Talk:Veer-Zaara

Veer-Zaara (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 8 May 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

Romance Mid‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge with Veer-Zaara(film) page

It might be a good idea to merge this page with the other Veer-Zaara page that's floating around ( http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Veer-Zaara_%282004_film%29 ) Is there a reason why there would be a film page and a non-film page? GAdam 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah's great-granddaughter in law (possibly)?

I think it's important trivia that Zinta's boyfriend is the great-grandson of Jinnah, as this is a film about the conflict between India and Pakistan. It would be relevant to show that one of the actors has an important link to the foreign country they are covering.

Anon, we're trying to stay away from "gossip" about living people. Especially the "who's dating who" that is the staple of so many movie columns. A marriage, that would be different, and noteworthy.

Now, I could be wrong here. How about going to the Indian cinema project page and getting feedback from more people than just me? There are a lot of people involved with this project now and we don't all think alike. So I could be over-ruled. Zora 06:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, im the one who removed the comment. I don't think it is necessary to point out that Zinta's going out with Jinnah great grandson. The film itself really does not mention anything about Jinnah. I dunno people. If everyone is happy with the comment, then im fine with it. Pa7 14:41, 03 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preity vs. Rani

Rani's role is not credited as highly as Preity's. It's on the DVD cover (Shahrukh Khan, Preity Zinta, & Rani Mukerji). So, we will not change that order. It is quite possible that Rani's acting was more acclaimed. If so cite that, there is no objection to that. But to list the actor in front of the lead because you think she's better is ludicrous. Please stop doing that. gren グレン 07:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie

See the movie and when the cast is credited in the beginning of the movie, it follows: Shah Rukh Khan and then Rani Mukerji and Preity Zinta after her. It's merely because Rani is a senior to her. Even on the poster, you can observe, it's Shah Rukh Khan on the left, Rani Mukerji in the center and then Preity Zinta on the far right. So don't teach me! You should learn your stuff right before.

Movie producers play games with name placement to keep stars happy. Everyone wants top billing, so posters are arranged so that there's something for everyone. Cast is sometimes in order of appearance. All the same, WE list the stars, then the supporting actors, and Rani was supporting actress in this one. That was the name of her Filmfare award. Zora 06:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD cover has a "& Rani Mukherji"- which does not look like top billing. Also the movie might have had a great perfromance by Rani, but it in a a support role, the lead role is Preity's.

In fact Preity's character's name is in the title !. Haphar 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack Question

I posted something similar on the Fanna Talk Page, but that article is in bad shape since someone decided to just cut and paste the synopsis from the movie's website! But here is my question (which relates to all Hindi movies):

I don't know if the format of this article has followed a pre-set template for movies (it appears very similar to other articles about Hindi films). However, as a user, I would find it very useful to have the names of the songs included in the article (after all, most Hindi movies live or die on the strength of their soundtracks and people consider the songs quite important). But I didn't want to add a "Soundtrack" section if it would violate a pre-authorized, agreed-upon template. If that is not the case, I'd be happy to create the section with the appropriate links. --Smalek 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list of song titles would be fine. Some movie articles have them. Writing an article for a well-known song would be OK too, I think, if it's REALLY well-known. Zora 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Vs. Preity

Rani was only given the supporting role since the lead was given to Aishwarya Rai at that time who was far successful than Rani at that point of time. Rani had already prepared the role of Saamiya, so when Ash left, Rani didn't want to do the lead as she was prepared. Then, Preity came as the lead. Still, movie credits point out Rani's name before Preity due to seniority and popularity. Go see the official website credits or better see the movie for yourself. shez15 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB credits Preity before Rani- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420332/. Should close THIS discussion at least. Haphar 12:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the movie and when the cast is credited in the beginning of the movie, it follows: Shah Rukh Khan and then Rani Mukerji and Preity Zinta after her. It's merely because Rani is a senior to her. Even on the official website, you will clearly read Rani's name before Zinta if you go click on credits. IMDB is nothing. It's the case of Devdas here, Madhuri Dixit's name came before Aishwarya even though Rai won all the lead actor awards for the film and Dixit won one supporting role award!

It's not important of Aishwarya Rai dropped out of the movie - and it's not a matter of popularity or seniority, it's about who are the major characters: the movie is named after them, so that's how they get credited. And IMDb is standard when it comes to movies, as it is the largest movie databse on the planet. --Plumcouch 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Plumcouch. Yes, Rani is credited before Preity but it seems silly to have the supporting actress ahead of the leading actress. Mukerji is senior to Zinta but that is still no reason to put Zinta after her. Pa7 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys get it? It's like a Devdas case. Madhuri is the supporting actress. We all know that but even on wikipedia here, she is credited before Ash, the lead actress. Plus, she is credited before her even in the movie. By the way, I just saw Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega again and in the end, Rani is credited before Preity but I have made no changes because it will upset you. But here, I must be firm. Rani is even credited before Zinta in the poster.shez 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed the actresses' names again. Shez, we'll take this to an RFC if we must, or even to an arbitration case. You have to let go of your Rani obsession. Zora 09:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cast.

IMDB or not. There are certain things we can't do. Preity is the heroine and Rani the supporting. IMDB is not suitable anymore. & different users opposed to have Rani before Preity, so IMDB is not important in this case. --Shshshsh 16:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how accurate IMDb is, but I think we should credit them in the order the official film credits do. Film crediting is a political thing. Throughout the 1930s Kate Hepburn was always credited above her mail co-stars but that changed in the 1940s. If two actors worked together often they'd alternate the credit order. (I haven't seen Veer-Zaara but assuming Preity and SRK have relatively similar size roles) No one has even questioned why we put SRK above Preity? We do it because that's how they are credited. There are tons of movies where it's completely arbitrary who goes first and I think we should use what the film cast order is to avoid arguments all over. If IMDb reflects the official credit order then we can use it. If not, we shouldn't use it. I understand it creates a weird situation for this film but I think that should be fixed by a good plot summary which introduces them and will clearly show that Preity is more important in the film. If we start changing the order for who is more important it's an endless fight about who deserves to be where in the list.

And I haven't seen the official cast list for this film so I am not sure what order it would be--just that we should follow it. gren グレン 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we don't always know how the movie cediting goes. Here on Wikipedia we have to give information for the film. Supporting cast is not important. The matter is that we have to credit the main characters ahead of the supporting. As I said, filmmakers credit as per seniority, appearances order etc. Users like Zora, Plumcouch decided to use IMDB, since film credits are not matching wikipedia, and not everyone knows the credits. As you said, in the movie poster we have Preity first. Why not using this? That's like a source for itself. That's why Preity has to be credited first. You said, it will make troubles and fights with who is more notable. That's why we have to go according to something, and it is not film credits. If we decide to use film credits (and as I said most of us don't know the credits for every film), there will be a big speculation, since that's not a source, and we can't rely on words. Let's assume that Shez puts the film credits for every film as it appears in the film. How can I know that it's true? In general, film credits are not suitable at all. We have to find a good net source. For now we are using the internet movie detabase, but the problem here is not the film credits, the matter is to find a good source for film credits. Please also see the comments above. --Shshshsh 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with gren. Film casting is the official way of ordering actors but since that information is unavailable on the net, it's simple to use IMDB. Unless we can find a movie site which shows all the Indian movies and we can check. Musicnmovies.com shows some of the popular movies. But that's a hassle. So, it's efficient to use IMDB since it's the largest movie database. And in the plot, one can see who is really important. And on a later released poster, Rani Mukerji is placed first.[1] The official website of Veer-Zaara also puts her first.[2] And the movie does too. So, I don't see the problem. Again, I object lead cast being always put before the supporting one since in the recent times, supporting roles have become much more powerful than lead ones. A lead actress is required in every film but sometimes, they are not given that much scope like in the cast of Vidya Balan in Lage Raho Munnabhai. Arshad Warsi leaves with more impact and is put before her. Madhuri Dixit is casted before Ash in Devdas in the movie and on wikipedia. So why not Rani before Preity? Why not Kareena over Rani? It doesn't make a difference since people already know who the lead cast is from the synopsis. --shez_15 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said by Zora and Plumcouch, film credits are not suitable, and I don't intend to open this issue again. It was discussed in the past. Seniority is one of the aspects filmmakers use, and we can't display that here. The case now is IMDB. There might be some pages for exception. I'm going with this case far until we get that. As you know, B&B page changed. Why? Why Rani before Abhishek? It is not right. --Shshshsh 07:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we can't use fansites since not all of them use the original credits of the film. See Mujhse Dosti Karoge or The rising. --Shshshsh 07:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can access film credits when one of us has access to the film. You're right that it's not safe to assume that IMDb or a fan site accurately represents that but with a diverse group of users we can often find out the proper order if it ever becomes controversial (like in this article). My problem is that ranking it in order of 'most important' characters in a film is not always easy. In this film it may be... I haven't seen it, but in other films it might not be easy to ascertain which actors are the most important. An official cast list leave us with no problems and represents the intent of the producer which is notable even if it does not reflect the importance of the actors in the film.

That being said, I see no reason to belabor this point and I will not engage in reverting this (even if I had seen the order of the official credits). In the end, this isn't a huge deal since it has been shown both ways and although I have my opinions it doesn't really make it a better or worse article either way. gren グレン 07:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as we can't use film credits, and as nobody can rely on your or my words, we'll use IMDB for now, like decided earlier. BTW, I'm not talking about NOTABLE roles (like said by User: Zora, filmmakers play games with cast order. WE credit the heroes before). I'm talking about main characters and it's apparent that SRK and Zinta are main characters. It's wikipedia, it's not the film and we don't have the reason to cast as per seniority, like in the case of Mukerji and Zinta. For now, I'm trying to find another reliable source as a format. The only fact is that we have to use net source as a template for crediting. My question was whether IMDB is reliable enough or not. Someone said that we can turn to IMDB regarding this issue, but I don't know how. The site changes its credits everyday. It's tiresome. Do you know another good site? --Shshshsh 09:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no other site better than IMDB. Anyhow, I suggest we just use IMDB and if the cast is really upside down in the case of Karan Arjun, we can use how the film maker ordered them. We can't just put our opinions in this. The film belongs to the film maker and even if he has played games, we have to follow his wish since when you watch the film, you see the cast as it is. So why not see the cast as it is over here? - shez_15

Problem Solved

I believe if we can stick to IMDB, it's the best option but when in doubt, we can find the casting as in the movie on the net most probably. Just give me some popular movies you have trouble with and we can find the actual movie on the net. For Veer-Zaara, the problem should be solved as here's the opening sequence of the movie where the cast is credited. [3] There should be no problem now with Veer-Zaara. We can paste this reference on the talk page, so whenever one changes the cast, the proof lies on the talk page. We should now look on other movies where IMDB seems to be not a proper reference. - shez_15

There is a problem. Everybody knows that Mukerji is credited. Zora, Pa7, Plumcouch, Haphar and even me knew that earlier, but they objected and they're majority. Film credits are not good also because of the fact that filmmakers tru to make their actors happy and as I said hundred times already, we are not filmmakers. That's Wikipedia and I don't find the reason to credit the supporting cast before the leading. Please don't try to make your own rules. I was also a part of this discussions where Grevitar, you and me were involved, and I disagree. Thanks, --Shshshsh 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official Reference for the Movie

Here's the official reference for the casting. Please do not change the cast list. Follow this: [4].

Official List:

No. We can't use movie credits, unless you find them for every film. If you found only for pair of films, it would be unfair for the rest films here. Zora already said, we cast the heroes. I do think we need a source for this, for now keep IMDB. --Shshshsh 21:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, Plum, Pa7 and Haphar already discussed this. Film credits is nothing, especially whne so much reasons are involved in this. As you said it is an encyclopedia, not the film. And here in the encyclopedia, we cast the heroes first. Film credits were rejected earlier by them. Now I'm not talking on this, forget it. You will never find a source which displays all the film credits. The problem now is IMDB and its reliability. Don't speculate please. I didn't see that Grenvitar completely agreed. He said that he was not sure. Zinta WILL be credited before Rani here. Not because of her being my favorite, because she is the heroine. --Shshshsh 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is not the lead and it has been discussed and closed before that Zinta is the lead and would get higher billing on the article. Haphar 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Veer-Zaara. 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: 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) 14:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages

I just noticed that all citations on the analysis section do not mention pages. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Filmfare, review --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

I propose that section Awards and nominations be split into a separate page called List of accolades received by Veer-Zaara. The content are large enough to make their own page. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the split. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M review

md 23:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)