Talk:Vikram Vedha

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2017

The plot details are wrong and the syntax is quite abysmal. Ramprana (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Gross removal

Hi Editor 2050, this edit, specifically the portion where you removed the gross value, doesn't seem constructive to me. If you believe the film grossed more than 17 crore, feel free to find the more current value and add it, but deleting sourced data is not terribly helpful, since we know that it grossed at least 17 crore. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

instigator TO INVESTIGATOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.123.1.1 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vikram Vedha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 17:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Sam C. S. wrote the soundtrack and score" - wrote?
• "received positive critical feedback, with praise for Pushkar and Gayathri's direction and script, Vinod's cinematography, and the performances of the two male leads." - why not say "positive feedback, with critics praising all major aspects of the production"?
• "The film's success resurrected the Tamil film industry" - "resurrected" is a little heavy handed. Why not say that the film performed well despite the GST?

Will look at rest soon, Ssven2. VedantTalk 17:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have resolved your initial comments, Numerounovedant.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

More:

• "They planned to make their next film one with a more serious tone" - grammar.
• Is "shades of grey" a direct quote?
• "considered setting the film in politics, business and journalism" - setting the film in isn't really right.

Do you have a better alternative, Numerounovedant?

• "completing it by April 2016" - in?
• "In addition to growing a beard for his role, Madhavan did not workout to lose weight." - what he did should come before how he did it. So, maybe just say he lost weight in this sentence and then talk about how he did it later.
• The filming sections might be a little monotonous with similarly structure sentences.

There's nothing much to get from the filming section except the schedules (when they commenced etc). Not much detailed information regarding its filming and shooting came around (which seems strange considering it has two bankable stars). The rest have been hopefully resolved.

Looking through the rest. VedantTalk 04:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Your comments thus far have been hopefully resolved. Let me know if there’s anything I might have missed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Continued:

• "For his work in Vikram Vedha, Sam composed the score based on the script" - "For his work in VV" is really not required.
• You might also to rephrase the latter half of the sentence; "rather than doing so" is too wordy.
• The third paragraph of the music section is very disjointed. You might want to improve the flow there.
• "Before to the release of the album" - Prior to or Before.
• You can also add the date of release in the same sentence to avoid repetition.

I'll read through reception soon. VedantTalk 14:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your comments thus far have been hopefully resolved. Let me know if there’s anything I might have missed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The film was initially planned for release" - why not say "was scheduled to release on..." and then merge the second sentence into the first.
• "however, due to" that's just not right.
• "Vikram Vedha, along with Hiphop Tamizha's Meesaya Murukku, were" - was.
• "with praise for its direction, story, screenplay, cinematography, and the performances of Madhavan and Sethupathi" - I might have said this before, but if most aspects were praised then there is no point in listing them.
• "by far the best film to release in Tamil this year so far" - can be easily paraphrased.
• "He observed that while both Madhavan and Sethupathi" - while isn't required.

Before we go any further, why don't you consider restructuring the section theme wise, the general praise, the performances the criticism and so on? Let me know how you feel. VedantTalk 15:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've resolved your comments hopefully, Numerounovedant. Can you look at the critical response section again? I've restructured it. Let me know your opinion of it. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks better organised now, but still needs work. Here are a few comments:

• The section should not be structured with the critic at the center, but the comments. Ideally, all comments about the story should be in one paragraph, direction in one and so on. It'll be fine for now, but it's always better if you keep that in mind while writing reception section.
• You can't really characterise the "lead cast".
• "three and a half out of five stars", that's the problem with ratings, that you mention here the "out of" bit, but do not do it elsewhere makes it ambiguous for the reader. And if you mention the "out of" field everywhere it's just too wordy and monotonous. I'd do away with ratings altogether. Let the statement speak for the critic.
• "says that Sethupathi "oozes of charisma" and Madhavan gives "a whole-hearted" effort" - Why the present tense suddenly?
• "Subramaniam further added that Srinath and Varalakshmi portrayed "brave characters", and Kathir, Prem and Peradi "do their part well"." - I do not see the value of the "brave characters" as it doesn't say anything about the performances and the "do their part well" isn't particularly quote worthy either.
• "in his sleep" - that's an unusual thing to put in quotes.
• "crowd-pleasing lines in the most casual fashion" - I don't​ know if that's a good or a bad thing.
• "Suganth appreciated its "well-crafted"" - The film's and no quotes needed.
• "well crafted filmmaking"?
• "praising the climax sequence in particular, noting that all the conversations between the characters, and even the opening sequence" - the opening sequence needs to go first.
• This paragraph jumps from one thing to another without any real flow still, fancy another try at this?
• The last paragraph needs to rewritten. Too many issues there: the opening line has grammar issue, the tense is messed up, "while" and "and" etc.

Let me know if you have any questions about the comments. I apologise for the delayed responses. VedantTalk 05:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've hopefully now restructured the critical response section, Numerounovedant. Let me know your opinion of it. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks better now. VedantTalk 15:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Final comments

Looks good to me now, just a couple of issues with the refs.

• Scroll.in should be italicised.
• Link Sify.
• Why mention the agency specifically for ref 16?
• What are Behindwoods, Silverscreen.in?
• I do not think of IndiaGlitz as reliable.

Once the comments on the references are addressed, I'll give it a final reading. VedantTalk 15:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Final comments

This should do it then. I'll pass this article, good work Ssven2. Sorry that this dragged. VedantTalk 06:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Movie copy

This movie is similar to Hollywood movie The street kings by keanu reeves. It’s loosely based on that movie. Why do we remove that from the page. Kirankumar061983 (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Where are your sources? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It has similar story line, a corrupt superior officers and his team with a single good cop(Keanu reeves). Street kings by Keanu reeves is similar except Vikram Vedha team changed the screen play. Please compare two movies. Kirankumar061983 (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Any sources or references that are reliable (like newspapers and reputed websites like Rediff.com, Sify etc.) can be used for your claims. Do state what you say along with sources that mention such a detail as this.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)