Talk:The Bodyguard (1992 film)

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film: American This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

NPOV. I've never seen this movie, but someone please write a summary that's not pulled from the back of the dvd case. 204.191.108.165 22:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Angry and drunk, Nicki admits that during a drug-induced fit of jealousy she hired a hitman to kill Rachel, but that the letters from the stalker came before that."

I can hardly remember the film (saw it once on TV many years ago and didn't like it) but the current plot summary doesn't seem to make it clear who the letter-writing stalker is, whether he is brought to justice, and his relationship (if any) to the actual hitman, Portman. Perhaps someone could elaborate. Muzilon (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having first seen the movie overseas from the perspective of an international audience, I was very happy to watch a major movie featuring characters from different races loving each other and don't minding a bit about it. I thought that Hollywood has finally matured about that "controversy" in the American society. I think that this commentary doesn't represent a worldview, rather it displays an American view.

You're right, actually it wasn't that big of a controversy. I have never heard anybody mention anything about it and nobody I know said anything about it. What I do wonder, however, is under the "Reception" title, who keeps erasing the fact that the film is one of the Top 100 grossing in history and the fact that it garnered two Oscar nominations. Seems to me if you are going to leave in negative aspects such as "Rotten Tomatoes" and "Raspberry Award" nominations, then you have to leave in more important and legitamite facts like it is one of the Top 100 highest-grossing films ever and the two Oscar nominations. This is not a place for people to decide they do not want these facts known because another singer may be their favorite performer. This is NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section includes some questionable language which seems a bit over the top.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One user keeps adding unverified information and flat out lies. He/she manipulates the sentences in order to make the critical reception seem more postive than it actually was. Also, The Bodyguard is NOT in the Top 100 highest grossing films anymore! This is getting very, very frustrating to keep editing revisions by someone who obviously isn't intelligent enough to know what vandalism is. BalticPat22Pat 04:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "The Bodyguard" was in the #60-#80 range for many years and recently around #99 or #100, and just got knocked out of the top 100 highest grossing films worldwide with the release of films like "The Dark Knight" and "Sex In The City". Its probably #102 now. But I think a bigger question and something that should make more people upset is why it was never mentioned in the article that it was one of the top 100 highest grossing pictures in the world when it actually was? That's a big accomplishment considering how many films have been released worldwide since the 1920s, so that deserves mentioning. Its a big accomplishment for everyone invloved in making the film and a big accomplishment for Whitney Houston. Its not good standards that that fact was never included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was in the Top 100 films domestically or worldwide is beside the point. The fact remains that it isn't in the Top 100 anymore. The Bodyguard is #277 in the domestic tally, and #102 in the worldwide tally. Also, it would be even lower once inflation is counted in. Inflation is much more accurate when evaluating the financial success of a film. Also, hundreds of movies were once in the Top 100 highest grossing films, but others have topped their commercial earnings since then. It isn't necessary at all to state that it was previously in the Top 100; although people keep adding the incorrect sentence that it still is in the Top 100 and delete factual statements, which is flat out vandalism. Also, I believe that the poor critical reception that the film received shouldn't be undermined by outdated information. BalticPat22Pat 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it is no longer one of the top 100. In reading the paragragh, it still seems appropriate. It states it received -mixed to negative reviews-, and goes into things like "rotten tomatoes" and "golden raspberry awards" or razzies, so actually its not undermining any poor reception some/most critics may have given it. It also balances it out with its gross receipts (the one thing that really counts), and it's two Oscar nominations. But in regard to the statement that it's worldwide tally would be lower if counting inflation, then everything in the world that's from the past would be lower when counting in inflation. But one might look at it this way: The film made $410 million worldwide in 1992, when ticket prices were much lower. That's even more impressive than a movie that made $400 million in, say, 2008 as ticket prices are twice as high today. So if "The Bodyguard" were released in 2009 and the same amount of people (head count) went and saw it and instead of paying $5-$6 for a ticket, they paid $9-$11, the gross would probably be around $700-$800 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes.com is a collection of various film critics and journalists that rate films based on their performance. The Boyguard, whether you like it or not, did extremely poorly, critically. Also, The Golden Rasberry Awards are the equivalent of the Oscars, only for poorly made films. The Bodyguard attained numerous nominations for the way it was filmed--which was bad. The mere fact that you keep insting that box office performances makes the film good, just shows how little you understand about films. Critical reception is MUCH more important than the gross of the film. Just because a film makes a good amount of money, does NOT make it award worthy or critically good. Lastly, you are talking about useless hypothetical banter that makes NO sense whatsoever. If YOU think that The Bodyguard is a good film, then fine. That's your prerogative. But don't undermine other people that frankly have a much better understanding of films and what to put in article sections than you. Bias isn't a good trait to have as an editor on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedic website, and opinions are not welcome, nor are they allowed. BalticPat22Pat 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movies are made for the public, not for the critics who merely make a living on the back of the film industry (most do not even pay for their seats.) Often, critics do not even agree among each others about what makes a good movie, or which movie is good. Just the fact that a majority of critics say a movie is not good has little to do with the fact that people may or may not enjoy watching it. When people in the public read a review from a critic about a particular movie, they typically do not want to know if the movie is "good" as YOU define it, they want to know if they will enjoy watching it and if it is worth their money going to see it. Most people simply ignore the critics. Many movies that were not critical successes end up being popular successes, and that goes to show that the critics do not much about what makes a movie a success. It is funny that in the same paragraph, the previous poster says: "Critical reception is MUCH more important than the gross", which is obviously a personal opinion, which I happen to not share, and then "opinions are not welcome". Opinions are OK, as long as they are not posted as facts. I will not venture very far saying that few producers will prefer a good critical reception to a good public reception. Directors may have another opinion. The fact that the movie was nominated for two Oscars goes to show that many in the movie industry felt it had unusual value, and that is very relevant too. A movie does not have to be perfect in every regard to be a success, or even to be important. A movie with broad public success is important, regardless of what the critics say, because other filmmakers will look at it and try to understand what made it a success, so it will influence how future movies will be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didier 2007 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. The section showcases the critical reception as well as the commercial reception. That is in nearly every other movie article. To say that either critical or commercial reception is above the other, is irrelevant. The whole point of this discussion was to stop the blatant vandalism that inhibited a neutral POV from occuring. That was the basis of the topic. As of now, the POV is neutral. It shows the critical reception, commerical reception, and awards nominated. Whether they are positive or negative is beside the point. It simply showcases the film's influence between the public and the critics; which it should. BalticPat22Pat 18:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna

"Madonna was considered for the role of Rachel. [...] he congratulated her concert, calling her show neat, Madonna made fun of his "neat" remark after he left. Costner undoubtedly saw this after the documentary's release."

"undoubtedly" is speculation unless Costner made a direct comment in response. Quoting Madonna with "Anyone who says my show is neat has got to go." may be also more helpful in describing how Madonna "made fun of" him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.162.122.6 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that after leaving Rachel Marron's employ (W. Houston's character), he goes on to an assignment to protect an archbishop. I did not get that impression from the film. My impression was that he was protecting a politician or some other important person, and in the course of his assignment, he was at an event where an archbishop gave the invocation. There was nothing in the film to indicate who was his "customer". --rogerd (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the last shot of the film, the clergyman is holding the same kind of cross than Frank gave Rachel to use as a paging device while he gives the invocation. Frank looks on from behind his shoulder. That seems like an indication he was protecting the clergyman. Dr. G's Mom (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's clear one way or another who Frank is protecting in the last scene. In the article, to state he is whom is he protecting involves way too much of an assumption. I think that statement should be removed. Lawyer2b (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed it [1]. Although a ref was added, the ref doesn't actually support the claim. Also the source used appears to be a draft and doesn't completely concur with the actual ending I've seen (perhaps scenes were cut or it was decided this ending is better). While the differences don't seem significant, it does highlight the fact we have to be careful using it. While it is mentioned a congressperson who's made a name fighting organised crime is going to make a speek, it isn't directly stated if Frank is protecting this congressperson. Yes it may be the most likely intepretation, but it's still a guess. As Lawyer2b has said, this sort of detail doesn't matter anyway. As there should not be a need to copy such a large copyrighted section as a hidden comment. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's an educated guess. Remember he protected the President so he probably went back to working as a federal agent.

I was intendeding to delete it altogether but you can be sure somebody's wiki bot would just undo the change and bring us back to where we started so it had to wait. I just made some changes and came back to today to check on it. Good you finished cleaning it up.

A minor detail like who he's protecting in his next job probably doesn't really belong in the plot summary of the article anyway.

For the record, here is what the article said:

Frank then moves on to his next assignment, guarding the Reverend Philip Hardy with the First Presbyterian Church of Iowa Rapids.

(ref)Our speaker this evening, the honorable congressman from the fifth district, Galen Windsor, has been a lone, courageous, voice...he alone has challenged those who have linked organized crime with legitimate business throughout our state. But first our benediction will be delivered by Reverend Phillip Hardy of the First Presbyterian Church. The Reverend holds up the cross while he speaks (Frank originally gives Rachel the cross with the radio transmitter but now he has it) "Heavenly Father, please bless us today as we meet in friendship and duty. And Lord, whatever dangerous endeavors those among us may take,let them never be without your sanctuary." Standing against the wall behind the table is Frank. As the Reverend's prayer goes on, all heads are bowed to receive the benediction. All heads but Frank's." http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Bodyguard.html(/ref)

I changed it to:

Frank then moves on to his next assignment, guarding a Congressman.

(ref)(!-- Our speaker this evening, the honorable congressman from the fifth district, Galen Windsor, has been a lone, courageous, voice...he alone has challenged those who have linked organized crime with legitimate business throughout our state. But first our benediction will be delivered by Reverend Phillip Hardy of the First Presbyterian Church. The Reverend holds up the cross while he speaks (Frank originally gives Rachel the cross with the radio transmitter but now he has it(or does he? maybe it just reminds Frank of Rachel just as Rachel is reminded of Frank when she sings in concert in the scene between this and the scene at the airport)) "Heavenly Father, please bless us today as we meet in friendship and duty. And Lord, whatever dangerous endeavors those among us may take,let them never be without your sanctuary." Standing against the wall behind the table is Frank. As the Reverend's prayer goes on, all heads are bowed to receive the benediction. All heads but Frank's." Frank is more likely guarding the Congressman who is challenging organized crime than the Reverend saying a prayer. --) The Bodyguard script at IMSDb.com(/ref)

Then I waited for comment on the talk page before the deleting of that whole section was done.

68.76.122.52 (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of actors/actresses in this film should be amended since an incorrect sports star is listed who does not appear -- Herb White.

The part of the Bodyguard's father is instead played by Ralph Waite who is famously remembered as "Pa" on the CBS TV version of The_Waltons.

Timothyjshaw (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)timothyjshaw[reply]

I'm not sure that we should bother with the random rumours of people allegedly going to star in the alleged remake. I removed [2] which was completely unsourced. Even if it can be soured I'm not convince it should be added. Currently we have Rihanna with a sourced (originally unsourced) interview where she says has no desire to star in it (she doesn't seem to indicate she was under serious consideration). Earlier we had Miley Cyrus and Hugh Jackman [3] but both denied they were involved. IMO unless any actors or actresses are actually confirmed to have been offered the role (even if they turned it down) or there's something else highly notable about rumours (fairly unlikely) they shouldn't be added. With the death of Whitney Houston perhaps WB will reconsider any alleged plans for a remake anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the family eulogies for Malcolm Fraser (op cit), his grand-daughter Rachel mentioned Fraser's particular liking for this film/cast: "Ms Fraser recalled her grandfather's sometimes questionable taste in movies, noting his favourite film was The Bodyguard 'because of Whitney Houston. Every time I stayed with him he would ask granny and I (sic) if we wanted to watch it, as if we had never seen it before,' she said." Source - http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-fraser-death-national-leader-and-proud-family-man-remembered-at-state-funeral-service-20150327-1m97ho.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.210.138 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally cast for - Who is it?

Steve McQueen or Ryan O' Neal - see Steve McQueen - missed roles - last paragraph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McQueen#Missed_roles

Kasdan wrote the film in the mid-1970s, originally as a vehicle for Ryan O'Neal and Diana Ross.[5]

McQueen was offered the title role in The Bodyguard (with Diana Ross) when it was proposed in 1976, but the film did not reach production until years after McQueen's death

According to Imdb McQueen proposed the idea for the drama film The Bodyguard (1992) in 1976. However, this was forgotten for 16 years until 1992, when Kevin Costner revived the idea

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.234.67 (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]