Talk:Jojo Rabbit/Archive 1

brutish or british?

In the character section a Hitler youth instructor is described as "British" this seems unlikely for a Hitler youth instructor during the second world war. Later, in the page the same character is described as "brutish". I have therefore assumed "British" was a typo and changed it to "brutish". Sorry for any confusion caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewee (talk • contribs) 13:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Llewee: You were right. Sorry about my revert. I wish you a good day :) --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC notice

There is a request for comment whose outcome may affect this article: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films. Nardog (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Cast Order

According to the official website Thomasin McKenzie has second billing and Scarlett Johannson has last billign, but for some unknown reason an anonymous Wikipedian 70.60.134.214 has just decided that Waititi deserves second billing and ScarJo deserves third billing. Can we get a consensus on what the proper authority for the cast order is? The official Fox Searchlight website for the film or a random anonymous Wikipedian's no reason given edit? Kire1975 (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Country of production

With regards to DiscoSlasher's recent edits, I still feel that it is an American production. (Especially with the distributor/production company behind it, Fox Searchlight) And while yes, the distributors behind it are from CR/NZ, that doesn't necessarily mean they are the countries of production. For instance, Anomalisa was co-produced by the British film company Hanway Films, but the British Film Institute solely lists it as an American production. Also, this site from CR doesn't mention that country as the country of production for this. Anyone has any points to bring up regarding this? Daerl (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I have worked though the sources and while those that corroborate the US as a "country of origin" check out the others do not. A bit of location filming in Prague does not make this a Czech film. Nor does the nationality of the director-writer make it a New Zealand film. There is quite a bit of WP:Original research going on here. The nationality of the film needs to be explicitly sourced per Template:Infobox film. In regards to the production companies Variety clearly states it is "a Fox Searchlight Pictures, TSG Entertainment, Piki Films, Defender Films production". That implies those four companies are the production companies. If this is incorrect then we need a source based rationale to that effect. Removing information from the article simply because you disagree with a reliable source is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Production companies and country of origin

DiscoSlasher has repeatedly reinstated edits that are not corroborated by the sources in the article. They also so far refused to join the discussion above. I am going to outline the problematic nature of the edits here:

• The removal of Fox Searchlight Pictures as a production company – The Variety source in the article used to source the production companies states the following: "A Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures release of a Fox Searchlight Pictures, TSG Entertainment, Piki Films, Defender Films production." Four companies are clearly given. DiscoSlasher has repeatedly removed Fox Searchlight, leaving the other three companies in the article with source. This is selective editing. It is very difficult to follow the logic due to the fact that Discoslasher refuses to discuss his edits.
• The removal of the United States as "country of origin" and replacing it with New Zealand and the Czech Republic.As wth the production company, selectively removing sourced content is extremely problematic. Let's briefly consider the sources used by the article:

1. United States – ScreenDaily is a reputable source and states the key details as "Dir: Taika Waititi. US. 2019. 108mins". Therefore the source corroborates the claim that this is an American film.
2. New Zealand – Stuff profiles the Kiwi director-writer of the film. It does not provide any production information about the film, and it certainly does not say it is a New Zealand production. If films drew their national identity from their directors then that would make all Hitchcock's films British, all David Lean's films British and so on
3. Czech Republic – Expats.cz discusses the filming in Prague. Lots of films have location shooting but that doesn't make them a production of that country. The new James Bond film is being shot in Jamaica but that won't make it a Jamaican film.

Discoslasher is applying WP:Original research to the subject of "country of production". None of the sources he provides corrborate that the film is a New Zealand or Czech production, and he is repeatedly removing the one accurately sourced country. Template:Infobox film has specific guidelines for collating this information, and it is clear that the country of production must explicitly sourced.

This disruptive editing has been going on for a week now. The problem with these edits was first pointed by Daerl and now by me. It is very difficult to resolve the issue when one of the parties refuses to engage in discussion. If other sources can be found to corroborate the information Discoslasher keeps trying to add to the article then they can be considered. Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Granted "country of origin" for creative works is ill-defined, but it should be uncontentious to claim that this film is a US/NZ/CZ work. The EIDR record gives the following associated orgs: Czech Anglo Productions, (CZ) Piki Films (NZ), Defender Films (NZ) and Fox Searchlight (US). While the Screen Daily source for "Country" in the infobox states "Dir: Taika Waititi. US. 2019. 108mins" further down it explicitly describes the film as being produced by Defender and Piki (both New Zealand companies), and distributed by Disney. (Perhaps the use of "US" here is to note the distributor not the author/maker/producer?) The IMDb production details page is also a good source, listing NZ and Czech Republic production companies, and Fox Searchlight as a distributor. Suggest adjust page to reference these sources and replace "Jojo Rabbit is a 2019 American satirical black comedy [...]" with "Jojo Rabbit is a 2019 US/New Zealand/Czech Republic satirical black comedy [...]" Quilt Phase (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting DiscoSlasher was blocked on 18th October for being a sockpuppet. Quilt Phase (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

