Talk:In Bruges

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible Copyright Violation[edit]

The Plot section of the article appears to be either from a studio press release or lifted from either contactmusic.com or geeksofdoom.com. The second link lists the copy as the "Official Synopsis" so I'm fairly certain it is from the studio. I'm going to add it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. —A 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed. —A 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are premieres and premieres[edit]

"In Bruges was the opening night film of the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.[1] The film opened in limited release in the United
States on February 8, 2008, premiered at the Dublin Film Festival on February 15, 2008"

Huh? How can a film "premiere" at the Dublin Film Festival on Feb 15 having shown in January at Sundance and opening all over the U.S. on Feb 8th? This should at least qualify this with "Irish premiere". Even then, are all of these dates really that important? Most movie articles just list the premiere and/or a single general release date. This would make the Sundance date the most appropriate. 216.94.11.2 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Alert[edit]

Can you put a spoiler alert before the Plot subsection? --83.71.131.13 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. We don't do that, as per WP:SPOILER. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsys out of order[edit]

Ray blinds Chloe's ex-boy friend after Ken receives the order to kill Ray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strat0master14 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he partially blinds him; he still has another eye. Just wait until you see The Dark Knight - you will love the pencil trick! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter Connection[edit]

Clémence Poésy, Ralph Fiennes, and Brendan Gleeson have all been in a Harry Potter film. Is this merely a coincidence, or is there some significant connection? -wjs23

Yes, the Bavarian Illuminati and the Gnomes of Zurich are at it again, using Hollywood, the backdrop of Portuguese class warfare and the promise of blood diamonds from the Congo to duke it out. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lolled, sorry. Anoderate1 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wondered that, when Gleeson rolled his eye when he died, like his Mad-Eye Moody character (79.190.69.142 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Herein lies an encyclopedia. Levity there shalt not be! Begone, purveyors of wit. Varlaam (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The priest is played by the same actor who plays Dumbledore's brother in the final HP film, and I believe one of the actresses is also in HP. (````) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.188.58 (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot issue[edit]

I'm not sure if the plot is correct. I just finished watching the film and it says on wiki that he loses consciousness with his fate unknown. I will say that I got the impression his fate was unknown but is there word from the directors that going from first person to black and credits indicates losing consciousness? Also, its interesting that his last thoughts in the film are in an ambiguous tense eg. "I really hoped I wouldn't die."
Perhaps the part about losing consciousness should be removed.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Anyone else have some thoughts on this? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If we are assuming that the fade to black indicates losing consciousness, I don't see what's to stop us from assuming that the fade to black indicates death. JokeySmurf (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denise is not Anna Madeley[edit]

I don't think that Anna Madeley is in this film at all. A character called Denise is credited on IMDB and on the end credits on the DVD as being played by Anna Madeley. I think Denise is supposed to be Harry Waters' wife who shouts at him and then worries about him going to Belgium. But that character was certainly not played by the actress Anna Madeley who looks nothing like her. I can only assume that the mistake was made by the filmmakers and put onto the DVD credits which were then copied to IMDB in the same order and thence to this article. Can anyone identify who DID play Harry's wife? It is someone who is at least 45 whereas Anna Madeley was born in 1977 and looks it. --LeedsKing (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's wife is Natalie, played by Elizabeth Berrington. Denise is the blonde prostitute, played by Anna Madeley. I'll add these details to the cast section. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worth Mentioning?[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the Barats and Bereta interviews with Colin Farrel, Brendan Gleeson, and Ralph Fiennes? --173.64.90.216 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack[edit]

What magical German music!!! Franz Schubert (1797-1828) - Die Winterreise, "Der Leiermann" 91.66.8.224 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

