Talk:The Grand Budapest Hotel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Johnny Depp was never involved[edit]

The reference to the claim that Johnny Depp was originally cast in Fiennes' role never states that Depp was involved. Actually it's pretty clear that he never was. I tried to remove it, but apparently people wants to believe Depp was involved. He never was. But as Anderson said himself, he is an actor he would like to work with in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.160.59.30 (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This is also an American movie[edit]

The article lists this movie as being British-German, but it should also be listed as American. It was directed by an American, written by Americans, all listed producers are American, cinematography by an American, has a largely American cast, two of the four production companies are American, and it has an American distributor. I think that things things qualify it as being American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 (talkcontribs) 04:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The Grand Budapest Hotel is a British-German co-production of Grand Budapest Limited (UK) and Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film GmbH (Germany) → please see → production. --IIIraute (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that Chrono85 is correct. Three of the four studios that were involved in the production are American and it has an American distributor. This certainly makes it a co-American production, especially considering the predominantly American cast, crew and director. The three US-based studios are named Indian Paintbrush, Scott Rudin Productions and American Empirical Pictures. Furthermore, the distribution is being handled by Fox Searchlight and the rights are owned by its parent company, the US-based 20th Century Fox. This film is far more American than it is British or German in terms of its content, production, ownership, distribution, etc. I'll correct this in the text and will add some citations here in a bit... Constablequackers (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus for the removal of long standing content. I would suggest following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante).
  • Studio Babelsberg press release: "The Grand Budapest Hotel is a UK-German co-production, produced by Grand Budapest Limited (UK) and Studio Babelsberg (Germany)" & "The Grand Budapest Hotel (UK/Germany)". [1]
  • 64th Berlin International Film Festival (The Grand Budapest Hotel opened the festival): "The Grand Budapest Hotel (UK/Germany)" [2]
  • Variety: "The pic is a U.K.-Germany co-production, produced by Grand Budapest Limited (U.K.) and Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film GmbH (Germany)" [3]
Screen Daily: "The Grand Budapest Hotel is an UK-German co-production, produced by Grand Budapest Limited (UK) and Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film GmbH (Germany)." [4]
Hollywood Reporter: "The Grand Budapest Hotel, a U.K./German co-production..." [5]
ComplexMovies [6], Deadline.com [7], DearCinema.com [8],
BBC [9], CNN [10]

This article lists the following production companies as being involved in this film: American Imperial Pictures, Indian Paintbrush, Scott Rudin Productions, and Studio Babelsberg. If we can agree that these first three productions companies are American, then that makes this movie a co-American production, by definition. That is, unless the article is incorrect in stating these production companies. I am kind of getting the feeling that you are making your edit based on nationalistic bias, rather than plain facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrono85 (talkcontribs) 16:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not make it a co-American production. The film is owned, i.e. is a co-production, produced by Grand Budapest Limited (U.K.) and Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film GmbH (Germany). Grand Budapest Limited and Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film GmbH are free to contract whomever they want. --IIIraute (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The guidance for film nationality is at Template:Infobox_film#Country. To use our own criteria to determine nationality would be original research, so we compare different sources and include the nationalities that are predominantly listed in the sources. It does look like IIIraute has researched this thoroughly. In this case it seems that the sources (most tellingly American ones too such as Variety and Hollywood Reporter) are calling it a UK/German production despite the heavy American involvement. My guess is that it's mainly down to the financing/copyright/filming locations but the point is as editors we are not privy to that information, so we should be consistent with what the majority of the sources state. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The film's official website notes that it's, more than anything, a 20th Century Fox production and they control distribution. Three American productions were involved in it. What more need be said? No one's saying that it's an entirely American film but, if the UK belongs up there, the US does too. Or here's another solution to this developing quagmire. How about we nix "American-British-German" from the intro paragraph entirely? It could read as follows:

"The Grand Budapest Hotel is a 2014 comedy-drama film written and directed by Wes Anderson..."

That might be the best compromise, lest we find ourselves in a fifteen-thousand paragraph debate over what makes a film distinctly German, American, British, etc.... Constablequackers (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have suggested before, please follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante). --IIIraute (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The usual reliable sources[edit]

Why are the RS we usually use not being discussed?

I can find no listing for this film at AFI or Lumiere.

The Hollywood Reporter announcement "Wes Anderson's 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' to Open Berlin Film Fest" was published several months before the film's release. There is no reason to give it dominance over the RS we usually use, especially as its advance listing of production companies does not match the credited companies named onscreen in the film itself or its poster. The primary production company is Wes Anderson's American Empirical Pictures. It and the second company, Indian Paintbrush, as well as Scott Rudin Productions, are American, and so is the distributor Fox Searchlight Pictures. It is clear the US needs to be listed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

This is getting ridiculous. We have an official statement of the Studio that did co-produce The Grand Budapest Hotel telling us that the film is a UK-German co-production - yet, some editor/s, although aware of that statement - continue their edit warring.

