Talk:Seven Pounds

Headlines

• Col's putting on 'Pounds'
• Smith putting on 'Seven Pounds'
• Smith to star in 'Seven Pounds'
• 'Pounds' gains Dawson, Harrelson
• Ealy rolls 'Seven' for Col
• Will Smith Interview, Seven Pounds
• Will Smith stars in 'Seven Pounds'
• 'Seven Pounds,' seven keys to Will Smith's success
• Will Smith not afraid of trauma
• Smith delves deep with ‘Seven Pounds’
• Smith seeks salvation in 'Seven Pounds'
• Weight of the world / alternative link: Seven Pounds a heavy movie for Will Smith
• 'Seven Pounds' relies on Will Smith power
• Rosario Dawson on Seven Pounds

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a spoiler warning. It is courtesy to all readers. I have removed the "do not add spoiler warning" comment as it is ridiculous. As the Wiki guidelines say: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

There is nothing wrong with letting people know that the plot is revealed in the article. I certainly would have appreciated it. Djwatson (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is as it is against Wikipedia Policy. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is censored on Wikipedia. If one does not wish to have everything revealed, then one should not visit the Wikipedia page involved. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cruelty is not a productive policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.89.226 (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Spoiler:

"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality"

It has nothing to do with cruelty. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Encyclopedia's should cover topics in detail without bias. You should be well aware than an encyclopedic article on a film/novel/story will discuss the plot and to avoid it if you do not wish to learn its details. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A little harsh on ezra

In the scene were Tim talks to ezra on the phone, i think he was a bit harsh on ezra, what he said to him can only be said to someone you truly hate or someone who took something precious from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.107.225.43 (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Berry Peppers role

What is Berry Pepper's character's part in Ben's plan? What is it he has been sworn in to do? Who is the woman on his side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.208.237 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Barry Pepper plays a childhood friend of "Ben" who grew up to be a doctor and was the only person in whom he confided his suicide pact. Barry Pepper's character also provided "Ben" with donor lists so he could go through and evaluate those people. The woman on his side is his wife.

SenorSniffles (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hot Grits?

How does one "shake off" hot grits? Also, how does one know that it will hurt once said grits are shaken off? Can someone explain what that means? That quote is like undercooked poultry, you can't use it as a weapon, but you know you might get a foodborne illness when you do. 128.138.45.26 (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Evan

Throwing Hot Grits is a common colloquial expression in the African-American community. Famous R&B Singer Al Green was seriously injured when an irate woman threw hot grits on him. Grits are a type of hot cereal primarily served in the southern part of America. I don't rememeber the quote from the movie directly.

Thanks for the clarification. I actually have enjoyed grits many times, it just seems like Will is saying that the actual shaking off of the grits is what will hurt. That part doesn't seem to make any sense. Anyway, I didn't know about the expression and now I do, so thanks! Have a happy holiday. 66.45.157.158 (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Evan

SenorSniffles (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Commentary

Hi, I would like to add a new section "Commentary" with the review by Todd McCarthy from Variety. What do you think about it?Sha-Sanio (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What I've written is: Filmcritics describe the movie as a "sentimental fable about sacrifice and redemption" and more appealing to your heart than to intellect. The film works without numerous convincing dialogues instead evoking implications on the emotions of the spectator these play with emotions is comparable with the impression that The Sixth Sense made on the spectator. Todd McCarthy believes it to be a drama with an "(...) emotionally devastating [climax]", that is especially unfamiliar to viewers with serious religious beliefs.Sha-Sanio (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, be bold with adding such a section, though I suggest calling it "Critical reception"! Read MOS:FILM#Critical reception for some guidance on the matter as well. Lastly, make sure you avoid weasel wording... for example, when you say "Film critics describe the movie..." you are really only citing one person's opinion, so it has to be clear about that. It is difficult to get the overall consensus of critics... I personally cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic until there is a retrospective source that can look back on the film's release and say how most critics thought of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Erik I have problems to make the correct reference to the new section. You certainly know what should be done to get rid of the old reference. Thank you very much.Sha-Sanio (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I used the {{cite journal}} template for the reference. Thanks so much for your addition! Feel free to write in other reviews, too. I will probably work in some of the above headlines this week. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cerrecting the footnote, I have to try it one more time. Sha-Sanio (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a short interview with Will Smith about his colabouration with the director, do you think it should be added here? http://www.craveonline.com/articles/filmtv/04652507/will_smith_discusses_seven_pounds.html

