Talk:Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pazhassi raja 1.jpg

Image:Pazhassi raja 1.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 ensure 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) 00:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spellcheck for article and edit the languages the movie was released.

The introduction itself states the movie to be a multilingual movie. Ammend?? Sanjit Nair (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rottentomatoes review - false claim

I checked Rottentomatoes for the movie and I can't find it. The paragraph claims 94% positive approval rating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.21.29 (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Box office figures, Latest and reliable sources

The earlier box office figures of Pazhassi Raja was entered from the link, http://in.movies.yahoo.com/news-detail/87416/Pazhassi-Raja-DVD-sales-create-records.html. This link has just copied the article from Galatta.com without checking the correctness of the figures. There is a reliable source from NDTV.com which quotes the film producer(http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?section=Movies&Id=ENTEN20100153328&keyword=regional&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=52284). I feel the box office figures should be quoted from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

20 crore is not the gross amount, it is the company revenue of the film. The gross amount will be the sum of company revenue, producer's share, distributor's share, satellite rights and home video rights. It will be approximately nearly 23 crores as given in the source. -- Arfaz (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The producer talks about the "collection" and not "revenue". Collection includes revenue, tax, distributor share etc. Further, the original source of the Rs.23 Crores is quoted from galatta.com (galatta.com/entertainment/hindi/livewire/id/Pazhassi_Raja_DVD_sales_create_records_38291.html) which is not a reliable site for box office figures. Please check the disclaimer of galatta.com "The galatta.com web site does not represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any advice....". As NDTV source is reliable and since they quote the producer, the figure of Rs 20 crores is more appropriate to be included in the article till a better source is identified.

Again it changed to the older 23 crores quoting a page which does not exist.--Mithravishnu (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Times of India reference (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-31/news-interviews/29949007_1_pazhassi-raja-epic-mammootty) does not quote any valid reference for the Rs.23 crore gross and appears to be unreliable. Further, the statement by the producer of the film has more credibility than that of Times' source. So NDTV source is more credible (http://movies.ndtv.com/regional/pazhassi-raja-to-be-shown-at-tokyo-film-festival-52284). Further, Times had quoted in the link (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-11-17/news/27656391_1_tamil-film-mollywood-tamil-nadu) a gross of just Rs.12 crores after 1 month. How does the movie which grossed just Rs.12 crores in one month end up grossing Rs. 23 crores in its lifetime? It is not very clear whether the gross here includes satellite charges and other rights. If that is the case, it has to be clearly stated. Again no movie in the history of Malayalam film industry has grossed more than Rs.35 Crores. Please check links from leading Malayalam newspapers and media (http://www.mathrubhumi.com/movies/malayalam/423355/, http://www.asianetnews.tv/enews/article/5430_drisyam-record)

Huge variation in figures Rahul Soman^{talk - contribs} 22:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable source

This source cannot be considered reliable. If the film was screened at Tokyo Internationall Film Festival, then its should have been included in its official site. But it is not. And the given source says that Pazhassi Raja was the only Indian film selected to be screened at the festival which is also wrong. Hence, the other site can't be considered reliable per WP:RS. I have just removed that site from Reflist. -- Arfaz (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The above site is the official site of 23rd TIFF. The NDTV site says about 22nd TIFF.--Mithravishnu (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The NDTV article was published in 2010 September, a year after the release of Pazhassi Raja. 22nd Tokyo Film Festival was in 2009 October and the 23rd in 2010 October. -- Arfaz (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that Pazhassi Raja did not figure in the list of the films on the 23rd Tokyo International Film Festival's official site. Hence, NDTV site can't be a reliable source for this particular fact(Incidently Pazhassi Raja's screening was also quoted by Times of India http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/mobile.aspx?article=yes&pageid=8&sectid=edid=&edlabel=TOICH&mydateHid=16-09-2010&pubname=&edname=&articleid=Ar00800&publabel=TOI) ). However, due to this sole reason, NDTV source can't be termed unreliable as a source for other facts. Please check WP:NWSRC and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_sources/India.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2014

kindly change the box office 23 crore to 20 crore Lijos188 (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - You will need to provide a reliably published source that supports content you wish to add or change. For box office figures, Wikipedia has determined that Box Office India is generally reliable, and we will also generally use numbers provided by the national news papers. Most other websites are not acceptable as lacking reputations for accuracy and editorial oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The source for Rs.20 crores is http://movies.ndtv.com/regional/pazhassi-raja-to-be-shown-at-tokyo-film-festival-52284. Further, Rs.49 crores reported by TOI is not correct. Please check the discussion in "Box office figures, Latest and reliable sources" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalore102 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Box office details.

