Talk:Slumdog Millionaire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wide Release?

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)

CNN says, "Slumdog, which opened Friday in limited release and goes wide November 27, may become a sleeper hit." Maybe it's a growing limited release, and the wide release will be more significant than any previous growth? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Slumdog's website has it being released to cities in that order. 75.131.193.54 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"South Asian Critics?" Mixed reviews?

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)

There are a couple of conventions to follow when editing Wikipedia pages, two of the most important of which are Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. All articles on the Wikipedia are also developed according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which means that they need to contain all viewpoints on the topic at hand. Film articles in particular always have review sections with multiple points of view and a number of editors have contributed to the section. The rules are outlined here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. The viewpoints of Bachchan and Rushdie are relevant and the edits follow Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Material which adheres to Wikipedia guidelines cannot just be deleted. By that same token on the other hand, more reviews can be added to the section or critiques of the critiques. The Wikipedia:Five pillars page offers an overview as to how edits work here and may be useful to consult before editing. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I also trimmed one of the sections. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And added a review.-Classicfilms (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with some points by Blueyellow9. Bachchan and Rushdie are not film critics and they shouldn't be portrayed so. Same I believe is the case Smitha Radhakrishnan whose review does not fit into MOS:FILM. If you are interested in covering South Asian critics, please include actual critics. If you feel that you need to capture other reactions from South Asia, relabel the section and rewrite it accordingly. Also, the section uses long quotes from the sources which are discouraged in MOS.

On a separate note, why does the section calls itself "South Asian" when you are capturing reactions only from India? ^LeaveSleaves 06:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I changed the title and moved it to its own section. As most of the voices in this article commenting on a film made in and about India are from the U.S. and U.K., it is reasonable to have at least two highly prominent voices from India - Bachchan and Rushdie on the page. Smitha Radhakrishnan's article is both a commentary and film review so I'm not certain why it wouldn't fit into the section but under a new title it shouldn't be a problem. As for quoting - every single review in the review section consists of a quote. I tried to find what you were referring to about length of quotes in MOS but could not. If you could direct me to that section, I can edit all of the reviews and the new section I created so that all of the quotes conform. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the film has not yet opened in India. After it does, I'm sure that there will be more film critics from India to add. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

While it is perfectly normal to include a single quote per review, in case of Bachchan and Radhakrishnan you have included very long quotes. I can't recall where I've read this and I'll try to get back to you on that, but such long quotes are discouraged in prose as it borders on copyright violations. A solution to this could be either to summarize the quote into prose or if you feel that the quote is significant as a whole, consider using a {{quote box}} and providing a source for the quote. The thing with Radhakrishnan's review is that she isn't exactly a renowned critic and it's odd to place to put her there alongside other know reviewers. Or if I am wrong, please tell me why her review/commentary is significant.

Finally, another suggestion. Change the title from "Indian reaction" to "Reactions from India". ^LeaveSleaves 08:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this was helpful. Here are my responses: a)Quotes and copyright: As fair use of text usually involves the 10% rule, there isn't a violation of copyright if the quote is less than that amount of the whole of what the speaker said or wrote. So in either case I do not believe there to be a copyright issue. That aside, I did go ahead and reduce the size of each of the quotes to keep the entire section balanced with Rushdie's quote. I have mixed feelings about text boxes since they tend to put more emphasis on one quote than on the other and I have always felt that defeats the purpose of NPOV; b) In choosing Radhakrisnan's review, I was following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_reception

which states: "Reliable sources should be used to determine how the film was received. For films, sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." As Radhakrisnan is a professor of sociology and published her article in an academic online journal (UCLA)

