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)

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)

The funny thing is that it says the movie was released under Creative Commons, but then states that it cannot be edited. I don't see how these two facts are compatible since a true release under Creative Commons would include the right to both share and remix. Somehow the information in this article is incomplete or incorrect. My posting is released under Creative Commons, so feel free to share or remix it. ;-) KellyCoinGuy (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There are different types of creative commons licences, and some types allow to copy, but not to edit and re-use the content. That's CC-by-nd.

But the main discrepancy is, I guess, that on one hand we have the statement (as far as I know, made by Yann Arthus-Bertrand in an interview before release of Home), that this film is free to be shared and copied. On the other hand we have credits at the end of the film, which say clearly (I checked the Youtube Version): (c) 2009 Europacorp - Elzévir Films. No word of a Creative Commons licence, no CC logo. Sadly, however. --W-sky (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this discussion started well over a year ago, but nothing's come of it since then. The article still remains the same. The copyright at the end credits can be seen using this link. I think Yann Arthus-Bertrand may have misspoke when he said the film has no copyright. Being freely available does not imply there is no copyright. I've tagged the whole section with {{disputed-section}}. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to own copyright in order to license it into the creative commons. The CC license merely allows others to use your copyrighted work in this manner and release it in the same CC license. Without owning copyright, it would be public domain and not CC. --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And I'm sure as Wikipedia editors we're pretty familiar with copyright and CC. But no one has found a single reference stating that the film has a CC license. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Time for action. The same film can be released through different outlets with different licenses. We cannot say who released the film on the different outlets. But we can look at the releases to see if they are marked with any kind of license to copy. We can say for sure that neither the copy on Internet Archive nor the one on Vimeo were released to those outlets with a license. The statement that the film was released with a CC license could not be verified or it would have been by now. Until some evidence appears, the statement should be taken out of the article. MetaEd (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed the link to Vimeo as it lands on the notification that "Vimeo has removed or disabled access to the video home as a result of a third-party notification by Elzévir Films that claims this material is infringing on their copyright." The link to archive.org works. --Noliscient (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2021 (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)

I went and re-watched the opening titles and this time around I definitely noticed the ad - before, I think I half-tuned it out. But I also noticed that the brand names forming the shape of the word HOME isn't actually the title - it's more like a pre-feature ad - the actual titles come a little later and the title 'HOME' is displayed in a plain font. I certainly hear your point about the relative cost of their worldwide ad compared to superbowl. I came at it from the other direction, I think - I felt if it took that sponsorship and pre-credits brand placement for the film to be possible then it was worth it. But I'm already skeptical towards corporations anyway.

Addressing greenwashing more broadly, I'm undecided. We, discussing it, are obviously not falling for it, so we're almost saying "other people, who are not like us enlightened folk, are fooled by this sort of thing". I'd like to think that most people in western society are pretty skeptical about advertising and corporations. We're saturated in commercials these days, and I think we're, to an extent, jaded and numbed to their effects. That doesn't make it ok, it could just make it an example of learned helplessness or apathy. I'm inclined to think (or hope) that people who are trying to consume responsiblity are thinking for themselves, not just swallowing 'green' ads. I can't actually back that up with evidence though, so who knows. It's definitely a topic to be thoughtful about. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I was very puzzeled before you recalled the labels of corporations in the intro. You have them only in original edition, but I do not see them in a 30 min longer Russian translation. I watched the video many times and it seems that the content is absolutely opposite to greenwashing since greenwashing means "buy more greed energy to save the planet" whereas the message of this video is that there is no green energy. So, if corporations did something, they did a very good job: they expose wasteful lifestyles and architecture. The message of the film is that luxury and fascinable architecture kill harder than slums. Gucci, do you say? --Javalenok (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2014 (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)

I had doubts about that statement as well. I have removed it. -download ׀ sign! 00:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It said that on youtube, but I beleive that it was a referance to the special featured status with the icon on the home page that ended on june 14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.142.137 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That icon was removed long before that, unfortunately. -download ׀ sign! 22:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Critical review

The documentary has been out for months now... where are the critics?!?! 70.83.23.68 (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There are some linked to from iMDB... I've tidied up the article a bit, might read over them and add a "reception" section later on... --— Hugh 08:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I found criticism from a couple of reliable sources... will expand the related section--Elmerfadd (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Home (2009 film). 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 https://web.archive.org/20090303214122/http://www.ppr.com:80/front__sectionId-573_Changelang-en.html to http://www.ppr.com/front__sectionId-573_Changelang-en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090611072444/http://info.france2.fr:80/environnement/54988953-fr.php to http://info.france2.fr/environnement/54988953-fr.php

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} 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

History of a journey

I see that Russian Youtube prefers some quality-translated documentary, made in the style of Home and describing its creation, the footage missing in the released Home documentary but not less important and must see. It consists of two parts, which, combined, last for 1h 50m instead of 1:30 for the Home itself. It seems that it is home-histoire-d-un-voyage, aka "the history of a journey". Should we mention this version in the article? Which way? --Javalenok (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)