Talk:The Prince of Egypt/Archive 1

"This movie is illegal in Malaysia."

OK...we need to know why. What about the film do the Malaysian authorities object to specifically? Lee M 01:42, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

PS Don't double-space bulleted lists.

Meursault2004 22:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• In many Islamic countries, movies are banned if they depict prophets. Passion of the Christ was the exception to that rule CanadianCaesar 06:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I recall hearing that PoE was going to be followed by other biblically-inspired movies if it was successful enough, which it wasn't. Does anyone have a reference for this? Wyvern 9 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

Judaeo-Christian content seems to be an exception to Hollywood's tendency to cash in on things. The Passion of the Christ was controversial, but financially speaking it was hugely successful. However Hollywood has stuck by its principles and not let the lure of money inspire them to "cash in" on religion. There was a film on Luther, but the major studios made little to no efforts at religious films since Passion. They're either on principle refusing to cash in on the sacred or on principle they're avoiding making films on Judaeo-Christianity due to their own general disbelief. Either way it's a rare, if strange, show of integrity--T. Anthony 08:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Except there was; see Joseph: King of Dreams.--Codenamecuckoo 15:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sappy

I had watched the Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston and I thought this movie was crap. It took out many of the most important parts of the story and conveniently ended right before a whole lot of people burned for worshipping a Pagan golden calf. Absolute crap.

--Ihmhi 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Relevance? Tomer^talk 11:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

none, also, the article is severly lagging, this is more of a fact sheet then a movie article... and ya, i remmber them doing a scene about him getting the commandments and then blowing the crap out of the golden calf, didn't see that this time, weird.--68.106.210.205 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Musical

Has anyone heard if there was every any plans for a live musical of this film? If they can do it for the Lion King, why not this one? People would pay on Broadway to see it, I bet. --Mezaco 06:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Improper Racial describings

- Excuse me? "The artists subtly changed the characters' facial proportions to correctly give them a more Semitic appearance" Their is no such thing as a 'semitic appearance'. Unless you want to stereotype Semitis as not having a standart 'facial proportions'.--Bob1969 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, there is such a thing as "semitic appearance" - contrast this with the old hollywood depictions of Moses (and Jesus, and everyone else in the Bible) as a white European. And the article doesn't say they deviated from any "standard" of proportion. It just says they made them look Jewish rather than white.Rglong 23:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

E.T. head?

I don't know if this is actually true (which I why I want to discuss it on the talk page) but in the chariot race in the beginning of the movie, when Moses and Ramses cause the destruction of the sphinx-like statue's nose, the falling debris looks incredibly like E.T., the eponymous star of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Both movies are projects by Stephen Spielberg. Does anyone else notice this and more importantly does anyone have any citations that indicate this is indeed true? --Valley2city^₪‽ 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging

I'm merging The Prince of Egypt (soundtracks) in the Soundtrack section of the main article (The Prince of Egypt#Soundtrack). As for now, I added more information to the Soundtrack section, than there is in the soundtracks page, so I presume we can make that section the new information spot for the soundtrack. See [1]; let me know if there can be another way.
thedarkestclear ^Talk 06:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vlcsnap-6177109.jpg

Image:Vlcsnap-6177109.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) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Hello! While I am a new editor, I wonder about changing biblical "story" to biblical "myth". Doesn't it violate NPOV? Thatguyflint ^{Talk to me!} 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct and I reverted the edit. "Story" fits NPOV in this case as "Myth" (within the context of this article) strongly leads to a personal view or belief which is not allowed on Wikipedia. DrNegative (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Animation

No information on the actual animation process? The article goes from story to design to backgrounds to sound, skipping animation entirely. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Traditional animation which is displayed in the lead vastly covers the process of animation. This being a traditionally animated film, it would not deviate far from it I would assume. If you have any insight on the process that was special to this particular film, be bold. DrNegative (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for information on how the film was animated; there's no information on who animated the film and what particular techniques/technical challenges they encountered, as in the articles for Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. As such, I don't understand how this is considered a "good article". Telling me to "be bold" is fine and good (and if I get the time, I will), however, whichever editors consider themselves the main editors of this article would do themselves a service by covering their topic properly. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you do not feel that this article meets the GA criteria, "be bold" and request a reassessment. Editors do not own articles and thus the primary responsibility of improvement belongs not to a "main editor" as you call it, but everyone. DrNegative (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about owning articles either. However, usually, with an article of this legnth, someone or some people has/have already done some level of lead work in research, finding sources, etc. It would be a lot easier for all involved for those people to simply flip to what they already have available and make the proper adjustments. That was my point. However, after now looking at the reference list (which I should have done first) and seeing it's entirely made up of Googled web links, my point is very much invalid. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE DrNegative (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement

Hello, I have worked extensively with articles that pertain to WikiProject films and got the Lion King to an "A"-class article. I going to assist with the improvement of this article along with any other editors that would like to help. My goal is a good-article assessment. DrNegative (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is now listed as a Good Article. DrNegative (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DreamWorks Animation is showing up as "DreamWorks Animationin" Entombor2 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Historical Epic?

The headline for The Prince of Egypt calls it a semi-historical drama, but I was curious if we should revert the title to the more specific "Biblical Epic". The basis of this film afterall is almost entirely from Exodus, and the extent to which it can really be called a historical account is controversial to say the least, and I find semi-historical to be too vague. Biblical Epic places it in a clear context of both its genre and its source material, however historical it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.3.234 (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

AFI's recognition

Some admin has put out one of the best known accolade I edited here yesterday. Would it be too big problem to put here this recognition again, or do you want it in another way? Dr.saze (talk) 12:58, 06 August 2016 (UTC)

An incredible source

This source should be incorporated into the article. In fact, based on the development holes this article covers alone, i would go out on a limb and say there should be a GA reassessment.--Coin945 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• https://www.polygon.com/2018/12/17/18131286/the-prince-of-egypt-director-brenda-chapman-dreamworks

Edit war: Prequel

Hi anonymous user 2602:304:7830:949:1D83:DBC7:1394:57C,

You seem to keep removing any references to "Joseph: King of Dreams" being a sequel, although it was made by the same director and team, and comes chronologically before "Prince of Egypt".

Additionally, many sources refer to this as a prequel.

What is your rationale that it is not a prequel? Do you have any sources you can cite?

Thanks, Catleeball (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the change in question? Joseph is a prequel, but it shouldn't really be factored into the discussion of the movie outside of standard references to its production. Buh6173 (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary updates being undone

NEDOCHAN, you undid my extensive update to the summary for no reason other than "I liked how it was before". I shouldn't have to defend a summary update that isn't vandalism, but if I must, I performed the following changes:

• Removed multiple redundancies and unnecessary additional words
• Changed the paragraph spacing to better match how the movie is structured
• Pointed out that Moses and Tzipporah fall in love rather than the original phrasing making it seem like Tzipporah was just thrown into his lap against her will
• Pointed out the important plot beat of the Hebrews blaming Moses for their troubles

Can you give me specific issues you have with the current plot synopsis, rather than juts kneejerk undoing the entire thing? Buh6173 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

As per BRD, please understand that being reverted should be followed by discussion, not reinstating the edit. Particularly on a good article for a plot edit. I an happy to discuss my reasoning and will restore the text until it's been discussed. I will respond soon.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

BRD specifies to revert only when necessary and to explain reasoning when reverting, neither of which happened. Unless you can provide actual core causes for reverting other than "I liked it how it was", keep it to the talk page. Buh6173 (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind awfully waiting for me to explain? I reverted an edit that cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. I am now tryinh to respond.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to respond in here. In the meantime, please refer to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and quit reverting edits wholesale without providing proper justification. Buh6173 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. SO we need to do one edit at a time. Extensive rewrites of plot summaries on a good article are unusual. It would have been easier if the edits had been carried out individually, but mass-editing a plot summary (again, of a good article) means that I couldn't simply address them one by one.

Paragraph 1. You have changed 'all boys' to 'every boy'. This is either unnecessary or has a reason. If it has a reason, I disagree, as I think any distinction between the two favours 'all'. Secondly, you have omitted a critical plot element - Miriam SEES MOSES ADOPTED - it's a huge part of the story of the film and you've just chopped it out. The only edit I would support is the removing 'alarming'. In para 1. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I changed "kill all of the newborn Hebrew boys" to "kill every newborn Hebrew boy" to reduce the word count. "kill all newborn Hebrew boys" doesn't read as well, but if you're that stubborn about keeping it as "all" instead of "every", then fine.

Miriam witnessing the adoption is implied by the fact that she follows the basket and prays "before leaving". I would hope that the reader can infer that she witnessed the adoption considering the context.

At any rate, yes, you discuss these individual nitpicks you have. Per Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, don't just flip the table and undo an entire edit due to a few specific issues you have with the edit. Buh6173 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoping the reader can infer a plot element is a pretty poor reason for removing plot from a good article's plot summary. And personal attacks are totally uncalled for. I shall make a compromise edit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd very much like you to point out what "personal attack" I made towards you, because I fail to see it. At any rate, if you wish to go in and make minor changes rather than just reverting everything, by all means. Just make sure the word count stays at 700 or lower. Buh6173 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

'If you're that stubborn' is a personal attack. You're calling me stubborn. As is describing my careful thought and explanation as 'nitpicks'. Here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Prince_of_Egypt&type=revision&diff=965192794&oldid=965189471

690 words.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Made my notes, but the following issues:

• Moses killing the man happens as he leaves Egypt meaning it makes sense structurally to have it in the earlier paragraph.
• You omitted the burning bush for some reason.
• Grammatical fixes; compare the sentence "Seti, at Moses's suggestion to give Rameses an opportunity to prove his responsibility, names Rameses Prince Regent" and "At Moses's suggestion, Seti, seeking to give Rameses the opportunity to prove his responsibility, names Rameses Prince Regent". They're both far too long, but with the first one, you lead with the person acting in this sentence (Seti), whereas the latter sentence jumbles who's doing what for who for what reason.
• You placed the Hebrews getting angry at Moses after nine of the plagues, when it happens before the first.

While I'm okay with the current version, it's 705 words, 5 over the limit. You'd need to cut it down by 5 (which was the case prior to your edits). Buh6173 (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Made my notes, but the following issues:

• Moses killing the man happens as he leaves Egypt meaning it makes sense structurally to have it in the earlier paragraph.

Disagree- it's before he leaves and the reason he does

• You omitted the burning bush for some reason.

Fine - add

• Grammatical fixes; compare the sentence "Seti, at Moses's suggestion to give Rameses an opportunity to prove his responsibility, names Rameses Prince Regent" and "At Moses's suggestion, Seti, seeking to give Rameses the opportunity to prove his responsibility, names Rameses Prince Regent". They're both far too long, but with the first one, you lead with the person acting in this sentence (Seti), whereas the latter sentence jumbles who's doing what for who for what reason.

There is nothing grammatically wrong with either sentence. They're both acting in the sentence and both subjects. It depends whether you consider Moses or Seti to be more important to the story. I know what I think.

• You placed the Hebrews getting angry at Moses after nine of the plagues, when it happens before the first.

I was trying to accommodate your edit (which it may be easier to leave out)NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The Hebrews' unhappiness and distrust of Moses, and Miriam's faith in him, is important enough to leave in. Moreso than a few words at the beginning, that's for sure. With the Seti/Moses thing, count the number of commas (2 vs 3). You want to juggle as few shifting focuses in a sentence as possible; while neither is technically "wrong" grammatically, the former sentence is just easier to read, regardless of who's "more important to the story". As for Moses killing the man, you're right. It's before he leaves. Which is why it doesn't make sense for it to be in the same paragraph where he's already left, but rather...in the one before he leaves. So you basically solidified my argument on that one. Buh6173 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. PLease focus on THIS DIFF as it in my proposed COMPROMISE.

I adjusted considering my points laid out here. The two things I fixed that you undid were the Seti/Moses line (which is grammatically smoother with my edit and is one word fewer) and the Hebrews/Plagues thing (which they are upset with him prior to the plagues, which means the current state is how it should be). It's fine in its current state, except once again it's 705 words. Buh6173 (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - you don't just ignore a discussion while you reinstate your changes that have been reverted. This is a good article. Stop editing. Discuss. I disagree.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not 'grammatically smoother' at all, it's actually far clunkier. As is your grief-stricken edit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one ignoring a discussion. Please actually read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and refrain from reverting content to how it was prior to my initial edit before discussing the matter. Buh6173 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I did that at the beginning in the hope of discussing. Since then, I have tried to suggest various alternatives and to reach compromise. Do you rewrite a lot of plot summaries of good articles? I only ask as I'd be amazed if you didn't get a lot of objections.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide a justification for why you consider it to be "far clunkier", from a purely objective standpoint? Again, please consider the following two sentences:

Seti, at Moses's suggestion to give Rameses an opportunity to prove his responsibility, names Rameses Prince Regent

At Moses's suggestion, Seti, seeking to give Rameses the opportunity to prove his responsibility, names Rameses Prince Regent

The first sentence has two commas, while the second has three. The first has one clause separating the subject and action, while the second sentence puts an additional action at the start prior to the subject. It's overcomplicating the sentence for no reason, when it's already an excessively long sentence to begin with. The first sentence is 17 words, one shorter than the other at 18.

Also, not sure what you're talking about with my "grief-stricken edit". And in terms of your apparent anger that someone would have the gall to come in and edit a "good article", please again read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and its guidelines about how productive edits are helpful and encouraged. Buh6173 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You edited the words 'grief-stricken'. Again, and this is getting boring, please LOOK AT THE DIFF WHICH SHOWS THE DIFF and let's agree.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The current version is fine, though it's still 701 words; you'd need to axe off one. Buh6173 (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The current edit works. Buh6173 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Tried to add song credit and broke top table

I don’t know what I did wrong, but in trying to add a songs credit for Stephen Schwartz to the music section on top via iOS, I somehow broke the formatting of the table. 2600:1700:1FD1:3140:385D:7E6:8D37:50F4 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms of historical accuracy and allegations of pro-Israel propaganda

I recall reading a report during 1999 in one of the British broadsheets (memory says "The Times" of London) which carried the film had generated criticism among Arab anti-Israel quarters who called out the way the involvement of Jews as slaves was written into the building of the still standing Sphinx and Pyramids of Ghiza, and seemed to accuse the Jewish Spielberg of making a film that was pro- the present day Israeli state. (The reporter commented that these criticisms were being made in the Arab media despite the Egyptians of the time being neither Arabs nor Muslims.) This is not mentioned. That could have be mentioned in this article, unfortunately I didn't keep a copy of the report. The article is silent on this, although it does mention the ban imposed in Muslim-majority states.Cloptonson (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to find a reliable source and include the information. pillowcrow 00:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)