This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mills on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Over the past few years, the film has gotten more credit from previous naysayers and is widely regarded as a modern classic
Maybe a few critics regard it as a classic, but "widely"? That doesn't sound right. --Funkmistress 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What was the box office draw, internationally, in UK, in Australia, in America? Dvd sales? Rating overall for its year?
Locally, our nespapers issued very unfavorable reviews on this film (with which I concur). 188.8.131.52 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This is important, the entire entry is written as if this was a US film, it is Australian. we can't talk about overseas box office, particularly in respect to Australia, when it is an Australian film! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.henty (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The reference to the cabaret's "star courtesan, Satine" is rather inappropriate. She was employed as a dancer, not a prostitute!JohnC (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is doing here since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the (much) earlier conversation, but it's made clear during the film that Satine is a courtesan/prostitute. Doniago (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Surely it is more based off La Traviata than the other opera? I mean, the bit where he throws the money out of her really clinches it. Perhaps La Traviata (etc) should be mentioned first and not as an afterthought. And I don't see the connection to the story of Orpheus. (Who goes down into the underworld to reclaim his bride, but looks back while leaving, thus she is stuck there, then he gets torn apart...you see where I am going with this)
- The Orpheus motive, in literature, is about losing a beloved twice. Christian first loses Satine when she breaks up with him to save his life, then when he 'reclaims' her during the finale, she dies, and thus he loses her again. Lunapuella 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- A particular thing, by the way, that marks it as at least Orpheus-inspired is the fact that he (Christian) "looks back" and then she dies. It's kind of a stretch, but this wasn't my idea - some professor said this when I was at a Latin convention a few years ago; it was his big example of an Orpheus story. Evanbro 06:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
We need a comprehensive list of modern songs included in the movie. Zephyrprince 05:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
...can anyone tell me the piece of music and its composer that "spectacular, spectacular" is written over? That sort of information would be very helpful. I can see there's a little effort in that direction. More. firstname.lastname@example.org
It's Galop infernal, from Jacques Offenbach's opera Orpheus in the Underworld. RasputinAXP talkcontribs 13:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I always read that the "snub" for Oscar/Best Original Song wasn't really a snub, because none of the songs in Moulin Rouge! were original songs - they were all derivative of previously published songs. Vesperholly 07:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not entirely true, there were some songs like 'meet me in the red room', 'fool to believe' and others that were made just for the movie but not featured at length. The most notable example is Come What May which was original and created specifically for the movie. 184.108.40.206 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue with "Come What May" was that it was originally written for Lurhman's Romeo + Juliet but was never used. It was first heard in Moulin Rouge!, but because it wasn't written for the movie, it couldn't be nominated for an Oscar. — warpedmirror (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I could not help but notice that many of the songs listed are inaccurately named, especially when compared with their counterparts on the soundtrack listing directly below. I do not know each of the actual musicians behind each of the songs, but I thought it should be fixed. Also, it would be nice if the listing of songs was cleaned up to be a bit less confusing. --220.127.116.11 05:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The article says christian is English. is this just someone using British and English interchangeably? i don't have a copy of the film, but i'm sure that he speaks with a scottish accent - and his father in the flashback certainly has a very broad scots accent. anyone know for sure? User: amoammo
Well, I'm sure he's scottish.
Ewan McGregor is Scottish, which accounts for the accent; Christian the character is English as in British.
I haven't seen the film recently, but does it explicitly state that he is English? If it doesn't then we can't say he is English, or Scottish etc and should stick to British. Andrewjd 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ewan McGregor is a Scot, so it should say British (to be accurate) no English or Scottish!! Gaia Octavia Agrippa 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The actor's nationality is superfluous; he used a different accent in the film than his normal one. María (críticame) 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
His accent wasn't English in the film, though. It was Scottish although the other characters referred to him as 'English'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Per Andrew, the only thing that is firmly established is that he's British. The nationality shouldn't be given. Carl.bunderson 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ewan McGregor is Scottish, but is states in the film that Christian is English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellardoor144 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me or are the plots of Moulin Rouge and The Phantom of the Opera oddly similar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Its REALLY just you.