ThanksSha-Sanio (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to add it into the article now or list it in the "Headlines" section above. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry because it takes so long, but I have problems with my working station and it's deep night in Sweden and all fingers turn to icicles. Really sorry, I gonna start now.Sha-Sanio (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where to put this but this part "In an interview with Fred Topel from CraveOnline Will Smith tells how he profits from his work on Seven Pounds with director Gabriele Muccino, whom he knows since their colaboration on The Pursuit of Happyness. The character of the film required a quiet and rather introverted person, who doesn't burn out oneself at every possible instance. Standing in contrast to his previous roles this way of acting means a change for Will Smith. This change he could only accomplish with trust to the appropriate director who would give him the trust to relax and make the movie work without Will Smith feeling the need to overextend himself, as for example Michael Mann told him. Furthermore, Will Smith said about the movie that he wants to believe that it is love story although he knows that it is supposed to be drama." under commentary does not really fit in my opinion. It also seems poorly written and dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.243.135 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the content to the "Cast" section and rewrote it. I would not call it "dumb"; it is likely that the first language of the editor who added it was not English. If you see similar contributions, be bold to move the content to the right place and rewrite it for clarity. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Erik why did you shorten my text in the critical reception to two sentences, that's not good. What is wrong about my participation??Sha-Sanio (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved your addition about Smith's thoughts on the role to the "Cast" section. The "Critical reception" section is most suitable for critics' thoughts on the film, so it is okay to have Variety and The New York Times there. The actor sharing his own thoughts wouldn't fit. :) Let me know if my move of the paragraph to the "Cast" section is okay! —Erik (talk • contrib) 10:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The explanation for the title of the movie is incorrect.

The explanation given by the Wiki article is that he "gave seven pounds of flesh" to seven different people. The title comes from the fact that the average human heart weighs seven pounds. SenorSniffles (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That can't be true, because the average human heart weighs less than one pound. --70.26.132.12 (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was a reference to the Merchant of Venice, and his seven debts which are unpaid. Need a source though. :D --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice the central character demands the payment of a pound of flesh from those who are in debt to him. Ben has a debt to repay for the seven lives he took and so the phrase is both metaphorical and literal since six of the debts are repaid with his actual "flesh". You can read this in the official site of the movie.Domino73 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed this line: "Seven Pounds is actually a reference to The Merchant of Venice, and Shylock's demand of a pound of flesh in exchange for a debt.[11] Tim was responsible for seven people's deaths in the accident, hence he has seven pounds of debt to repay." because the citation used did not having anything to do with the filmmakers using it as a reference. The movie's website said nothing, that I could find, about the Merchant of Venice, either. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 16:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that the title comes from the belief that when a person dies, they apparently lose 7 pounds. This unaccounted for 7 pounds is said to be caused by the soul leaving the body. I can't remember where I first heard of this, but it's fairly well-recognized. I have no idea if a person actually loses this 7 pounds, but it's certainly a more poetic explanation for the title than everything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessa210 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mixing this up with 21 Grams 217.93.188.187 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what any of us assume, the only interpretations of the title we can put in the article are what's cited in secondary sources, otherwise it's original research and against wiki policy.24.190.34.219 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The average human heart weighs 5/8ths of a pound - approximately 11 oz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.20.122 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary Wrong

Ben Thomas states to Emily that he needed a double LOBE transplant, not a double lung transplant. They are two different procedures. Tim donated a lobe to his brother.

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.29.177 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Werther Effect | Copycat | Critical reception (?)

Not wikipedia in my language - so just a question: Aren't there any guidelines in the US (for journalism, movies, ...) against romanticizing suicides to prevent a Werther_effect? --83.65.94.2 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

nope. Free speech and all. there is some controversy around it, and schools wouldn't show such a movie/book/play etc.66.190.169.38 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When Will Smith's character goes out to his car to get a surprise for Emily Posa, his brother is waiting for him, blah blah blah. Before Will Smith's character turns to go back into Emily's house, the brother asks for something back from Will Smith's character... which is the brother's IRS identification, which is seen with the name Ben Thomas on it when Will Smith's character, Tim Thomas, hands the IRS identification back to the real Ben Thomas, Will Smith's character-Tim Thomas' brother. Kayzue2010 (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ben or Tim?

True, through most of the movie, Will Smith's character goes by Ben. However, due to that we give everything away, shouldn't we use his real name in the article? ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - it is simply wrong how it's stated in the article right now. Will Smith is starring as "Tim", who lives as "Ben". He is not starring as "Ben". 94.218.59.201 (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but according to IMDB.com (and whilst watching the movie at the moment) the protagonist's name is indeed "Ben". "Tim" as I understand is Ben's brother. I cannot find any specific reference in the movie to point out that "Ben" is indeed "Tim", excepting the story to which he tells "Emily" while she is in the hospital.... clarification would be appreciated, and if I am correct, the article should also be changed to properly reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlantisEndevour (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Will Smith plays Tim Thomas, he masquerades as Ben. imdb is not an RS, and Wikipedia is not censored, not do we go by Spoiler alerts, and hiding the fact that he is Tim and calling him "Ben" would be a spoiler. Wikipedia aims to be accurate, the article as it is at this moment is accurate. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While it's true that Wikipedia is not censored does listing Will Smith's character as Tim in the cast listing really accomplish anything? People who haven't seen the movie will get it spoiled for them, and people who have seen it will relize why Will Smith's character is listed under the incorrect name immediatly. I say we list Will Smith's character in the cast listing as "Ben" and in the plot description we tell them the twist. You have to relise that some people haven't seen the movie yet, and wouldn't relize that the movie could get spoiled for them by looking at the cast list. Deathawk (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

