Talk:The Eagle (2011 film)

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Film: British / American

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gaelic![edit]

Be rational. What is the point of pedantically arguing about the authenticity of the director choosing Gaelic as the language of the Picts when the Romans are speaking 21st Century Modern English? I think the director chose Gaelic to add to the flavor of the film, its not supposed to be accurate in regard to language, otherwise nobody could understand it. In point of fact we know almost nothing about what the so-called "Picts" spoke, its all guesswork, so why not use Gaelic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.109.168 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not a historical movie but an adventure movie[edit]

apart from the language issue, and the consistency of the gaelic spoken, as even if we consider gaelic being used as a gimmick to make sure they speak a different language from the Romans, who speak Modern English in the movie, there is too many errors in the gaelic spoken, there are so many other errors in the movie, like the naming of characters, the terrain, etc, etc. In all fairness the movie is riddled with inaccuracies and is probably even more flawed than Braveheart. It is a nice action/adventure movie but non-historical. I propose filing the movie under adventure movies and not under historical as there is no historical basis for the movie at all. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical" is a genre. It's got nothing to do with how accurate it is. Ben Hur is a historical epic, even though the story is made up. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot needs an edit[edit]

The Picts spoke a dialect of P celtic ancient British,the same language Welsh comes from,There is no mystery about this ,there is nothing gaelic about Aberdean,Abernethy, Melrose,Moffat or Pitlochry. It is true that the Picts came to speak gaelic,but that wasnt until about 900AD,when a Gael by the name of Giric usurped the Pictish throne. Any Welsh language adviser could have made a pretty authentic stab at the pictish dialect.Oh and by the way where were the pictish iron weapons,I got the impression the film was dealing with some stone age culture.

I just read through the plot, and frankly it is worded terribly. I am not a writer myself, but somebody seriously has to change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.43.10 (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get around to it. Swarm ^X 21:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the plot section it says "After burying the fallen legionaries — including Guern — Aquila, Esca, and the few survivors of the Ninth return to Roman territory" I watched this film today and Guern was not actually buried, he was burnt on a pyre. I may be wrong but I don't remember the others being buried either, the survivors of the battle placed their fallen comrades in a neat line with their shields and weapons placed with them but I don't think any of them were actually shown to be buried. Zeb 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate ending[edit]

The section of "Plot" about the alternate ending keeps getting deleted. I can't understand why anyone would think it wasn't relevant, the deleter doesn't explain. For the record this is the text:

Alternate ending
The alternate ending is featured in the DVD. Marcus decides to burn the eagle standard on the altar where the final battle occurred, instead of delivering it to the Roman governor of Britannia. He tells Esca that he does this because the eagle belongs to the men who fought for it. Marcus and Esca are then shown approaching Hadrian's Wall on foot and talk about their plans for the future.

Barsoomian (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate endings seem to be a funny creature. Some articles mention them and some don't. I generally find they are best served as part of the home media release sections, myself. I can't think of an article where they've been in the plot and not been moved to the DVD release. But the plot section is generally for the plot of the theatrical release (a few films make exceptions for directors cuts but most don't). So it seems like something to detail under any notable special features for home media. Millahnna (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, move it if you think it really should be in a different section, don't just delete it. I didn't put it in the article to begin with. Though it seems to me to be all about "plot". Barsoomian (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary changes[edit]

The plot summary here acquired about 2 Kb of text recently, without any explanation of why. It doesn't appear to be an improvement, so I have reverted it. The summary is already on the long side, and could probably benefit from being trimmed, not added to. We shouldn't be trying to describe every scene and action, and saying much the same in more words isn't really an improvement; the previous summary was more succint. Also, the new addition had some dubious stuff in it; If Marcus had "volunteered for the command so he can investigate what happened, recover the Ninth's standard, and restore honor to the family name", it doesn't say so in the film, AFAIK (is it from the book?); the restored version is more accurate on this point. Swanny18 (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagle as an effective sequel[edit]

All that is pointed out is that the main character's entire motivation for the plot is his father's disappearance, and his father was the lead character (commander of the army that disappeared) in the other movie about that disappearance. To delete the paragraph claiming there is no evidence is tantamount to vandalism! Iph (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC) User 188.29.165.23 please do NOT delete this again! Your remark the second time you did this is "No clear evidence of this. The film the Eagle was based on a children's book of the same name. The film Centurion was based off a original idea." This is irrelevant.[reply]

The definition of a sequel is "A sequel is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre, television, music, or video game that continues the story of, or expands upon, some earlier work." The film The Eagle is a film that is about a man's search for what happened to his father and the 9th Legion, and thus continues the story of the film Centurion which is the story of his father and the 9th Legion. No other evidence than this fact as fully authenticated in the articles about thes two titles can possibly be needed. The fact that one film was based on history or legend of the Roman empire, and the other is based on a modern an thus different author's novel does not change this fact. The Sequel article states that " In the common context of a narrative work of fiction, a sequel portrays events set in the same fictional universe as an earlier work" but that does not mean that if a novel presents a story that follows, in fiction, from historical events, a film made based on it cannot be called a sequel to another film based on those historical events: the characters are Romans, with a relationship (father and son) and set in a real world (the Roman Empire of 1860 years or so ago) and the original is said to be a legend. They are in the same world or universe, and the motivation of the chief character's main actions in the second is what happened as sown in the first. It is a sequel by definition of that term in WIkipedia! Iph (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]