I have restored contents in the box office section which were previously removed. There is one source from Times of India which says the film "reportedly grossed close to 23 Cr" and another source from NDTV Movies which cites the producer as saying the film's total gross was only 20 Cr. I have included both these values separately in the Box office section and have removed the gross amount from the infobox as it is disputed. And some users are repeatedly reverting my edits saying they want to maintain a "neutral point of view". Kindly explain what do you mean by that. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The producer as saying the film's total gross was only 20 Cr in 39 days.Anjaan333 (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The article was published in September 2010, almost an year after the release of the film. Then how come you can expect it to be 39 days gross? Malayala Sahityam (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Also articles such as these 1 2 3 as well as numerous other sources say that Drishyam crossed the record set by Twenty:20 (not Pazhassi Raja) to become the highest grossing Malayalam film ever. So clearly the 23 crore claim is seriously disputed Malayala Sahityam (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support the approach that when there are multiple generally reliable sources that have conflicting claims, we provide the range of claims and attribute who is making them. WP:UNDUE. Info boxes are for presenting simple information simply. Contested information is not simple and so not including anything in the info box is the preferred option.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually the TOI article's editor might have sourced the gross from wikipedia itself when someone (probably fans) was written 23cr in the infobox. --117.231.160.42 (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at this source. It clearly says that the movie made 19 crores at the boxoffice. i think thats reliable source. please put the box office figures on that section. Ambeinghari (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Sources does not guarantee inclusion. There are various sources mentioned above which gives different figures. According to the producer Mr. Gokulam Gopalan said in the film's press meet in Kochi held one year after the release, the film grossed ₹20 crores - reported by NDTV. It is the most reliable source available. It is in the article. --49.15.138.232 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

49.15.138.232 Firstly, you are misusing WP:V, which says "verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion". That aspect of the policy is intended to guide the type of content we include in articles. For example, if Actor X has an affair with Actor Y, even if verifiable, we wouldn't necessarily include that information in a biography, because Wikipedia is not a gossip rag. Contrarily, box office gross values are important aspects of film articles, they tend to improve the article, and they should be included, (although with Indian cinema articles, the information should be taken with a grain of salt.) Moving along, your assertion that we should report what the film's producer said, is not based on any sound editing principle. We don't use primary sources for controversial information about themselves, because a primary source would have every reason to either inflate or deflate box office numbers, either to promote the film, or to maximize losses to get out of paying taxes, investors, etc. We simply don't know, so we shouldn't use his figures. We should be using the data that reliable published sources discover independently of the film's producers. If there is a range of opinion on the gross, presenting that range as a numerical range is also on the table, however we shouldn't be using the producer's statement as part of that data. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The source from TOI is not its genuine collection. It's an obvious mistake from the editing side. And the "only source" that reported it, neither TOI has reported it again. In fact, in their another report in 2015, listed the top 5 Malayalam grossers (ranging 75-25 crore), they haven't included KVPR. I bet you cannot find any other reliable source reporting 49 crore, not even a single source. But there are other sources, that reported its box office during its running time, and over. KVPR released on 16 Oct 2009, per this report from Sify, it grossed 13 crore in 42 days, and per this (on Jan 2010) cites its 70 days gross as 18 crore, but this report from India Today gave 15 crore as collection. Indiaglitz gave its 100 days gross as 17 crore (Indiaglitz is not acceptable per Wiki consensus, anyway it gave a similar figure, that's the point). Apart, its producer has officially declared its total collection as 20 crore, in a press meet in Kochi, as reported by NDTV "one year" after its release, that means its lifetime gross (its a primary source, but see the difference - 20 & 49). So the TOI report is an obvious mistake. And as Malayala Sahityam said, when Drishyam became the highest-grosser, all sources reported it broke the record of Twenty:20 (which grossed 32+cr), not KVPR.--Essex-1799 (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

And about this source from IBTimes which report 32 crore for KVPR. This IBTimes source is an exact duplicate of this report from Onlookersmedia, which is an unreliable source. IBTimes itself refer it in it. That [unreliable] report also tells us that the figure is including the money from selling various rights. So that report from Onlookersmedia that suddenly came out from nowhere, is also fake.--Essex-1799 (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have given explaination for each of the edits. Essex-1799 is actually edit warring. The user is removing sources which are valid and correctly explained. Firstly the user is telling TOI report is invalid without any proofs. Secondly the user is providing producer's box office claim, which can not be actually placed as source according to wikipedia rules...-TRUEV140 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot read, that's not my problem. There is no use in IP hopping for edit warring. You should address the issues I raised above. I have submitted enough evidences and explanations above to prove the TOI report is incorrect. Now it's your turn, IF you have anything to prove it otherwise. Producer's claim is specifically written in the box office section that it is "according to the producer", not that it grossed this much. And no other correct reliable sources is available. There is also some serious issues with your edits, I have pointed that it in your talk page. --Essex-1799 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

See what this source from The Economic Times says about Drishyam - "According to various traders' estimates, Drishyam was the first Malayalam film to collect Rs 100 crore at the box office,". This report was published in 14 March 2016, even before the release of first 100 crore movie in Malayalam, Pulimurugan. This is an example of another editorial mistake from The Times Group just as the case of Pazhassiraja we are discussing here. Both are blunder mistakes, especially Pazhassiraja which is unbelievably blatant. What I am saying is, even it is from a reputed source, fact checking is important.--117.202.253.16 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

actually The news from times of india reveals that the film had gain a totall collection of 49 cr with the Satellite rights had been sold to HBO Althafkdl (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Does HBO know that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.85.69 (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Inflation calculations

I don't believe the budget inflation calculation belongs in the infobox. The infobox isn't a repository for complicated data, it's supposed to summarize...briefly. The inflation switch of the INRConvert template could be used in a more intuitive spot, like the lead, or in a section on box office, but I also question the utility of the template because I don't think it's accurate. When I ran the conversion here, it was off by 8.6 million rupees, a significant margin. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100116135629/http://www.asianetindia.com/news/pazhassi-raja-tax-concession-benefit-viewers_94231.html to http://www.asianetindia.com/news/pazhassi-raja-tax-concession-benefit-viewers_94231.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

Sir I have noticed a big mistake in this report.I have a specific siurce regarding it.The source is Times Of India. Mhdsuhail123 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

References

It appears you are autoconfirmed and can make the edit yourself. Please re-open this here if you somehow are unable. — Andy W. (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That is disputed as a fake/mistaken report. There is a discussion about it here itself.--Essex-1799 (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (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/20091019083958/http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=ENTEN20090112617&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&keyword=regional to http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?Section=Movies&ID=ENTEN20090112617&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&keyword=regional
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503112130/http://www.apunkachoice.com/scoop/downsouth/malayalam/20070407-0.html to http://www.apunkachoice.com/scoop/downsouth/malayalam/20070407-0.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) 17:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (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/20090927054908/http://ammagulf.com/ to http://www.ammagulf.com/

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) 01:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Analysis of financial success

@Ben.abra and Rock329: Per both of your recent edits here and here, a few things:

1. Unsourced content is unhelpful, Ben. We're not interested in editors' opinions and analyses, as this constitutes original research, which is not permissible.
2. Rock329, while your efforts to remove, then restore with a reference this same content is appreciated, the reference you added does not support the opinion presented, even if we can infer that its gross was less than its budget, we would still need a reliable source to make the determination that it performed poorly.
3. And to both of you, we would not use the word "failure" or "flop" or "blockbuster" or "superhit" or "rotten" or any of the other hyperbolic industry language. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and we would use neutral language, a la, "The film performed poorly at the box office, making X crore against a budget of Y", but again, the "poorly" description would have to come from a reliable published source.

Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020

The Boxoffice collection of Pazhassiraja is about 49 crores as per the Times of India report on August 31,2011

The link of the same is attached below

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/regional/movie-details/news-interviews/Hariharan-MT-Vasudevan-prepare-for-Randamoozham/articleshow/9807050.cms? Athulrmohanamr (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Times of India isn't that great of a source (WP:TOI) and that article is written so incoherently I can't tell if 49 crore is referring to this movie. Find a different source. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Box office collection

The box office figure is a clear mistake The first day gross of the movie is 1.5cr not 84 lakhs.it is reported in all reputed magazines. Also the movie collected 20cr from kerala box office alone in 70 days.The press meet in which producer says was the revenue he got from share and rights. The actual ww figure of the movie is approximately 31 crores reported by IBT times.TOI said it collected around 49cr.but that was a mistake from their side as HBO had not done the 18 cr business.so 31 cr INR is the actual box office worldwide collection of kerala varma pazhassiraja. Joseph luke thekken (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)