Talk:Alexander (2004 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irrelevant sections of this talk page[edit]

The following sections on this talk page labeled "River should have been Alexander", "Great Movie", and "It Sickens Me" seem like nothing more than opinionated rants rather than actual discussion on improving the article. Would there be anything wrong with me deleting them? If no one says otherwise in a month or so, I'll do so. Spartan198 (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198[reply]

Okay, since no one seems to object after two months, I'm removing the sections in question. Spartan198 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Spartan198[reply]

Okay, the removal is done. People, Wikipedia isn't a movie discussion forum. Spartan198 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Spartan198[reply]

Succesful movie??[edit]

$167,298,192 worldwide gross on a 155,000,000 movie (according to Boxoffice Mojo) is success? I don't think that even breaks even after everyone gets their cut...?

--24.130.61.61 07:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close, as advertisement investment for a movie that is this big usually costs around 30-100 million dollars. At most the movie broke even, with tv broadcasts and dvd sales and rentals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.28.199.121 (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Extended, third version[edit]

Does anyone have any other information about this bit of news? I'm intrigued beyond all measure! --164.107.92.120 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy[edit]

Just a little observation that propably is not important enough to be mentioned in the article: when Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) tells the story of Alexander's fathers death (after about 34 min. of the movie) there is a statue of a sitting Buddha on the table. But at that time (about 280 BCE) the Buddha had not been depicted in human form yet (see Buddhist art for details). The oldest statues date from the 1st century CE. --80.109.63.190 01:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its no documentary. Also, was anyone mad that the so called gay or bi-sexuality of Alexander was actually depicted on a very boring way?. Farrell looked at Leto with dreamy eyes (wich you knew he was badly faking) and then... they huged... and they hugged a lot through all of the movie (yet when Alexander goes straight, its all steamy and sexual). Now, were those 2 the most boring homosexuals in history or what?.

Oliver Stone must be very fascinated by homosexuality since it's his main topic of a film which should be about the greatest military srategy in history. Very sad indeed, malaka Stone.

The film presents Alexander in a way that very much minimizes his homosexuality, according to academic critics such as Terrell Carver (via Oliver Stone's Alexander Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies - Volume 35.2 (Spring 2005), pp. 83-84. Furthermore, Alexander's homosexuality has been well documented by critical texts, such as The origins and role of same-sex relations in human societies by James Neill (see page 179 and after via Google Books). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.250.157 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suprised no one has mentioned the issue of race in the "criticisms" section. I know for a fact that many Persians were deeply offended over the casting of Rosario Dawson, an Afro-Hispanic as Roxanne.

This site goes more into detail: http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/farrokh6.htm

Juan

Now who's confusing his races? Roxanne wasn't Farsi, she was Bactrian! 129.11.76.216 22:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander is slightly more true to the life of Alexander the Great than The Great Dictator is to the life of Adolf Hitler. --Chr.K. 11:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change some things[edit]

From: ~Even prior to its release, there was controversy about the film's depiction of Alexander as bisexual - in the film, Alexander and his friend hug a lot and exchange longing looks.~

To: ~Even prior to its release, there was controversy about the film's depiction of Alexander as bisexual.~

-from Taalo


"Hephaestion compares Alexander to Achilles, to which Alexander replies that, if he is Achilles, Hephaestion must be his Patroclus (Achilles' best friend/lover)." There is no direct evidence in the Illiad that Patroklos was the lover of Achilles. Patroklos was his cousin, but not necessarily lover- I believe that that should be changed to "best friend/possible lover". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagreas (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Box office performance and critical reception[edit]

I find it odd there isn't more about either of these in the article. Alexander is already in category with The Postman and Ishtar as far as legendary bombs go.

tis weird indeed. The article is a little bit too "pro Alexander", wich is actually very interesting, mainly because that means that it has a reduced number of loyal followers, considering that the movie is not a "good one" per se, one could almost say it has cult status.
It was a failure in the U.S. but quite successful worldwide. That said, the U.S. domestic failure of such a big project certainly merits more mention, along with the contrast to worldwide performance.
yes but not successful, but "successful", as it garnered bad reviews worldwide.

Death of Bucephalus[edit]

I think the sentence in the original article:

Completely contrary to primary source history, Bucephalus is killed at the Hydaspes.

is both a wrong interpretation from historical sources, and simply displaced in the discussion of a film that chose to stick to Plutarch, 61.1, or e.g. when (contrary to Wikipedia's Bucephalus) Arrian, 5 isn't sure himself what to believe, 5.19 contradicts 5.14.