One other source I missed is IMDb's Detail/Country section notes Country as Czech Republic and New Zealand. Quilt Phase (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The authoritative source is the billing block (one sheet) on the official poster as seen here. It says "Fox Searchlight Pictures presents a Defender and Piki Film production". Presents means the distributor which is Fox Searchlight Pictures". The production companies are Defender and Piki Film. A US company was not involved in making the film, just distributing it. It is not an American produced film. The production companies are from New Zealand. A Czech company was not mentioned in the billing block – it appears only Czech involvement was financial incentives and filming location, no creative involvement in actually making the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It clearly is contentious if you are using the information provided by Screen International to arrive at a different "country of origin" than they do. You are engaging in WP:Original research. Many different factors go into determining the nationality of a film, as outlined at Template:Infobox_film#Country: "defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. It is enlightening to compare the lists provided by the different national sources that we use: countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country). Different national records – and the statistics on which they are based – can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities." Simply put the "country of origin" should be treated like any other citable claim on Wikipedia: it should be backed up by a source that explicitly makes such a claim. Screen International states the film's "county of origin" as "US", so that is the ascribed nationality from that source. Your Eidr source lists the "countries of origin as "US" and "DE" (i.e. United States and Germany) so not even your own source backs up the position this is a Czech or New Zealand film. If other sources credit the Czech Republic or New Zealand as countries of origin they can be added with the appropriate sources. For the record, IMDb is not a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Screen International source attached to the country of origin in the infobox does not state that United States is the country of origin. It say the film is a Fox Searchlight offering and lists production companies as Defender, Piki Films. This matches the billing block information. There is no explicit statement of country of origin, all that is left is the nationality of the production companies and the presenting company. Presented by an American company, produced by two New Zealand companies. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Screen International source gives the key details as "Dir: Taika Waititi. US. 2019. 108mins", therefore the country of origin or nationality or whatever you want to call it is "US" according to their criteria. That is simply how they format the information. The production companies from the credits are not relevant here. Companies can provide production services in many different forms, ranging from minor to major involvement, and they are just one factor out of many in determining a film's nationality. For example, under UK law a film must meet a set of complex criteria to be classified as British. That is why it is essential to have a source that ascribes the nationality/country of origin. Wikipedia editors creating deducing nationalities from their own interpretation of the film credits is classic original research. Even the British Film Institute state the film's country of origin as "Germany/USA". So out of three credible sources two state the country of origin to be US/Germany while another just the US. On the basis of that it would be improper for Wikiedpa to omit the US as a country of origin and there is now a strong case for including Germany. Betty Logan (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC) g

WP:Original research, IMDb and EIDR points taken, Betty Logan . Much as I agree with you, Geraldo Perez, how I wish the world was does not make it so. It may be that there is a reliable source out there that states the film's nationality and/or country of origin is not solely the USA. (How Germany came to be a country of origin is intriguing, too.) Quilt Phase (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

An update on this, but the film has finally appeared in the Lumiere database, and all three countries (US/CR/NZ) are listed as countries of production for the film. Pinging Betty Logan, Geraldo Perez and Quilt Phase who were also involved in this discussion, should I add this to the main page now that we have a source for all three countries?

LUMIERE is a good, solid source. I support adding the extra countries along with LUMIERE as the source. Betty Logan (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Daerl. I support. Quilt Phase (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Humane treatment of animals?

Jojo Rabbit does not have a Humane Society "No animals were harmed" label. The American Humane Society does not list this film in its database: http://www.humanehollywood.org/index.php/movie-reviews I would like to have a public record of how the producers treated the animals in the film. Most prominently, an early scene portrays killing a rabbit. Did the actor actually kill that rabbit? How would we know? I would welcome suggestions about how to find an authoritative answer.

How about, no, weirdo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.3.234 (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a nasty response, 141.70.3.234. The above poster asked a legitimate and important question that you gave the back of your hand to. Bad job. Wordreader (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wait, this isn't a Wes Anderson movie?

If it's not, it oughta be. pbp 03:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Genre

Several times now the genre in the lead has been changed: [1]. The accompanying sources categorise it as Comedy/drama film, with the BBFC explicitly stating "JOJO RABBIT is a comedy drama...". Rotten Tomatoes also states the following: "JOJO RABBIT, a World War II satire...".

WP:FILMLEAD requires that only the primary genre or sub-genre is included in the lead. We basically have two choices here: the primary genre is "comedy-drama film", while the sub-genre is "satirical war film" (note that the "comedy" is redundant in "satirical war comedy" because satires are comedies by definition). I am completely okay with either, but if a consensus could be formulated about which wording is preferred that would help to stabilise the article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Tama Tū

Help, how change the name of this page to Tama Tū? --Nonunblog (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the Guardian review?

The unusually negative (one star) Guardian review has been removed three times now, by one editor.

No clear reason has been given for this, other than accusations of sockpuppeting by Yallayallaletsgo (I see nothing to support that, and that is a disruptive allegation to make in such a manner), an implication that inclusion of this review is some vandalism so obvious that it can be reverted on sight, and finally an implication that other editors are too irrational to understand the wisdom of this unexplained removal.

1. " Manual revert of unhelpful blackwashing. User:Yallayallaletsgo's disruptive POV edits were at least intact for months before I read this article, but until what's already here is balanced out I think more negative content is probably unwelcome."
2. "Revert unexplained."
3. "I explained it in my edit summary. Please take it to the talk page if you believe that the current version of the article is lacking in "critical" (read: negative) reviews; honestly, I don't know how any rational Wikipedian could look at the current state of the article and not see the opposite."

As to why it belongs here, then I see it as a significant outlier for a film which has been widely acclaimed. Especially from a liberal, arts-focussed newspaper like The Guardian, which both carries some weight in the UK for film reviews and would also be expected to applaud a film like this. Its relevance is more about the critical reception of the film than any basis for a critique of the film itself, within our article. Personally I'd already blogged about this review, because I saw it as bizarrely negative. Not quite as bad as the NYT one (to misunderstand Klenzendorf so badly, I wonder if he left the film halfway?), but still - an odd outlier. However the Guradian still carries weight in the UK for its film reviews and also (importantly for this article) it's the only place where The Tin Drum gets a mention. So yes, this review belongs.

See User talk:Andy Dingley#Out of curiosity for the start of this, and a further accusation of HOUNDing by the editor who is repeatedly removing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's always going to be editorial preference as to which reviews of a larger set to sample in a Wikipedia article. In terms of balance, it helps to follow a rule of thumb. Metacritic is decent here since it can categorize reviews as positive, mixed, or negative. They sampled 57 reviews with 30 being positive, 20 being mixed, and 7 being negative. If this Wikipedia article samples 10 reviews, there should be only 1-2 negative reviews. This would be per WP:BALASP "to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". So while The Guardian is valid, too many negative reviews would make it imbalanced. One could argue for swapping out negative reviews. For example, the Slant zero-star review is an outlier even in the set of negative reviews shown on Metacritic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Of those reviews, I liked the Bradshaw Guradian one as an example (although didn't agree with it), thought the Slant one had a good Ace Ventura line but was otherwise blandly WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the NYT felt like he hadn't even watched it and Little White Lies can't tell the difference between Germans, German soldiers and Nazis - which is a valid point, there's much in this film which goes near the "Good Wehrmacht / Evil Gestapo" over-simplification, but they're not getting it either. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• The Guardian is obviously a prominent newspaper, so I want to at least keep the two Guardian reviews. As long as we start out the review section by noting that 80% gave it a good review, we don't need to stick to exactly 80% positive reviews. People already know that 80% gave it a positive review. We should focus instead on giving a diversity of viewpoints from good newspapers. Please add back the reviews, especially from The Guardian.MiscellaneousMarginalia (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Rotten Tomatoes should not be used when we have Metacritic. RT is simplistic in labeling a review as positive or negative with no in-between. That makes it harder to apply WP:BALASP. Furthermore, saying a film has 90% good reviews and 10% bad reviews doesn't mean that there should be 1,000 words of positive reviews and 1,000 words of negative reviews. Of course we don't have to precisely match the preexisting percentages, but it should be close enough. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Syntax

"Joe Weintraub, Brian Caspe, Gabriel Andrews and Billy Rayner as Junker, Mueller, Klum and Frosch, the fellow agents of Deertz." Can we have a verb here, please? 67.231.66.125 (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sources from the lead

Sources for the genre are being persistently removed from the article by Gerald Waldo Luis. The lead is not exempt from sourcing, and the genre is not currently sourced in the article. Any factual claim that is open to challenge needs to be explicitly sourced. MOS:CITELEAD makes it clear that claims in the lead are not exempt from this condition. Not only is the genre open to challenge it is actually one of the most persistently challenged claims in the article.

