Talk:Zinda (film)

Reviews

I noticed the reviews listed for the movie that are pretty low don't actually mention what the reviewers didn't like about the movie. The 2.5/5 and .5/5 barely mention anything bad in this article, though one would imagine they had complaints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.213.116.168 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Differences

In the differences with Korean film, please make it clear who is the "protagonist" and "antagonist". The protagonist is defined as "The central character in a story, generally synonymous with hero" which can be either Sanjay Dutt or John Abraham.

Also, the Indian film does not have any mention of incest.

I am not editing the page myself, since I have watched the movie a while back, and am not 100% sure. --RohanDhruva 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

Needs a Spoiler warning, not sure how... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.162.129 (talk • contribs) 21:06, August 17, 2007

Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comaprisons made in review

Just found a review about the film that points out the similarities. I believe parts of this article can be quoted to explain why the makers of Old Boy believe that their work is being copied:

"A man, taken and locked up for 14 years (15 in "Oldboy") without any reason, is suddenly released, and has 4 days (5 in "Oldboy") to figure out why this was done to him," is the outline for "Zinda" in the Internet Movie Database echoing the plot outline for "Oldboy" in the same database.

You cannot make a career out of someone else's work. You have faithfully reproduced scenes from the original: Be it the much acclaimed stunt where Dutt fights a bunch of thugs with a knife sticking out of his back or the bit when the kidnapper comes calling with a mask while he's sleeping.

Reproducing the same frames amount to plagiarism, no matter how much you have toned down the sexuality in the film."

You still do not understand the meaning of WP:MOSFILM. There is no reason "to explain why the makers of Old Boy believe that their work is being copied". Any kind of similarities/differences between plots are strongly discourafed, and only particular similarities/differences may come in context. Additionally, this review does not "explain why the makers of Old Boy believe that their work is being copied", so you intend to do it in synthesis. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The subheading is "Accusations of Plagiarism", not "accusations of plagiarism BY THE MAKERS", so your restricting it to only what the makers think does not make sense. Its is another accusation of plagiarism, as made by another verifiable source (WP:V), and not WP:OR. So your rejecting it under WP:MOSFILM does not make sence, as it is talking about the act of plagiarism, not just about the film.Zhanzhao (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The accusations of plagiarism are already discussed, and no, that single source is not a valid excuse to attempt to readd the trivial, overly specific minute list of every possible similarity and/or difference. Beyond WP:MOSFILM, it goes against WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If I just include the 1st line I mentioned, which is basically one liner description/synopsis for both movies i.e. "A man, taken and locked up for 14 years (15 in "Oldboy") without any reason, is suddenly released, and has 4 days (5 in "Oldboy") to figure out why this was done to him,". Would this small sentence actually push it over to WP:UNDUE? I also though that WP:MOS is used for general remakes, but are out of scope for plagiarism issues. In any case, I'll just be adding the link to that review to the page. Surely thats allowed?Zhanzhao (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the plagiarism issue is already noted. Repeating it over and over is unnecessary and still undue weight to one side of the issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Previously opening line of the "plagiarism" section was written as a statement of fact. Now I'm balancing it by pointing out, within a pre-existing sentence itself, that the observations were made by some reviewers. I think that's admissible. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Falsified implied legal implications of wikipedia.

I have an anonymous IP editor claiming the fact at accusations of copying by Zinda has legal implications on Wikipedia, when a source already explicitly states that it is the producers of Old Boy who were making the statements about legal implications, meaning, Wikipedia is just reporting the statement. I have issued warnings to the IP editor that he is in close violation of 3RRR, but if he continues I will ask for the page to be protected against IP editing. Just a heads up. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you might want to dial back the hostility a bit. I have made the same change to the page more than once, as have you. I am no more in violation of 3RR than you are. But also, 3RR includes a list of exceptions, one of which includes the "removal of libelous material". As I have clearly explained in the edit summaries that this is an issue of potential accusations of illegal content, there is a legitimate worry that the page as it currently reads is libelous. But let me explain that more fully.

