Talk:The King (2019 film)

	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 Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Lincolnshire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Historical accuracy is not a subject worth discussing?[edit]

You can read this whole article and not know that:

   Falstaff is a Shakespearean fiction
   The Dauphin wasn't at Agincourt
   Henry V wasn't a dissolute drunk
   Henry V wasn't fooled into the war by his court
   No battles in the time period were decided by single combat  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.197.146 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I think it should be standard policy for Wikipeda when doing Articles on events that are even somewhat based in history, to have a dedicated section that compares and contrast the movie with actual history. I read another Wikipedia Article where this was not done at all, and the article never mentioned that the movie was completely fictional and had no connection to actual history. I had to go somewhere other than Wikipedia to find out this information. A less intelligent, or less investigative person might have concluded from a read of that Article that it was based in history, at least in some part. With all the lies and disinformation taking place on other media, Wikipedia has a choice to either be part of it, and continue to perpetuate false narratives, or remain true to it's founding principals. Avoiding telling the truth is allowing the Reader to believe that which is not true, is censorship, by replacing that which is true, or allowing to be replaced, with that which is not true.68.206.248.178 (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. However, the article *could* just easily state that “the film is not historically accurate”. There is a responsibility to make that clear but not one to do the work for the reader of finding out what is and is not accurate. They can do the work to find out on their own, just as you did. 216.182.108.91 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The King (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The King (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE WEIGHT GIVEN TO SINGLE SOURCE OF HISTORICAL INACCURACIES[edit]

Extensive quotes from a single hostile source at end of article.

The actual Battle of Agincourt wiki explains the action in great detail but here a single hostile source is used to present a clearly biased account. The killing of the French prisoners were done near the end of the battle when the the French attempted a last counter-attack, by a remnant of the third division. The English could not spare men to hold the many prisoners the already had, and the prisoners hughely outnumbered the English captors. They feared an attack from the rear by these near unguarded prisoners (using the many dropped weapons on the field) in conjunction with the new attack from the front. A controversial action but not how it is depicted here.

"In his study of the battle John Keegan argued that the main aim was not to actually kill the French knights but rather to terrorise them into submission and quell any possibility they might resume the fight, which would probably have caused the uncommitted French reserve forces to join the fray, as well". (agincourt wiki)

Henry rescinded the order once it was clear the French were quitting the field.

"no contemporary commentators criticised Henry for his action at Agincourt. It was seen at the time as an action generated by military necessity."

Also, condemning Henry for deaths of civilians during a siege despite civilian death being common during any siege, English or French. This is modern day judgement damnation without any attempt to put it into a historical or war context. A clear case of undue weight.

There are many sources for the above: Anne Curry Agincourt: A New History 2009, p.37. Keegan, John (1976). The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme. https://ospreypublishing.com/blog/agincourt_600_prisoners/ http://www.agincourt600.com/2015/06/09/how-many-french-prisoners-survived-the-massacre-which-took-place-at-the-battle-of-agincourt/ https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/agincourt/0/steps/8864 87.112.15.36 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invite @87.112.15.36:. First off, you need to realize this is about the film, not the actual King. Those are 2 completely separate entities altogether. If this was in the article about Henry, that would be different, however, this is about a fictional film and the information in it is correct, which is why your edits were reverted. I encourage you to make sure you are editing the correct article before you delete a large section of the page. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 00:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. This is indeed the film, but the portion of it I am referring to is of the factual Henry himself. That you haven't realised that indicates you haven't read it in its entirety. The final portion of this, "The King" wiki page, is a massive condemnation of the historical Henry from a single individual, none of which is used in the actual Battle of Agincourt or Henry V wiki pages. The source is not only blatantly hostile and unreliable but irrelevant because, as you say, this is the page for the film "The King".

I have however provided multiple links and sources that contradict and put into context the events in question and a cursory read of the Battle of Agincourt or Henry V pages will demonstrate just how false and histrionic the final portion of this, The King page, is. If it is supposed to be offering clarity over the historical accuracy of the film it should not be giving such massive Undue Weight to this single hostile source. 87.112.15.36 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy rewrite[edit]

I think historical accuracy is a perfectly valid topic but this section seems to be entirely original research and the tone is very unprofessional. FilthiestOfPeasant (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Have no idea why this specific historian’s particular (clearly biased) opinion is being presented as the sole source of important historical inaccuracies, or why anyone should care for it. Fact-based historical inaccuracies can be resourced and listed from unbiased sources (neither French nor English) without much difficulty. 216.182.108.91 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Box office[edit]

How can you call it a box office failure when it was released only on limited cinemas for a limited amount of time? In this way, all Netflix movies that are shown on cinemas for a limited time are a box office failure including and not limited to: The Irishman and Marriage Story. Now I wouldn't say any of these were box office failures would you? John Papado01 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]