Talk:Sholay/Archive 1

Archive 1

English translation

Hey everyone,I'm kinda unsure whether Flames is a good translation of Sholay. this needs to be checked with an expert, but i think "embers" is a better translation. The movie is also about a subdued but violent emotion (eg. amitabh-jaya mute romance) I don't know - I'll think more. Thinking of writing an essay on Amitabh. --Fadereu 23:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Both are proper official names with which the film was released outside India. What happened to you essay on Amitabh ? Jay 00:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

- i think embers is a better translation too. Mohijit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohijit (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sholah: Flame

Sholay: Flames

Chingari: Ember

Chingarian: Embers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.99.128 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

People behind the movie

Shoulden't the people the movie be mentioned? thinking of Salim-Javed, Director, Producer, Musician etc ? Dhirad 10:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure! I've added them in the Credits. Jay 00:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

There is loads of Sholay-trivia... Why not start a trivia section?

I have a question someone asked me. I have'nt seen the movie.

"What is the name of the town where Basanti meets the two men?"

Interesting photo

There is an interesting photo on the 4 main male characters, Veeru, Jai, Thakur and Gabbar. The photo was shot during a break in the shooting. all 4 posed with smiling faces, and Thakur flaunting his 2 arms! That's a gem of a photo. I forgot where I saw that. Can anybody trace?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

this one ? Jay 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah That one. Thanks. Excellent image.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation provided

For the Citation asked for in the length of reel in the Awards section, I got the info from the book The Making of a Classic, by Anupama Chopra. Please add the relevant info in place of the Citation needed. Jay 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous dialogues

I think that section is bit silly because the english translation is meaningless (if not absurd). I understand that the dialogues from Sholay are part of the culture but it is 100% useless when translated. The sections "legacy" and "famous dialogues" should be combined into a "cultural impact" section which can mention the impact of dialogues in the film or something. Instead of giving translations that are meaningless write a prose about why the dialogue has had such an impact and also, what kind of impact. --Blacksun 07:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it's pretty pointless on the English Wikipedia. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be moved to Wikiquote with only a select few added and written in paragraph format? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Blacksun.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage a section on transliterated quotes in the Legacy section. I personally read all my Hindi transliterated anyway. Quoting from Sholay is not only nostalgic but provides a strong sense of cultural unity and pride in Indian lingual ingenuity aka dialogue-baazi. I don't care if other "Western-type" articles don't have movie quotes in their section. This is Sholay not Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge or They Call me Trinity! 95% of Indians rank this movie in the top five movies of all times and can readily quote at least two quotes from memory. And who reads Wikiquotes anyway apart from Wikipedia talkpage users?! Worst-to-worst, atleast a in-page link to WIkiquotes needs to be provided - I hardly know of anyone who clicks on the WIkiquotes link at the bottom.

Stills

Right now it has the DVD cover and poster, but could really do with some stills from the film. The picture of the cast together mentioned above would add a lot to the article - as would some sort of picture related to the reception such as crowds outside a cinema, or whatever. Vastu 08:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright would be a problem with that pic of cast. Some movie stills can be had from the DVD, and uploaded. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that some filesharing sites probably have stills - I dont have the DVD, but could get some from there. Also, I dont know how true this is - but apparently the original ending of the movie involved Thakur taking bloody revenge out on Gabbar, but this was cut, after being judged too violent - the footage may still exist. Vastu 10:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is true. This has been discussed in Sholay: Making of a Classic by A. Chopra. And that original ending's print is still available, and has been shown in some DVD editions.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Two notes

First of all: Maybe the mention of the stereotypes of the village should be placed into a separate paragraph. And second: what's a mousi and why is a blind iman a stereotype? Have never seen one in a Bollywood movie, though I have been watching the newer ones. --Plumcouch 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora wields slashing sword of copy-editing

I worked over the article thoroughly. I removed a lot of gush. That wasn't hard, because I didn't like the movie. It may have seemed new and fresh to Indians, but it was same-old same-old to a kid who grew up watching Westerns on TV, and later became an avid Akira Kurosawa fan. I thought the humor was so broad, and so stupid, that it was embarrassing.

If you want to argue that it's a magnificent film, you're going to have to find some critics to quote, because it's just not right for WP to declare it a masterpiece :)

This may be a gender thing. I should think that men would find this movie more appealing than women would.

