Jump to content

Talk:Let Me In (film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

I'd like to add an External Link to the Let Me In review on totalfilm.com: http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/let-me-in

I did add an External Link to this page on 17/11/10 but it was removed because it did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines for external links. As per the Wikipedia Editor's comment, I'd like to discuss this before reinserting it...

My query is twofold:

1) If I had formatted my link as follows, would it have been compliant?

Which I think matches the formatting in the example given in the External Links page: The RFC-mandated example.com website

Note: I actually formatted my link as per the Metacritic External Link for Let Me In:

Is Metacritic's link in this instance incorrect? I could see that the coding used by Metacritic was different to that used in the other External Links but it seemed a good way to emulate the layout used by the other sites, without having to create a Template (which seems very complicated).

2) Even if the link is formatted correctly, would an External Link to a review on Total Film be considered as spam? We understand that wikipedia uses nofollow tags and that any external links to totalfilm.com would not alter our search engine rankings. Even so, we feel External Links to our reviews would complement the article.

Note: Would an External Link to http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/let-me-in be considered as spam, but the existing link to http://www.allmovie.com/work/471357 not.

Many thanks for your comments.

LizHawkins (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In general, arguments along the line of "X exists, so Y should too" are not successful here (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Each addition has to be argued on its merits, and the fact some existing link may be unsuitable is a separate issue. See external links for the relevant guideline. One problem here is that in principle there should be a considered reason why adding a link improves a particular article, yet you have added similar links in many articles. Is there something about the link you want to add here that provides extra useful information for this article? Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The important point is that reviews do not belong in that section. The external links section is not for listing reviews. If you want to include a review it is best to include it in the "Critical response" section and don't just add the link but give some text from the reviewer, what interesting point does the review make that hasn't already been included? There are different ways to format it but the simplest is to just include the bare link as follows: <ref>http://www.example.com/review.html </ref>
Hope that helps. I'd encourage you to read some of the wikipedia tutorials if you are just getting started. The Project film guidelines WP:MOSFILM might also be of interest. -- Horkana (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Morse code messages at the end of the film

There have been numerous edits and re-edits of the Morse code "dialogue" between Own and Abby at the end of the film. It might be good to settle the issue once and (hopefully) for all in a discussion. Firstly, I have to ask if it really is an important enough piece of dialogue that it even needs to be put in the summary. Plot summaries do not generally quote the dialogue directly, and even in this one the only other direct quotation in the summary is the note the man writes. I don't see how anything important is lost by just leaving out the Morse code tapping at the end altogether. It's just a pretty small detail, after all.

Secondly, unless there is a citable source for what the message each taps, we are left with an OR problem. The characters never say that they are using American Morse code rather than International Morse code, so to say what the message is requires an assumption beyond what the film actually tells us. If the messages are in American Morse code then Abby either taps "H I" or "H O". One of the problems with American Morse code is both "I" and "O" are two dots, differing only slightly in the size of the space between the dots. In International Morse code Abby would be tapping "H I". Owen's reply is even more variable between the two codes. In American it comes out as either "O X" or "I X" again, depending on your interpretation of the size of the spacing. In International Morse code it is "I L". Now logic tells us that it makes the most sense that Abby taps "Hi", since "Ho" does not make much sense. The same logic also tells us that Owen replies "OX" (meaning "hug kiss"), since "IL" makes no sense and there is no reason for him to mention seeing an ox. But there is no way to come to these conclusions without a healthy dose of OR on our part (unless one can find a Reeves interview where he explicitly says what the messages are).

So one solution is just to report the Morse code messages in their dot-dash form and not say what they mean, leaving it up to readers to make the leaps of logic necessary to understand them. But I think a better solution might just be to leave out mention of the messages. The summary has them leaving together on a train, so the specifics of any dialogue between them at that point are not really all that important. To save an edit war problem and an OR problem, it would seem best to just omit the tapping. 99.192.57.35 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice story except if you WATCH THE FILM in the classroom when he's copying the morse code out the book it clearly says;
"MORSE CODE INTERNATIONAL"
You can clearly see that the first letter that is different to the International and American versions, the letter 'C' is 'dash dot dash dot' in the book he is copying it from and so therefore he is using the INTERNATIONAL MORSE CODE revision and at the end of the film since he copied out the INTERNATIONAL MORSE CODE from the book to give to Abby to learn and for him to use, he tapped out I and L and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.159.181 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Setting aside your SCREAMING CAPITAL LETTERS, your explanation is a perfect example of synthesis, which is a no-go for Wikipedia articles. It also does not address my main point, that the plot summary need not say anything at all about the tapped messages at the end. In fact, if you think Owen taps "I L", that's all the more reason not to mention the tapping in the plot summary since it is not obvious what the significance of that message is. 99.192.57.187 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That fact that you, I, and others are discussing this matter shows that there is a general public interest in it, and it makes sense that there should be, as the film has that element of mystery about it that makes people want to know what the couple plan, how they feel about each other and so on. There is simply no point denying this and saying "it doesn't matter" when so many people think it does.
For the record, if International Morse Code is being used, and Owen is typing out IL, then this could very well be short for "I Love (you)." I think that is quite plausible. End of story. On the other hand, if he is typing out Ho, or OX, then he might be having a bit of a shot at her, since she has got him into this scrape, and he has to tote the case with her in it all the way to where ever. Myles325a (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no shortage of interesting things that have been cut from Wikipedia, it aint what it used to be. I don't think it really necessary to include the actual morse code but since morse code is already mentioned/foreshadowed in the plot summary it should probably be mentioned that Owen taps out a message to Abby without getting into the details. Besides, now that it has been discussed an analysed here we've subverted the deletionists and made it easy enough for readers to find (until someone uses a talk page archive bot to bury it). -- Horkana (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Myles325a: "That fact that you, I, and others are discussing this matter shows that there is a general public interest in it...." Actually, I am discussing it not because I think the issue of what Owen and Abby tap to each other is of significant interest, but because the issue has been the cause of many edits and re-edits. My suggestion to omit reference to the tapping at the end is, in part, because I don't think it is important, thus not worth all the back and forth changes. As for the interest of others, I am hesitant to ascribe motive to them.
Horkana, I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting. To end the plot summary by saying something like "Abby taps a message to Owen in Morse code and Owen taps a message back" without saying anything about the messages seems a bit odd to me. The fact that they tap to each other at the end seems a rather trivial detail, unless they say something of great significance. I suppose the purpose of the tapped messages is, in part, to let the audience know that Abby is in the box - otherwise people might think that Owen is leaving on his own. But that point is covered already in the summary without mentioning the tapping. So I'd be interested in what specifically you would suggest as a final sentence for the plot summary. 99.192.66.52 (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I take it back, maybe better not to mention morse code at all but the final sentence seems stilted without it and should be rephrased. There is definitely a problem there. Might also be a good idea to have a break between it and the preceeding paragraph since it is a big change of scene. -- Horkana (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right about the stilted sentence. It reads a bit like dialogue from the Old Spice ad. It's not quite an "I'm on a horse" ending, but the point is well taken. Any suggestions for a re-write? 99.192.66.27 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"your explanation is a perfect example of synthesis, which is a no-go for Wikipedia articles."

"As Owen looks through Abby's belongings, it becomes clear from old photos that the middle-aged man who protected her was not her father, but that many years ago, he was a boy she knew."

It's never explicitly stated that the boy in the photos is the same one, so that's synthesis as some jobsworth is desperate to point out, so we must delete that entry also, nevermind the fact that it's a point in the story that causes Owen to leave and change his views, the self righteous wikinut believes that anything he is wrong about must be purged from the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.159.181 (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

78.86.159.181, if you want to be involved in discussion here, you should observe Wikipedia's civility policy. Until then, your contributions will just look like attempts to be disruptive, not genuine attempts to improve the article. 99.192.66.52 (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be a lot easier to take these comments more seriosly if you both had user accounts. It's not a requirement but that the reality of it. -- Horkana (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
99.192.66.52, you are guilty of a perfect example of synthesis, no where in the film does it state that Abby is within the box, to suggest that she is the one tapping is mere speculation on your part, you shall be sentenced according to the holy law as set out in the Wikipedia's civility policy. Opposing views shall not be tolerated on Wikipedia especially in film, until the relevant research paper is published, the terms I quote are there to be obeyed, always, even if I am too stupid to understand what they mean or how they're relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.159.181 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Horkana, you are right that editors posting from logged in accounts get more respect than ones who do not, but I can live with that. It is the force of the argument that should matter in the end anyway. Whether it is someone's first edit or their 100,000th, either they make a good point or they don't. But I appreciate the advice anyway. 99.192.66.27 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Sloppy spelling doesn't make a great impression either. My bad. I'm more careful when editing the articles, honest. -- Horkana (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Without a logged in account, you avoid accountability and your reputation can not be affected (for good or for bad). To me it is like making voting records of politicians and court decision by judges anonymous. Angry bee (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It amazes me that people can write entire commentaries on the Morse Code scene at the end, but then simply aver that it is of insufficient interest to warrant so much as a line at the end of the plot synthesis. I watched the film in a full house, and I could SEE that everyone was interested in the Morse Code coda to the film. Because the film does not give it away, multitudes look up Wikipedia for the EXPLICIT purpose of ascertaining what happened right at the end. This occurs all the time in Wikipedia, with all sorts of potential dictator types deciding that what the public is interested in is only a minor matter and easily dispensed with. Let me ask you: why have a plot summary packed with details that would be completely evident to everyone who has seen the film and mean nothing to someone who has not, and then deliberately delete reference to some detail that a LOT of viewers will want some explanation for?

The last scene is a coda. The audience knows that the Morse messages cannot be anything vital to the plot, and they must constitute something in the way of sweet nothings, or possibly Owen telling Abby that everything is all right, and so on. An admittedly minor point is that it shows that Abby is not unconscious; she is keeping Owen company.

But the most important reason for why the Morse Code episode is important is because it represents an artistic coda. The fact that Owen taught Abby Morse Code (and it is surprising that a puzzle minded girl (?) like her had not mastered it already) is a major fulcrum for the entire developing relationship. It reinforces the secrecy of their union, and makes them a part of a private club, to which no one else has admittance. Good story lines have an arc, in which major themes of the work are reprised or referenced at the end, to give some sense of closure and symmetry to the art work. In this case, the small detail of the Morse being tapped out at the end is precisely such a reference, and adds to the satisfaction that the film provides. Reading the plot summary with the addition that I have made illuminates this story arc, and I propose that without the single line that I have added, there is a sense of futility and purposelessness purveyed by the plot’s details. I have had to make notes like this before.

In the article for this film's predecessor “Let the Right One In”, a similar, though much worse, piece of censorship occurred. In THAT film, it is made explicit that Eli (Abby) was a boy who was castrated by some evil demon at a young age. Some editor, of the view that sexuality is socially constructed and other kinds of transgender beliefs, simply decided that that detail was “not relevant” and omitted all references to it. It remained like that for a year, until I reinstated it. You can find details of this absolutely absurd and fascistic business here. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Let_the_Right_One_In.

And there are endless examples of this mentality, where salient information is deleted as not relevant, while Wikipedia bursts with information on someone’s side street in High Wycombe, which would be of no interest to anyone, but is perfectly “relevant” for inclusion, and remains “untouched”. LMI is a film that has been seen by millions, and many hundreds of thousands would have looked up this article. So why be so pedantic as to delete a small detail that would be of interest to many cinema-goers who are looking up this to found out something about the film?

Of course the back story of Eli’s sexuality is relevant in LTROI, and of course the Morse tapping in LMI is a relevant detail, showing the two are becoming a devoted couple in a secret relationship. The events that occur at the end of a work of art have a special significance, as I have indicated, and this scene is the very last one in the film.

I think the general consensus (including Horkana's) is on my side here, so I am hoping that my single explanatory line will not have to fought for again. I think that the two unnamed posters appear to have no background in any kind of aesthetic consideration. It is not necessary to KNOW exactly what was tapped out (this is not a documentary), but it is germaine that Owen and Abby are engaged in this activity, and it should be included in the plot summary. I myself have made no mention of what the tapped messages were as this is contentious. Myles325a (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you re-read the message I posted to start this discussion you will see that my main concern was the back-and-forth re-editing to change the claims about what the content of the messages were. I even said that one solution to that problem would be to report the content of the conversation by reporting it only in dot-dash form. So your rant pretty much entirely missed the point. The change you made to the plot section (with the capitalization correction I made to it) is perfectly fine by me. 99.192.59.202 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. My "rant" pretty much entirely (sic) missed the point. The inclusion of the substance of the Morse messages in the final scenes is not properly a feature of the Plot section, because if the writer / director had wanted the audience to know exactly what was being communicated between the couple, he would have employed some technique such as a sub-title. So, the discussion of what the messages were belongs elsewhere, and here is just as good a place as any. It has certainly been well-ventilated here, Hurricane Katrina ventilated. If you think my solitary line, which includes your excellent amendment adequately serves its purpose (as adumbrated in my "rant"), then can we all hope that the material here on the Morse code messages will suffice, and that the current text on this matter in the article may now remain unmolested? Myles325a (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Let Me In (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Artoasis (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I fixed a couple of minor problems; otherwise the article looks great for GA. Congratulations.

Oh the games they play, the games...

I had to have a laff at the following from the article:

allows her into his room, and he asks her to be his girlfriend, which she begrudgingly accepts.

Yeah, "begrudgingly". You mean, AFTER she strips naked and gets into his bed, having flown or whatever up to his room and come in through the window. My friend, you have something to learn about feminine wiles.... Myles325a (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This just in! (my head that is). Well, she is an American vampirette, so I suppose she could have yelled "HOT DIGGETTY DAWWG!! YOU AIN'T BULLSHITTIN' ME, IS YOU?? DO I EVER!!! Myles325a (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't seen this version, but in the original Swedish film,, the point is that the guy is too young for sexual desire to play a role. It's not a sexual connection they have, just a bond as two lonely outsiders.

And while I'm on the subject, there's a scene in the original movie where the girl vampire's gender is revealed as ambiguous. Apparently, in the book, the girl vampire is revealed to be a castrated male eunich. So when she says, "I'm not a girl", she doesn't just mean she's a vampire. I'm curious as to whether this scene is in the American "mainstream" version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.64.117 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

She does say "I'm not a girl" in the U.S. remake, but what it specifically means is left unexplored. There is no scene as in the Swedish original in which the vampire's sex organs, or lack of them, are shown. And Abby's mentor is not a paedophile, as in the Swedish movie, but was a boy like Owen who she hooked up with decades ago. It looks like there is a progressive dilution of the more radical material from the book to the Swedish movie and lastly to the U.S. movie. Disney will probably have a stab at it next. Myles325a (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It is shown, if i remember correctly she/he is changin clothes and boy sneaks a peek and sees large scar in where genitals should be. Quite controvelsial scene, probably edited off from some international versions, USA version undoubtedly among them. --213.243.133.166 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

iirc, in LTROI, the audience sees the top of the scarification on Eli's lower pelvis; Oskar does not. In LMI, Owen peaks on Abby changing, and trmbles for a moment and quickly moves away without revealing what he saw... This, as with much of the American version, is left open to interpretation by the audience to be either innocent curiosity and a sense of shame to peeping (which carries emotional weight, given Owen's peeping on all his neighbors throughout the film, but respecting Abby enough to have to look away) or seeing something that frightens or startles him (and, as a child, this still could be a naked female form as much as a brutal scar... who are we to say Owen would even know the difference?). 214.3.138.234 (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Steve

Script

I removed the official script external link since its not working any more.

Generalpompeyo (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Seduisant has brought us back the script link, thanks,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalpompeyo (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Remake/adaptation

Reeves has been vague about this and has not said that it's definitively an adaptation of the book and not a remake of the film. (There's been a number of contradictory information from various sites. So I changed it to "based on the novel Let the Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist and the Swedish film adaptation of the same name." Considering that Reeves is taking elements EXCLUSIVE to the film and NOT the novel, I think it's fair to say that his film is based, on some level, on the original film. This way it gives equal weight to both.

At the same time, if anyone's read the script it's clear that Reeves is using the plot from the original film with nothing from the book that wasn't in the Swedish film. If anyone's read the book, it's very different from the original film so it stands to reason that if Reeves was truly 'adapting the book' for a second time that his 'adaptation' would be more than just a retread of the previous film. If this remains the case when the finished film arrives, it should definitely be pointed out.--CyberGhostface (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no cited source where Reeves says that it is a based on the first film, but there is one of him saying he insisted that it not be a remake. There also is a cited source of the original author of the book and first screenplay that the adaptation is of his book, not his screenplay. Without a clear citation from one of the core creative people making the film that says they adapted the first film, there is no vagueness to be resolved. Also, you say, "if anyone's read the script...." Any conclusions based on the are OR, so not relevant. 99.192.70.169 (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
And yet, the director of the first film views this film as a remake of his work. So again, conflicting views from people on both sides. Furthermore, you are taking words out of context. When he says "our own version", he was NOT saying "our own version of the novel". The full context was basically "I told my actors not see to the original film, so we could make the story our own as opposed to influenced by the other." That's it.
Furthermore, again, Reeves has yet to say definitively say that this is a remake or readaptation of novel. He has been vague. He says he's touched by the novel and that it influenced him to take the job, but he does not say that his film is closer to the original novel than the original film.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, the fact that you keep removing the evidence that Reeves did not set out to remake the Swedish film is a problem. His exact words were "I said was that we shouldn't remake it." If you think it is somehow taken out of context, then make the quotation longer, don't just delete it. Secondly, since the author of the book (who is credited as a writer of this film) and the director of the film have said it's not a remake, you need to find a source that shows them saying something different to show that there is an ambiguity. Otherwise it is just your claim that there is a question here. Thirdly, the fact that the director of the first film has called it a remake is neither here nor there. He is not the person making the American film, so he has no special basis to know what the author(s) and director of this film are basing their work on. He is entirely an outsider to the American film and its making. 99.192.65.50 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't "remove" anything. If you looked at what I wrote, I summarized his statements. "Reeves initially didn't want to make the film, but gained a better appreciation once he read the novel." That's what he said.
Furthermore, he does NOT say that "We want to do our own take on the novel". His exact words are "I told the actors not to watch it either so we could make our own version but stay very true to the essence of the story." I don't know where you got "our own version of the book" because it's not there.
Thirdly, JAL or Tomas have nothing to do with this film. JAL is only credited as he did the original story--he's not involved with the production. So why should one's opinion be held higher than the other?--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I have now included the quote in question from Reeves in its entirety.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The longer quotation is good, but I noticed you had to change his words by adding a contrast ("but then") that is not in his quotation. I removed it because it fundamentally changes his words. The quotation as he actually said it does not show a contrast, but merely an explanation of why he thought the film should not be remade. There still is no source with him saying that he decided to remake the Swedish film. Just this one saying he did not want to do that. 99.192.65.50 (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, you say here that you "didn't 'remove' anything." Not true. With both edit 360940481 and 360853062 you removed the direct quotation of Reeves saying "we shouldn't remake it [the Swedish film]". Second, you say you "I summarized his statements". But you removed a quotation that contradicts your "summary" and replaced the quotation with an OR interpretation. Thirdly, you say "I don't know where you got 'our own version of the book' because it's not there." well, he says "our own version but stay very true to the essence of the story", so perhaps "'our own version' of the story" would be a better way to list that element. Fourthly, you claim that Lindqvist is only listed as a writer because he wrote the book and not involved with the production, but you have given no source for that. Additionally, since Reeves says he has discussed his film with Lindqvist, the claim that he has no involvement seems clearly wrong. 99.192.65.50 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Except here's no source to say that Lindqvist is involved. I added Lindqvist to the writer section because it's standard policy in remake articles to add the original writer's name. Nothing else.
Furthermore, Reeves emailed Lindqvist and Lindqvist gave him his blessings. That's as far as it goes. Rob Zombie did the same with John Carpenter when he remade Halloween. That doesn't mean Carpenter was actually involved.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, can you give me a reference for it being a "standard policy" to included names as writers of remakes when the original writer is not officially listed by some external source? I can't find any evidence of their being such a policy nor any example of someone being given a writing credit on a Wikipedia page for the reason you state where there was not also an external source to verify the credit.
Secondly, the claim that "Reeves emailed Lindqvist and Lindqvist gave him his blessings. That's as far as it goes." is entirely without a source. Reeves has not said that. Lindqvist has not said that. Unless you can source that claim, you are just assuming. 99.192.65.50 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, can you give me a reference for it being a "standard policy" to included names as writers of remakes when the original writer is not officially listed by some external source?
Take a look at a number of remake articles. For example, The_Blob_(1988_film) lists Kay Linaker because he wrote the 1958 film. Or, in terms of books to films, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring lists Tolkien as one of the writers because he wrote the original novel. Even if it's not 'official policy' it's a commonly accepted one by many major articles on Wiki.
Reeves has not said that. Lindqvist has not said that. Unless you can source that claim, you are just assuming.
Erm, yes they have. He says, "I e-mailed Lindqvist to tell him how much it touched me, Lindqvist wrote back telling me how much he liked Cloverfield, etc." That's all there is in terms of verifiable references on the matter of Lindqvist's involvement. If, for example, Lindqvist was on set or helped Reeves in any way, it has been yet to be reported.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Blob/LOTR - In both cases there are external sources for the writing credits. I certainly agree that where there are sources for writing credits that they should be included. what I question is the inclusion of an unsourced credit. You claim that it is "commonly accepted" to included writing credits where there are no sources is not one I see any more evidence for than your earlier claim that it is "policy".
"I e-mailed Lindqvist to tell him how much it touched me...." That's not a quotation. You are - again - presenting things as quotations that are just interpretations of yours. Stick to the facts that are in the sources. The exact quotation is "I wrote Lindqvist and told him that it wasn't just that I was drawn to the story because it was a brilliant genre story – which it is – but also because of the personal aspect of it. It really reminds me of my childhood." No mention of e-mail. No mention of it "touching" him, etc. There also is no mention of the giving of blessings or that that was the end of their discussions, as you have claimed. You continue to claim as fact things that there is no source for. That's a problem. Wikipedia editors should present the information that is given in the sources, not an OR interpretation of them. 99.192.65.50 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh for the love of-- I was paraphrasing him, obviously. I wasn't using that 'quote' in the actual article. Christ.
And If you actually bothered to do some research yourself instead of being accusatory towards me, you would know that in various other interviews Reeves has explicitly mentioned that he e-mailed Lindqvist. Look at this article. Also note that in this article he states that he looked at the film when writing his script for ideas. That alone should indicate that the film served some basis in the new one and that it's not just an adaptation of the book. Or this article: "The film touched me. And I read the book, which he also wrote, and it moved me too. It reminded me so much of my own childhood in certain ways." And this interview with Lindqvist: "He’s also emailed me and expressed how much he likes the actual story and could identify with it and that he really would treat it with respect."
So obviously, I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. Both Reeves and Lindqvist have said what I said they said.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"I was paraphrasing him, obviously." - No, not "obviously". Quotation marks are for quotations, not for paraphrases. You cannot put words in quotation marks that are paraphrases.
"If you actually bothered to do some research yourself...." - You were the one making the claim, so it is up to you to provide sources for it, not me. The same is true for adding or changing the content of a Wikipedia page. As I have said several times, if you want to make the claim that the film Let Me In is based, in part, on the film Let The Right One In and not just the novel, then it is up to you, not me, to do the research to find those sources and then to cite them when you make the changes to the article. That's Wikipedia editing 101. So if you have such a source (as you have finally claimed for the first time here), then use it as a citation in the main article beside the claim that the new film is based on the older one. But up to now you have only made such a claim in the article without any source whatsoever, which is a no-no. 99.192.87.81 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