It reminded me of the Phantom of the Opera. I think its more the intensity of emotion rather than the accutal plot itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Kidman says in the DVD extras that she wanted the part only after she heard who was directing it (likely because of her other comments of being apprehensive about singing on camera). It says 'citation needed' so that's where she's said it on record. NorrYtt (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Can that be right? Wasn't Star Wars II still a screenplay in 1999?VatoFirme (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The article says principle filming was completed in May of 2000. The Attack of the Clones entry says it started production in June of 2000. So yes. ~ Brother William (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
What are things like "(There Was A Boy)" doing sprinkled throughout the text? Are these song titles? Surely there is a better way to indicate this.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think the major problems lie in the "Honors and Awards" section and the "Soundtrack" section. The H&A section is just too much, with the infobox-thing and the separate lists and subsections. I think it really needs to be edited down to something closer to Blade Runner, but even for my tastes Blade Runner is sort of overkill. I'd like to see it written in prose, but I can't find anything in the manual of style about that. It seems important to note that it won awards, maybe specifically major awards, but other than that, it's just a lot of bloat. The soundtrack section already has a separate article with specific info, so I don't think there needs to be a list of every (or nearly every) song in the film. Maybe someone should strike up a specific Template:Todo?--imaek (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
03-Aug-2008: Because there are so many songs (over 30) in the film, this is a reminder that Wikipedia uses the system of logical quotations, putting commas/periods outside of quotation marks, unless quoting an entire sentence. Unlike in English grammar, commas should be placed after quotation marks in listing song titles, such as: "Chiquitita", "Fernando", "I Have a Dream". Opera and film names have their titles italicized rather than quoted unless using teletype font. Excessive commas are termed "comma splices" in formal punctuation rules. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to tag this as a minor edit and leave an explanation for the edit. I added additional members of the cast some time ago, including the character of "The Unconscious Argentinian," the reason being, of course, that characters with much less screen name were included on the first cast list (such as Audrey, whom we meet at the very beginning, but never see again). Someone changed the character's name to "The Narcoleptic Argentinean." Technically, it's more accurate to refer to him as "The Narcoleptic Argentinean," since he doesn't spend his entire screen time unconscious, but he is listed in the movie credits and on various websites as "The Unconscious Argentinean," therefore he is mentioned in the cast list as such. PatrickLMT (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Just pointing out that sub-headings 5 and 7 list the same information, albeit in two different formats. Perhaps these should be condensed into one section, as it's rather confusing this way? Quotidianscribe (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Upon reading reviews at Filmtracks.com, I stumbled upon an issue that I think is pertinent to the article. The reviewer, Christian Clemmensen, explians that Fox threatened to sue the site for including audio clips of the score promo CD of Moulin Rouge by Craig Armstrong. This, in turn, had Clemmensen dedicate quite some time to rant about it. Has this informationbeen included in the article before and was erased? I say this because I was inclined to add it in the article, that is, if it wasn't included before due to some Wikipedia guidelines or personal reasons. Please contact me on my talk page to further discuss this. Thank you --Surten (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Surten
I'm not a film buff but trying to sort out a dab page at Martin Brown. There's a producer of this name listed for this film at Academy Award for Best Picture and in IMDB, but not on this page. According to IMDB he also produced Romeo + Juliet but isn't listed there. Is this an ingenious hoax, or should his name appear in this article? Or do producers just not get much of a mention? I've dabbed him as Martin Brown (producer), a redlink. PamD (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've now found that he was removed in this edit, with no edit summary. Has anyone got a Reliable Source to verify whether he should be listed or not? PamD (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
And that editor was a sockpuppet, and AFI site here verifies he was producer, so I've reinstated him. PamD (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or has NO ONE got the obvious clue that this movie is a stylized rip-off of the movie Camille? The plot of Camille involves a famous courtesan who is dying of consumption, who is set up to meet a rich duke at the theatre but mistakes a poor guy for him instead and tries to seduce him, falls in love with the poor man after all, ends up meeting the real duke and becomes his possession and can't see the poor man anymore, sneaks out to see the poor man but is eventually caught by the duke, sends away the poor man and pretends not to love him for his own good, the poor man comes back disillusioned and throws money at her to "pay" for the love she gave him, and then in the end they reconcile and she dies in his arms.
THEY ARE THE SAME PLOT. I'm kind of outraged nobody has pointed this out. I mean I love Camille AND I love Moulin Rouge, but you can't ignore the blatant similarities.
I'm only familiar with Cukor's version of Camille starring Greta Garbo, but I do also agree that the plot has some major similarities. I'd even go as far as to say that it must have served as an inspiration to Moulin Rouge! The inspiration part may very well be categorized under "original research hence inappropriate for inclusion", but the similarities in the plot for sure aren't. And: IMDb does cite Camille (i.e. Dumas' novel) as an inspiration to Moulin Rouge! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203009/trivia?tab=tr&item=tr0776658188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Below section had been tagged for needing sources since 2010. Unsourced material has been removed from the current copy of the article. Feel free to reincorporate information in the below section with appropriate citations, though IMDb ratings are not considered noteworthy in any case. Doniago (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Originally set for release on Christmas 2000 as a high profile Oscar contender, 20th Century Fox eventually moved the release to the following spring so director Baz Luhrmann would have more time during post production. The film premiered at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival on May 9 — making it the festival's opening title. A limited release on May 18, 2001 in the United States followed, and the film was released to theaters across the United States on June 1, 2001.
The film was a success in limited release, grossing $185,095 in two theaters on opening weekend. The numbers continued to increase over the Memorial Day weekend, with the film making $254,098. When it expanded into over 2500 theaters, it made $14.2 million in its first weekend of wide release. The film eventually grossed over $57 million in the United States. It had a brief re-release in October 2001 for Oscar consideration, with Luhrmann stating that his intent was to get Kidman and McGregor nominated.
The movie was also successful internationally. It broke box office records in Australia where it was given a rare theatrical re-release at the end of 2001, and found an audience in almost every country. It eventually made over $120 million internationally, resulting in a worldwide gross of $179,213,434.
The film holds a rating of 7.6 at Internet Movie Database, 66/100 at Metacritic based on 35 reviews, and a 76% "Fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 187 reviews.
The film made its home video premiere on Dec. 18, 2001 on DVD followed by a VHS release on March 19, 2002. A Blu-ray edition was released on Oct. 19, 2010.
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: After nearly a month of discussion and a relisting, I'm going to have to close this as no consensus to move, let alone consensus for a move to either proposed title specifically. Though a majority of participants favored a move of some kind, several supported only one option but not the other. I understand there to be a solid consensus against "Moulin Rouge! (2001 film)", but no consensus for a move to "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)" (without the exclamation point) over the current title. Cúchullaint/c 01:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - the "!" is sufficient to distinguish from the other films, and the only time the year is needed in titling is if there are exact name clashes with other films. The hatnote does a sufficient job of identifying the other possible "Moulin Rouge" hits that are given. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Masem. Hot Stop 16:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment:MOS:FOLLOW states, "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration." However, WP:NATURAL suggests that Moulin Rouge! could be sufficient here as natural disambiguation. It seems like readers get to where they want to go anyway. Even if we made the move, I'm sure we would be okay with Moulin Rouge! redirecting to Moulin Rouge (2001 film). In the long term, though, considering the number of topics with the same name, an exclamation mark seems like an awfully weak way to differentiate this film from the other topics. There will eventually be a generation that will know of this film as an old one, and I am not sure if they would recall this one with an exclamation mark like those of us who saw it come out and become popular in our time. What do you think, Masem, Hot Stop? (Late addition: I just noticed that In ictu oculi wants to keep the exclamation mark in the move. If we moved it, I would want to drop the mark per the MOS. It seems to be a case where we mention the stylization in the opening sentence but just write Moulin Rouge in the article body.) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Erik, thanks. I'm ambivalent about keeping/losing the ! before (2001 film). It is there in 60/40 of Books. In other RMs where there was x!(song) and x(song) there was an overwhelming case for moving. Here there is merely a strong case. Print sources don't remember the !, so it's likely readers won't either. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
To mean, it seems like an unnecessary issue, with the move creating one additional direct for those that are searching on "Moulin Rouge!"; anyone else searching on "Moulin Rouge" (sans !) will end up at the disamb page in either case (working on the argument that this film and, at minimum the 1952, are equally justified as candidates for the most common name, and thus neither article can occupy the "Moulin Rouge" spot). Also, compare this situation to That's Entertainment! (where there are also punctuation-less topics too). --MASEM (t) 21:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Why would anyone go to the redirect? If this is titled (2001 film) they will go straight there from Google or RH search box. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
"Moulin Rouge" is the most likely term people will use when searching this film; most people do not know either how our disamb system works or that off-hand that the film was made in 2001. "Moulin Rouge" (presently or after this move) takes the reader to the disamb page for that term, which includes all the films and other related topics. Even considering the drop-down box of possible search hits, the proposed title will not stand out as the film they may be looking for, and will still likely end up at the disamb page. Google, yes, might prioritize this version of the film over all other possible names, regardless of what we name the article, but we don't consider that aspect in our naming scheme. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Supportin principle, preferMoulin Rouge (2001 film), as the exclamation point really doesn't stand up to MOS:TM. Do you scream every time you speak the name of the film? --BDD (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
In this case, however, Moulin Rouge! should remain as a redirect to this film, the only usage that uses an exclamation point. It's very unlikely that someone searching for this term is looking for anything else. So to clarify, I only support this on MOS:TM grounds, and would oppose the proposal as written. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Support move to Moulin Rouge (2001 film) so that the disambiguation doesn't depend on the exclamation mark (at least not entirely). Moulin Rouge! (2001 film) might also be OK, but BDD's point about MOS:TM seems valid (especially considering IIO's remark that the exclamation mark is not consistently present in reliable sources). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this not the primary topic for Moulin Rouge if we disregard the "!"? Tentative mildFull oppose. RedSlash 05:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
No, "Moulin Rouge" is reasonably fairly the name of a well-known movie that is not this one, as well as a real place; no one of these (including this film) stand out as the primary topic. --MASEM (t) 06:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. My second question: who in the world is going to search for any other Moulin Rouge by typing in "Moulin Rouge!"? (For the proposer or a supporter to answer, obviously.) RedSlash 02:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Support per nom. Disambiguation is a good thing. Dicklyon (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Geez, I didn't realize that the suggested target was with the "!", making the specific move even more inappropriate. There is a small bit of logic to move to Moulin Rouge (2001 film) (transforming the "!" to the disabm. phrase on the basis that the title, with "!" may not be the most common name) but retaining the "!" and disamb is absolutely inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Support name as per BDD. --Huh39291 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The "!" is not a special character, though, in light of the most. It is punctuation as part of the title, and as there's no other "Moulin Rouge!" name, no need to move. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
To Moscow Connection and Papyrus's points above, "Moulin Rouge! (2001 film)" is a completely unnecessary disambiguated title. There is no other work named "Moulin Rouge!" to require this type of furthering disambiguation and thus improper. Moving to "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)" is at least reasonable. --MASEM (t) 07:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I read everyone's comments before casting my !vote. I disagree entirely with the points you mention which is why I !voted the way I did. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 07:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
But this goes against WP:PRECISE ("Moulin Rouge!" is precise enough). --MASEM (t) 08:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
To quote Red Slash, "who in the world is going to search for any other Moulin Rouge by typing in "Moulin Rouge!"? I believe a disambiguating title is necessary and that it should contain a "!". Therefore, I believe Moulin Rouge! (2001 film) is the way to go and I'm unlikely to be swayed from this opinion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 08:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The article, right now, sits at "Moulin Rouge!", so yes, someone searching on "Moulin Rouge!" will land exactly on this page (no redirects) and if they search on "Moulin Rouge" they will go through the disambiguation page. It is precise enough without having to add "(2001 film)" to this name. If you did add it, now someone searching on "Moulin Rouge!" will go through a redirect to get to this page, and that's what we want to avoid. --MASEM (t) 08:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree with you. I already stated that I've already read everyone's opinions (that includes yours) and that I'm unlikely to change mine. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
At least I'm saving the article from being moved to an incorrect title (without the exclamation mark). As for "(2001 film)", it can't be helped cause there are similar discussions (look: Talk:Wonderful World!!#Requested move, Talk:Happiness?#Requested move) and almost everyone agrees on the idea that punctuation marks are not enough for disambiguation... If I were the only person to decide, I would probably prefer to leave the article where it is now... --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Those haven't closed yet. Ones that have closed that show that it is unnecessary to disamb further include That's Entertainment!, That's Entertainment! (song) (the song from that film) [Talk:That's Entertainment (The Jam song)#Requested move] , and Scandalous! [Talk:Scandalous!#Requested move]. The ones you point to all have the same problem - the punctuation is a natural disambiguation and thus further disambiguation is not needed. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
But what can I do? I think the page will be moved anyway (and all the Japanese songs too cause there isn't enough people to defend them), so I'm just choosing the least evil of the available options. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, on those other ones, it is fair that the inclusion of the punctuation is not consistent enough to consider it integral to the title (whereas here, it's pretty clearly consistent). So it is reasonable on those to ask if the punctuated version is clearly the common name. Even if we took that logic here, that the punctuation is inconsistent, then the move target should be "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)", but that's not what is being supported. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If the punctuation is consistent, then the exclamation mark can't be removed. If some people think that the exclamation mark doesn't disambiguate the title enough for an average person, why not add "(2001 movie)"? By the way, I think all the five cases are completely the same and the randomness of the outcomes only shows how everything is Wikipedia is amateur and should not be taken seriously. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
We aren't adding the disamb parts of titles for the reader's sake, its to avoid naming conflicts on WP. The disamb should be clear to distinguish between the various options if disambig is needed (so if the title was just "Moulin Rouge", we would need to add "(2001 film)" to make it clear from the actual building and the other films of the same name. But when there's no natural naming conflict to start, the guidelines say to avoid disambig. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know anymore... I also thought the way you do, but people on the Japanese music-related discussions convinced me that I was wrong... If you really care, you should start a discussion about it somewhere else... For example, on the talk page of the disambiguation rules. I came here by accident, I can't fight 1000 people to save one page (this one)... --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've decided to delete my vote in favor of moving and leave only my vote against the title without the exclamation mark. You convinced me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.