If whoever wrote this means the statement by the Onesicritus of Astypalaea, who Arrian called incompetent and in other cases his account absurd (Arrian, 8), and falsely claiming he was an admiral (Arrian 6.2) – Strabo even called him the "master fabulist ... of Alexander" (Strabo, 15.28):

If such a source is believed to be trustworthy, yet dismissing the majority of authors including what Plutarch considered, or Gellius 5.2 citing Chares of Mytilene (which is primary), then Stone might as well including Onesicritus as Alexander's admiral, or shooting Colin Farrell against Amazon Queens (Plutarch, 46.1) – this would happen, if every "primary source" accounts are taken for granted,

The film might have a R. Lane Fox handwriting, but in light of the ancient authors, his reasoning that an officer's memoire would be undoubtly biased isn't that farfetched to refrain from overvaluing Onesicritus' version (Alexander the Great, Chapter 25, in the 1986 edition on p. 361, line 13):

"Buchephalas had been gravely wounded and within hours of the battle the old horse was reported dead; others, loyal to his invincibility, maintained that he had only collapsed of extreme old age."

Therefore I think the initial conclusion is wrong, and also missing the point how people are warned regarding the primary sources, whether this is Onesicritus, or Callisthenes, or Ptolemy I Soter, all of them not completely trustworthy. And then it is not that wrong for a film to prefer what Plutarch called as the version of the majority. – Ylai 11:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC) [corrected: Ylai 15:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Ring[edit]

Does anyone know what kind of ring was given to Alexander by Hephaistion and possibly the name of the stone? (Looks like a sunstone to me, but I'm not sure).

oh its just a symbolism, thats all, the ring didnt really had anything else to go for. Usually rings mean infinity or allegiance, so in that scene Hephastion gives him a symbolic present of his love to Alexander, letting him know that he would love him forever despite the fact that he married Roxana (or something much around those lines).

Game[edit]

How come Wikipedia don't have an article - or at lease some information - about the game based upon this movie? --apoltix 17:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read some reviews about the game, and aparently in the game you commanded an already made army in Alexander's most famous battles. So far so good, except that the game is boring and easy, accorindg to what i read, all that was needed for the win was to attack-move with all the troops, thus, battles required no micro-management whatsoever.
The game is as boring as the movie's boring parts. However if you're looking for a more action packed game and a challenge based on Alexander's conquests, better get the 2006 expansion pack Rome: Total War Alexander. In fact, GameSpot said that in this expansion,"This latest, download-only addition to The Creative Assembly's long-running series of historic epics is so spectacularly difficult that even the legendary Macedonian conqueror would have a rough go of subduing those pesky Persians. The game provides an illuminating lesson on just how tough of a task the monarch set for himself when he journeyed out to conquer the known world in 335 BC, and it's a splash of cold Grecian wine in the face of Total War-series veterans who think they've done it all."InGenX 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical criticism of apparent neanderthals in the film[edit]

I've read multiple articles criticle of Alexander because one scene depicted Neanderthals living somewhere in Southeast Asia and how that would be impossible. Include this?

Well, the movie takes place in south-west Asia, not southeast Asia. The Neanderthal theory comes from Mary Renault in The Nature of Alexander. She - and others - have also said that the Centaurs of Greek Mythology were really Neanderthals. Das Baz 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthals died out 30,000 years ago, so the statements by user Das Baz concerning them are impossible. Mary Renault is a novelist, not an archeologist. Spartan198 (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198[reply]

Continuity error??[edit]

One section of this article says that there is a "continuity error" during the sex scene with Roxane. But to me (I'm no expert but I watched it several times), it seems like it's just a jump in time. Alex with shorts-- alex without shorts in missionary position-- alex without shorts and roxane on top. We wouldn't say, "there's a continuity error because a second later he's fully dressed and standing in a different room." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.120.124.129 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Virgil quote[edit]

Comments on the "fortune favors the bold" comment being anachronistic are misplaced since the movie is presented in retrospective narration and using a quote of the classical period written after Alexander's death (pssibly inlfluenced by his life) is appropriate. Dainamo 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Alexander The Great (Colin Farrell).jpg[edit]

Image:Alexander The Great (Colin Farrell).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) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical criticism, Eastern bias?[edit]

Does anyone else feel that the historical criticism section has a very Eastern bias? Perhaps I over-generalise, just doesn't it seem like it is pro-ancient-Persian and anti-Hellenistic? Now I am sure that the Persians were more orderly than depicted and did probably have uniforms, but I have never read any literature written by a Western author (although it probably does exist) that says that Darius' troops ran out from under him before he himself ran...

