Talk:The Road to El Dorado

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

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Hooks, Ed (2005). "The Road to El Dorado". Acting in Animation: A Look at 12 Films. Heinemann Drama. ISBN 0325007055.

Cortez and company[edit]

Were really infamous, Hernando Cortez and company? It seems much more a subjective valoration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.1.77 (talk • contribs)

I am the same.... I found this in Hernan cortes wikipedia article "It must be remembered that Cortes's puny army, however brave, could never have prevailed against hundreds of thousands of hostile foes. Only in the first few battles were they without allies. Cortes's policy of friendship allowed him to use the internal dissensions of the Aztec Empire to destroy it. In so doing, he made himself the champion of the vast majority of the Indians of New Spain. He was their friend and protector, and he never lost their love and respect.".

It is a pity, how "the black legend" of Spanish Empire, also documented in the wikipedia, is producing yet this kind of afirmations. If you do so, you should do the same with many of other military heroes, who caused more casualties, such Alexander Magno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.1.77 (talk • contribs)

I pretty much agree. Those who allied themselves with the conquistadors (the tlaxcaltecs, for instance) were not very loved or respected when Mexico fell under the spaniards (neither were Cortez, but he didn't seemed to mind). The spaniards' allies were ceirtainly liberated from the Aztec empire, but fell in much worse hands. (Rectificando - non signed user. 22/02/07)

  • "It seems much more a subjective valoration" --> It depends of how you want to see Cortes. Historically he destroyed a civilization just for ambition. In moderntimes he and many of his time friends from Europe could face an International Trial on War Crimes... but of course, "we can not use modern times to just history".
  • But this film is mistaken: The legend has nothing to see with Mexico, Peru or Cortes... I do not know which books the producer of this movie read... El Dorado is a legend from Colombia and the Chibcha culture and it was not reflected there... El Viajero Paisa
  • I agree with you, i think producers believe that south world just extends until mexico... maybe only is a movie but this article do not show the real base..Andariego

Fair use rationale for Image:Theroadtoeldorado.jpg[edit]

Image:Theroadtoeldorado.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Siegel Review[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm having trouble finding a citation for the Joel Siegel review. I know what I wrote is a fact, but I can't find it in any form. Could someone find one? I would be very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DietBrain (talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Trivia?[edit]

Does anybody think that the trivia isn't that important and should be removed? Kausill (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting my interpretation with secondary sources (images). On the other hand, "negative" is a personal, subjective valoration.
--Laocoont (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imagery is an invalid means of supporting this. You need a third party like a movie critic, academic fellow, or other critic, to have made these assertions. What you are engaging in (besides gross violation of our non-free content policy) is original research: you specifically are making the connections to drug trafficking and terrorism without providing any evidence that others have stated this. This is not to say that you may be wrong that such may be present, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we only summarize other sources, we cannot make up content on our own. --MASEM (t) 10:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am uploading again the deleted trivia. --Laocoont (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated on your talk page and in the edit summaries, you're doing the same thing here as you did with your attempted additions above - the trivia you are adding is speculative and original research aimed at presenting a biased point of view. You have been warned enough times about adding these without finding sources. --MASEM (t) 11:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The allusion to actual facts and people is usual in all cartoons and animated films. This is not a personal assumption, but a fact. In the case of The Road to El Dorado, I limited myself to identify these actual facts and people and write a short account of them, aimed at offering an interpretation of the actual meaning of the film as an insider guide to drug control and counter-terrorism, not a "biased point of view" as Masem claims.

Wikipedia rejected this version arguing it was "unsupported". I subsequently offered clear images and excerpts from the soundtrack unequivocally supporting my claims about the nature of the film. Wikipedia deleted some of the images, arguing that they did not comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. As I provided the copyright and the source of the images, Wikipedia disparaged the images branding them as "Non-free material".

Subsequently Wikipedia deleted the whole section, arguing it was original research, when it is common for plays and films to include an interpretation section of the same. I then uploaded the remarks as Trivia. Wikipedia deleted the Trivia, under claims that they constitute "original research", even though Trivia are not, and can never be, original research.

Therefore, if Wikipedia is not willing to consider the possibility that the actual facts and people referred to in The Road to El Dorado are, in fact, related to the subjects of drug control and counter-terrorism because of its classification as a children/family film by Dreamworks Corporation, the least it could do is state this point clearly. But I will certainly not engage in a discussion with Wikipedia about Wikipedia's terms, or what does Trivia mean according to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia can believe The Road to El Dorado is an innocent film for children. I claim with evidence that The Road to El Dorado is, without doubt, the highlight of American animation -until Dreamwork's next masterpiece (?). --Laocoont (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot engage in original research - research claims made by our editors, because we ourselves are not reliable sources, and allowing such would make WP infinitely less useful. You are right that other films and works contain sections on interpretations and themes, but you will note these all are based on third-party reliable sources that make the assertions about this. To make any connection between this film and drug trafficking or terrorism, you need to find a reliable source - other than your interpreation of the work - that makes this claim. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other interpretations[edit]

Is this seriously for real? It's utterly irrelevant and completely unsourced, and the Islamic Terrorist section in particular seems incredibly ridiculous. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am uploading again the 'Other interpretations' section which Dark T Zeratul erased without any reason. Dark T Zeratul is instructed to use the discussion page henceforth. --Laocoont (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not readd that section until it is support by secondary sources. It is original research and as it reflects somewhat negatively on the work, needs to either be sourced, or it will continue to be removed. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

The release date is actually my birthday!--MegGriffin55 (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Planned Sequels?[edit]

DreamWorks never said anything about this, there is no evidence, should I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DietBrain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There was enough time for someone to add a reference, if there would be one.--Carniolus (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I researched the matter briefly and cannot verify any plans for a sequel. Per WP:BURDEN, I've removed the section. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blu ray release[edit]

As it turns out, the blu ray release with sinbad and joseph is just a DVD 3 pack, and not a blu ray set as was thought. Can this section be updated to reflect that? 71.75.130.191 (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Since this DVD release is just one of many re-releases, I've removed the information altogether.--Carniolus (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Road to El Dorado. 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) 04:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Gold and Glory[edit]

Film's original directors & intended release date[edit]

The reference for the original directors & the fact that it was originally going to be released in 1999 doesn't mention that.

Evope (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Road_to_El_Dorado&oldid=1210488339"