While there are many FA and GA rated film articles where the genre is not sourced this is largely down to the fact the genre is not controversial and is not challenged. Where this is not the case it is necessary to source it. The genre for a film like JoJo Rabbit is not straightforward and it could feasibly come under many different genres, and hence why it needs to be corroborated.

I don't quite know what the problem is here, and why the editor in question is determined to remove helpful sources from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Betty Logan, apologies for the edit war. It's all really on how citations in leads make it cluttered; if you look at my editing history you'll know I'm not a fan of lead citations. That's why I removed it. But if it is for the greater good, then I'll not touch those citations. However, I think the first citation is already enough to back it up, and we don't need two. GeraldWL 08:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the second citation helps to strengthen the corroboration, but CITELEAD would be satisfied by just a single citation. If you wish to remove one of the citations I will not challenge that. Betty Logan (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Betty Logan, noice! I've kept the RT citation. Again, apologies for the war. GeraldWL 08:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No hard feelings, we've ironed it out. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Plot first sentence

Llewee, I hope you're willing to discuss about the edit disputes here. I think the sentence is already clear: following the word "Johannes "Jojo" Betzler" are two sentence fragments, one is an extension to "Johannes "Jojo" Betzler" and one is an extension to the extension, followed by a continuation of "Johannes "Jojo" Betzler". It doesn't state in any way that Adolf is the one joining the Jungvolk somehow. You edit also has some flaws, i.e. abbreviating WW2 without saying the full phrase, and using the incorrect term "JoJo". Generally I can correct those myself, but the major problem with your edit led me to reverting it as a whole. GeraldWL 12:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis Yes, I'm not claiming that it states that Adolf is joining the jungvolk I just feel that a sentence with that many clauses is a little confusing and could be miss interpreted. I am happy to correct the grammar problems you pointed out. Llewee (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

If anyone has any objections to that please give them below, if none are given by Monday evening I will remake the edits to the plot with the changes Gerald Waldo Luis suggested. Llewee (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Llewee, I don't think I did any suggestions. I just said that the status quo is already good. GeraldWL 01:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis The suggestions I referenced were the grammar issues you pointed out. More generally, I just don't understand why you are so determined to stop minor wording changes which will at best make the plot's opening sentence slightly more clear and at worst make virtually no difference at all. Llewee (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Llewee, can you point out why the current is not clear? My concern is mainly that it adds up to the word counts, where the goal is to stay out of 700 words. I don't see how the current is unclear. There is a current PR on this article; feel free to put up suggestions there if you want to. GeraldWL 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge: Jojo Rabbit (soundtrack) into Jojo Rabbit; dated: February 24, 2021. Proposer's Rationale: --- This article has no reason to have it's own, as there is enough space to place it in the original Jojo Rabbit article, as you can see in its Music subsection. It also has little things to say here. GeraldWL Discuss here. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose merge I don't think that this soundtrack article, which admittedly does need some work, could be fully merged without giving undue weight to the soundtrack. It's perfectly precedented to have a separate soundtrack article. ~ HAL333 19:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Only comment opposes merge; proposer @Gerald Waldo Luis: may consider a BOLD merge at this time. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support merge, as the soundtrack article has only two paragraphs of text (besides the lede) compared to the four paragraphs already here in the Music section of Jojo Rabbit. There are 12 + 2 = 14 other songs listed over there that aren't here, and that's about it. The small marginal increase in volume here would hardly place UNDUE emphasis on the soundtrack. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: A Wiktionary link for the word canard