http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/

she qualifies as a notable person who is an expert on larger issues related to the film which are not always covered in film reviews. I think the article would benefit from more analysis and viewpoints from academics than it already has;c) Finally, I did alter the title to the section but tweaked it to indicate that some of writers live abroad. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:27, 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. ^LeaveSleaves 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some of the reviews I removed yesterday from sources I thought were less than notable were restored and a few more added by another editor. Commentary from scholarship, academics, and notable authors are always acceptable in the WP so I'm not certain there is really a problem with their inclusion. As for the Mumbai Mirror, the paper itself is notable so I wouldn't necessarily ignore anything that comes from it. As for the op-ed which is included, I'll leave that open to other editors. I'll move the DNA article from the professor down a section with tweaks. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There's difference between notable newspaper and one that can be considered good for inclusion here. Mumbai Mirror is a tabloid newspaper whose reviewers can't exactly be regarded renowned or experts. ^LeaveSleaves 16:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I could go either way with that review since it was added by someone else so it's fine with me if you want to remove it. I have already removed reviews from that section and they were restored so I don't think I should make more deletions. My major concern is with the new section which seems now to be resolved. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Undue Weight in review/critique section

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)

I've already made tweaks to the critical reception section and my deletions were reverted so I'll let other editors respond to that section. As for the section with Bachchan and Rushdie - Bachchan is a highly notable and respected source from India and is frequently quoted in the press. Bachchan's comments whether appearing in his own blog or an interview thus qualifies for inclusion under Wikipedia:Notability and has been quoted in a number of newspapers which qualifies as WP:SOURCES. As for the wording, another editor paraphrased the language so it reads better for the article. As for Rushdie, WP film articles in the Wikipedia frequently include commentaries or criticism from highly notable sources under Wikipedia:Notability so his opinions are as important as a film critic. As I've also stated above, the film has not yet opened in India so perhaps after it does more responses from India will appear online and thus can be added to the article. As it stands, this section complies with Wikipedia policies. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As for WP:UNDUE, I'm not certain how it qualifies for this article. To not include responses from India would violate WP:NPOV so the section needs to be there. When more articles come out, we can add to it. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can dismiss the wording argument by saying somebody else paraphrased the language. I think there is a genuine reason to wonder whether Bachchan was sincerely criticizing the film or reacting to criticisms by other people--"nationalists and patriots"--and so should be removed. I think an even more fundamental problem with Bachchan/Rushdie section is that it is entirely irrelevant to an article on a film. The film style guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines) encourage posting REVIEWS from a film's country of origin but say nothing about posting reactions by notable people who are either in (Bacchan, Nabar) or from (Rushdie, Radhakrishnan) that country. Again, I disagree with the notion that this section complies with Wikipedia policies on NPOV. The combined effect of the negativity between the "mixed review" section all the way through the last quote by Nabar end up conveying a highly negative impression of the film, which doesn't really correlate with the criticla (rottentomatoes, metacritic) or popular reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyellow9 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

MOS:FILM states that we can use either film critics or "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film" and as I said this happens frequently in WP articles (see the featured article Blade Runner). Also, while the statistics from RT and other sources are useful, they do not dictate how an article for the WP is shaped. If you can think of a better title for the section, I'm open to renaming it, but there is no reason to remove it. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:20, 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_editingBlueyellow9 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is ironic that you are accusing others of tendentious editing, when you are in-fact pushing for addition of more positive reviews, which is actually the true example of such editing. Biased editing does not necessarily mean negatively biased but also positively biased. As mentioned above, this article (or any film article for that matter) does not follow RT or MC in writing reviews but only use them as indicators of aggregate reviews. The article as a standard practice should present every existent view on the subject matter, not just the majority view. ^LeaveSleaves 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see how my views may seem biased but in trying to point out the excessive inclusion of a certain POV, it's hard not to seem overtly biased in the other direction. You'll note I have no more objections with the negative reaction section as it's presently constituted; I think it's more than fair for both positive and negative reviews of the film to be included (I would draw the line, as I did above, at the inclusion of the previously-included host of incendiary and selectively-chosen words and terms like "poverty porn"). Still, I think it's a fair point that if a critical reception section is to include both positive and negative reviews, 40% (2/5) of the positive reviews shouldn't be prominently made up of the lone negative quotations ("filmmaker's calculation" and "patented cinematic overkill") from those reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyellow9 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This should indicate that those critics are not 100% positive towards the film and have some reservations, particularly when they use such sentence/s in conclusion or as summary. And please note that this is not POV. This would be POV if the article would have mentioned only negative part of the reviews. ^LeaveSleaves 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If those critics are not 100% positive towards the film, why were they chosen to represent the "positive" reviews? Wouldn't it be logical for these to go in the "mixed reviews" section and for more strongly positive reviews to represent the positive critical acclaim the film has gotten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyellow9 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that is a question to be answered by the editor who inserted the reviews. If you'd ask my personal opinion, I'd say they are a very good choice. They make a very nice transition from positive reviews to negative reviews. And please realize that terms like "100%" or "strongly" or "mixed" are based on personal judgment. The goal is to provide a thorough perspective of the film. ^LeaveSleaves 01:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with book

