Talk:Brüno

The One Show

Did Bruno go on The One Show, can't find a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.92.72 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of character

Is "Brüno" the name of the character or just the name of the movie? In the article, the character is referred to as just "Bruno" (no umlaut), but given that the title of the movie has the umlaut....? Just wondering. MicahBrwn (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

its the name of the character and the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.165.210 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

someone mentioning that Brüno is no correct German? The name is always Bruno, never Brüno in German (and by extension in all other languages too) ? --89.12.9.4 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Brüno isn't correct German, but Americans love Umlauts for some reason ( Spïnal Tap isn't even pronounceable)) ````

Bruno isn't German, he's Austrian... also, his name is whatever his [fictional] parents names him...if his mom wanted his name to have umlauts, you better believe there will be umlauts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.62.136 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said he was German - just that the name is supposed to be, which it is - German is spoken in Austria (a dialect of it, anyway). I don't think the box art title of the movie qualifies as irrefutable proof that this is how the character's name is spelled. It could be a simple design or marketing choice on the part of the artists. It certainly implies that it's his name, but I don't think it's beyond reason to think that they just stuck the umlaut on there to make the cover more "European" or something. Are we to also assume that you don't capitalize his name, despite it being capitalized in virtually every other instance of it appearing? Granted, this is likely not the only reliable source to use the umlaut, but plenty more have spelled it with a normal "u". Given the division, I think there's simply no reliable way to determine which spelling is "correct" barring a deliberate, clear statement from Sacha Baron Cohen, the creator of the character, on the issue. For the time being, however, the more prudent course would seem to be to adopt the spelling that is correct in the language of the place the character supposedly comes from, as most names are spelled to be pronounceable in a grammatically correct manner in the language of their region of origin. There's simply not enough evidence to prove either spelling over the other. --129.171.233.78 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not ignore the fact that "July" is also spelled with an umlaut - that's a pretty clear indication that it's more of a design choice than an indication of the actual name's correct spelling. --129.171.233.78 (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is also pronounced Bruno.--Patrick (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

westboro ?

Sorry, I know we are not to use this page as a chatroom / forum but I was watching the promo on FilmFour on tv yesterday and I thought I saw a clip of the westboro church people? Could someone confirm that or was I just confused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.202.34 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the appeared in the film. This should probably be included in the article. 70.133.218.1 (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

promotion

Nothing about all the promotion "Brüno" has been doing in Europe and now in the USA ? 193.137.102.7 (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

title

Describing the daily star as "a genuine source of information" could be misleading. Ico2 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Reception

Reads like an ad.71.207.227.251 (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I edited the initial edit which inputted that information. I have been unable to find a negative review as of yet. But I did add in the not-so-praising quote at the end to make it a bit less like an Ad as you said. (5:42, 5 July 2009)

Just use the Metacritic and RottenTomatoes assessments when the time comes as the litmus paper for the critical consensus. As it stands, the section is fine, before reviews spread further.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing first sentence, which says that the film's reviews are universally acclaimed. Oops? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Responses from Hollywood gay community

I think it is important that the public knows that, at least according to one source, Bruno has been generating a critical reaction from the Hollywood gay community. Ckatz undid this due to "other sources." Is it necessary to have more than one source verify this, if we make it clear that the information only comes from one source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llama623 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Llama623 (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Ben

Even if you ignore that S-B-C is British, and therefore pants could well mean underwear, rather than trousers, to anyone who didn't see the segment...

"Brüno also appeared on The Tonight Show where he performed a lap dance for host Conan O'Brien and ultimately removed his pants."

Removed whose pants? His own, or Conan's?

213.120.222.100 (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Translations

Just out of interest, does anyone know how the film was translated/dubbed/subtitled into German? Did the original (hilariously bad) German stay in, or was it dubbed over? Marthiemoo (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In Germany, Universal released a dubbed version, in which the german passages are dubbed over with an hilariously thick dialect which is spoken in Vienna. It's an funny substitution for (bad) German. But there's also an subtitled Version of the movie. --80.138.90.232 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

The current plot summary is much too long and contains irrelevant information. It needs to be pruned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.207.44 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored an older version. Not only became the plot too long, also links were removed.--Patrick (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

editprotected Reception in Austria

It seems that the media interpets more into Emil Brixs word than there actually is, see this source http://www.orf.at/090707-40213/?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orf.at%2F090707-40213%2F40226txt_story.html and http://www.welt.de/die-welt/article4086279/Oesterreich-sucht-den-echten-Brueno.html. For he example he does not critice as "completely improper and unsuitable" the film itself, but only one aspect of the film, that is how the film deals with Nationalsocialism. He also does not call for a boycott, but says that "everybody should know for him or herself how to react" and the "official Austria should not react". And by the way, he is the designated ambassador, not the current envoy. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. No one thinks that information on Wikipedia is accurate and true anyway so we could just leave in the article. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, It appears you have something against a site you are currently editing. please take 5 minutes in the corner for irony. 92.81.214.254 (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes / Lawsuits

It's well known that the Michael Jackson scene was removed, however I guess that many other scenes were removed too, what about them? Also I heard that there was lots of legal trouble while making the film, is anything more specific known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by F7uffyBunny (talk • contribs) 07:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

while the scene is not deleted, the line "Ron paul you are such a dangerous man" was also removed from the movie". 70.133.218.1 (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be added to the promotion section that Cohen appeared out of character on David Letterman then in character the next night for the top 10.70.133.218.1 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Illegal videotaping

Two Bridgewater, NJ residents were caught taping this movie. One resisted arrest and ran from the cops, only to break his leg upon collision with one of the cops' cars. http://www.app.com/article/20090714/NEWS/90714003/Bridgewater-brothers-accused-of-bootlegging--Bruno--in-Manville http://www.nj.com/mobile/articles/paper1.ssf?/base/news-4/1247543808114240.xml&coll=168.192.201.137 (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• And, unsurprisingly, nobody cared outside of Bridgewater. Or in Bridgewater, either (I was in Bridgewater at the time). --V2Blast (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, was banned in Ukraine and Russia in 2006

It says here. Brüno is now also/again banned in Ukraine. How about Russia? Find it hard to believe it's Minestry of Culture got all tolerant in 2 years... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not banned in Russia. The movie is about to be shown on 20th of July (in Moscow first, later in other cities). One can see it from the street posters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreymanager (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read Russian/Ukrainian sources they say that Borat was banned in both countries to show support for Kazakhstani authorities who found the figure of Borat offensive to their nation. With Brüno, it's all so different because Austrians are not so sensitive and also Russians are not so friendly with them to show them support. So the film will officially premiere in Russia on July 23. On the other hand, Ukrainian authorities and Viktor Yushchenko in particular are trying so hard to please conservative voters within the country before the forthcoming presidential elections that they are obviously overplaying with censorship - this is what The Guardian believes and it does seem to make sense. Garik 11 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Garik says true bout forthcoming elections and stupid politics of our f**ing president(I am Ukrainian and I see everything from inside) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadMoovz (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

It is not clear in the article whether the non-US ratings refer to the NC-17 version or the R version of the film.--Patrick (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I reverted a paragraph you added about 'censorship' in the Netherlands. The first scene you refer to was 'censored' everywhere, as it was not an actual sex scene - the acts were done as stunts and the "black-out" boxes were added in the editing stage of the film to make it appear as if the acts were actually going on. Take, for example, the shot where the character is "slingshotted" onto Bruno's erect penis - there is no actual erect penis behind the black box, or Sascha Baron Cohen would have been severely injured. This is utilized for comedic value and is reminiscent of Borat, wherein he runs down a hotel hallway with a black box hanging all the way to the floor, i.e., his penis is not actually that big, but it is done for effect. Hence the one scene where the penis is waving around for about 30 seconds is uncensored. When adding information on the film which you conclude is a discrepancy in country X simply after viewing the film in only country X, try and make sure you cite it, or collaborate on the talk page with regards to its appropriateness first. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned info about the version of the Netherlands as a start of an overview for various countries.

I understand that the slapstick sex acts cannot be real, and creating a full image with computer-generated imagery is not needed because the image has to be censored anyway. It is plausible that these scenes are the same in different countries (if they are not removed), so we can move this part of the remark to another section.

For the other parts of my remark, depending on whether they differ by version or not (do you have more info?) they can be put in the versions section or in another section.

Given the scene of the swung-around penis it is still odd that Brüno's genitals were pixelized in the scene where he walks around nudely at the hunting camp.--Patrick (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now restored the blacking-out info, now distinguishing between boxes to suggest scenes without producing a full image, and boxes and blurring to hide parts of actually produced images, and avoiding to suggest that the Netherlands is an exception.--Patrick (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds okay. I just tried to make the paragraph sound more objective/encyclopedic/wikified; check it to see if you still agree with what's being said. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the black box of excessive size in Borat has comedic value, but in Brüno these boxes do not seem to be specifically funny by themselves.--Patrick (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't really, I was just trying to give an example of how the boxes can be used intentionally for a purpose (most notably in a film that is closely related to this one), in Borat it's comedic, in Bruno, in the first scene for example, it is done to make some of the bizarre sex acts physically possible (and thus inherently amusing on their own). In the swinger party, it is done so the movie wouldn't be rated pornographically in most countries it's released in (and otherwise the "victims" of the "prank" may not have agreed to be shown in such a way-I would almost guarantee that even on the "unrated" DVD version of the film, these boxes will still be there). Not sure about the pixelization in the other scene, but so far we know it's there in the US, Canada, and the Netherlands, so we can only assume it's everywhere (and not comment about variants until we indeed know there are any). 66.183.69.201 (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Change it up a bit if you'd like, and then we can look at it again. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In the production section I noted the two possibilities: actors only simulate sex acts, and the black boxes conveniently hide this fact, or there were real sex acts, so that the boxes are needed to avoid making the film really pornographic. This seems clearer than the formulation "part of the actual diegesis of the film". I re-added the night scene (now without referring to versions). All instances of male nudity have been dealt with now, "Throughout the film" suggests there are more and is no longer needed.--Patrick (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And instead of a "legal necessity of distribution" it is more often a condition to get a particular rating.--Patrick (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, but the reason the penis is pixelated at the hunting camp and not on the video is because the penis on the video might not be Cohen's and could just be a double? --93.96.19.132 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think so too. He may be too shy, and/or it might reveal that the other one is not his.--Patrick (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On the DVD commentary track he acknowledges it is not himCodenamemary (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Brüno or brüno??

The movie poster clearly says brüno, whereas in the entire Wikipedia text, it is presented as Brüno with a capital leter B. I think this is misleading. Small letter b should be used in the name of the film. werldwayd (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. Wikipedia ignores non-standard capitalization. See WP:CAPS. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Belgium

I removed following sentence: "Belgium is the only country where everyone can watch Brüno (rating KT/EA), but cinemas give the advice not to watch the movie under the age of 12 years." For example, also in Slovakia, everybody can watch Bruno. Rating is "not suitable for youth under 15 years", however, it's not FORBIDDEN to watch that movie (it's just recommendation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.20.248 (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious claim

Some commented that the film places Austria on the spotlight, and that "it might stop people confusing Austria with Australia."

I think Austria is already on the map somehow, and the effect a film may have would be minimal (when Carry on Don't Lose Your Head was released, I don't think that sat gleafully around France, thinking 'at last, recognition'). As for claims Austria gets confused with Australia, yer right, and Kingston, Jamaica gets confused with Kingston upon Hull. I think this section needs to be rewritten and better supported with citations. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I noticed that too. Sounds more like an personal opinion of someone and is thus unencyclopedic. The next user who reads this discussion should just delete it, unless there is a quote from a legit source availableää77.119.5.50 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DVD commentary track

So I just listened to the DVD commentary track and there was clearly something odd on the portion where SB Cohen and Larry Charles would have been discussing the scene with the alleged Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade member: it seems to be covered by a lower quality audio track that thanks various people for their contribution to the film. The regular commentary track returns immediately after this scene completes. Given the press reports cited in this article that Ayman Abu Aita was misrepresented by Cohen, Charles et al. I thought I would mention this fact. Within seconds my post was deleted with the "not a reliable source" comment. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was that we would add something and someone else would provide another layer of information to improve it. For example, maybe someone out there knows the back-story on this? But if my comment is just immediately deleted that kind of dialectical improvement of the article will not occur. So this is bad practice as a practical matter and just plain rude at a collegial level. Does the person who deleted my comment have different information? Did they bother to listen to that segment of the commentary track before deleting? If they had they would hear that the audio transition is not smooth - as if those editing it were trying to let us know it was deliberately removed. This small, insignificant issue points to a broader sense held by some of us (source: recent npr talk of the nation segment reviewing wikipedia & an article on this subject) that a small cohort of people with a lot of free time on their hands basically have too much influence on the wikipedia wiki and that this harms the overall vibrancy of the project. BobSaccamanno (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck ever editing anything on Wikipedia. Whether or not you can list multiple sources or not, most the time your edits are deleted within 1 day. Occasionally, someone will state you didnt do this or that, and are usually pretty nasty about it. Most the time, changes are just simply deleted. Wikipedia, despite what it claims, is really an encyclopeida to only be editied by a few. A few who apparently have no care for having correct information, but simply would rather fell macho behind an infinite wall of red tape.216.99.65.63 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Amen, I agree with the sentiment. People with an ineffable amount of time on there hands who think the final power lies with them. I've seen some users stealth delete additional information just because they didnt agree with it. Which is ridiculous. Though, hell even the Wikipedia founder did that with his own profile, which mentioned how he initially funded Wikipedia through pornographic content, as if that's even especially bad? 98.218.129.248 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

References

(June 2009), Eminem vs. Bruno Staged, Hollywood Insider => in the reference list, appears to be a dead link (118.173.250.100 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

Spanglemagazine reference is a dead link 178.26.64.248 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Brüno → Bruno (film) — Usage of "Brüno" is inappropriate per WP:COMMONNAME. This clearly indicates that "Bruno" is commonly used without ü and does not warrant this specialization. Sufficient to have it at Bruno (film) since Bruno is a disambiguation page. We can include "Brüno" as an alternate title in the lead sentence, like "marketed as Brüno". —Erik (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The correct name uses the accented letter. It doesn't matter if some sources are too lazy to write it. It's the same thing with the Borat movie. Many sources just wrote "Borat", but the correct name is Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. It's the same thing with bands that use accented letters. I usually see reliable sources write Motorhead instead of Motörhead. The point is that reliable sources don't always use the correct name, that doesn't man we should use the wrong name too. TJ Spyke 00:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Your argument still ignores WP:COMMONNAME; the overwhelming majority of reliable sources write "Bruno" and not "Brüno". It's nearly universal, from what I can tell, except for the so-called marketing setup by the studio, which is primary and not secondary like all the other sources that use it. The situation is akin to WALL-E where the title is stylized with an interpunct, but everyone uses some form of dash instead. I think it's fair to say that when people think of this film and type it, they will be thinking "Bruno" and not "Brüno". Like I said, such stylization can be covered in the lead sentence. There's no such thing as the "wrong" name here, just the fair more common one versus the stylish touches of a studio's marketing campaign. Erik (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This situtation is NOT like WALL-E. Disney has never written it with a stylized interpunct, that was only used in the logo. When Disney actually wrote the name (even on the movies's official site) they just write WALL-E. It was not hard for me to find tons of reliable sources that use the correct spelling; including Time magazine [1], National Post [2], The Guardian [3], MTV [4], plus all of th normal movie sites (IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.). So I am not convinced by your sole reason for wanting to move the page (not to mention that your move would force a disambiguation to be added, another reason to not move). It's not just a stylization, it's the character's name and the movies name. Many names that get spelled with accent marks usually get them left off by English sources. TJ Spyke 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I will withdraw and request closure. Erik (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Official site

Existing external link went to an unofficial website full of adverts and spam. I changed it to the official Sony Pictures site. 82.4.184.39 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Did Bono knew the lyrics in the end song?

Perhaps someone knows, during the final song "the dove of peace", was bono aware to the entire lyrics of the song? He gave some strange/surprised looks during brunos lines. Like when Bruno sang about korean are basicly chinesse... Also Bonos combination of lines about starving africa, and Elton Johns about anal bleaching, makes me think they werent shot at the same day, and that Bono wa s not aware of that...

Does anyone know anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.69.231 (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Deliberately offensive

'Bruno' was intended to offend as many people as possible. Despite that Universal Pictures deemed it necessary to cut a scene featuring Michael Jackson's sister La Toya, because of fears it was in poor taste following the singer's death. Why?

I don't know if you remember June 25, 2009, but MJ's death had a HUGE impact on not just the US but the entire world. This was huge news that greatly affected millions of people. It dominated the media for weeks. MJ was arguably one of, if not the most, famous and most recognizable face in the world, a legend and United States institution. It's hard to imagine that anyone in the entire world, excluding young enough children, knew who he was. I think the US premier of the movie was on the same day he died so leaving that scene in the movie would have been very distasteful, disrespectful and likely would have sparked outrage by many. I understand that is what Cohen does, to offend people, but it 100% was the right thing to do to remove that scene. All it really boils down to is what I said before, MJ's death was massive and effected millions of people, no one wanted to see that. Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Harald Glööckler = Brüno

The eccentric German fashion designer Harald Glööckler (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glööckler) "is" the real life Brüno (http://www.tz-online.de/aktuelles/stars/tz-sacha-baron-cohen-brueno-liess-sich-berliner-designer-inspirieren-harald-gloeoeckler-heisses-vorbild-389816.html) (in German). In the article it says that Glööckler served as a model for Cohen's character Brüno. They met in Berlin and spent an evening together talking about Glööcklers work and life, while Cohen's assistant was recording everything so that they could later study Glööcklers facial expressions etc. --194.95.117.68 (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayman Abu Aita; his own article

Given the amount of press and 'controversy' surrounding the 'lead terrorist' interview within this film, i think it's only right that Ayman Abu Aita gets his own Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megatonman (talk • contribs) 16:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Change on Bruno

Hello, I'm Gareth Griffith-Jones. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Brüno because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I received your message that you undid my change on Bruno because it was not "constructive". The information as is now, and as it was is false an inaccurate. Bruno was injured when he was bleaching his *anus*, not his "hair". It doesn't even make sense that he would have an accident while bleaching his hair. While maybe not the best source, here is an video from TMZ about the incident: http://www.myspace.com/video/tmz/anal-bleaching-gone-wrong-myspace-exclusive/57069004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.179.191 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply (copied from my Talk page, this morning) for which I thank you.
I have restored your revision.
I am now going to copy this to the article talk page.
Please leave me a note there when you read this. Cheers!  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 08:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gareth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.180.74 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Budget

Does anyone have/know the budget of Bruno to add to the heading such as typical Wiki format for other movies?Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brüno. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120913025735/http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/odd/5716326/bruno-tells-austrians-to-get-uber-it/ to http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/odd/5716326/bruno-tells-austrians-to-get-uber-it/

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} 20:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brüno. 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://web.archive.org/web/20090717012530/http://www.srbijanet.rs/kultura/film/21536-bruno.html to http://www.srbijanet.rs/kultura/film/21536-bruno.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718223757/http://sarajevo.co.ba/bruno-u-sarajevu-prije-ostatka-svijeta/ to http://sarajevo.co.ba/bruno-u-sarajevu-prije-ostatka-svijeta/

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) 01:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)