Talk:A Touch of Zen

message: This has "Hsia nu" for the pinyin title of the movie, but this is not correct pinyin.  I have changed it to "xiá nǚ."  I think "hsia nu" is a different romanization (such as wade-giles or something).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.89.94 (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinyin: Hsia nu? 

message: I don't understand why this is categorized as a 69 movie, when it came out in 71. I'm changing it. If there's a reason why it should be '69, someone just let me know and change it back. MrCheshire 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's weird. IMDB lists its release date as 1971 but calls it 'Touch of Zen (1969)', contravening its own dating guidelines. Cop 633 02:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1969? 

message: I'm going to raise this (again).  What are the sources for this film having "a running time of over three hours"?  Even allowing for alterations in running time between film and DVD, I can't see how it can ever have been longer than three hours.  Bear in mind its original run was in two parts.  Then when it was editted together, the film had a running time approaching (but not over) three hours as the "recap" that occurs on recent DVDs would not have been included (for example in the Cannes print).  Plus, the original Hong Kong print was cut to two and a half hours (source: "King Hu's A Touch of Zen" by Stephen Teo - who, incidentally, also talks about a running time for the uncut film at around three hours).  Every time I change this, it gets changed back, but no one offers evidence of a 200 minute running time.--Cal42 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBFC rated a version running 175 minutes: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/babb3821c615b23880256d1e00242e18?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=4#_Section4.  --Crazymaner2003 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The version I have, including credits, is 6022.56+5208.24=11230.80 seconds, or 187 minutes. That *is* over three hours.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Running time

message: Does anyone know of any analysis of the film? Things like what is the role of Ku Shen Chai's mother or the blind man. Mlewan (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found something myself and added it to the page - a review by someone called Dennis Schwartz. (I got confused with the persons when I watched the movie on my iPod nano without subtitles.) Mlewan (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis? 

message: Jackie Chan did NOT have a role in this film.  He worked as an extra/stuntman/whatever for a brief period of time.  He should not be credited, and it CERTAINLY shouldn't be in his filmography! Seriously, guys, I'm thinking some people who edit this page and the Come Drink With Me page have never seen these movies, because if you had you wouldn't keep changing this!--Cal42 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right Chan worked as a stuntman in this period. But he schould be credited in "A Touch of Zen" and "Come drink with me" because Chan mentions them in his autobiography "I am Jackie Chan". He even says that he liked to appear next to Cheng Pei Pei, a well known female martial artist at this time, in the movie "Come drink with me". And you won't trust the Number One source, Jackie Chan himself? 77.181.50.113 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackie Chan - All editors please READ THIS!! 

message: This article is missing information on the film's production, release, and reception. These should be added to the article in order to completely cover the information on the film. There is also some information in the article that is unreferenced, for example there is no reference to actor Jackie Chan working as a stuntman in the film, this is just one of several unreferenced yet important pieces of information which need to be sourced. All of these changes need to occur in order to bring this article to its full potential.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: In the section on "Themes" / "Transcendence to dichotomies", first of all is it not "transcendence of dichotomies" that is meant (i.e. rising above seeming dichotomies)--and then for the term "wu", isn't the intended meaning "martial" conduct (i.e. acts of combat) rather than "marital" (i.e. of marriage)? DSatz (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see in the wuxia article that "wu" = martial--and the idea of this section does seem to be the union of opposites (a major theme of Zen Buddhism). So I've updated both of the wordings mentioned above. DSatz (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marital or martial? 

message: It's so embarrassing for this site that the whole article reads like some sort of treatise on feminism based on one western critic in the 2000s who interpreted the whole movie through an anachronistic lens of western politics, when the movie has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. That is all. And then there's the opening paragraph suggesting that the movie "explores the theme of the ghost story," based on one scene where some Ming guards are tricked into thinking a house is haunted. Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:7042:700:8CF2:25BD:88E4:5B06 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminism