![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
When did you hear about this November 27th wide release? I believe it's being released to more and more markets every week. 75.131.193.54 ( talk) 22:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but how are Amitabh Buchhan and Salman Rushdie film critics and why are their thoughts on the film so prominently displayed? Additionally, even though the film has a 93% fresh rating at rotten tomato and around an 86 score at metacritic, the number of mixed/negative reviews about the film provided to the reader is as long and detailed (if not slightly longer) than the paragraph devoted to the positive reviews. This, in conjunction with the spuriously titled "South Asian critic" reaction section makes me think that this article has been selectively edited by someone with a problem against the movie in order to portray it in the worst possible light. The section on Bachhan and Rushdie needs to be removed and the "mixed reaction" section needs to be cut down dramatically. If this page were not locked, I would make these revisions myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyellow9 ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, I'm still skeptical about Radhakrishnan, but I guess we can leave that for now. Now I noticed that a couple of Indian reviews being added to the critical reception section. Now we'd have to be careful about which reviews to considered credible for inclusion. e.g. of the two new reviews added, the one from DNA seems okay but the one from Mumbai Mirror can't be considered so. In terms of reviews from India, I think the focus should be on those reviews published by notable newspapers or magazines e.g. The Times of India, Indian Express, India Today, etc. Leave Sleaves 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I still am having trouble understanding why certain material appears under the review section. First of all, the final review listed, by Alice Miles, isn't even a movie review but a newspaper column. Alice Miles is a newspaper columnist and not a movie reviewer, as you can see by looking at her webpage: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/. As such, this should be removed. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the film has a 94% rating at rottentomatoes and a 86 rating at Metacritic. Yet there are six positive reviews and five mixed or negative reviews, which conveys the impression that the film is being panned just as much as it is being praised. Not only that, but the extent and breadth of the quotes from the mixed and negative reviews are not only just as long as those from the positive reviews but quoted from more extensively and more strongly. This is especially apparent when we observe the numerous highly incendiary words used in the mixed/negative review paragraphs: exploitative, racist, stereotypical, demonization, bankrupt, evil, murderers, hatemongers, vile, exploitative, "poverty porn," etc. In my opinion, splitting the review section 50-50 between positive and negative reviews for a film which is being almost universally praised (again, 94 at RT, 86 at metacritic) conveys a misimpression to a wikipedia user who may not know much about the film. In short, it seems to me that this section directly contravenes Wikipedia policy on undue weight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT#Undue_weight. I think the entire mixed/negative review section should be cut down entirely (or limited to just one or two short negative appraisals with far fewer incendiary quotes) or, in the alternative, that the criticisms of the film as being an unfair and brutal depiction of India should be moved to an entirely separate article or a separate portion of this article which deals specifically with criticisms about that aspect of the film.
Additionally, I don't think things have been remedied with regard to the Bacchan/Rushdie section. It is hard to characterize Amitabh Bachhan's blog posting as "strongly criticizing" the movie since 1) it is written (translated?) in confusing English and it omits a sentence that precedes his explanation, which you can see here: http://bigb.bigadda.com/. As you can see, he starts by saying, "On blog, comments for the film ‘SlumDog Millionaire’ and the anger by some on its contents, prompt me to say the above" and then goes on to say "If SM ... causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots," ... "let it be known that a murky under belly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations." This indicates to me that he is not "strongly criticizing" the film but, in response to "anger by some on its contents," trying to convince "nationalists and patriots" not to be upset by negative portrayals of India because that exists in even the most developed nations. There is nothing in that blog post that can conclusively be understood as a criticism of the film. His subsequent comments about disappointment that crowd-pleasing Bollywood films do not get as much recognition in the West as more artistic Indian films does not seem salient on this point either.
As for Salman Rushdie, his not being enamored of the film hardly seems to be relevant or topical. He is an author of Indian extraction and not a movie critic or a South Asian specialist or anything of the sort. On top of that, his criticisms don't have to do with the film's depictions of India but with his finding the story unrealistic. Finally, I find it notable that all four of the people mentioned in the India and diaspora section are conveyed as disliking the film and not a single of the many Indian responses praising the film as realistic and authentic is listed. Again, this seems to contravene Wikipedia policy on undue weight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT#Undue_weight—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyellow9 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Although I think things have improved substantially in the "mixed/negative reviews" section, I think another problem is that of the "positive reviews" listed, two of them contain pretty negative quotes. I am speaking especially of: 1) including the lone negative line from Manola Daghis' NY Times review: "In the end, what gives me reluctant pause about this bright, cheery, hard-to-resist movie is that its joyfulness feels more like a filmmaker’s calculation than an honest cry from the heart about the human spirit" and 2) prefacing a clearly negative quotation from Peter Brunette ("a high-octane hybrid of Danny Boyle's patented cinematic overkill and Bollywood's ultra-energetic genre conventions that is a little less good than the hype would have it") with "while giving it a positive review." There are countless extremely positive reviews of the movie that have far more favorable quotes to include in this section that more appropriately reflect the positive critical acclaim it has received. This is another aspect of this article which I've noticed which, combined with the previous use of incendiary language in the "mixed/negative" review section and the uniformly negative quotes included in the "India and India diaspora" section make me think that this article has been victimized by tendentious editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing Blueyellow9 ( talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a section comparing the plot and treatment of the book Q&A and the film would be useful—I came looking for it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.103.193 ( talk) 17:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. I was just reading this article trying to find out the exact number of Academy Award nominations. The article says it's 10. There are only 9 listed at
List of Slumdog Millionaire awards and honors. Also, the
List of Slumdog Millionaire awards and honors states that there were two noms for the best original screenplay score. However, the article for
81st Academy Awards nominees and winners lists Slumdog Millionaire only once under the Best Original Score section.
Could somebody clear this up, please? 15.219.201.68 ( talk) 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello again.
I'm yet to see this film, but I just saw the trailer from Apple trailers site. In that, Kapoor announces "Welcome to Who wants to be a millionaire". I'm just wondering if it was changed for the American version of the film, since the plotline in the article says that Jamal goes on the KBC show. The KBC show sounds more plausible, since that's what's there in India, but it may have been changed for American audiences, and I was wondering if anybody knew anything about this. aJCfreak yAk 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to leave a note here since the awards page looks empty, that it was also nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay at Writer's Guild, so please add it. Thanks. 75.139.141.4 ( talk) 05:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed mentions of the dubbed title from the lead. The addition of title in the lead gives unnecessary importance to the Hindi-dubbed version of the film, when this release in fact was done primarily in order to reach wider audiences and hence belongs only to release section. Plus, use of {{ lang-hi}} is not necessary here. That template is used when the actual title of the film/article is in Hindi and the English transliteration affects the actual pronunciation/representation of the title. Again, that isn't the case here. Leave Sleaves 01:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Why was this section reduced to a redundant line? If there is problem with the POV of the section then there are other ways to solve. It should at least summarize the info present in the main article. Leave Sleaves 08:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is directed towards User:Tool2Die4, who seems to have obvious issues with my use of wiki-links in the article. I linked the phrase "British-Indian drama film" to the Cinema of the United Kingdom and Cinema of India articles, which he then linked to the United Kingdom and India articles instead, and then sent me a few messages telling me to read WP:EGG and even threatened to block me! For your information, I have read WP:EGG and it clearly states to redirect links to articles that fit "well within the scope of the text". The text in question is "British-Indian drama film". How exactly do the articles United Kingdom and India have any relevance at all to this line? The Cinema of the United Kingdom and Cinema of India articles fit the "scope of the text" far better than the articles you have chosen to redirect them to. Maybe you should read WP:EGG more clearly before throwing blank accusations and making needless threats. Regards, Jagged 85 ( talk) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Why in this section a part of controversies? Moreover, how is this issue requires such significant mention in the article? The article is about the film and not the life and future of its actors. If anything, I suggest we incorporate the necessary information is the casting section, dump the non-related portion and remove the section. Leave Sleaves 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a great interview done with Boyle on ABC, which you can find here, just listen to it. He addresses many things in the interview, and I'm sure it will help the article a lot. 75.139.141.4 ( talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Watch here. Would be great to add to the article. 75.139.141.4 ( talk) 00:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In Slumdog Millionaire, the tour guides at the Taj Mahal are saying lines from the Wikipedia article about the Taj Mahal. See: http://mpgonz.blogspot.com/2009/02/slumdog-millionaire-quotes-wikipedia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 ( talk) 05:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is already currently 74,000 bytes, nearly double the standard recommended Wikipedia size limit. It also loads slow on many computers. Is there anyway to split off some of it into subarticle(s)? Softlavender ( talk) 02:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It is probably a good idea to add Box Office India totals to the India section along with the current link for box office mojo. I'm not quite certain how to add it so I'm going to give the link and ask other editors to take a look and add as appropriate.
- Classicfilms ( talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As the section stands, the Indian box office totals are now reading:
Rs. 2,35,45,665 [46] ($2.2 million)
and
Rs. 3,04,70,752 [46] ($4,189,199)
I have two points on this issue. If one were to convert Rs. 2,35,45,665 the sum comes to $485,637.90. Also if one converts Rs. 3,04,70,752 the total comes to $628,470.33. Since box office mojo does not clarify where their figure comes it is beyond the scope of the WP to reconcile the two. In addition, why is the dollar amount significant for the Indian Box office? Box Office figures should be in the home country currencies unless there is something in the WP guidelines that states that the figures should be listed in dollars. I will wait a day and if I don't hear a response, I will remove the dollar figures. - Classicfilms ( talk) 16:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a personal stake in this subject but we should probably try to stabilize the lead section which is experiencing differences of opinion with regard to its content. So, I checked Wikipedia:Lead section. Here is what it reads with regard to controversies:
It also states in the section "Elements of the Lead: Introductory text" -
Thus we should probably find a way to cover all aspects of the article as noted above without giving undue weight to either the awards or the controversies. This may be a matter of just rewriting the content in a way which indicates that the film has been the subject of both acclaim and controversy. - Classicfilms ( talk) 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I've found an article on TIME magazine that has some great coverage on the reactions of some Indians towards the movie (page 2), as well as some local production shots (page 1).
( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1874832,00.html) -- haha169 ( talk) 03:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Since when is 'SlumDog Millionaire' a British film? Is it because the director of the movie is British? Using that logic, every movie made by Manoj Night Shyamalan or John woo should be Indian or Chinese movies respectively.
I can understand the frustration of British Wiki users as to the clear superiority of American films when compared to British films. However, just because a British director goes to India, copies the script directly from an Indian book, uses entirely an Indian crew with Indian actors and an Indian music director (since the background score is arguably one of the biggest highlights of the movie) and uses the help of an indian co-director to direct an Indian movie - and that very movie is a favourite for the Oscar awards, it doesnt automatically make that movie a British movie.
So please stop this nonsense about labelling it a British movie - and yeah,no need to show a link from times.co.uk or bbc.co.uk that apparently recognizes it as a Bitish movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartboy1990 ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A film's origin is defined as "where the production companies for that title are based, and therefore where the financing originated." According to IMDB, this means, even if a title is shot on location in France, if its production companies are all based in the USA, the country of the film is USA. For example, Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima is entirely filmed in Japanese and shot in Japan, however it is classifed as an American film because its American film companies that financed the film.-- DerechoReguerraz ( talk) 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
country
should be changed to explicitly define this. And if appropriate, I think this should be included in MOS as well, in order to avoid further confusion.
Leave
Sleaves
16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Films have always been classified according to the location of the production company, including Bollywood films shot in the UK. You really should do some research before you complain. This film shows India in a good light, but the hysterical anger of the reaction of some Indians to it shows India in a very bad light indeed. Choalbaton ( talk) 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Despite all of this prior discussion, there is a new editing battle going on over whether this is a British or an American film. I haven't been involved in this battle, but I think it's clearly a British film. It isn't British because of Danny Boyle; it's British because the primary production companies behind the film were the UK's Celador and Film4 Productions, which is why the game show was changed from an undefined game show in the novel to Celador's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? in the movie. While I realize that the movie wouldn't have been made without the money from Warner Independent, or wouldn't have won all the Oscars without the efforts of Fox Searchlight, it's a British production. Please, before any of you change this again, explain your reasoning here. - AyaK ( talk) 05:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As it was mentioned on "The Colbert Report", (although this was taken from Wikipedia,) "in 2006, he used the DaColbert Code to accurately predict the five top Oscar winners and shortly before the 2008 elections, the code repeatedly said that Barack Obama would be the next US president." Should this mean that him predicting on the 515 ( or February 12's) episode of "The Colbert Report" that (this is from the show) "Slumdog Millionaire will win best picture!" So, Is a "The DaColbert Code" prediction a worthy note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Permafry42 ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This link would suggest that the film's portrayal of Hinduism is controversial in the Hindu community: http://www.dubaiforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=32113 I can't find any mainstream media references to corroborate the outrage expressed in the link, but I still wonder whether this issue should be added to the "controversies" section?
The link given above goes through to a discussion forum and then to a highly suspect (IMO) webpage. Sample quote: "As per the news, Muslim boys are paid to lure Hindu Girls. In this film Jamal, a Muslim boy is shown very kind to Hindu girl. This is part of international conspiracy against Hindu culture". I'd suggest this means that the portrayal of Hinduism may be controverisal with right-wing extremist Hindus. Most of the people who worked on the film are Hindus, and the guy who wrote the story is either a Hindu or a lapsed Hindu. -- 78.148.126.164 ( talk) 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a discepancey between the info box and intro text.[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 12:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)]]
There is still an error in the box on the right hand side, no ide what that one is called. on Jan23,2008 the movie was still beeing produced, it can't possibly have been released then... 87.159.102.168 ( talk) 01:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Section PLOT
It would be sensitive towards people who have not seen the movie to add that the section contains spoilers, something like "Plot (caution: contains spoilers).
Thank you.
The article mentions that the movie was based on Vikas Swarup's (VS) novel Q&A. However VS was himself inspired by a project called "Hole in the wall" (Hiwel)(referred to in the interview ). Hiwel experiment was first conducted in 1999 and has come a long way since then. CNN's coverage of NIIT's project is available at following link http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/02/22/sidner.india.slumdog.inspiration.cnn?iref=videosearch
Can someone explain to me how this is a controversy? Fernandes did not make any accusations towards the film nor did he even take any action to have his name included in the credits. This whole section seems a bit ridiculous to me. It appears as though editors have been trying to take smalls events associated with the film and label them as a controversy. Further, the majority of these "controversies" are so lacking in content that they are unable to even form a whole paragraph. In my opinion, the only legitimate controversy is that some have interpreted the film as showing India as a third world country. However, even this requires a stretch of the imagination to conceive. I think this whole section needs a major rewriting. Xenocide Talk| Contributions 01:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
"Nikhat Kazmi of the Times of India calls it "a piece of riveting cinema, meant to be savoured as a Cinderella-like fairy tale, with the edge of a thriller and the vision of an artist." He also argues against criticism of the film stating that..."
Can someone change the He to a She please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.61.140 ( talk) 06:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The Controversies section's referencing has got its reference nos. within the text instead of making use of <ref> tags. Hence it will presumably get out of sync. (if it isn't already) when people introduce additional refs. correctly. Due to lack of time and unfamiliarity with the subject I don't want to attempt to tidy it up myself. I hope someone else can look at this.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 11:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me how "it is written" is the answer to the first show question? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.75.192 ( talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this the first foreign film to win an Oscar? It is a foreign film, right? -- 24.21.148.212 ( talk) 08:58, 4 March 2009
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Use indian, donot address 'south asians'. Well, India is a part of south Asia. The movie was made in India - Mumbai. I just felt it and I donot want to say more than it. It is left to consensus. Mexico, Chile, canada...are also part of America. US cannot be responsible for what happens in Mexico or in other countries of America. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
portrayals of Indians, you are coating Stereotypes of South Asians with portrayals of Indians. That is not fair. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Indians are Indians. There are differences between two types of apples. Actually we should use the word "Mumbai' rather than using Indians or India because the movie was drawn in Mumbai. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a just a movie (an imaginary thing + a few facts) - not the exact image. Who cares about someone's remarks. We have started seeing well-to-do homeless nowadays in America too (CA) (CNN news). Everyone has freedom to express - we do it when it is our return. Singaporeans are different than Indians and so on. Indians should feel proud that they defeated the so called nominated movies and own the Oscar 2008-09. That is how Mumbai people/Indians have to think. We cannot say that this award goes to South Asians; it goes to Indians to Mumbai people especially to those kids who acted brilliantly.
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 14:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid to say so because I do not have much to say about India/Mumbai. It is a partial portrayal of some part of Mumbai and Agra city. Again I'm stressing - it is a movie (facts+ imaginary), so many things could have been fabricated- might have used computers for animation (simulation). The movie was great and the the kids acted brilliantly.
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 15:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to point out a brief change in the section Reactions from India and Indian diaspora.... The view given by Matthew Schneeberger about a US Jamal Martin was not his but of a person named Arnab who writes under the alias of The Great Bong. Please correct that. Matthew has acknowledged Arnab... I hope you do. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rahulk2.0 (
talk •
contribs)
12:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Is Salman Rushdie such a big appericiated man that he deserves a whole sub section about his criticism. Nobody would actually care. Either keep it short or don't put it in there. Thanks... -- 89.108.30.22 ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I added content that linked this film to the Charles Ingram scandal that took place on the UK version of the show, but it has been removed. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.106.175 ( talk) 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this is not trivia, yet I don't want 3RR war. -- AndrejJ ( talk) 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Questions are relevant (crucial?) for the story. And of course, it is not comparable to single episodes of Millionaire. -- AndrejJ ( talk) 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The production used small prototype digital cameras in order to film action scenes and those in crowded locations. The images were stored on Apple laptops that had to be kept in backpacks kept cool with dry ice. Putting in annotated footnotes drives me nuts (I always have to relearn each time) on a page with this many notes, so here's the link for the info if someone else wants to distill the info down to a few lines:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/6350399.html ---- RoyBatty42 ( talk) 20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says "and the movie does not explain how Jamal learns fluent English" when actually Jamal and Salim in the movie attend a class where the teacher is teaching English. It's the scene that shows the teacher hitting the two kids or throwing the text book at the two kids (I can't remember) to get their attention. It's a scene at the very beginning of the film after they run from the airport police and are caught by their mother and sent directly into class. I don't know the book in order to compare and contrast though so for all I know it's still a difference. But the movie definitely does explain/show.-- ThePenciler ( talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What about the fact that English is one of the two official languages of India, that nearly everyone there speaks it (along with their regional language and sometimes Hindi), and that all Indian TV and movies are in a Hindustani-English mix? Isn't this a more reasonable explanation of how they know English? Randy_Seltzer ( talk) 07:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Classicfilms ( talk) 15:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Like the controversies section, I think, due to the length of the Indian response section, that that particular section should have its separate article. That section is probably longer than the controversies section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyogunAW ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
When did you hear about this November 27th wide release? I believe it's being released to more and more markets every week. 75.131.193.54 ( talk) 22:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but how are Amitabh Buchhan and Salman Rushdie film critics and why are their thoughts on the film so prominently displayed? Additionally, even though the film has a 93% fresh rating at rotten tomato and around an 86 score at metacritic, the number of mixed/negative reviews about the film provided to the reader is as long and detailed (if not slightly longer) than the paragraph devoted to the positive reviews. This, in conjunction with the spuriously titled "South Asian critic" reaction section makes me think that this article has been selectively edited by someone with a problem against the movie in order to portray it in the worst possible light. The section on Bachhan and Rushdie needs to be removed and the "mixed reaction" section needs to be cut down dramatically. If this page were not locked, I would make these revisions myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyellow9 ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, I'm still skeptical about Radhakrishnan, but I guess we can leave that for now. Now I noticed that a couple of Indian reviews being added to the critical reception section. Now we'd have to be careful about which reviews to considered credible for inclusion. e.g. of the two new reviews added, the one from DNA seems okay but the one from Mumbai Mirror can't be considered so. In terms of reviews from India, I think the focus should be on those reviews published by notable newspapers or magazines e.g. The Times of India, Indian Express, India Today, etc. Leave Sleaves 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I still am having trouble understanding why certain material appears under the review section. First of all, the final review listed, by Alice Miles, isn't even a movie review but a newspaper column. Alice Miles is a newspaper columnist and not a movie reviewer, as you can see by looking at her webpage: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/. As such, this should be removed. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the film has a 94% rating at rottentomatoes and a 86 rating at Metacritic. Yet there are six positive reviews and five mixed or negative reviews, which conveys the impression that the film is being panned just as much as it is being praised. Not only that, but the extent and breadth of the quotes from the mixed and negative reviews are not only just as long as those from the positive reviews but quoted from more extensively and more strongly. This is especially apparent when we observe the numerous highly incendiary words used in the mixed/negative review paragraphs: exploitative, racist, stereotypical, demonization, bankrupt, evil, murderers, hatemongers, vile, exploitative, "poverty porn," etc. In my opinion, splitting the review section 50-50 between positive and negative reviews for a film which is being almost universally praised (again, 94 at RT, 86 at metacritic) conveys a misimpression to a wikipedia user who may not know much about the film. In short, it seems to me that this section directly contravenes Wikipedia policy on undue weight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT#Undue_weight. I think the entire mixed/negative review section should be cut down entirely (or limited to just one or two short negative appraisals with far fewer incendiary quotes) or, in the alternative, that the criticisms of the film as being an unfair and brutal depiction of India should be moved to an entirely separate article or a separate portion of this article which deals specifically with criticisms about that aspect of the film.
Additionally, I don't think things have been remedied with regard to the Bacchan/Rushdie section. It is hard to characterize Amitabh Bachhan's blog posting as "strongly criticizing" the movie since 1) it is written (translated?) in confusing English and it omits a sentence that precedes his explanation, which you can see here: http://bigb.bigadda.com/. As you can see, he starts by saying, "On blog, comments for the film ‘SlumDog Millionaire’ and the anger by some on its contents, prompt me to say the above" and then goes on to say "If SM ... causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots," ... "let it be known that a murky under belly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations." This indicates to me that he is not "strongly criticizing" the film but, in response to "anger by some on its contents," trying to convince "nationalists and patriots" not to be upset by negative portrayals of India because that exists in even the most developed nations. There is nothing in that blog post that can conclusively be understood as a criticism of the film. His subsequent comments about disappointment that crowd-pleasing Bollywood films do not get as much recognition in the West as more artistic Indian films does not seem salient on this point either.
As for Salman Rushdie, his not being enamored of the film hardly seems to be relevant or topical. He is an author of Indian extraction and not a movie critic or a South Asian specialist or anything of the sort. On top of that, his criticisms don't have to do with the film's depictions of India but with his finding the story unrealistic. Finally, I find it notable that all four of the people mentioned in the India and diaspora section are conveyed as disliking the film and not a single of the many Indian responses praising the film as realistic and authentic is listed. Again, this seems to contravene Wikipedia policy on undue weight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT#Undue_weight—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyellow9 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Although I think things have improved substantially in the "mixed/negative reviews" section, I think another problem is that of the "positive reviews" listed, two of them contain pretty negative quotes. I am speaking especially of: 1) including the lone negative line from Manola Daghis' NY Times review: "In the end, what gives me reluctant pause about this bright, cheery, hard-to-resist movie is that its joyfulness feels more like a filmmaker’s calculation than an honest cry from the heart about the human spirit" and 2) prefacing a clearly negative quotation from Peter Brunette ("a high-octane hybrid of Danny Boyle's patented cinematic overkill and Bollywood's ultra-energetic genre conventions that is a little less good than the hype would have it") with "while giving it a positive review." There are countless extremely positive reviews of the movie that have far more favorable quotes to include in this section that more appropriately reflect the positive critical acclaim it has received. This is another aspect of this article which I've noticed which, combined with the previous use of incendiary language in the "mixed/negative" review section and the uniformly negative quotes included in the "India and India diaspora" section make me think that this article has been victimized by tendentious editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing Blueyellow9 ( talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a section comparing the plot and treatment of the book Q&A and the film would be useful—I came looking for it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.103.193 ( talk) 17:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. I was just reading this article trying to find out the exact number of Academy Award nominations. The article says it's 10. There are only 9 listed at
List of Slumdog Millionaire awards and honors. Also, the
List of Slumdog Millionaire awards and honors states that there were two noms for the best original screenplay score. However, the article for
81st Academy Awards nominees and winners lists Slumdog Millionaire only once under the Best Original Score section.
Could somebody clear this up, please? 15.219.201.68 ( talk) 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello again.
I'm yet to see this film, but I just saw the trailer from Apple trailers site. In that, Kapoor announces "Welcome to Who wants to be a millionaire". I'm just wondering if it was changed for the American version of the film, since the plotline in the article says that Jamal goes on the KBC show. The KBC show sounds more plausible, since that's what's there in India, but it may have been changed for American audiences, and I was wondering if anybody knew anything about this. aJCfreak yAk 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to leave a note here since the awards page looks empty, that it was also nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay at Writer's Guild, so please add it. Thanks. 75.139.141.4 ( talk) 05:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed mentions of the dubbed title from the lead. The addition of title in the lead gives unnecessary importance to the Hindi-dubbed version of the film, when this release in fact was done primarily in order to reach wider audiences and hence belongs only to release section. Plus, use of {{ lang-hi}} is not necessary here. That template is used when the actual title of the film/article is in Hindi and the English transliteration affects the actual pronunciation/representation of the title. Again, that isn't the case here. Leave Sleaves 01:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Why was this section reduced to a redundant line? If there is problem with the POV of the section then there are other ways to solve. It should at least summarize the info present in the main article. Leave Sleaves 08:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is directed towards User:Tool2Die4, who seems to have obvious issues with my use of wiki-links in the article. I linked the phrase "British-Indian drama film" to the Cinema of the United Kingdom and Cinema of India articles, which he then linked to the United Kingdom and India articles instead, and then sent me a few messages telling me to read WP:EGG and even threatened to block me! For your information, I have read WP:EGG and it clearly states to redirect links to articles that fit "well within the scope of the text". The text in question is "British-Indian drama film". How exactly do the articles United Kingdom and India have any relevance at all to this line? The Cinema of the United Kingdom and Cinema of India articles fit the "scope of the text" far better than the articles you have chosen to redirect them to. Maybe you should read WP:EGG more clearly before throwing blank accusations and making needless threats. Regards, Jagged 85 ( talk) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Why in this section a part of controversies? Moreover, how is this issue requires such significant mention in the article? The article is about the film and not the life and future of its actors. If anything, I suggest we incorporate the necessary information is the casting section, dump the non-related portion and remove the section. Leave Sleaves 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a great interview done with Boyle on ABC, which you can find here, just listen to it. He addresses many things in the interview, and I'm sure it will help the article a lot. 75.139.141.4 ( talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Watch here. Would be great to add to the article. 75.139.141.4 ( talk) 00:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In Slumdog Millionaire, the tour guides at the Taj Mahal are saying lines from the Wikipedia article about the Taj Mahal. See: http://mpgonz.blogspot.com/2009/02/slumdog-millionaire-quotes-wikipedia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 ( talk) 05:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is already currently 74,000 bytes, nearly double the standard recommended Wikipedia size limit. It also loads slow on many computers. Is there anyway to split off some of it into subarticle(s)? Softlavender ( talk) 02:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It is probably a good idea to add Box Office India totals to the India section along with the current link for box office mojo. I'm not quite certain how to add it so I'm going to give the link and ask other editors to take a look and add as appropriate.
- Classicfilms ( talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As the section stands, the Indian box office totals are now reading:
Rs. 2,35,45,665 [46] ($2.2 million)
and
Rs. 3,04,70,752 [46] ($4,189,199)
I have two points on this issue. If one were to convert Rs. 2,35,45,665 the sum comes to $485,637.90. Also if one converts Rs. 3,04,70,752 the total comes to $628,470.33. Since box office mojo does not clarify where their figure comes it is beyond the scope of the WP to reconcile the two. In addition, why is the dollar amount significant for the Indian Box office? Box Office figures should be in the home country currencies unless there is something in the WP guidelines that states that the figures should be listed in dollars. I will wait a day and if I don't hear a response, I will remove the dollar figures. - Classicfilms ( talk) 16:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a personal stake in this subject but we should probably try to stabilize the lead section which is experiencing differences of opinion with regard to its content. So, I checked Wikipedia:Lead section. Here is what it reads with regard to controversies:
It also states in the section "Elements of the Lead: Introductory text" -
Thus we should probably find a way to cover all aspects of the article as noted above without giving undue weight to either the awards or the controversies. This may be a matter of just rewriting the content in a way which indicates that the film has been the subject of both acclaim and controversy. - Classicfilms ( talk) 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I've found an article on TIME magazine that has some great coverage on the reactions of some Indians towards the movie (page 2), as well as some local production shots (page 1).
( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1874832,00.html) -- haha169 ( talk) 03:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Since when is 'SlumDog Millionaire' a British film? Is it because the director of the movie is British? Using that logic, every movie made by Manoj Night Shyamalan or John woo should be Indian or Chinese movies respectively.
I can understand the frustration of British Wiki users as to the clear superiority of American films when compared to British films. However, just because a British director goes to India, copies the script directly from an Indian book, uses entirely an Indian crew with Indian actors and an Indian music director (since the background score is arguably one of the biggest highlights of the movie) and uses the help of an indian co-director to direct an Indian movie - and that very movie is a favourite for the Oscar awards, it doesnt automatically make that movie a British movie.
So please stop this nonsense about labelling it a British movie - and yeah,no need to show a link from times.co.uk or bbc.co.uk that apparently recognizes it as a Bitish movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartboy1990 ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A film's origin is defined as "where the production companies for that title are based, and therefore where the financing originated." According to IMDB, this means, even if a title is shot on location in France, if its production companies are all based in the USA, the country of the film is USA. For example, Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima is entirely filmed in Japanese and shot in Japan, however it is classifed as an American film because its American film companies that financed the film.-- DerechoReguerraz ( talk) 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
country
should be changed to explicitly define this. And if appropriate, I think this should be included in MOS as well, in order to avoid further confusion.
Leave
Sleaves
16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Films have always been classified according to the location of the production company, including Bollywood films shot in the UK. You really should do some research before you complain. This film shows India in a good light, but the hysterical anger of the reaction of some Indians to it shows India in a very bad light indeed. Choalbaton ( talk) 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Despite all of this prior discussion, there is a new editing battle going on over whether this is a British or an American film. I haven't been involved in this battle, but I think it's clearly a British film. It isn't British because of Danny Boyle; it's British because the primary production companies behind the film were the UK's Celador and Film4 Productions, which is why the game show was changed from an undefined game show in the novel to Celador's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? in the movie. While I realize that the movie wouldn't have been made without the money from Warner Independent, or wouldn't have won all the Oscars without the efforts of Fox Searchlight, it's a British production. Please, before any of you change this again, explain your reasoning here. - AyaK ( talk) 05:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As it was mentioned on "The Colbert Report", (although this was taken from Wikipedia,) "in 2006, he used the DaColbert Code to accurately predict the five top Oscar winners and shortly before the 2008 elections, the code repeatedly said that Barack Obama would be the next US president." Should this mean that him predicting on the 515 ( or February 12's) episode of "The Colbert Report" that (this is from the show) "Slumdog Millionaire will win best picture!" So, Is a "The DaColbert Code" prediction a worthy note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Permafry42 ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This link would suggest that the film's portrayal of Hinduism is controversial in the Hindu community: http://www.dubaiforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=32113 I can't find any mainstream media references to corroborate the outrage expressed in the link, but I still wonder whether this issue should be added to the "controversies" section?
The link given above goes through to a discussion forum and then to a highly suspect (IMO) webpage. Sample quote: "As per the news, Muslim boys are paid to lure Hindu Girls. In this film Jamal, a Muslim boy is shown very kind to Hindu girl. This is part of international conspiracy against Hindu culture". I'd suggest this means that the portrayal of Hinduism may be controverisal with right-wing extremist Hindus. Most of the people who worked on the film are Hindus, and the guy who wrote the story is either a Hindu or a lapsed Hindu. -- 78.148.126.164 ( talk) 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a discepancey between the info box and intro text.[[ Slatersteven ( talk) 12:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)]]
There is still an error in the box on the right hand side, no ide what that one is called. on Jan23,2008 the movie was still beeing produced, it can't possibly have been released then... 87.159.102.168 ( talk) 01:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Section PLOT
It would be sensitive towards people who have not seen the movie to add that the section contains spoilers, something like "Plot (caution: contains spoilers).
Thank you.
