Talk:4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

message: Hi. How exactly does the film end? What is the demand that Mr. Bebe makes towards Otilia and Găbiţă? I couldn't find this information anywhere, and I think this (plot spoiler) would be important in the Synopsis section. Ronline ✉ 10:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess we'll have to wait for its release to find that up, or find someone who has been to Cannes and has seen it :D About the demand, there's a short scene from the film on YouTube which shows him asking them to both have sex with him AdamSmithee 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a scheduled release?  I'd really like to see this film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.187.1.23 (talk) 20:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
fucken stupid endin thats all i can say  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.37.72 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Should the Synopsis be completed with the ending? --Error (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending

message: Film won the Bronze Horse for best film at the Stockholm International Film Festival this weekend. 
http://www.altfg.com/blog/film-festivals/stockholm-film-festival-2007-winners/
Rogerfgay (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stockholm Film Festival 

message: I don't think this film is centered in Bucharest.  One of the hotel clerks mentions a large group coming in from Bucharest.  I think in a another portion of the film they mention that they are in the city of Roman.  I have never been so I don't know if Roman has the type of electric bus system seen in the film.  No Bucharest landmarks are visible that I could see during the movie, which would have been easy to include, as the film was shot in Bucharest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.94.35 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Location 

message: Does Bebe really have sex with both women?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasahiroHayamoto (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex 

message: This movie won the "Best Foreign Film" in 2008. http://www.academiadecine.org.ar/2008-ganadores.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.182.145.201 (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences of Argentina Awards 

message: Hi Ribbet32. I've made some copy edits, clarifications. Unfortunately I don't have access to some of the sources that have been cited, so feel free to amend anything that I've changed the meaning of.
*Our Decree 770 article has the date of 1966, so I've used that here.
*The first sentence in 'Box Office' is confusing, particularly the last clause "making it the seventh most attended film in the country that year, and the most from that country." I don't know what was being aimed for here, any suggestions? Scribolt (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you  Scribolt, I've tweaked the phrase Ribbet32 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: Is there a reason this article shouldn't have a Cast section? SLIGHTLYmad  11:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CASTLIST (was moved to an infobox in casting per guideline). The cast section that was here was extremely skimpy. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this may have gotten mixed up. The castlist guidelines for films does not require a cast section to be placed in the infobox. The castlist for TV shows does prefer them in the infobox. In fact if you scroll down at Template:Infobox film#TemplateData you will see the instructions "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release" the rest of the cast should be listed in cast section just below the plot section. I know this difference between difference between the filmproject and the TVproject can be confusing. If memory serves it came about eight or nine years ago and has been that way ever since. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said anything was/is "required". The guideline provides recommendations, with this one seeming highly appropriate here. This is not the only film GA to use this method anyway. Maybe a GA reviewer will make me think differently. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Apt Pupil article only has the names on the poster in the infobox and then has a separate cast section with a fuller list of actors who appeared in the film in the body of the article. This is exactly what I mentioned above so I am not sure what "method" you are referring to. The WP:MOSFILM and "infobox film" guidelines have been in place for over a decade and all "good" and "featured" articles follow them so I am not sure what the problem is with mentioning them here. MarnetteD|Talk 23:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that WP:CASTLIST makes no mention of putting the entire cast in the infobox. Of course it doesn't state that it can't be done but that does not mean that the template documentation should be ignored. MarnetteD|Talk 23:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MOSFILM: "The structure of the article may also influence form. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, ensuring that these lists adhere to accessibility standards; or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section." Also, what do you mean the cast's not mentioned? Of course they're mentioned. This article uses the exact same table adjacent to a Casting section as does Apt Pupil- the difference being Apt Pupil is disorganized in not having Casting as part of Production. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good grief Ribbet 32. I missed it completely - 1000 apologies. I have some trout (almondine) ready for face slapping as soon as I am done here. I guess I'm not used to those boxes for cast lists yet. I'm also sorry that I don't know how to fix those two refs that I marked as not working above. Hopefully you or another editor can get to them. You've put a lot of work into the article so I will just repeat what I said in my edit summary "I wish you well in getting this to GA status!!" MarnetteD|Talk 00:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: , can you please explain why you keep removing this category? You claim there's no reference for it, but there are references for it under Release and Box office. What are you doing? Ribbet32 (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your post . My apologies for missing that info in the article. The reason it would get removed in spite of that would still involve WP:CATDEF where it states "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article" - the distributor of a film is not defining to the film - conversely the company that produces the film is. That concept is reinforced by the instructions here Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization#General categorization. Please don't get me wrong - mentioning the distributor in the article is fine and it also works in a "list article" like List of Miramax films. They just aren't appropriate as a category. MarnetteD|Talk 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: I recall once reading an interview with the director of the Hostel series claiming these are art films. Long story short: interviews with directors are primary sources, not independent of their subject according to WP:IS and WP:USEPRIMARY. What did you expect, anyway? That he will call it a bad film? This is like citing an interview with a director claiming their film is a good film... And, the other sources do not explicitly call it thusly: wrt to the hostile comment you left at my talk page, of the three sources, the only one explicitly stating it is an art film is the interview. Of the other two, one says the film's competitors are art films, the other, that it will be screened in arthouses.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're pretending like that's the only source for the point; it notes his intent, reported by a secondary source, combined with two secondary sources remarking on its arthouse appeal. There're no rule requiring 15 sources before the category can be used, like you did with Ghost World (film) when another editor conflicted with you. WP:CITEOVERKILL would actually discourage that; Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So, should Hostel be listed as an art film because an interview could be find in which Eli Roth states his intention i.e. an article reports about it? The article also categorizes this as a genre film, and, nobody considers those to be art films. Appeal is not enough: repertory cinemas screen all sorts of films, only a minority of whom are art films, and, the public is clueless about art. When I dealt with Ghost World, I was careful to include mostly secondary sources explicitly calling it an art film.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, other secondary sources. I question your grasp of this. The source that you said states this is only competing against art films? It refers to the competition as "other" art films, meaning this is one as well. The other says it will have an arthouse audience. Our definition of art film: "a serious, independent film aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience." Ribbet32 (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not explicit enough: it does not say 4M3Wa2D is an art film etc., so, the reader is left to insinuate. The other article says it would attract discerning auds in Stateside and Euro arthouses i.e. in cinematheques/repertory cinemas (see my notes about these above). It merely deals with the location of the screenings, and, again, even if it dealt with the audience members, these are clueless about art. You can find a website considered reliable by Wikipedia categorizing as an art film just about any above-average Hollywood film, especially from the popular press. Those people are clueless and all three sources are from the popular press. As an aside, intention/marketing is meaningless (see the Hostel issue above), only the result matters: for example, Cassavetes tried to premiere some of his films at grindhouses and I read directors such as Pasolini, Straub/Huillet, etc. claiming their films are meant for the common man. Even funding is meaningless. Finally, not sure which point you think I am trying to prove, or, why you think my editing is disruptive, so, I do not get your hostility. Nevertheless, seeing that I have no way of convincing you, feel free, if you do not find this convincing, to keep the category/delete my article.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it's not insinuation, it's simple English. Second, arthouse audience fits the cited definition of art film. Third, on the question of the director's intent and whether he'd say he made a bad film, not all art is good, so it's actually a neutral statement. Finally, I wasn't hostile. Simply annoyed at persistent reverts. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Art film?

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion