Talk:The Grand Budapest Hotel

Is the hotel a metaphor for Great Britain?
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)

It's a darned good analysis you have made their, however, although your theory is likely to be an aspect of the metaphor, it is not confirmed, and therefore shouldn't be added to this wikipedia page.

However, one would expect that such a metaphor for such a once "powerful and great" country, could be applied to many a european nation. Mr anonymous username (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Runtime
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 Jacobite The '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 Jacobite The '45 13:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have drafted out a proposal at Template_talk:Infobox_film, if anyone would care to comment. Betty Logan (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammer Mistake a double negative
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)


 * The word you want is "grammar". There should be a punctuation mark after Mistake.  For ordinary folks a comma might do, but for a fussbudget of your caliber it should be a colon.  (Doubly appropriate, perhaps, because of the common name for the termination of the colon :-)
 * Even if you think there's a problem with succumbing and then dying later, it's not a double negative. "Not dying nohow" would be a double negative.  Dying twice is just dying twice.
 * Finally, to succumb has two meanings. One is to surrender; the other is to die.  That's according to the American Heritage Dictionary. More at Wordnik
 * So you might find the phrasing a little awkward, but there's nothing really wrong with it. You can succumb to a disease and it will take some time to die, in this case three years-- not only that, but you've interpreted the sentence, which is ambiguous, to mean "succumb" at Time 1 and die "Time 2", whereas it could just as well mean "succumb and die three years after the previously mentioned events".
 * Altogether, a futile piece of pedantry.
 * I see that that's not in the article anymore. Now she dies of "flu"-- which is not exactly right.  The movie says "grippe", which I guess means flu, but it's a certain fictional disease (I can't recall the name), so not really the flu. 2600:6C50:800:2787:51B5:4D31:7FAE:3C6E (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The State of Zubrowka
Hi everybody. In the introduction of the article I replaced "the Republic of Zubrowka" with "the fictional country of Zubrowka", as the film's story covers different periods and Zubrowka is not always a Republic. I was asking myself if a brief outline of the history of Zubrowka (perhaps in a note somewhere or in a section) could be useful to the reader to better understand the background in which the story takes place, thus improving the article.

From the film we can deduce that Zubrowka is a constitutional monarchy at least until the end of 1932, then it is annexed by a neighboring fascist state after a period of war. In 1940 it has been liberated and by 1950 it has become a socialist republic. In 2014 the country is referred to as "The former Republic of Zubrowka, once the seat of an Empire".

Please let me know your opinion!

FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 07:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Schloss Waldenburg
Hello. The link to Schloss Waldenburg among the filming sites is not pointing to the right castle in the right town. The right Waldenburg is in Saxony, close northeast to Zwickau, another filming site. The Schloss is a museum, where the guides always tell, which walls (including 200y old Japanese painted paper walls) were damaged at the filming. Could somebody please fix this link? 2003:6:21A6:F327:DD8F:4B2D:6C0C:FBBA (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)