History YMMV / TheCastle

* SomeAnvilsNeedToBeDropped: At one point in the film, Daryl muses aloud that he now understands why Australian natives have fought so hard for their land since colonisation - presumably just in case anyone watching hadn't figured out the subtext yet.

* HarsherInHindsight: The Kerrigan's Arab neighbour Farouk threatening to get a friend to blow up the people harassing him, then quietly admitting to Daryl that he can do no such thing, but ''everyone'' believes all Arabs are terrorists, is a lot less funny in the wake of TheWarOnTerror and the constantly escalating racial profiling and harassment of anyone of middle-eastern appearance.

* SomeAnvilsNeedToBeDropped: At one point in the film, Daryl muses aloud that he now understands why Australian natives have fought so hard for their land since colonisation - presumably just in case anyone watching hadn't figured out the subtext yet.
* StrawmanHasAPoint: Regardless of the conclusion of the film and Darryls beliefs, the developers are correct and would win in any real life court case (the criminal intimidation and threats are never brought up in court;) the principle in question is one of the fundamentals of English common law shared by Australia, America, and many other nations, and expansion of transit access like an airport terminal is a noncontroversial application. Without it, essential projects like transit, utilities, and disaster prevention and mitigation would be extremely hampered. Similarly, sentiment as an inherently subjective value is useless in law, or anyone could claim to love their house dearly, and only 10 million in cash could mitigate its loss.
** Not necessarily. Section 51(xxxi)of the Constitution discusses "the acquisition of property on just terms from any...person", which would seem to indicate that the Commonwealth needs to be the acquiring the property. The movie is very scant on the actual facts of the case, but it seems that the developers are the other party and could well be the party obtaining ownership of the property, not the Government. It is therefore questionable (at least not a clear cut conclusion)that this is envisaged by the Constitution as it is a transfer to another party, not the Commonwealth. In addition, Farouk the neighbor says that the value was reduced by the planes flying overhead. This is a natural consequence of a property adjoining an airport, which is the entire reason the properties are being "acquired". This could raise the issue of "just terms". Finally the fact that it is mentioned that there is another adjoining property that is not the site of homes could question the vitality of the "compulsory acquisition"; the movie seems to imply it's less "the company need this land for the airport" and more "the company wants to buy up land on the cheap and flex their muscles by making the little guy get out of their way."

* FridgeLogic: Darryl's 'trophy cabinet' is his pool room, where all possessions of value go on shelves around the pool table itself. We see early on in the film that they do play pool in this room, it's not just for show. Now, when I've been playing pool, I've had to be very careful with the other end of my cue, and I've nearly been hit by other players once or twice, out of carelessness. It makes one wonder how many of the prized possessions got knocked off the shelves during pool games.
** "Three ball, corner pocket. Best mate, [[DestinationDefenestration back window]]."

** Not necessarily. Section 51(xxxi)of the Constitution discusses "the acquisition of property on just terms from any...person", which would seem to indicate that the Commonwealth needs to be the acquiring the property. The movie is very scant on the actual facts of the case, but it seems that the developers are the other party and could well be the party obtaining ownership of the property, not the Government. It is therefore questionable (at least not a clear cut conclusion)that this is envisaged by the Constitution as it is a transfer to another party, not the Commonwealth. In addition, Farouk the neighbor says that the value was reduced by the planes flying overhead. This is a natural consequence of a property adjoining an airport, which is the entire reason the properties are being "acquired". This could raise the issue of "just terms". Finally the fact that it is mentioned that there is another adjoining property that is not the site of homes could question the vitality of the "compulsory acquisition"; the movie seems to imply it's less "the company need this land for the airport" and more "the company wants to flex their muscles by making the little guy get out of their way."

** Not necessarily. Section 51(xxxi)of the Constitution discusses "the acquisition of property on just terms from any...person", which would seem to indicate that the Commonwealth needs to be the acquiring the property. The movie is very scant on the actual facts of the case, but it seems that the developers are the other party and could well be the party obtaining ownership of the property, not the Government. It is therefore questionable (at least not a clear cut conclusion)that this is envisaged by the Constitution as it is a transfer to another party, not the Commonwealth. In addition, Farouk the neighbor says that the value was reduced by the planes flying overhead. This is a natural consequence of a property adjoining an airport, which is the entire reason the properties are being "acquired". This oould raise the issue of "just terms". Finally the fact that it is mentioned that there is another adjoining property that is not the site of homes could question the vitality of the "compulsory acquisition"; the movie seems to imply it's less "the company need this land for the airport" and more "the company wants to flex their muscles by making the little guy get out of their way."

Not necessarily. Section 51(xxxi)of the Constitution discusses "the acquisition of property on just terms from any...person", which would seem to indicate that the Commonwealth needs to be the acquiring the property. The movie is very scant on the actual facts of the case, but it seems that the developers are the other party and could well be the party obtaining ownership of the property, not the Government. It is therefore questionable (at least not a clear cut conclusion)that this is envisaged by the Constitution as it is a transfer to another party, not the Commonwealth. In addition, Farouk the neighbor says that the value was reduced by the planes flying overhead. This is a natural consequence of a property adjoining an airport, which is the entire reason the properties are being "acquired". This oould raise the issue of "just terms". Finally the fact that it is mentioned that there is another adjoining property that is not the site of homes could question the vitality of the "compulsory acquisition".

Not necessarily. Section 51(xxxi)of the Constitution discusses "the acquisition of property on just terms from any...person", which would seem to indicate that the Commonwealth needs to be the acquiring the property. The movie is very scant on the actual facts of the case, but it seems that the developers are the other party and could well be the party obtaining ownership of the property, not the Government. It is therefore questionable (at least not a clear cut conclusion)that this is envisaged by the Constitution as it is a transfer to another party, not the Commonwealth. In addition, Farouk the neighbor says that the value was reduced by the planes flying overhead, which is the reason the properties are being "acquired". This oould raise the issue of "just terms". Finally the fact that it is mentioned that there is another adjoining property that is not the site of homes could question the vitality of the "compulsory acquisition".

* StrawmanHasAPoint: Regardless of the conclusion of the film and Darryls beliefs, the developers are correct and would win in any real life court case (the criminal intimidation and threats are never brought up in court;) the principle in question is one of the fundamentals of English common law shared by Australia, America, and many other nations, and expansion of transit access like an airport terminal is a noncontroversial application. Without it, essential projects like transit, utilities, and disaster prevention and mitigation would be extremely hampered. Similarly, sentiment as an inherently subjective value is useless in law, or anyone could claim to love their house dearly, and only 10 million in cash could mitigate its loss.

* FridgeLogic: Darryl's 'trophy cabinet' is his pool room, where all possessions of value go on shelves around the pool table itself. We see early on in the film that they play pool regularly. Now, when I've been playing pool, I've had to be very careful with the other end of my cue, and I've nearly been hit by other players once or twice, out of carelessness. It makes one wonder how many of the prized possessions got knocked off the shelves during pool games.

* SomeAnvilsNeedToBeDropped: At one point in the film, Daryl muses aloud that he now understands why Australian natives have fought so hard for their land since colonisation - presumably just in case anyone watching hadn't figured out the subtext yet.