for Dhoom 2 trailer been posted in article. The trailer can be viewed at http://www1.yashrajfilms.com/

POV

You can't write things like "very stylish I must admit" in Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not someone's diary.

Semi-protected

This page has been semi-protected due to large amounts of vandalism and uncited additions by anonymous users. Protection is not meant to be a permanent solution, however. It's only meant to be used for a short period of time. Either myself or any other admin can remove the protection from the article on request or when it seems likely the vandalism has died down a bit. Please note that I am not monitoring this article. --Yamla 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not advertising

Somebody posted on the page that dhoom 2 info looks like advertising. this page is sam as any upcoming moviepages like spider man 3 or anything else. All the info is informatice but not advertising.

Rumored plot

Why was this section removed? Fire 02:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this sentence: "Shahrukh Khan is rumored to be the villian in Dhoom 3" because the article specifically says that there is not going to be a Dhoom 3. In other words, this is an unsubstantiated rumour about an unsubstantiated rumour. If someone has a citation or an impartial third-party source to back up both rumours, by all means put it back. Accounting4Taste 20:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Music Review

Yamla the music review link was removed from the talk page and I know it looks like it was for advertising but I thought it provided more value than other external links on the page( for example more pictures/more trailer type links). Is there another way to post it so that it doesn't look like spam or advertising? I have no problems posting the entire article here, but then I didn't think that was the right way to do it.....Please advise I am a newbie...

Story

I don't think we should have the story of the movie in this article. It's a newly released movie, having a story section may ruin the movie for those who are yet to watch it. Atleast a spoiler warning should be placed, i feel.

Budget

The budget of the film is no where near 150 crore Irs around 40-55 cr. Plz verify —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.177.165.85 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

CHARACTERS

JAI DIXIT (ABHISHEK BACHCHAN)

In a world ridden with crime and criminals, the need of the hour is a law enforcement officer who can bring things to order. A tough yet sharp Super Cop.

ACP Jai Dixit is all this and more. A Super Cop with a mission... to put an end to crime. As always he believes that it is his job to eliminate crime, not the criminal. A no-nonsense police officer, he fights his battle against all odds and leads from the front.

His newest assignment - Mr. “A” - an international thief. How do you catch a thief who leaves behind no clues... who no one has ever seen.

Jai Dixit has a plan. He rises up to the challenge and is soon on the trail of the Master Thief.

But is it that he has met his match this time?

SUNEHRI (AISHWARYA RAI)

Sunehri, the “golden girl” treats every opportunity as a golden chance. She stays in the suburbs of Mumbai, but dreams big. She dreams of Amsterdam, of Australia… even America. 

Spunky, spontaneous and sexy, Sunehri lives life one day at a time. The danger or repercussion of anything never occurs to her sharp yet innocent mind. And that is probably because nothing really bad has ever happened to her. But the most significant event that does occur is when Aryan comes into her life.

From that moment her life takes a new turn; actually a couple of turns. The resulting 'spin' takes her on a ride she won't forget in a hurry.

SHONALI BOSE (BIPASHA BASU)

She is attractive, intelligent, vivacious, honest, sexy, hardworking, beautiful and an awesome dancer. 

All these qualities not being any kind of pre-requisite, she is a police officer. ACP Shonali Bose is a cop and a damn good one.

Like her college mate Jai Dixit, she too works in great detail to get into the mind of the criminal. And that's what she has done for the last two years. She is an expert on Mr. “A”.

Having won many medals for being the best sharpshooter in the force, it can be said that she never misses her target. The only difference between her and Jai is that she wouldn't think twice before shooting down a criminal.

Nothing personal… it's just what she believes - one criminal dead is one criminal less!

ARYAN (HRITHIK ROSHAN)

He works alone! 

He trusts no one!

No one has seen him!

He pulls off the most daring and impossible heists. He comes out of nowhere and disappears without a trace. Police all around the world are baffled. His methods are innovative and modern. His planning, flawless.

He's cool, he's hot. He's smooth yet tough. With looks that could make any woman go weak in the knees, there is finesse in everything he does. A connoisseur, he has style and a fine taste for all the things in life; be it food, wine or clothes.

As Jai Dixit says at one point… He's the perfect thief!

He is Aryan. He is the elusive Mr. “A”!

But it is said that all criminals make at least one mistake.

Does Aryan slip up? Does he make that one fatal error?

ALI (UDAY CHOPRA)

His “Mummy” is definitely watching over him as his guardian angel. But Ali still doesn't take his life too seriously. 

Although, he is now a police officer and Jai Dixit's partner, the equation between them is still the same. He still loves riding his bike. He still falls in love with every single woman he meets! And he still gets regularly reprimanded by Jai Dixit.

He still has his yellow bike and still feels very much at home in Jai's house. He still believes that life is simple and that it is we who complicate it.

He still has a big heart and a smile that is even bigger.

And it is still true that he and Jai make a great team. He is fiercely loyal to Jai and if push comes to shove, he will go to any extent to fight for him.

And he's still funny… actually… funnier!

SYNOPSIS

The world's oldest desert, the Namib…

A solitary railway line…

A royal family on a royal journey…

From the sky, like lightning… a FLASH!

The centuries old Royal Crown is stolen!

BACK IN ACTION... DHOOM:2 reinvents the action comedy genre and propels it into the 21st century.

Ali's (Uday Chopra) dream of becoming a police officer has come true. He is now ACP Jai Dixit's (Abhishek Bachchan) 'right hand man'. Together, they are trying to keep a tight leash on the crime in India. Little do they know what they are going to be up against.

Enter Aryan - Mr. A (Hrithik Roshan) - A hi-tech international thief. After pulling off a series of impossible heists all over the world, his next target is Mumbai, India. The case is given to ACP Jai and Ali. Helping them put the pieces of the puzzle together is ACP Shonali Bose (Bipasha Basu), Jai's college mate, now a police officer in her own right. For the last two years Shonali has been tracking these amazing thefts and is now an expert on this thief, who no one has seen.

Once in Mumbai, Mr. A finds his match in Sunehri (Aishwarya Rai), a petty yet clever thief. She makes him an offer he finds very hard to refuse. A partnership! Aryan accepts.

And so the game begins - a game of cat and mouse - a game of good v/s bad.

The “COPS” - Jai, Shonali and Ali; and they are after Aryan and Sunehri - “The ROBBERS”.

From the desert of Namibia to the backwaters of Goa, the mean streets of Mumbai and the ancient forts of Rajasthan, and finally to “Wild n Exotic” Rio, Brazil.

Does ACP Jai Dixit manage to nab Mr. A? Or does Mr. A prove to be too much for him?

Never-Seen-Before Action Sequences, Hi-Tech Heists, Breathtaking Hi-Speed Chases, Non-Stop Laughter and Excitement will lead you to the answer to these questions.

Ruthless trimming

I removed the most contestable trivia (and left fact tags on the rest). I boiled the synopsis down to one para, removing advertising language, amateur poetry, etc. Zora 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You have much improved the article. --Yamla 17:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis

It is not kind to readers to post synopses that consist of long paragraph-less recountings of every single twist and turn of the plot. All that does is prove that the writer saw the movie. It's boring, it's impossible to READ, and in the case of a recent movie, it's unkind to people who haven't seen the movie yet. The spoiler warning is useless when everything is on the same page -- you see it whether you consciously choose to do so or not. If you don't like the current synopsis, expand it to two short paras and try to be concise and readable. Zora 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's "Copacobana" not "Cocobana" -Anonymous

DVD Audio, a first?!

Hi. Jus came across this article and saw the referenced link which says that the release of the audio in DVD format is an industry first. However, in the article, it is noted that this was done for the first time in India. I do not need any referenced sources, however I know that this is not the first time that an Indian film's soundtrack is being released in the DVD Audio (5.1) format. The first Indian film to do so is the 2004 Tamil (Kollywood) film, directed by Shankar and music directed by A. R. Rahman, Boys. I know this to be an incontestable fact since I myself have seen the DVD soundtrack in stores (Planet M, Landmark, even in Hyderabad). However, since Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines state that it is not truth, but verifiable, published content which is to be referenced in articles, I dunno what to do. If anyone could find the required references and make the appropriate changes, it'd be good. Thanks! aJCfreak yAkBaK 10:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Clips of songs

I've just deleted a link to a site which apparently has posted clips from the movie of all the songs. I looked through the site but cannot find any reference to it being official, which makes me strongly think that the site is violating copyright (and thus Wikipedia should not be linking to it). If this site is somehow official then please indicate that and perhaps provide some justification for this link. Accounting4Taste 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just deleted a link to a site that has posted lyrics of all the songs from the movie. I said in my edit summary that it was a pop-up farm, but I have to take that back -- it's just a fansite. However, the posting of the lyrics is a total copyright violation AFAIK, so I believe the removal is justified. Accounting4Taste 16:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Box Office Disaster

Someone wrote the following:

"The film lacked appropriate screenplay and logical flow of the plot. As a result this movie was a complete disaster at the box office and failed to keep the charisma of the original John Abraham starrer Dhoom which was a super-hit."

This is clearly untrue, as the film is known to have done very well in India, and is on the list of the highest grossing Bollywood films and that the original Dhoom was not a super-hit. Trinindian83 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dhoom 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SnottyWong talk 01:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article for GA status and I am quick-failing the article because it has a valid cleanup tag on it. The grammar of this article is rather poor, and just about the entire article needs a copyedit before it can even be evaluated for GA status. When the grammar has been fixed, please feel free to renominate the article for a more thorough and serious review for GA status. SnottyWong talk 01:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No soundtrack?

How can we have a Bollywood article, pretty well filled out like this one is, but missing soundtrack information? Its almost unbelievable. Was it removed on purpose? Wouldn't make sense because Lage Raho Munna Bhai, a featured article has OST info. BollyJeff || talk 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since no response, I added it. BollyJeff || talk 03:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please help me to get an image of the soundtrack so that I can complete this correctly. I am almost done cleaning up the article for resubmission, but would really like to have the soundtrack section complete with picture and info box. BollyJeff || talk 18:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dhoom 2/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Written in clear language, with good flow and article structure.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, covers many aspects of the film's production, reception, etc, nice work.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article indeed appears written with a neutral tone.

5. Article stability? Talk page history and dialogue seems fine

6. Images?: Multiple images used fair use rationale on image pages.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Wildroot (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Box office section written badly

Dhoom 2 is an Indian film. Hence, the Indian box office has to precede the foreign box office. And whoever has written the box office section is seemingly a South-based editor, for he has only mentioned the collections state-wise (and that too only Southern Indian states, which are not major markets for Hindi films), when it should be declared for India as a whole, as in Box office records, first weekend, first week, etc. I cannot understand how this article reached GA without considering this! If I can, I will rewrite the entire box office section. In case I can't, I request another editor to completely rewrite the section so that it suits the article better. Cheers!!! AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 09:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not completely rewritten, but I did make a few changes based on your suggestions; may do some more later. BollyJeff || talk 18:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section

What is the problem in having that content in controversy section? the kiss thing did spark controversy that time. If you want, you can remove the line about marriage.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The case, which was filed to get publicity, got thrown out of court.[1][2]. Judge ruled that it was nothing outlandish and had been going on forever. Sex and kissing have been existant in India from the time of it's inception-as evident by India's existence and the continuation of her booming population. Judge made it clear that: "just because someone is not pretty enough to get kissed by girls doesn't mean that he gets the carte blanche to file outlandish court cases"--Isaacsirup (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Kindly provide a reliable reference. The one you have given is a blog, which is not considered reliable according to WP:RS. If you are going to cite population then sex and kissing has been existing in all the places of world whereever humans live. The controversy is not about kissing it is about "kissing on screen". So kindly use bit more rational and to the point arguments. Plus, to cite an external website on talk page use format [websitelink.com somename] instead of <ref></ref> tags. That way you won't have to use {{Reflist}} template. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, this obvious publicity stunt was summarily thrown out of court-the actors did not go to jail. So this information doesn't belong here. Even until then, onscreening kissing was nothing new to Bollywood. Two of the countless examples include Bobby (1973 film) and Raja Hindustani-both of these were bigger hit than Dhoom 2--Isaacsirup (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that kissing was not new in Dhoom2. In fact in Maya Memsaab, Deepa Sahi appeared topless also. So first I ask you again to provide a reference that the case was thrown out as publicity stunt. Second even if the case was thrown out of court, controversy did happen and does deserve a mention as it was definitely very notable. As important as she explained herself on Interview with David Frost--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai told David Frost that she was simply amazed beyond words by the case as kissing had been and continued to be norm in Bollywood till the very minute she was saying it[3] In fact, appearing topless is also not new to Bollywood. Maya Memsaab is just one of many examples. This is a source that states that the case was dismissed: http://worldnews.about.com/od/indiathenewsfromindia/p/aishwaryarai.htm --Isaacsirup (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion and you are not picking up my question. So I rephrase it. Do you think that kiss controversy was not notable?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It would've been notable had it not been summarily dismissed by court. This is how it works on Wikipedia. The Indian media talks about Shahrukh's new haircut-but this doesn't make it notable enough to be included on Wikipedia--Isaacsirup (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I know you are not going to agree, so lets leave it here and wait for someone else to check this. Cases do not go to court about Shahrukh's hair and he doesn't explain about it years later at an international interview. And how will someone who is less then a day old on WP, will know how things are done on WP?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess you meant "less than a day old." Maybe because this guy liked Shahrukh's new haircut and stubble XD--Isaacsirup (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Bollyjeff, since you worked a lot on this article. Can you give some opinion here. Also, can you check out Talk:Karisma_Kapoor#Sunjay_Kapur_or_Kapoor and give your comments.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I am okay with this being left out. It is pretty silly, and doesn't help you understand the film any better. Now if there had been any real consequences, like changing the rating, or banning in certain countries, then yes; but it seems to have had no effect. BollyJeff | talk 12:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dhoom 2. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121127115503/http://ibnlive.in.com:80/news/masands-verdict-go-dhoom-2/26974-8-1.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/news/masands-verdict-go-dhoom-2/26974-8-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dhoom 2. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612135713/http://businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=3167 to http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=3167

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)