Talk:Slumdog Millionaire/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

5

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

I agree that this is not vadalism, it is a good faith edit, but I also agree that it is an interprative opionion. Destiny means just that, he is destined to win ant that his life has set him up to ultimatley win.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Thank you, Slatersteven, for your helpful feedback, but my confusion is that my suggested edit did not state what I thought about the film but what the film says about itself. It is just as true and verifiable to say that the film presents "destiny" (in its own explicit statements) as it is to say that the film presents a person on a game show. To fail to mention the "destiny" theme of the movie in the intro of the article is just silly. It is like saying that "Star Wars" is a movie about "space ships". Isaiah40:28 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the last post, there's difference between stating facts and detailing interpretation. And the statement you are suggesting falls in the latter category. To continue your own example; yes you would say "Star Wars" is about space ships, etc. in the lead but you wouldn't analyze the relationship between Luke and Darth Wader. At least certainly not in the lead. Now on the other hand, when it comes to the body of the article, and I'm assuming you have the sources to support, you can add these interpretations/conceptions as defined/explained by the filmmakers and not merely through reviews. ^LeaveSleaves 05:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But the edit suggested is not about the destiny of the main character (that his life effectively sets him up for these events), but that this event (his winning the show) changes his view of his past life. To use the Star Wars analogy. The line about Its about Star ships would be fine, but a line about Luke Leia and Han revaluating their relationship with each other would have been speculation. Moreover does he re-evaluate his life?[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)]]

why are the police

and the host of the millionaire show such ruthless gangster bullies in this movie? Bingo Bob 07:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(hey remover/reverter- don't you know everything's relevant if you have a mind to explore it?)

<so, in order to present the plot in good faith> I ask <ahem>

why are the police and the host of the millionaire show such ruthless gangster bullies in this movie?

crudely put: either their suspicion of his cheating is founded or it is more of a shakedown. OR that distinction is left unclear by the filmmakers. I lean towards shakedown. whatever the case, the plot description should reflect this. if their suspicion is founded, not much explanation to that effect is given in the plot description. only that the possibilites that "he has a vast knowledge, or that he is very lucky—seem unlikely."

now, if his telling of little life vignettes to the cops was not analogous to the story that the audience is told, i wouldn't sweat it. but since we see a young guy (that for some reason we do empathize with right away), being essentially tortured, we need to know why a guy can't just be allowed win a contest. and we are pretty sure that he has won fairly. we, the audients, don't really suspect him of cheating. that's the disconnect. the host seems to have pull with the cops or something, but it's quite murky. essentially, I ask "am I missing some clues somewhere?"

maybe danny boyle deserves credit for getting me so worked up. in a simplified sense- either this is the real world (I can kinda directly relate to it) or it is a different version of the real world (and I accept certain concessions, and enjoyment of the of the movie is different but can be just as rich). if we know which it's closer to, we can describe the plot faithfully. we can talk about how the audience feels about the characters and events, instead of simply retelling the story here. and I dare say that's important. if the story does not have some sort of internal logic, there is no basis to care. and we do care abuot these characters, so-- that's all.

that's all I was getting at when I asked my original question. thank you. Bingo Bob 03:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

PS this article has swaths of gushy fan-gunk. I initially asked one question about the fictional universe.

Why does the host give a false answer?

Don't know if this should be included in the plot summary or not.. But why does the host give a false answer? How does the main character know that he's been fed a false answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.54 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

good question. I think it's as simple as this: he thought (why?, boyle disappoints again?) jamal would trust him. I forget the dialogue in that scene but, I guess the host tries to act like a friend. this would not be hard for jamal to figure out having grown up around tricksters all his life. and the host was hostile to him earlier. jamal is damn street smart, right? Bingo Bob 21:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember from that scene, why Jamal doesn't guess the fed answer isn't because he doesn't trust the host, he guesses the other answer because he doesn't care about the money and so he doesn't want to cheat to get it. Though he probably doesn't trust the host either way, so I'd say it's a combination of things. Unknownlight (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jamal does not care much about winning the money, but he does care about staying on the show as long as possible to make sure he gets Latika's attention. Also, the act of taking it all the way through to the end and winning will get him additional media time. So I think it is important to him to get the right answer when Prem attempts to mislead him with answer "B" when the correct answer is "D". Also, if you watch the deleted scenes on the DVD release, it becomes apparent how much the host does not want Jamal to win, hence Jamal's street-wise upbringing enabled him to see through Prem's trickery and trust his own instincts. --AzureCitizen (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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) The director or writer not knowing enough about the world in which their film is set. 125.236.155.227 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First foreign film to get Best Picture?

I remember watching the Oscars and being surprised at how when it won, it wasn't mentioned that it was the first foreign film to win Best Picture. It is a foreign film, right? --98.232.181.201 (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The first foreign (as in non-American) film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture was Hamlet (1948). –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, never knew that. :D Interesting. --RyanTee82 (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reason for Leaving

'After returning to their hotel room, Salim orders Jamal to leave so that he can have sex with Latika.'

