Talk:Zinda (film)

message: I noticed the reviews listed for the movie that are pretty low don't actually mention what the reviewers didn't like about the movie. The 2.5/5 and .5/5 barely mention anything bad in this article, though one would imagine they had complaints.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.213.116.168 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: In the differences with Korean film, please make it clear who is the "protagonist" and "antagonist". The protagonist is defined as "The central character in a story, generally synonymous with hero" which can be either Sanjay Dutt or John Abraham.
Also, the Indian film does not have any mention of incest. 
I am not editing the page myself, since I have watched the movie a while back, and am not 100% sure. --RohanDhruva 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences

message: Needs a Spoiler warning, not sure how... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.162.129 (talk • contribs) 21:06, August 17, 2007
:Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: Just found a review  about the film that points out the similarities. I believe parts of this article can be quoted to explain why the makers of Old Boy believe that their work is being copied:
"A man, taken and locked up for 14 years (15 in "Oldboy") without any reason, is suddenly released, and has 4 days (5 in "Oldboy") to figure out why this was done to him," is the outline for "Zinda" in the Internet Movie Database echoing the plot outline for "Oldboy" in the same database.
You cannot make a career out of someone else's work. You have faithfully reproduced scenes from the original: Be it the much acclaimed stunt where Dutt fights a bunch of thugs with a knife sticking out of his back or the bit when the kidnapper comes calling with a mask while he's sleeping.
Reproducing the same frames amount to plagiarism, no matter how much you have toned down the sexuality in the film."
:You still do not understand the meaning of WP:MOSFILM. There is no reason "to explain why the makers of Old Boy believe that their work is being copied". Any kind of similarities/differences between plots are strongly discourafed, and only particular similarities/differences may come in context. Additionally, this review does not "explain why the makers of Old Boy believe that their work is being copied", so you intend to do it in synthesis. Shahid • Talk2me 10:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The subheading is "Accusations of Plagiarism", not "accusations of plagiarism BY THE MAKERS", so your restricting it to only what the makers think does not make sense. Its is another accusation of plagiarism, as made by another verifiable source (WP:V), and not WP:OR. So your rejecting it under WP:MOSFILM does not make sence, as it is talking about the act of plagiarism, not just about the film.Zhanzhao (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The accusations of plagiarism are already discussed, and no, that single source is not a valid excuse to attempt to readd the trivial, overly specific minute list of every possible similarity and/or difference. Beyond WP:MOSFILM, it goes against WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I just include the 1st line I mentioned, which is basically one liner description/synopsis for both movies i.e. "A man, taken and locked up for 14 years (15 in "Oldboy") without any reason, is suddenly released, and has 4 days (5 in "Oldboy") to figure out why this was done to him,". Would this small sentence actually push it over to WP:UNDUE? I also though that WP:MOS is used for general remakes, but are out of scope for plagiarism issues. In any case, I'll just be adding the link to that review to the page. Surely thats allowed?Zhanzhao (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the plagiarism issue is already noted. Repeating it over and over is unnecessary and still undue weight to one side of the issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously opening line of the "plagiarism" section was written as a statement of fact. Now I'm balancing it by pointing out, within a pre-existing sentence itself, that the observations were made by some reviewers.  I think that's admissible. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comaprisons made in review

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Zinda (film). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120306211149/http://ww.smashits.com/zinda/songs-5565.html to http://ww.smashits.com/zinda/songs-5565.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified