the Northman

I know about the “don’t cherry-pick” guideline for budgets, but when every single film trade publication (Variety, Deadline, TheWrap, THR) are all saying the film’s budget is net $70 million and that the $90m figure was a jump-the-gun early report, I feel it’s ok to discuss negating The New Yorker (which is not a film publication by trade). Just a thought. TropicAces (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the discrepancy is explained here in the third paragraph. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tianhao Ning (article contribs).

The Northman contained plenty of fantastical and supernatural elements, and yet aside from the plot description, this article contains almost no mention of the more fantastical elements in the film. Would it be worth describing it as a fantasy film in the opening and also possibly categorising it as one as well?The Editor 155 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Eggers admitted taking inspiration from Conan the Barbarian lore, and in his words tried to do "his version of Conan" in an interview. The scene versus the Mound Dweller is reminiscent of the 1967 Conan story "The Thing in the Crypt" by L.Sprague de Camp where Conan enters a burial crypt in Hyperborea to hide from a pack of wolves and discovers a mummy of a warrior seated on a throne, holding an iron sword. The mummy awakens when he attempts to retrieve it and Conan ultimately succeeds in defeating the living dead. In the 1982 movie Conan the Barbarian by J. Milius, the mummy doesn't awaken and crumbles away on the throne. In the movie the Northman, there seems to be a nod to both the De Camp story and the 1982 Conan movie adaptation by J. Milius, as shortly after the battle with the mound Dweller, said undead reappears on its throne unaffected (it was previously decapitated by Amleth), Amleth attempts again to retrieve the sword but now the Dweller doesn't awaken and crumbles away. As opposed to the Conan story where the hero was escaping and ended up by mere chance in the crypt, Amleth was on a mission to obtain the mythical sword in the burial mound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.168.33.4 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed a sentence in the article that cited a Variety writer speculating on a 'break-even' mark for The Northman, but then not framing it as speculation in the article.

I was reverted by User:TropicAces who said 'Studios don’t simply announce breakeven points, and Hollywood Accounting will always come into play. Variety is doing what ever industry publication has done for decades'.

I understand that industry publications do a lot of things, but not all of them might be suitable for an encyclopedia. Reporting on a film's production budget is one thing; this can be verified to a reasonable degree. 'Break-even' is piling at least two layers of guesswork on top of this number. It doesn't sit right to be reporting such a number in an encyclopedia. So, I am asking what others think about this.

A question for TropicAces: if I do a good-size sampling of FA film articles, should I expect to see this unassailable data point, the 'break-even', being regularly cited? --SubSeven (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The use of "AD" is grossly inappropriate for factual documentation.

Please keep religious terminology to religious matters. TheRealArmand (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go with whatever the majority decides here. I wouldn't consider using the terminology used in the film to be out of place, anymore than referring to a story taking place on December 25th as taking place on Christmas. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No relevant discourse. My change should remain for technical accuracy, rather leaving erroneous references for the sake of personal bias. TheRealArmand (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The term AD is prominently placed at around 1:24 in the film, 12 seconds after the start of the opening scene. Since the term is part of the film's script/content, the term can be used in the paragragh detailing the film's plot, of course. The use of this term does not necessarily imply a particular stance on christianity, especially since it's just an accurate reproduction of the film's/story's date indication. If you look at wiki articles covering historical characters (eg. Julius Caesar, Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus), you'll find the terms BC and AD all over the place, in infoboxes and article sections, so you'd have to start cleaning up there first, imho. While the terms BCE/CE are preferred by some scientific circles, and while BC/AD may be the most widely known/understood terms, neither of them are mandatory in the scientific world, except for one or another library/org that insists on BCE/CE these days, there are a few countries which either abolished or even reinstated the official use of BC/AD, though. Btw., the terms BCE and CE also stand for "before (the) Christian era" and "Christan era". You should bring the current usage (throughout wiki) to ppl's attention in the proper channels, instead of trying to censor a plot section that correctly depicts the film's content/date indication. GeeGee (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
GeeGee seems to make a reasonable case. I was just passing, and thought I'd point out that there is a guideline about this, if you want to refer to it or pursue it further: MOS:ERA. One alternative I'd suggest in passing, if you were looking for one, would be "In the year 895 ..". That would remove the whole 'era' thing :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I just changed the era style back to AD for reasons outlined above and because Armand changed the style to CE again - without feeling the need to discuss it here, obviously. GeeGee (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has yet pointed out the silliness of calling the AD system "erroneous" and "religious terminology" as justification for changing it to CE when CE is the exact same system, even using the same year traditionally associated with Christ's birth as its focal point, just with a different labeling. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The article describes Hrafnsey as a fictional island, but there appears to be an actual Hrafnsey island in Iceland: https://goo.gl/maps/SGPzNavYWVVhyCTV8. While I suspect the in-universe location is a fictionalized version somewhere in Norway, and I don't know if the Hrafnsey I found was a thing in the late 9th century, there is enough here to warrant a further look/possible change. 204.139.85.145 (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)