Talk:Jackie Brown

	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 American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Comments

This would seem to be a scene tailor-made to Tarantino's sense of humor, but was not included in the film, perhaps for budgetary reasons or perhaps in an attempt to concentrate on the realistic and dramatic angles of the story.

Or perhaps you don't have a clue. Why is this speculation without any source in the article?--201.52.162.44 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The characters of Ordell Robbie and Louis Gara are shown in the movie watching a promotional vhs or dvd for automatic weapons titled something like "Chicks With Guns" (that is also included in full length as a Jackie Brown dvd extra) --- it would be a great addition for the JB triva section along with possibly some linking back to each of the differernt weapons.

Just a thought...

Fair use rationale for Image:QTTrunkJB.jpg

Image:QTTrunkJB.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 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 03:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

"Unbeknownst to Nicolette or Robbie, Brown plans to deceive them both with the help of Cherry in order to keep the $500,000 for herself." Cherry is not in on Brown's scheme. The Gnome 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is. In a sense, Cherry is Brown's plan. Nicolette believes the exchange will work like the trial run hand-off in the food court. Odell believes Melanie will be handed the cash in the dressing room. Only Max is told that the cash will be left in the dressing room, and how and when to retrieve it. Since Melanie and Louis leave before Jackie, they aren't watching the dressing room or Max. Nicolette is watching the food court. Odell is off-site. Max watches the entire time, as planned. 2600:2B00:9214:4800:248D:F65:7219:B6A5 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis contains the whole denouement of the film. Shouldn't a warning about spoilers be inserted ? The Gnome 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jackie Brown album.jpg

Image:Jackie Brown album.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) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Good arguments made in favour of the move and a clear majority of participants are for it. Jenks24 (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The film is obviously the primary topic. Pageviews are overwhelming: by my count, 99.6% (!) of pageviews for all Jackie Browns combined are for this movie - comparing the film to the most-viewed person, it's 253822 compared to a grand total of... 523. If you wanna say this move is useless, well, stop right there, because the current setup is clearly just an inconvenience for readers. The DAB page has 4091 hits in the last 90 days, dwarfing the amount of hits for any of the other articles. The film's been out for nearly 20 years now, so long-term significance shouldn't be an issue (not like any of the people with this name have any...) Nohomersryan (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose makes far more sense for all the people named Jackie Brown to be on the baseline so the dab-bot can pick up mislinks. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Mislinks are a potential problem for every primary topic ever, but we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Heck, I'd even say your argument is a good reason why the film should have no disambiguation - there are, at the very least, a dozen cases of people adding plain old Jackie Brown to articles thinking it's the film. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Absolutely. 99.6% is, um, a lot. Let's help those readers get where they're wanting to go. Usage significance = WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dohn joe (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Usually I'd oppose these, as dab pages make it easier to spot incorrect incoming links, but in this case, I think it's the clear primary topic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - primary topic. In ictu oculi completely opposes primary topics because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unreal7 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jackie Brown. 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/20160822120854/http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/500-greatest-movies/ to http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/500-greatest-movies/

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) 01:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heist film

IP editor 109.77.207.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) persists in trying to remove a "See also" section that includes a link to heist film. The article already includes two categories related to heist films. Linking to the topic in the article body is also appropriate. Per WP:SEEALSO, the section is for tangentially related topics. This film is a mix of genres, including heist. If needed, the link can be put within prose, but there is no need to remove it outright. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration!

The scene of the bag/clothing store, was obviously inspired by Rashomon or the so called roshomon effect. 165.73.227.21 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: American Cinema History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keb0113 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Keb0113 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film(s) within the film

Hi, not sure if this has been mentioned before, it seems like kind of an oversight to me...

I thought it might be worth noting on this main Jackie Brown page, the actual films that Bridget Fonda's character Melanie is watching (ie. Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry, Detroit 9500 and Beast with a Gun) - as she self-actualises in her stated ambition to `get high and watch TV' [1][2]

It seems a shame that neither of these are mentioned, despite the fact that the latter is discussed by Fonda and Samuel L. Jackson within the main film itself. Also notable is the fact that the former film stars Fonda's dad Peter Fonda - a deliberate cheeky reference by the crown prince of postmodernism himself, Q. Tarantino

Richard Move (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Move (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]