Baz Luhrmann pressured to change Australia

He’s re-edited the ending

Baz Lurhmann has agreed to adjust the ending of epic romance pic Australia, starring Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman.

After some dodgy test screening reviews, studio 20th Century Fox asked Lurhmann to make one big change to the film. Naturally, we’d ask the spoiler-phobic to stop reading right now.

Still with us? Right… According to Aussie paper The Herald Sun, test audiences hated the idea that Jackman’s rough-riding rancher The Drover dies at the end.

“Action-filled tragedy”

The studio became nervous after the movie was labelled an “action-filled tragedy” and there were numerous calls for a happier ending.

"If they can tastefully tie this movie up into a solid story, with a nice pace, Baz will have a winner here," another reviewer says. "And there is no reason to kill off Wolvie in this one - come on." Yes, someone really has based a decision to edit a film on the mention of ANOTHER FILM’S CHARACTER.

In related news, Fox executives are now planning to lobby James Cameron to fashion a new Titanic finale that is “less sinky” and doesn’t see “that nice Arnie Grape” die.


    • ashley.russell

      Nov 11th 2008, 12:01

      how about Fincher redoes the ending of Fight Club in which Tyler doesn't 'die' and he and the narrator go on to cause more violent mayhem, hand in hand. Or maybe Donnie Darko should have lived and then be caught in a continuous time-loop in a tangent universe for the rest of eternity.

      Alert a moderator

    • Al Dente

      Nov 11th 2008, 16:50

      Dunno why people are so afraid of unhappy endings. If it makes the film better, I can totally agree with a happy ending, but I can't see what this one gains...of course it could end up being the greatest film of all time or whatever, so I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it

      Alert a moderator

    • Ray Peterson

      Nov 11th 2008, 18:19

      Anyone here ever been to a test screening? No? Good, because test screenings are poulated with morons. These are the kind of people who turn up at a screening fifteen minutes late with their smelly nachos and then complain that they don't get the movie. How come Shakespeare didn't have this problem? Aren't we supposed to be more spohisticated than his audiences? They understood the value of a good bit of death and murder.

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular