Talk:Solomon Kane (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.

Budget wrong

Hi everyone, sry if I'm doing this wrong (new to wikiediting) but I've just seen the movie and then looked up this page and noticed the wrong budget. I hope someone who knows his way around wikiediting can include this information in the article.

While Michael J. Bassett succeded to make this movie feel like a "big" picture, even more a good one, it is not in terms of it's budget it seems. This is what he has to say on his blog on that topic:

(Tell us how you went from voicing and operating Scally the Dog on CITV to writing and directing a 40 million dollar action adventure film?) "Oh boy, I wish it had been $40million dollars…Every time I read a budget number for Kane it seems to have doubled… The producers wouldn’t thank me for offering an exact figure, so I won’t but just don’t believe all you read."

Also from the sounds of it on his blog he is facing the same "issue" in terms of budget with the second movie.

You tube

The link now come up with removed due to coyright violations, this link should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero Films?

I'm not so sure this should be considered a superhero film. Having read a bit of Conan and considerably less Solomon Kane, it seems like he's just a 16th-century incarnation of Howard's usual "ultimate badass" character (Kull, Conan, Bran Mak Morn). Since I checked, and Conan didn't make the Superhero Films list, why should Solomon Kane?70.62.62.18 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point very well taken. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening scene gaffe

This movie opens with a subtitle that showing the year to be 1600 while also showing a man of war flying a Union Jack. Now first of all the Union Flag wasn't even conceived til 1603, and even then, Royal Navy ships would use a White Ensign.

Worthy of mention in the article? I never studied history at school past age 13 and even I noticed this error right away! JieBie (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather silly anachronism. I think its worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be included but you'll need a valid reference for it (otherwise it is Original Research, which will probably be deleted). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Original Research is irrelevant here. There are two facts - the film shows a date of 1600; in this case the film is its own reference. Second, for the Union Flag, just go to the Wikipedia link, where the history of the flag (with numerous refs) can be seen. Ergo, one date clearly contradicts the other, and there is no original research or synthesis made. But still I doubt its worth mentioning in the article. The Yeti (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, on 12 April 1606, the Union Flag was instituted by King James I, to represent the regal union between England and Scotland. This royal flag was at first only for use at sea on civil and military ships of both England and Scotland, whereas land forces continued to use their respective national banners. In 1634, King Charles I restricted its use to the royal ships. 87.211.40.7 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Taskforce / American Films

I've removed the American Taskforce item from the WP:FILM banner on this talk page but I have left Category:American films on the film page itself. Solomon Kane was not produced by an American company, was not filmed in America and its principal cast and crew were no American; so, it is not within the scope of the task force. The category might have other requirements of which I am unaware. The source, Robert E. Howard, was Texan (which might count) and I think that the rights holders, Paradox, moved from Sweden (I think) to Los Angeles at some point (which might also count if I am remembering correctly). I might remove the category later depending on future information or investigation, so if anyone supports or opposes this, feel free to comment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and now I have removed the category. I looked through the cast, crew, production companies and filming locations without finding anything linking this film to America. Other websites show it as "British/Czech/French." So, that's what I'm going with for now. Revert if you have better information. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening scene... gaffe? no, definitely a loud mistake!

A warship is seen attacking the Norh African coast at the very beginning of the movie... but it's a 19th century ship! in an early 17th century battle??? The bow is clearly an 1820s style bow, like in the Belle Poule... Kintaro (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]