Talk:The Beastmaster

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Untitled

On the DVD, the director and producer discuss the film as having a $3.5 million to $4 million budget, not a $9 million one.

December 8, 2005: Ok, we have a problem here. The Graham Bond link goes to a Wikki article about the founder of British R&B who died in 1974. Clearly this is not the same person as the actor who played the Ancient One in the 1999 to 2002 Beastmaster series. How do we fix this?--GestaltG

I've replaced the link by a new one to a new page Grahame Bond (actor), that you can edit if there are info you have on this actor. Lvr 10:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why NPOV ?

User: Steve Eifert put a NPOV on this page without any explanation. I hence removed it. I don't see any reason for having a NPOV here. May be was it a request for split ?? Lvr 17:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting to that. Calling an actress beautiful - that's according to who? Some people apparently found the show confusing? Who? any references? There are more. The article is well written, but you can't have commentary or personal opinion in it. Know what I'm getting at? This whole sentence could be considered POV and makes the page read like a fanboy site: "beautiful natural scenery, its animal cast, inovative photography, attention to archeological detail, excellent character writing and acting, and its plethora of beautiful women." Steve-O 18:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this NPOV ! I'm not the author of these sentences and I'm not a big fan of the show, but, indeed, what is written seems correct to me. You cannot deny that most of the women in the show are beautiful. It is a fact. There are plenty of shows where this is the case. For example, in Homicide: Life on the Street, in the first seasons, the actors where chosen to fit with a realistic character, while in the latter seasons, the added to the cast some nice women and men in order to re-gain some of their lost audience. If I write that, am I subjective ? And what about Bay Watch, is it a lack of neutrality to say all actresses are nice ? May be not all to my opinion, but there are all certainly beautiful globally. Othewise there would not have been hired for the role ;-) ! For me, the is definitely no neutrality problem here.

If you know, this show (do you ?), may be you can rewrite the incriminated sentences with a more neutral point of view. Lvr 09:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, do you maintain your lack of neutrality judgment ? Lvr 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there some other readers that'd like to say anything about that ? Lvr 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remove this NPOV as User: Steve Eifert has not been seen here for a while and no other reader has commented on this issue. Lvr 09:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one fully understand the NPOV objection. The tv show article is just so gushy it reads like it was meant as a personal review rather than an encyclopedia article. "The unforgettable King Voden, brilliantly played by David Paterson," is just one example. It would do well to review the NPOV guidelines especially that regarding creative works here.--65.113.254.236 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

"and the series was noted for its beautiful natural scenery, its animal cast, inovative photography, attention to archeological detail, excellent character writing and acting, and its plethora of beautiful women" --unsigned

As long as that has a reference, it would not be NPOV because it is stating it as someone's opinion, not stating it as fact. -- trlkly 16:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifying

This article needs some wikifying! 71.250.74.47 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, log in, and do it ;-) Lvr 21:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, even the "log in" part is optional. You can stay an IP if you want. -- trlkly 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I remember tracking the title down for this, and it's correct. The BeastMaster article title is not; BeastMaster was the name of the TV series, really honest. 355698 05:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to merge, I saw it. It's probably a shoe-in for "speedy deletion". The page is refering to the movie which has a page. I'll place the appropriate tag. Bignole 05:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The beastmaster.jpg

«Deleted BetaBot's message», since Image:The beastmaster.jpg has been deleted. -- trlkly 16:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity

I actually came to this page because I read (on another wiki) that this movie is a notable example of a PG rated movie that shows complete frontal nudity. I'd that information myself, if I had a verifiable source. If anyone can find one, please include this information. -- trlkly 16:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Movie has full frontal nudity and is rated PG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.135.207 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

If Demi Moore wasn't even in the movie, it's even less relevant than 'trivia' implies to mention that she met several times with the director. One can have some minor amusement speculating what might have gone on during those meetings, but I'm going to delete that statement. Centrepull (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else notice that Dar ended up with his first cousin? Kiri was the younger kings' cousin, according to the movie, and Dar was his brother. Although Dar's mother apparently died in the beginning, and if Kiri was from the younger kings mothers' side, she wouldn't be related to Dar. Any thoughts... psy1123eu@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.166.72 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tiger.

The tiger they used died from the toxic black dye they used on it, that's why the tiger in the sequel is normal colored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.123.254 (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Just because Spoony said it doesn't make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.133.107 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoony? People all over had been talking about that long before his review:

http://www.amazon.com/Beastmaster-Marc-Singer/product-reviews/B00005Q4D7
http://awesomebmovies.com/2010/11/the-beastmaster/
http://rioranchofilmreviews.blogspot.com/2008/09/beastmaster.html

76.235.198.197 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External link vs a reference

To whom it may concern. According to out policies it is depreciating to have a source as both external link and reference. It's not only my opinion, but from what I know the consensus is against duplicity of sources also. The article in dispute is The Beastmaster. Here is the issue:

The film holds a score of 50% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 14 reviews, with an average rating of 5.31 out of 10

which is sourced with ref #12:

"The Beastmaster". Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango Media. Retrieved July 12, 2021.

and it's identical twin as an external link:

The Beastmaster at Rotten Tomatoes

. Me and Jorm (talk · contribs) are of different opinion (as it seems), and are seeking a resolution of some kind (at least, I am). Will kindly appreciate any input. Thanks.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are not external links, and external links are not citations. Body copy requires citations for statements (in this case, a citation to a rotten tomatoes page). External links are not the same thing as inline copy citation, nor are they citations themselves (so they don't use the "cite" template). This is not a question of policy so much as a question of understanding style and technology.--Jorm (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Need some feedback from others. Everyone is welcome. Pinging @Cunard: and @Northamerica1000: for clarification.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think me and Jorm (talk · contribs) are talking about two different things. I also think that Jorm is either doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) that both sources link to the same Rotten Tomatoes page, and therefore, one of them should be removed.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand exactly what is going on. I am trying to help you. There are two issues here, one is technological and one is stylistic.

Technological: You are using the "cite" template incorrectly. You are using it in raw external links, when the syntax should be [http://www.somewhere.com somehere] and not inside of a template. Bibliography entries aren't citations, either.
Stylistic: Links to external sites can be used in multiple places and the context in which they are used changes if it's used as a citation or as an external link, in the external links section. I'm not sure how I can explain that better. Jorm (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits of mine is not helping, is just being disruptive. Now, I don't know, what you have against Bibliography and a citation that I used? I really don't know where to put it. It's a reliable source, that you, for some reason, refuse to acknowledge and live it be!--Filmomusico (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've brought this to the Edit Warring board for some reason so I think I'll just let folk there talk and handle you now. Jorm (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. There was a reason, not some reason. Read the policy on 3RR. What it states? Remember, reverting is allowed, until it breaches the 3RR policy, which yours did. Sorry, but they might handle you too.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]