Talk:The Brave One (2007 film)

Copyright text

The plot synopsis is a direct copy of the summary on Apple's trailers site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natebailey (talk • contribs)

Thanks, it's been removed. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The new plot synopsis is way way too long and has stuff like: "She makes it to the police station and asks for a progress report on her case, but the cop manning the front desk just tells her to wait, which she does....and does....and does....and does, until she gets fed up and leaves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.54.121 (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Fredrick day I think too much of the plot was removed so I've reverted those edits. I moved the {{plot}} template to the bottom of the section because on 1024x768 monitors, the template conflicts with the infobox and the there is tons of whitespace before the text in the plot section begins. I agree the plot section needs to be trimmed, but I think you removed too much of it. --Pixelface 02:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as it currently stands, you have degraded the quality of the article by dropping that unholy mess back into it. Oh and the tags go at the top, that is standard accepted practice, if you don't like that, you need to take it to the community. Others have tried (recently in fact) and the overwhelming consensus was that they stay at the top. --Fredrick day 08:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Unholy mess"? I think you're overreacting just a bit. And do you happen to know how to decrease the width of tags so they don't conflict with infoboxes and fill a section with whitespace until the infobox ends? In my opinion, the whitespace is more annoying that "too much" text. --Pixelface 05:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean up the plot section please. Fredrick is right, it is far too long. Per WP:MOSFILM, it needs to be trimmed considerably. Plot isn't overly complicated, so I don't believe it needs to be any more than 700 words.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently cobbling something together which should suffice as a basis for further refining edits. I'll probably find time to finish it in an hour or so. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 12:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just trimmed it to 400 words - feel free to replace it wholesale with your version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha, no; my version is 1,250 words. I think we should stick with yours, though I'm just going to add a couple of bits to it to flesh it out. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

great job and it's about the right length. --Fredrick day 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference, and should anyone wish to work any salient points into the existing summary (whilst keeping it under 900 words, of course), here is the behemoth I rather hastily penned this afternoon before Fredrick got in there first with his much better précis:

"As radio show host Erica Bain (Foster) and her fiancé David (Andrews) are walking their dog at Stranger's Gate in New York, they are violently attacked by three thugs, one of whom batters David with a pipe. Critically injured, Erica and David are rushed into surgery at the local hospital. Police detectives Mercer (Howard) and Vitale (Katt) are at the hospital to investigate the violent death of woman, who they identify as the wife of a notorious gangster, Murrow (McDonald). When they attempt to question her daughter (the gangster's stepdaughter), Murrow appears, in order to take custody of her, but Mercer rejects his demand, telling him he has no legal claim.

One month later, Erica awakens to find that David has died from injuries sustained during the assault. She is questioned by police about the attack, but is unable to identify the attackers and dismisses the officers. Eventually, she is released from hospital and goes home to her apartment. Due to the psychological trauma of the attack, once there she becomes agoraphobic for a time, finding it difficult to even go beyond the front door of the apartment into the hallway.

After she is browbeaten into leaving the apartment to meet a friend, Erica makes her way to the police station for a progress report on her fiancé's murder. She leaves unsatisfied and on impulse decides to purchase a gun at a local gun shop. Her attempt is thwarted by a gun store's licensing policy, but upon leaving is confronted by an illegal gun-seller. She purchases a handgun from him for one thousand pounds and is shown the rudiments of its use.

Mercer attempts to have his lawyer ex-wife (Adams) make Murrow's stepdaughter a ward of the state, away from the influence of the gangster. But she refuses due to the conflict-of-interest that would be perceived by her involvement.

Later that night, Erica is at a convenience store when a man bursts in carrying a gun. Not spotting Erica (who hides), he accuses the female cashier of taking his children and his money, before shooting her dead. As he rifles through the cash register, Erica betrays her location and the shooter begins tracking her through the store. She shoots him and suddenly scared, steals the store's surveillance tape before fleeing. Mercer and Vitale arrive to investigate the scene, but because the tape is missing and there were no witnesses, chalk the incident down to a domestic argument which got out of hand.

Erica visits David's grave and falls asleep by the graveside. Because of this, she has to take a late train home. On the train she sees two youths harassing other passengers and stealing from them. At the next stop, everyone but the youths and Erica leave. The youths approach Erica with the intent of causing her harm and she shoots them both. She flees the scene at the next stop and makes her way to a local bar to vomit in the toilet. On the way back she sees police and reporters gathered at the scene of the shooting, including Mercer and Vitale. Mercer spots Erica and thinks she looks familiar. She deflects his questions by asking him for an interview for her radio show, and he backs off.

Vitale convinces Mercer call Erica back for the interview and the two meet at a coffee shop. As they talk, a news broadcast plays on a television. The broadcast declares that gangster Murrow has won the custody battle for his stepdaughter. Disgusted, Mercer lets slip that he would do anything, even going beyond the law, to take Murrow down and have the stepdaughter testify against him. That night, Erica wanders the darker corners of the city and eventually a man invites her into the back of a car with a young girl named Chloe (Kravitz). She plays along with the man's suggestions to make out with Chloe, until he stubs out a cigarette on her. Erica pulls out her gun and orders the man to hand over all his money. He obeys, but as she leaves the car with Chloe, the man attempts to run them both down with the car. Erica shoots the man dead and the car crashes.

The next night, Erica is on the streets once more. While on the phone to Mercer she spots Murrow and abruptly hangs up. She follows Murrow to his car and the two come to blows. Murrow is later discovered dead, with Mercer concluding that the vigilante was once more responsible. Erica arrives at her apartment block carrying numerous bleeding wounds and is aided by a neighbour. Erica admits that she killed the man who inflicted the injuries.

The next morning, Mercer enlists Erica's aid in getting a potential witness to talk to him, convinced by her ability to get people to open up. The witness is Chloe, who recognises Erica but keeps her secret. Frustrated by a lack of progress on the vigilante case, Mercer has several of the passengers from the train re-interviewed. One has new information: he now remembers that when he left the train, a woman remained aboard with the dead thugs, and provides detail enough for a sketch of the woman to be drawn.

Mercer takes Erica to a police line-up after someone is caught trying to pawn a ring stolen from her during the original assault. Erica recognises one of those who killed her fiancé, but keeps quiet. When Erica leaves, Mercer becomes suspicious and has her phone records checked to find out where she was when on the phone to him the night Murrow was killed. Erica attempts to track down the man in the police line-up and finally succeeds in getting the name and address of his girlfriend. Erica later confronts the girlfriend, who despite initially refusing, eventually gives up the location of her boyfriend via a text message attached to a video of the original attack. Erica forwards this to Mercer, who has just received confirmation that the call from Erica came from the location where Murrow was killed.

Erica finds the thugs and confronts them, killing two. She is ambushed by the third, but gets the better of him and holds him at gunpoint. Mercer arrives as the thug begs for mercy, and Mercer convinces Erica to lower the gun. He hands her his own gun and tells her that if she is to shoot someone it should be with a legal gun. She shoots him dead. Mercer instructs Erica to shoot him in the shoulder so he can make up a story that the thugs were the ones who went on the vigilante killing spree, until he tracked them down and confronted them, being shot by their leader in the process just before taking him down. Erica initially refuses, but eventually concedes. Mercer places Erica's gun in the thug's dead hand and Erica leaves the scene with her dog."

Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Erica never killed anyone 'randomly'. Comments like that make me wonder if the writer even watched the movie all the way through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other contributors, but I haven't seen a minute of the thing! Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's meant to be random in the sense that they are not her original attackers - please feel free to reword it. --Fredrick day 17:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, "random" seems OK to me in any event. It doesn't suggest she's going around shooting just anyone she comes across, more that random circumstance is dictating who she plugs. Which, going by the immense summary that was here previously, appears to be the case. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reception

The critical reception is way to long. it needs to be shortened down a little. DeadWood 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah, agreed there. it needs to be like half that size —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.186.199 (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes lists 161 reviews of the movie, 45% of them positive. I included quotes from 9 critics in the article. 4 positive reviews and 5 negative reviews is 44% positive, so I think they help reflect the critical consensus of the movie. I think including 161 reviews would be too much, but I think 9 is fine. --Pixelface 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nine would be fine, if you just had maybe a quote or two from each, but to have nine long paragraphs going into detail about each reviewer's opinion is not. See the critical reception sections of some of the featured film pages, such as Jaws or the recently featured Borat, for how it should be done. -- Grandpafootsoldier 09:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You think 9 blurbs would be better than deeper analysis? Just because a featured article does something one way does not mean every other article should as well, especially when it comes to lack of content. --Pixelface (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I would suggest you take at a look at WP:NOT and related pages for the general community consensus on issues such as this, but in short, we don't need to copy down verbatim what a reviewer said about a film. A quote and a few lines which give an overview of his/her opinion (as is the norm in FP articles) is the best choice to follow. If someone wants to read their opinion more in-depth, they are perfectly capable of using the external links provided.

