Talk:The Last Legion

message: Don't understand why this section was removed.  Replaced it.Famartin 11:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Historical Inconsistencies" section? 

message: The info in the bloopers section are actually anachronisms, perhaps this section should be renamed? 74.116.151.58 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bloopers" 

message: The trivia section says, "There was a lot of controversy as to whether Aishwarya Rai would in fact perform the passionate scenes with co-star Colin Firth." Is there a source for this, because I don't remember the newspapers mentioning anything about this, much less that it became a controversy. And if indeed there was something, then what was the outcome of the controversy - was there a clarification that she does indeed perform such scenes, or not? The trivia as it stands now is quite vague. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.71.137.18 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controvesy 

message: Shouldn't the date be changed since it premiered on April 6 in Abu Dhabi, been released in Russia (April 19) ,it will also be released in SA on June 8 .just a tot.  18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: Any reason why there is no page for this movie? 68.198.220.163
: It was deleted by User:The Epopt because the plot summary text was copyrighted: see the deletion log. --Saforrest 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Erm...

message: This was a pretty unnecessary deletion.  The movie plot summary may have been a copyvio, but that could have been yanked with a simple edit without deleting the entire bloody article.
Anyway, I've recreated the article after having written a shorter summary from scratch after reading the previous one. --Saforrest 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: The article mentions that time had worn the sword's inscription down to "Es Caliber".  What was the original inscription?  The movie never steadies long enough for me to read. AndarielHalo 02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This film is wicked stupid: CAI IVL CAES ENSIS CALIBVRNVS. 72.85.143.80 (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the sword's original inscription? 

message: Is it worth mentioning in both this and the page for "King Arthur" that Owen Teale appeared in both? I'm not adding it or anything, I just think it's a notable fact (such as is the Kevin McKidd/Ray Stevenson mention). Spartan198 (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Actor 

message: Wasn't Christopher Ecclestone in this film, the evil guy who got slashed by an axe?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.84.106 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Ecclestone? 

message: From the article: "Historically, nothing is known about Romulus's mother, but the Julii had been extinct for 400 years before Romulus was born."  The first part of this sentence is true, which means that this part of the film is pure speculation.  However, I've never seen it claimed elsewhere that the ENTIRE Julii family became extinct in the first century.  Sure, Julio-Claudian line ended then, and perhaps the entire Julii Caesares branch (meaning it's impossible to claim *descent* from Julius Caesar), but the whole Julii family?  There were hundreds if not thousands of them, not even including the thousands of freedmen who took their name; does anyone have a reputable historian saying they all died by the first century?  (Certainly a lot of people walking around with the Julia/Julius name were related to freedmen, but does that account for all of the people with that name past 100 AD?) 66.30.15.98 (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement was in regard to Caesar's family/clan, and by all known information, it had gone extinct by the time of Vespasian. There were not "hundreds" of them - the clan was quite small. Don't confuse "Julius" as a Roman name with a Roman gens. 104.169.18.0 (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendant of the Julii? 

message: Also, I just altered what sounded like a blooper, but isn't.  The article used to read: "The sword bears the inscription CAI • IVL • CAES • ENSIS CALIBVRNVS. "CAI. IVL. CAES." serves as the abbreviated form of Caius (or Gaius) Julius Caesar for the film, though the name is correctly abbreviated as "C. IVLIVS CAESAR"."  The last part is nonsense.  Ancient Latin abbreviations are incredibly flexible, as anyone who has spent any time reading them will attest.  "CAI" is a pretty uncommon one, but "IVL" and "CAES" are perfectly normal.  The inscription in the film may not be the most common used for Caesar, but it's perfectly correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.15.98 (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excalibur Inscription: abbreviations 

message: I've removed the sections about the historical notes, connections and otherwise. This is trivia, which is not encyclopedic unless it is discussed in notable sources. Please see WP:TRIVIA. BOVINEBOY2008 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I recently stumbled upon this farce of a movie and watched it for about a half hour before deciding I had better things to do, such as nothing.  (This article actually has 59 watchers? I’m incredulous.)  However, Wikipedia is not the venue for movie reviews, as I’m sure someone will presently advise me if I don’t cease and desist along these lines.  So what I am actually writing about is the following descriptive line from the article’s introduction:
“The film is loosely inspired by the events of 5th-century European history, notably the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.’
“Loosely inspired”?  That seems to be the mother of all understatements.  Let’s see.  Yes indeed, once upon a time there really was a huge and powerful state entity known to us as The Roman Empire which, after enduring in glory for several centuries, ultimately went the way of all empires and all things and is now long defunct.  And the western portion of that once glorious empire of yore did indeed have a last emperor, the figurehead child emperor Romulus Augustus, a boy perhaps as young as ten.  And he was indeed deposed, after a somewhat less than glorious reign of just under a year, by Odoacer (probably a Goth, or at least a barbarian of some sort).  And there any factual resemblance between this movie's scenario and factual history ceases.  
Not only was the hapless lad Romulus spared by Odoacer, purportedly due to his “youth and beauty" (who says those Goths didn’t have a heart!), he was not sent to a fortress prison in chains, but rather was sent into a comfortable exile being supported in some degree of style.  (Okay, he wasn’t given a Game Boy to while away his adolescent days.)  He lived well into adulthood.  The preposterous turn of events rendered by the movie after the boy was deposed gives one pause to describe the plot as “loosely inspired by,” in deference to the English language.
Might I suggest that this absurd characterization be changed to something along the lines of:  “A fantasy action-adventure movie set during the final fall of the Western Roman Empire”?  Would anyone object if I made such a change?
Thanks to all. HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A questionable description of the movie in the introduction