  • Studio Babelsberg press release: "The Grand Budapest Hotel (UK/Germany)" & "The Grand Budapest Hotel is a UK-German co-production, produced by Grand Budapest Limited (UK) and Studio Babelsberg (Germany)." [13] --IIIraute (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, this source should be enough. Point this out to editors and remind them of WP:3RR and request blocks and/or page protection if needed. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
But does that source from only one of the studios involved in the film allow it to trump the film's official website? I think not. The "add America too!" side of this silly debate has their own valid sources that contradict this one. Constablequackers (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that source is enough. Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film GmbH is not only one of the "studios involved"; i.e Studio Babalsberg - it is one of the two film production companies → Grand Budapest Limited (UK) and Studio Babelsberg (Germany) - or is there a studio called Grand Budapest Limited? There are more than enough expert WP:RS supporting that information. What does the official website state? Nothing! Don't make up fake claims. --IIIraute (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It isn't a "false claim." Have a look at the official site and scroll down to the bottom. Is there any inclusion of the studios that you mention here? Nope. Just 20th Century Fox. To elaborate further, here's the exact wording: "™ AND © TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PROPERTY OF FOX." Constablequackers (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the official FOX website for the film is the property of FOX - so what's your point? --IIIraute (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
One way to definitively resolve this is to check the film's copyright notice at the end of the end credits. Many films in the last few years produced within the European Union list the "production countries" next to the copyright year. Casino Royale for instance states it is a UK-US-Czech production. Obviously production companies and distributors are going to put an emphasis on their own involvement, but we can't argue with a copyright notice. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
"Christoph Fisser, Charlie Woebcken and Henning Molfenter from Studio Babelsberg are the executive producers."[14] & (in German) "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL ist eine Produktion von American Empirical Pictures und Indian Paintbrush. Studio Babelsberg ist Koproduzent. Die Produzenten sind Wes Anderson, Scott Rudin, Steven M. Rales und Jeremy Dawson. Charlie Woebcken, Christoph Fisser and Henning Molfenter von Studio Babelsberg sind Executive Producers. Die Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film, eine Tochterfirma der Studio Babelsberg AG, ist alleinige ausführende Produktionsfirma. © 2014 Studio Babelsberg AG, August-Bebel-Str. 26-53, D-14482 Potsdam" → translation → "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL is a production of American Empirical Pictures and Indian Paintbrush. Studio Babelsberg ist co-producer. The producers are Wes Anderson, Scott Rudin, Steven M. Rales und Jeremy Dawson. Charlie Woebcken, Christoph Fisser and Henning Molfenter from Studio Babelsberg are the Executive Producers. Die Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film, a subcompany of the Studio Babelsberg AG, is the solely executive production company. © 2014 Studio Babelsberg AG, August-Bebel-Str. 26-53, D-14482 Potsdam"[15]
Screen Daily: "An American Empirical Pictures and Indian Paintbrush production and co-production of Studio Babelsberg; Charlie Woebcken, Christoph Fisser and Henning Molfenter from Studio Babelsberg will serve as executive producers.
A subsidiary of Studio Babelsberg AG, Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film, is in place as executive production company." [16] ---IIIraute (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The guidelines at MOS:FILM#Lead section state, "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." A film's so-called nationality is less straightforward nowadays compared to the past. In other words, there is no need to be upfront about it, especially when being upfront is void of context. What does it mean for the film to be British-German? How is it split? That's why the guidelines say to write the lead section to explain the countries' roles in this film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Because that is what the film experts say → WP:RS. It is not our responsibility to scrutinise their statements. I expect them to do their jobs properly. Studio Babelsberg is the executive production company - don't you think they might have given it a thought, before issuing a worldwide press release:
  • Studio Babelsberg press release: "The Grand Budapest Hotel is a UK-German co-production, produced by Grand Budapest Limited (UK) and Studio Babelsberg (Germany)" & "The Grand Budapest Hotel (UK/Germany)". [17]
  • 64th Berlin International Film Festival (The Grand Budapest Hotel opened the festival): "The Grand Budapest Hotel (UK/Germany)" [18]
  • Variety: "The pic is a U.K.-Germany co-production, produced by Grand Budapest Limited (U.K.) and Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film GmbH (Germany)" [19]
Screen Daily: "The Grand Budapest Hotel is an UK-German co-production, produced by Grand Budapest Limited (UK) and Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film GmbH (Germany)." [20]
Hollywood Reporter: "The Grand Budapest Hotel, a U.K./German co-production..." [21]
ComplexMovies [22], Deadline.com [23], DearCinema.com [24],
BBC [25], CNN [26]
I think it is fine to use the "British-German co-production" label later in the lead section per your sources. What I am saying is that this film is not defined upfront in this way. The Variety piece, for example, mentions it in the last paragraph. I'm suggesting contextual inclusion. We can say "The Grand Budapest Hotel is an English-language film written and directed by Wes Anderson. Ralph Fiennes stars as a concierge who teams up with one of his employees to prove his innocence after he's framed for murder. The film is a British-German co-production financed by German financial companies and was entirely filmed on location in Germany." That's what I mean by putting it in context. The key upfront fact is that it is directed by Wes Anderson since his name carries his own films, unlike some other directors. As for "English-language", I find it a sufficient cultural label. If we just say "British-German" upfront, we don't know off the bat if it is a German-language film with British funding, or vice versa. The point of the guidelines is not to worry so much about the film's nationality. The film being a British-German co-production does not necessarily mean that it is going to be representative of Cinema of the United Kingdom or Cinema of Germany, so like the sources do, we mention it in proper context. Even this calls it a "USA" film, apparently because of Wes Anderson and his direct creative control. It's not an argument to call it American, but it's indicative that there does not need to be an upfront national root here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
That's fine by me - however, the 64th Berlin International Film Festival did open with the world premiere of The Grand Budapest Hotel. [29] Wes Anderson (himself) did open the 64th Berlinale. The film entered competition as (UK/Germany) and won the Silver Bear Grand Jury Prize.[30][31]--IIIraute (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
What Erik said makes a lot of sense. I second that. Switching it to "English language" in the intro paragraph is a compromise that I think will make everyone here happy. Constablequackers (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that there's enough of a consensus here to make the switch that was suggested by Erik. If no one has any objections, I'll complete the edit in a day or two. Constablequackers (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Central or East European?[edit]

A minor thing, but I have a nagging memory of one of the voiceovers in the film explicitly referring to eastern Europe. A promotional website (most likely built without Anderson's close attention) probably isn't enough of a source here; there's a recent interview here with a quote from Anderson saying that his film is "set in eastern Europe", another here saying "our movie is an Eastern Europe filtered through movies", and another of "our own invented version of eastern Europe". I can't find any equivalent quotes where he describes it as being located in central Europe. --McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Searching the official website and those it links to, I found the "Akademia" website referring to Central Europe. Additionally, the hotel "doumentation" shown on those sites say the hotel is Alpine, which is central European (about as central as you can get) and not eastern European. All those quotes, repeated as it were in many other media, by Anderson are impressive though. Many othe critics refer though to central Europe. There is one even where Anderson refers to Central Europe in http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/wes-anderson-talks-the-grand-budapest-hotel-almost-working-with-elliott-smith-an-old-western-project-with-owen-wilson-20140305: "No, I think it was this movie. I think we just didn't know — we did write what we had at the time. So it wasn't typed up into a script but there were many scenes, and scenes that are in this movie. But they weren't in the context of central Europe, 1932. They were set in present day." Although, this quote may just be indirect, I would say Anderson is taking it rather loose with geography. Afterall, this is fantasy fiction. The historical "atmosphere" for this film is Austrian-Hungarian in my opinion. The Austrian-Hungarian empire bridged central and eastern Europe. So, what do we do? Do we go by what we see on the website and on screen or by a repeated quote from Anderson? Or both? Alandeus (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Given that this is the plot summary, we should go with what we see on the screen. If doing so would risk misleading or confusing the reader, we could just frame it as "the fictional Republic of Zubrowka, described by Zero as 'an eastern-European city...'" or whatever the line is. Anderson's actual quotes about inspirations and intentions could go elsewhere in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, most certainly Central Europe. Where else would one have an Alpine setting (resembling the Matterhorn), bordering some German-speaking country; i.e. Deutsches Reich, 1938.

Desgoffe-und-Taxis, Gabelmeister's Peak (German for "forkmaster's"), the Trans-Alpine Jodel newspaper, Schloss Lutz, Lutzbahn Station, the alpine competition sites (probably referring to the 1936 Olympic sites in Garmisch-Partenkirchen?), etc.

Inspector "Henckels", for example, refers to the Kunstmuseum (where Kovacs got killed) and the "Biergarten", and the fellow prisoners are called: Ludwig, Günther, Wolf - the prison cell has "Hilfe" (German for "help") and other German words written on the wall. The chaplains' name is "Franz Müller", and at the fairground there is a "Gasthaus zum ...". Also, Wes Anderson was inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig. Anderson: "There’s a wonderful photochrom of the hotel that I always thought of as sort of the model for our hotel, which is the Hotel Pupp in Karlovy Vary, which was Carlsbad." here In 1938, the Sudetenland, including Carlsbad, became part of Nazi Germany. The whole political setting does remind me of the 1938 German annexation of the Sudetenland and the black-red-black colours of the Sudeten German National Socialist Party

"Boy with Apple is a quintessential product of the Czech mannerist, Habsburg high Renaissance, Budapest neo-humanist style. To put it another way, it is a finely constructed piece of nonsense in the same playful spirit as everything else in Wes Anderson's delectable middle European fantasy, The Grand Budapest Hotel." here In its place Gustave hangs a watercolour of lesbian lovers by real-life Austrian painter Egon Schiele.

Another problem is the definition of Eastern Europe - in my opinion the references using the term "Eastern Europe" are referring to the Grand Budapest Hotel in the late 1960s; i.e during the Cold War - a definition that is used more or less synonymously with the term Eastern Bloc.

Alternatively, one could say: "... the fictional Republic of Zubrowka, a European alpine state ..." --IIIraute (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hats off to your compilation, IIIraute. The later-date hotel interiour reminded me of the old East-German style. (I grew up in West-Berlin.) Despite the "East" in East Germany, that country wasn't in eastern Europe, it was Eastern Bloc. Speaking of East Germany, the Kunstmuseum where Kovacs got killed was the Zwinger in Dresden and the wedding scene was on the Bastei in the Elbe Sandstone Mountains. In any case, I like the suggestion "... the fictional Republic of Zubrowka, a European alpine state ..." Alandeus (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it may seem like from the languages or whatever, within the first 42 seconds of the movie it very clearly says "On the farthest eastern boundary of the European continent: The former Republic of Zubrowka, Once the seat of an Empire." 71.19.181.162 (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Genre[edit]

So is the film a comedy-drama or a comedy?

