Talk:All the King's Men (2006 film)

Info Box

I have started an info box for the film's information. Feel free to update as new information comes up or to clear any inaccuracies.

Remake?

I read on IMDB that this movie is not actually a remake of the 1949 film, but rather a second movie based on the novel by Robert Penn Warren (which is pretty good btw). Not sure on the exact policy of categorizing/classifying movies and remakes and such, but i thought i'd throw in that tidbit for consideration. Thoughts? --Subterfugest 03:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

By virtue of being the second filmed version of the novel, it would meet the commonly accepted version of a 'remake'. The fact the director did not see the original is of no consequence. If Penn watched Broderick Crawford playing Stark and Penn was influenced in any manner, then wouldn't that make it a 'remake'? It's essentially a distinction without a difference. 'Down And Out In Beverly Hills' is considered a remake of the 1934 French film 'Bodu Saved From Drowning' even though they only share the same source material. I say yes this film is a remake.

Found this amusing: "Writer/director Steven Zaillian has said it was his goal to more faithfully follow Warren's version of the story than the original film did." From the wiki page on the first movie (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/All_the_king%27s_men). Anyone care to cite one or the other as being correct? Also seconding that this is a remake, regardless of whether or not Zaillian's seen the first. Studentism 07:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The original film's plot takes enormous liberties with the novel, really taking a few of the characters and the original situation of the story and mixing them all together. The second film uses a much more faithful run-down of the events. The only truly major alteration is the change in time period. I'm not sure why you found my addition to the first film's page "amusing," and you didn't make it clear what you were asking with the "one or the other" question, but if you're trying to figure out which movie was more faithful to Warren's novel, Zaillian's most definitely was. You can play all the games you want to in defining "remake," but the first film tells a nearly fundamentally different story from the novel and the second film. Calling Zaillian's a "remake" of Rossen's is absurd, whether or not people call similar films "remakes." Others making the same misleading characterization hardly means it makes any more sense.

Also, the section on supposed "differences" between the novel and this film needs an entire re-write. At points I wonder if whoever is responsible for it even read the book.----Spyder130 22:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The "differences" section seems good. The person who wrote that section clearly read the book. You don't need to insult that person.

German?

Is there a reason why this article is in the category "German films"? There was not much in the movie that appeared to be German.

Average movie aside, but it was financed by both American and German money. Whatever language is spoken is irrelevant. Lots of movies have several financial sources and thus several "nationalities". Just check the imdb page [1]. Ihtah. 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Differences between book and novel

I edited this out ("Willie Stark's son Tom has a more prominent role in the book than in the film. In the book he is portrayed as rebellious and arrogant, and clearly resentful of the way his father attempts to live vicariously through his youth. None of those features are portrayed in the film.") because it is basically said -and more in depth- in theitem previous to the last. Nazroon 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot

The only thing I see resembling a plot or synopsis is 'about the life of Willie Stark, a fictional character resembling Louisiana governor Long' There is a lot of other stuff which is great but someone who has seen it needs to add a bigger plot section. Tydamann (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How in the world can you have an article about a movie without mentioning what in the world it's about?!?! --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 06:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All the King's Men (2006 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061022090932/http://www.michaelmedved.com/pg/jsp/eot/review.jsp?pid=3285 to http://www.michaelmedved.com/pg/jsp/eot/review.jsp?pid=3285
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022094058/http://www.scorenotes.com/reviewArchive/kings.html to http://www.scorenotes.com/reviewArchive/kings.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)