I'm braced. You guys can all scold me now for my lack of appreciation for this movie. Zora 09:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have the first go then! Actually, your rewrite sparkles in places, but the original version is much better. Usage of words like "revenge" by you to allude to filmfare award actually prove that - we become what we hate - your employing revenge being a case in point. Excising info is a strict no-no, e.g. Character of gobar singh in Chacha Chaudhury comics became extremely popular as it was modeled on Gabbar and the comic started doing even better (it was a success even before). Also, if you feel that something is uncited, slapping a "cite needed" tag may be much better than, say, deleting the info. Pls understand that only recently this was WP:INCOTW with a record no. of votes and that those editors find the previous version of the article to be good. --Gurubrahma 09:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, the version I edited was unfocussed, meandering, and fanboy. Really. The response section was particularly bad. It may be that you guys are so far INSIDE Indian pop culture that you don't understand that material that seems important to you is just "huh?" to anyone outside India. I'm somewhat up on movies, but I don't do Indian comic books -- and neither do most of the readers who will be consulting this article. You will have to explain why the comic is important and exactly what sort of innovation it was to have a bandit chief named Gobar Singh. Chacha Chaudhury comics are like WHAT Western comics? Or manga? Like Asterix? As successful as Asterix? Realistic? fantasy? Was the new character a major, continuing character, or just a one-issue allusion to the film? You're going to have to do some explaining or "unpacking" if you want that bit of trivia to mean anything. Ditto for much of the rest of it. Zora 10:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

True, however, adding an expand tag or explain tag would be more sensible than, say deleting the info because newer users would never know what happened or what the contents were before, right? And interested people can always go to the Chacha Chaudhury article - that is the advantage of wiki links, no need to explain each and everything and then find that someone else has extensively snipped and copyedited it ;) --Gurubrahma 10:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just one comment, for the time being. The whole "response" section was referenced. If anybody wants, I can give inline citation for every single line. However, I had given inline citations for only 7 lines, in order to make a easy reading. So I am reinserting the old response. --Dwaipayan (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Another pont, bulleting should be avaoided as far as possible. "Trivia" may need bulleting. For bulleting in the rest of the article, rather making several good-sized paragraphs is batter.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The response section may have been referenced, but it didn't make much sense to an outsider. Also, it is not wrong to have bullet points. In fact, bullet points are a LOT more readable than a para that is nothing but a list. I have been replacing "list paras" with bulleted lists all over WP for years and no one has complained until now. It makes the article look longer, but space is of no concern here. Readability is. Zora 10:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, its ok to retain bullets. I did not really complain regarding that! Anyway, "response", whatever Zora may think, is referenced. Of course it may need clarification and explanation (so that anyone from any part of the world can understand easily). However, all the claims made in that section is based on the book by A. Chopra (see references), and so cannot be simply deleted. Please add citation needed tags where necessary. --Dwaipayan (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try to talk this out. We have the immediate response: long lines, audience memorizing script. Did they SAY it out loud in the theatre? That wasn't clear, which is why I removed it. Was it like a performance of The Rocky Horror Show?

Did any of the lines of the script (as opposed to whole scenes) become catch phrases? Other than parties, where did people act out the scenes? Or did they? Was that scene in Hum Aapke Hain Koun not typical? Then there's names -- kids named Veeru and Jai? more than before? Kids named after other characters? Names become more popular in movies? Really? Were bits of the movie used in ads? Hmmmm ... let's see, TV, ads, magazines, books, newspapers, radio -- how was Sholay refracted through the media? Responses in the villages? Gender differences in responses? I'm thinking like a social scientist here. If you say that Sholay became a popular craze, I want to know just how. Zora 11:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Zora. This is what we expected from an experienced user like you. This will help immensely to upgrade the article. Now, one by one

"Did they SAY it out loud in the theatre?" - yes they did. I am making that clear.

"Did any of the lines of the script (as opposed to whole scenes) become catch phrases?" - absolutely. Almost every other. In fact, we had a list of dialogues that became catch phrases, but later it was removed (during the article was an Indian collaboration of the week).

"Other than parties, where did people act out the scenes? Or did they? Was that scene in Hum Aapke Hain Koun not typical?" - I did not understand that reference to Hum Aapke Hai Kaun. I have forgot that film. However, I remember a reenactment of the kitne aadmi the scene in Baazigar.

"Then there's names -- kids named Veeru and Jai? more than before? Kids named after other characters?" - no idea

"Names become more popular in movies? Really?" - not exactly. As the legacy pointed out, some pair in some movies were named Jai and Veeru.

"Were bits of the movie used in ads? Hmmmm ... let's see, TV, ads, magazines, books, newspapers, radio -- how was Sholay refracted through the media?" - some ads were made based on the famous scenes like kitne aadmi the scene. In fact, one ad was created with the same cast and used to be shown in the theatres during the internission. In fact, the book by A. Chopra says how people dids not move from the seats even during the intermission to see the ad. It was an ad of Britannia biscuites.

Responses in the villages? Gender differences in responses? - no references.

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora - "how was Sholay refracted through the media?"... There must be hundreds of TV and print ads that are spin offs of Sholay. Channels like MTV and V keep making spoofs of the Kitne-Admi-The scene or the revelation at the end of Thakur's flashback tale, or even Veeru's-suicide-attempt. There are a lot of jokes based on the Basanti/Dhanno chase sequence. Comedy on TV is simply not complete without a reference to Sholay. For example, A K Hangal is ALWAYS mimicked in his Sholay avatar, so are Jaideep & Asrani. (No other role of theirs are spoofed.) All this (and a lot more) could appear in a 'impact on media' section. What say? Moreover, a lot of later movies had prominent references to Sholay... Like Jhankar Beats or Jodi No 1 or even a whole new remake of Sholay. I think it is important to note that, as Sholay is one of the most important films in Bollywood, whether you like it or not. Besides making the careers of so many in the supporting cast (and Amjad Khan in the main) and has had a huge impact on the popular culture. And if foreigners don't know about it, well, they should.

Dwaipayan - as late as 2005, Gabbar and Sambha's snippets from the movie, were used for TV commercial for Tetley Tea.

Anagha 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mousi

I only know a few words of Hindi -- I'm just guessing, from the context, that "mousi" is the hijra who is comic relief. Shouldn't we use that word instead, since there's a Wikipedia article to explain it? Zora 05:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No "Mousi" means aunt, specifically, an aunt from the maternal side of the family. However, the term is also used to denote a main figure/caretaker of prostitutes in a brothel. And in fact, a hijra community also often has such a central figure. But the real meaning is aunt. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's Basanti's aunt, then, the one who refuses to listen to Veeru's wooing? Who drives him to climb the water tower? Zora 06:05, --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The mousi is Basanti's aunt! I get really surprised sometimes by your knowledge of bollywood, given that you hardly speak Hindi. Do you see all the movies? :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I've seen comparatively few. Not a big Indian community here in Honolulu. There's an Indo-Fijian community, and some Indian graduate students at the university. There's only one local grocery-spice-video store and then there's Netflix. I read books, I read Rediff, Outlook India, and Sepia Mutiny -- and I've been hanging out on rec.arts.movies.local.indian, on Usenet, for years. The regulars there are a great resource. I think all they did was watch movies, growing up!

If there's one thread running through my relationship with Bollywood, it's drooling fan worship of Aamir Khan. Though he is no longer my hero since he divorced his wife and his face started looking potato-ish. Zora 06:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Other minor characters

It's a lot easier to understand the credits section if you have a role as well as, or instead of, a name. It's been some four years or so since I watched Sholay. Could someone give role info for the minor characters? Zora 06:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I Recently added the minor characters and the actors inacted them in the cast section...this includes- hariram nai, mausi and radha's father....thanx--Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks stupid without a list of main characters! Adding it. Anagha 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Films inspired by Sholay

It would be nice to have a list of films inspired by Sholay. I was going to put China Gate in the article, but I thought it would look pitiful all by itself. I know there are more films. Comments? Zora 08:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

China Gate. Ramgarh Ke Sholay. Duplicate Sholay. Ram Gopal Verma's Sholay. Well...I no know more.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The movie Karma with Dilip Kumar is very similar to Sholay too as it is about three men hired to capture a man who killed Dilip Kumar's family.Shakirfan 18:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Karma is more based in The Dirty Dozen- a man in uniform takes people from prison with no hope of getting out , trains them and takes them on a mission that's almost impossible. Haphar 19:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pramode Chakraborty's Jagir (film) which also features Dharmendra is heavily inspired by Sholay. --Antorjal 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also a 'Malegaon ke Sholay'. There is a B-Grade industry in Malegaon which makes spoofs of hit films using lookalikes. They are apparently quite successful in comparison to the time, money, and effort that goes into 'em. Also, you guys are forgetting the recent Jhankaar Beats. Though it wasn't exactly inspired by Sholay, the protagonists n the film were Sholay buffs. It had a LOT of references to Sholay. Anagha 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Someone put a merge tag on Sholay (2007 film) so here's for comments.

• No merge because... it's a different film and deserves its own film box and whatnot... it can be mentioned briefly here... but this film is much more important and I see no signs that that will change or that these two movies should be on one page. gren グレン 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• No merge These are different movies.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. RGV has confirmed, that though it's a remake, it will be a completely urbansetting. No tonga rides for the 21st century Basanti. Too bad, will miss Dhanno! Anyway, point of the tale is that I've removed the merge tag. Peace. Anagha 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis

A new editor fiddled with the synopsis, adding details. I reverted. His/her prose was clumsy, and the extra details weren't necessary. When a synopsis fills up with details, it becomes absolutely unreadable. Boring. This happens so often! Fans read a synopsis of one of their favorite movies and their first thought seems to be, "I know something that's not there!" Do have some pity on readers who haven't seen the movie, please. They don't care about the details and they just want the general outline of the story. Zora 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Widow remarriage

Antorjal, do you really think that widow remarriage was even RARE in an upper-class provincial Hindu family thirty years ago? I'm not Indian, so I'm going only by what I've read and seen, but I was under the impression that city sophisticates would remarry, the lower classes might remarry, but provincial families with any pretension to gentility wouldn't allow such a thing. My sense of Sholay was that the undercurrent of attraction between Jai and the daughter-in-law was so poignant because nothing could come of it. I gather that things have changed in the last thirty years and that widow remarriage is no longer the scandal that it was. Comments? Zora 06:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt comments. I always think it is safer to err on the side of caution. If you remember the film, even though quite progressive for the time (I'll admit), the Thakur did mention getting his daughter-in-law married to Jai in a conversation with her father. Also widow remarriage rates varied from region to region and family to family. As we can assume the Thakur's family not being adverse, I think it would be safer not to use a strong word such as unthinkable. But these are just my recollections of the film... and I was born around about the time the film was made so I can't comment from first-hand experiences either. --Antorjal 06:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember that conversation. I suppose I ought to watch the movie again. I watched it fairly early in my "finding out about Bollywood" quest and I think I'd get more out of it now. What IS strange that actors I thought unattractive at first are starting to look cute to me. I think my idea of "handsome" must have been recalibrated :) Zora 10:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally hear you on that. I like your use of the word "recalibrated". I've spent most of my life in the US, but had the chance to be in India for a few years too. I never really got into Bollywood at a serious level, until I was in graduate school. Netflix which came along about the same time was a boon. Bollywood was the perfect "unwinder" because most of the films, at the core, have no pretense of being "high-art". I think part of what what appeals to me is at at the core - the storytelling ability (however inane). I'm pretty green at wiki, but I intend on working on a lot of films... and believe me, I would be glad to have someone read over some of the stuff I write to critique it (from NPOV). There's a lot of stuff out here, but unfortunately a lot of it is "Greek", not English. I guess I'll end my rant here. Your section on films inspired by Sholay has me thinking... and once I get out of the lab, I'll see if I can research that a bit more. --Antorjal 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The conversation did happen but for a " Thakur" ( that's what Sanjeev Kumar was in the movie) in a village 30 years ago widow remarriage would have been a huge thing. In Rural areas where "thakurs" belong to it still is.Haphar 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the conversation between Thakur and Radha's father is actually one of those 'message to the masses for the betterment of society' kinda scenes which were very prevalent in movies of the 70s and 80s. When Thakur suggests a matrimonial alliance between Jai and Radha, Radha's father has doubts like 'What will the society say?", "Kya yeh thik hoga?" etc. Thakur convinces him saying, if criminals can be rehabilitated, why not widows? Moreover, Radha's conduct after being widowed is in step with the society's expectations of widows - they should be unhappy, depressed, subdued, and wearing white. I don't know how much effect the 'widow remarriage is okay' message had on the rural classes, but the message was definitely intended. Anagha 20:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Current list seems complete to me. Can we remove the 'expand section' notice? Also I've added a bit of trivia regarding Sholay dialogue-cassettes. Should it be moved to the trivia section? Anagha 21:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job! I am an RDent RD fan (pun intended). I've listened to and analyzed the soundtrack innumerable times and know a lot about the various releases (both analog and digital). I'll hack that section pretty soon. Unfortunately I have a meeting in real-life tomorrow so I can't do that today. --Antorjal 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Worked through it. I added some material and reformatted the rest. I've destubbed the section. Feel free to edit/revert/recreate/discuss as you see fit. :-D --Antorjal 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work! I didn't know some of that! :) I have one small quibble though. sad version played to highlight a flashback... ummm... not necessarily. Sad versions of a happy song appeared, whenever the happy story started getting tragic. Latest examples: Kuch Kuch Hota Hai... Both the happy and sad versions occur in the same flashback. Similarly in Kaho Na... Pyaar Hai the heroine sings a sad version in the present. Wot say? Anagha 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

EXPAND!

The Production section needs to be larger, but not sure what you could put in there. Also, the Response section should have Critical response and Box office. Cbrown1023 02:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Good re-organization. Thank you! Zora 05:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Springcleaning

I fixed up small problems here and there. I rewrote the synopsis slightly. No need to mention flashbacks -- it's just confusing. I also dropped all discussion of widow remarriage. If we want to touch on that, perhaps a para later in the article, discussing how the film's treatment of widow remarriage was progressive for the time? Zora 22:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the neutrality issues?

I noticed that this article was tagged for neutrality but no reasons were given in the talk-page? What are the issues with respect to neutrality? Please don't just tag an article without explaining how to improve it... or better yet without improving it yourself. Antorjal 17:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Flames of Sun"?

Hi. Does sholay really mean Flames "of sun"? I must say this is the first time i've heard such usage. I think it just means embers or flames. Amit 05:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sholah: Flame

Sholay: Flames

Chingari: Ember

Chingarian: Embers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.96.181 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rare Sholay Set Photo Old 0075.jpg

Image:Rare Sholay Set Photo Old 0075.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Versions

I added some text referring to the various release versions in appropriate places. I bought 4 different copies of the film to determine the differences!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And now some half-wit has reverted my changes.. Sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a section about the different versions with references and the alternate ending. Please discuss before deleting. --Sikh-history (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Article?

What would it take to get this to GA status. It seems an important enough subject (highest grossing Indian film of all time [inflation adjusted]), and it seems to be in fairly good shape at the present. I am willing to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see that you have tackled this one hell of a film. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Review

• How is File:Sholay.jpg relevant? It grossly fails WP:NFCC#8.
• The plot section is just toooooo long. Try to copy-edit and make it in four sections as is the norm.
• The cast list is totally unsourced and looks like a directory. Try moving and merging it in the cast list. Look at upcoming films like W.E. for clarification and encyclopedic means of doing it.
• Linking urls in the text is not acceptable. Please remove such instances.
• Try using en-dash, check the whole article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sholay.jpg - Done, plot section - Please explain, I don't see many film plots with four sections. It is a couple hundred words longer than average though; cast list - Most film cast sections are unsourced, but I added one; Linking urls - Done; en-dash - Please explain; I don't see this (or cast source or four section plot) in FAs like Lage Raho Munna Bhai. Is it a template or script of some kind? BollyJeff || talk 18:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

plot - reduced from 972 words to 754 (further reduced to 710); en-dash - there seems to be a discussion going on about this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#en_dash_in_compounds... so I would prefer not to mess with it unless absolutely necessary. BollyJeff || talk 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about en-dash in compounds, but as a link. Like "Amitabh Bachchan – Jai", here we use en-dash, not normal "-". — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Done - I finally found them in the special characters section of the editor. Hopefully the middle of these (- – —) is the right one. BollyJeff || talk 13:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any more comments? BollyJeff || talk 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Legolas had to take a long-term break, so I'll request a second opinion so this review can be wrapped up? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked it over. I don't have any issues - so I am moving to promote. Lord Roem (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Budget and gross

Chopra's book on page 143 indicates that the budget was nearing 3 crore (and they were still spending); I don't have the book. These sources, if usable, also show a 3 crore figure: [1], [2], so I think that can change. Zeroing in on the gross may be tougher. Try to find figures for first run, total, adjusted, etc. Any book sources? BollyJeff | talk 03:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So, did you actually see the figure 3 cr in Chopra's book. That page of the book is not available to see in google book for me.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It says, "Sholay's budget was nearing an unprecedented 3 crores of rupees." ... "Yet the Sippys continued to spend." I cannot get to a final figure in the book either (if there is one), but this makes it look closer to 3 than 2 crore. I think we can use the CNN IBN Live link that is listed above as well if that text isn't good enough. I may put some of the text from this page in the production section too. Let's hold off a bit longer on the peer review; there is more that can be done. Do you have access to the "Sholay, A Cultural Reading" book, or any of the others? BollyJeff | talk 21:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I dont have access to any of the books, except the pages that are available through google book (or Amazon). As I told before, I used to have Chopra's book, but lost it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Gunning for FA

Have to say that you've done a terrific job with this article Bollyjeff and Dwai. It looks to have all of the necessary ingredients for FA and I suggest we do so very soon, I'm sure Dwai agrees. If it's OK I'll look over it this week just to see that nothing has been overlooked.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look. We can easily wait one or two weeks more.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

what is FA?.. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF "Gunning for FA".... what Context is it in ?--Adamstraw99 (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

FA means "Featured Article", gunning for FA means aiming for making the article an FA. pls ask that more politely. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

hey thanks for clarification...and sorry, CAPS was on unintentionally.... and yes,I think this article deserves the quality promotion for FA...--Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) told he would have a look within this week. That would be great help.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be good; we need some senior editor to give it a look before the nomination. BollyJeff | talk 23:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco

• rocky terrains - Not standard in English. Rocky terrain, rocky mountains, rugged mountains, or...?

• changed to rocky terrain.

• After 15 years, --> in 1990

• changed to in 1990.

• response - Commercial response?

• changed to commercial response.

• phenomenon -> hit / success / smash

• changed to success.

• We don't usually say "films in the Western genre". Check to see if my change is accurate.

• fine with Westerns.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• (valued at about US$2,237 in 1975) - Don't think we need this. Maybe hide it?

• Left conversion note only

• What happens to Radha?

• Fixed

• army scenes. - What do you mean with this?

• Changed to "...difficult to get permission to shoot scenes depicting army activities" How does that sound?

• itself being a remake of Akira Kurosawa's 1954 film Seven Samurai. - Relevance here?

• It is important on its own; changed text accordingly

• That's a bit clearer, thanks. If it was just that The Magnificent Seven was based on Seven Samurai, as you had before, the relevance to this film was unclear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - Any reasons for not mentioning the director?

• Named the director.

• was lifted from North West Frontier - Taken, in whole? Or reshot using the same shots? or?

• Changed to "...was inspired by a similar scene in..."

• caveat - Not quite common English. You'll confuse a lot of readers.

• Changed to warning.

• Soorma Bhopali - Who's this? Haven't mentioned him in the plot.

• Changed to "Soorma Bhopali, a minor comic relief character, was based on a forest officer..." Does it read ok now?

• One part of Ramanagara was for a time called "Sippy Nagar" after the director of the film. - Relevance? Why is it named after him?

  it was a tribute

  Why that part of the area? Also, this doesn't really flow very well with the preceding section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• "To this day" - which is when? Use {{As of}}

• Used as of.

• "Yeh Dosti" song sequence - Didn't mention any singing/songwriting above

• Changed to " "Yeh Dosti", a 5 minute song sequence, took 21 days..."

• Imam should be miniscule unless it's a name

• Changed to small case.

• 70 mm or 70mm?

• Consistently used 70 mm, except for within the quote, where sic is added.

• The seconds is too much detail.

• Which seconds? Song duration?

• Film duration. Compare the instruction at Template:Infobox film — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• postcolonial theory in the London School of Economics - Really? Interesting.

• I was wondering why someone at a school of economics would be discussing a film using postco. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• This website gives a short intro for that author. It seems he is in the department of Sociology at LSE. His interest seems to be popular culture.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting. May be worth noting that his field is actually sociology rather than economics, otherwise it would appear that he is not qualified to talk about the film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• abomination - POV

• it was from the source, changing it to a quote may help?

• (above comment by Bollyjeff) Actually the word abomination was not in the source, they used some other word. I tried to paraphrase. Will have a look later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Changed, now more near to source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• the country. - India or countries in general?

• Changed to India on two instances where "the country" was used.

• Some of the opinions in the second last paragraph of #Themes could be given more contextual support

• Tried to add bit of context, by giving an example, to the first theme (Western and Eastern sensibilities) of this paragraph. Please see if that reads ok. Do you think Ted Shen's comment needs context? I guess the comment from Ziauddin Sardar would need context. There was a discussion in his writing why he says that Muslim and women characters were caricature. Will have to try to make a summary of that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• The narrative style that Sholay embodies, comprising violence, revenge and vigilante action, is sometimes discussed by scholars in the context of the civil unrest which the country was going through at the time of the emergency (rule by decree) which prime minister Indira Gandhi declared in 1975. - If this was shot in 1972, how long did the Emergency last?

• Good point. Emergency was just two months before film's release, will have to revisit or remove this.

• I have reworded the sentence. This theme is well represented in several books/discourses. Google book search with strings such as sholay +emergency+Indira will provide results.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• has discussed in detail - examples? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Provided some "details".--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• picturised on Helen and Jalal Agha - What?

• They were represented as singing and/or dancing in the song; not sure yet how to word this, but it is common in Indian films.

• Dubbing (filmmaking)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Youtube video of "Ta Rialia" - What makes this a reliable source? Or not a copyvio?

• How about this source? Is Sulekha reliable enough for this fact? And it takes the video off a direct reference from WP. [3] With the videos, the reader can actually make up their own mind about the source of the tune.

• The issue is also one of copyvio, don't forget. Who's to say the uploader at Youtube (or Sulekha?) is also the copyright holder? WP:ELNO forbids external links to copyvios.

• Dialogue or dialogues? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• What is your suggestion? It is often dialogues in the sources.

• It sounds odd to my ears, that's all. It may be common in Indian English, but in Canadian English dialogue is generally both a singular and plural noun. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ya this is a peculiarity of Indian English: we use both dialogue and dialogues. American English uses dialogue. I am not sure about British English.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• in Mumbai. - Do you know the theatre?
• Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bengal, and Hyderabad - Why link Mumbai and not these? I am vaguely familiar with Uttar Pradesh and Hyderabad, but only from reading articles here. Others may not know anything about the provinces/cities.
• Sholay earned about ₹15 crores nett gross - Identify, in text, where these figures come from
• Mera Gaon Mera Desh - Worth a redlink?

• Already linked in an earlier section (not red BTW)

• Alright, must have missed that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Chicago Review critic Ted Shen criticised - When?
• In 2004 it was voted the greatest Indian movie in a poll of one million Indians in Britain, - Mention Sky Digital
• the best film by the people of Iran in a survey conducted by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting's Research Centre. - Best film of...?
• It is considered the most important of the early masala films, - By whom?
• Sholay remains a gold standard in Indian cinema, - according to?
• Consider cutting back on some of the minor points, like the biscuit ad.
• Reinsert the first conversion in the plot (valued at about US$5,593 in 1975)

• I would prefer to leave that out now, but the conversion factor is there in the note. The rest of these latest comments have been addressed; Youtube video is gone; we may have missed one or two other points above. Is it really bad to leave seconds in the foot note (because most sources list 204 minutes as the length but if you round up it is 205)? BollyJeff | talk 19:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Having the seconds is overly detailed, as it doesn't matter to anyone but the most anal retentive person and is likely to vary from cut to cut. If you want a third opinion, you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think Bollyjeff has already removed the seconds.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Way to go everyone, looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What is meant by "lavish production" exactly?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Chopra's book, there were banquets every day, lots of parties for the cast, drinking, etc. pp 66-67 BollyJeff | talk 21:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll get around to giving this my attention tomorrow.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 06:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They call me trinity

Is that write? They Call Me Trinity (1970) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reza luke (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What is your point? The plot is quite different.. BollyJeff | talk 02:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"seemingly innocuous but implied, homosexual gesturing"

Based on below arguments, we would request the removal of the line "According to Thomas Waugh, professor of Film Studies and Interdisciplinary Studies in Sexuality at Concordia University, the manner in which the male leads "clutch and caress each other's hands, shoulders, head and thighs" during the song "Yeh Dosti", although seemingly innocuous, implies homosexual gesturing"

points in favor: - provided by a professor of Film Studies and Interdisciplinary Studies in Sexuality at Concordia University.

points out of favor regarding the line: "the manner in which the male leads "clutch and caress each other's hands, shoulders, head and thighs" during the song "Yeh Dosti" implied homosexual gesturing."

1. Almost the entire song "Yeh Dosti" is filmed with the two male leads on a motorcyle-fitted-with-sidecar which requires some dexterity on an Indian dirtroad. At least, in India, there is a strong culture of holding on to the driver's arm/shoulder/belly/thigh who is speeding through on a motorcycle. We can provide images if required.
2. The professor is arguing from a strongly Euro-centric view of human sexuality. Would two girls holding hands in the Western world be considered as "seemingly innocuous homosexual gesturing"? A brief purview of the images at http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-friends-holding-hands-image762417 would help show that this is not the case.
3. There is no "clutching on" to of any body parts through the entirety of the remaining parts of the movie.
4. It cannot be denied that the filmmakers are unaware of "homosexual gesturing", of which the esteemed professor is so fond. There is, in fact, a homosexual character in the movie with typical Indian style of "homosexual gesturing" as well as the homosexual wording "jailer ka badaa muchdaa hai, mua". He appears in two of the jailer scenes at 29:41 and 34:10. The homosexual wording occurs in the first scene. The homosexusal gesturing occurs in the second scene.
5. This song has been used successfully at gay rights' parades. This section is not arguing against such a homosexual *interpretation* of this song. However we would like to argue that this is not the *intention* of the song or the movie.
6. Finally, I believe references need to be carefully used at Wikipedia. Once attached it is then widely adapted: a google search yields 101 websites that have copied/pasted this line. The results are found here: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=yeh+dosti+%22although+seemingly+innocuous%22&filter=0

Thus, we would like to welcome any arguments supporting the continuation of the line: "According to Thomas Waugh, professor of Film Studies and Interdisciplinary Studies in Sexuality at Concordia University, the manner in which the male leads "clutch and caress each other's hands, shoulders, head and thighs" during the song "Yeh Dosti", although seemingly innocuous, implies homosexual gesturing."

If there is no forthcoming support, we would respectfully request the removal of this line, as it *purposefully* misinterprets the bonding of male leads as homosexual gesturing. This is done in an ad-hoc manner to fit the purpose of the professor's thesis which is reflected by the title of his book from which the quote is taken: "Queer Bollywood."

thanks, om and prem

Are you okay with the other sentences supported by four other references in the same paragraph? As one of the main contributors to this article, I would be okay with removing this sentence, assuming there is not much resistance from others (lets leave this up for a while), but the whole paragraph would be much harder to justify. BollyJeff | talk 22:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

In the above argument, we have requested removal of only the last line in that section. We understand it may take some time to remove the line. Appreciate getting back so quickly on this and congratulations on contributing to a great overall article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhashantim (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

hi, let's remove this line. ample time has passed since the conclusion to remove the line. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhashantim (talk • contribs) 01:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. BollyJeff | talk 04:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2015

Jilonkis (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• There are a few issues with this request.
• 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.,
• Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Sholay. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned., and
• Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. (in regards to Sher Punjab Da) --Stabila711 (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sholay: The Making of a Classic

When was Chopra's book published? 2000 or 2001? Both years are mentioned in the article, but that shows inconsistency. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

According to all of the ISBN searches, it was 2000. I fixed the article, thank you. BollyJeff | talk 01:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

cite book URL

According to Template:Cite book, URL parameter should be added only if the text of the book can be found at URL (such as google books), but one of the references has a link to book's amazon page, which does not have text. Should it be removed? Coderzombie (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean "Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts"? I can see a good bit of the text for that one online in the US. BollyJeff | talk 22:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2016

76.1.98.71 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: Blank request Topher385 (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Length

In the article it says 204 minutes. But look at the reference, it's a movie from 1988. IMDb instead says 162 minutes: [4]. --Jobu0101 (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

IMDb fails WP:RS (see WP:IMDB/RS). Kailash29792 (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly the correct movie, but it's true that there is no 1975 version on the bbfc site. There are later versions listed as 204, 198, and 188 minutes. I could put a range; it may still be better than imdb. I will check the other more reliable sites and see what they say. Bollyjeff | talk 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and AllMovie each say 192. Further down on the IMDB link, it says 198 for the standard and 204 for director's cut, which agrees with the bbfc sources. So I think we should put either 198 or 204 or both. The difference is actually explained in the article, twice. Bollyjeff | talk 13:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe you could add a footnote addressing the varying runtimes. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Bollyjeff | talk 13:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

From which year is this 149 minutes version? Does the article talk about it? Is it official? --Jobu0101 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not even the same film. Have you ever seen the real one? I recommend you do, but its probably not on youtube. Bollyjeff | talk 17:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Language

The film is NOT a Hindi-Urdu production. It is officially a Hindi language production. Do refer the censor board certificate that appears before the opening credits.103.5.133.9 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Certificate in film is WP:Primary source. Reliable academic WP:Secondary sources in the article clearly describe the dialogue as Hindi-Urdu. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

For an explanation on why the Censor Board is a questionable WP:Primary source with regards to language, see my response at Talk:Salim-Javed. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Turns out the user has been abusing sockpuppets. See Talk:Salim-Javed. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2018

I believe that a new section be added to this page with title 'Plagiarism'.

This movie has a highly plagiarized screenplay and also a lot of scenes are lifted frame by frame from many movies, one example is the scene in which Thakur comes back to Ramgarh to find his whole family dead is copied from Once Upon A Time In The West (1966). Generations of Indians have been fooled and cheated by these Bollywood script writers,directors and producers due to information asymmetry. This loot is presented to the Indian public as the masterpieces of creativity which keeps people's faith in Bollywood and they continue with this debauchery of outright cheating and manipulation. Abskkr (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Development" section talks about this without being nasty. It covers the very scene that you mentioned. I hope you read the article before commenting here. Bollyjeff | talk 19:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)