When does a spoiler stop being a spoiler? When can you assume everyone knows what Rosebud means? The simple method is to give all the information and let the reader be warned. The whole of Wikipedia has a spoiler warning, who reads the plots or cast of a film not expecting to be spoiled? Don't read Zombieland if you don't want to know the surprise cameo in the last half hour, and Bruce Willis is dead at the end of Sixth Sense, which is a plot point in 50 First Dates so can we assume everyone knows that? Darrenhusted (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Spoiler:

"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality"

It has nothing to do with cruelty. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Encyclopedia's should cover topics in detail without bias. You should be well aware than an encyclopedic article on a film/novel/story will discuss the plot and to avoid it if you do not wish to learn its details. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Motifs

• 'Tim Thomas as a Christ Figure
  

Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research (OR). It needs to be sourced from WP:V and WP:RS. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Is it just me, or does it seem like the plot summary was just lifted wholesale from IMDB? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814314/synopsis24.118.170.221 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the plot summary, or re-wrote what was there, and I didn't even know that the imdb had a page with that on. But if anything it look like they lifted it from here, not the other way round. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary in the wrong order?

The "plot summary" is currently listing the events in chronological order; however a plot summary should normally list them in the order they happen in the film. Would there be any objection if I put them in the right order? Also I've noticed many comments regarding the name of Tim/Ben. Rather than calling him Tim all along, I think it would be better to call him Ben, and write towards the end that when he meets his brother, we learn that his name is in fact "Tim". That way the plot summary would be closer to the actual plot. What do you think? Laurent (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there would. The way to write the summary is in the most straightforward way. Though the plot loops it is not complex. The order of the plot as it is makes it clear what happens and sticking to Tim throughout stops vandals from swapping the names. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If we put the events in the correct order, it would still be straightforward. I'm not suggesting we should expand the summary or make it more complex, but simply take what is there and put it in the correct order. In general, I think we shouldn't rearrange the events in an arbitrary way, even if it seems "right" to us. See for instance Pulp_Fiction_(film)#Plot - although the narrative structure is complex, the plot summary matches the actual film plot. Laurent (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The order is not arbitrary, the flashback is shown in pieces, but it is easier to put it up front, then explain what he does after that. To take the flashback and place it towards the end would not help the reader, and there would be nothing to be gained from adding the 911 call, which is the way the film actually starts to this plot. The director chopped up the narrative to hide facts from the viewer, we don't need to hide the two twists from the reader (that being his name and the flashback). Darrenhusted (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Laurent. I won't add more arguments to those he already presented, but I subscribe his words. I'm in favor of a rewriting of the plot in the lines he suggested. --Waldir ^talk 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Laurent and Waldir. It would be most straightforward to a viewer of the movie to have the summary follow the events in the order they are shown in the movie. IAmTheWalrus89460 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This thread died a fifteen months ago. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my comment that Darren is sounding like one of the biggest prats on Wikipedia. More interested in his contributions than general agreement. 2.26.125.253 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I will remind myself to come back and fix the plot section. It was not written by anyone familiar with English composition. It is syntactically abominable. Watch for improved readability later this month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.192.179 (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there many other non-linear films that have been summarised in a chronological order? This isn't a plot summary, it's a summary of Tim's actions as portrayed in the film, once they've been deciphered. The non-linear plot might be harder to summarise but the current linear revision doesn't read well at all. Apologies to Darren as you are clearly very attached to it but I think at the expense of the article.95.151.210.4 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Reception

The article puts across the idea that the movie had bad reception - what with the low reviews from critics. But its rating on IMDB seems very high - a 7.6. It seems like its public reception is the opposite of critical reception. Shouldn't this be noted? --122.62.24.144 (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

and the Rotten Tomatoes community earned it a rating of 77% (as opposed to the critic rating of 27%). This is quite a stark difference. --122.62.24.144 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither imdb user rating nor RT community ratings are put towards the reception, the film got a lot of bad reviews from critics. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you just skim over what I said? Critical reception is bad, but conversely, public reception is good. You're right - those two scores are not put towards the reception. But they should be. If the section is limited to critical reception and not public reception, the article is not comprehensive and also slightly misleading. --Teggles (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The box office is the public reaction, scores on forums and "community" ratings are not, they are biased opinions of a self selecting audience with no control or filter. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a point about the self-selected audience, but it makes me notice a clear gap in generally all movie articles. The public's reception is very badly represented by box office sales, since it assumes that a ticket sale counts towards positive reception, even if everyone who bought the ticket hated the movie. There clearly needs to be a method of noting actual public opinion, but I have no idea how this would be measured. It is a key flaw. --Teggles (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, how do we conclude that a certain amount of ticket sales = negative/positive reception? If the ticket sales exceed more than the budget but it didn't perform well in the box office, is it a positive reception or a negative reception? What if the sales are lower than the budget but it was #1 in the box office? Is that negative or positive? A lot of practices here have become established without proper thought and mindlessly followed. --Teggles (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You would be better talking this up at the film project page. We know who film critics are, we know their history, and though they may be wrong (see the 1 guy who hates Toy Stpry 3 and is being raked over the coals for saying it) they are the part that goes to the reception section. We do not know who the imdb users are and they can easily vote stack and skew things such as the imdb rating, thus "public opinion" comes from box office and DVD sales, and not forums or community votes by self selecting audiences. And bad word of mouth can kill a bad film, the opinion may be that they don't care once they have your money, but the last decade is strewn with films launching to fanfare then dropping like a stone, see Ang Lee's Hulk. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot again

I haven't seen the film, so I'm not going to change it, but the line "One night, after being eaten, Connie contacts Tim" in the Plot section doesn't seem right. Except this is about oral sex, which I doubt, and if so this should be spelt out. 217.93.188.187 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, that's like a huge (huuuge!) freudian slip on your side, I'll let you figure this one out yourself! Hint: "beaten" 217.93.181.191 (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot - Ezra Turner

The plot summary only briefly mentions him at the very end though he appears at the very beginning of the movie, no description of the character, no mention that he's played by Woody Harrelson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.165.76 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The above comment is correct--in fact, it even understates the problem. I have never seen this movie, and I just attempted to get an idea of the plot by reading the summary, and I was left very puzzled. The character Ezra is suddenly introduced at the end of the plot summary; I quote: "His friend Dan (Barry Pepper) acts as executor to ensure that his organs are donated to Emily and Ezra". This gives you the impression that you are supposed to know who Ezra is, even though he has not previously been mentioned. Chalkieperfect (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've restored an earlier version of the plot that includes more about Ezra, and also doesn't hides the Ben/Tim spoiler. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Redo Plot Section

I haven't seen the film in a while, but my gut tells me that this summary has been written in chronological order, not in the order shown in the film.

the PLOT represents a description of the story and the events therein. It should be written in the order events are depicted. It is not a technical document that is written in chronological order. Even if it were, it has writing problems. "Two weeks before he dies..." At that point in the summary, there is no indication that he dies at all. Please fix this. TheHYPO (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Because of the plot twist, and because WP is not censored, the most logical way to write to summary is to give a chronological summary, rather than jumping back and forth, which would also involved hiding the first twist (the stolen identity). The summary has been worked on by many editors and this version has been seen as the easiest way of summing up the plot. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Who added that Ezra and Emily get married? That is not in the version I saw in the theater or the TV version and there is absolutely no mention of Ezra having AIDS, which was on the page briefly and seems to have been removed. Somebody has quite the imagination! Let's have some respect for wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.177.210 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When I rewrite it later this month, it should solve all these problems: all you have to do is explain the chronological, then tell it as presented in the film. I have to watch it again to catch the nuances that work... and explain the ones that don't. 98.178.192.179 (talk)(semi-pro editor) Cinco de Mayo 2013.

So What is the Plot Twist?

This movie is supposed to build up to a plot twist, right? I see there's been some discussion about how the plot summary has been presented, so as someone who has not seen the movie, I can say that nothing seems like a plot twist based on the plot summary as-is (Jan '12). I think it really needs to be re-written then so that the uninformed reader can learn what the plot twist is. As it stands, nothing seems surprising. 96.235.46.245 (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really a classic plot twist, but more like a reveal; you only know what the story is really about near the end, or before, if you can figure out the clues. After some debate, me and another user have added a sentence about it in the plot, lets hope this time it stays there. Romancer (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reception (again)

So which one is it?

Lead: "Despite generally negative reviews from critics..."

Critical reception section: "The film received generally positive reviews from critics."

pgr94 (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Genre

The article describes the film as being a "fantasy drama film", but I did not notice any elements of fantasy within the film. Please correct me if I am wrong, otherwise I ask that I may be able to change this.

Scatter SenbonZakura (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)