No. Bad business if he did. He wanted to trade her. Actually no one knows the motivation and the Wiki author should not engage in speculation here. Especially when the storyline clearly shows he's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.55.229 (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Poster image should be changed

There must be a better free-use poster image than the one being used. It would be nice to have one of the posters from the original release. The poster currently being used is from much later. Also, posters without critics statements (e.g. "Feel-good film of the year") are preferred. ask123 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember when it was changed. The rationale was "British film, so British poster". I concur that it's not of the best quality. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth making mention of the disparity between the poster's bold "feel good film of the decade" proclamation and the content of the film itself which is, for long stretches, extremely grim? Similar observations have been documented in the article on Adventureland for instance. Mrcakey (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

critcisms?

I removed this: "and Hinduism," becaus thearticle - the body of the article - never discusses any criiciss of Hinduism. (By the way, I watched the film and did not notice any criticisms of Hinduism). Also on a personal note, I am surprised no one faulted the film for its critical porrayal of India's police; they are porrayed a corrupt thugs. Did this actually not upset anyone in India? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Boyle changed the story from the novel, having Jamal's mother killed by a Hindu mob because he felt it would be "more realistic". How exactly he decided this, seeing as he had never been to India before in his life, is the problem. And the whole "corrupt cop" thing is just a cliche; nobody really cares. Try counting the number of Hollywood movies centred around it. Besides, that was hardly the worst unfortunate implication the movie made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.5.65 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Did the producers of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire have any qualms in allowing their show to be used in the movie? The host (Anil Kapoor's character) was a dishonest bully, and certainly represented the show in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.189.9 (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Dropped internet links

Removed url http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/feb/28/salman-rushdie-novels-film-adaptations

The Guardian site no longer has the Rushdie article "A Fine Pickle" as their rights expired. Ellsworth (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Date inconsistency in academic response section

In the article, there is the following: "The film is seen by Parthasarathy (1999)". This does not makes sense because the idea is basically that a 1999 article discussed a 2008 film. How did this problem come about and how can it be resolved? Munci (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it was just a mistake and should be 2009. It was an easy fix. BollyJeff | talk 12:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot - implied rape

Why omit from the plot description that the movie implies that Salim coerces Latika into having sex with him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.82.198.2 (talk) 2015-10-22

It might seem obvious, but it's not the job of the plot section to tell the reader what's implied, just what's shown. If the viewer can draw that conclusion from watching, the reader probably can from reading (and if not, that's fine anyway - the plot summary is not meant to replace the experience of watching the film). --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's getting into original research. You're putting your interpretation of what happened and saying it in Wikipedia's voice. That's not something that belongs in any article on Wikipedia. If there's an interview with the producer/director saying that was intended, that would help towards including it in the plot section (with a cite to the source, of course). If a professional reviewer notes it, that's something that might be included in the review section, attributed to the reviewer. Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Slumdog Millionaire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Slumdog Millionaire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Slumdog Millionaire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slumdog Millionaire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120803085059/http://www.iomtoday.co.im/reviews/FILM-Slumdog-Millionaire-.5020366.jp to http://www.iomtoday.co.im/reviews/FILM-Slumdog-Millionaire-.5020366.jp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Production companies

I noticed that on the Academy Award for Best Picture article the production companies are listed as Fox Searchlight and Warner Bros, but on this page Pathe is listed only as a distributor. On IMDB Fox Searchlight, Warner Bros and Pathe are listed as distributors and Pathe, Film4 and Celedor are listed as the production companies. Which one is correct? 74.231.46.68 (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All the official posters only state Celador Films as the production company. Punkalyptic (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Latika letting go of hand?

When they escape from Maman and the boys are already on the train, Salim stretches out his hand to help Latika get on the train, and she grabs it. But then does Latika let go of Salim's hand or the other way around? I thought that she let go, but the article says she did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.251.48.29 (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I only saw the scene once but it wasn't clear to me if (or that) either of them deliberately let go. Salim said afterwards that Latika let go. Whether he was correct, or telling the truth, is a matter of speculation unless I've missed something. Pastychomper (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a Hindi film

I have retained English as the only language in the infobox because, as per Template:Infobox film, "Only specify the language 'primarily' used in the film." Moreover, any Hindi spoken in the film has English subtitles, and a separate Hindi dubbed version of the film exists: Slumdog Crorepati. If anyone disagrees with me, explain here why. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"Any Hindi spoken in the film has English subtitles". No, it doesn't. At least not in the version I have just finished watching on Fire TV. Indeed, as I don't speak or understand the language, I came here to find what happened in the picture

RASAM (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: American Cinema

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryan-Sherman123 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Isabella.mitrow (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)