Jump to content

Talk:Australia (2008 film)

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

Racist drivel

[edit]

This film is just another attempt to "white-wash" (excuse the pun) history by demeaning the great tragedy that the befell the Aboriginal peoples of Australia through the use of a few characters that "cared" for the native people. If this film had been one of Leni Riefenstahl's it would have been denounced as Nazi propaganda. It treats the whole time period as some sort of fairy story with the obvious nods to the Wizard of Oz. The article is just a load of praiseworthy guff to a film that is ignorant, racist and disrespectful to the historical reality. Furthermore it utilizes the Magical negro supporting stock characters who, by use of special insight or powers, helps the white protagonist in this case, the Lady Ashley character. This article is a testament to the ignorance and ongoing resistance that white Australia has to it's own history. This film now purports that the blacks had it rough, but the audience is allowed to believe their were people who tried to help them, ("coz geez I'd done the same"). Yeah right. This is how propaganda works, by transporting ownership of a problem/belief/ideal onto another issue by relying on the expectations of the audience ("hey my ancestors were not racists"). Luhrman should be ashamed of himself. This film is a disgrace. It really is the Aboriginal version of Spring Time For Hitler and Germany from the The Producers. I wonder how many of the praiseworthy critics and audience have even heard of The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith? But does it matter. This is how Wikipedia works by relying on sources that are themselves ignorant an article is put together that is a testament to lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.182.68 (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion

[edit]

I'm tempted to nominate this article for deletion as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. IMDB lists the title of the film as "Untitled Baz Luhrmann Project". The film is given the title Australia here though so it may hold some truth. -- Longhair\talk 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles supporting the title of the project. Internet Movie database isn't definitive and hasn't been updated yet. As in the article, the name was announced on television and the name is backed up by the reference articles. Peter 13:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peter is correct. This is a very high profile project which has been widely reported in the media, due in part to its high budget and various casting controversies. The film has been "green lit," which means the funding is approved and financing locked. Peter is also correct that IMDb is a weak source on film information -- that site is primarily for nonindustry amateurs and includes mostly secondary information. Variety, which is a primary source, has reported on the project repeatedly, including a front-page story as recently as November 22, 2006, about start of principal photography in three months. When a film is three-months away from principal, it's a happening thing. Carmela Soprano 18:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006

[edit]

November

[edit]
  • "Luhrmann epic to start filming in March". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 2006-11-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Garry Maddox (2006-11-23). "Luhrmann to parade Australia's epic scale". The Age. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

December

[edit]

2007

[edit]

January

[edit]

March

[edit]

April

[edit]

May

[edit]

June

[edit]

July

[edit]

Citations available for reading. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the plot section there is a mistake. It says that Kidman sells the ranch. She doesn't, she never signs the papers. He is just having them drawn up and signing them himself when the bombing starts. She only agrees to sell the property. 203.173.1.160 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative?

[edit]

Red River (film) + Pearl Harbor (film) == Australia (2008 film) ... watch me jump to go see this one. Jachin (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its The Overlanders they're ripping off. "It's the start of WWII in Northern Australia. The Japanese are getting close. People are evacuating and burning everything in a "scorched earth" policy. Rather than kill all their cattle, a disparate group decides to drive them overland half way across the continent." LamontCranston (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you got it all wrong... Its about her trying to save her ranch, so they "drove" their cattle to the ship, then after that its about the Stolen Generations, or the children that were mixes between Aboriginal and white, and WWII when Darwin got attacked by the Japanese. Kgreg10

Headlines

[edit]

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Here's another one--J.D. (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

Is the budget for the film actually $130 million? If so that is a stupidly large investment which will almost certainly never be realised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.63.134 (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see my prediction was accurate after looking at the takings from the first day. 58.178.46.101 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a $130 million. And if you are looking at the figures from the Australian box office that means nothing. We will have to wait and see the American box office numbers to see if it is a hit or a flop. Hopefully it fails hehe Koala72 (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but given its an Australian film what type of american is gonna watch it? C'mon! 210.50.53.240 (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POVpuffery

[edit]

4 out of 10 of reviews are negative, yet strangely all the ones quoted are positive. Odd that

Greglocock (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stopping your adding some negative ones to the mix, certainly. I think you need to re-read the section, however. There are already some negative quotes in there:

"There is a lot of narrative flab and longueurs in the first two hours and the film often has the pace of a steamroller with engine trouble."

