Jump to content

Talk:Evil Angels (film)

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

Name Change

[edit]

This article should be Evil Angels. It is the original title of the work that originates in an English-speaking country.--ZayZayEM 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support using the Australian title of the film for an Australian film. Lankiveil 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Agree, anyone want to request a move for the page Ansell 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
How does Evil Angels (film) sound for a page, since there is already a disambiguation page and a page about Evil Angels in religious terms. Ansell 03:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I fully support moving this article to Evil Angels (film). This is the first time I've edited Wikipedia, so please be gentle with me! --GMan Sydney 11:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no disagreement regarding a rename of the article, I've moved it to Evil Angels (film). -- Longhair\talk 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, Wikipedia's naming conventions for films disagrees, and so do I - "If the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world - if for example, some English-speaking countries prefer to use the native title (Australia, that's you), or if different translations are used in different countries - use the most common title throughout (indisputably A Cry in the Dark), and explain the other titles in the first or second sentence, putting each of them in bold." and "Titles of articles should be the most commonly used title for the following reasons...". This film was released as A Cry in the Dark in the majority of the English-speaking world. You cannot even find a copy of it online in its native country (I've tried). I do, however, have seven different copies of it from different countries in different formats, and they all use the majority title. Also, this is not a small native Australian title - The film was nominated for or won awards at the Oscars (and not for foreign film), Golden Globes, People's Choice Awards, Cannes Film Festival, etc. under the majority English title. (Incidentally, for Europe, the film's title was directly translated from A Cry in the Dark: Un cri dan la nuit, Ein Shrei in der Dunkelheit, Un grido nella notta, Un grito en la oscuridad). The trend of trying to revert this film to its native title is a recent one that flies in the face of the vast majority of English-language magazine articles, reviews, blogs, discussions, etc., and most of the adherents to this view seem to be from Australia. --Brian Tristam Williams 02:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you cite is is under the heading Foreign-language films thus referring to different English TRANSLATIONS of foreign language film titles. That's what it means by "native title", a title in a foreign language, not the "title used by non-American people whose opinions don't count". Yes, "most of the adherents" to using the original title probably are Australian. Is that meant to be a criticism? You mention awards: It won an AFI, under the title "Evil Angels". AFI past winners. The film was first released under the English title "Evil Angels". That's what was on the screens and posters in Australia. IMDB is often wrong, but on this they got it right. Barsoomian (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I note that "Brian Tristam Williams" is the owner of "acryinthedarkmovie.com", [1] which was linked into the article as the "official site" with this edit by an anonymous South African IP. The same place where the owner of acryinthedarkmovie.com lives according to WhoIs. There is no sign that that site is "official" in any way, there is nothing there but a single movie poster. So I will delete that and will proceed to correct the article title. Barsoomian (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

[edit]

the film was nominated for three Australian Film Institute awards and won five: Best Film, Best Actor (Sam Neill), Best Actress (Meryl Streep), Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay....This makes no sense. Someone who is responsible for this article (and interested) needs to fix. Jeffpw 08:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the ding took my baby! == I haven't actually seen this film but I always thought it was where the reference (spoken in a bad Australian accent) "a dingo's got my baby!" came from. Shouldn't this be mentioned? - Dot 207.237.91.121 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

The important think that's being left out is how the case influenced our thinking about the adversarial-based justice system used in most countries. Police investigators discarded and concocted evidence to make their case more winnable, because they "knew" she was guilty, when in fact she wasn't. Landroo 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cry in the dark.jpg

[edit]

Image:Cry in the dark.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poster Update

[edit]

I have scanned an excellent condition poster and uploaded it, replacing the somewhat faded, slightly illegible older poster. Someone reverted this change within 24 hours. I'd be happy to discuss with them, but, since they weren't logged in, only an IP address was left behind. They may have had one of two reasons for doing this:

  • They are the supplier of the lower-quality version, and don't want to see their submission replaced. To this I'd say that the newer one is of indisputably higher quality and provides more information than the older one. The uploader of the original poster got it from the Internet Movie Poster Awards Gallery. It is no longer available there, as it has been replaced by the higher-quality version, which I supplied.
  • There is concern about the new one being of high enough resolution to ruffle the studios' feathers. I would doubt this, as my submission is only 512x786. You can get a 977x1500 version at the Internet Movie Poster Awards Gallery.

