# Talk:The Mask of Zorro

Was Montero in any of the Zorro stories or TV shows?
~NewGod_KingKirby — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewGod KingKirby (talk • contribs) 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The "base" story -- The Mark of Zorro, which has been filmed three times -- has Zorro facing off against a corrupt governor, but in one film he's named Alvaradro, and in two Quintero. The actual last Spanish Governor of California was Pablo Vicente de Solá, who has no article as yet. The earlier films do not seem so closely tied to the Californio/Mexican independence movement, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo lists the movies budget at 95 million, but this page lists it at 65 million.  Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.59.142 (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Will there be a DVD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.15.100 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Having spent a day away from the article, I'm disappointed by the rush to judgement to remove this section from the article I've added over the past few days.  I thought Wikipedia wasn't censored, since I got the info from the Internet Movie Database and E! TV's "Sexiest" series.  What's the deal? 70.129.43.110 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with your edits is that you didn't provide a secondary source for the dubious information you contributed.  If you could have added, perhaps, an external link, I could have cited it, and the section might work.  I've had to deal with this kind of stuff before, so, believe me, making such a section encyclopedic can be achieved.Another issue with this section was that it dripped of personal opinion and original research.  While your ogling of Catherine Zeta-Jones is understandable, this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite.  The strange thing is, I do remember reading, at the Internet Movie Database and Filmsite.org, about this film being one of the more notable "romantic" scenes of film history, so your edits may not be entirely misinformed.  I think I'll surf the Web and see if I can find those pages.  — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who removed the text, and prepared a really long response that Cinemaniac seemed to echo well. Because of the edit conflict, I'll just summarize. Problems with NPOV and weasel words in the wording, lack of sources, lack of notability, some trivia present (why is Zorro not wearing gloves so important to the article?). My best guess is some of this could be integrated into a "Production" section, re-written with references. Don't think it belongs in Historical and cultural references. CM (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Movie articles aren't my specialty, and to see something with so many problems and no ref to check against, I felt removing was the best course. I'm trying not to be edit conflicted again (hence two replies), but I'll leave it at it didn't look encyclopedic at the time, especially since some of it was part of a trivia section deleted some time ago.--CM (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
i don't have the exact URL, but if you go to the IMDb "Goofs" page, you'll see a lot of this info there.  Maybe copying and pasting that here was not the best move.  Oh well... I'll re-add til I can think of something better. 70.129.43.110 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
After doing a Google search, I found this page that supports one of the statements in the new section as being one "erotic scene from the '90s". And thanks, 70.129.43.110, for providing the URL for the IMDb "goofs" page; I can now use that to provide an in-text citation. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 02:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, user contributed websites like IMDB are usually not reliable if I remember correctly. Something with a bit more verifiable would be better.--CM (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to rename the section to something more encyclopedic, as I'm sure "Famous scene involving undressing Catherine Zeta-Jones" could more appropriately be trimmed to just "Famous scenes".BTW, I'm sorry my response caused an edit conflict with your intended reply; I tend to respond quickly to something that piques my interest from the "Recent changes" list, but I'm glad that I, at least, reflected most of what you would have said. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 02:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
One sentence should be enough to address this scene and its appearance on the erotic moments list. The information about continuity errors is, IMO, not notable. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Only one sentence?! Com'on! I think it could be a little longer, don't you?  I mean, I'm sure a lot of readers would like to know how this scene exactly unfolds, including its mechanics and the actors' emotions during the scene. After all, no man can look at Catherine Zeta-Jones dressed in nothing but some frilly pantaloons, with the locks of her hair positioned just right to mask the peaks of her sumptuous breasts, and not be enticed. 70.129.43.110 (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This should suffice: "Note that Zeta-Jones appears topless, but with her long hair fully covering her breasts. She turns to get a hat to cover herself - as she turns back, quite a bit of the front of her right breast is visible, although her nipple appears to be hidden by hair (difficult to tell because it all happens so quickly)." I hope that what I've added works. 70.129.43.110 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit concerning this matter looks like male gaze and nothing more.  Sorry, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor is it a collection of miscellaneous facts.  No matter how beautiful Catherine Zeta-Jones is and the notability of the scene, I don't think we need a whole section devoted to trivial facts concerning it.  One sentence describing this scene and its making the erotic scenes list would probably work best.BTW, I haven't been able to find any reputable source verifying the "fact" that Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones were sexually aroused during the filming of this sequence. Since you said you saw such info on "E!" TV, perhaps I should look under Google Video.  Still, I don't think such information concerning actors's emotions is necessary. If anything, that would probably belong on those actor's Wikipedia pages, but not here. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The section has since been trimmed down to a few sentences, with the continuity errors converted into footnotes and most of the {{fact}}-tagged statements cited. I think it looks a lot better. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 04:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well after a month since this section's inception, the sentence concerning the two actors—especially Banderas—allegedly getting "sexually aroused" is still unverified, and I have a mind to just zap it from the article, but I'll give it about another month or two. If it's not sourced after that, I'll try to hunt it down, but if I still can't find a source to cite, it'll have to go. Sorry, 70.129.43.110. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 01:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. I've cited the appropriate source for those previously dubious statements, as you can tell by this diff. Congrats, 70.129.43.110! The section you helped create has now been fully cited! Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the information on Captain Love from a U.S. Army to a Texian Army captain.  Reason being; in the scene where he shows Alejandro his brother's head in his quarters, you can see the Lone Star flag on his wall behind Alejandro.  As this article points out, Texas wasn't a part of the United States yet, so he would not have been in the service of the U.S. Army.  Of course it's never explicitly stated that Love was Texas Army, but neither is it stated that he was in the U.S. Army, and the evidence points more towards Texas. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that a reference mentioning the influence of the Count of Monte Cristo should bear mention in this article as there truly are many similarities to the story.

Monte Cristo’s and Zorro’s similarities
The Film the Mask of Zorro (1998) takes from the storyline of the Count of Monte Cristo as you have in that film the first Zorro Diego Vega (Anthony Hopkins) life ruined by his enemy and then serves 20 years in prison only to sneak out by a fake death scene and be buried in a bag only to dig himself out later (which is what Edmond Dantes attempts in his own jail break in the novel only he is thrown over cliff into the water when he had planned to be buried alive by the jailers). Also in that film you see the refining of Alejandro Murrieta into a gentlemen by Diego Vega which is similar to Abbe Faria’s training of Dantes.
Also unlike most Zorro films the issue of Revenge is so strongly prevalent throughout as it is in the Count of Monte Cristo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.27.26 (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 

First, Cinemaniac, when you undid my 10.7 revision, you zapped a legitimate, cite-filled section. Please avoid doing so again.
Second, let's look at the latest "Undressing of Eléna scene" section:

Undressing of Eléna scene::
The one moment that captured all the advertising and viewer's attention: When Eléna (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is undressed by the slashing sword of Mexican thief Alejandro Murrieta/Zorro (Antonio Banderas). The scene has been called one of the most erotic film moments of the 1990s.  In fact, both Catherine Zeta-Jones and Antonio Banderas have admitted to sexual arousal during the filming of this scene, Banderas being aroused by Zeta-Jones's beauty, and Zeta-Jones being aroused by the very fact that Banderas could strip her by using only his sword and not his hands.

Okay... first: this subsection was put under Plot, but since it largely concerns public reaction, should be under Reception. Second: the first sentence is not a sentence; it has no verb. Third: an IMDB "goofs" section is cited, but this is not a notable source. Fourth: this three-sentence paragraph can fit all the same info into two sentences, which I've done. I've also moved it to "Reception" where it belongs, and unless the content can be justifiably expanded beyond two sentences, it doesn't merit its own subsection.
Here is the version I've put under Reception:

One of the movie's most popular scenes was the one in which Alejandro renders Eléna topless with a flurry of sword slashes. Filmsite.org's Tim Dirks has called it one of the most erotic film moments of the 1990s, and And in a 2006 E! television special, both Banderas and Zeta-Jones professed experiencing arousal during its filming; he by her beauty, and her by his character's innovative way of stripping her character.
Please discuss here before reverting. Thanks, Mdiamante (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, seriously what is everyone's obsession with this scene and that photo. The photo really isn't all that encyclopedic. The image caption also violates WP:POV. There are other free images concerning this film. I'm shocked that you perverts will only upload a pic of Catherine Zeta-Jones half naked for the Critical reaction section. The Filmsite.org reference makes sense, but per WP:FILM style guidelines, IMDb is not a reliable source. I'll take this issue with other editors to come to a final decision. Wildroot (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There were other problems, such as a cite that didn't support a claim (now fixed), over-reliance on one minor critic, and phrasing that exaggerated what a cited source actually indicates.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wildroot on citing IMDB and I really don't think the current pic qualifies as fair-use given the weight of the prose which it represents as it stands now. DrNegative (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Following User:REVUpminster's 4 January 2011 insertion of bullet-pointed legalistic data, taken from a legal brief,  and User:Tenebrae's rvt with edit summary "You can't just stick a legal brief into an article", the two editors discussed the issue on their talk pages. That discussion has been centralized here so that additional editors may comment.

How do you suggest an event that happened in court is handled. The case is many pages long and I only used the bare minimum that related to the film and tv without copying the many indvidual items and each judgement in the cite which anybody interested in can read.REVUpminster (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, REVUp. Generally the way we do it is to keep it as simple and neutral as possible without getting excessive detail. Here's one example, from Gary Friedrich:
On April 4, 2007, Friedrich filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court - Southern District of Illinois, against Marvel Enterprises, Sony Pictures, Columbia TriStar Motion Pictures, Relativity Media, Crystal Sky Pictures, Michael DeLuca Productions, Hasbro and Take-Two Interactive, alleging his copyrights to the Ghost Rider character have been exploited and utilized in a "joint venture and conspiracy". The lawsuit states that the film rights and merchandising reverted from Marvel to him in 2001.(1) The case was transferred to the federal New York State Southern District Court on February 14, 2008.(2)
1. DeMott, Rick. "Ghost Rider Creator Sues Marvel, Sony & More", Animation World News, April 11, 2007. WebCitation archive
2. Justia.com: "Gary Friedrich Enterprises, LLC. et al. v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. et al." WebCitation archive.
Simple, declarative, big-picture sentences. We have to take special care when writing about lawsuits to avoid undue weight. The example above states the "when", "where" and "who" immediately in the first sentence, then continues to the "what". We don't go into the "why". The above is a complicated intellectual property case, yet even it can be condensed to the basics in a paragraph. I'm sure you can find other examples in Wikipedia. I hope this helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to cut it down but have a look and see what you do not like. What about the image. It illustrates to the reader why sony sued but also why it failed because her costume was similar to the 1920 film which was out of copy right.

