Wikipedia

Talk:Red Cliff (film)/Archive 1

< Talk:Red Cliff (film)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Punkalyptic in topic Chinese v HK
Archive 1

New updates

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a third link for this page. It shows that Ken Watanabe is not Cao Cao anymore, and lists Zhao Wei as the actress for Sun Shangqiang. This makes some of the information on this page obsolete, and I don't know how to update very well. Could someone update this? Thanks.

-Laurie

Updated. Thanks for the contribution! --Plastictv 12:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Stunt Man Killed

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/06/10/woo.stuntman.ap/index.html

Stunt Man was killed on the set today. Someone added a sentence to the page but it should probably be reworded and sourced --Nephyrin (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Move (June 2006)

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
The Battle of Red Cliff → The Battle of Red Cliff (film)

The original title is too close to Battle of Red Cliffs, which is what the film is about. I just want to avoid any further confusion. I'm sorry for not doing adequate title research before creating the article. ~ Wave of Mutilation 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved --Henrygb 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way we can get a redirect from other searches for 'Battle of Red Cliffs', 'War at Red Cliffs', etc. with the (film) tag?

98.14.121.220 (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)== Inaccuracies ==

First the name should be Red Cliff instead of "The Battle of Red Cliff". Second Cao Cao will not be portrayed as a villian as in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Refer to the link (in Chinese) here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15.243.169.72 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Point noted about historical accuracy. i have read the linked article and i will note it in the article shortly. As for the film title, it is not yet determined as the film is far from complete. So i think we will stick to the current working title for now. --Plastictv 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
in ROTK, Cao Cao were portrayed less favourably than in history, he is clearly a better leader than Liu Bei (who is actually a much better general in real life than in story since all the good idea magically became zhuge's lol). Akinkhoo (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Why have a section that compares the movie to the novel when the movie isn't even based on the novel? Even though the director used the novel as a resource, this movie is not an adaptation. The section should be the differences between movie and actual history instead. 98.14.121.220 (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What I learned from this movie...

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Apparently, the ancient Chinese invented football, homing pigeons, and, most astonishingly, the Vulcan nerve pinch. I thought scene with the reflective shields was pretty funny too. Horses will not charge a solid infantry formation or a row of shields, whether it reflects or not. (Charles Martel proved this at Battle of Tours.) Kauffner (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't get the memo, this is a "film" not a "historical documentary". Trying using your brain once in a while. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, and what happened to the bridge in the Battle of Sterling Bridge in the movie Braveheart? Or what about how the Roman army broke formation and started barbarian brawling in the opening scene of Gladiator?

No movie ever made has historically accurate battle tactics...well maybe except Alexander, but the Persian army was still poorly represented. Yes I believe it is soccer - in the soccer wiki page and it says cuju is an ancestor of soccer. The Vulcan nerve pinch is an obvious exaggeration of acupuncture, and who knows about the pigeon part... Intranetusa (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, in 300, Leonides makes a big point about the importance of fighting in formation, but in the battle scenes it's every man for himself. In real-life ancient battles, the bodies were hacked apart -- I don't think any filmmaker has gone there. Kauffner (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What I learned from the movie is that Guan Yu seemed not able to ride his famous Chitu horse--208.120.205.83 (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe we should create a list (sarcastic) - because when I saw the testudo formation, I gave up~ (yup, that was the tipping point). TheAsianGURU (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed this section

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

"According to a report, some Chinese fans voiced objections over the choice as they felt that it was inappropriate for a Japanese actor to play the role of a Chinese historical figure. The report claimed that the protests influenced the decision of director John Woo, who eventually chose Zhang Fengyi for the role"

This is totally unconfirmed. The link that was given for this information did not support this viewpoint. The current view is that Ken Watanabe never signed in the first place.

Intranetusa 21:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference says exactly what you quoted above, specifically in the second last paragraph. By the way, when adding a new topic in the discussion pages, or user talk pages, it is customary to place it at the bottom of the page. You could also use the + sign on the right of "edit this page" tab to add a new topic. Welcome to Wikipedia, and have fun. --Plastictv 22:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm Chinese, and i find also playing the role of Zhuge liang by a Japanese actor is inappropriate, If you understand Chinese, you can go to the Chinese forum(like tieba.baidu.com), there's a lot of people have the same point of view. pensiero 20 july 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.178.23 (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello there pensiero,

  • First, we're talking about Ken Watanabe, not Takeshi Kaneshiro.
  • Second, maybe you should do some research first. Zhuge Liang is portrayed by Takeshi Kaneshiro who is not Japanese but Taiwanese. His father was partially Ryukian-Japanese and Han-Chinese and his mother was Taiwanese of Han descent. He grew up in Taiwan and can speak Mandarin, Cantonese, and Taiwanese/Ming Na, Japanese, and English. That makes him far more qualified to play any role in this movie than former cast member Chow Yun Fat, who speaks Cantonese and barely understandable Mandarin with a Cantonese accent.
  • Third, film is funded by Korean and Japanese companies. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a Japanese actor in this movie.
  • Finally, many Japanese movies are remade with all Chinese casts, and many Chinese classics are made by the Japanese. Why are you so concerned if the actor is Japanese? Chinese and Japanese people are both East Asian.

World War 2 was 50 years ago. It's sad that some people still hold on to old grudges and nationalistic tendencies. Intranetusa (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


I agree with pensiero. If the Chinese people finds it inappropriate to have a Japanese actor playing Cao Cao because he is an important historical figure, there is no reason why Zhuge Liang shouldn't be given the same consideration because he is definitely no less important. Zhuge Liang is no ordinary person - how could he be if he is the well-known symbol of intelligence in the Chinese Culture? For this reason, you cannot put a random person in his role and expect audiences to unconditionally accept that he is Zhuge Liang (no offence intended to Takeshi Kaneshiro's acting abilities). Unfortunately in Red Cliff, Takeshi Kaneshiro's Zhuge Liang looked like a young guy with very poor taste for fashion and hairstyle. And in 208 B.C., Zhuge Liang has somehow obtained a Taiwanese accent...

Oh well, at least audiences outside China probably won't experience this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.128.41 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be comparing those characters in the film to how they are portrayed in RTK or Sanguozhi or whatever. The film is not meant to be historically or politically accurate or whatsoever. It's John Woo's own version of the Battle of Red Cliffs and I think he deserves credit for making such an excellent epic film! Try to see the film from a neutral point of view. Many people would compare it with their knowledge of the Three Kingdoms and start saying, "This is not right, it should be....". As for how the characters look like in the film, it really depends on how the costume designers, hair stylists etc want them to look like. Takeshi Kaneshiro's from Taiwan, so I don't think he can really help it with his Taiwanese accent. The same goes for Chang Chen. You can't expect the actors to fake new accents just for the film. It'd be too hard on them. Lonelydarksky (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In the film Primary Colors, Emma Thompson did a wonderful job hiding her British accent in playing an American. And I'm sure there must be plenty of other examples because hiding an accent shouldn't be such a fiendish requirement for an actor. My guess is that John Woo didn't care.

In terms of not imposing historical accuracy on a film that was suppose to be fictional, I can remember in an interview John Woo said he will try to be as historically accurate as possible with Red Cliff. He even went as far as saying that he will NOT use ideas from Romance of the Three Kingdoms (which is funny, because Red Cliff contained Zhuge Liang borrowing the 100,000 arrows and summoning the Easterly Winds). John Woo did use some real historical records, as when Zhuge Liang was trying to persuade Sun Quan into an alliance early in the film, his words were derived from Sanguozhi. However, that was probably one of the most awkward incorporation of real history into a movie ever. It was inelegant, forced, and didn't even have any relevance to the rest of the film (e.g. one of Zhuge Liang's argument was that Cao Cao's army has travelled all the way from the north so they should be feeling tired. Never in the film did we get to see Cao Cao's army showing signs of exhaustion). There is absolutely nothing wrong with a director having his or her own vision for any historically significant event. However, if you badly incorporate history into fiction it will look almost hypocritical. Also, if the director has first stated upfront that he will try to be historically accurate, it has the potential of drastically changing the expectation of any viewer who knows about the event. When this expectation is not met, it can be quite distressing and disorientating.

