1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Brave One - Pro or Anti?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Colt, Sep 7, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Colt

    Colt Well-Known Member

    The Brave One is due for release in a week or so. It stars Jodie Foster as a woman who loses her fiance in a violent attack while also being injured herself. She then seeks revenge against the perpetrators by hunting them down in the city, while the papers print her exploits and the police try to get ahold of her.

    The preview I saw showed her being approached on the subway. She's sitting down, and as a BG puts a knife to her throat, she lifts a concealed pistol from her lap and fires.

    I haven't been able to find out much more about the actual plot, but my guess is that the beginning of the movie will have her and her fiance assaulted while playing the roles of unarmed blissfully ignorant victims. She'll probably then seek a weapon with which to exact her revenge.

    It leaves me wondering if this movie might leave people with a pro-gun mindset. Maybe some will realize that if she had just had a gun at the beginning of the movie, things might have turned out differently.

    Anyone hear any more info on this movie?

    Updated with info from an interview Foster had with Entertainment Weekly:

    If Foster had anything to do with the message this movie sends, it won't be pro-gun. The hypocracy of Hollywood abounds. Too bad even she can't make the connection that the movie's main character could have been spared her loss if she or her fiance had been armed.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2007
  2. jpk1md

    jpk1md Well-Known Member


  3. igpoobah

    igpoobah Well-Known Member


    The gun is obviously evil and is turning her into a crazed psychopath.

    This looks like an anti's vision of what CCW is, even though it couldn't be further from the truth. It's the same tired argument they have used for years about CCW, we'll all turn into vigilantes, the streets will run red with blood, etc, etc.
  4. 30 cal slob

    30 cal slob Well-Known Member

    i think this was already discussed? (jf is anti-gun). :confused:
  5. alucard0822

    alucard0822 Well-Known Member

    Nothing that comes out of A list hollywood is pro-gun. I have seen longer previews of this at the movies and have to say it projects CCW in an unfair and malicious light. Basically the whole "blood flowing in the streets" and "wild west shootouts" nonsense. It has nothing to do about personal protection, but about vengence and blurring the lines between CC self defense and serial murder. This is no different than most of the elitist anti gun, anti self defense stuff that most actors spew on their own time.

    I think I will skip this one and spend my hard earned loot to see 3:10 to Yuma
  6. Dravur

    Dravur Well-Known Member


    How is this different from Death Wish 1-234, starring Charles Bronson?

    Everyone seems to love that movie, but now that Jodie Foster is arguably doing the same thing, everyone is dumping on it like it was the second coming of Michael Moore.

    Was Charles Bronson a bad guy vigilante or is Foster?
  7. Rush

    Rush Active Member

    Foster: absolutely sickening hypocrisy. Unless I am to believe Ms. Foster doesn't herself own a gun, after having been the object of obsession in real life by one of the world's most notorious killers.

    Hollywood: using guns in nearly every movie to make money, and using them WRONG (finger on the trigger all the time?) Hollywood alone is responsible for many if not most of the true accidental gun deaths; kid finds gun and positions hand on gun, finger on trigger, just like he's always seen on TV and in the movies. Hollywood: whoring guns to make money; disrespecting everyone else's right to self defense. The sooner Hollywood falls into the Pacific the better.
  8. ceetee

    ceetee Well-Known Member

    Personally, I get kinda tired of hearing all about "the hypocracy of Hollywood". It ain't about political messages, and unless the actor is financing the stupid thing with his/her own cashola, it ain't about his/her personal political views, either. It's about money. Greenbacks. And the making thereof.

    Actors make money by spewing forth whatever they're paid to spew forth. Actor's personal views on political subjects usually have absolutely nothing to do with the plot or subject matter of the moviews they make. They're in it for the caysh. As I would be, if I could be.

    When they're spewing forth their opinions on political matters on their own dime, I regard their opinion as having as much worth as any other "popular" person, be it a famous athlete, famous scientist, or famous scientologist. Their opinion is worth exactly as much as mine; possibly a bit less. And if I hear them spew absolute untruth, then the value of that opinion goes down accordingly.

    In other words, I couldn't care less about Jodie Foster's personal views on guns. Or Keanu Reeves, or Ed Asners, or Bruce Willis, or anybody else. I go to the movies to be entertained, and that's the only yardstick I judge the movie by. If it's entertaining, I feel I spent my money well. If not, then not.