"Mark Naglazas of The West Australian accused positive reviews from News Ltd press outlets of being manipulated by 20th Century Fox, calling Australia a film of 'unrelenting awfulness' that 'lurches drunkenly from crazy comedy to Mills and Boonish melodrama in the space of a couple of scenes.'"

"The Daily Telegraph states 'Local critics had worried that the much-anticipated film Australia would present to the world a series of time-honoured Antipodean clichés. Their fears were well founded.'"

So, not all positive then. Steve T • C 09:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some negative reviews are included, but there appears a definite attempt to portray a film with mediocre reviews in the best possible light. There is even a quote from the gushiest review of all from the Times edited to remove the fact that News Ltd owns it, appearing right after a quote from the West Australian accusing News Ltd of salting the reviews because they are distributing it. A fair description would move the Times review to the same para as the West Australian review and point out that the Times is a News Ltd paper, and that just might be why they produced an over the top review. But this is not a fair description, and attempts to make it so get promptly edited out. Not much point working on articles like this. Andreclos (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempts to add your own opinion ("only"; "a bare minimum") to the article were resisted because that's not what we should be doing. I removed the mention of News Ltd. from after The Times' review because in following the comment in the West Australian review, it implies the character of the reviewer is in question. Not something we should be doing either. It's synthesis on your part to make the connection. We either say who owns all the newspapers quoted from, or none at all. None at all is the usual practice. If you feel the section is too pro-Australia, let me restate the point I made before: By all means, please add some more negative reviews to the section. They will not be whitewashed, they will not be presented in the best possible light. I will help to make sure of that. Steve T • C 11:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we disagree. As I said, I see no point working on this any further. End of conversation. Andreclos (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that. You've resisted all my attempts to explain why the edits went against policy and good editorial judgement both here and on your talk page. There is no corruption here. I hope you can change your mind and edit constructively to this article at some point in the future. All the best, Steve T • C 12:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well handled Steve. You managed to diffuse the situation quite handily. 210.50.53.240 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard of Oz connection

[edit]

At the risk of suggesting original research, I have seen the film and there is a very strong connection with the Wizard of Oz film that is barely mentioned in the article. The song "Over the Rainbow" is first sung by Lady Ashley early on as she tries to comfort Nullah after the death of his mother. Kipling Flynn teaches Nullah to play it on his harmonica, which connects the two together after Flynn dies in a cattle stampede. As the "Wizard of Oz" film plays at the celebration in Darwin, Judy Garland's famous scene is shown as she sings the song; later, in the pouring rain, Dorothy (Garland) clicks her ruby red slippers to go home. Hearing Nullah play the song on the harmonica is how Lady Ashley locates the children returning from Mission Island after the Japanese attack. Much of the music score is a variation of the "Over the Rainbow" melody. A variation of one of the "Wizard of Oz"'s most famous lines is used when Lady Ashley tells Drover, "Let's go home", to which he replies, "There's no place like it." It seems that a greater mention of "Oz" should be made in the article. And, of course, there is the ironic pun that "Oz" is a nickname for "Australia". Truthanado (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, there are many direct and deliberate connections to classic movies, such as Gone With the Wind, and so forth, in the film, so I'm not sure mentioning Oz, exclusively, in the article has any merit, and it would end up being very like a theme paper = original research. Just my opinion. If you can make it work and not have it be OR, then do. Perhaps a section on "Themes" (etc.) would work, as that has been a valid section in articles on other films, and books, etc. Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth mentioning as an aside, nothing too in-depth. It wouldn't even have to be based on original research. Take your pick. Steve T • C 09:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, Steve — I went ahead and put the mention in the Soundtrack section. Didn't feel the need to use those links, however useful, as the sentence as it ended up is rather stating the obvious. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia opens in September 1939. Lady Ashley sees the newspaper ad for The Wizard of Oz before the cattle drive, which arrives in Darwin just before the start of the rainy season, which lasts from November through April according to [1], so it's safe to assume she saw the ad in September or October 1939. But The Wizard of Oz didn't open in Australia until April 1940, which means the newspaper ad was an anachronism. Also, The Wizard of Oz opened in the United States in August 1939, so I doubt Australians would have been that familiar with "Over the Rainbow" just one or two months later, but Lady Ashley knew the tune and some of the words. It's amazing that Baz Luhrmann didn't do better research. If he was going to make The Wizard of Oz such a key element of the film, he should have set the beginning a year later than he did. Is this something that should be addressed in the article? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, not worth a mention in the article, as it's only a tiny bit of artistic license in a fictional movie (it's not even a bio or a "based on a true story" film). This article does not have a "Historical Accuracy" section. Anyone interested in the film release date can easily look that up on IMDb. Also, the song was released in September 1939 (independent of the movie) and became a jukebox and radio hit, so it's likely it was known around the world. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to introduce reality to a piece of fiction, the time frame should be accurate. Just because Gone with the Wind was fiction, does that mean it would have been OK if the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in 1861 instead of 1863? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Tax Payers to Pay 25% of Production Cost