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)

Academy Award Nominations

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)

While the film has only one nomination under Original Score, it has two nominations for Original Song. Taking into consideration these two nominations, total nominations are ten. ^LeaveSleaves 02:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the mix-up. :) 15.219.201.68 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I didn't realise I wasn't logged in. The above edits from that IP is me. :) aJCfreak yAk 01:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Who wants to be a millionaire or KBC ?

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)

Yes, the reference to Kaun Banega Crorepati is not explicit. All through the film the host Anil Kapoor introduces the game show as Who wants to be a millionaire?. I hope this change is fine. Thanks, —KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 15:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Writer's Guild nomination

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)

Slumdog Crorepati

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. ^LeaveSleaves 01:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Awards and honours

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. ^LeaveSleaves 08:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to be growing to a random list of awards or nominations and since the film has had a number of nominations or awards it seems that it might be a POV issue if we list some awards and not others because then it becomes a subjective decision of what to list and what not to list. So I tried to make the intro neutral to everything mentioned on the list. The question of whether the lead to a list becomes a subjective list in and of itself has come up in other articles that I've worked on before which is why I tried to turn it into a general line - this being said, however, I'm fine with the edit that you made and don't think it is a major issue. Thanks,-Classicfilms (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did not make any edits in that section, I straightaway posted this message. Having said that, I think that the section shouldn't be just left as a line. There are better ways to deal with NPOV issues. In terms of awards to be included, the awards with higher importance, primarily Oscars, Globes, BAFTA could be mentioned here, leaving other awards to the separate article. At the same time, I noticed that the awards article contains Top Ten lists mentions. These lists are not exactly honors, but a opinions of individual critics. Thus they belong here in critical reception section and not in that article. ^LeaveSleaves 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm drawing on experience from working in other film articles, particularly when looking towards FACs. If there is a way to manage the lead so that it conforms to what you wrote I don't see a problem with it - but after awhile it becomes a magnet for one award after another. I'll leave this for other editors to work out. As for the top ten list, it is a list and my experience from FACs has proven that lists are generally discouraged in articles that aren't lists, and are usually moved to separate articles which contain lists. Being in the top ten is an honor so it makes sense for the page - a subsection could be created to clarify. On the other hand, this is also a small issue and if you and other editors feel it is better to move back and that it will not hurt the article to add a list then I won't quibble about it. The point is that an article which is developing as rapidly as this one is moving towards the possibility of GAC so issues like this are useful to keep in mind. That being said, I am indifferent in the long run about the final decisions. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tool2Die4's edits

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)

File them under a See Also if you feel the need to have them in. Removing piped links in the lead sentence is SOP for pretty much any highly-regarded film article. Not sure what is so confusing. And I didn't threaten to block you; you got a standard warning. Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tool2Die4, I will not hessitate to request a ban in your name. Jaggad 85 is right. Stop disrupting edits.LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 11:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as this one is an obvious personal attack and unacceptable. If you want to put your point forward, there are better ways to do it. ^LeaveSleaves 15:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Literally could not care less. I have short tolerance for people who, despite being slapped in the face with the appropriate mentions to MoS, etc., still make the same stupid edits. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are expanding on your existing poor run of civility towards other editors. Despite your personal feelings and emotions about particular edits, please resort to proper language when expressing your thoughts out loud. ^LeaveSleaves 16:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Reread the first five words of my prior comment. That may make it a bit more clear for you. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with the issue as much as I am concerned with your behavior. ^LeaveSleaves 16:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you "do not care less" about it, why are you on Wikipedia? If you can't handle the policies and rules then bugger off. Stop behaving like a troll. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 01:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Child actors

