Talk:Home (2009 film)

Let's get this article going!

Okay - I wrote some of the intro and all of the overview, production and promotion settings, as well as setting up the reference workings and uploading self-taken screenshot pictures.

Any helpful editing is welcome but please don't reference things and don't put in superfluous info. Mc8755 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Woah! What a change since I last looked at this article. A few weeks ago, I was surprised to see there was no article yet for this documentary, so I created it. It's nice to see all the work you've done on it. Thanks. AugustinMa (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

5th June 2009

Should we add a section about all the places and media the documentary was release on the 5th of June? Beside youtube, it was broadcast in various TV channels around the world. Looking at the article in various languages, we can glean some information. I know it was broadcast in a HK tv channel, on France2 (French public TV), etc. It was also broadcast in an open air theater in Paris, France. Should we make a list to illustrate the simultaneous worldwide release? Of course the list won't be complete, at least not for a while, but if we start it, others will add info to it. What do you think? AugustinMa (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I put in what I could find sources for, but I can't do much else until they become available which will hopefully be early next week.Mc8755 (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Narrated by

The infobox states it was narrated by Glenn Close. Obviously this only applies for the English version. Lower down in the infobox, there's a list of all the languages the movie was released in. Should we add the name of the narrator in all those languages? AugustinMa (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Done I put in basically what the film tells us. The Dutch version is just English with subtitles, the French is by the director, but all the other one that I can access all say Glenn Close even though it's not! I'm not sure how we are gonna get that info, considering only the English and French versions are on home release.Mc8755 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Audience

Since it was stated that the purpose of the movie was not to make money, but to have a large audience, is there a way to estimate the number of viewers? For the record, 24 hours after its release, here are the number of views on youtube: English: 150,000+ views, Russian: 15,000+ views, German: 94,000+ views, Spanish: 20,000+ views. French: 131,000+ views. (see 'my favorites' section here http://www.youtube.com/user/homeproject ) AugustinMa (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Well I've stuck in whats available right now, it's just too soon to get better figures but Ill keep and eye out. Mc8755 (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch Out!

There are certain people out there still effectively denying that global warming and climate change are occurring! (Yeah, and the Holocaust never happened, either...)

Anyways, as you can see from the history edits of this article, people are attempting to sway this article into regarding the images and messages raised by this film as propaganda and scare-mongering to distract us from God-knows-what! If you see any, just click the "undo" link beside their revision to keep this article un-bias and informative. Thanks! Mc8755 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a pre-emptive war on any criticist??? I think I've heard about this somewhere.... Guard you sense of criticism and never take anything for granted my friend. Like anything, this UN truth should be questioned and analysed under unbiased view. Preemptive war on critics won't make this more credible.Echofloripa (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• where are the critical receptions? surely there must be some by now? 70.83.23.68 (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  There just aren't any yet. Hopefully there will be some next week. I've put in everything that is available for now. Mc8755 (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

According to France 2...

According to France2's news (6th June, 13h), the movie was broadcast in 126 countries and over 9 million French people watched it when it was broadcast (5th of June, prime time) on their channel. There was also more information in previous news. I'll try to bring it here. AugustinMa (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I found an article on France2's website, I took from it what I could, but my French is sketchy at best!Mc8755 (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

License, licensing

If it is a non-for-profit release, maybe this movie/scenary was released under some Creative Commons or GPL or other Copy-left and not so left license? Maybe mentioning of the license in the infobox could be a useful inclusion? Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We need to have confirmed info before putting it in the article, not "maybe"s. Best, -download ׀ sign! 03:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenwashing

The article is a bit too positive and mostly reproduces the enthusiasm of the PR text. After all, the film was sponsored by PPR, a multi-billion-Euro-conglomerate whose brands feature prominently in the opening sequence. The line "The film is free to view and no profits will be made from its release or future showings" is a bit naive, since PPR certainly is looking for profit via greenwashing. --Fb78 (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed!!! Check the "Watch Out!" section. Seems the PPR took over wikipedia as well.... :P Echofloripa (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If a documentary is sponsored by a French corporation that I've never heard of, does that somehow influence my ability to freely view it in Australia? I see nothing disingenuous about saying it's free to view. The absence of negative press on the subject is not evidence that PPR is tampering with wikipedia's content. If any neutral, notable sources have suggested that greenwashing by PPR changed the message of the film (or that PPR had any control over the content of the film), please add them and cite them. I certainly am skeptical about PPR's motivation, but I don't see that it has relevance to the article about the film unless we have evidence that it biased the film - it should be on their own page. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, 152.91.9.219.  :) Let's not add this "greenwashing" bit until it appears in a reliable source. -download ׀ sign! 03:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you watch the first two minutes of the film, the "Home" logo is formed by PPR's brand names, such as Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Sergio Rossi, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, Balenciaga ... I'm sure Australia has heard of them. If you now decide to buy something from Gucci, because you think "hey, they sponsored this film, it must be a environmentally friendly company" - that's profit for PPR and it means marketing worked. It would be a bit naive to see nothing but altruism at work here.

If PPR just wanted to make the movie possible, without any effect for their brands, they could have hidden their sponsorship in the credits. Sure, it's "do good and talk about it" - but still, PPR bought worldwide positive attention for their brands for only €10 million. Not much, considering that 30 seconds of a Super Bowl ad costs US$3 million.

That doesn't mean that PPR had to influence the film's content. It just means PPR sponsors content they like - say, a beautiful "environmental" movie which points no fingers at anyone in particular and hurts no-one they are doing business with -, slaps their logo on it and makes sure millions get to see it - free airtime on primetime TV, cinemas over the world and lots and lots of gushing reviews and positive attention. It's almost like a massive case of viral marketing without anyone calling bull. --Fb78 (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Home on Youtube

"(...) and on YouTube (where it will be available until June 14, 2009)."

Today is 15 (EEST) and i can still see it on youtube. Dany 123 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)