left|thumb|125px|The Queen of Swords

Following the success of The Mask of Zorro a syndicated tv series called Queen of Swords (QOS) aired in October 2000 and Sony believing they had purchased the rights to the character  Zorro from "Zorro Production Incorporated" sued the producers Fireworks Entertainment claiming damages. Some of the salient points being:
Tessa Alvarado/QOS is an amalgamation of three Mask of Zorro characters: Elena, Diego (the Zorro played by Anthony Hopkins, "Hopkins Zorro,"), and Murietta (the Zorro played by Antonio Banderas, "Banderas Zorro").
Sony also argue that the TV series copied Mask of Zorro's Don Montero to create QOS's Colonel Montoya, and that they copied Mask of Zorro's Harrison Love to create QOS's Marcus Grisham.
The first two episodes of Queen of Swords display similar plot elements from Mask of Zorro such as the death of the protagonist's beloved family member at the hands of an expatriate American mercenary, the return of the main female character to Old California from Spain, as well as the protagonist's learning to fight with a sword, donning a black costume and mask to avenge the family member's death, freeing secretly enslaved gold miners, before blowing-up the mine.
The Court noted that since the copyrights in The Curse of Capistrano and The Mark of Zorro lapsed in 1995 or before and the character Zorro has been in the public domain.
Sony was denied its request for an injunction to stop distribution of the syndicated television program Queen of Swords.
REVUpminster (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to give it a shot. Including the images might be construed as trying to make a case for one side or the other, which is what we're trying to scrupulously avoid. I'll post something later today. In the meantime, I'll repost this discussion on the article's talk page so that it's all centralized and other editors can weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If the image could be used by both sides, isn't that neutral??.REVUpminster (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Not having seen it closely, I don't know. Could you add it to this talk page?
Also, due to work, it will be a couple of days before I can edit this. I had planned on doing it tonight, but I was asked to intervene at a longer-running issue. Sit tight for a couple of days. We are, happily, on no WP:DEADLINE. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I have added it. At first glance she is a female Zorro. At second glance she is the Douglas Fairbanks Zorro (no hat or cape, but the red sash.) who is in the public domain.REVUpminster (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Having seen the image before it got removed, my feeling is that yet, it is indeed needed to give context to the lawsuit text, which I will get to now as promised. Thank you for putting it up here. I will insert it and we'll see what other editors think.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I see what you have done. I do not think the comic comparison is relevent (as it is on the Zorro article) to this film article, but the plot and secondary character's similarities of film and tv series should be mentioned if only to say the judge ruled they were uncopyrightable if that is a word.REVUpminster (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
ps.How about adding this:The judge examined secondary characters and plot elements from the film and a number of the tv episodes and ruled the similarities were not enough to warrant the injunction. REVUpminster (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Good points. Done. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is the source considered unreliable? Another editor found it and yet another who did not like the findacase found it on a google site with the same wording and used that. I am thousands of miles away in the UK and would not know where  to look for American cases. I would also like to see the formatting required for the reference? It looks to me the same as I have seen on other articles.REVUpminster (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is this lawsuit relevant to the movie that is the subject of this article?  It's already described in Queen of Swords, so I don't see what purpose it serves here. 216.243.58.249 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Mask of Zorro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello,
On initial reading the article looks to be in a good state and meeting the GA criteria. 
I have a few minor problems, the most serious of which is the writing and referencing of the "Lawsuit" section. It contains unformatted references to unreliable sources... The expression is so poor and convoluted that it is difficult to understanding what actually transpired. It is a real sore thumb in the article. 
References in general they should be at the end of a sentence rather than after individual clauses. 
Plot section meets the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction, though I would prefer that the actors' names be wikilinked here and in the Cast section. 
Images Lead image meets guidelines for non-free content. Other images would  be nice if possible. Perhaps some freely licensed portraits of the major actors, director or producers are available. 
Update:Free images added, looks good. I'm wondering about the non-free image from Queen of Swords, the rationale on the file page does not necessarily support its use here. Ironically, since we are discussing a case of copyright violation of styles and characters, there may well be a fair use justification for including that image here.--Ktlynch (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 
In the development section, it's not very clear who wrote the original script. Secondly, was the final one another re-write of Joel Gross's?
One citation in the home media section would be nice, but none of the information there is particularly interesting or notable. A sentence of two could be incorporated into release.
Legal case citation is not formatted properly, and one secondary source (such as a newspaper report) would be nice to avoid accusations of WP:OR, but it looks succinct and to the point.
There are no problems with stability, as far as I can see from the history and talk page, differences have been solved quite rationally in the past. The article covers all the major bases for a film article, but some more information on the film's themes or cinematic analysis would be nice, though I know this can be difficult to find for a pop film.
To speed things up, I've made some prose changes myself, to the extent that I can without changing the meaning.
Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the concerns have been addressed, and the lawsuit section seems like it has improved. However, there are citation needed tags in Home media, which I shall fix. Any other concerns? Wildroot (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added a second fair use rationale as required for image on two different articles.REVUpminster (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How did Montero find out Diego was Zorro? Did he checked every single citizien in California to find someone with an injured arm? --2.229.1.151 (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I always assumed he'd recognized Diego when he came up on the balcony and gave him the three cuts on the throat (possibly he'd just never been that close to Zorro, or heard him speak before) and that checking him for blood later at the hacienda was just to make sure.  There does seem to be a flash of recognition in the balcony scene, right after Diego warns him "never to return."216.15.24.95 (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

