Talk:The Legend of Zorro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconFilm: Mexican / New Zealand / American Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Mexican cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the New Zealand cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Pax85, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 22 June 2015.


Name is properly titled: The Legend of Zorro. [1], [2]. K1Bond007 00:35, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 22:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


that point in the film--probably still the laws of Mexico? But as far as I remember, the cause of the emancipation of the woman wasn't very far advanced at that time yet... any experts on this?

The laws of the United States applied then seeing as it was an American possession. However, Mexican law applied to all contracts initiated prior to America acquiring possession of the state during the Mexican War. Here, the marriage occurred in 1840; thus, Mexican Law applied. In California in 1850, there was wife-initiated divorce. However, oddly enough, the courts maintained that a marriage initiated by the Catholic Church or that was between two that were "faithful" to the Church was inviolate and could not be dissolved by the state. Thus, the movie is not incorrect assuming that the marriage was not contracted inside the Catholic Church and was not being maintained by two "faithful" to the Church. However, the fact that they were later re-married by the priest makes it all highly unlikely. The community property laws of California made American divorce immediately very popular.--wilkyisdashiznit 23:08, 6 January 2008


I'm adding a spoiler tag to this article, the goofs contain information regarding the ending. (I haven't seen it yet, and this article just spelled out what is going to happen at the end). Then again you can say that I shouldn't be looking at the article, or that I should expect what happens, but I still believe it deserves a spoiler tag. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spoilers are for simpleminded people, who watch e.g. Titanic and think "will the ship in the end sink OR NOT"? Because if you know the ship will sink, it is (within the Logic of these stubborn and naiv people) "spoiled" and impossible to watch this 3 hour masterpiece, because you know the end already.... well, i hope you get the knack what's it all about.

Another anachronism, just for the record[edit]

Since there are so many historic anachronisms noted in the article already, I see no reason to add this one but, sure enough, the president welcoming California to the union (in 1850) was Abraham Lincoln! --JWMcCalvin 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was Lincoln, the DVD commentary acknowledges, but not yet President Lincoln. And yeah, Lincoln never went to California, but it's fiction, hombres! Mdiamante 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added a point about the similarities to Goldfinger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Offenses against Horse Sense[edit]

  • After a long hard ride, Alejandro does not give Tornado a much needed rub-down. This is an atrocity.
  • Tornado catches up with the anachronistic Train, which has quite a bit of a head start. Is he a superhorse from Krypton?Das Baz 19:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, you're saying that a horse cannot catch up with a train, but you have no problem with it jumping on to one? Or with it smoking a pipe? Or with it drinking out a wine bottle? Or that it understands commands in Spanish but not in English? Or that no one recognizes de la Vega's horse being the same as Zorro's? --Otheus (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of these things are problems, but not all. It makes sense that Tornado should understand Spanish and not English. Many dogs understand commands in German, but not in any other language. My dog Princess understood Hebrew better than English. I have heard Circus Elephants been given commands in Hindi. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alejandro de la Vega[edit]

I don't think that Alejandro de la Vega's name change constitutes anachronism. Clearly Elena comes from a more powerful family than Alejandro so it's quite all right for Alejandro to take up Elena's last name as his new last name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

3rd Film?[edit]

Is there a possibility of a 3rd film? it was said in a documentry od the 2nd DVD that the reason they didnt use a deleted scene with the grown up son writing the history of the second film was because they then couldnt use Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones in a future film. Lovingnews1989 09:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting on whether to become part of the US?[edit]

Did this really happen in history? I thought California was conquered by force? Isnt this the major deviation from history?--Burgas00 22:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. California was conquered by force but was then ruled as a conquered territory by a military governor. There was a constitutional convention in 1849, the year before the movie indicates. The following year, Congress would admit California to the Union. In addition, Maryland-born Governor Riley and Kentucky-born Abraham Lincoln also were not Hispanic. Lincoln never came to California and an attorny from Illinois would have had no authority to admit California into the Union.--wilkyisdashiznit 23:28, 6 January 2008

Good news links for a production section[edit]

IGN Movies See especially Elena in a Zorro outfit? and Hopkins cameo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdiamante (talkcontribs) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

timeline of the movies[edit]

The first movie The Mask of Zorro begins in 1821 and says "20 years later" when Hopkins is about to escape from his prison. Later he finds Banderas, trains him as his successor and so on... In the end the baby (Joaquin) was born. So the first film ends (and the birth of Joacquin is taking place) definitively not before 1841. The second movie begins 1950. Count and think for yourself. -- (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citations for use[edit]

  • Army Archerd (1998-01-08). "'Zorro' ending to stay". Variety. Retrieved 2010-10-24.
  • Army Archerd (1998-07-20). "Banderas ponders 'Zorro' sequel". Variety.
  • Josh Wolk (1998-07-21). "'Zorro 2/'Titanic". Entertainment Weekly.
  • Dan Cox; Benedict Carver (1998-07-26). "Post-'Godzilla'". Variety.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Staff (2005-08-01). "Amin, Sony in Zorro duel". Variety.

-Wildroot (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am just about done with a copy edit, but I will say that the plot section is very detailed, perhaps too detailed. -Pax Verbum 05:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]