Jump to content

Talk:Broken (1993 film)

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

Move

[edit]

I have moved this from its original place at Broken - The Movie to here because of Wikipedia naming conventions. Any objections can be raised at my talk page. Thanks, [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 01:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Broken movie was never investigated by the FBI, that was Down In It. Whether or not that was the impetus for this, or the reason why it sits in a can is simply speculation. Also, this article should really include something about the best version of this in circulation to be a 3rd or 4th generation copy at best. The thing looks like crap, which only helps add to the whole snuff feel. --Outofkeyslightly 10:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs more sources, particular regard the "dropouts" which is frequently mentioned on the internet without references

==

There was a copy with no dropouts and the Help Me I am in Hell video in full circulating. I had a copy in 1994 but it was stolen a few years later. --Maytag (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Revolutionary here, I was just wondering if it's a good idea to put screenshots from all videos? Even if they are particularly disturbing?

Trivia section removal

[edit]

The sole piece of trivia, "The movie was filmed in black-and-white, except for the "Gave Up" video (which was in color)," mistakenly protrays the "Gave Up" video from Closure as being part of the Broken movie. This was incorrect and in contradiction with the rest of the article. Since there was no factually-accurate trivia, I deleted the entire section. -- Rynne 16:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been worded poorly, but it might deserve a mention because it's been noted that the Broken Movie version of Gave Up is in black and white, while the snuff parts included in the video are in color. The observation being that all the black and white scenes pertaining to the snuff were 'current', with the investigation and the execution, while the color scenes were the 'past' record of the crime. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.110.216 (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Info icon
Info icon

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material violating someone's copyright. If you are not sure whether the link on this article should be removed or if you would like to help spread this message, contact us on User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 00:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Patrick

[edit]

Give me any non-imdb source that Robert Patrick is the cop? I've seen many arguments that it's actually Richard, and no proof anywhere that it's Robert, apart from speculation because he's dressed as a cop before. Year 0 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not Robert Patrick as the cop. I showed the movie to a friend who is a huge Robert Patrick fan and she said "No way" when I showed her (and she was hoping it was him.) She said (and I agree) the facial features are too different, especially the nose. So this is just a rumour, not fact, and should be removed from the article or reworded so it is not taken as fact. If no-one does, eventually I will.

The cop definitely looks like Richard Patrick to me. Given that he was in NIN at the time, and was shown in the videos for Wish and the Closure version of Gave Up, I'd say that's enough to warrant at least a mention about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.110.216 (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis update?

[edit]

Now considering that the film doesn't start with the car scene but the execution, I think the summary needs a refresh. // Gargaj 20:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, go ahead and do it. Be bold!  Tabanger  22:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that I'm technically not really qualified to do so since I can't really recall all details. But ok, I'll try to watch it again eventually. // Gargaj 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I wonder what's the current copyright status of the film... it is obviously copyrighted because it even includes a notice, but it "officially" doesn't exist and there have been no claims for it and the distribution is, well, "encouraged". So i wonder if it's legal to spread it. // Gargaj 09:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no ambiguity about it. Copyright law is clear. Creative works, regardless of notice, are protected by copyright law until they are released into or lapse (120 years from creation (since there has been no publication) for work for hire) into the public domain. When copyright is in effect, NO ONE except the copyright holder has the right to grant permission to make copies of or redistribute the work. As far as I am aware, no permission has been granted to anyone by the copyright holder, Interscope Records, for distributing copies, so under the strict letter of the law, it would be illegal to do so. The practical realities of the situation are another story.  Tabanger  19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and that's exactly what I meant. The copyright notice at the end of the movie kindof made me wonder to be honest; Interscope Records must be aware of the existence of the movie as it was likely to be produced as some sort of promotion, but question is, had they need to step up to protect their own copyrights about it, how would they do that? I mean basically it's something that looks like an "amateur snuff movie" that doesn't even officially exist. Sure, they would have the MEANS to do it, but I'd be really curious on how they would handle the publicity around it. // Gargaj 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Brokenmovie.jpg

[edit]

Image:Brokenmovie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character Gender

[edit]

This entire article is laced with "him/her" and "his/her" statements regarding the character being tortured throughout the film, and it looks terrible. I myself have seen the best quality version available on the internet (which may have been, as implied, released by Reznor himself), and it's fairly high quality. The main character in the film is most certainly male, and if it's desired, I can show screenshots to back this up. Ther shouldn't be any dispute whatsoever as to the character's gender. In "Gave Up," when the character is stripped down to his underwear, you can see that he's wearing briefs, most commonly worn by men (not a great point, but it's there). Also, the character has no breasts, and when he's completely stripped naked, his penis is clearly revealed, and very soonafter, chopped off. I'm pretty sure that when a penis is clearly shown attached to a person on film, we can assume that the character is male. I think that all of the androgynous pronouns should be removed and replaced with exclusively male pronouns, as it's correct (and certainly looks better). 76.84.89.30 (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the same version and agree, so I've removed the ambiguity. --jh51681 (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the character is a man. It occured to me, however, that this role may be played by a woman. Thinking about it, casting a somewhat mannish-looking woman in this part has a key practical advantage: in the penis-severing scene, it saves you the trouble of figuring out a way to hide the actor's real penis. With a woman actor, you just build prosthetic genitalia to be cut off and attach them to her crotch; no need to worry about a telltale bulge (wherever they are tucking the actor's junk) making the effects look unrealistic. Nowadays they could use CGI, of course, but I suspect that was out of these filmmmakers' reach in 1992. Just a thought.
Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torture porn?

[edit]

Has Reznor ever talked about why he created a "torture porn" film? Or is it just like the "Happiness in Slavery" video—"just because he did." :) RobertM525 (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HappinessSlaveryVideo.JPG

[edit]

Image:HappinessSlaveryVideo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Plot Summary

[edit]

The plot section is way to long and overly detailed for a 20 minutes short film. Wikipedia is not here to describe movies shot for shot. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broken (1993 film). 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) 09:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broken (1993 film). 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) 08:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broken_(1993_film)&oldid=1206115860"