# Talk:The Brothers Grimm (film)

Considering their effect on German national identity, is there an opposition to this movie?

Why should there be? The germans were portrait as normal people, so what? If anything the french should get angry. :) 203.206.248.27 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Was the reference to the game Ico in this article really a reference that terry gilliam intended?  I kind of doubt he'd have played Ico.  Maybe the legends have a common source, but I doubt they directly connect.

You're right. Also, all of those items at the very bottom of that list are suspect. It needs some definite sorting out.Jayunderscorezero 08:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the kind of reception this film received. --Navstar 21:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mixed to bad according to Rotten Tomatoes. Considering the premise, I'm not suprised. 86.137.138.9 19:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Brothers grimm movie poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brothers-grimm-the-20050823024428066.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Brothers Grimm (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the Plot, "Delatombe captures the Brothers and is about to burn them along with the forest and Jake's book of stories", you need to explain why Delatombe captures the Brothers, adding because of Jake's book isn't really helpful. Also, I know that the Plot doesn't need to go overboard with information, this particular thing does need to be precise.
Check.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the lead and Pre-production section, it would be best to add (MGM) after "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer", since the article does mention "MGM". Question: In the Plot, "twelve" is spelled out, but "10" is numerical; shouldn't "twelve" be numerical as well? Also, per here. In the Filming section, why is the "C" in "Collaborator" capitalized? In the Critical analysis section, "Rotten Tomatoes" and "Metacritic" are not supposed to be italicized, per here.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Reference 28 is missing Publisher info.
Check.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Is there a source for this ---> "The Brothers Grimm was released in the United States in 3,087 theaters, earning $15,092,079 in its opening weekend"?
Check.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, great! I finished addressing all of your concerns. Wildroot (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you to Wildroot for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

May I ask whether the characters of Will and Jack Grimm are intended to be Germans or Englishmen/Americans? If they are Germans, they cannot arrive in Germany but are already there. (But why on Earth would they be called Will and Jack...) If they're foreigners, the sentence makes sense. -- Orthographicus (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much assumed that they are German because that's what they were in real life. Wildroot (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the section called "The Brothers"? The article gives the plot which, while kind of overly detailed gets the point across. And then there's this random section about the brothers' backstory, without citations or any indication of why it matters. If it's important to the plot, then it should be part of the plot section immediately before it. As it is, it's just kind of randomly there. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 06:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that was weird. Haven't seen other film articles do anything like that and it was deleted. Since I've moved the Casting information into the Production details, I will try to include some of that as a brief character description in the cast section. -- 109.76.158.242 (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No source was provided for the budget of $88 million. In April 2003 Variety magazine said it was a "$75 million pic" and several other sources make it clear that was the planned budget at the start. In November 2003 Variety said "Grimm has gone over budget, spending some $78 million according to insiders". In November 2004 USA Today quotes Damon saying "this is an $80 million movie, which would probably cost $120—$140 million in America" and this quote from Damon is used in the article miss-attributed to Gilliam. (By the time anyone reads this I will probably have fixed the miss-attribution). In May 2005 Variety said $80 million. Time magazine said $80 million. The-Numbers.com lists the budget at $80 million. Box Office Mojo gives the oddly specific figure of $88 million. The LA Times from August 16 2005 said the budget was $88 million. (The article also says "Miramax said it expected to spend about $30 million to support the national release of The Brothers Grimm." and later "Miramax said, its total financial exposure was significantly less, thanks to $16 million in European tax breaks and $40 million in foreign sales".) A week later August 25, 2005 the LA Times says the budget was a "reported $80 million", but there's no way to know if that's a correction or an inconsistency. 
Variety and LA Times and Times saying the budget was $80 million seem like the most credible figures but since Template:Infobox film says not to cherry pick, then the Infobox should probably list the budget as $80-88 million. -- 109.76.131.91 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This film scared the shit out of me when I was little. I would recommend adding that it is a fantasy adventure horror film. Mzimmerle (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Genre should be based on reliable sources, we generally only want to list the primary genre, and should be trying to avoid genre bloat. The article currently says it is an "adventure fantasy film", but it could just as easily be listed as simply "fantasy film".
Metacritic suggests several genres ": Adventure, Thriller, Fantasy, Comedy" which fits with the existing description.[1]. To my surprise Entertainment Weekly categorizes the film as "Sci-fi, Comedy, Horror" [2].
I'd recommend against worrying about the genre or trying to force such subtle details into the introduction. Horror isn't the primary genre, and probably not even the secondary genre either. Instead I'd suggest expanding and improving the Critical response section so that it gives readers a better understanding of the story and use it as a way to acknowledge that the film contains elements of the horror genre. -- 109.76.208.49 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)