Talk:The Scorpion King

chat 1

A bit strange that Steven Brand (Memnon, the main antagonist) isn't mentioned in the credits, and he doesn't seem to have an article on Wikipedia. --Anshelm '77 00:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a few corrections such as changing Sodom and Godmorroh to Sodom and Gomorrah, Mathayos - Mathayus. And I think there should be a spoiler warning in the plot section. Or at least take out the part about his brother being killed. Or maybe re-written entirely. TydAmaNN58

Why is The Rock's character a hero in this movie and a bad guy in "The Mummy Returns"? ja ja ja 03:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Even worse: while "The Mummy Returns", despite the fantasy, is only slightly departed from actual history, this film is a @$#$!@# of bad history. jggouvea 02:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Should it really matter if the film is 'full of bad history', remember it's only a film if people want to find real history then why not read a book on the subject. No film will be 100% accurate. Films should be aloud to bend history (respectfully) to make for a great viewing experiance. King Alaric 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. This is going to be rough, but let's put it simply: to "bend history" is acceptable under the traditional "poet's license" but if you want to completely falsify history, then you are not being fair, this is bad. Films (or any works of entertainment) are not okay when they are full of lies, mistakes, prejudice, oversimplification, stereotyping, etc. because culture is a weapon, it can be used to build a nation's mindset.

What are exactly the consequences of films full of misconceptions, mistakes, etc? They may cause prejudice against other nations, they may cause people to lose interest in other cultures, they can fuel racial hatred.

Why should we be concerned with this film specifically? Because it helps the cause of fringe crank History theories (like Afrocentrism by showing black people in the Middle East as something "normal"), it shows the region as "more of the same", without anything culturally significant -- and then, "boring". Not to mention that children who don't have a reading habit (the majority of them) may grow up believing steel existed in the pre-history, black people always existed all over the world, the Middle East was always a desert, etc.

Pardon me, but I am one of those who think that entertainment should be educative or -- at least -- be harmless. I don't think it is OK to have an entertainment that, after all, carries no cultural significance and hinders education. jggouvea 04:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I accept what you are saying, and please note that I did say bend history respectivly, this should mean not causeing any of the problems you listed such as racial hatred or prejudice etc. However you must see that even the best film aren't 100% accurate. (I would be very interested to hear of some fims that you think are accurate or educational.) As for your point about hindering education I feel that films help to promote education, for example im 16 I watched the Scorpion King was inspired and learnt more about the real events and the history of that period, I brought a book on the subject and read wikipedia articles about it. Films help to spark the imagination and forward young people on to learn more. King Alaric 17:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

-- There is no reason to have a page detailing the historical inaccuracy of this film. It is just that, a film. Please stop whining and moaning about how inaccurate this is. Have you seen "The Mummy" or "The Mummy Returns"? Do you really think that in the 1920s an ancient Egyptian priest came back from the dead and well, you saw the movie. Please, if you want to complain about historical inaccuracy go write on something that has in it's title "a true story" that has elements such as seen in these films. meh 02:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow dude you need to chill out!!! Stop whining and moaning WTF. We were simply commenting on the film, dude I was trying to defend the fact that films dont have to be accurate. Cant people debate on wikipedia any more?? King Alaric 15:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC) ---

Why is there even a mention of the anachronistic "romantic"? It makes no sense to point that the a character should not use the word "romantic" because of its derivation from Rome/Roman when the true "anachronism" of the film would be that all the characters are speaking 21st century American English. It's not an inconsistency, it's just linguistically humorous. 68.236.42.69 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an action movie, not a historical documentary. Only idiots go to a movie theater thinking they're there to be educated. Spartan198 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198 ---

--Although I'm also questioning the value of an historical inaccuracies section in an article about a fantasy movie, I've cleaned up the segment a bit, got rid of a contradiction in the intro, and deleted a number of pointless entries, including:

"In the beginning of the film, a narrator describes the events of the film occurring "before the time of the pyramids". Historically, most of the pyramids of Egypt were constructed during the Old Kingdom; however, a scene from The Mummy Returns depicted Mathayus leading an army against Thebes, which was the capital of Egypt during the New Kingdom."

This is an historical inaccuracy in another movie altogether, and when removed from the context of SK, this just becomes a continuity error between the two movies, and thus redundant.

"Memnon is a Greek name, more than a thousand years before the Greeks reached the Mediterranean. It was used later, and erroneously, for the Pharaoh Amenhotep III."

I'm not sure what this means, as the first sentence isn't very clear, and it's also pretty nitpicky for a fantasy film.

"The Rock was never actually in Ancient Egypt"

Duh.

Truth be told, I can only find justification for the inclusion of the entries on the anachronisms of gunpowder and Iron Age-era weapons appearing in a Bronze Age film. The anachronistic use of Arabic is moot, since, as was pointed out earlier, the use of English in the film is far more suspect, and the supposedly anachronistic regional references could also be chalked up to semantics. If someone else could second it, I'd recommend dropping this section altogether, since pointing out historical inaccuracies in a fantasy movie seems pretty pointless. Kt'Hyla (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I rented, I re-watched... I deleted. I forgot how tongue-in-cheek this movie was (hadn't seen it since it was in theaters), so I'm deleting the "Historical Inaccuracies" section. I'm still not sure how someone could gripe about "bad history" in a fantasy flick that's equal parts Conan, Xena and some WWF/WWE thrown in... Kt'Hyla (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

chat 2

Talk of a Sequel

http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=514

Noteworthy? A reliable source? Wiser Wikipedians than me can decide. 80.47.157.229 19:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

incomplete cast

What happened to the boy? I can't find him being listed in cast anywhere, including IMDB.--Mato Rei 08:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuity

How does the character portrayed in this film relate to the Scorpion King from The Mummy Returns? Though they are intended to be the same character, it doesn't seem to match since he is a hero in this film and a force of evil in the previous film. If someone understands the plot better than this, please add some info to the plot summary. Ham Pastrami 06:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Mathayus

Although the article mentions the suspicious similarity of Mathayus to the Greek name, the name Matthew actually originates from Hebrew and may date back to before the approximate era where the film takes place, although probably not a common name in Ancient Egypt. On the other hand, the Hebrew version, Mattityahu is not very similar to Mathayus, while the Greek translation, Matthias, is quite similar. Thorn 00:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot Section?

Theres a "Trivia" and "Historical Accuracy" section but no plot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.121.146 (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Streamline

I have a question? Is the version of Streamline by System of a Down the same version that is on some copies of the Aerials single? 12.214.76.88 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Not the worst looking article I've ever seen, but the Historical Inaccuracies section and Trivia are both horrible, lacking in references, full of original research and opinion and even some false statements (making a claim to the real name for the real Scorpion King for instance, as far as I know no proof exists that "Serqet, not Mathayus" completely accurate, its more accurate to just say it is unknown who the real Scorpion King was). Comparing French, Brits and Russians is also pretty horrible, thats Southern Germans, Western Germans and Celts and Slavs (infact Russia is not wholly European, and European Russia is not wholly Slavic, for instance the only Buddhist people native to Europe are from Russia). On the other hand, all of those (except the Mycenians) are Semitic people, a much better comparison would be Danes, Franks and the Swiss, not that any comparison is any good. Also, they didn't "exist in different time periods", what 2000BC rolls around and the Sumers all drop dead and up pops Babylon? They conquered each other in turn and merged. There is also no reason to mention Christ, we have a thing for that without mentioning a religious figure that might of not existed at all, its BC or BCE. Its also more accurate, saying Friday the 1st instead of a couple of Fridays ago. Moving on to trivia, give me proof that this Cassandra is a reference to that Cassandra. Incase your unfamiliar with this term, proof is the substance which most of Wikipedia is built on, the good articles anyways. It comes in the form of written or audio word, from someone of a respectable position considering the article, such as a writer or directer. Note, that it has to be something actually said by such a person and not something you made up that you think he would say. Or she. Nudity was worthwhile trivia in the 50s or so, it stopped being so well before I was born however. The rolling gong is not noteworthy enough, unless it is obviously a wripoff and mentioned by someone (once again someone who matters, not you or your friends or me). That Chow Yun Fat was almost cast might be noteworthy, his acting career as villains is not, not on this page, try his own article, and try using a reviewer commenting on it or something, not us. How is California notable, Hollywood is in California, Mexico is practically th same desert, most of the other deserts are rather unsafe and far away. The lack of connection between one character in this movie and the same character a great deal of time afterwards in another movie is not notable. Compare Anakin in Ep 2 to Darth in Ep 5, not the same, mostly as a result of 3 and 4. The understudy saying a couple of lines is not noteworthy, infact I do believe its there job. The rest can stay until someone decides to delete it as it should be, me, I'm not getting in a fight with people who consider all of Russia to be European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, a reminder, all movies are works of fiction. All movies, with very few exceptions (even documentaries only show whats in front of the camera, what the director intends to show). Band of Brothers, based on something that happened a mere few decades ago, with the real characters there helping out, was not 100% accurate. How do directors and writers know what a character is thinking? Easy, they make him up, even if hes based off of a real person, he is recreated for film and the actors plays him as his thinks the character thinks. Therefore, if a director says his movie takes place in 1380 and is gonna involve the Order of the Dragon (which wasn't founded for 28 years) it is incorrect to reality, but as a work of fiction is 100% correct. Sentences like "The plot is supposedly set in the pre-historical Middle East" are completely wrong. The movie is made to be as accurate to real events as the creators care to, otherwise it is set where the director wants, no supposedly. Supposedly Indiana and the Temple of Doom took place in India in the 1930s, but no Thuggee cult existed in that place at that time. One little change makes something completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, what he said ;). I've cleaned the "Historical Inaccuracies" section up a bit (see my entry under "chat1" for details), but I'd recommend dropping this section altogether, since pointing out historical inaccuracies in a fantasy movie seems pretty pointless. Kt'Hyla (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Part of a series of disruptive moves proposed by this block evading IP. Jenks24 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The Scorpion King → The Scorpion King (2002 film) There is a film titled The Scorpion King (1992 film). Also "The Scorpion King" should redirect to the Scorpion King disambiguation page. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:189E:A4B0:6469:D4DE (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Scorpion King. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20060509143136/http://www.nypost.com/movies/41652.htm to http://www.nypost.com/movies/41652.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)