[edit]

How come this is never mentioned even though it's important and also for Australians to know???

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24804464-16947,00.html

Quoted from the Australian: "The rebate came under scrutiny last week when it was revealed taxpayers would end up paying for close to 25 per cent of the production costs of Baz Luhrmann's Australia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.66.137 (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list is too long

[edit]

Permission to trim the cast list? It's 24 people now (too long), and some of them have either no lines or only a couple of lines: Carney Boy #2, Carney Manservant, Sloop Skipper, etc. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broome - Production location?

[edit]

I didn't see it mentioned anywhere in the article (though it may have been, and I missed it), but I believe that some of the films production took place in Broome, WA. I think the cinema scene (the 'inside' of the cinema more specifically was the outdoor picture gardens in Broome. The view from the street was probably a set though. I don't have a source for this, and it may be incorrect, but its might be something to look into. Tinkstar1985 10:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union Jack upside down

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that when the army guy is raising a big Union Jack they had it upside down? It's a mistake I noticed. It happens in the first 20 mins or so of the movie Jleonau (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. If what you are saying is correct, and I'd watch the film carefully on DVD to re-confirm if I were you, that's something for the "Trivia" or "Goofs" section of IMDB page on the film, not for Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can the Union Jack even be upside down? It's the same either way. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that the union flag (it is only refered to as a 'jack' when it is at sea) is upside down as an injoke given that we are in australia where everything is upside down. I cannot belief such a 'mistake' could be made by accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.85.62 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DVD release and cryptic disclaimer

[edit]

We Just began the DVD version of the film. It has the most unusual disclaimer at the beginning of the DVD. It states that Aboriginal and Kingsland Island viewers are warned to take caution while viewing the film as they may hear voices and see people that are deseased.

Does anyone know what this was about? Was it part of the original film version and what caused the film makers to add the disclaimer? --Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All australian tv shows/films that are broadcast and have aboriginies in there have a warning about aboriginies watching it who might see their deceased - it's a taboo apparently. It's just a standard disclaimer - it's on everything with aboriginies in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.216.177 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's taboo for them to say the name of an aboriginal, as well as here the voice of. All shows that have aboriginals in them have this disclaimer at the start, so that they can not be held accountable by aboriginals in Australia. In this film it is also important as aboriginal characters (Magarri and Daisy) die throughout the film, and their deaths are shown.--118.208.89.250 (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real-Life Inspiration for "King" Carney?