    And I still don't know how you can call an actor (who makes his/her living pretending to be someone he's/she's not) a hypocrite for saying things he/she may not believe in, but is getting paid to say because that's what his/her job is... to say things they didn't think up, and to speak about opinions they don't actually believe. It's not hypocracy... it's just a flippin' job...
  9. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Well-Known Member

    While you have a point, what I think you might be overlooking (and others aren't really expressing well) is that if an actor is truly "anti-gun," he should do what's called "leading through example." If he's antigun, refuse to use guns in real life and in movie roles. Of course that might limit his employment opportunities a little....
    OTOH plenty of actors portray villians and many actors enjoy those roles, and we know they're not criminals in real life -- so maybe it is a good thing to lay off the actor and lay on Hollyweird as a corporate entity.
  10. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Well-Known Member

    Bronson didn't use his celebrity to declare guns evil, while making money from their depiction and misuse.
  11. CountGlockula

    CountGlockula Well-Known Member

    Anti, because she buys an illegal gun for murdering those that stole her dog.
  12. Dr. Dickie

    Dr. Dickie Well-Known Member

    Just a guess on my part, but in the Bronson movies, he did not become a monster. He was simply doing what the police wanted to do but could not--a dark hero for sure, but so was Batman.
    From the press for this movie, it is more about how she "becomes" a monster drive to actually use a gun to defend herself (think of the children!!!). The city cowers in fear as someone actually kills murders and rapists!!!
    My memory of the Bronson flicks was, the city was cheering him on.

    Could be wrong, like I said, just a guess.
  13. ceetee

    ceetee Well-Known Member

    That would tend to be up the actor to decide: What's more important? A public show of my principles? Or putting food in the fridge. I was watching a famous actor being interviewed (right now, I can't remember if it was Jack Nicholson or Anthony Hopkins) and the question was asked, " You've been in so many movies, in so many different roles, to what do you owe your fame?"

    The reply given was simply, "I never turn down a role."

    Ask this: Why doesn't the NRA upchuck 50 million bucks to make a totally pro-gun movie? I'm sure you could get S&W, and Taurus, and Bushmaster, etc. to all contribute. This movie would show guns as they actually are: Owned by responsible people, residing in holsters carried by lawful concealed-carriers. These movie guns would only get drawn from their holsters as often as a "normal" ccw-er draws his. The action would revolve around how safe guns are, and how they're engineered to function reliably, allowing us to protect ourselves, and be less in fear.

    Oh, yeah... that movie wouldn't make a dime at the box office. Blood sells. Action and excitement and explosions and heroes are why we go to the movies: Because out own lives are so (thankfully) dull that we crave a little bit of artificial excitement to make our adrenaline pump, and to entertain us. I, for one, am glad all that excitement exists up on the screen, and not out here in the real world. When a particular film comes out that only exists to make a political point I don't like (remember "Bowling for Columbine?) then I'll castigate that film, it's writer, director, and cast as much or as little as I feel it deserves. But I just can't find it in me to blame an entire industry for selling us a product we're so eager to buy.
  14. Colt

    Colt Well-Known Member

    I also read that she didn't like the title of the film.

    The Brave One.

    That seems to jive with the idea that most anti's prefer to live in fear rather than be prepared to face evil, all the while condemning the "brave" who refuse to cower beside them.
  15. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    We've already got a thread on this movie.
  16. Correia

    Correia Moderator Emeritus

    I've got to agree with ceetee on this one.

    A movie about a typical gun owner would be pretty dull. Safe, normal, average. Then maybe there is a violent encounter with a bad guy that lasts four seconds. :)

    So unless it was a courtroom drama about a self defense shooting, (which could actually be good... hmm... says the wannabe writer...)

    We don't go to movies to watch normal and average people do regular stuff. We want drama.

    Heck, look at the most popular gun movies listed over and over on THR. They're either really far fetched cops vs. robbers, or the protagonists are some sort of way above average hero, or even an anti-hero. Heck, Heat and Way of the Gun make every good gun movie list ever posted on here, and the protagonists of those are actually criminals.

    (I would be a touch hypocritical myself on that one, Nightcrawler & Lorenzo, cough)

    I've got a pretty good idea of how to plot something to make it interesting. If it is about normal people then you still need to put them in extraordinary situations to make it worth reading. 99.9999% of gun use isn't extraordinary, it is fun, but kind of boring for spectators. So we focus on that .00001% with lots of explosions and shattering glass. :)

    As for actor's opinions, who cares? I try not to pay attention to any of them, because they're usually vapid morons, and if they're particularly annoying in real life, then I can no longer watch them in a movie because I won't see the character, I'll see the twit playing the character.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page