Talk:Basic (film)

Spoiler

Should there not be a spoiler alert on this page? It does give out almost the entire plot of the story.

Colonel

I believe "Colonel" is refering to Osbourne as the "new job" since the base will need a new Colonel. If they put Osbourne as new Colonel, tsection 8 can remain secret while gaining supports.

--- Only problem, the base was shutting down in a few months.

I think this is highly unlikely considering that going from a captain to colonel would require skipping two ranks.

You people should sign your posts.--andreasegde (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Basic TravoltaNielsenConnick.jpg

Image:Basic TravoltaNielsenConnick.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 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak resolution of plot

The end of the film seems to completely abandon the homicide storyline, and I propose adding something to the effect of:

At the end of the film, there are two suspicious deaths (Meuller and Styles), and one unambiguous premeditated murder (Kendall), that remain unexplained.

...unless someone has a different explanation for the situation at the end. Peter Grey (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've watch the movie for several times recently.

Styles is obviously killed by Osborne. And Kendall is obvious dead, too, killed and silenced.

Meuller and Kendall are (should be) Styles' confederates who are related to the drugs. And they are not show up with the Section 8 in the end of the movie. Thus, Meuller is (highly possibly) killed.

As for Now that West and his team are all officially dead, the unit can operate with much more freedom than before.

1. We can only say Now West are officially dead.
2. Other members are "bureau-missing files" as West stated.
3. "Nuñez," "Castro," "Pike" and "Dunbar" are apparently fake names.

Thus, operate with much more freedom than before is not much needed according to 2 and 3.

--TX55^TALK 12:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The goal was to fake their own deaths so they could become vigilantes. But in fact they left a trail of Kendall's murder, Vilmer's confession and other suspicious circumstances. Unless Osborne collaborates with the cover-up, they will have failed. Peter Grey (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I've a little confusion with your replying. Would you mind to explain more specific? (Yeh, Osborne didn't collaborates with the cover-up. That's obvious.) Thank you. :D

(ps.) The main purpose of the operation is clear: to busted Vilmer plus find out who is related to the drug as the Section 8 stated in the end of the movie. (Which mean they already known there are dirty works in the base, so they planned the covert operation.)

--TX55^TALK 04:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the operation is not clear. That's the point: the conclusion left far too many unanswered questions. Peter Grey (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

West did say the whole is to "Find out who ship the drugs".

ps. I'd like to suggest rewrite some of the content with (according to those mentioned above):

Because the team members didn't exist<!--since they used the fake names)--> and West seems to be officially dead<!--There is no mentioned whether those in Washinton know his living status.--> At the end of the film, the true events in the jungle continue to be a mystery.

At least the true events in the jungle is really a mystery.

--TX55^TALK 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence West was telling the truth. Peter Grey (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If so, then there is no evidence West wasn't telling the truth, either. --TX55^TALK 02:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the basis for claiming the names were fake? Peter Grey (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

When Dunbar shows up with his dish, Osborne ask him "Dunbar, ... or Pike?", while he answer "Actually, both not." Then she turn to Nuñez and say "So you are not Nuñez." and Nuñez reply that she isn't. --TX55^TALK 09:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's one interpretation. They may have meant their officially dead/missing status, or they may have been lying. They're not likely to go through so much trouble to fake the deaths of fake identities. Peter Grey (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the interpretations. That's why "Now that West and his team are all officially dead, the unit can operate with much more freedom than before." needs to be rephrased. --TX55^TALK 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear what rephrasing you're thinking of. The goal (operate with much more freedom) and the remaining suspicions should be noted. Peter Grey (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The goal is to catch the bad guy (as they state in the end) rather than faking their own death, which was just a mean. Besides, there is no apparent mention of "the goal is to fake their own death". --TX55^TALK 03:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree that the goal, and its degree of success, are not clear at the end. I suspect, frankly, that the movie was produced without a coherent underlying storyline. For an encyclopaedia, it's not necessary explain the ending in detail anyway. Peter Grey (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the idea sounds not bad. ;D In that case, maybe we can change it into something like "However, there are still several thing not clear at the end, especially the true events in the jungle remain mystery." --TX55^TALK 03:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we all at least agree that there are a lot of typos, grammar mistakes, and spelling errors in this discussion, which makes understanding this movie a lot more difficult than it needs to be. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.61.125 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Editting

After reading the above section again, I rewrote parts of the contents for now unless there is any official material, such as interview with the staffs, to back it up. :) --TX55^TALK 09:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Current Tag

The current tag: This plot summary may be too long or overly detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (July 2007)

is inappropriate. This is a complex film and a detailed plot summary is necessary/required in order to explain the often confusion viewers have of this film. I think it the tag should be removed for this reason. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote for removing the tag. --TX55^TALK 03:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

1. They joined/rejoined the Rangers even though they were the infamous Section 8 renegades? Nobody remembered them from before? Soldiers don't stay on a training course forever.
2. West was there the whole time as sergeant, but operating with Section 8? Why did he have to die? I can understand the others having to 'die', because they had found out who was dealing the drugs, and could 'retire'.
3. Why did Hardy (Travolta) leave the Rangers for the DEA? He was a Section 8 renegade, so why leave?
4. It was not made plain enough at the end that Section 8 were the good guys.

--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

--My interpretation of this jumbled mess of a plot (though the movie certainly has redeeming features; seldom have I blamed a poor movie so much on the screenwriter as I do this one) is that “Section 8” is a colorful name chosen, by its secret Army Ranger operatives, as a witty allusion to soldiers who must be crazy to take such risks as they do. Section 8 is not a group of renegades at all, but rather is secretly sanctioned by the military as a special ops undercover unit. Hardy’s involvement in DEA is simply a cover as is the myth purposely put forward that Section 8 members are renegade former Army Rangers turned drug traffickers. Hardy remains a colonel in the Army Rangers and that is, I would guess, what his service record indicates and remains his pay grade.

It seems that all members of the training mission are Section 8 personnel (secretly commanded by Hardy) except Mueller and Kendall who are in on Colonel Styles’s illicit drug smuggling operation. I would guess that the purpose of the phony training mission is to smoke them out to try to get them to incriminate Styles whom West (and thus Hardy) now suspects is in on it.

Apparently, matters go awry and Mueller and Kendall plot to murder West on the orders of Styles and make the incident look like a fragging incident, blaming it on Pike whom they thought West hated. (But we know that was a ruse because both are Section 8 operatives.)

In the attempt to murder West, Kendall is wounded (perhaps by West firing in self-defense or preemptively) and after Pike (posing as Dunbar, presumably to throw the military police off the track at first as it is not then known who has been corrupted by Styles, including Captain Osborne) attempts to carry him to safety a firefight occurs between Mueller and Pike/Dunbar in which Mueller is killed. Pike/Dunbar reaches safety carrying the wounded Kendall and they are rescued and the investigation begins.

Pike/Dunbar insists on only speaking to a fellow Ranger, as the Section 8 plot is to get Styles to invite Hardy into the investigation; Styles not realizing that Hardy is still a Ranger and a confederate of all the members of the training mission save Styles’s two confederates. I assume that Pike/Dunbar rescues Kendall both because Section 8 personnel are “good guys” and not murderers; the idea was to flush the drug operation out and not to kill its members without trial, and to be able to further question him.

The basic weakness of the plot, in my estimation, is why Kendall seems to play along with the idea that the man he knows as Pike is Dunbar, and that it was Dunbar and not Pike who rescued him after he was wounded. In fact, why does he maintain in his original account that Pike had been killed in the firefight when he knows that Pike was the one who carried him to safety?

Even if he has some unexplained reason to go along with this Pike-as-Dunbar ruse, he must know that eventually the truth will come out as to "Dunbar's" true identity. In fact, the entire “Pike” posing as "Dunbar" ruse seems unnecessary to me and renders the plot untenable, though I might have missed something having only seen the film once thus far.

Additionally, Hardy stops the CID transport of Pike/Dunbar after Vilmer nonchalantly mentions that the "real" (to his knowledge) Dunbar is black (while the man posing as him is white). Since Vilmer is one of the drug dealers and not in league with Section 8 and Hardy, what was Hardy going to do to keep his presumed plan (the ruse for the benefit of Captain Osborne, who is secretly still not completely trusted by Hardy) intact had Vilmer not noted this seemingly by chance? This entire Pike/Dunbar ruse simply doesn’t make sense to me. Otherwise, I think the plot would be tenable, though, as so often the case with movies, somewhat fantastic and improbable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Covert operations don't always need a justification of action. The scenario is crazy. Kill two soldiers in a training and get away with it? Come on, all they did is a real flame and smoke situation. This was not covert at all. I liked the other movie where Travolta was an investigator, too: The General's Daughter. Much much better!

The title is "Basic"

1. The title of the movie is "Basic", yet the film does not concern basic training in any form but rather a nonexistent Ranger exercise.

Removed this from the inaccuracies, since is not a inaccuracy. The title is derived not from military basic training but instead from the fact that "Murder is Basic" however the conspiracy in this movie is not a typical "basic" murder.24.76.54.104 (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies section removed

I removed a list of alleged inaccuracies from this article, which was first added in this edit:[1] This sort of material is inappropriate for two reasons: firstly, because it's unsourced and therefore original research, and secondly because it's trivia. It should only be included if there are sources to show that these 'inaccuracies' have actually had some wider significance, e.g. leading to criticism from notable groups. Robofish (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)