Talk:The Brutalist
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Brutalist article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Should we have the full plot of it before December 20?
[edit]Moviemaster8510, with all due respect to the general guidelines for plot details and spoilers, given that this film will not be released publicly until 2 months from now, and per WP:CRYSTAL: it's likely not a good idea. Correct me if not so, but it's too early, and The Brutalist was only shown at the film festivals. 2601AC47 (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- And in any case, did some wikilinking. 2601AC47 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be permissible to revert back to my summary come Dec. 20? Moviemaster8510 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- At this rate, since there have been several edits to it (and closer to release), it's not really possible to revert it. Either way, as I understand, there's not really anything that states that plots of future-release films should or shouldn't be in the articles of said films like The Brutalist. 2601AC47 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, I've done this with several films I've gotten to see early (La La Land and Shape of Water among others. Moviemaster8510 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- People just have to scroll past it carefully in order to avoid spoilers, that's all. It's an excellent summary that I look forward to reading—albeit sometime after the holidays! However, if there was a sudden flurry of people who were in favor of concealing it, then I would absolutely support reverting back to your plot outline/summary come Christmastime.
- And if people are using mobile, the good thing is that the Plot section is collapsible and avoidable, right? Therefore, it oughtn't be much of an issue. I'm using a laptop, and thus desktop version, so it's just a matter of jumping down to the awards or reception section for me. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 04:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, I've done this with several films I've gotten to see early (La La Land and Shape of Water among others. Moviemaster8510 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- At this rate, since there have been several edits to it (and closer to release), it's not really possible to revert it. Either way, as I understand, there's not really anything that states that plots of future-release films should or shouldn't be in the articles of said films like The Brutalist. 2601AC47 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be permissible to revert back to my summary come Dec. 20? Moviemaster8510 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Budget
[edit]Please note that the budget was previously listed as $6-$10 million.
Template:Infobox film warns not to cherry pick but the range has been removed. (Editors cannot know if a film was greenlit at one amount but finished at a different amount so earlier figures must not arbitrarily excluded.) It is not clear why the budget range was deleted and what assumptions if any have been made to exclude the figures.
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE clearly states The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.
The budget figures are not mentioned any where in the article body. Editors are supposed to first update the article body and then afterwards summarize key points in the Infobox. The infobox is not supposed to usurp the main article. -- 109.77.198.204 (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The director saying the budget was $9.6 million does seem like a pretty good source[1] but I remain curious as to why anyone would even guess the film budget was as low as $6 million, amazing it cost anything less than $10 million. -- 109.78.198.183 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Plot length
[edit]I cut 2k bytes from the plot section. Can do more I think but just checking in case it's enough. Still reads a bit blow-by-blow to me. Manytexts (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Plot length update
It looks short enough to me now, for an epic style film. I'll remove the tag which can be reinstated if necessary, otherwise it looks like the shortened version is excessively long etc etc. Manytexts (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The three section subheadings make it seem longer than it really is but nice work getting it down to less than 600 words. Looks good, hopefully other editors wont try to bloat it back up too much. -- 109.78.198.183 (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
"former brutalist architect" in plot summary
[edit]The word "brutalist (architecture)" would not be used until 1950 (citing the Wikipedia article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Brutalist_architecture?wprov=sfla1). Therefore in 1945 there cannot be a "former brutalist architect". Janpipilip (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I already changed it in the article, from "former brutalist architect" to "former architect". Janpipilip (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Distribution owner
[edit]Focus is the owner of the distribution in the UK, it and Universal are part of Comcast, so Universal is helping in the international marketing, but it is not the responsible for it in the UK, you can see the very responsible for presenting a movie in a country, who owns the distribution, it is always listed at the end of the trailer. At the end of Brutalist trailer, compare A24 is listed as the distributor responsible for presenting it in the US and Focus is in the UK trailer.
The credits are in the final seconds of both UK (Focus) and US trailer (A24) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PepGuardi (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- While this explanation seems plausible enough to retain Focus Features in the infobox, it lacks sufficient reasoning as to why Universal Pictures should NOT be included, mainly because there isn't reliable evidence used here to back that statement. The current version of this page makes it seem as if Focus directly distributed this film directly in the United Kingdom, which isn't exactly true; the Variety article cited does not explicitly state this either. Promotional material isn't of much help either as some of it mentions only Focus while some mentions both Universal and Focus (in that order), meaning the film's credits might help ascertain this.
- A grievance I do have however is that Universal keeps getting removed from the infobox despite reliable sources being provided to prove that it did in fact distribute the film in at least the United Kingdom. The BBFC, Box Office Mojo and Cineuropa also prove this, with multiple articles – [2][3][4][5][6] – also mentioning Universal's involvement with the film (some of these may include Focus); a Screen Daily article in particular states that "...Universal Pictures releases it internationally from mid-January after Protagonist Pictures licensed international rights to Focus Features."
- PepGuardi also mentions that Universal is responsible only for marketing The Brutalist: that is one of the main things a distributor does by most definitions, they advertise the film, estimate the number of prints required and how to split the gross between themselves and theatre exhibitors; they may also commission local dubs and arrange for subtitling.
- To prevent this dispute from spiralling into a Wimbledon-esque match involving mashing the Undo button, I am currently refraining from making further changes to this page until a conclusion is reached on this matter. Here's hoping this issue is resolved as soon as possible on amicable terms. Szép napot! FloorMadeOuttaFloor (go ahead, make my day) 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also, in this edit, PepGuardi contradicts themselves in the edit summary in the following excerpts: at the beginning they state that "the owner of U.K. distribution is Focus Feature as you can see per Deadline" but then says towards the ending that "[...but] Universal is the owner of distribution in the U.K." While I have not much of an issue with the current version of the infobox now, this observation makes aforementioned user's aversion to suggested edits rather ironic and confusing. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (go ahead, make my day) 18:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Plot points that are implied but not stated
[edit]The film implies quite a number of key plot points without stating them explicitly. How should the plot summary deal with these? For example, the mutism of Toth's niece is implied to be a result of rape trauma, but no one ever says so expressly. A recent edit asserts as a fact that his wife's osteoporosis, which she does say was caused by malnutrition (as I recall), resulted from privation during the Soviet siege of Budapest late in WWII, and perhaps his niece's mutism as well (there was mass rape against Hungarian women when the Soviet troops finally entered). But is this clear? Either or both of them may have been sent before that to concentration camps, where starvation and/or sexual abuse would also have been quite possible if not likely. After all, many Hungarian Jews were deported to death camps late in the war, including from Budapest, although thousands of others were saved (remember Wallenberg, etc.). (If I missed some fact that is actually revealed by the script, please correct me.) Shouldn't the plot summary be cautious about asserting what is "implied," particularly as the writer and director made the artistic choice not to answer these questions directly? PDGPA (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- WP:FILMPLOT is an overview, it is there to "complement wider coverage about production, reception, themes". Wikipedia plot sections are not about implied details, they are about providing just enough information so that other sections such as the Production section or the Critical response section do not have to waste a whole lot of time and space explain repeatedly explaining plot points for context. Later critical commentary or analysis of themes in the story might need to discuss what was implied but subtle or implied details are not what Wikipedia plot sections are there for.
- The commentary about what is implied is almost certainly WP:OR original research and that should not have been added to the Plot section. (Also if editors are putting comments in parentheses in a plot section then I don't think they aren't taking the summarize part seriously enough.) Editors should carefully remove it. -- 109.79.65.224 (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- C-Class film articles
- C-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- C-Class Hungary articles
- Low-importance Hungary articles
- All WikiProject Hungary pages
- C-Class Italy articles
- Low-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Unknown-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report