Talk:Branded to Kill

Branded to Kill is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 4, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 19, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
November 4, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 4, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that after his 1967 film Branded to Kill, contract director Seijun Suzuki was fired by the Nikkatsu Company for making films "that make no sense"?
Current status: Featured article

Film: Japanese

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the Japanese cinema task force.
	This article has an archived peer review.

Japan: Cinema High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:51, November 16, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the joint Japanese cinema task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Plot added

I added a more enlarged plot summary for this film. Since this films pretty confusing, anyone who can fix up any errors I may have made, or cut out some unimportant factors can be my guest. Andrzejbanas 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious where you got Number One's name from? I've been scouring every source I could find on the film but I've never seen that given anywhere. Incidentally, I did remove it based on the logic that it's not mentioned in the film as far as I've noticed. Doctor Sunshine talk 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it from reading some of the reviews of the film on Rotten Tomatoes to help me try and tack the plot together (which you fixed up nicely. Great job on the article by the way, this film deserves a page as great as this! :) Andrzejbanas 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True that, it's a great film. Many thanks and my thanks for your work, between the two of us and the reviews this may well be the first time the story's been deciphered properly. I don't even think I'd gotten it fully before now. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"True that",REALLY? CHECK IT OUT WIKIPEDIANS TYPE WHITE TOO!

Word up, home slice. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Passed!

I thought this article was not only extremely thorough and well-referenced but so interesting. I corrected a couple tiny proofreading-type things. Besides that, the summary could stand to be a tiny bit shorter but I'm not sure how one would explain such a tortuous plot with fewer words than that, so it might be tricky. But I definitely think this deserves GA status. FilmFemme 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art

I do not believe that the cover for the Criterion Collection DVD or the cover for the soundtrack belong in the article. The DVD cover is not only located in a different section from the text about it, the text does not provide any critical commentary about the cover itself, only the contents. This is an important difference to identify for fair use. Cover art needs to be more than just identification -- it needs to be in relation to critical commentary about the art itself. The DVD design for Memento or the Lord of the Rings certainly warranted critical commentary, and providing the cover art would be appropriate in this manner. For this film's DVD cover, though, there is no context about its particular design. The same goes for the soundtrack cover -- it does nothing beyond identifying the product, and not even that. Rather, it identifies the packaging in which the soundtrack is available to be heard, so it is a degree apart from the soundtrack context. I would recommend removing both unless they can be supported by critical commentary about the look/design about each respective cover. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD should be moved to the video release section, It would help identify the most recent event of the film's release for home viewing which I feel is important. Besides, the album cover is the best representation for the soundtrack as a whole. Andrzejbanas 01:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I put the DVD in the reception section so it wouldn't squeeze the text between the soundtrack infobox if it were in the home video section. However, it is accompanied by relevant text in the form of home video release discussion in the reception section and, of course, the image's caption. Would changing the text to "...earliest Western release" or something similar help? In terms of unwritten critical commentary, it speaks to the pop art aesthetic and bold use of colours—despite this being a black and white film—connected with the director. I could find references for that but none tied directly to this specific DVD cover. Many of the B movie image captions get away without being cited so perhaps I could add something of the sort. As for the latter image, it's common practice to include album covers with the album's articles or sections. Besides one can't separate the cover art from the actual music, it's all part of the package. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a matter of showing why this particular DVD cover, as opposed to any other DVD covers the film may have had, as well as posters beyond the lead one. It becomes a subjective argument to choose which is appropriate, and it shouldn't be if there is no discussion about the cover/poster's design. I'm only bringing it up because fair use seems more stringent lately, and I'm trying to conform more closely to the criteria to provide GA-class and eventually FA-class examples. I am aware that the traditional FA-class articles probably don't have the sharpest rationale attached to the images used, but they're usually looked over if they fit well enough. I'm pursuing a similar discussion at Talk:Dark City (1998 film), and the other editor happened to mention Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Restarting non-poll discussion, a discussion about the appropriateness of cover art in articles that are not wholly about the cover art's item, like the soundtrack. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from but the way I read the guideline, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)", it's asking for critical commentary on the item, not specifically the cover art. The proposed change to the guideline wouldn't alter that either. The DVD cover identifies the first widely available release (home video or otherwise) outside of Japan with critical commentary in the reception and home video sections and specific commentary on that DVD in the home video section. It's a weak caption though, I'll modify that sometime soon. The CD cover also has a section devoted to it, though, I agree with the guy at the Dark City article, if the soundtrack gets it's own article I'd be fine with losing the image, infobox and track listing. However, there's not enough there yet to warrant breaking it off.

In terms of the fair use crackdown, the arguments I've seen elsewhere have been geared towards "playing it safe, copyright-wise" (as opposed to providing free content, as no one pays for fair use items). There is zero chance of Criterion—or really any company who owns an image they've specifically designed to be seen and move product—hassling the Wikipedia brass. Criterion appealed to their fans to fix all the external links to their site on Wikipedia when they changed their domain name recently, they like Wikipedia. No one seems to care about quotes—which are all fair use—because no one's complained about any yet. But I'm kicking into rant mode here, in my opinion the images add value to the article, have precedence and won't result in any angry phone calls. Anyway, I hope I don't seem unappreciative for your interest in this article, I do appreciate it. Doctor Sunshine talk 03:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki's film name?

Small question indirectly related: is Suzuki's film's name Our Blood Will Not Allow It as in the quote of the critic or Our Blood Will Not Forget, as it states in the template? K a r n a 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title's been translated a number of ways. I've seen at least 3 or 4 variations. In the article the title is part of a quote so it's correct. The one in the template seems to be the most common title. I'll pipe it here and verify the most common title when I get around to making that article. Doctor Sunshine talk 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whups. I see you've beat me to the punch. Doctor Sunshine talk 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the dates work here

In this half-paragraph:

A settlement was reached on December 24, 1971, in the amount of one million yen, a fraction of his original claim, as well as a public apology from Hori. In a separate agreement Branded to Kill and his previous film, Fighting Elegy, were donated to the Tokyo National Museum of Modern Art's Film Centre.[11] The events turned Suzuki into a legend and shook the film world.[3][11] Branded to Kill, along with other of his films, played to "packed audiences who wildly applauded"[29] at all-night revivals in and around Tokyo.[3] However, Suzuki was blacklisted by the major studios and did not make another feature film until A Tale of Sorrow and Sadness (1977) ten years later. In the meantime, he subsisted on commercial and television work and writing books of essays.[30][21]

The 'Tale of Sorrow...' movie is said to have been made 'ten years later', however the date mentioned directly above is December 24, 1971, so that seems to be the date being compared, not the actual release date of Branded to Kill, which was 10 years before. It seems counterintuitive to me, but I'm not sure if it needs fixing. Anchoress 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's intended to mean ten years after his last feature film but you're right, it could have been more clear. I've modified it. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track romanization

Urutapu, where are you looking? At WP:MOS-JA#Romanization it specifies revised Hepburn romanization—ōs and ūs only. And I'm not sure where cthi is coming from. Also, what's your stance on the capitalization? Doctor Sunshine talk 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Doctor Sunshine, I can't see what you're replying to so please excuse me if I'm repeating something that has already been said. On a quick look through this article, at the very least the "Goro" in the name Goro Hanada should be Gorō - checking the Japanese version confirms that it's written 五郎, where the 郎 is pronounced rō and not ro. Also Koji Nambara's given name (Koji) is certainly more accurately romanised as Kōji, but I wonder if there is some special motivation for using "Koji" (although there is no information explaning this on English or Japanese wikipedia as far as I can see). In short, the romanisation in this article does not currently conform completely to revised Hepburn. 133.1.90.161 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urutapu had redone the soundtrack listing by his own method and then reverted my changes, I was responding to his edit summary comment. In regards to the names, Koji could probably be changed. The character names, the Goro and Koh spellings are from the DVD subtitles. I'd only seen the kanji on ja.wikipedia and that wasn't solid enough for me to deviate but I wouldn't object if they were changed. Doctor Sunshine talk 09:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my rationale. Like I said, you weren't reading enough.

For transliterations from kanji and hiragana, long o and u are written with macrons as ō and ū respectively.
For transliterations from katakana… macrons should be used for all long vowels indicated with ー, including "a", "e", and "i".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! And the capitalization? Romanizations of Japanese film titles are pretty much across the board lower case, minus the first letter. Any reason song titles should be treated any differently? Doctor Sunshine talk 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, do whatever you want with capitalization. Just as long as the romanizations are correct. :x—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good good. Much obliged. Doctor Sunshine talk 09:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture caption

The caption for the first picture says one character is asking another to buy some rice for him. But the picture shows the characters surrounded by butterflies. It would be helpful to explain the butterflies in the caption! Cop 663 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I had something in originally but took it out during peer review when it was suggest I needed to explain their context. I think I remember a source I can use which I'll look up tomorrow. In the meantime: they're silly and/or a death/Misako obsession motif. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article?

This is labelled as a "featured article" but it seems not very high quality. Would anyone care to discuss this? JoshuSasori (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was developed into a Featured Article way back in 2007 when possibly we have been more lenient to such things. To be fair, this is a film that is a 1960s Japanese film and I'm sure the predominant author used all available sources at the time to make the best article you can. You can read it's FA review [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Branded to Kill here]. If you have serious doubts of it's quality, you can take it for an FA-re-review. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a great article. For example it claims that Quentin Tarantino said that the film is a masterpiece, but in the interview on the website he says nothing of the kind. Also, a lot of the writing is not very good, it's like a fan article. I remembered this the other day when an obnoxious person left a message on my talk page that I was not to edit a featured article without his permission, or something, and I remembered how bad "Branded to Kill" was even though it is a "featured article". What I am wondering is whether there is any will to improve this article, or should it be sent to that re-review? JoshuSasori (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well personally I think it has a lot of strong information but some of it is a bit fan-crust. The person who developed this article into what it is has long stopped editing (I think...). If you think it just needs a brief clean then perhaps try that. No one will bite you here for attempting to edit it. ;) For the record, you can't "own" an article on wikipedia no matter how much effort or personal time you put into it. On that other page you mentioned, bring up WP:OWN. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I looked at the featured article review and noticed that this article's main editors' last edits were two or three years ago. I don't want to spend time putting "Branded to Kill" into shape. As for the other article, we can discuss it on my talk page if you like. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Branded to Kill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Branded to Kill. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Branded to Kill. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720214617/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_8_37/ai_54454977 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_8_37/ai_54454977
Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0%2C%2C1810604%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0324%2Catkinson%2C44707%2C20.html

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) 01:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Branded to Kill. 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) 15:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]