[edit]

Was the cattle industry of northern Australia, circa WW2, dominated by a single magnate / grazier (ranger) analogous to "King" Carney? The article should note how closely the film follows (or fails to follow) history on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.28.64.50 (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no verifiable evidence for this, but I was struck between the similarities between Carney and Vestey, who did run most of the cattle in the NT pre-WWII. Some elements of the plot (such as hiding Aboriginal children in the water tank on the ranch) also bear a remarkable similarity to Xavier Herbert's 'Capricornia' (1933). 203.49.139.142 (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section was far too long

[edit]

The Plot section was 978 words. Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries are to be between 400–700 words. I therefore reverted the section back to the latest version that conformed to the guidelines.

PLEASE DO NOT ADD TO THE PLOT SECTION. If you want to compose an exhaustive, scene-by-scene and blow-by-blow description of the movie, do that somewhere more appropriate: your blog, your own website, a group website, or IMDB. Not on Wikipedia. Thanks very much for your understanding and cooperation. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section improvement

[edit]

The reception section might benefit by listing some meta-critic aggregate scores, and some numerical signifiers ( i.e. 4 out of 5 stars) from notable critics, instead of just relying on three large quotes. As it is, it's rather difficult to get a quick balanced grasp of the reception without reading the three lengthy paragraphs; which providing a meta-critic aggregate score would help alleviate. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've restored the Critical Reception section to the NPOV aggregate of reviews that it was originally. A user seemed to have coopted the section and replaced it with four long negative reviews. Now the section is back to normal. Thanks for pointing this out. Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was consensus against move — ækTalk 03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Australia (2008 film) → Australia (film) — A date should only be included in a film article's name when there is another film of the same name (WP:NCF). — The Man in Question (in question) 10:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) :Agree -- it should not have the date. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Australia (disambiguation), there are at least two films by that name, see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096854/ for the other. It's a redlink at present, I'll create a stub. Andrewa (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Australia (1989 film). Won a couple of awards, at least one of which (the Golden Osella) makes it easily encyclopedic. Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — ækTalk 04:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Visual Effects credits

[edit]

Current article includes in the Production section "The visual effects were done by the Animal Logic films and The LaB Sydney.[citation needed]".

As the credits were rolling as I was reading over the page I thought I'd check and be able to supply the citation. The credits include far more contributing companies, each (other than the "additional visual effects" credit which lists three companies and no individuals) with quite a few persons named. The companies were, with one exception, all listed in all caps, so the correct format that currently appears as "The LaB Sydney" is questionable. With the one exception, I'm using initial caps where all caps were used in the credits.

Animal Logic, Rising Sun Pictures, Iloura, Fuel VFX, Framestore, Photon VFX, Postmodern Sydney, Thelab Sydney, Evil Eye Pictures, [hy"draw"fx] (sic)

Additional Visual Effects by Frame Set & Match (space) Complete Post (space) Fin Design (bullet) Effects

So it seems that naming Animal Logic (which does seem to have had the biggest team) and Thelab Sydney is insufficient, but naming all the companies involved seems excessive.

The information shown here was transcribed from the credits of the US release of the DVD as made available by Netflix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanhorn (talk • contribs) 08:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runtime

[edit]

The film's runtime is not 165 minutes. This runtime is incorrectly listed by IMDB and many other sites. Anybody who owns a DVD of this film can instantly see that it is 159 minutes (actually 158 minutes and about 42 seconds). I have tried to edit the runtime to its correct number, but had it undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.207.102 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several things may be going on here. One, please recall that the runtime includes the opening and all of the closing credits and after-footage, end songs, etc. Two, the runtime of the DVD that you have may be different from the runtime of the original or official theatrical release, which actually had several incarnations on different continents and at different times. For instance, some versions contain "Waltzing Matilda" after the end credits, and some do not. A verifiable source (not your personal observation of your DVD player, which is considered WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH) must be used to verify runtimes, and must be linked with a footnote if it diifers from the runtime quoted on Amazon, IMDB, the back of the official DVD, etc. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The OP is most likely experiencing a 4% PAL speedup issue with their DVD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.144.240 (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Australia (2008 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australia (2008 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australia (2008 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:

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) 23:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Australia (2008 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:

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) 01:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia_(2008_film)&oldid=1258764994"