Talk:Cleopatra (1963 film)

message: Please find sources for this trivia and integrate into the article. Thanks. Chaz Beckett 16:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Viewed objectively some years after it was released, I don't think it was a particularly good film, but not as bad as its reputation might suggest.  Actually, I thought it stuck to the facts of the period fairly closely, certainly better than e.g. Braveheart or Cromwell (film).  What did it get wrong with the assassination of Caesar?  And is it inaccurate to describe Octavian as a power-mad but weak-stomached teenager?  His character, like a lot of other historical figures, is surely open to interpretation. PatGallacher (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much like Chinese Democracy. Good, but not great, set ridiculous records in production costs, and didn't live up to hype due to negative publicity. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It is not an inaccuracy that Agrippa attended the senate. Membership in the senate followed service as a magistrate. Since Agrippa had been Tribune of the Plebs, he had become a senator. Membership in the Equestrian order had nothing to do with whether someone could become a senator or not. Almost all senators were both, since anybody who had a fortune of more than 200,000 sesterces became automatically a member of the Equestrian order and a political career required far more money.154.122.75.6 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

text: It is also not an inaccuracy that Caesarion had the chance to become Caesar's heir. Why else would Octavian had killed him, if he had nothing to fear from him? The movie is historically correct here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.122.75.6 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracies etc.

message: The article states that the budget for Cleopatra was outdone by the budget for the third Pirates of the Caribbean film.  But then it gives $307 million as the Cleopatra budget (corrected for inflation of course) and $300 million for the Pirates budget.  300 is less than 307, not more. 76.119.204.89 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, 300 < 307, I'll change that if there are no objections.  The figures in the List of most expensive films page seems to back this up as well. Caduon (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Correction - so, actually, I just plugged the numbers into an inflation calculator and it seems to show that the estimated cost of the Pirates movie was in fact larger than Cleopatra.  I say estimated because it seems according to the List page, that the real, exact figure for that movie is not known. Caduon (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget 

message: If this movie does in fact cleave substantially to the historical record, it would be nice to have a reliable source stating as much. those who know the history may not realize that some of us don't. The article has a section on historical inaccuracies, which means that a casual reader will assume its mostly inaccurate. the inaccuracies listed seem, to me, trivial, compared to the probably truthful content.(mercurywoodrose, after watching it). ps did anyone ever comment on liz taylor's, uh, body, at the time. seems a fairly racy film for the time.75.61.136.242 (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The closing scene where Cleopatra's servant defiantly praises her to Octavian and then falls dead is straight from Shakespeare's ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA.  I think the article should have discussed how much or how little the film was dependent on Shakespeare's play. 73.137.170.88 (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many historical inaccuracies and omissions, though that's only to be expected in historical fiction, and doesn't make it a bad movie in any way. Caesarion was 17 when he, Antony, and Cleopatra died (in the film he looks about 12), and Caesarion died after Antony and Cleopatra did, though not long after (Antony died on August 1, 30 BC, Cleopatra on August 12, and Caesarion on August 23). Also, Cleopatra had three children by Antony when she died: 9- or 10-year-old twins (Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene II) and a 6-year-old son (Ptolemy Philadelphus); and Antony had a son (Marcus Antonius Antyllus) who was the same age as Caesarion and died the same day. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: I removed the following unsourced statement from the article:
The arduous process and enormous cost of completing Cleopatra resulted in the end of the sword and sandal epic.
It's a vague, blanket statement, and is demonstrably untrue; Italian "sword and sandal" movies continued until 1965 (like the Sons of Hercules movies, or The Revenge of Spartacus). Maybe it's meant that it caused Hollywood to give up on the genre (as opposed to the entire world) but it would take some serious sources to prove that that's an absolute fact. Spaghetti Westerns came in, mythology went out. At any rate, it's unsourced and incorrect, so I've taken it out. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the genre 

message: Rather than start an edit war, it's best to discuss this matter here. Whilst Cleopatra did come to Rome, the scene as described in the film is incorrect as Cleopatra could not, and in fact did not cross the Pomerium into what the ancient Romans actually thought of as Rome proper, where all offical state business could be conducted. The scene is meant to indicate that Cleopatra entered the heart of the city and was received in the Forum, which is not correct. Her official procession travelled from the port of Ostia to the outskirts of Rome, where it halted. She stayed at one of Caesar's villa's in the Transtiberim, on the outskirts of Rome. She did not cross the boundary into Rome proper, and she did not stay at Caesar's house in Rome, as his official residence was the Domus Publica, and she could not be permitted to stay there. Therefore I am proposing to reinstate the point about Cleopatra's entry into Rome as being historically inaccurate. Oatley2112 (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleopatra's entry into Rome 

message: Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: So, after seeing a couple of film articles stating that they made a loss, it seems that my brain must be broken.
Both films had budgets that were less than their box office.
This article claims:
Budget: 31.1
Box office: 57.8
Can someone explain how that is a loss?
The article also states: "earning box-office of $57.7 million in the United States (equivalent to $461 million in 2017), yet lost money due to its production and marketing costs of $44 million (equivalent to $352 million in 2017)"
That is CLEARLY NOT a loss?
Q: Timmy buys a bike for 44 and sells it for 58, how much profit did Timmy make?
A: 14 units of monetary value
Nope, still can't see how it was a loss ... Chaosdruid (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The studio doesn't get all the revenue from the box office (the theaters get a cut too), and the budget doesn't respresent all the expenditure on the film. Once you factor in marketing and distribution the total expenditure on Cleopatra was $44 million (with the budget accounting for $31 million of that). Fox's share of the box-office as of 1966 amounted to $38 million (see the figures in note 3 in the reference section). This amounted to a net loss of $6 million, a significant sum back in the 1960s. You are right to complain though because the article does not make it clear how the film lost money and this needs to be explained in greated detail. For the record the film ultimately made its money back through TV sales, so in the longterm it did not actually lose money (another fact completely missing from the article). I have sources for this so I will find some time over the weekend and dig them out. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss? 

message: Should this not be Munda?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:A414:4A01:316D:3EA1:F8F9:BE70 (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Moongate 

message: There is a reference to "40-degree weather" at Pinewood (England). Is this Fahrenheit or Celsius/Centigrade? FrankSier (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The book doesn't indicate if it was Fahrenheit or Celsius, but I assume it's the former. 40 degree Celsius is hot. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

text: 40 Celsius in Pinewood in September 1960 seems very, very unlikely - see United Kingdom weather records. It must be Fahrenheit. The point is that it was cold when the nude scene was shot. Masato.harada (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "40-degree weather" at Pinewood