I see no reason to revert to a lower-quality version of the poster, and I've undone the change.

I'd be glad to hear any other opinions on this - thanks.

"One man can make a difference." (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Briantw, I entirely agree with your assessment and considering the source of the disruption is a computer at a public library, please continue to insist on the use of the present image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed name change to "Evil Angels"

[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: page moved to Evil Angels (film): discussion had run for 42 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A Cry in the Dark ? Evil Angels — Evil Angels was the title this Australian film was released under in Australia. It is the name under which it received Australian Film Institute Awards. It is the name used in IMDB. It is the title of the book on which the movie is based. (The title "A Cry in the Dark" was used in the later American release.) I note that many references in other articles had been changed from "Evil Angels" as they were originally to "A Cry in the Dark". E.g. Australian Film Institute Award for Best Screenplay, so such articles aren't a reliable indication of the title used at that time. I don't know if it's necessary to use "Evil Angels (film)" as Evil Angels is now just a redirect to Evil Angel, which is another disambiguation page. If so then "Evil Angels (film)" would be fine. Barsoomian (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss below

[edit]
  • Strongly support a move, but not necessarily to Evil Angels. This article was originallypreviously located at Evil Angels (film), but was moved in 2008 to here, with the the mover citing WP:NCF as justification. At the time WP:NCF said "If the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world - if for example, some English-speaking countries prefer to use the native title, or if different translations are used in different countries - use the most common title throughout, and explain the other titles in the first or second sentence, putting each of them in bold." Based on this the move was flawed as the article was already at its "native" title. I agree with 65.95.15.144 here, Evil Angels should redirect to Evil Angel, which lists several similar titles. Evil Angels (film), the original location, seems more appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section of WP:NCF cited is clearly referring to "Foreign-language films", and it's under that section now at least. "Native title" refers to the title in the native (non-English, i.e. "foreign") language. Made even more obvious by the references to "translations". So that is all irrelevant to this case. Barsoomian (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I said "Based on this the move was flawed" and placed "native title" in quotation marks. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Primarily to maintain Wikipedia's own guidelines. See WP:NCF, which states, "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world." To reiterate what has been stated since 2006: Try to source Evil Angels anywhere in the world on any video or audio format, and you will be disappointed. A Cry in the Dark, however, is available in territories throughout the world, both as DVDs from different regions and as part of a UK-produced CD soundtrack. When the Blu-ray edition is released, it will with all likelihood be called A Cry in the Dark. This has been discussed ad nauseum since the page was created. "A Cry in the Dark" is the international title of an international film. ALL English-speaking territories used this name, apart from Australia, which had a commercial reason to release it under the Evil Angels title, as the John Bryson book was well-known there in 1988. The film is, however, not a specifically Australian film. It was made with international cooperation by a U.S.-based director (Fred Schepisi, who was indeed born in Australia), using an American lead actress (Meryl Streep), a New Zealander costar (Sam Neill), produced by an English production company (Cannon Releasing Corporation), employing South African expatriate executives (e.g. Avi Lerner, from Nu Metro Entertainment in South Africa, whom I presently represent, and who went on to found Millennium Films) and a British Executive Producer (Verity Lambert, Cinema Verity). So, to call the international title "US-centrism" is somewhat off-the-mark. Yes, the film was distributed by Warner Bros. in the U.S., but by Cannon Releasing Corporation elsewhere. The film is, additionally, not available anywhere under the title Evil Angels, not even in Australia - even there, you'd have to download, hire or purchase the film as A Cry in the Dark. The obscure Australian title, based on the book, has been all but abandoned. Having provided this somewhat long-winded explanation, I remind you that, when in doubt, refer to WP:NCF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantw (talk • contribs) 11:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been pointed out above, the section of NCF that you're quoting from is titled "Foreign-language films", so it's irrelevant because, on the English Wikipedia at least, English is not a foreign language. Regarding your other justifications, the film was about an Australian subject, filmed in Australia and first released here. As for "employing South African expatriate executives (e.g. Avi Lerner, from Nu Metro Entertainment in South Africa, whom I presently represent," (emphasis added), I'm wondering if your involvement with this article might have some coi issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether it's an Australian or American film is sort of irrelevant, but it was an Australian subject, based on an Australian book, filmed in Australia, Australian writers, director, crew. Won a lot of Australian awards, so they certainly thought it qualified as Australian. But most importantly; it opened in Australia first, under the title "Evil Angels" which is why IMDB lists it so. Whatever title it's "available" under now, I don't know, and don't see how it matters. This isn't Amazon.com. And it hasn't been discussed "ad nauseam" here. In fact, five people opined it should be "Evil Angels" and it was made so, then you came along 6 months later and just moved it "boldly", without bothering to raise it for discussion at all; while citing a policy relating to FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILMS. And as you are the owner of "acryinthedarkmovie.com" which until recently had been listed in the article as the "official site" (despite no content in it beyond an image), WP:COI in the title does seem possible. As for "abandoned" see SBS Films - Evil Angels. So not quite yet. Barsoomian (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Barsoomian, when I said ad nauseum I wasn't referring merely to this round of discussion. I was referring to the last five years, in which you can see, this WAS raised for discussion, and, I had hoped, been settled. Unfortunately, every few years I see people with little vested interest (and I mean that in the intellectual context, no other) in the subject matter, regurgitate the fact that the film had a different name in Australia, as if it is new and undiscussed information. Secondly, a WP:COI is surely relevant to financial interests, of which there are absolutely none here - we are discussing a 23-year-old film with no current market push going on. I am, and have been for 22 years, interested in this film and this topic, and I merely mentioned my involvement in a descendant of the 1988 companies for the purposes of full disclosure, and as an indication that I am familiar with the film's production and distribution history. And no, I am not the owner of the official site. I am listed as a contact for it - this is not hidden information, as you easily found. Warner abandonded the domain several years after the U.S. DVD release in 1999, and it is now a placeholder, most likely for the Blu-ray release by MGM in Europe, which has, unfortunately, been delayed. At this stage, it looks like either Warner in the USA or MGM in Europe could be first with the Blu-ray. I had a look at the SBS films link for the "abandoned" evidence, and there is nothing there - just a blank page with a header, although I would have liked there to have been more. Anyway, "abandoned" was intended in the context it was delivered. We could all use Google to find the term "Evil Angels," but that doesn't make it any more relevant or accessible, or less "abandoned" as a title available for distribution anywhere. So, other than my being intensely interested in this topic, this is not about me: There is a two-fold concern here: 1. Are we satisfied that this is a natively Australian film, thus satisfying the WP:NCF criteria? I am not. AussieLegend... Wait, you're Australian, so it would probably be of some satisfaction to you to have it listed as an Australian title. I won't go as far as to throw WP:COI at you, which is silly, but yes, it was primarily produced in Australia, so sure, there is a lot of Australian cast and crew, the aforementioned main actors notwithstanding. It is not, however, an Australian film. I am simply not satisfied as to its Australian "native" origin. I have a lot of history and background on the film, and it could not have been done at that scale, at that time, as an Australian production alone. I am very well-versed on the subject matter. I don't mean that pretentiously, smugly or bombastically, so put down the pitchforks and flaming torches. That's just an observation, for a community where knowledge of obscure subjects is of particularly value. I've been tracking the film since 1989. I have copies of it from English-speaking territories around the world, on various media formats, but, after 22 years of interest, have not yet managed to procure a copy of the Evil Angels holy grail, although I do hold out some hope. That may not be entirely relevant to the discussion, but it is of peripheral and disclosure interests. 2. The likelihood of anyone who is interested in the film, due to a cultural reference (in almost any English-speaking territory around the world) or their having recently viewed it, being able to easily make the connection. I believe we are doing the Wikipedia community a disservice by obfuscating this information. We are making an international, Oscar-nominated, Golden Globe-winning release look like a small Australian film that no one's ever heard of. The vast majority of the English-speaking audience who has ever seen this film has never heard of Evil Angels - it simply isn't cited in the film. Those are my concerns as part of this community, as ripe fruit for what is done best here: Deliberation. (p.s. AussieLegend: maybe you could help me find that "holy grail" in a dusty old pawn shop in Australia - it would sure be appreciated!) briantw "One man can make a difference." (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry you're nauseated by people disagreeing with you. Though this appears to be the first time you've ever participated in a discussion on the subject. I did look at the history of this article. You just changed the title and left one comment AFTERWARDS. And there is no "obfuscation" no matter what the article is named; the redirect will work as well as it does now the opposite way. So we can just be concerned with reflecting historical facts, and not what the current distributors of the film find convenient. I find your continued attempts to describe this film as "Not Australian" hilarious. Secondary to the question of the title though. The SBS page is not "blank" it has several videos about Evil Angels, including a review by David Stratton, who you can hear say "Evil Angels is a great Australian film". Why don't you take it up with him. Fast work at IMDB, by the way. Barsoomian (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter whether it was 5 years or 5 minutes, it certainly hasn't been discussed ad nauseum. The facts are as Barsoomian presented them, only five people discussed the issue and it was agreed that the article should be at Evil Angels (film). You, a sixth person, moved the article, ignoring that consensus, citing an irrelevant part of a guideline as justification. WP:COI is not limited to financial interest. COI editing affects the neutrality of Wikipedia. Your comments regarding the website and a possible blu-ray release, which you've already said "will with all likelihood be called A Cry in the Dark" doesn't really convince me of your neutrality, since it's probably in your best interests that the movie be listed everywhere as that and not Evil Angels. Yes, I am Australian, yes I thought Meryl Streep's Australian "accent" was bloody atrocious but that doesn't affect my ability to remain neutral. If, for example, somebody suggested moving "Airplane!" to "Flying High!" I'd argue against that despite my absolute revulsion at the American spelling and the movie being called Flying High! in Australia. I would do that for exactly the same reason I support this move. It's the right thing to do. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Barsoomian, your demeanour is not very becoming. You are taking cheap shots instead of discussing neutrally. I imagine you know full well what ad nauseam means, and it doesn't mean nauseated. It means long and/or protracted. The same goes for "fast work at IMDb." Ad hominem is not how one discusses encyclopedic issues academically, and it would behoove you to raise your demeanour a little, or this discussion is moot. If you wish to hurl insults and innuendo, there are better places on the Internet to do it. Let's try and stick to the subject. AussieLegend, you're the obvious Australian here, and you are questioning MY neutrality? As a South African, I have no stake in the home entertainment releases of Europe, the United States, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, etc. My only interest is in the subject matter. At least I have had the decency to make some concessions, as Wikipedia's integrity is important to me. It wouldn't surprise me if Barsoomian were Australian, although I won't return the favour and make any underhanded, cheap allegations. However, I have made my academic arguments and you have made your mixture of academic and disparaging contributions, and it still seems to me that this is a "win one for Oz" argument. Mine are based on the subject at hand, not the integrity of the participants. The issue is not of such significance that I need to fight any new concensus, but I sure can point what what I believe the correct concensus to be. briantw "One man can make a difference." (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I made light of your "ad nauseam" statement because if I had taken it seriously, I'd just have called it a falsehood, as it was easily proven to be. The same for your repeated citing of a policy that applies to FOREIGN LANGUAGE films, though you were certainly aware that it did not apply. Yes, of course I'm Australian. That's why I was astonished at your arguments here, as I remember the Lindy Chamberlain case, and I remember when "Evil Angels" came out. As I recall that well-known "US-based director" Fred Schepisi's earlier films. And regardless of my personal knowledge, it's an undisputed fact that the film was released first in Australia, and under the name "Evil Angels". You've tried to say this isn't relevant, and that whoever owns the film now should decide the issue. You haven't made any "academic" arguments. All your arguments have been about what is best for the marketers, and how the article should help them sell it by presenting it as a "Hollywood" film and not the "small Australian film" it actually was. Barsoomian (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Evil Angels (film) would be an acceptable alternative. Andrewa (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The canonical article titling policy is to use the common name of a topic as its title. True, WP:NCF purports to govern film titles but it does not trump for me the policy rationale behind the common naming policy. We look to meet the principle of least astonishment. WP:NCF itself pays lip service to the common naming policy. The fact that that echoing appears in a section that by its header appears to limit it only to where the original film title was not in English does not destroy the underlying principal (and probably should be rethought to make it less narrow). In that regard, a search like this, as opposed to this, shows the current title is quite favored from a commonality analysis. Coupling this with the matter focused on above that the film is sold/packaged pretty much everywhere— apparently even in Australia—under the current title, this means tp me we will be surprising many future readers if we move it to Evil Angels--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On this principle we could settle all such questions by just comparing Google results. Which would amount to always choosing the currently preferred American name of anything. Where with general articles the "name" may be something that evolves with usage, with works like books and films they are created with a specific name. We don't start with a blank slate and consider "What would be the best name for this film?". We look at the (English) name it was released under; and unless there is a very good reason to use something else, that's the name of the WP article (plus perhaps some disambiguation like "film", "year"). And that's it. Barsoomian (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: the 1971 Australian movie Wake in Fright is listed under that name, despite being later released in the US and UK and on IMDB as "Outback". This also was an Australian/US co-production, and the title also came from the book it was adapted from. Barsoomian (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If it's indeed the case that the film is most commonly known as A Cry in the Dark in the English-speaking world (and looking at the discussion this doesn't seem to be disputed), we should use the common name regardless of what the original release was called. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "commonly known as in the English-speaking world" aspect as it applies to WP:NCF has been disputed at length as NCF applies to foreign language films. The WP:COMMONNAME application has been disputed in the post immediately above yours. The simple fact is that the film was based on subject natter from its original market, produced and released in its original market as "Evil Angels" and therefore that should beis the correct title. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB title