I guess it was my own fault for listening to that interview, otherwise I probably would have enjoyed Red Cliff infinite times more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.128.41 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Leung Chiu Wai rejoining

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Look here and here... seems he's back again. Are the given facts accurate enough to put it into the article? Sarazyn • TALK • DE 18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's already updated. :) --Plastictv 07:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
ok, so you shouldn't object if I clean up the syntax by combining the two thoughts.

Sesesq (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC) what kind of dumb mediocre directors would dress up the late Han army with Qin dynasty terra-cota suit and armor of 400 years ago? that is one major, easy to catch mistake. Metal smelting and iron work was at its height in Han Dynasty, generals should be afford to wear shiny armors, instead they were given Qin leather low class armor. Mei Zhou Hou or Zhou Yu was a handsome marquis as his name suggested, instead, the directors put him on rag-tagged outfits and clothing, something at odd to the textbook. overall it's not a very well presented movie. people please study the Sui dynasty armor which was closer to the Han's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edluu (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a bigger and more serious problem. Some of the voices were dubbed to ensure a uniform Mandarin accent. Absolutely idiotic. Everyone sounds the same. Welcome to new Chinese cinema where actors don't even speak their own parts. Nice. Angry bee (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you have to allow for some creative license here. Besides, rank of the general determines subsidy of armor given. Also, the lamellar armour and scale worn is indeed representative of its time. Shiny-ness is due to armor maintenance, not quality of material. They were all wearing Lamellar armour. Perhaps you need to review Chinese armour which clearly illustrates that the terra-cotta armour is the same style of armour used at the end of the Han. Also, put comments like this in a new section. Annihilatron (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Substantial differences between the movie, novel and Chronicles

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I noticed that there is some controversy with that section. The credibility of some of the information there is being disputed. Can I request for any experts' assistance with correcting those flaws? I started that section and I do not wish to see it removed, as I feel that it's appropriate to provide a comparison between the movie, novel and history. I do not wish to see it turn into an IP battleground either. Can we discuss here instead? Thanks. Lonelydarksky (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

True, there is a great deal in that section that is invention or the result of imperfect memory. But this is an article about a piece of fiction based on a conflation of history and fiction - Resolving it is pointless, as is this section, as entertaining as it may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It may be worth reading this: MOS:FILM#Adaptations. We can talk about creative licensing taken with the historical account if we have reliable sources available. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits which do not address the issue directly

I'm rather irritated, or should i say, 'pissed-off', by the recent edits made to this section. Some of those who have edited this section by introducing new information are doing so in a manner which confuses readers.

The following is an example: "Liu Bei's army and advisers were not involved in the planning or execution of the Battle of Red Cliff. - This is false, please check Sanguozhi to have this corrected. Do not forget that in Cao Cao's Sanguozhi biography, not one word of Zhou Yu was mentioned in the part on Battle of Red Cliff. 公至赤壁，与备战，不利。於是大疫，吏士多死者，乃引军还。备遂有荆州、江南诸郡。(taken directly out of Cao Cao's bio)"

It really does puzzle readers on the credibility of the information here. The 'main text' (refering to "Liu Bei's army...") should be the correct information to be supplied to readers. However, by introducing 'commentary sentences' (refering to "This is false, please..."), it simply shows a lack of consistency in the credibility of the information. Moreover, the people who have introduced are giving me the impression that they too, are unclear on whether the information they've included is correct and true, by saying "please check". Why can't they check themselves? If they think it's true, then edit the 'main text' itself, don't add 'comments'. This is not a forum.

Also, I've noticed that the 'comments' are not directly addressing the 'main text', and the editors are using these 'comments' to show off their expertise in the Three Kingdoms by adding information unrelated to the 'main text'.

An example would be: "Cai Mao and Zhang Yun had surrended to Cao Cao before the Battle of Changban along with their lord Liu Cong (which was, in fact, the catalyst for Liu Bei's flight and the Battle of Changban) but in the movie they came to serve Cao Cao after the battle. － This is false. No historical records ever said Cai Mao and Zhang Yun advocated Liu Cong to surrender to Cao Cao, nor did Cai Mao ever work as Cao Cao's naval officer (nor did his death had anything to do with Jiang Gan's stolen letter). However, Cai Mao did participate in installing Liu Cong as Liu Biao's successor, but that's all. It was Liu Cong who surrendered to Cao Cao on Kuai Yue etc.'s advise, and Cai Mao bares no responsibility on this at all. The Cai family was a local noble that both Liu Biao and Cao Cao had highly respected. (ref. Sanguozhi Chap. 1, 6 and 32)"

You see here, the main text (refering to "Cai Mao and Zhang Yun had surrended...) did not mention anything about Cai and Zhang advocating their lord Liu Cong to surrender, but the 'comments' (refering to "No historical records ever said Cai Mao and Zhang Yun advocated Liu Cong to surrender to Cao Cao, nor did Cai Mao ever work as Cao Cao's naval officer (nor did his death had anything to do with Jiang Gan's stolen letter") are not addressing the main text by talking about Cai and Zhang advocating surrender and disputing the fact on whether Cai did serve Cao Cao and whether his death had anything to do with Jiang Gan. They should be discussing whether Cai Mao and Zhang Yun surrended before or after Changban instead.

I'm not against editing this section (and I've no right to do so) but I'm particular about the way it is being edited. Editors should either change the 'main text' directly after they've verified that the information is true and reliable, and not add 'comments' and turn the section into an 'IP battleground'. Thank you. Lonelydarksky (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

It seems that those unregistered users who have previously edited the section in the manner as described above are still unclear about what they ought to do if they have any disagreements. This time, they have left 'messages' in the form: (Editor: wrong, even in the Romance of Three Kingdoms...) See [1] and [2]. Whatever disputes they have over those sections, they should be settling them on this talk page instead and not on the main article itself. Lonelydarksky (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Section has been blanked and removed. I have no idea why. At least provide linking to List_of_fictitious_stories_in_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms#The_Battle_at_Changban which would be the 5-6 stories portrayed that are inaccurate, and a point about xiao qiao never actually crossing the river, and the real Red_Cliffs_order_of_battle which shows that certain people were never there. Annihilatron (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The section is considered OR and it's trivia anyway. _LDS (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Table of film revenue by country

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here is a table showing the film's revenue gained listed by country in US Dollars, as obtained from zh:赤壁 (电影):

Region Part 1 Part 2
Mainland China $46,698,967 $38,043,199
Hong Kong $3,109,405 $3,057,966
Taiwan $5,522,646 $4,511,880
Japan $52,418,016 $56,374,881
South Korea $9,950,130 $12,815,526
Singapore $1,914,725 $2,091,413
Thailand $944,735 $1,177,713
Malaysia $645,025 $920,257
Latvia $10,110 not yet released
Denmark $84,050 not yet released

Does anyone know where to obtain sources for such figures, just to be sure? It then could also be included here, as it would be informative of the film's reception and relative success. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Cliff (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) 09:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Red Cliff (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) 04:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Chinese v HK

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It's really more of a "Chinese film" than a "Hong Kong film" - has anyone seen a stub for it? ~ Wave of Mutilation 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It was shot in China but it's clearly more a Hong Kong production than a Chinese one. But here on Wikipedia, anything from Hong Kong is "Chinese"... Laurent (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"But here on Wikipedia, anything from Hong Kong is "Chinese"" - probably because Hong Kong is in China. So it has merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.86.139 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Typically, this is an American film. It is a Lion Rock production, and Lion Rock is an American company founded by John Woo and Terence Chang, as explicitly stated in the production notes[1]. The rest of the companies involved are financers/executives. So, as far as I'm concerned, it is either an American production, or a "global" film, as Woo commented. In other words, if this is a Chinese production, then so is Paycheck, Windtalkers and the other Lion Rock productions, it doesn't make sense. Also -hint, hint!- nowhere in the official press kit it says "chinese production"; Red Cliff is always referenced as a chinese-language production. Punkalyptic (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.magpictures.com/resources/presskits/redcliff/redclifffinalnotes.doc
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Cliff_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1154699563"