Talk:Deep Red

	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
	This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force.

Horror High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Movie screenshot

Is the movie screenshot suitable for minors reading Wikipedia? 83.77.223.7 (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be called 'Profondo Rosso (aka Deep Red)' as there is a film called Deep Red which is not listed in Wikipedia

I don't know how you would change all the pages that link to this one, or the best way to update wikipedia, but this article is about 'Profondo rosso (aka Deep Red)' when there is in fact a film called 'Deep Red' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109589/ which should be included in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.121.160 (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution

I noticed the entry for Phenomena mentioned that Creepers had been heavily edited. I read and read and can't figure out how to follow Wikipedia's formating standards... so... could someone create a Distribution section for the Deep Red page that mentions The Hatchet Murders are also edited (perhaps not heavily, I can't recall). In particular, one very important scene involving a mirror does not appear in THM. 24.68.85.5 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Jetgirly[reply]

Relation to Antonioni

Argento alludes to "Blow Up" by Michelangelo Antonioni several times (that is the main reason for having David Hemmings play the lead). I think this ought to be mentioned or better yet, discussed. 82.176.216.87 (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critics----------

I strongly suggest you to add the section critics, since this masterpiece is one of the few movies in the history to have received a 100% POSTIVE REVIEWS in Rotten Tomatoes. Check it here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/deep_red_the_hatchet_murders/

You cannot miss tell this. 100% on Rotten Tomatoes is VERY rare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.68.155 (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a success?

Verification and citation needed for not a success internationally. Some of the Italian wikipedia articles, specifically, seem to contradict that statement. (160.39.1.124 (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Additional of other works

68.129.15.71 As I said in my edit summary, a list of other works by the director is appropriate in an article about one of his works. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstood. Those weren't other "works", they were alternate titles. Like how Star Wars was later retitled as Star Wars: A New Hope. Or Revenge of the Jedi was changed to Return of the Jedi. Each country released the Deep Red under a variation of the title.

Personally, I don't care if they are listed or not. But if they are, I want him to use the titles with the spelling/capitalization corrections I had edited. He had added the titles the other day, I corrected them. Someone removed them earlier today. He re-added them, but using the improper titles. Kellymoat (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure they were spelled incorrectly? Italian movie titles do not capitalize all of the words like we do in English, Usually only the first word in the title is capitalized, unless there is a proper noun or name in the title, like New York,etc. unsigned comment by 68.129.15.71

You are using a book to reference things, but since we all don't have that book sitting here in front of us, we have to rely on things like Google. When I tossed them into google, (which also gave me book results), the majority of them were spelled the way I had edited. Kellymoat (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kellymoat Oh, I see. Thank you for correcting my error. I will leave a message explaining this, as well as an apology. I'm not sure how I feel about them being in the article, to be honest. It makes the article seem rather... messy. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know MOS regarding this stuff, but as long as there's no rules against it, I am ok with listing changes like like Deep Red and The Saber Tooth Tiger. Those are very different titles. Listing foreign translations, like Deep Red and Profondo Rosso (Italian for Deep Red), seems redundant. Kellymoat (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous editor has been on a drive-by adding alternative titles. :) In some cases I think its fine, but most a working title for a film that has no context on why the title was changed/kept/etc. probably does not need to be in the lead. Alternative language titles are really only of use if the release was significant in some other countries, or if the title was used in some marketing form that we are aware of. Otherwise, it's a bit trivial.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on wikipedia named "BettyLogan" has been stalking me for days, deleting everything I add to any of the entries. First they did it on the grounds that my additions had no reference sources, then when I fixed that, they erased them on the grounds that they were not interesting to them. But all of the people I know who collect European horror films like to keep track of th different titles the films are distributed under around the world, and it even helps collectors avoid buying the same video twice under 2 different names. It takes me time to research and type the edits, and she (or he) keeps deleting them at the end of each day LIKE CLOCKWORK. It makes people disgusted with wikipedia to have their stuff systematically vandalized and erased at the end of each day. I am one of the people who created the "giallo" page's filmography. When I first came on the page, there were like 25 titles on it. I added almost all of the other ones, and now I'm being prevented from contributing by a cyber stalker BettyLogan. I even receive threats every day that if I re-add the information, I'll be banned from wikipedia,etc. Look back over the past few days of logs and see how she (or he) has been vandalizing all of my additions. Thanks for your time and assistance! Any help you can provide is sincerely appreciated. -Frank unsigned comment by 68.129.15.71

