Talk:The Scorpion King

message: Talk of a Sequel
http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=514
Noteworthy? A reliable source? Wiser Wikipedians than me can decide. 80.47.157.229 19:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: chat 2

message: What happened to the boy? I can't find him being listed in cast anywhere, including IMDB.--Mato Rei 08:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: incomplete cast

message: How does the character portrayed in this film relate to the Scorpion King from The Mummy Returns? Though they are intended to be the same character, it doesn't seem to match since he is a hero in this film and a force of evil in the previous film. If someone understands the plot better than this, please add some info to the plot summary. Ham Pastrami 06:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity 

message: Although the article mentions the suspicious similarity of Mathayus to the Greek name, the name Matthew actually originates from Hebrew and may date back to before the approximate era where the film takes place, although probably not a common name in Ancient Egypt. On the other hand, the Hebrew version, Mattityahu is not very similar to Mathayus, while the Greek translation, Matthias, is quite similar. Thorn 00:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathayus 

message: 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 19:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Theres a "Trivia" and "Historical Accuracy" section but no plot?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.121.146 (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Section? 

message: I have a question? Is the version of Streamline by System of a Down the same version that is on some copies of the Aerials single? 12.214.76.88 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streamline 

message: Not the worst looking article I've ever seen, but the Historical Inaccuracies section and Trivia are both horrible, lacking in references, full of original research and opinion and even some false statements (making a claim to the real name for the real Scorpion King for instance, as far as I know no proof exists that "Serqet, not Mathayus" completely accurate, its more accurate to just say it is unknown who the real Scorpion King was). Comparing French, Brits and Russians is also pretty horrible, thats Southern Germans, Western Germans and Celts and Slavs (infact Russia is not wholly European, and European Russia is not wholly Slavic, for instance the only Buddhist people native to Europe are from Russia). On the other hand, all of those (except the Mycenians) are Semitic people, a much better comparison would be Danes, Franks and the Swiss, not that any comparison is any good. Also, they didn't "exist in different time periods", what 2000BC rolls around and the Sumers all drop dead and up pops Babylon? They conquered each other in turn and merged. There is also no reason to mention Christ, we have a thing for that without mentioning a religious figure that might of not existed at all, its BC or BCE. Its also more accurate, saying Friday the 1st instead of a couple of Fridays ago. Moving on to trivia, give me proof that this Cassandra is a reference to that Cassandra. Incase your unfamiliar with this term, proof is the substance which most of Wikipedia is built on, the good articles anyways. It comes in the form of written or audio word, from someone of a respectable position considering the article, such as a writer or directer. Note, that it has to be something actually said by such a person and not something you made up that you think he would say. Or she. Nudity was worthwhile trivia in the 50s or so, it stopped being so well before I was born however. The rolling gong is not noteworthy enough, unless it is obviously a wripoff and mentioned by someone (once again someone who matters, not you or your friends or me). That Chow Yun Fat was almost cast might be noteworthy, his acting career as villains is not, not on this page, try his own article, and try using a reviewer commenting on it or something, not us. How is California notable, Hollywood is in California, Mexico is practically th same desert, most of the other deserts are rather unsafe and far away. The lack of connection between one character in this movie and the same character a great deal of time afterwards in another movie is not notable. Compare Anakin in Ep 2 to Darth in Ep 5, not the same, mostly as a result of 3 and 4. The understudy saying a couple of lines is not noteworthy, infact I do believe its there job. The rest can stay until someone decides to delete it as it should be, me, I'm not getting in a fight with people who consider all of Russia to be European.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a reminder, all movies are works of fiction. All movies, with very few exceptions (even documentaries only show whats in front of the camera, what the director intends to show). Band of Brothers, based on something that happened a mere few decades ago, with the real characters there helping out, was not 100% accurate. How do directors and writers know what a character is thinking? Easy, they make him up, even if hes based off of a real person, he is recreated for film and the actors plays him as his thinks the character thinks. Therefore, if a director says his movie takes place in 1380 and is gonna involve the Order of the Dragon (which wasn't founded for 28 years) it is incorrect to reality, but as a work of fiction is 100% correct. Sentences like "The plot is supposedly set in the pre-historical Middle East" are completely wrong. The movie is made to be as accurate to real events as the creators care to, otherwise it is set where the director wants, no supposedly. Supposedly Indiana and the Temple of Doom took place in India in the 1930s, but no Thuggee cult existed in that place at that time. One little change makes something completely different.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Scorpion King. 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/20060509143136/http://www.nypost.com/movies/41652.htm to http://www.nypost.com/movies/41652.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified