Talk:Slumdog Millionaire

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Mumbai / Cinema B‑class Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mumbai (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup.

Archives

/Archive 1

Headlines

1

~~Warners' films: Movie overboard!~~

Fox, WB to share 'Slumdog' distribution

Variety review

Boyle film leads buzz at Telluride Film festival

2

3

4

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5

A few more headlines. Hope they help. Roomiebroom (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely do! I'm hoping to find some time this weekend to work all this in since the film looks like it will be a big deal for awards season. Feel free to lend a hand! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'll add somethings in for now.Roomiebroom (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to meet your expectations as well.67.103.188.122 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is “Slumdog Millionaire” the single worst “Best Picture” ever? But then, Hollywood’s critical sensibility has been declining for years….

6

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slumdog actors show Mumbai's rags and riches. Details on child actors. ^LeaveSleaves 21:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

US release date

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

Done Date corrected in line with citation in main text. - X201 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)]][reply]

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. ^{[citation needed]}.

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

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)]][reply]

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).[reply]

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)]][reply]

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)[reply]

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)]][reply]

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)[reply]

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)]][reply]

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)[reply]

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)]][reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)]][reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Set in 2006

There's a scene where the police officer produces a coin, minted in 1968. He says the coin has been around for 24 years, which suggests the movie was set in 1992. (I may have those details slightly wrong, but they're close.) I know "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" did not exist in 1992, but what could explain this discrepancy? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate Introductory Summary

I suggest that the introductory summary of the film in the article's first paragraph is very inadequate:

"Set and filmed in India, Slumdog Millionaire tells the story of a young man from the slums of Mumbai who appears on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Kaun Banega Crorepati in the Hindi version) and exceeds people's expectations, thereby arousing the suspicions of the game show host and of law enforcement officials."

That is merely the context of the story and not the story itself. I have twice attempted to add the following sentence for further explanation:

"This causes him to review his apparently futile life of tragedy, betrayal, and abandonment, and to gain a sense of destiny in the intimate details of his experiences and in the companionship for which he has persevered."

However, this has been undone and labelled "vandalism" by "Crotchety Old Man" because it is "unverifiable." This seems outrageous to me as this is not my personal interpretation but the explicit claims of the movie itself and its creators. It is entirely verifiable.

I hope that, with support, either my suggested sentence, or a better one from another editor, may be added successfully to do justice to this great film. Isaiah40:28 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you run around adding your personal interpretations (or "philosophical summary" as you called it on the Films WikiProject page) you won't last long here. We deal in verifiable, citeable facts. Not what you think the film is about. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't subscribe to Isaiah40:28's additional sentence (I find it to much opinionated and not sure how this can be cited), I think you were wrong in labeling this as vandalism. It seems that the intention was genuine to improve the lead of the article and in no way nonconstructive. ^LeaveSleaves 14:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LeaveSleaves, for your constructive input. I studied the lengthy Wikipedia:Vandalism page in vain trying to understand why my sincere attempt had been so labelled.

Re. citation: The existing summary sentence has no citation as it is self-evident from the film. I was attempting to add a sentence that actually related to the substance of the story that was self-evident in the same way. Maybe it should have been simpler, as follows: "This causes him to review his life of tragedy, betrayal, and abandonment, and to gain a sense of destiny." The whole film is such a review and the main character describes his own conclusion as "destiny." Isaiah40:28 (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're adding your analysis of the film. For everyone's sake, learn the difference. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then, if we cannot say that the film contained a review of his tragic life, let's delete the existing sentence about his appearance on the television show. This must be interpretation as well! Isaiah40:28 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice laydown. I'll take it you finally realized you were in the wrong here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's difference between stating standard facts from the plot and analyzing and interpreting the plot. ^LeaveSleaves 15:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was I wrong? Not really, Crotchety Old Man. Only a bit. I do accept that my initial proposal may have been a tad subjective, but I still believe that something ought to be stated about the review of his life and the movie's own stated conclusion of "destiny." The article's plot summary says exactly the same thing. Does that need deleting as well? (In fact, I am wondering whether you have actually seen the movie.) (And I don't accept your charge of vandalism.) Isaiah40:28 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]