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. ^LeaveSleaves 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I also suggest expanding on it if you plan to keep it. From what I've read, the child actors were paid a sum originally, and now have a way to get to school every day, and will obtain a good sum when they finish school, so they have control over spending it. Kind of odd that they're speaking up now though, when the movie was close to just being a direct to DVD, nobody was complaining... 75.139.141.4 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They were paid the market rate, or indeed probably rather more. Now that the film has been a success, why should they get a share of the profits, when they didn't put up any of the money? They would have covered any of the losses, if this film has made losses, which most films do. Choalbaton (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is there is no controversy. Nobody is accusing anybody of anything. There are no complaints, protests or lawsuits. This section simply doesn't belong there. Including it under controversies borders on synthesis. ^LeaveSleaves 19:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Great interview with Danny Boyle

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)

One of child actors father speaks on video

Watch here. Would be great to add to the article. 75.139.141.4 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Slumdog Millionaire quotes Wikipedia

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)

Article overlong; loads slow

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)

Box Office India totals

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.

• http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/movies/boxoffice/13980/index.html

• Collections (INR) Avg. Per Print % change since last week
• Week 1 2,35,45,665 4,34,808 NA
• Week 2 69,25,087 1,39,786 -70.59

• Total Gross 3,04,70,752

-Classicfilms (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We also might want to reevaluate these references

• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=slumdogmillionaire.htm
• http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1873926,00.html?imw=Y

which offer the gross in dollars. I wonder if they were meant to be written as INR? If so, they would be a better match to the figures above. It seems to make more sense to offer the gross in INR and so the above reference appears to be the best one. I'll wait another day or two and if there is no response, will replace the current references with the one above. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I made the update.-Classicfilms (talk) 05:31, 9 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 made this change. Another editor may want to look at the U.K. box office section and check to see if these figures match: £14.2 million ($20,663,468). -Classicfilms (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

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:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist."

It also states in the section "Elements of the Lead: Introductory text" -

"Introductory text. As explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Lead section#Introductory text, all but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more."

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)

The awards are sufficiently summed up in the lead, as are the controversies. To not have both mentioned in the lead would blatantly violate NPOV. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok - my goal is to see the lead stabilize and this looks fine to me. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

TIME Review

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)

British film?

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 is called British, American, Indian etc. based on who produced the film and not where it was set/shot, who wrote it, who acted in it or other such credits. Moreover, there is no connection with even the director or his/her origin, as you seem to wrongly construe. This film has been produced by Christian Colson, a UK citizen and companies Film4 and Celador, again both UK companies. Thus, the film is defined as British film. ^LeaveSleaves 02:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Smartboy1990, please do not take the reversions personally. To echo what LeaveSleaves has said, it is considered a British film due to the fact that it's a British production. Boyle's nationality is not the issue; Christopher Nolan is British, yet no one is trying to label The Dark Knight a British film. —CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 12:23, 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)

While you are correct in terms of writing this in lead section, the infobox parameter is for both countries where production companies hail from and countries where primary shooting is done. ^LeaveSleaves 16:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the guideline for this? If the film's filming location is listed as a country of origin, what about films that are shot in multiple filming locations, should all of them be listed? I don't recall Wikipedia or IMDB has this guideline as listing filming locations as the country of origin in the infobox. Stating in the lead section that it is shot in India is correct though.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Wikipedia film infobox Template:Infobox Film, it states "country" as: "Insert the country or countries that the film was produced in." According to the definition provided by the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF), a film's origin is "the country of the principal offices of the production company or individual by whom the moving image work was made." [1] So the popular definition is the origin of the film's production companies.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment. For example, Valkyrie is set in Germany and is about Germany, but it is an American film in the sense that the American studio United Artists put the film together. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that this is a British-Indian film. If you see my comments above I have clearly refuted this. But as it turns out, I was apparently wrong in interpreting this parameter in the infobox. And if that is the case, I think that the instructions given for the infobox parameter 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. ^LeaveSleaves 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion; I was reading the template documentation and thought to myself, this could be more clear. Perhaps start discussion at Template talk:Infobox Film? By the way, a really strange application of this field can be found at Blindness (film)... it has been called a Japanese-Canadian-Brazilian production, I kid you not. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion started. (Off topic) Check this out. ^LeaveSleaves 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the reason why Blindness is called a Japanese-Canadian-Brazilian co-production was because if you check the film's production companies credits, it is produced by production companies from Japan, Canada and Brazil. A multi-national production.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 02:02, 22 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)