The article mentions that the movie was based on Vikas Swarup's (VS) novel Q&A. However VS was himself inspired by a project called "Hole in the wall" (Hiwel)(referred to in the interview ). Hiwel experiment was first conducted in 1999 and has come a long way since then. CNN's coverage of NIIT's project is available at following link http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/02/22/sidner.india.slumdog.inspiration.cnn?iref=videosearch
Can someone explain to me how this is a controversy? Fernandes did not make any accusations towards the film nor did he even take any action to have his name included in the credits. This whole section seems a bit ridiculous to me. It appears as though editors have been trying to take smalls events associated with the film and label them as a controversy. Further, the majority of these "controversies" are so lacking in content that they are unable to even form a whole paragraph. In my opinion, the only legitimate controversy is that some have interpreted the film as showing India as a third world country. However, even this requires a stretch of the imagination to conceive. I think this whole section needs a major rewriting. Xenocide Talk| Contributions 01:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
"Nikhat Kazmi of the Times of India calls it "a piece of riveting cinema, meant to be savoured as a Cinderella-like fairy tale, with the edge of a thriller and the vision of an artist." He also argues against criticism of the film stating that..."
Can someone change the He to a She please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.61.140 ( talk) 06:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The Controversies section's referencing has got its reference nos. within the text instead of making use of <ref> tags. Hence it will presumably get out of sync. (if it isn't already) when people introduce additional refs. correctly. Due to lack of time and unfamiliarity with the subject I don't want to attempt to tidy it up myself. I hope someone else can look at this.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 11:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me how "it is written" is the answer to the first show question? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.75.192 ( talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this the first foreign film to win an Oscar? It is a foreign film, right? -- 24.21.148.212 ( talk) 08:58, 4 March 2009
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Use indian, donot address 'south asians'. Well, India is a part of south Asia. The movie was made in India - Mumbai. I just felt it and I donot want to say more than it. It is left to consensus. Mexico, Chile, canada...are also part of America. US cannot be responsible for what happens in Mexico or in other countries of America. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
portrayals of Indians, you are coating Stereotypes of South Asians with portrayals of Indians. That is not fair. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Indians are Indians. There are differences between two types of apples. Actually we should use the word "Mumbai' rather than using Indians or India because the movie was drawn in Mumbai. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a just a movie (an imaginary thing + a few facts) - not the exact image. Who cares about someone's remarks. We have started seeing well-to-do homeless nowadays in America too (CA) (CNN news). Everyone has freedom to express - we do it when it is our return. Singaporeans are different than Indians and so on. Indians should feel proud that they defeated the so called nominated movies and own the Oscar 2008-09. That is how Mumbai people/Indians have to think. We cannot say that this award goes to South Asians; it goes to Indians to Mumbai people especially to those kids who acted brilliantly.
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 14:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid to say so because I do not have much to say about India/Mumbai. It is a partial portrayal of some part of Mumbai and Agra city. Again I'm stressing - it is a movie (facts+ imaginary), so many things could have been fabricated- might have used computers for animation (simulation). The movie was great and the the kids acted brilliantly.
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 15:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to point out a brief change in the section Reactions from India and Indian diaspora.... The view given by Matthew Schneeberger about a US Jamal Martin was not his but of a person named Arnab who writes under the alias of The Great Bong. Please correct that. Matthew has acknowledged Arnab... I hope you do. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rahulk2.0 (
talk •
contribs)
12:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Is Salman Rushdie such a big appericiated man that he deserves a whole sub section about his criticism. Nobody would actually care. Either keep it short or don't put it in there. Thanks... -- 89.108.30.22 ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I added content that linked this film to the Charles Ingram scandal that took place on the UK version of the show, but it has been removed. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.106.175 ( talk) 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this is not trivia, yet I don't want 3RR war. -- AndrejJ ( talk) 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Questions are relevant (crucial?) for the story. And of course, it is not comparable to single episodes of Millionaire. -- AndrejJ ( talk) 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The production used small prototype digital cameras in order to film action scenes and those in crowded locations. The images were stored on Apple laptops that had to be kept in backpacks kept cool with dry ice. Putting in annotated footnotes drives me nuts (I always have to relearn each time) on a page with this many notes, so here's the link for the info if someone else wants to distill the info down to a few lines:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/6350399.html ---- RoyBatty42 ( talk) 20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says "and the movie does not explain how Jamal learns fluent English" when actually Jamal and Salim in the movie attend a class where the teacher is teaching English. It's the scene that shows the teacher hitting the two kids or throwing the text book at the two kids (I can't remember) to get their attention. It's a scene at the very beginning of the film after they run from the airport police and are caught by their mother and sent directly into class. I don't know the book in order to compare and contrast though so for all I know it's still a difference. But the movie definitely does explain/show.-- ThePenciler ( talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What about the fact that English is one of the two official languages of India, that nearly everyone there speaks it (along with their regional language and sometimes Hindi), and that all Indian TV and movies are in a Hindustani-English mix? Isn't this a more reasonable explanation of how they know English? Randy_Seltzer ( talk) 07:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Classicfilms ( talk) 15:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Like the controversies section, I think, due to the length of the Indian response section, that that particular section should have its separate article. That section is probably longer than the controversies section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyogunAW ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)