Darius ran away at Issus leaving his family in his wake for Alexander to capture, why are we to presume he didn't do the same at Gaugamela? In addition, although we have lost most records directly from the time period of Alexander, chroniclers who were writing after his life do state that Darius did turn and run at Gaugamela. In fact, Darius' right had over-run Alexander's left and Alexander cut off pursuit of Darius himself because of this, which the film did make an attempt to portray. Had Darius stayed and faught he may have won at Gaugamela instead of inciting fear in his own troops by turning and running. It is also important to point out that studies of Alexander's battle strategy and tactics show evidence that he would evaluate the enemy's line, and attack right where the enemy presumed they were strongest; a success there meant a huge morale advantage and near sure victory. He did this in all three of his large confrontation with the Persians, Granicus, Issus, and Gaugamela. So Alexander's entire strategy at Gaugamela was to have his main body attack obliquely (not really portrayed in the film) to open a hole so that he could strike at Darius and force him into confrontation or to run. This was Alexander's PLAN at Gaugamela... The history stated under the criticism section seems to undermine this...

I must admit that there is a very good possibility that the history stated under historical criticism is true, because history is written by the victors and the history which I am recounting is most definitely of Hellenistic origin, but then the article should at least state that this is one possible truth of the events, and that there are many accounts that do agree that Darius turned and ran before his troops did.

Small point that upset me because the article portrays a minority belief of the outcome of that battle as absolute truth.

I have read several books and articles on Alexander, but the most recent which included him was "The Mask of Command" by Keegan from which I draw my basis for Alexander's tactical battle plans.

KarolusMagnus (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have investigated further and actually would like to call the history under historical criticism into question. If you actually read the quoted Dr. Kaveh Farrokh's article on the movie (link below), you will see it is incredibly bias and, in my opinion, unprofessionally written.

http://kavad.netfirms.com/articles/alexander.html

I am not a professor of history by any regards, but there are certain codes and ethics of criticising the work of others if you are to be taken seriously. Dr. Farrokh's article spends far too much time complaining about the inadequacies of Dr. Robin Lane Fox's understanding of ancient Persia and spends far too much time slandering Dr. Fox that one must wonder if there is some sort of educational vendetta being played out here. Even though Dr. Farrokh's knowledge and statements may be correct, his resentment for Dr. Fox has clouded his vision too much for anyone to claim this article as definitive fact without portraying the other side, the more commonly accepted side, of the history.

KarolusMagnus (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the other side more commonly accepted (particularly by professional historians who've studied either Alexander or Darius extensively)? There are no references in the article to sufficiently support either side as the more commonly accepted side. Without having read Kaveh Farrokh work or knowing much about how professional historians tend to operate, from my experience (largely in the science world) it's perfectly reasonably to criticise someone's lack of understanding about what they talking about. Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


also Parmenion commanded the Thessalian cavalry on the left flank, which was even more feared than the Macedonians companions. and it's a pity that Stone didn't show the Cretan and Rhodian who were very useful for Alexander's victories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastanolo (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why so cowardly?[edit]

Why was this film made in such a cowardly way? They try to portray this ancient dictator as some kind of fighter for "freedom" to win over the audience, rather than showing what it looks and sounds like when his barbarian army intentionally kills every man woman and child within the walls of a city. They dwell endlessly on a gay relationship without one proper sex scene (which I think should have surprised and interested the viewers, since the ancient Greeks preferred a "missionary position"). I thought Oliver Stone had a big enough name to make a bold film. Wnt (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to a movie discussion forum. Spartan198 (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Spartan198[reply]

Why is there reference to Pakistan?[edit]

At least a couple times there were referencse to Pakistan. I think that is ridiculous. I mean when Alexander invaded India, HE INVADED INDIA. Not Pakistan. I mean if you want to get technical and call it modern day Pakistan, then why not call Bactria modern day Afghanistan? Why not call Persia modern day Iran? I mean how technical do you want to get? This is another example of someone not wanting to give credit to India. I mean Pakistan?

