Talk:Sleeping Beauty (2011 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sleeping Beauty (2011 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sleeping Beauty (2011 film). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sleeping Beauty (2011 film) at the Reference desk.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Film: Australian / Filmmaking Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

}}

world of beauty and desire

This world of beauty and desire is one in which Emily Browning's character prostitutes herself in a high class brothel in a game where she takes sleeping pills that would fell a rhino and allows dirty old men to sleep with her while she is unconscious. (But with no actual penetration). Real beauty there, eh what? Emily Browning was chosen coz when she did the screen test she sounded and acted like she had ALREADY dropped a handful of Nembutal. So she was a natural. The dialog, as especially when the Madam explains what she has to do, is far too uppity and la-di-dah for Australia. In Oz, the Madam would say something "Ok Cindy, you got it. Customer can cop a feel but no jiggy jiggy. You get a good night's sleep, and wake up to a nice cuppa." I'm making a sequel in which I also star: it's called "Sleeping himbo". Girls pay good money to sleep with me while I'm pissed to the eyeballs and out like a light. What a life! Eh? Eh, wot? Myles325a (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charming, Myles. While we're stating our personal opinions, I noticed the similarity in the premise to meat puppets in William Gibson's Neuromancer. Fences&Windows 20:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the film, I must admit that Myles' description is more correct. "... is drawn into a world of beauty and desire" was straight from the advertising bureau and hopelessly inadequate. I replaced it with something more along the lines of Myles. Anybody care to add a "Plot" section? Debresser (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the purpose of the plot - to retell the plot?? Not to state whether you did or did not like a movie??? Ok, you didn't like it. I did. In fact, it was the most moving, disturbing, beautiful thing that I've seen in a long time. Neither of opinions is relative to the plot section. 69.119.232.155 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot?

It's been out for a while now, why hasn't a plot been put up? I myself would like to know exactly who that random friend she kept visiting was meant to be and what the whole point of that was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.34.178 (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No point to much of the "plot". The central character was simply a prostitute, doing various peculiar jobs.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you personally did not like the movie, it is not a reason enough to say "no point in putting up the plot". Myself, along with many other viewers, found the movie beautiful and deeply moving. No need to impose your shallow understanding on others. Cosainsé (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'College'

This is an Australian film in an Australian setting. Why are American terms being used in the description? Can we change this to university please? 120.29.48.80 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridmann's death

I was under the impression that Birdmann committed suicide, not overdosed on drugs as the article says (meaning intentional suicide, not accidental overdose). When Lucy comes, she picks up a pack of factory-packaged pills. Though I guess its not a hard proof. However, suicide would mirror the ending - Bridmann wanted her to comfort him before his death, just as the host of the party did at the end. Any thoughts? Cosainsé (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why no Imdb, Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic ratings

Almost all current movies have a sentence or paragraph devoted to the reception of the film by film review sites. Why not this one???? I'd post the info myself, but Wikipedia has a problem with biased editors reverting facts they don't like and I don't like wasting my time. For anyone wanting to improve the article, here's the current, correct information as of 2015Apr27, Imdb is 5.3....Rotten Tomatoes is 49%.....Metacritic is 57%. N0w8st8s (talk)n0w8wt8s — Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added these, see next section. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of this date

I added the requested Metacritic and RT ratings, and adjusted the lede content to reflect their content. (Addition was to the "Reception" section.)

Based on the content of those sources, I have also called for review of Reception section, a look at the neutrality of that section. If the metacritic and RT sources are correct (if no other sources can be found to alter these conclusions), then critics are evenly split. This split is not accurately conveyed by this section, which overemphasizes the positive, in shear weight of material. No side in this fight, just stating the obvious academic conclusion.

Otherwise, the academic section needs attention, for nearly all of its sources are incomplete, and variously formatted. I have fixed two as an example.

And the appearance of bare URLs has led to an article tag, to alert the ever illustrious editor Bull, so he can work la magie anglaise. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sleeping Beauty (2011 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120608192648/http://www.santafefilmfestival.com/sleeping-beauty-2/ to http://www.santafefilmfestival.com/sleeping-beauty-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]