In all sincerity, why, then, did the British Academy Film Awards give the award for Best film to “Slumdog Millionaire”, but the award for Best British film to “Man on Wire”? 211.18.204.250 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the Academy jury prefered Man on Wire. Bradley0110 (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The British Academy Film Awards often does this kind of thing though. Pretty much all of the recent British productions that won the BAFTA Best Film, lost out on the Best British Film category. Examples are The Full Monty, The Queen, Atonement (Howards End won Best Film but not Best British Film), all of them won BAFTA Best Film and was nominated for BAFTA's Best British Film but lost to another film in this category.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

To echo the comments of other users - not only was Slumdog produced with a half english, half-indian crew but it was also funded by English companies (such as film 4), furthermore the post production for Slumdog was done at Pinewood Studios in England, which is why the engineers there one both the BAFTA and Oscar for sound mixing (along with their indian counterparts) - so it was truely a English-Indian production, despite being shot almost entirely in India.--Andrewge (talk) 23:50, 24 February 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)

If Slumdog is not a British film then Batman is not American, as the entire movie was shot in England using British crew. As are many, many other US productions. But they are correctly deemed to be US films, as that is where their production companies are based, and where the financing comes from. It wouldn't matter a jot if Slumdog was filmed completely in India, using entirely Indian crews. It's a British film. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 12:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It was Batman Begins that was shot in the U.K. with a British director and crew, but other than that, your point seems exactly correct to me. - AyaK (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I was actually talking about the 1989 movie, which I linked, but thanks for validating my point. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 10:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I had seen such an argument made about Batman Begins, but not about Tim Burton's Batman. But of course you're right, because Burton has shot five films at Pinewood (also inluding Sleepy Hollow, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd), and nobody contends that Burton shooting in England makes the film British. - AyaK (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is a "The DaColbert Code" prediction a worthy note?

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)

No. - AyaK (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New Controversy?

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 movie depicted the persecution of a Muslim boy from his teacher, the gangster, the police, the TV show host, his mother gets killed by the Hindus. The only place he got some respect is in his workplace from his co-workers. That is not a commonplace situation in India and is cooked up to please some particular race in a particular country, especially when the original story did not have a Muslim main character. It should be addressed properly and in more detail. Sub40Hz (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely you are not arguing that the Bombay Riots did not happen, are you? If that isn't your argument, then I submit that very few movies correspond to a commonplace situation, and this movie is neither unusual nor noteworthy in that regard. By the way, the novel's main character was "Ram Mohammad Thomas", who was supposed to have roots in all of India's ethnicities, so I don't think you can say that he wasn't at least part Muslim. - AyaK (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not lose sight of the purpose of a Wikipedia discussion page. We are evaluating whether any of the negative reactions to the film in the Hindu community have been public enough to warrant mention in an encyclopedia entry; we are not evaluating the reactions themselves. The most public reactions are now mentioned to my satisfaction in the Protests and Lawsuits section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PetiteFadette (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Protests and Lawsuits section adequately reflects the public reaction. My point was that it does not matter whether the movie portrays a "commonplace situation in India", at least not for WP purposes; there's nothing notable about a movie not portraying a commonplace situation. - AyaK (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

US release date

There is a discepancey between the info box and intro text.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)]]

 Done Date corrected in line with citation in main text. - X201 (talk) 14:16, 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)

Plot

{{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.

Wikipedia doesn't care about spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so please exercise caution when you got to a section regarding the plot summaries of movies and books you have not gotten to yet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It should really be common sense that a section detailing the plot of a movie will contain spoilers for those who haven't seen it yet. Besides some people (like me) come to these pages specifically to read the plot to movies. Danikat (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration

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

That information would be relevant to the article on Q & A, but not here. - AyaK (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Longinus Fernandes as a controversy?