The film has an Irish writer and director. The two lead characters are Irish, and are portrayed by Irish actors. It's entirely appropriate to describe the film as Irish, as per the source given. Alohamesamis (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A films nationality is decided by the country of it's production companies. This film was produced by British production companies. We've had this discussion before on your talk page. It's also very telling you were unable to find any actual specific article about the film, instead using a book about Irish cinema that mentions the film in passing due to it's Irish director. Incidently, the main characters were originally ment to be Londoners, but were changed because Colin Farrell can't do a cockney accent to save his life.
Anyway, even if that is a suitable source, which it isn't, that still wouldn't make the film part Irish. You can't add two different sources together to get a third statement that neither source supports. Neither source says that the film is British and Irish. It's either one or the other, and there are more sources that support the film being British.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2][3][4][5][6] Here are some sources for the film being British. Granted, some of them also claim it is a part American production for whatever reason, but none of them claim that it is a part Irish production.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A films nationality is decided by the country of it's production companies." According to WP:FILMLEAD "Ideally, the nationality of the film should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." There's nothing in the MOS that says a film's nationality is decided by its production company.
The source I used isn't a book on "Irish cinema", it's a book on "smart cinema". And devoting an entire case study to In Bruges as an example of "smart Irish comedy" is far from mentioning the film "in passing".Alohamesamis (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was a WP:FILMLEAD policy. The fact though that country means 'country of production' sort of gives it away, though, and is generally how a film's nationalities is decided by most sources. I've also been able to produce 5 sources so far that contradict your stance that the film is Irish. As always, I will of course bow to a majority consensus if other people are so inclined to throw common sense out of the window--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The empire review says that a hurdle the film has to over come is "the dread phrase “British gangster movie”." That's not the same as saying the film is British. BFI lists the US and UK as "production country". Again, this would only make it British if we go by your definition of production company as sole determinant of a film's nationality. The telegraph article isn't even about the film, it's written for the travel section for god's sake. Alohamesamis (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read the closing comments of the Empire review:'With In Bruges, the British gangster movie gets a Croydon facelift.' I already said some of the sources claim dual British-American production. I'm not sure what the BFI is basing that part on. Nevertheless, one thing's for sure, it doesn't say Irish. If you read the Telegraph article, it asks 'Why is Bruges the setting for a British gangster movie?', not 'Why is Bruges the setting for an Irish gangster movie?'--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The empire article reads "With In Bruges, the British gangster movie gets a Croydon facelift. It may not be new, but it’s a wonderfully fresh take on a familiar genre." It's referring to the genre of british gangster movies, not referring to the film as a British film. Again, the telegraph article is a travel article, not a film article. It's not a reliable source, anymore than a review of In Bruges would be a reliable source for the location of a given building in Bruges. Alohamesamis (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, sure, they just decided to start randomnly talking about British gangster films for the fun of it? I never said the Telegraph article was gospel, it is merely yet another source that contradicts your stance.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that there was anything random about it. I said "It's referring to the genre of british gangster movies, not referring to the film as a British film." Alohamesamis (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the statement 'With In Bruges, the British gangster movie gets a Croydon facelift' can be interpreted as anything other than the film 'In Bruges' being a British gangster movie. Why would the film be responsible for re-energizing a genre it was not a part of? Unless you are suggesting the author of the article is guilty of a dangling participle?--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the phrase "British gangster movie" refers to a genre, rather than meaning a film from Britain that is in the gangster genre. Alohamesamis (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The genre 'British gangster movie' is a gangster movie...that is British. The clue is in the name. If it wasn't British, it wouldn't fit in that genre. An Irish gangster movie could not fit in that genre. Because it isn't British. I can not believe you are actually attempting to argue this. And what was the point of the edit that made it say 'British-produced' as opposed to just British? What other movie pages on Wikipedia use that phrasing?--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy dictates that "A films nationality is decided by the country of it's production companies" Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found sources which describe it as an Irish film, McDonagh himself calls it such. The Theatre and Films of Martin McDonagh p136 World Film Locations: Dublin p46 describes it as an Irish film. this source infers it is Irish. Boston Globe says it is Irish. Why not have it as both? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there was a specific wiki policy regarding a films nationality. It does however appear to be the methodology on every other film page on Wikipedia. Culturally British films such as Hot Fuzz and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy are listed as both British and French because they were co-produced by both British and French companies, and according to this [7] 'The International Federation of Film Archives defines the country of origin as the country of the principal offices of the production company or individual by whom the moving image work was made'. In the case of In Bruges, McDonagh works in London and financed the film through Film4 productions, a British company. If you scroll up, I have so far produced five, make that six (I added another) sources regarding In Bruges' 'nationality'. I mean really, by your logic, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is partly a Mexican film simply because Alfonso Cuaron was involved in it.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darkness Shines, neither of those sources you have provided directly supports the claim that this is an Irish film, and I'm curious why you even posted those links. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do they not? The Globe “For a small country, Ireland has a vibrant film industry that seems to baffle people by continually doing things very well,” said Irish Studies Program co-director and film series organizer Robert Savage. “It’s interesting to see smaller films like 'In Bruges'[with Colin Farrel(cq)] do well and get onto the radar on this side of the Atlantic." Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not say the film is Irish. It only mentions the film in the context of the film industry in Ireland, the key players of which presumably worked on this film. That does not make the film an "Irish film". Is this clear? Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced reception section[edit]

The reception part of the article mentions some negative reviews but doesn't include a single substantial negative quote from a review. All chosen quotations praise the film, especially the acting. Seem suspicious to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.44.126 (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith[edit]

Apparently Matt Smith played Harry Watters in a deleted scene. If we can verify this, would it be able to be added to the cast list?192.249.47.186 (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't listed in the credits, so probably not. 68.33.88.203 (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason why the priest must die[edit]

In the outtakes on the DVD, there was a scene that wound up on the cutting room floor. In that scene, it is implied that Harry was abused as a child by the priest that was the target. The film makes a lot more sense with that scene, as it sets up why the priest was being executed, and the motivation for why Harry was so upset about a child getting killed. This might get mentioned in the article. --Grr (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ending[edit]

A recent edit seems to express the view that the events described at the very did not appear in the film. But I'm rather certain they did... at least in the version I saw several months ago. Are there different edits that present the final scene differently? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on In Bruges. 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 to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on In Bruges. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

The Plot section has a hidden note saying: "Plot must remain below 700 per WP:FILMPLOT. Work within the limit.” This recent addition, however, has now taken the word count to 938. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing you can do is revert to the last good version, which you probably did and I what I also just did, and the plot section is back down to approximately 712 words. Unfortunately there are many editors who ignore the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. I think most people are editing in WP:GOODFAITH and believe the plot details are adding are important. It is sad to see so many editors make the same basic mistakes, editors would do well to learn from others mistakes and read the guidance at WP:STREAMLINE. I suppose it is easy to develop a blindspot for repetitive warning comments, and I'm fair surely they are shown to readers using the Visual editing tool or other external tools either. It is a shame that Wikipedia doesn't provide better built-in Word Count tools or do more to help editors follow the guidelines. Garbage in, garbage out. -- 109.77.193.103 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poster border[edit]

Why is TheOldJacobite adding a border to the poster (which doesn't have straight edges)? It's like the Hook (film) poster. Adding a straight border is nonsensical. — Film Fan 00:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheOldJacobite, can you please stop reverting and use the talk page? I write you a message, you ignore it, so obviously I restore the article to how it should be. I've written to you here, and twice on your own talk page. You haven't explained why you added the border to a transparent image. I HAVE clearly explained why I removed the border. If you don't at least engage in a conversation, you have no leg to stand on. Do it. Thanks. — Film Fan 18:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to those hoping to have important themes pointed out...[edit]

...but some editors, Sock and Old Jacobite, seem adamant that you shoukd be deprived of such. They don't seem to have any good reason, but if they are determined to be obstructionist, I really couldn't be bothered. Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity that those editors did not explain more clearly why they were reverting your edits but the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines require that the Plot section be kept concise, between 400-700 words. If you want to add to the plot section you will have also remove something else to keep it short. -- 109.77.193.103 (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Bruges&oldid=1207448937"