I have never encountered the word "canard" before and assume that I'm not the only one. Is there a reason why it can't have a link to Wiktionary? SlightSmile 01:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, seems quite reasonable and appropriate. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like I've stated in my talk page at a thread by SS, canard is an actual English word with no complication or technical jargon that may merit a link. It's merely a foreign vocabulary for some, and does not need a Wiktionary link. GeraldWL 10:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no need for inclusion of a Wiktionary link, per Gerald Waldo Luis. Idealigic (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. With all of GWL's legalizing, "foreign vocabulary for some" and "complicated to some" comes across as just a little bit snotty to be honest. He hasn't really given a reason for not allowing that word to have a Wiktionary link and I think it's deplorable that he would waste the community's time on such an innocuous edit. SlightSmile 15:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: How about just linking to antisemitic canard? That would be more direct and encyclopedic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. I know it's late where GWL is so I'll just go ahead and make that change now. SlightSmile 17:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Done and put this behind us. SlightSmile 18:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Support this solution. It's a rare-enough term, with a specific jargony meaning (and a lot of historical baggage). We should have something there to help readers. —Wingedserif (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Terribly written

This article is awfully written, particularly the Production section. Needs major refinement. Edfilmsuk (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Edfilmsuk, maybe help fix it instead of criticizing it? This is Wikipedia, collaboration. I speak English as a second language, so that's expected. What I further expect is your help. GeraldWL 06:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you like to point out examples of what needs improving? Specific sentences that need fixing?Crboyer (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It's just very flabby. I don't have time to overhaul it, but I've adjusted the most annoying sections. Perhaps I'm being harsh but it's just overly verbose. Edfilmsuk (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Edfilmsuk, "The taboo subject matter did not prevent Waititi from pursuing the project - it emboldened him." The word emboldened alone does not explain. What is being emboldened? How did the taboo subject embolden him? Thus, I've undone it, but I thank you for your latter edit. GeraldWL 15:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Overly long

It's a very long article and the Production section is an example of having waaaay too much detail. Take this random excerpt:

The fully handcrafted set design for the Betzler's house, a Baroque stone cottage, filmed at a 7,000 square feet (650 m2) Barrandov Studios soundstage, is characterized by elegant details such as thick door frames, windows recessed deeply into the stone walls, a wood-paneled hallway, and a curved staircase. Broadly, it features Art Deco architecture popular in the 1930s. Victorian architecture and a muted color palette were utilized for Inge's bedroom, in order to give a neutral ground for Jojo and Elsa to bond.

I don't think most, if any, of this material is relevant for readers. The Themes section is also much longer than it needs to be. Right now it's almost entirely a re-hashing of an undergraduate thesis that needs to be summarized more succinctly.Citing (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Citing, the production design section is absolutely important, as it is a big part of the movie production and the house is a big part of the movie. The themes section is new, and I'm planning to trim it once I have more sources. GeraldWL 02:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The section is important, but it is crammed full of excessive detail.Citing (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Citing, I don't understand what's excessive from mentioning the art style of the movie. GeraldWL 00:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying sections aren't important but they're very verbose, as a previous editor mentioned. The article clocks in at around 10,000 words right now, and 5,000 of that is the Production section alone. It takes forever to read and most of it is details that don't matter to readers. Compare this to The Grand Budapest Hotel, a featured article of a movie of similar age, which clocks in at about 7,000 words total. This article is full of passive voice and flowery language. Here's an example of how you could trim some of the fat:

The fully handcrafted set design for the Betzler's house, a Baroque stone cottage, filmed at a 7,000 square feet (650 m2) Barrandov Studios soundstage, is characterized by elegant details such as thick door frames, windows recessed deeply into the stone walls, a wood-paneled hallway, and a curved staircase. Broadly, It features Art Deco architecture popular in the 1930s; Inge's bedroom used Victorian architecture and a muted color palette were utilized for Inge's bedroom, in order to give a neutral ground for Jojo and Elsa to bond.

I'm not sure how much of that detail is even necessary in the first place. The movie takes place in the 1940s, so it has architecture popular in the preceding decade. Is this relevant? Are readers supposed to know how Victorian architecture in a bedroom makes it "neutral ground"? I sure don't. Does it matter for us to know? Less is more!Citing (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Citing, it is noteworthy that the prod designer utilized Victorian architecture with muted palette (you missed that part there) to give a neutral ground for the character ground. It's something not all viewers know on the spot— at least not me. But after reading that source, I thought, Oh yeah, it actually looked muted. Furthermore, not everyone knows it is of Art Deco architecture and that the house is at some point renovated within the film's world— I don't even know what Art Deco is! Everything stated there is the designer's vision and how it impacted the film, so yes, more is better— at least in the status quo. GeraldWL 03:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)