Talk:The King (2007 film)

Australia: Cinema / Television Low‑importance

	Australia portal The King (2007 film) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Film: Australian

	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
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

A storm in a teacup[edit]

Interesting to read the updates from JayKeaton and Seo75, but it does really seem a storm in a teacup to me.

Can we all settle down and get back to improving the article, please?

I think everyone is in agreement that Kennedy's sexuality is an important element of the film and therefore notable. My only quarrel with JayKeaton was his description of Kennedy in the first line.

The treatment of Kennedy's sexuality in the movie can be discussed very properly within the body of the article.

There are some good tips on improving this item up on the top of this page.

I have a DVD recording of The King, and have commenced a synopsis - tedious work!

Mike Hamilton 17:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Purported gay entertainer"[edit]

I've deleted the words "purported gay entertainer Graham Kennedy" added by JayKeaton.

Here's my justification:

JayKeaton wrote:

"This movie is largely based around the assumption that he was gay, it is astonishing that this aspect was not mentioned in the opening description of the movie!!!)"

Certainly, Kennedy's sexuality is a recurrent theme in the telemovie, but it's not primarily about his sexuality. To describe him as "purported gay entertainer Graham Kennedy" seems wrong to me.

JayKeaton (or anyone else) can of course correct me.

Mike Hamilton 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to search something that covers this. The best I could find is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons – Categories, and the two criteria to 'categorize' someone by their sexuality both fail in this instance: Kennedy was never 'out'; and his sexuality was not relevant to his activities, which is what this movie is all about. Another way to think about it, I guess, is that articles about other biographical movies don't explicitly mention if the subject is heterosexual. My suggestion would be to create a new section in this article that discusses the movie – such as a synopsis, lacking already – and include a mention that the movie raised the subject of his sexuality. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 17:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (mostly) with Seo75's points, but would point out that Kennedy is not a "living person", having died in May 2005.

The telemovie did indeed address the issue of his sexuality, and so I would say that it is therefore notable to mention it.

My problem was just with the description of him as a "purported gay entertainer."

I also agree with Seo75's suggestion that the article needs a synopsis of the movie.

Mike Hamilton 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I did edit my comment a little later when I realised/remembered that he has left us... *blush* :) And while there is WP:BLP, is there a policy for, err, the opposite? SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The movie very much had more to do with him being gay when compared to having nothing to do with him being gay. His sexuality was in fact one of the driving points of the movie, the reviews out there will confirm that it was not a minor role at all. I only said "purported" to cover anone that claims he wasn't, but looking at all the statements about his sexuality I honestly can't find anyone that denies he was gay. The only statements I can find are his friends saying that it wasn't any of anyones business, but I can't see how that should at all have an effect on his wikipedia page. Also, even if he was not at all gay, this movie is about him if he was gay, so it deserves a clear mention no matter what the facts were. In any case the facts seem to point to him being gay and his close friends perhaps even knowing about it JayKeaton 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-release criticism[edit]

Added excerpts from Graeme Blundell's effusive review from the The Australian. For balance, any (notable) negative reviews should be added.

Mike Hamilton

The link to that Australian article does not work, and I could not find anything at all on Google when looking for "Stephen Curry gets most of this right" – except this Wikipedia article. More worrying, I also searched News' Newstext site for that and "Stephen Curry gets", and found nothing either. Is that link correct? In addition, all those Brown/Sattler/Newton responses to the telemovie must be cited – got links for them? I'll convert them to nicer 'cquote' formatting soon too. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 17:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course completely correct to pull me up on the uncited references. Here are two - I have to go to work, so please fix them while I'm away!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv--radio/not-fit-for-the-king/2007/05/19/1179497339366.html

and

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21772114-5006023,00.html

Our good friend JayKeaton has restored "gay Australian entertainer" to the first sentence. I don't agree, but I'm happy to wait to see what others think.

Mike Hamilton 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, we need a link to the significant quote by Graeme Blundell so it can be cited properly. Second, thanks for the two links; in terms of their use, I think they might be better included being written to add to and expand the article, rather than as just more quotes – the links to these articles will help! Third and finally, when searching for a template to use to format the hefty A Current Affair transcript and finding nothing, re-reading it all made me realise not that much of it is essntially relevant or could add to the article, and would also probably be better used to add to the document, as per my second above. I might try to work on that to try to implement what I am attempting to explain (won't be immediately)... SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 22:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find me some sources, ANY sources that say he was not gay and especially any sources that say that this movie did not portray him as a gay entertainer and I will be happy. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense to me at all to change "gay entertainer", because nothing at all points to him being a "straight entertainer", certainly this movie does not. JayKeaton 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that the gay subject should be written in a sorely-needed plot summary – this will explain the movie, and if Kennedy's sexuality was in the storyline then that is where it belongs. This article is about the biographical movie, not the someone's sexuality. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If his sexuality is in the story line?!? Have you even seen the movie? Have you read a single review for it? Clearly not :( JayKeaton 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one saying that in the movie he was "portray(ed…) as a gay entertainer", so therefore it makes sense to include that in the plot summary. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 02:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only said that because at the time I thought there would be people too scared of controversy to have that in the opening text. But now I realize that there is no controversy, he was gay, this movie obviously makes him out to be gay and there is no one that even seems bothered about him being outed as gay, they only seem bothered that a movie was made about him. I see no reason for him not to be called gay in the opening text. You did not even know he was dead, you have not seen the movie and you have not read any of the reviews for this movie. I'm starting to question whether or not you know anything about this man or his history at all to be honest... JayKeaton 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look a little harder you will find that not long at all after I posted my comment, 25 minutes to be exact, that I corrected myself after realising what I wrote. Please do not be rude just to try to prove a point. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 03:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being rude, I'm just stating that it seems that you do not seem to be at all familiar with the subject matter of this article, which makes me questions your motivations behind some of your opinions on the same subject matter. JayKeaton 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gleamed a quote about the movie myself from the Graham Kennedy article that mentions his homosexuality in the movie, so you do not have to watch it or read a single review of it yourself. "The film was obsessed with his homosexuality. I don't think people cared about that....He was Australia's most famous, successful entertainer but how much do we see of that in the film? We see f--- all of it." There, someone ELSE thinks that this movie was more about his homosexuality than it was about him as a famous entertainer. I'll be adding "gay" back in soon, I see absolutely no justification, short of being a fanatical christian that can't stand to see the word "gay", of removing that fact any more. JayKeaton 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never disputed his purported sexuality, I have only said that, since this is an article about a film, keep that focus in the needed plot summary. Many other examples shows that a more mature and respectful way of introducing someone in the opening sentence of an article is not to out them immediately. This is an aticle about a film, not Graham Kennedy himself nor his sexuality. The film contained claims of his sexuality, so therefore that belongs in a plot summary. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 23:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "gay" is any less respectable than "entertainer". What are you trying to say here? JayKeaton 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like Big Brother during nominations... I've said what I mean a number of times now, and they're all above. But, just one more time:

“

This article is about the biographical movie, not the someone's sexuality. (...S)ince this is an article about a film, keep that focus (his purported sexuality) in the needed plot summary.

”

— User:Seo75

If you visited any of the examples in my last message, you would see that not even in Kennedy's own page has his purported sexuality in the very opening sentence. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the Graham Kennedy page shouldn't, as it is about him. But this movie is about his sexuality. Even if you do not want to use the word "gay", the word "sexuality" can be used in the opening paragraph. Everyone has sexuality, even you ;) And this movie very much deals with sexuality. JayKeaton 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! The movie deals with his sexuality, so therefore it belongs in its plot summary. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean exactly like American Beauty (film) does? I am not aware of any official (or unofficial) guidelines or rules that say it "belongs" anywhere, let alone "only" in the plot summery section. JayKeaton 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Beauty covered a lot of things, but it is hard to use it as a comparison since it is not a biographical film. An opening paragraph should be straight to the point, as it is now, and that The King "examin(ed) the life of Australian entertainer Graham Kennedy." Enough said; that is what it did. In its plot summary, which would describe the film in more detail, is where the film's covering his purported sexuality belongs. I've posted this discussion in the LGBT studies notice board for hopefully some other opinions on this. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if it goes as far as to say it examines Kennedy as an entertainer, why doesn't it also say it examines his sexuality, which it does equally (or if Tony Sattler is to be believed, the movie has MORE to do with his sexuality than it does with his entertaining career). Why even mention that he was an entertainer at all? JayKeaton 00:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, the film was about Kennedy. That is in the opening sentence. His purported sexuality was covered in the film (amongst other things), so therefore that and the other things fits in a plot summary. Kennedy (like others) was notable as an entertainer, not as a homosexual. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 01:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Kennedy (like others) was notable as an entertainer, not as a homosexual" Kennedy was notable as an entertainer, but like you said this article is about the movie, NOT about Graham Cyril Kennedy and the movie is about Kennedys sexuality just as much as it is about him as an entertainer. For emphasis I'll say it again, this movie is not about Kennedy, it is about Kennedys sexuality and lifestyle. I think you are confusing this article with the Graham Kennedy article, as your points on why his sexuality shouldn't be mentioned in the opening paragraph of an article on a movie about his sexuality are running in circles. The King and Graham Kennedy articles are separate entities, The King is just as much about his sexuality, in fact it is a pivotal point to the entire film JayKeaton 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film wasn't just about his sexuality – the Nine page nor TV1's site about the film doesn't even mention anything about it. The way this debate is going is as if this is some limited-release arthouse film tucked-away only in gay and lesbian video stores because it was purely about his homosexuality. How about we get a plot summary written, which is a more pressing requirement at the moment? SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 02:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Channel 9s best interest not to offend too many people, they have vested bias in saying what the movie is and is not about. I told you to read a review, but you are still looking up official press releases. It wouldn't matter if the channel 9 website said he was straight as an arrow, that doesn't change what is in the movie and what can be backed up by citations on the movie. Bias is not reason enough to factually mention the content of a film and it's main character JayKeaton 02:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thekingtv1.jpg[edit]

Image:Thekingtv1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The King (2007 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 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]