And one more thing.....Why did it say that the people of Punjab accept Alexander as a part of their history (those might not have been the exact words but it said something similar to that). I mean the PUnjabi people arent the only ones. I mean why only are the Punjabi people mentioned? That doesnt make sense.

I hope no one has a problem with my edits. I didnt channge much. I just took out the Pakistan part, and took out that one line about the Punjabi people. Im Indian by the way so I know what im talking about. ARYAN818 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Longer a Record Holder[edit]

This article contradicts the article it links to regarding the record for largest domestic net loss on a film. This article says that Alexander holds the record with losses of over $120 million. However, the list that this article links to shows that another film, "The Golden Compass", actually holds the record, with losses of over $130 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasdenonno (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody Messed Up[edit]

This page has been screwed up and I tried fixing it but don't who or what edit to undo to fix it.

It's okay, I fixed it. A teenaged vandal just before you deleted the first part of the code for the infobox, which is why it wasn't working. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited Reference? Not sure which is the original...[edit]

Is it acceptable to plagiarize from the IMDB Plot Synopsis or vice versa? The last paragraph is with little variation what is written in IMDB, without credit. Perhaps it happened in the opposite order: IMDB plagiarized Wikipedia. Or perhaps both sites plagiarized from a third unknown source BUT the fact remains, neither references the other. Here you can see both page's summaries of the end of the movie:

From IMDB Plot Synopsis (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346491/synopsis):

Also shown are Alexander's private relationships with his childhood friend Hephaestion and later his wife Roxana. Hephaestion compares Alexander to Achilles, to which Alexander replies that, if he is Achilles, Hephaestion must be his Patroclus (Achilles' best friend and possibly lover). When Hephaestion mentions that Patroclus died first, Alexander pledges that, if Hephaestion should die first, he will follow him into the afterlife. Hephaestion shows extensive jealousy when he sees Alexander with Roxana and deep sadness when he marries her, going so far as to attempt to keep her away from him after Alexander murders Cleitus the Black in India. After Hephaestion succumbs to an unknown illness either by chance or perhaps poison, speculated in the movie to be Typhus carried with him from India. Alexander distances himself from his wife, despite her pregnancy, believing that she has killed Hephaestion. He dies less than three months after Hephaestion, at the young age of 32, keeping his promise that he would follow him.

From Wikipedia

Also shown are Alexander's private relationships with his childhood friend Hephaestion and later his wife Roxana. Hephaestion compares Alexander to Achilles, to which Alexander replies that, if he is Achilles, Hephaestion must be his Patroclus (Achilles' best friend and possibly lover). When Hephaestion mentions that Patroclus died first, Alexander pledges that, if Hephaestion should die first, he will follow him into the afterlife. Hephaestion shows extensive jealousy when he sees Alexander with Roxana and deep sadness when he marries her, going so far as to attempt to keep her away from him after Alexander murders Cleitus the Black in India. After Hephaestion succumbs to an unknown illness either by chance or perhaps poison, speculated in the movie to be Typhus carried with him from India, Alexander distances himself from his wife, despite her pregnancy, believing that she has killed Hephaestion. He dies less than three months after Hephaestion, keeping his promise that he would follow him.


Just curious 68.231.217.17 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Kathryn[reply]

~Personal view not encyclopedic in nature~[edit]

This doesn't appear to belong in this article (belief/judgment):

The Cinema version and the Director`s Cut version the Gaugamela battle are better and more epic than the Revisited version of the same battle. The Cinema and Director's Cut version is much tighter, meshes with the music better, and preserves the charge of the Shield Bearers (Hypaspists). The Revisited version has more gore, but feels disjointed and ad hoc. The music is also poorly chopped up to fit the new longer Revisited edit. For these reasons, the Final Cut version don't feel like a ultimate perfect version. The Battle of India is better in the Revisited version.

Lol@more epic

Criticism[edit]

In every map or scripture of some kind, all the names of places and the words inscribed are in English (rendered in a simil-Hellenic script). The area containing the whole Greek territory is inscribed as "Greece". At the time, besides being written in ancient Greek script, it would not have been called generically "Greece" but rather, only the names of the main provinces and cities would have been marked, such as Athinai for Athens, Thessalonia for Thessaly, and so on. This, however, is justified in that few would recognize the names were they not Anglicized.