You might want to read up on Featured articles also, as you will find that they are the agreed upon standard within Wikipedia when it comes to quality, and so are entirely worth emulating for this sort of thing. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame to lose any of it, because there's little actual repetition in the section. I suppose a few hundred words could be gained without losing content by paraphrasing some of the quotes into more concise prose, but have you got any suggestions as to what else can come out? Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 09:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the quotes and I think the section conforms to Wikipedia:Quotations, although that page does say "while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them." Maybe the quotes can be moved to Wikiquote. Editors are free to paraphrase the section, I just think it's easier to quote someone directly instead of taking the risk of twisting their words or making it seem like they said something they didn't. I personally think the Reception section is more important than a Plot section. I suppose if an article should cut content to become a Featured article, I'm not going to argue with that. I'll just stop wasting my time by adding content that is going to be removed. --Pixelface (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying a bit, I'll just try to show you what I'm referring to using one of the reviewers you chose:

Bill Gibron of PopMatters gave the film a 9 out of 10 and said the film is a "startling achievement" for Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard. Gibron said Foster deserves another Oscar, and said the film is "yet another notch in the growing artistic oeuvre of Neil Jordan."'

This by itself would probably suffice for one reviewers opinion, but you could add a bit more, such as:

Gibron wrote, "Calling it an estrogen-laced Taxi Driver or a female fashioned Death Wish misses the point. On its surface, it's a standard revenge flick...but it’s also much more than that. It’s an excuse for empowerment in a post 9/11, Red State/Blue State, Yellow Alert existence."'

But having all of this stuff from one reviewer is a bit much:

Bill Gibron of PopMatters gave the film a 9 out of 10 and said the film is a "startling achievement" for Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard. Gibron said Foster deserves another Oscar, and said the film is "yet another notch in the growing artistic oeuvre of Neil Jordan." Gibron wrote that the film "sticks with you", saying that after the film is over, "the circumstances and situations keep playing over and over in your head." Gibron wrote, "Calling it an estrogen-laced Taxi Driver or a female fashioned Death Wish misses the point." Gibron said "on its surface, it's a standard revenge flick...but it’s also much more than that. It’s an excuse for empowerment in a post 9/11, Red State/Blue State, Yellow Alert existence." Gibron said it is "one of the best, most deep and disarming films of the year" and "monumental, moving stuff." Comparing the film to Death Sentence, Gibron said "when Foster fires her weapon...we are seeing something more than just payback...

And having nine paragraphs this size is definitely too much. I'm not saying the section is bad, there's just way to much of it. Just try to be more concise in the future. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I gave a good overview of his opinion. He says alot more in his review. I don't think you can really sum up a critic's opinion with 2 quotes or 3 sentences. They may comment on other similar films, the director, the writer, the story, each of the actors, the cinematographer, etc. That's what I tried to do. I suppose the section could even be re-arranged into subsections that focus on Jordan, Foster, Howard, Katt, Rouselot, the writing, other films, etc. I think the section is pretty long too, although I believe this was the 2nd article where I added quotes to a Critical reception section so I didn't really know how long to make it. I presented what I thought was interesting. I appreciate your input. I've trimmed the section down a little. Any other suggestions about what to remove would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Still too long... Mahanga^Talk 23:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The reception section is well sourced but it is very much longer than similar sections on other film articles, even in featured articles. Rather than paraphrase, I have made a WP:BOLD cut, partly to reflect consensus in this discussion, but mainly to see if anyone misses what's gone.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Remake of Death Wish

There is no mention anywhere in here that this movie is a remake of Death Wish with Charles Bronson. This isn't just my opinion. https://nowtoronto.com/movies/reviews/jodies-death-wish/ "Searching the credits for the Brave One, nowhere will you see the name Brian Garfield, which is a little strange. Garfield wrote a novel back in 1972 that in 1974 became the movie Death Wish, and this Jodie Foster vehicle is a straight remake, almost plot point for plot point." 69.14.184.175 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It's the disambiguation (Death Wish), better the article : Death Wish (1974 film). --Pla y Grande Covián (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the importance'bout to compare the two films/movies (1974 & 2007); I am not a cinema / movie expert. Movie buff? · Ok. I've just seen it, today (in Spain), now. --Pla y Grande Covián (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

diff. novels & films (1972, 1974, 1975, 1982, ... (those two, in 2007)) & today

But I prefer to separate in this subsection (here), next info.

You can read at: Death Wish (novel)#1975 sequel novel (1972, novel & film, 1974) · Garfield was so disappointed in the 1974 film adaption that he was inspired to write the book sequel Death Sentence the following year. So, the same at Death Sentence (novel)#Creation.

Although, you see there's a film adaptacion at 1982. Another film based on the novel was made in 2007 (with diff. storyline).

So, you can see that at the same year 2007: both films were released, the latter, and the film of this article: The Brave One (2007 film). --Pla y Grande Covián (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Article issues

This article has several issues that needs to be addressed so I added appropriate maintenance tags.

Plot

Added section tag. The plot is overly excessive and unsourced.

External links

Trimmed "External links". Adding all these sites, that mainly offer nothing unique and mostly share the same synopsis, does not help the article. Duplicating a link as a source and in the section is not necessary. Otr500 (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)