Explain it to me, oh enlightened one.

Please list the facts where the film is wrong and I will gladly hand it to my students before we watch the film in the future. I have seen the film many times now, and it is actually not full of "facts" it just a portrayal of two young men who join up for different reasons, and find out war is hell, before one gets cut down by machine gun. Seriously, lighten up.

I am STILL waiting to understand how the film gets its history oh-so-wrong (other than neglecting to find the time to include that there were Brits fighting there as well)

I know several people who use that term....some of them are only in their early 30s. They're perfectly nice people by the way, I just think they find the use of the term amusing.

It is, I'm actually waiting for someone (british) that I met to join this forum under the name expatabo actually. It was a funny conversation we were having at a BBQ here in Dubai last week, discussing the plight of indigenous australians and the world in general. Come on Expatabo, stop lurking, I'm waiting for your first post. I've checked every day since the BBQ to see if you have.

Some good logic there - does it matter what they are blacking up for?

The difference here is no aussies are standing up and saying that its wrong. In the UK and any developed nation there are many that will stand up and try to stamp out derogatory actions. It's also not high handed holier than thou attitude. A nation has to take a stand at some point. Unfortunately aussies aren't the ones to do that. It has nothing to do with boarders. There are things on this planet that are wrong and should be stamped out. Afganistan's taliban were killing females simply because they wanted to learn to read. Extreme example? You bet! But with what you say... who are we to say they can't do that... You see where I'm going with this... There is right and wrong regardless of what the wishy washy (is it child porn or is it art crowd) crowd say. There are those that will spit the dummy and kick their feet in the air and say we are the thought police, being to pc... But the reality is most that take stands simply say do unto others as you would have done to you. Do you want to be racially degraded by others...

Maybe it's still a victorian thing - it used to be widely used in WA but not anymore and not in QLD.

These people are from Qld.

Probably north of Brisbane then, they don't know what they are in Brisbane. The only people of aboriginal descent my kids met in Brisbane, were the family of my daughters best friend at her private girls school in the city. My kids were appalled at my behaviour on our return to Perth last year when we were looking for rentals. They told me I'd turned into a member of the KKK, unfortunately they soon learnt some sad realities of being in WA.

No again, in Brisbane and Bayside. I'm not sure what you mean by they don't know what they are. They don't know what aborignals are or they haven't heard the term bung (or boong)? I've had the origin of the term explained to me by these people....although I may have been given the onomatopeiac urban legend version.

As I can't be arsed taking this any further and I would have hoped you would have researched your own subject, I will just settle for a cut and paste.

Historical Criticism
Gallipoli shows much of the conditions and events that soldiers endured in the Gallipoli theater of war. The most notable deviation of the film from reality, and the one for which it has been most criticized, is its portrayal of the chain of command at the Nek. Although he is seen wearing an AIF uniform, Colonel Robinson is often mistaken for an Englishman due to his accent, which is in fact a clipped Anglo-Australian accent typical of the time and not a deliberate attempt to mislead the audience.

In any case, Colonel Robinson's character equates to the brigade-major of the 3rd Brigade, Colonel J.M. Antill, an Australian Boer War veteran. Indeed very little British command and control was exercised at the Nek. In his best-selling history, Gallipoli (2001) Les Carlyon agrees that the film unfairly portrays the English during the battle and Carlyon lays the blame squarely at the feet of Antill and 3rd Australian Light Horse Brigade commander Brigadier General Frederic Hughes - "The scale of the tragedy of the Nek was mostly the work of two Australian incompetents, Hughes and Antill."[8]

The film implies that the fictional and benevolent General Gardiner called off the attack, when in reality the attack petered out when half of the 4th wave charged without orders whilst the surviving regimental commander in the trenches, Lieutenant Colonel Noel Brazier, attempted to get the attack called off.

Other critics, Carlyon included, have pointed out that the Australian attack at the Nek was a diversion for the New Zealanders' attack on Sari Bair, not the British landing at Suvla. The British were therefore not 'drinking tea on the beach' while Australians died for them. Moreover two companies of a British regiment, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, in fact suffered very heavy losses trying to support the Australian attack at the Nek once it was realized that the offensive was in trouble.[9] Some have also criticized the film for its portrayal of British officers and their disdain for Australian discipline behind the lines. According to Robert R James, no evidence for any such disdain on the part of British commanders for their Australian troops actually exists;[10] however, British command's low regard for the discipline level of Australian troops behind the lines has been widely documented by old historians (such as C.W. Bean) and new ones (Les Carlyon) alike and by oral tradition of the survivors.

Apart from West End or during country week, you don't see aborigines in Brisbane (as you'd know having lived there). So if you've lived only in the Brisbane city and not gone to regional queensland, like my kids, you would hardly have seen any. My daughters best friend had an aboriginal mother and african father and the closest my kids got to any kind of aboriginal culture was to go to their place up at Redcliffe where they were establishing the cultural centre.

The key fact which is wrong, Is the diversionary charge on The Nek is shown in the movie to be covering for British troops landing at sulva bay when it fact they were protecting Kiwis.
You should read Australian author Les Carlyon's acclaimed Gallipoli book. It is his view that the scale of the disaster at the Nek lays at the hands of Two Australian officers, Hughes and Antill. His book is accepted as the authority on this campaign.
2 companies of British troops suffered massive losses going in to assist the Anzacs.
None of this is known by watching the movie of course...

I was too slow