IMDb has an entry for a Mexican film named La máscara de Zorro which was supposedly released in 2000, starring Bruno Bichir as Alejandro Murrieta/Zorro. The film is even listed in Bichir's Wikipedia article, but I can't find any proof of its existance so I wonder if it may be a hoax.--Newblackwhite (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Doniago:  I believe we have an unconfirmed sock puppet user who is edit warring with me over multiple locations.  I keep trying to reduce the size of the plot of this film and they keep over expanding it, most notably saying the villain of the story has a "deep but unrequited love" for someone's wife when it's just covetousness.  I don't know what to do about this, I figure you might know since you took an initiative to reduce the plot yourself. Maxcardun (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The article does have pending changes protection, which in theory would help, but the last round of IP edits was accepted by CycloneYoris (talk · contribs), though I assume they meant well and just weren't aware of the situation. I've requested an increase in protection, since we don't have a blanket way to ensure that editors will be aware of the situation before approving edits from this IP range. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Here is a short list of URL's from the sockpuppet in question, you'll find that all of his edit history is on this article only.
2803:1500:1c00:4334:ac50:ac0:8fa:5b17
2803:1500:1c00:4334:e7:63ff:bc83:e45d
2803:1500:1c00:4334:954:369e:6081:4fb0
2803:1500:1c00:4334:f9a9:de8:c601:2919 Maxcardun (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I requested protection for the page previously (possibly more than once) and it was rejected. Maybe we need some admin help on this.

Per above, an IP range is warring to insert their preferred edit summary into the article; I've requested page protection once or twice and it's apparently been rejected. Do we need to go to ANI for this? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Admins are the ones who carry out page protection requests. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Your last request was for full protection- admin only editing.  Try something smaller- semi-protection that permits autoconfirmed/confirmed accounts to edit. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
...well, that's embarrassing! TY! DonIago (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Evidently that didn't work as the IP Hopping sock puppet is back.  I'll concede that I also accidentally put back up an expired notice, but I think DonIago's first request should be taken more seriously now as this person isn't going to stop.
And if this man is reading this, he particularly bothers me when he continues to put up that Montero had a deep love for Esparanza.  This individual who keeps reverting that obviously has a tainted mind if he confuses covetousness with love.  Any man who wants another mans wife who doesn't want a thing to do with him is more like a predator especially when he kidnaps their daughter to raise as his own, just as fuel to jab at his enemy.  At any rate Montero was supposed to clear out of California that day anyways so sticking around to arrest someone was probably a crime since he technically wasn't supposed to be the governor anymore.
So anyone who sneaks around the law like that and hires sick sociopaths to enforce his agenda is not capable of love, but great evil. Maxcardun (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: As the admin who originally protected the page, would you be willing to extend the protection out a bit further, or do we need to submit another RFPP request? Thanks for your assistance, either way! DonIago (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
 Done for 2 weeks Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
TY for the extended protection and the quick turnaround! DonIago (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Y'know the IP Hopper seems to have returned on this again.  What bothers me is not so much that he keeps coming back, but all these people automatically accepting his edit right before we revert his serial edits. Maxcardun (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)