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)

I couldn't agree more. This is not a good encyclopedia article as currently written, because it lacks objectivity and perspective. - AyaK (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point about Fernandes, removed. I also shortened the controversies section. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have done that myself. - AyaK (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone restored this point with this note: "Reinstated. It was very controversial to forget crediting the choreographer, that's why he spent so much time in his acceptance speech to avert from a huge conflict because of it." I re-deleted the point due to lack of evidence that there had been any controversy over the omitted credit. If anyone can post evidence from BEFORE Danny Boyle's speech that there was a controversy, then I'll agree that this is controversial and that Danny Boyle was trying to end the controversy, and we'll restore the point. Otherwise, the whole kerfuffle seems unremarkable and not controversial. - AyaK (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Nikhat Kazmi is a woman

"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)

This has been done. - AyaK (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section has hard-coded reference nos.

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)

Someone removed all of the references. They have been restored - thanks for the heads up. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

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)

Somebody may know the answer and reply to your question here. However, did you know that anybody can post any question at the Reference Desk WP:RD. You are bound to get responses there, and in my experience pretty quick, reliable & useful ones.

"It is written" is not the answer to a question in the show. It's a framing device for the movie. The opening title simulates a question from the show, as described in the synopsis in the article: " Jamal Malik is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. How did he do it?", with the answer choices of "He cheated", "He's lucky", "He's a genius", and "It is written". Then, during the movie, when the host asks Jamal if he is ready for the final question, he replies, "No, but maybe it is written, no?" In other words, maybe he was predestined to win. At one point, the producers were going to phrase the last choice as "It's his destiny", to mirror Jamal's closing line to Latika ("It is our destiny."), but they decided that the "It is written" phrasing was better. The alternate phrasing did make it to some movie posters, though. - AyaK (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

...First foreign film??

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

no the first foreign film to win best picture was Hamlet[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)]]

Facts required

• Despite the film's success, it is the subject of controversy concerning its Stereotypes of South Asians and Mumbai (Images) as well as the welfare of its child actors. .

Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What kind of fact, that the film is considerd to be disparaging towards "South Asians" or that the use of the phrase "south Asian" rather then "indian" is apropriate? when discusing racist attitudes towards the denizens of the Indian subcontinent?[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 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).

What the text of the article says is

"it is the subject of controversy concerning its portrayals of Indians and Hinduism as well as the welfare of its child actors"

Not the line you have qouted above. what youi are objectying to is the link to the wikipage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_South_Asians

I would therefore sugest that you should raise this issue on that pages talk. [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 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)

In what way is it not fair? I thought that is what that part of the contoversy was about, that the film uses stereoypes of "typical" "South Asians". That do not reflect true Indian culture but a Western preconception about Asiatic attitudes and culture. Now are you objecting to the idea that Indians are like that , or that non-indian South Assians are?[[Slatersteven (talk) 23:24, 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)

Except that the critisism that the line refers to is that the film is based on sterotypes of race, not georgraphical area. The film may be set in Bombey but it could have bee set in any city on the Asian sub continant (at east that is what some of the critics have implieid, it impuness our heritage and culture). So I take it then you are saying that the film is an unfair portrayl of Indians? that is what it says. Now if you are objecting to the link to Stereotypes of South Asians then perhaps you can provide a link to a better Wikipage that discuses western attttudes towards Indians? If you are ojecting to that page then raise your concerns there and not here[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 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)

So you object to the idea that this film is not an accurate portrayal of India and Bombey?[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 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)

We can't make this change because it is not correct, according to Schneeberger's article. He now admits to having borrowed the concept underlying this quote (an African-American Jamal) from The Great Bong, but he still shows the passage that we quote as original, because he has not included it in his quote from The Great Bong. See his article. If he borrowed the quote as well, please provide me with a link to the original Great Bong article. Thank you. - AyaK (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Salman Rushdie Criticism

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)

No but he is as notable as many other critics of the film, so I have moved him to another section.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)]]

