Talk:Wolf Creek (film)

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Australian / American

	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
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Wolf Creek (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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

earlier unsigned comment

In the actual movie, it makes reference to a third Set of Murders, that the Movie is explicitly based on, that happened in 1999. Any reference to those?

A third set of murders? Hrm. Not according to Australian crime. Of course there might have been some murders in 1999 that just haven't been reported or made famous. The backpacker murders didn't come to attention until almost 10 years after they were committed, because nobody knew about them. Maybe that's the kind of thing that this movie is suggesting. 203.122.225.241 10:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the backpacker murders came to attention almost 10 years after the first murder was committed - they were committed over many years and came to attention when Paul Onion escaped from Milat.59.167.59.181 08:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowtown murders happened in 1999... Not sure if that is related though. But perhaps thats what its about. 203.122.225.241 10:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that an editor deleted my reference to the Snowtown murders, yet it is pretty obvious now that they are the basis of the movie. [1]. The developers do not say that it is specifically based on the backpacker murders. They imply it, but don't say it directly. When grilled about it [2], they say that there are 3 sets of murders. Some people have suggested that this means 3 backpacker murders, but it actually means backpacker murders, Peter Falconio and one other, which is the main focus of it, the snowtown murders. It says 1999, and that was the only major murder committed then. The producers just want to keep that a secret so aren't saying it directly, so as to increase their box office. It can't be anything else besides the Snowtown murders. And if you know the case of the Snowtown murders, you'd see that Wolf Creek is far more similar to that than to the backpacker murders case.203.122.225.241 09:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing relevant links. I have reworded the paragraph accordingly. I am (unfortunately) very familiar with the Snowtown case, and if you were also, you'd realise your insinuation is blatantly false. The murders did not take place in 1999, but rather over an extended period. Happy editing, --cj | talk 04:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its not false. They were discovered in 1999. I have edited it to 1992-99. Please tone down your language there. I am quite familiar with the case, as it was in the news regularly. The majority of the murders took place in 1999, as per the article, and that was when it came to prominence in the media. My parents live in the same town where the main perpetrator lives. Zordrac 19:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you found my language haughty. But, no, the majority did not occur in 1999. The police investigation culminated in that year.--cj | talk 04:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't see the link between Snowtown and Wolf Creek. The only similarity is in the utilisation of the victims' belongings by the killer, but that's a pretty tenuous link. Is it possible the "third murder" was something committed in another country, but well-known enough in Australia to have inspired it?202.59.28.97 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Australian murderer whose crimes may also have contributed to the idea of this film was Joseph Schwab in Kununurra (remote north-west Australia) in 1987. See http://www.kimberleyecho.com/archive/2007/20070201/story07.html (16 June 2007)

First time director?

According to his IMBD page [3], this is actually the 2nd movie by Greg McLean. He also directed ICQ in 2001, a movie apparently based on ICQ. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I too have seen ICQ (on Showtime), it is a short-film. Depending on the context, you could call Wolf Creek McLean's first Feature Film.

Praise from Tarantino/Rodriguez

Didn't this film also receive praise from both Tarantino and Rodriguez? Or was this Hostel (a similar film in genre)? Although, I believe they praised both of the films (and, Tarantino produced Hostel). Can someone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.6.222 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2006 February 21

Yes they did: Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez both praised the film, so much so that John Jarratt(Mick) is to be in Death Proof. I'll add details to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helel (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2006 April 3; Thanks for editing out my section on it's pivotal scene Cyberjunkie, try providing details next time you make a change like that OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helel (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2006 April 13

There is no citation for this and it was added 2 years ago, hence I cut it until someone can find a source.

Robert Rodriguez also liked it enough that John Jarratt was asked and agreed to be in Tarantino's next film Death Proof alongside Rodriguez' offering called Planet Terror in the film Grindhouse. He has since been dropped from the project, without public explanation; however, the film's title does appear on a movie sign in Death Proof.

SteveCoppock (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

Have added a fuller plot summary for the record. This is from memory so if anyone's watching the movie again, perhaps they could double-check it for accuracy. Barnabypage 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the first paragraph of the plot summary is incorrect. The three main characters already seem to know each other prior to the party and are traveling from Broome on the Western Coast (titles at the beginning of the film) to Cairns on the East Coast (we see a shot of their map early on with this city circled). Interesting to note, though, that in the first 10 minutes we see a scene at dawn (after the party) on the beach and the sun is rising over the ocean...which should only happen on an Eastern Coast. 66.255.25.162 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Mick's camp

The article currently says Mick's camp is "not far from the meteorite impact site", but isn't the point made that the drive there takes a long, long time? Barnabypage 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I guess it's relatively close, when the remoteness of the location is taken into consideration. Cnwb 05:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the outback. Even things that are close together are pretty far apart. But the drive doesn't necessarily take that long. They are towed there and brutalised all within a few hours, and Taylor would have been driving fairly slowly considering he was flat-towing another vehicle. BrianFG 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic Differences

I've removed the Cinematic Differences section on the basis that it's entirely POV. Having said that, the points are good ones - maybe the author would rewrite it based on reviews of the film which make the same points? Barnabypage 10:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel section

I've removed the sequel section entirely. The report attributed to the Herald Sun turns out to come from a movie-gossip Website which in turn sourced it directly from another, and I can't find it on the Herald Sun's own Website, so there is doubt as to its reliability. The rest is original research - interesting but OR all the same! Barnabypage 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone contributing to the Sequels section please verify your "facts" first. Allegations made by Geoffrey Edelsten concerning the level of private investment and government grants are allegations taken by the newspaper from Geoffrey Edelsten's affidavit. Therefore they do not constitute fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.39.69 (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Head on a stick

Is it true what Mick says about the vietnam war that they used to stop prisoners escaping by sticking a knife through their spine.

Not sure about the details, but there is a definite mention of this technique used in the Vietnam War while he is doing it.

While the article discusses Liz dying of blood loss after the head on a stick stuff, the movie gave me the impression that the point of that injury was not to kill, but to keep the victim around for more, um, long term activities. Anyone else get that impression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.242.89 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "horror film"

I know that director Greg McLean referred to Wolf Creek a horror film, but that seems to me completely incorrect - it doesn't fit into the genre at all. Classic horror films (The Shining, The Exorcist, The Omen) usually have a strong supernatural element, and those that don't (Psycho, When a Stranger Calls, Scream) are only horror films because they employ certain generic scare devices with the principal goal of frightening the audience, and making them jump. Wolf Creek claims to be based on real events, and is harrowing rather than scary. It is no more "horror" than, for example the Korean film Oldboy or the recent Russian film Gruz 200, which fall under the extreme cinema category but have not been classed "horror" by anyone. Palefire (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebutt: I find this plain silly and nit picky. I don't agree it has to have a supernatural element to be classified as Horror. Ask anyone who's ever been through a horrific ordeal, such as this, if they'd classify it as such. Seemed pretty horrifying to me so good call on classifying it as a Horror. [Public]

Why did their watches stop and their car break down?

The car is probably sabotaged by Taylor when they are exploring the crater, but it's never made clear when or what he does. This becomes clearer later when Liz discovers he has been following them since the roadhouse at least. The car doesn't even kick over, so it's most likely done when they're away from the car. Taylor tells them the problem is the ignition coil, which is an easy thing to fake. The scene with the watches stopping directly references a similar scene in Picnic at Hanging Rock in which Jarret also appeared. I read or heard somewhere that it was just done as a tribute to that scene, to make the crater "weirder" and help build the tension, but I had no reference for it so it was removed. BrianFG (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a vague implication of supernaturality, reinforced by Jarret's "disappearance" at the end and the authorities' inability to ever find his camp. (Possibly the implication was stronger in an earlier version of the script?) This interpretation hasn't made it into mainstream comment on the film, though, hence its absence from the article. Barnabypage (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the "warning"

I was kind of shocked to see a content warning on wikipedia. It's bizarre, and certainly not encyclopedic 137.22.97.20 (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How realistic is the "based on true events" aspect of the film compared to other horror movies that say "based on true events" and have a very strained connection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btwikicarter (talk • contribs) 12:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Budget??

Why is the budget listed in a foreign currency, and where is the reference for what the actual budget was (it certainly wasn't made on a USD budget)?? 210.9.139.96 (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The budget was Australian dollars AU$ not US dollars $ and I think it is important to make that clear. I think it is misleading to only write $ which implies USD and that it is necessary to make it explicitly clear that it is AU dollars and I restored the old version that made this clear. Also the article text also specifies that it is AUD not USD, so it is strange to do it differently in just the infobox. -- 109.76.217.170 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]