The producers of Oldboy did express concerns that Zinda had illegally copied their film. But whether or not that claim by the Olboy producers is true or not has net been settled by a court decision or by an admission by the producers of Zinda. Thus for Wikipedia to take a position (one way or the other) would be for Wikipedia to take a position on an issue that is not settled fact. Furthermore, to side with the producers of Oldboy and say that it is a "remake" is to accuse the producers of Zinda of breaking the law. That could be considered libelous by the producers of Zinda and could be the basis for legal action against Wikipedia.

There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia reporting that the producers of Oldboy have expressed concerns of violating copyright law, but you should note that the change I made did not remove that claim at all. What Wikipedia cannot do is endorse that accusation by calling the film a "remake". There is a world of difference legally between reporting someone else's accusation and endorsing it. This is why the article cannot call the film a "remake" unless the producers of Zinda say it is or a court does. It's really that simple.

As this is an important question, I have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. If you want to add anything there, please do so. I hope that some other editors will offer some input to help decide the matter. 99.192.52.250 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the claim, since the source backing it up did not even mention Zinda, so it was highly inappropriate for an accusation of plagiarism to be sourced through a false reference. In the Controversy section, it is stated that Show East stated expressed concern that the film was similar to its film, Oldboy, and it was investigating the similarities, noting that at the time, they did not have the final version of Zinda available to compare it with. They stated that if they found there was "strong similarity between the two [films]", they would be contacting their lawyers." That is a far cry from an acknowledgement that the film is a remake of or plagiarised from Oldboy. By publishing an allegation of this nature on Wikipedia you are libeling the makers of Zinda, and you must not do this unless the makers are successfully sued. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. 99.192.52.250 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The legal claim is actually there, its the link to the korean news article (no surprise there since the original film was in Korean). The link original link is unfortunately expired (its a 7 year old article), but to save anyone else further confusion, I've added an English article which refers to the korean article, which is fortunately archived and still live. Do go ahead and verify that the links in the English page and the korean link is the one and same. And when in doubt, please refer to the discussion in earlier versions of the talk page. The claims of plagiarism had always been there, the problem had always been weightage on the issue. To clarify, there were 2 separate lawsuits, one between the writer and the producers, and the one the producers were considering against Zinda. Obviously we should be talking about the 2nd case. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You have either not understood or ignored the comment made by Betty Logan. The producers of Oldboy did NOT say that Zinda copied their film, only that they were "investigating" whether or not it did. But even if they DID say that Zinda copied Oldboy, that is not enough for Wikipedia to AGREE with the accusation. But that is exactly what the article does by calling the film a "remake". Doing so puts Wikipedia in the position of making a possibly libelous claim. 99.192.52.250 (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be perfectly fine with further including [link], [link],[link], [link]and include this as well as the full statement by the producers to give it context. The problem here being sometimes on top of "remake", they use "copy", "clone" or "plagiarised", not just a remake. And mentioning all this would defeat the whole purpose of the original weightage debate. The Essential Bollywood, written and published by Rajinder Dudrah and Jigna Desai, (The Bollywood Reader. Berkshire: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 1-17) specifically quotes "Similarly, one might seek to reframe the charges of plagiarism that are lobbied against Bollywood’s borrowings from other cinemas (e.g. from Hollywood, HongKong, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Soviet cinemas) in its remakes of famous films such as A Star is Born as Abhimaan (Pride, 1973, dir. Hrishikesh Mukherjee) or the Korean film Oldboy as Zinda (Alive, 2006, dir. Sanjay Gupta)." Zhanzhao (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly as pointed out in the Variety.com review [[1]], Dreamworks was the only company who has the OFFICIAL remake rights. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying that the film "has been identified" as a remake rather than that it "is" a remake makes all the difference in the world, legally speaking. Multiple sources that actually do identify it as such are also essential. I'd say that the page as it is now is no longer a problem. Thanks for making the appropriate change in wording and finding sufficient sources to back it up. 99.192.76.42 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.52.250)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zinda (film). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120306211149/http://ww.smashits.com/zinda/songs-5565.html to http://ww.smashits.com/zinda/songs-5565.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2024

Remove "Category:Indian neo-noir films", as it is an unsourced WP:OR. 117.230.93.254 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. No category tags are specifically sourced, are they? This is probably best addressed by attempting to form a consensus here. PianoDan (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)