[edit]

How interesting. A few days ago IMDB listed this as "Evil Angels". Now this has been changed to "A Cry in the Dark". (See [Wayback Machine] showing "Evil Angels"). I wonder who could have done that? Winston Smith? At least IMDB still says "Evil Angels (original title)". Barsoomian (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was "Evil Angels" only 12 hours ago. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDB is totally whacky. They say "IMDb uses the original title as it appears in the opening credits of the title in its original country of origin", which is obviously "Evil Angels". However, that may explain why Briantw is so insistent the film is not Australian, as if the "country of origin" was listed as USA, then IMDB would use "A Cry in the Dark". (As it apparently does since yesterday.) When I tried to submit a correction, it rejected it stating that "Evil Angels" was ALREADY the current title. Their system is so opaque and cumbersome that I long ago gave up trying to make corrections there. And I suspect that movie companies can override data regardless. Barsoomian (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB says that it is listed as "A Cry in the Dark" for people in the U.S. and the U.K. It's listed as Evil Angels to me, and from what I gather, should be for everyone in Australia (I guess based on their IP address). Anoldtreeok (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2011 (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.

Birthday

[edit]

COMMENT Today is coincidentally Lindy Chamberlain's birthday. March 4, 1948 in Whakatane, New Zealand! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantw (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there you highlighted that the main player here (apart from the dingo) was New Zealander. Should we add that to the confusion? HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She came to Australia at the age of one. Don't see how that affects anything under dispute here though. Barsoomian (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I lived in the NT I was considering opening a dingo farm next to Berrimah Prison. I know that it's totally irrelevant to the move proposal but it seems to fit this section like a glove. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

I made this edit because, according to this IMDb page the title 'Evil Angels' was used in Australia and New Zealand. Elsewhere it was 'A Cry in the Dark' or a local translation of a similar phrase (eg: 'Krzyk w ciemnosci' = 'Scream in the darkness' according to Google translate). Astronaut (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list cutely omits the revered actor who plays Lindy's mother

[edit]

In Evil Angels Lindy's mother, Avis Murchison, is played by the Australian actor Dorothy Alison (1925–1992; among her other memorable roles has been Douglas Bader's Nurse Brace in 1956's Reach for the Sky), and so her role in Evil Angels needs to be added below the heading "Cast" in Wikipedia's article.

IMDb's treatment of the movie is quietly waiting to help anybody who has the energy to improve that list of the cast, which at present is no better than perfunctory.

More generally I can't help thinking that the chaotic article has been assembled by a resident of the Moon and so needs to be rewritten.

Leigh Oats (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Leigh Oats[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT Barsoomian (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


National Egos

[edit]

Yet again, we have the locals insisting that something is a home grown production when the reality is it is not, culminating in a silly wiki fight to have the film known to 90% of the English speaking world getting called by a title only the locals know. Same as calling this an "Australian film" when it was optioned by an English production company (their first, in fact) who then went to an American studio to finance & distribute it. Even the international distribution was handled by an American company. "But, it was made in Australia!" So was "Phantom Menace," but I don't see it getting labeled Australian.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evil Angels (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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evil Angels (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) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evil_Angels_(film)&oldid=1200364245"