Talk:Y tu mamá también

message: Could someone explain why this film is categorized as a cult film?  In America, it was a mainstream foreign film, and I observed no subsequent cult following. Jonathan F 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult film?

message: Having read through the article, I don't see the advertisement thing... The synopsis certainly doesn't, and anything that hints at advertisement seem to all be clearly marked as coming from some other source.  The only bit I could see being an issue is the "universally acclaimed as an extremely erotic film, filled with depth and unspoken meaning."  Does this qualify as advertising though?
Lliamm 22:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, how lucky. I wasn't even watching this page, but I somehow found myself back here. I think the line you quote certainly reads as an advertorial statement and should probably be removed. Jonathan F 23:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonathan F, you added the  tag a month ago, but with no hint as to why you thought it merited it.  It would be really helpful if you could explain why you thought it sounded like advertising so that other editors know what you object to.  If it's just the one line, you could simply remove the line or reword it.  Worldtraveller 23:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the objectionable line. Jonathan F 01:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement

message: The film is not a coming-of-age story and it is not a road movie, it is a theme movie about live: With the revelation of Luisa's cancer situation suddenly everything falls into place, like the narrated side stories, her (narrated) remark when parting, the extraordinarily "talkative" backdrop, Luisa's remark regarding Mexico, and so on (also Luisa's crying, which appears a bit out of role without the cancer, and much more). The categorization in the article might belong to a crippled version without the ending (which probably was removed simply because it is sad). -- Tomdo08 (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot and categorization 

message: Can someone please explain why this film is "LGBT-related"? thanks קולנואני (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's debatable – the meanings of works of art often are – but as some see it, the relationship between Julio and Tenoch – with their closeness despite socioeconomic differences, having sex with each others' girlfriends, and their eventual sexual encounter together – includes an unconscious mutual attraction, which they are unable to accept when it's finally brought to the surface. In other words, they're both bisexual, but can't admit it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT-related film? 

message: One sentence reads:
"It was released without a rating in the U.S. because a market-limiting NC-17 was unavoidable."
Absolutely, right, for sure.  The NC-17 rating was unavoidable, yet it was avoided.  That makes a lot of sense. (Just kidding. It makes no sense at all.) It would be much better for Wikipedia editors to think about whether what they have written makes sense before clicking on "Save page".
:Since the sentence remains, it is obviously clear to everyone else. For the record: Had the movie been submitted to the MPAA for a rating, it would have earned an NC-17. To avoid that outcome, it was released without a rating. Perhaps a clearer phrasing would be "a market-limiting NC-17 would have been unavoidable".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.104.98 (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradictory sentence 

message: ===On Censorship Controversy===
I added information on the film's censorship controversy in Mexico. This information was not available on the original Wikipedia article, and is important to add because it is related to the reception of the film in its home country. This shows how revolutionary the film was in Mexico because of its content, thus exposing how even though Mexico is a democratic country, it is still heavily influenced by politics in the sectors that should be free of government control.  Lola polola (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Information

message: I added information on the film's censorship controversy in Mexico. This information was not available on the original Wikipedia article, and is important to add because it is related to the reception of the film in its home country. This shows how revolutionary the film was in Mexico because of its content, thus exposing how even though Mexico is a democratic country, it is still heavily influenced by politics in the sectors that should be free of government control.  Lola polola (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: On Censorship Controversy

message: I added information on the film's casting process. It reveals the development process for the film, particularly how Cuarón wanted his actors to foster a candid performance so his film could develop with spontaneity. This was the director’s agenda throughout the production process. Lola polola (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: On Casting

message: This information was not available on the original Wikipedia article. I added this information because I found it was significant in clarifying that Y tu mamá también was not a Hollywood film made with Hollywood production techniques. The current article gives the impression that the film was created with Hollywood production techniques. Lola polola (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: On Development

message: This information on filming and production reveals the director’s agenda to develop the film candidly, which was not available on the original Wikipedia article. His desire to create the film with spontaneity and minimal equipment stresses how much he did not want to over-plan and overwhelm the filmmaking process; which was his experience when he made movies in Hollywood. The filming and production uncovers Cuarón’s desire to reject Hollywood production techniques. Lola polola (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: On Filming and Production

message: The article had little information on box-office success and film budget. I wanted to add more information on the domestic and transnational success of the film because it reveals how much support the film had from external distribution companies as well as domestic. It is also important to acknowledge that a Mexican production company funded the film, not an American one, showing how self-sufficient the Mexican film industry can be. This information also shows how the film gained success through impressive marketing campaigns in Mexico with the help of a Mexican production company. Lola polola (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: On Distribution and Finance

message: The Wikipedia article does not articulate the significance of the road film genre in Y tu mamá también and how it is used to depict the Mexican ethos through a lens of political exploration. It is important to state that Cuarón transformed the 20th century revolutionary Latin American cinema by not completely rejecting it, but by synthesizing it with the pleasure of Hollywood commercial cinema to investigate Mexican nationalism at the start of the 21st century.  Lola polola (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: On Road Film Genre

message: Added image that depicted the original Mexican marketing campaign for the film. Different from American theatrical release poster. Lola polola (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: On Image for Distribution and Finance section

message: Note: I made a section over at the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Revert%2C_or_clarify_at_least%2C_MOS%3AFOREIGNTITLE for the issues discussed above. Looking at the history, this baffling MOS:FOREIGNTITLE policy did not exist for the vast majority of the MOS's existence, and was tentatively added only in 2017, which is rather recent given the timeline of Wikipedia.
Also - Facu, for the future, please announce here that you were making a notification on other boards () per WP:CANVASS: "It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made".   SnowFire (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow up to move 

message: As a bisexual man and a Mexican, I don't really see the film directly as an LGBT one in the sense that it is an underlying theme of the film. These are two teenage boys exploring their sexual agency and are surrounded by and actively participate in the generally "machismo" culture of Mexico. So, the scene where Tenoch and Julio French kiss is more of a "heat of the passion" type thing, because the next morning after realizing it they throw up and are generally disgusted. In terms of the rest of the movie, their relationship is not once implied to be anything more than platonic, not even by the omniscient narrator. So, I think it could be considered LGBT, but kind of on a technicality because none of the characters are presented (or implied it be) anything other than cis straight people. 2601:100:8300:9060:559E:58DC:AFD0:90F (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as an LGBT film