Talk:The Book of Life (2014 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Animation: Films Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

20th Century Studios Low‑importance

	20th Century Studios portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nationality of the film

The book of life is a Mexican Movie produced and Directed by Mexicans, released in several languages. Is not a primarly English or USA movie. It is incorrect to call it an American film. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-book-of-life-director-jorge-gutierrez-20141019-story.html#page=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by M cyclops (talk • contribs) 16:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article you've cited says: "Co-financed by Fox Animation and Dallas-based studio Reel F/X.." Both companies are American, so the film is American. The nationality of several people involved in this film is not important. But, if you want to determine the nationality of the film by the nationality of people involved in this film (which is wrong), then you can see that most of the crew members comes from the US: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2262227/fullcredits?ref_=ttco_sa_1. --Carniolus (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is an American film. Screen Daily labels the film as US as seen here, and the British Film Institute labels it as USA here. However, I would support stating that the film depicts a Mexican holiday and that it is filmed by a Mexican director. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead section needs additional information, including short plot synopsis which would mention the Mexican inspiration. While I don't oppose mentioning that Jorge Gutierrez is a Mexican director, there are other examples, like Guillermo del Toro (also Mexican) or Carlos Saldanha (Brazilian), whose nationalities are not stated in their films' articles.--Carniolus (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Carlos, but it looks like Los Angeles Times is highlighting the Mexican descent of Gutierrez and del Toro, so we can emulate these mentions. M cyclops, what do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the movie is Mexican if The director and producer are Mexicans. While the film was Co-financed by Fox Animation and Dallas-based studio Reel F/X, the main producer is Del Toro, and it is directed by Mexican-based Gutierrez. What would it be the criteria to establish the origin of the movie? By the way, I wrote to IMDB and requested a change in country of origin. Co-financing does not make the film American, or placing some labour in USA, as much as having all their shoes made in China does not make Nike a Chinese corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M cyclops (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some discussions about how to determine the nationality of a film. I want to stress the point that the main producer is Del Toro, from Guadalajara, no Reel F/X, who co-produced the film: http://www.filmspotting.net/forum/index.php?topic=4395.0 and https://mubi.com/topics/determining-the-nationality-of-a-film-for-list-making-purposes-help-wanted ~~mcyclops~~

We use reliable sources to determine a film's country, and I've provided two that state that the film is a U.S. production. The country label generally comes from financing and use of production facilities, which means such companies have control over a film's production. (It is pretty rare for a director to do whatever they want on a film.) Like I said, we can mention the Mexican holiday as well as the Mexican director and producer to show its Mexican roots. I think that's a reasonable tradeoff. If you still disagree, you can post a notice at WT:FILM asking for additional opinions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided two that reads that del Toro is the producer, even by Century Fox claims. I will post the notice, thanks. M cyclops (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M cyclops (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Variety has this about the film's background. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Screendaily and the British Film Institute, The New York Times also regard the film as a US production. There doesn't seem to be much dissent over this. It is WP:Original research to extrapolate our own nationality for the film. For example, we don't proclaim Titanic as a Canadian film simply because it was produced and directed by a Canadian, and when people discuss the work of Hitchcock they tend to distinguish between his "British" and "American" films. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it helps balance out the matter by stating the Mexican holiday and the Mexican director and producer somewhere in the first few sentences of the lead section? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many film articles briefly state the central premise of the film in the first paragraph of the lead, so if the Mexican holiday is a major part of the plot it seems reasonable to mention it (as per Halloween (1978 film)). The nationality of the director is probably not that important; we don't even mention that Spielberg is Jewish at Schindler's List for instance, even though it was a major factor in him taking on the project. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Variety article linked above shows that the film was the Mexican director's initiative, so it seems pertinent to mention. Maybe it can be more than a mention, like the Mexican background from Variety covered in "Production" and then summarized in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see as important to mention the nationality of the director and producer, as is to mention the nationality of the film, why one but not the other?. I agree with Betty Logan that my extrapolation may be original research though. The reason I am arguing the nationality of the film is that it is the initiative of a Mexican group but realised with US resources, and I think that is relevant to this particular film. I do not regard Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as a Mexican film just because Alfonso Cuaron directed, but in The Book of Life it seems to be too many Mexican involvement and monetary investment to ignoreM cyclops (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film's nationality is relevant because this article is about the film, and not about the director, whose nationality is stated in his own article.

"...too many Mexican involvement and monetary investment to ignore." One director and one producer (out of four) is not too many, since there were hundreds of (non-Mexican) people that contributed to the film. And there was no Mexican monetary investment as it is explained here. It was financed by American companies, produced by American companies, so it is owned by American companies.--Carniolus (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not mentioned how much money was contributed by US vs Mexican investors, and by the same article, Del Toro is the main producer, that is why his name is on the credits of the movie first. There is no conclusive evidence that it was entirely financed by US companies, and quite enough that was produced by del Toro. All the sources (All from US) agree with the film being an US one, so I cannot prove the contrary.M cyclops (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"there were hundreds of (non-Mexican) people that contributed to the film", that is not relevant, since the grip boy is not the same as the director, and we would need to analyse all the names in the credits and determine the nationality, which can be Mexican, US, or other one. M cyclops (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what Mexican investors??? The article clearly says: "Co-financed by Fox Animation and Dallas-based studio Reel F/X..." - neither of them is Mexican.

Yes, it was produced by del Toro AND three other American producers. Their work is equally valued, or else they would be credited as co-producers, associate producers, executive producers... Anyway, it does not matter whose name is first in the credits, who directed the film or which person produced it. Only relevant is which company financed the film, and in this case, they are both from the US.--Carniolus (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to wikipedia, I added the animal farm reference, if You don't think it is really an animal farm reference, that is debatable. However, if it really isn't, feel free to take that out. Aditionaly, I'm not sure if it really should be in the article, if it shouldn't please take it out. Once again I apologize for the fact that I am a noob. I don't even have an account. I also don't think it should have it's own section, but where else does it go? thank you, and don't hate, you were once a noob too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.210.181 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention role reprisals for foreign-language versions?

Since Luna, del Castillo and de la Reguera reprised their film roles for the Spanish dubbed version (in Latin America), is it notable to be included in the article with a WP:RS or add it in the cast section if it is necessary? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment from Talk:The Book of Life (2014 film

Hi, all.

I'm thinking that some of the images of actors on the page for The Book of Life should include the Mexican actors. For example, Diego Luna and Kate del Castillo play important characters and are significant actors within their performance communities. In fact, Diego Luna plays the central protagonist. I do get that the ComicCon images might have been easier to access, but I feel like this is a good opportunity to introduce these actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.136.91 (talk) 17:53, December 24, 2017‎

Comment was originally posted on Talk:The Book of Life (2014 film and was copied over here by User:Sakura Cartelet. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Dia De Los Muertos (2014 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dia De Los Muertos (2014 film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 17 § Dia De Los Muertos (2014 film) until a consensus is reached. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]