Talk:Zardoz/Archive 1

Zed's costume

The article mentions that Total Film supposedly listed the costume of Connery's character, "consisting of a ponytail wig, leather knee boots, and a loincloth which bears a strong resemblance to a giant orange nappy or diaper" as "the dumbest decision in movie history." — but it's red. (Ibaranoff24 10:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Looks orange to me. Do you mean in the photo in the article? Maury 12:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I distinctly remember the costume being red in the film as well, though I could be wrong. (Ibaranoff24 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

It was indeed red in the film... Katt 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly red. 71.231.56.40 04:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It still looks orange to me! Even in the linked picture. Mandarin Orange anyway. Maury 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Production" and "Reception" sections

....seem off the mark and negative.

The Production section should quote Boorman's feelings directly. Near the beginning of the DVD commentary, he says that their amibitions were larger than their budget. This is hardly call to deride the film or a reason to characterize Boorman's comments as a complaint. I don't really understand the point of deriding the film when we should be admiring its imaginitive use of a small budget. Finally, there is nothing inherently wrong with paper mache or mirrors, is there? (BTW: They don't make giant fake stone heads out of paper mache! lol)

As for the Reception section, let's get some contemporary responses and the comments of some of the film's cult followers. It seems pretty biased to quote only a recent negative snark from an obscure film magazine (and the pants are red, not orange, by the way). In any case, the quotes need to be cited.

There are many thoughtful responses to the film to be found. Why not use them? --Davmpls 23:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)—

• I agree with your comments. (Ibaranoff24 11:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Imaginative use of a small budget? Are you serious? Consider the ridiculous costuming; was there nothing else lying about in the costume department they could have used instead of business attire and caveman suits? It simply insults the intelligence to see middle-age men supposedly living in squalor in a post-apocalyptic future digging about dressed for work in the accounting department at Lloyds. Come on, throw us a bone. That's the problem reviewers are complaining about; he knew he had no budget and apparently decided to do nothing to correct for this, just taking the cheapest stuff he could find and throwing it on screen. Maury 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? "Business attire" was what British men wore for just about every sort of job up through most of the sixties. In the early '70s, not wearing business attire for that could be seen as faddish. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh! Maury 11:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, in the post-apocalytpic world envisioned in 1974, it actually makes sense that business attire shown in the movie would be the most plentiful clothing left over from the previous civilization.  :) --Lucifer arma 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This entire section is incoherent and unnecessarily negative. It should re-written or removed completely.

First use of a search engine?

It's not cited, but it's in the article that Zardoz has the first use of a search engine in it. I guess the person who wrote that hasn't see Desk Set. I'd like to remove the comment, but that's the whole section. Any objections? --Lucifer arma 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I say go ahead and remove it. The section is uncited, and I agree Desk Set is an earlier example of essentially the same idea. Cheers, Doctormatt 06:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The film is a simple analogy between the have's and the have nots. While the have's seem to hold all the cards they are bored, and boring while the have nots struggle to survive and are not bored.

The coolest part of this movie comes in a discussion as to why the tabernacle was created. The answer was so that people could survive the endless timespans of intergalactic travel.

And when asked what they found, the reply was: "another dead end."

Boorman may have been stoned when he wrote this but man it is a deep, whacky and thought provoking flick.

well done John. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.33.206.68 (talk) 17:06, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Deskset the movie was about specialized trained researchers asking carefully targeted questions (often or usually on behalf of employers, whereas in Zardoz virtually anyone in the entire community could easily ask questions simply & get answers quickly. The egalitarian nature + the spontaneity it encourages in the pursuit of knowledge make it fundamentally different from deskset. These are the qualities that allowed the search engine to be as influential as it's become. Arguably a bicycle is essentially the same idea as a car (plus too many other similar analogies to mention) if you define it down in the starkest terms stripping away all essential subtlety. Zardoz successfully captures the essential spirit & intent of the search engine by explicitly illustrating it's use in a way almost anyone can recognize as a precursor to a search engine. This is clearly not true of Deskset. It's intrinsic to (& emblematic of)the visionary outlook that gives Zardoz it's appeal & pointing this out will cause many to look deeper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.252.203 (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary Length/Resolution

There's a pending issue that the summary may be too long or detailed, but the initiator of that thread doesn't seem to have actually written it up or explained their rationale. I'd like to point out that there are other films with even more detailed synopses, and as I have not seen the film in a while, I rather appreciated someone recounting the rather complex and surreal plot at length. I move that the "too long/detailed" box be removed. Is there a second? TravellerDMT-07 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The tag has been removed. Doctormatt 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. This film requires as much thoughtful discourse as possible. The spirit of curiosity that runs through it is substantial & should be reflected by thoughtful interested commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.252.203 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

according to IMDb it's a British-Irish movie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070948/ --Ezzex (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OR tag

After OR has been cleaned up, I deleted the tag.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration

This film is rather unique. has John Boorman not given any commentary on the ideas behind its creation? the plot section is exhaustive. and i would much rather read about the cultural response to the movie than the critical response. and why was this page archived when there was hardly any content?99.147.200.131 (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

I would agree that this is a somewhat-significant film, but this article seems to devote much of its space to panning it. By the time it references the "Zardoz cult following," who presumably disagree with the criticisms listed here, its bias is obvious. Also, the comment that the movie would have been better "had the movie followed the plot outline above" seems unclear ... if the movie didn't follow the plot that is explained here, then what is the plot of the film? 64.95.97.17 00:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a badly written article. The second section is beyond POV. 66.167.145.10 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The movie is basically unwatchable, so maybe the article should be as well. You know, just to convey how horrible the film was... Katt

So, because you don't like a film, that means it deserves a terrible article? I don't understand your logic. (Sugar Bear 10:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Sarcasm...duh.--65.185.127.109 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This atrocity, nay crime against celluloid is the very definition of a Z movie (In fact I suspect the genre may be posthumorously named after it). One wonders why this weapons grade mst3k material was never used in that show. It is still in dire need of a mst3k treatment and people should and must be encouraged to mock it on every possible occasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.157.56 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

languages spoken

What's up with the many languages supposedly spoken?

English Italian Swedish Latin German French Irish

Those are all part of the original dialogue track? Seems very unusual and not only warranting an explanation here, but also in the article. Somebody know the facts to this?------2A02:120B:2C76:2900:9C4D:3D28:1ED9:4153 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Having just watched the movie, there are sequences where all mentioned languages are spoken, but mostly in the background of montage-sequences, not in actual dialogue. Iam not sure if this really qualifies,2.242.197.179 (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Misleading description

88.207.225.115 (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)The wikipage states QUOTE who live apart in "the Vortex" QUOTE

This implies that there is only one vortex. However, anybody who has actually watched the movie knows that trial takes place of George Saden who is described as being of "Vortex 4". As the numbering must surely be logical and numerical order, this implies that there must be at least 4 vortices. This renders the description of QUOTE who live apart in "the Vortex" QUOTE as being false and misleading. If my memory is correct, there is even a description of the role of the flying head being used to distribute grain farmed by the outcast "brutals" to the numerous vortex communities which were no longer self-sufficient in food production.

Well, I just saw it, and you're right that there are supposed to be multiple vortices. I'm not too sure about the Brutals growing grain-- they do, actually the Exterminators were made to stop killing the Brutals (or other Brutals, if the Exterminators are a subgroup of Brutals, which I guess is the case), and made to take slaves instead and have the slaves grow the grain. However, the exchange of various agricultural products is supposed to be among the various Vortices (or Vortexes if you prefer). So I'm not sure the Brutals grow grain for the Vortexes. Maybe they do.

Anyway, you're right that there are supposed to be multiple Vortexes, but Boorman seems to have forgotten all about that. All the action, and the final solution (the restoration of mortality) takes place in Vortex 4. You could rationalize this by saying that when the Tabernacle is destroyed and the head crashes down, all the other vortexes meet the same fate.

However-- all of this is waaay too complicated to be in the first paragraph of the plot summary. I'm not sure it all even needs to be explained in the summary. If people see the movie, the'll be exposed to this information. If not, I don't know what you'd be missing by not knowing these details. If someone really wants to put this into the summary, you could try. I think it would make the plot summary MORE confusing, rather than less, and would increase the length of it to an unacceptable degree unless it's done very succinctly.

I corrected the spelling of "Misleading" in the section title.Wood Monkey 03:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurodog (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)