Looking at souces, i've found the following: Comedy

  • Variety "Despite its titular allusion to 1932′s Oscar-winning “Grand Hotel,” the comedy reveals a deeper affinity for Ernst Lubitsch" [32]
  • Chicago Sun Times "“The Grand Budapest Hotel,” which is not only a murder mystery at its core but more of a full-tilt comedy than his typically melancholy, quirk-driven musings." [33]
  • A.O Scott for The New York Times "“The Grand Budapest Hotel” conjures some of its defining traits: quickness, compression and a highly refined sense of the nuances that separate comedy from tragedy. On the surface, there is a lot more comedy." [34]
  • The Telegraph "In his new comedy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson has found..." [35]
  • Entertainment Weekly " Genre: Comedy; With: Willem Dafoe, Ralph Fiennes..." [36]
  • Chicago Tribune "The actors give the brittle material life, mostly comic but dramatic when needed." [37]
  • Total Film "Genre Comedy, Drama" [38]
  • Washington post "Comparisons have been made to the wartime comedies of Ernst Lubitsch, but Anderson hasn’t created a playfully stinging satire as much as its softer mirror image. He convincingly mimics the gestures of the genre" [39]
  • New York Post "“GBH” is a featherweight screwball comedy that, trying mightily to be cosmopolitan" [40]
  • Hollywood Reporter "Comedy.drama", "The elegant comedy had its world premiere as the opening night" [41]
  • RogerEbert.com "Comedy, Drama" [42]
  • Allmovie "GENRES:Comedy SUB-GENRES:Farce, Period Film" "What's probably more important than any one plot point in Grand Budapest is the simple, rapturous fact that, first and foremost, it's a comedy." [43]
  • New Orleans Times-Picayune: " "The Grand Budapest Hotel" -- part comedy caper, part adventure, and all quirky, embraceable whimsy -- is proof." [44]
  • Philadelphia Inquirer "GENRE:Comedy; Drama" [45]
  • Salon: "This is one of Anderson’s funniest and most fanciful movies, but perversely enough it may also be his most serious, most tragic and most shadowed by history, with the frothy Ernst Lubitsch-style comedy shot through with an overwhelming sense of loss." [46]

Drama

Comedy; Drama" [50]

Adventure

WP:PRIMARY

Caper

Comedy-drama

So that's several more for comedy than other genres, and I was looking for all genres related to it. If there aren't any objections, I think the lead and categories should say comedy and not comedy-drama. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of the sources you have presented clearly state: Comedy, Drama. --IIIraute (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if you can read, most say comedy, a few add in drama, and only one says comedy-drama which is it's own unique entity. Please remember you can't interpret genres on your own and we can't just say "comedy-drama" becuase a few sources added drama in. (Wikipedia:No original research says that). Many of the sources even specificly state how it's a comedy above all above as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
So, you are saying that the classification "Comedy, Drama" ≠ "comedy-drama", because that's "original research"?

Get a life! --IIIraute (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. I remind you that we have WP:CIVIL, so if your only retort is to insult, then I'll assume you aren't taking this discussion seriously. If anyone else has anything else to add, I'll be happy to hear them out. Failing that, I'll change it later. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You have no editor consensus for such a change - so please follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante).

"Comedy-drama is a genre of theatre, film, and television that combines elements of comedy and drama, having both humorous and serious content." Most of the sources you have presented clearly state: Comedy, Drama.

The 64th Berlin International Film Festival did open with the world premiere of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Wes Anderson (himself) did open the 64th Berlinale. The film won the Silver Bear Grand Jury Prize, and is classified as tragicomedy --IIIraute (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to change it, but if you have no further statements. There's no strong consensus for drama in the above, just side bars listing the genres. Meanwhile, there are far grander statements talking about it as a comedy. For example:
"more of a full-tilt comedy than his typically melancholy, quirk-driven musings"
"What's probably more important than any one plot point in Grand Budapest is the simple, rapturous fact that, first and foremost, it's a comedy."
"“GBH” is a featherweight screwball comedy that"
"On the surface, there is a lot more comedy."
and so forth. The prose is much more strong than just a sidebar listing. I wasn't going to just change it around, but since your only response was for me to "get a life" I don't actually believe you care about the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Andrzejbanas, FYI, I have actually contributed a lot of content to this article, which you have not - not anything. Where I come from, you do not start a conversation with the words "if you can read" - so the tone was set by you. But maybe it is your understanding of cvility that makes clear why you don't understand that in most straight comedies the protagonist doesn't get executed at the end.

In response to your friendly commentary and the other controversial edit you did to this article today - which you yourself described as "kinda anal" - I was questioning your power of judgement with the words: "So, you are saying that the classification "Comedy, Drama" ≠ "comedy-drama", because that's "original research"? Get a life!", meaning, that you must have an awful lot of time at hand to worry and edit war, i.e. start page long discussions about such "anal" [sic] hairsplitting. --IIIraute (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't think I said anything specific about against you. But you definitely did for me. I did a lot of research to find a correct genre. I appreciate that you did a lot of work on the article but you don't own it either. If you want to actually discuss genre without using original research like saying the main protagonist dies in the end so it's automatically a drama. If you want to point out spelling errors, you can also do it, I see some in yours and mine but let's try and take each other seriously for a moment. I wasn't attacking the "if you can read" btw, I just didn't know if you went through them. A proper response would be to discuss WP:CIVIL with me, not telling me to "get a life". Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about an edit war, because I changed it once and then went to the talk page. Since your main arguments are for me that "you must have an awful lot of time at hand" and that I should "get a life", I'm really more assured more than ever you are trolling. I'll ask WP:FILMS for further opinions since you can't contribute much more than insults. Thanks for at least replying, I guess. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Please yourself! P.S. I also mentioned your other edit - didn't I? The one that you described yourself as "kinda anal" - ergo: the infobox content you changed twice, here & here --IIIraute (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
If you have nothing to contribute about the conversation, and want to just poke and prod, i'll leave more simple edit summaries in the future. In the meantime, let's try and keep the focus of discussion on the genre, not who is the worse wikipedian. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I already did:

The 64th Berlin International Film Festival did open with the world premiere of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Wes Anderson (himself) did open the 64th Berlinale. The film won the Silver Bear Grand Jury Prize, and is classified as tragicomedy

and so did you, as most of the sources you have presented clearly state: Comedy, Drama. --IIIraute (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you not agree that prose trumps point form side-text conforming to the genre? Also, all but one source seperates comedy and drama. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.". So you can't just form hybrids of things if they were never listed that way. I'm confident that the prose where prominent critics refer to the film mostly for it's status as a comedy. I'll re-post it here since you didn't seem to acknowledge it before.
"more of a full-tilt comedy than his typically melancholy, quirk-driven musings"
"What's probably more important than any one plot point in Grand Budapest is the simple, rapturous fact that, first and foremost, it's a comedy."
"“GBH” is a featherweight screwball comedy that"
"On the surface, there is a lot more comedy."
Also, your post about tragiccomedy has a couple flaws, firstly, it's talking about Anderson's work as a whole, not this film specifically ("Wes Anderson specialises in enigmatic tragicomedies peopled by eccentric individuals."). There is no proof that whoever wrote that has seen the film. I don't know what the other links your referred to in your post have to do with this discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves", however the sources you have provided are "secondary sources" - not "primary sources". --IIIraute (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
...I'm more than confused now. Could you explain why these are secondary? Per WP:SUBJECTIVE and what would qualify as Primary? Cause per WP:SUBJECTIVE, "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public.". So generally, things like genre should be decided by secondary sources, not from...whatever it is you are referring to. I'd appreciate it if you would address my points and get specific.Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say both parties should probably just take a breather. We're getting a little too fired up. Back and forth fights aren't helpful to anyone, can be extremely destructive, and can create a very unstable article. We don't want that, do we? Now, as for the topic at hand. Personally, I think Andrzejbanas has made it obvious that most available sources call the film a comedy, without any "drama" mentioned (including AllMovie, which is frequently used as a primary source for a film's genre), and therefore it should probably be what the lead reflects. Mentioning the writer's take on the drama in specific review summaries would be acceptable, but it's not widely stated enough to be included in the lead.. Corvoe (speak to me) 04:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Corvoe. I'd still like to wait out for other opinions, if there aren't any more in the near future I think we'll stick with what you suggested. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Per the request at the Film project I have a couple of points to make. 1) We have to distinguish between descriptive prose (where a reviewer refers to the "comedy" in the film) and a description of the film's genre (where the movie is described as a "comedy"). I don't feel that Andrzejbanas has quite made that distinction in listing his sources above. 2) Many of the sources I see list the genres as "comedy, drama", and while I accept that is subtly different from "comedy-drama" we have to accept that often "comedy, drama" and "comedy-drama" are used interchangeably. I don't think that's synthesis, but a quirk of the language that we have to just live with. I randomly selected several sources that we regularly use in this capacity and found BFI (comedy), BBFC (Comedy, Drama), NY Times (Comedy, Period), Allmovie (genre: Comedy, subgenres: Farce, Period film); all sources agree that the film is a comedy but there is very little consensus on what type of comedy it is, so on that basis we are probably putting undue weight on the "comedy-drama" description. Based on what has been written here and my own search I think we should just list the film as a "comedy", unless someone can come up with a more authoritative source than reviews and catalog listings. Betty Logan (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey Betty, It's been a few days an no one has come up with any other sources or suggestions. If nothing else comes up tomorrow, I'll change it then. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I added crime film cats to the article, but was reverted. The article's description of the stories mentions crime prominently in each one. Its IMDb article says that crime is one of its genres, along with adventure and comedy. Jim Michael (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't use IMDb as a source per WP:RS/IMDb. So we wouldn't use it. Otherwise, try to only use primary genres. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Order of country of production (infobox)[edit]

Each source mentioned lists the UK first. We should follow in suit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a guideline for the order of production companies? I'm almost positive there isn't, and this brings up a good point that there probably should be. The way a lot of people seem to do it is just alphabetically. I feel like this makes sense, since it'd be hard to gauge the order of relevance for companies. However, I agree that this might be a circumstance in which making the UK first would make a lot of sense. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
But what was the UK involvement - not a single UK studio; financed by German financial companies and governmental film funding organizations, inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig - and was filmed entirely on location in Germany. Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film was in place as executive production company, and the film premiered at the 64th Berlin International Film Festival. --IIIraute (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, film production is so strange lately that it's hard to really find out who or what is funding who. For example, look at Iron Man 3 which originally had Chinese funding put into it, but apparently didn't officially make it a Chinese-American (or American-Chinese) co-production because of some rules in China See article here. I think the infobox needs to be re-worked just to follow what sources say, rather than production companies are involved as it's getting progressively more confusing as wide co-productions are getting less clear.
As for this film, I don't know specificly what the deal is with the British production status, but many sources of mentioned it. Variety seems to say that it's " Grand Budapest Limited" that is the UK production. [54]Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"Grand Budapest Limited" is a letterbox company to qualify for a softer tax regime. "Die Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film, eine Tochterfirma der Studio Babelsberg AG, ist alleinige ausführende Produktionsfirma." (The Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film, a subcompany of the Studio Babelsberg AG, is the solely executive production company. © 2014 Studio Babelsberg AG, August-Bebel-Str. 26-53, D-14482 Potsdam) here --IIIraute (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of it being for tax reasons, all articles I've read state British-German, and even if the company was created for tax reasons or not, it qualified and was placed as such. There's no reason to ignore it just because we don't like it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe the relevant policies/guidelines are WP:BRD, Consensus, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and What Wikipedia is not, which states, inter alia: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful." So verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the order of "country of production". Could we have some grounds for the editorial judgement (other than that of a robot) that the UK should be mentioned first in the infobox?

I do not mind at all "British-German" in the text, as Anglo-German, Franco-German, etc. is the common terminology, i.e. "order", that is used in historical publications, in journalism, and also in the film industry. However, regarding the infobox, I do think Germany should be mentioned first, because not a single UK studio was involved and "Grand Budapest Limited" is a letterbox company to qualify for a softer tax regime; the film was financed by German financial companies and governmental film funding organizations, inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig - and was filmed entirely on location in Germany. Neunzehnte Babelsberg Film was in place as sole executive production company, and the film premiered at the 64th Berlin International Film Festival. So, what exactly makes you think that "it's more British produced than German" Please explain. --IIIraute (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you find evidence that there was no funding form the UK at all? If not, we should still follow what other sources say.Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment It seems editors are basing their decisions on WP:Original research here. In truth we don't know the varying factors behind how a film's nationality is assessed (the BFI categorize it as American according to this); nor do we know their reasons for selecting a specific order i.e. do they list the countries alphabetically, do they have some sort of criteria? We just don't know. All we do know is what they publish, so in the absence of any explicit reasoning behind the order I think alphabetical ordering should be adopted here i.e. British-German or Germany/United Kingdom. Betty Logan (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Haunted-house piano stylings?[edit]

The section on the soundtrack has the following: there are haunted-house piano stylings in "Mr. Moustafa". I don’t really know what this means - which haunted house? Jock123 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Like you, I don't understand what "haunted-house styling" means. Listening to No. 3 at Spotify reveals a detuned piano with some echo as the main instrument in "Mr. Moustafa". Unless a source using the "haunted-house" description can be found, that term, and everything else in that section that is not obvious from simple listening, should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Number of Reviews[edit]

Are the number of reviews detailed in the Reception section really necessary? It makes that section longer even than the synopsis, which is ridiculous. Pick a few positive and negative reviews to balance the viewpoints and leave it at that. --Levontaun (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

American cinema task force? American English?[edit]

To both I ask: why? This is a British-German film, so it stands to reason that it would use British English. And American film studious and companies had no involvement in the making of this film according to damn near every source we have. I'm thinking we definitely need to reconsider. We're already using British dating, why would we using American Engilsh? Corvoe (speak to me) 11:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Task-forces are used for various reasons than production companies. The [Task Force] itself states: "American cinema may include not only domestic films, but also films made by American filmmakers outside of the country, films produced or co-produced by American companies, and foreign films shooting within the USA.". Anderson is American so that qualifies here. As for the language, I'm not sure and and open to other people bringing in their input. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't very familiar with it, so that works just fine for me. The perplexion was largely at American English, which I probably should've reflected better in the header. I can't think of any reason for this to be written in American English other than "Anderson is American". Corvoe (speak to me) 12:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I think WP:RETAIN probably applies here. I don't think there is a strong enough American or British connection for WP:TIES to apply. Betty Logan (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I can see why you say it doesn't have an especially strong British connection, but it has absolutely no connection with the U.S. as a country, merely with people from the U.S. Though I prefer changing it to British English, I'd be fine with American English so long as the dates are changed to mdy. We should at least be consistent with which country's formatting we use. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Article split[edit]

The "Accolades" section has been split out of the article to List of accolades received by The Grand Budapest Hotel on the grounds it is "absolutely massive, like 50% of the article". I reverted it but the split was reinstated by Sock on the grounds that "something that would have to happen anyway if the article gets expanded" and Bbb23 who commented "the article is not that short, I agree with the split, take it to Talk if you wish to discuss the splitting guidelines".