That will do.--89.108.30.22 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Connections to Charles Ingram scandal

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 removed the content. While the content was well sourced, it seems unnecessary here. The Charles Ingram case acts as an influence to the novel Q & A. The film or its writing does not have any direct influence from the incident. The information however could be well suited for the article of the novel. ^LeaveSleaves 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the content in the Q & A article, where it fits nicely. Thanks to the original poster for bringing the quote to our attention. - AyaK (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The questions Jamal is asked (removed)

I believe that this is not trivia, yet I don't want 3RR war. --AndrejJ (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means, state your case as to the notability of the questions asked. Sure as heck don't belong in the plot section, since that'd do nothing but bloat the plot. Do we list the questions asked for every single episode of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? No. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to present relevant facts. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:19, 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)

When writing the plot we need to be economical about the length and details of the story so that it does not become overly trivial so as to distract or bore the reader. Yes, the questions are significant part of the story and this is indicated pretty well in the existing plot description. But their importance does not warrant inclusion of those actual questions. ^LeaveSleaves 01:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only are these questions trivial, but I included them in a trivia quiz back at the end of January. They are not crucial enough to the plot to be here, but I wanted to preserve them somewhere.... -- AyaK (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Production Note

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)

Jamal and Salim actually learn English in the class scene.

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)

That was before they left after the riot against the Muslims. It's really more so assumed that they just learned it over a few years of traveling around India. 75.139.141.4 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Then again time is compressed and there was a scene change between those scenes so there's no telling how long between scenes that was. Could have been a day, could have been months or a year. So as kids they may have been learning English early on. And yes they probably learned the rest after the riots through traveling India. My impression from that class scene (and the airport scene) was that that was part of their daily lives before the riots as if to establish an everyday setting. It's not as if they were born just before or just started attending class just after the airport scene. ;)

[edit: Before anybody gets the wrong idea: Reading further on this movie I see a lot of contention among critics and viewers, I probably stepped into the middle of some kind of current argument over the film or international critic conflict I was oblivious of, so please don't look at my suggestion as something confrontational or an endorsement of the film either way. It's simply a friendly suggestion from observation of the film. :) I meant nothing malicious or hostile. I wasn't trying to "start something."] --ThePenciler (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that the film shows how as children, Jamal and Salim attended school and had lessons in basic English. However, they did not attend school for the amount of time it takes to learn to read and speak at the level of English Jamal achieves as an adult. He also speaks with a British accent which is also not explained within the context of the film. In addition, many other characters speak in English to each other when in reality they would have been speaking either Hindi or another regional language. This is the issue that critics are referring to. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:42, 8 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)

Being an official language does not mean everyone speaks it. If you have been to Mumbai, you will know that Hindi or versions of it is the language that these kids will be speaking. English ability is tied to certain types of education which these kids would not have had. Also, even if someone is educated in English, it is more likely that it would be used on a day to day level only if English speakers are present. Among family and friends, people will speak in their own languages (Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu etc.) See Mukul Kesavan's article for The Telegraph, "Lost In Translation":

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090205/jsp/opinion/story_10485740.jsp

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As an example, the 1988 film Salaam Bombay (Mumbai's former name) offers a more accurate vision of language use in a similar context. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have been to Mumbai, you will know that they do not speak Hindi there, they speak Marathi, which is not a "version of Hindi." And the second most commonly heard language on the street is English. Wondering why the characters in the movie know English is like wondering why kids in an American movie know English. It's because English is the language they grew up hearing on the street and (especially) on TV. Randy_Seltzer (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Both Marathi and Hindi are spoken there. There are also offshoots such as Bambaiya Hindi which is a dialect of Hindi spoken in Mumbai. And of course English is there. As I said, Kesavan's article makes the distinctions about how language would be used. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Indian Response

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)

The solution to the situation is trimming of the section and not creation of new article. ^LeaveSleaves 03:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that creating a new article is a great idea. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to trim it either; I would prefer to see it be given its own article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, the amount of detail will create an interesting article with multiple contributions. I will wait a day and if no one objects, I will make a new article. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done-Classicfilms (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)