Also, all the characters speak English! Seriously, why is the use of Anglicized names/English text a problem? Surely it's just a translation convention. And that passage isn't even cited, so as far as I know it's just one Wikipedia editor's opinion. I would suggest removign that, unless someone can find a cite for a notable historian or critic saying "Alexander sucks became they use English text on the maps!" Iapetus (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's been time for this section to have sources applied to it, so if no one minds, I'm going to remove that section. I can't personally find any source relating historical criticism to the translations of maps, or the state of Babylon as portrayed in the film. By all means revert if anyone is able to find one! OneCatch (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the above sections, but frankly there's a whole lot more unreferenced criticism as well. While this criticism is almost certainly valid. Sections between "The final part of Alexander's invasion of Asia shows..." and "...solve the problem in the first part of his campaign." are completely unreferenced, and the section below about concerns from Iranian and Pakistani historians is minimally referenced.
Does pointing out historical inaccuracies without a specific source constitute original research? Should these sections be removed, or 'citation needed' tags added, or no further action taken? OneCatch (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is just iranian pov???[edit]

What is the measure of an anti-Iranian movie? Who decides? But apart from that country and the people who insulted their history? This film was made in favor of Alexander and Persians are portrayed as barbarians. The film distorts history,About Battles of Alexander and Darius III. All the prowess of Alexander's portrayed. There is no sign of burned Persepolis by Alexander, Well, who determines that this movie is anti-Iranian? So maybe you poeple believe this movie is not related to Iranian history or maybe you are convinced that history is not distorted!!!


An example: When a person or a company, a film of anti-Semitism or aniti-iranian or anti-American or anti-Islam... makes. Surely this guy or this company doesn't believe that the movie made ​​is discriminatory. So who is assigned these films are distorted? Apart from the history and culture of the peoples, who have been insulted?

This is a very biased and embarrassing. so regrettable ♔ Koolak (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed under Anti-Iranian Sentiment category, but there is no clear explanation in the article as to why. JanderVK (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References without explanation?[edit]

There are a few confusing references to persons in this article. The major characters are identified, as they should be, not only by name but by their relations to Alexander, or other brief referential point to explain what role someone of that name has in the movie. But in a couple of cases, a minor character is just named, as if it's assumed that the reader would know who that was, and no reference is given to explain.

Example #1: His relationship with his father is destroyed when Philip marries Attalus's niece, Eurydice. Attalus is not mentioned in the article previous to this, nor is anything else said to suggest why he's being mentioned at all. If it's significant to the incident in the movie that the woman Alexander's father is marrying is Attalus' niece -- which it is; Attalus is a political enemy of Alexander and his mother -- then something ought to be said to explain why it is significant. Or, if it were not significant that the woman was niece to somebody named Attalus, then he shouldn't be mentioned at all. But either way, mentioning Attalus without saying another thing about who he was or why he's relevant is... confusing.

Example #2: On his deathbed, Bagoas grieves as Alexander's generals begin to split up his kingdom and fight over the ownership of his body. Bagoas has never been mentioned before this. Readers who have not actually seen the movie (or read Mary Renault's account of Alexander's life, in which he also figures) will have no idea who this Bagoas person is or why he is grieving over the protagonist. And, unlike Attalus, there isn't even a link to another page which will convey the information, since Bagoas the Eunuch wasn't significant enough historically to have his own Wikipedia page. So it's impossible for a reader to find the information here.

Suggestion: omit names altogether when the character isn't significant enough to be mentioned more than once. Instead use a brief description that explains the person's relevance to the plotline. For example #1, this might look like, His relationship with his father is destroyed when Philip marries Eurydike, the niece of one of Alexander's political enemies. For example #2, it might be, A eunuch who had loved Alexander grieves at his deathbed, while Alexander's generals begin to split up his kingdom and fight over control of his corpse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quibbitzer (talk • contribs) 02:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alexander (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible sentence[edit]

The 2nd sentence of para 3 of the Plot section, which takes up almost the whole para, is incomprehensible as it is. I’m unsure where full stops should go. Could someone familiar with it please sort it out? Boscaswell talk 08:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negative bias[edit]

For a movie that's been criticized as "overly academic" the chapter for historical feedback seems biased. It's been a general consensus that overall the movie has great detail in historical accuracy. I will be editing the chapter and adding some feedback to make it more representative. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_(2004_film)&oldid=1204681086"