I disagree with the general assertion that the size necessitates a split. WP:SIZESPLIT actually instructs us to not split the article on size grounds when the readable prose is under 40kb. In this case the readable prose of the entire article comes in at 25kb. Therefore the size of the article does not necessitate a split. We now have readers coming to a short article for information about the film and to get it all we direct them to another short article. I don't understand the logic behind this split. If the article inflates beyond an acceptable size it can be split then, but what is the point of having two short articles when one reasonable length article can accommodate the information? I also disagree that the content necessitates a split. We have plenty of "accolade" sections on film articles, so it is content that is usually covered by film articles. I suggest we restore the section to the article and only split it if the page size eventually meets the criteria for splitting. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Um, every year the Oscar favorites get their own articles for awards. This is not a new thing. It's been this way every single year for like a decade now, it's common practice. The film has already garnered a massive award haul and the season has barely only started, by the end of it the article is going to be gigantic. Take a look at the 12 Years a Slave article to see how large these charts can get if not split. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How an alleged "common practice" is a best reasoning than an information page of Wikipedia (SIZESPLIT)? And there's no way to compare the 13kb article of accolades received by The Grand Budapest Hotel to the 105kb of List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film)... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The table in this article is a similar size to the one at Captain_Phillips_(film)#Accolades so it's not a foregone conclusion the table will become too large even if it is nominated for oscars. We have a sensible criterion for splitting articles so there is no need to invent arbitrary "rules". Betty Logan (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Um what does the Oscar favorites article - which is for the upcoming awards - have to do with the split in this article. Be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF applies as well. As BL points out this article is no where near needing a split due to size. Readers to not need to search for a second article when all the info they are looking for can be found in this one. BTW the split was botched in some fashion as clicking on the link kept bringing me back to this article so the info has been restored here. Also per WP:BRD it should have stayed here until this discussion is concluded. MarnetteD|Talk 03:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if we should use WP:SIZESPLIT here. A lot of prose can fit in the same space as an awards table. In the past, I had seen such a split as reasonable because the table can overwhelm the rest of the article. WP:SPLITLIST does not give any real criteria about splitting, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines says, "...if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style." With prose sections, we can at least break them into subsections for easier navigation. However, an awards table cannot be broken up (traditionally, anyway), so I've assumed that is why a split has been acceptable. If we do split, though, we should make sure we summarize it correctly. Maybe even a small table to highlight the most important awards out of the whole set? If that's not too subjective? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If you were printing this article out the table would fit on two of the ten pages (or six if you leave out the notes and references) so I don't think the coverage is disproportionate. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be split somewhere down the line but I think the table comfortably fits into the article at present. If neither article were to expand significantly we'd be left with two fairly insubstantial articles. I'm a bit concerned that award sections are being split off just because the film might be nominated for an oscar; there should be nothing "automatic" about splitting. The question is does the content as it currently stands work better across one article or two? Betty Logan (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose split. Should not force readers to click to another article just to see the awards. Per WP:SIZERULE, the article is not near any mandatory splittable size. (Even the guidelines in WP:SIZERULE were written nearly a decade ago, for readers on dial-up, which is quite rare at this point.) Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for my revert, I wasn't familiar with WP:SIZESPLIT as I've never run into this issue before. I suppose I'm being a bit of a mystic in saying that it'll probably need to be split later. But it doesn't right now, and that's what my judgment should've been based on. You'll hear no further argument from me that it should be split, at least not until I (or another editor) get around to expanding this article. Thanks for your patience, Betty! Sock (tock talk) 05:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If you all like wasting time, go ahead, but in a month you'll understand why this is common practice. Bruce Campbell (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Article split redux[edit]

Should the section "Accolades" be split off now? It's getting pretty large and its constant editing is a nuisance for article watchers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig?[edit]

Can this be elaborated upon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaums (talkcontribs) 14:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

the hotel will live on[edit]

I'm an editorial newbie, but this sounds a lot like a junior English major's literary crit to me. I was affected enough by the movie to come looking here for Zweig and a few other things, but that is not what I took from it. I would have said,

The final scene returns to the girl reading in front of the statue of the Author, returning us from the deeply nested story to the present. Treethinker (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Country list in the infobox[edit]

There is a dispute over the correct order of countries in the infobox. In the current revision, there are six different sources for countries, with different (and even conflicting) informations. Provided sources list the countries as follows:

Other potential sources also have different informations:

I think it is better (and logical) to list the countries simply in alphabetical order in such cases. I haven't seen anything about this matter in related guidelines, giving priority to IMDb for example, and there is apparently no consensus to give priority to a specific source for credits. An alphabetical order for countries doesn't seem to be a problem for Antichrist, The Pianist, The Ninth Gate, Cosmopolis, In the Fog etc. Raamin (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

First, don't repeat disputed edits claiming it's not "prohibited", as you did. That's WP:edit warring. The usual reliable sources for country are
  • TCM: US
  • BFI: German/US (BFI almost always alphabeticizes)
  • Allmovie: US
I can find no listing for this film at AFI or Lumiere, the other two considered most reliable. The Hollywood Reporter announcement "Wes Anderson's 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' to Open Berlin Film Fest" was published several months before the film's release. There is no reason to give it dominance over the RS we usually use, especially as its advance listing of production companies does not match the credited companies named onscreen in the film itself or its poster. The National Media Museum posting is a dead link. They may have taken it down because it posted the data incorrectly. You have to use an archive to post it here. It also was originally published several months before the film's release, so it is not reliable, or certainly not as reliable as sources published at the time of the film's release. The primary production company is Wes Anderson's American Empirical Pictures. It and the second company, Indian Paintbrush, as well as Scott Rudin Productions, are American, and so is the distributor Fox Searchlight Pictures. It is clear the US should be listed first. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
When I listed the countires in an alphabetical order, it was a non-issue in my opinion; you made it into a dispute by reverting my edits multiple times, not even bothering to keep the {{cite web}} templates I had added. The whole point of this dispute is that it's not clear and agreed that countries should be listed in order of the 'importance' of production companies. If there is a section in guidelines, a consensus, or a discussion about this matter that resulted in an agreement, please present it. Raamin (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, you claimed that TCM, BFI and AllMovie are the usual reliable sources for country. This is from the current revision of Template:Infobox film/doc, part of country parameter explanation: For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety. Variety says UK, Germany in this case, and it is a reliable source. Raamin (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
As you just admitted above, you started with this edit. Once that was reverted, under WP:BRD you should have discussed the issue, not reinstated your edit, as you did - repeatedly. That's WP:edit warring. Only after that did you come to this Talk page. Formatting edits are not to be used as a way to reinstate disputed text at the same time. You're supposed to do them separately. Variety does not get priority over the other sources here. I demonstrated above the primary production companies are American. There is no reason to put the country listing in alphabetical order instead of order of importance, as the overwhelming majority of WP articles do. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
My first edit was just a minor change in good faith. You could have been nice and relocate the US in the list as you wished, while keeping the formatted references I had spent time to add; but it was apparently too much to ask. WP:BRD is an essay; you can't force other editors to follow it, the essay even mentions this. I also should add this part from that essay: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
You ignored my good-faith effort, and had no problem reverting my edits, including the formatted refernces, which were clearly meant to improve the article, 3 times; I found it not so very nice. Raamin (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I did give the reason for my first revert. When you reinstate the same disputed edit repeatedly, as you then did, that is not good faith, that is edit warring. And formatting edits are not to be used as a way to reinstate disputed text at the same time. You're supposed to do them separately. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Your repeated undoing is also edit warring and you did it willingly, ignoring WP:BRD which you yourself promote. It states that "revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. " You could have changed the text and preserve the formatted references easily, but didn't bother to do so. Raamin (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the hotel a metaphor for Great Britain?[edit]

Flimsy argument I guess, but pretty much the first thing we see inside the hotel is a big "GB" and with numerous references to a once glorious past, am I the only person who thinks The Grand Budapest might be symbolic of Great Britain? And maybe the Gustave-Zero relationship is about the positive and negative sides of GB's relationship with migrants?2001:982:A60A:1:B059:56F3:D294:D858 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Runtime[edit]

We have two different runtimes, both of which are supported by pages at the British Board of Film Classification. Clearly, both runtimes cannot be correct, but I suggest the longstanding runtime, which is precise, as opposed to the one that is only estimated. But, we can't keep going back and forth between the two. I've asked for assistance at the Film Project. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The short answer is that 100 minutes is correct. The long answer is that the difference is due to PAL speedup, meaning that video recordings are 4% faster/shorter than their film counterparts. In this case, the film had a length of just under 100 minutes (media type: film) while the video had a length of just over 95 minutes (media type: video). You always want the film version, because film plays at the same universal standard of 24 frames per second for synchronised sound movies (silent films have a different standard). The way to check is to always click on the "details" section on the BBFC entry and makes sure they have physically measured the film. If you look at the film entry you will see that the measured film is 8968 feet long; if you type that figure into the length calculator at http://www.scenesavers.com/content/show/film-footage-calculator it brings back a time of 1 hour 39 minutes and 39 seconds, which correlates exactly with the BBFC's time of 99 minutes and 39 seconds. I don't know what the 97 minute entry refers to, but it is neither the film or video version which have their own separate entries. It may be an average between the two because it has two different release dates which correspond to both the cinema and video release dates (hence why the running time is "approximate"), but either way you want the original theatrical cinema release per the guideline at Template:Infobox film, and according to the BBFC that has a running time of 99 minutes and 39 seconds. Betty Logan (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the clarification. The entries at BBFC can be a bit confusing especially with the 97 minutes entry (type: feature) there. I've actually noticed that some film articles here in Wikipedia use the same type of source as the feature type, hence I thought that's the correct one. I think there should be more clarification at Template:Infobox film on the runtime parameter. Three of us are the perfect examples of editors having no idea on what the feature type entry is and I'm sure many editors would confuse the entry with feature type as the one with the approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film, instead of the one with "film" as type of media, just like I did. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the guidelines need some extra clarification. I will put a revision together over the next few days and try to get the guidelines updated. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I have drafted out a proposal at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Runtime_ammendment, if anyone would care to comment. Betty Logan (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammer Mistake a double negative[edit]

In the line at the end of the plot summary "Agatha succumbs to a disease and dies a few years later." There is a double negative to succumb to a disease means to die from a diseases. The sentence says she dies twice, first she succumbs and then she dies a few years later. I know this is not what the author meant to say, but I can't think of a better way to rephrase the sentence without making it more complicated. What about: a few years later Agatha dies from the flue? Ty78ejui (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)