I admit to not knowing the rule(s) regarding your edit(s). If it is against the rules, then that is a separate issue. Kellymoat (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not against the rules, adding information that is accurate. It's just that apparently one or two people are running the giallo genre here, and they feel the additional info is not of interest to them personally. It's unfortunate that they (or possibly he) can prevent the rest of the entire world from reading it. That is truly the strictest kind of censorship. I know a lot of Euro-film collectors who would love to know the alternate titles these films have been distributed under, so that they don't keep buying the same movie over and over by error. It's also interesting to some to see how the author's original title got changed by film distributors as the films were shown around the world, sometimes in spite of the film owner's wishes. But since the one or two people who are running the show here only want to see the film's titles in Italian & English (which is already evident by the title of the entry), then that's the way it will be. People who would be interested in the additional info will have to consult a reference book for themselves, I guess. --Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.129.15.71 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained at User_talk:68.129.15.71#Alternate_titles these sections are unnecessary and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Most film titles are translated and it is not necessary to document every single one. For example, just take all the alternative titles for The Force Awakens as an example; what encyclopedic advantage is there to including all of these in the article? The only titles that are necessary to include are the original native title and the titles used in English-speaking countries per Wikipedia:NCF#Foreign-language_films. NCF also spells out how these titles should be integrated into the article as well. These sections are unecessary and indiscriminate and should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But deep red vs the saber tooth tiger is far different than deep red vs professor rundo. One is an entirely different title, while the other is simply the italian translation.Kellymoat (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading this correctly the film was never released as La Tigre dei Denti a Sciabola (The Sabre-Toothed Tiger), so it's not even a release title! It was what the film was originally going to be called before it was renamed Profundo Rosso. Now, that is interesting pre-production information and have no objection to its inclusion in the article—in the same way that the Return of the Jedi articles notes that it was oirginally going to be called Revenge of the Jedi—but that could be covered in the "Background" section. Let me reiterate my position though: I don't think the Spanish, Japanese, Dutch, French and German titles are necessary in an English-language article about an Italian film. I also think it is overkill to have a section covering the Italian and English-language titles and this is going to create an unruly precedent across film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok so you personally are not interested in the various retitlings, but did you ever consider that maybe there are thousands of wiki users who are? Personally I'm not interested in who the assistant cameraman was on a film, but I wouldn't try to block the information from appearing. It's just stunning that one person can block the flow of verified information (which has sources cited!) and that pertains directly to the topic of that page, from appearing on wiki entries. Are we back in 1984? ---Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.49 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that. Have you read WP:INDISCRIMINATE? It specifical mentions that "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In short, we don't just include a list of alternative titles as it will have little context to film. Like, I've included information about alternative titles for Night of the Demon (which was released in the US as Curse of the Demon) because there is production history context for the name change. Listing all the titles indiscriminately as you have is not useful. The only one of yours that I would salvage if I could find more context would it's English-title if you can confirm it was released as it was, and that in Japan it appears to have been promoted as a sequel to Suspiria. (Suspiria II (!?). Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here: the titles we include, and how they are included. Being able to provide a source is an inclusion requirement, not an inclusion rationale. We don't include release dates for every country, the box office for every country and so on, so neither should we include titles for every country, unless we have a good reason to. It seems to me that Wikipedia:NCF#Foreign-language_films is a sensible starting point for which title we should include i.e. the original native title and any title used in an English-speaking country. I agree we should also include any titles that have an interesting background. I have already addressed this above with the original Italian title, but if the film was marketed as a sequel to Suspiria in Japan then obviously I have no issue with including the title in that capacity, as long as the appropriate context is provided. The second issue of how these titles should be incorporated into the article seems more straightforward to me. NCF prescribes the format for presenting them in the lead, which makes adding a section for these titles a tad redundnant i.e. we don't need a dedicated section at the bottom of the article when the titles are listed in the opening sentence of the article. As for titles that have interesting backgrounds, these can be brought in when it is appropriate to discuss them. For example, I would cover the original Italian title in the production section, and I would cover the marketing of the Japanese release in the distribution/release section. It is always worth remembering that we don't write articles for aficionados and we are not constructing a database. Moreover, the foreign-language editions of this article are listed down the sidebar, so if a reader really wants the foreign language title it is available. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, 68.75.309, you have your answer. It is not just the spelling or the placement. Bye bye they go. Kellymoat (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kellymoat, please see WP:BITE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touche, Erik! And with that, I will take my variant titles and recede from the fray. I would'nt want to "mess up" the articles with footnoted facts. ---Frank

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

Deep red

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

A more logical article would seem to be Shades_of_red, but it isn't discussed in that article either.

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Deep red is a common umbrella term for darker shades of red and should thus redirect to the article Shades of red. This article should instead be moved to Deep Red (movie) or similar, maybe even Profondo Rosso. Blockhaj (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]