Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rajinikanth filmography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rajinikanth filmography[edit]

Rajinikanth filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk), —Vensatry (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinikanth is probably the biggest 'Superstar' in Indian cinema. His body of work encompasses 170-odd films in seven languages. He has been in the industry for 40 years and has been the highest paid actor in India for the last two decades. I joined Wikipedia with the sole intent of taking the actor's bio to GA. I've been working on this list, one of my long-pending tasks, for more than a month. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

A note to the nominator(s) and the delegates before starting the review. Though being a fan of Rajinikanth, i am not really aware of a major portion of his works. Though this is a filmography list, please do try to answer those queries where his characterisations are concerned. And, my affection for the actor is not going to show any sort of impact on my review of this candidate. Thank you.

  • Considering that he seldom worked in the technical crew and writing, i think the word "film career" can be replaced with "acting career".
    • He worked in theatre even before doing his diploma from the Madras Film Institute. So, 'film career' would be the best option to go with. —Vensatry (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While performing in a stage play at the institute, he got noticed by the Tamil film director K. Balachander, who signed him for four films". -- two things. First, i think it can be simplified as "...at the institute, Tamil filmmaker K. Balachander noticed him and signed the actor for four films". Second, were the four films written by him, directed by him, or produced by him? If it is the second and third, i suggest you to mention it as "four of his films". If it is the first, mention it as "four films he wrote".
    • Rephrased the former. I don't think the latter needs clarification because it clearly says 'Tamil film director Balachander'. —Vensatry (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'm okay with the current sentence there. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rajinikanth made his debut with the director's 1975 Tamil drama -- acting debut?
Fine. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He secured his first major role in Balachander's Telugu drama film Anthuleni Katha (1976). Later that year, he was cast in a negative role in Moondru Mudichu, which marked his first full-fledged role in Tamil." -- This statement can be simplified as "Balachander's Anthuleni Katha and Moondru Mudichu—both released in 1976— offered Rajinikanth his first full fledged roles in Telugu and Tamil films." He played the villain in both the films, so mentioning that isn't too important. The continuing sentence "It was through this film that his style and mannerisms got noticed by the audience" can be rewritten as "His style and mannerisms in the latter earned recognition from the audience."
    • There's a difference between 'major' and 'full-fledged'. And, he was not a 'villain' in either of them. —Vensatry (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The success of the film brought the actor-director duo..." -- "Its success brought..."
    • Rephrased as 'The film's success', because we're talking about his role/performance in the previous sentence.
Fine. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow... Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Look forward for a thorough review. Thanks, —Vensatry (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming...

  • "Rajinikanth played a dual role for the first time in his career in the "action thriller" Billa (1980), which was a remake of the Bollywood film Don (1978)." -- Is Kailash really the co-nominator? ;-)
I'd prefer to call the film a "gangster thriller". Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm terrible in this area. Will leave it to Kailash. —Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: What makes you call Billa a thriller in the first place? Care to explain by giving a small example? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our definition: Thrillers are characterized and defined by the moods they elicit, giving viewers heightened feelings of suspense, excitement, surprise, anticipation and anxiety. I'm now confident that Billa fits the bill. —Vensatry (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the original calls it an action film, not a thriller. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G. Dhananjayan calls the remake an action thriller. So, this should be okay now. —Vensatry (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't that the same book which you found a case of WP:MIRROR in the past? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So? —Vensatry (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it advisable to use such a source for verifying a claim, for a featured standard article? Please give it a thought. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The author is clearly an expert in the field. —Vensatry (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I found another reliable source which calls it an action thriller. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the fate of his 100th film, considering that it is a landmark one? If information is available about it, please add it.
All I know is that it failed commercially, and may be one reason why Rajinikanth does not often appear in arthouse-like films. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's a flop. —Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the latter half of the 80s" -- 1980s. It is better to pronouce it completely, though the actor was born in 1950.
  • "He made his debut as a screenwriter in the commercial failure Valli (1993)." -- i suggest you to rephrase it as "He made his debut as a screenwriter with Valli (1993), a commercial failure." Release first, fate next.
Yes, I go with what you say. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Fate' is predetermined. :) Nevertheless, rephrased as suggested. —Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think his character in Baashha can be described as a crime boss instead of a gangster. He leads a team of henchmen in the film and stands on a level par with the villain who influences the system. Give it a thought, gangster is too small to describe him. BTW, isn't it important to mention its director?
Yep, he was a crime boss. "Gangster", IMHO, means a lower-level criminal. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who thinks 'crime boss' (I know our article has this title) is a bit informal? —Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crime boss is not an informal word. I hope that you too would feel the same after reading this article by Federal Bureau of Investigation on the Italian Organized Crime. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. —Vensatry (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rajinikanth himself compensated for the losses by repaying them with money" -- "...compensated for the monetary losses". Rather than money, i don't think so that they lost something else which could've been compensated by the actor.
  • What makes Chandramukhi a horror "comedy"?
This source describes it as one. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really pity the writer. What made him consider Chandramukhi a comedy is not something i can understand. Anyways, the source is reliable and i am okay with it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavanjandhyala: Its actually the hilarious scenes between Rajinikanth and Vadivelu dominating the film, the exorcist bit with Nassar, Vadivelu and Manobala, Vadivelu himself too, that makes Chandramukhi a horror comedy than just plain horror. IMHO, if the film were just plain horror, it wouldn't have given Rajinikanth the comeback he desperately needed. Look at the article's "Legacy" and "In popular culture" sections and you'll know what I mean.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the original calls it a horror-comedy. —Vensatry (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let the readers know about the commercial failure of Kochadaiiyaan.
@Kailash29792: I await your response. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think. —Vensatry (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is Paparayudu not "Paapparayudu" in Pedarayudu. (PS: Really strange name for a male, phew! :))
  • Ref no. 27, titled "Brand Rajinikanth", is changing its sub-domain. Please fix it.
  • Ditto with ref no. 15 and 29. Both are related to The Hindu.
I've fixed it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please provide a better alt text for the only image being used?

Support -- For an actor whom i arguably call the last Indian superstar existing, this is a well detailed list. Hardwork put in by the people is visible. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Not keen on the repetitive opening line "...film actor who has acted in more than 150 films..." but not able to come up with a suitable alternative, perhaps replace the "acted in more than 150 films" with "whose career started in X when he starred in Y. He has gone on to act in more than ... films..."?
  • " antagonistic and supporting" these aren't comparable, do you mean he played supporting roles in which his characters were antagonistic?
    • He played supporting roles in some films and was the prime antagonist in others. —Vensatry (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "o a lead actor.[2] " in which film and when?
    • Is it necessary in the opening para? The film is mentioned in the succeeding para. —Vensatry (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1980s and 90s -> 1980s and 1990s
  • "erstwhile " is this necessary?
  • "he got noticed " moderately clumsy, why not "he was noticed" or "he attracted the attention of"
  • "them—Avargal, 16 Vayathinile, Aadu Puli Attam and Gaayathri" missing something like "including" here because you list only four movies having just said he acted in 15, playing a negative character in most of them.
  • " a dual role" I'm not sure what this means and its not expanded upon, do you mean he played two characters in the same movie?
  • The article on 2.0 says it's slated for release in 2017 so you could replace that TBA.
  • Not sure how the "roles" column sorts, "Inspector" comes before Aarumugam, I guess because of the quote mark.
  • Some of the film titles are slightly different from the Wikipedia articles, e.g. Nyayam Mere Cheppalli vs Nyayam Meere Cheppali, Netrikan vs Netrikann etc

That's all from me, good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I think the list part of the filmography is immaculate job, but the lead portion is TOOLONG. Rajnikanth from my knowledge is a prolific and an Indian superstar, but four mega paragraphs is stretching it. I would advise a bit of reduction to bring it down to three paras if possible. —IB [ Poke ] 10:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @IndianBio: I'm afraid, that's a difficult one to do. If we were to bring down the size of the lead, we may have to do away with certain (important) films or compromise on the details that accompany others. The former would result in an incoherent prose (considering his 4-decade-old-career), while the latter would make the prose a bit monotonous. The prose size of the article currently stands at 964 words. The FLs of less prolific actors—Shah Rukh Khan filmography, Aamir Khan filmography, Salman Khan filmography—are sized at over 500 words each. Thanks, —Vensatry (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vensatry: in that case can we use a vertical image of Rajnikanth which would encompass the prose space? Currently mainly from a look perspective the lead looks larger than it actually is because of the image having two more paras underneath it. If you understood what I meant just let me know. —IB [ Poke ] 15:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @IndianBio: This is the only 'vertical' image that we have. It's not a great choice for the lead; however, I don't mind changing the current one. Also, looping in Kailash29792. —Vensatry <support the artcilub> (talk) 17:59, .August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The main text has been well written and many relevant suggestions made by other users have been addressed. I support the article for FLC. However, I have the following minor suggestions for consideration.Nvvchar. 13:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.In the last sentence of the first section United States sounds a little odd. May be better to use "Cinema of the United States".

2.In the sentence “The 1978 film Bairavi was the first Tamil film in which he was cast as the main lead” could be changed to "The 1978 film Bairavi was the first Tamil film in which he was cast in the lead role”

3. This “During this time, he made his American cinema debut …."could be changed to “During this time, he made his debut in American cinema..."

4. This “and was highly instrumental in creating a large fan-base for him in the country” could be changed to “and was largely instrumental in creating a large fan-base for him in the country”

5.In “Rajinikanth himself compensated for the monetary losses” the word “himself” could be dropped

6.You may like to add the following about the last two films in the table

a)The film Lingaa (2014), in which he played the lead role as Raja Lingeswaran, King of Kodaiyur/ K.Lingeswaran (Lingaa) though an above average grosser at the box office, failed to recover its high distribution cost.

Although directed by K. S. Ravikumar (who also directed two other Rajinikanth milestones: Padayappa and Muthu), I think Lingaa isn't significant enough to include in the lead, considering its relatively low budget and quickly completed production schedule. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

b) The Kabali (film) released in 2016, in which he played the lead role of Kabaleeswaran, had the largest opening weekend for any Indian film worldwide and became the second highest grossing Tamil film ever.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Rajinikanth_filmography/archive1&oldid=1142499943"