CyberGhostface is a troll and a vandal; shouldn't he be banned, vice letting him continuously do this? He's a vicious troll on the IMDB for this film as well, and it appears he may actually be vandalizing this article so he can reference it to back outlandish arguments on other sites ("The author is quoted as saying it in the Wikipedia article...") It's petty and childish, and unencyclopedic. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Steve

Wow, seriously? Including quotes from the people working on the film counts as vandalism? (Yes, I realize that this post is almost a year old, but come on.) And while I make no bones pretending to like this film, l would hope that people would be smart enough to know that referring to a film as a remake when the primary source material is another's screenplay is an objective fact.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I made changes because this film is not a remake of the swedish film but is based off the original book. Until someone has proof that this is a remake, no changes should be made stating that it is. Any changes will be considered vandalism. --DavisJune (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How's this? The credits of Reeves' film specifically cite Lindqvist's screenplay for the Swedish film. The producer of the film refers to it as a remake of the Swedish film. Are we really going to go through this again?--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? You changed the article to state that it's an adaptation of the book without giving proof that it's not a remake. You don't have final say in this article and can't just call any edits you don't agree with vandalism. In my opinion the whole argument is just semantics. Both the Swedish film and the book had the same story so to say that the American film was based on one but not the other is illogical. There's no rule stating that we can't just say Let Me In was based on a story that appeared in both the Swedish film and the novel. For An Angel (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the American film credits the screenplay to the Swedish film in addition to the novel. So right there we have indisputable proof that the Swedish film was used as a source material. This is in addition to the comments from the cast and the crew calling it a remake. Reeves himself has been vague--he talks up the book a lot, but he also credits a lot of stuff to the Swedish film. He's never explicitly referred to it as one thing or another--the closest I could get was "It's an Americanization of Lindqvist's story" which doesn't tell us anything.
And this would be original research so obviously we can't include it in the article but if you were to compare both films to the novel it's very easy to see that Reeves was copying the film over the book 99% of the time. If anything is changed from the novel then Reeves opts for the Swedish film's turn of events; I.E. when Eli throws up the candy. That never happened in the book, but Reeves used it for his film. --CyberGhostface (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

THIS FILM IS NOT A REMAKE

For the 50th time. Until someone can actually cite a source stating that it is, stop vandalizing the page and saying that it is based off the movie. This clearly needs more discussion as some wikipedians are convinced that writing information for which there is no proof is the best way to write an article. --DavisJune (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made the changes once again. Stop changing it back. It's simple- if you don't have a source for what you are saying, it should not be in the article. --DavisJune (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you even watch the film? For Christ's sake, the closing credits say that it's based on the screenplay for the original Swedish film. Why are you even trying to argue this? How anyone can even be in denial about this after watching both films and reading the book is beyond me.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay in addition to the credits of the film itself, we now have a link from the American Film Institute. Hopefully that should be good enough.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all CyberGhostface, don't be petty or ignorant with your childish attacks. Wikipedia is not the place for your type of immature behavior and you should be ashamed. Your behavior is childish. Secondly, all I asked for were sources. Had you provided the sources in the beginning we wouldn't have had to go through this. Instead you insisted on going down the slippery slope of writing paragraphs with no sources to it. Pardon me for try to uphold what little credibility wikipedia has left. The next time you edit articles you need to have sources for your information or you may be in danger of a vandalism accusation. --DavisJune (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The only one acting childish here is you. Unless you believe that the film's credits aren't reliable (all the AFI link does is confirm what they made clear) there was no reason to throw a tantrum like this in first place. Even if the AFI didn't exist you still would have no leg to stand on with your vandalism accusations.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It is in no way vandalism to use the film itself -- here we have the actual credit from the film & poster: "Based on the screenplay and novel" by John Ajvide Lindqvist. How do people commenting on this page not notice that? - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, according to Wikipedia: Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."
Clearly, even if we were (and we weren't) wrong in calling this a remake, it still wouldn't be vandalism.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

CyberGhostface, your behavior is despicable and immature. You were the one that tried to get me in a childish edit war session. My point is this: there was no source to prove that the film was supposedly a remake. You can't just say that something shows up in the credits and expect that we'll believe you. If you feel that way then your logic is severely flawed. Wikipedia needs sources---this is a fact. Your arrogant belief that all things that come from the mouth of CyberGhostface should be believed are what is wrong with wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, your conduct in this whole issue has been shameful and borders on vandalism for the simple fact that you continued this abhorrent behavior even after it was pointed out. All I asked for were sources, you refused to give any. I've had my say and I've made my point. I'll let you continue to backtrack by yourself. --DavisJune (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I can say that it appeared in the credits because it actually does. Even if there were no other proof, the closing credits of the film itself (which can be easily verified by anyone) should have been more than enough verification that the film was in part based off of Lindqvist's original screenplay. This isn't me making something up--the source is the subject of the article itself. The article is considered a good article so clearly inadequate sourcing wasn't an issue with it.
It was your decision, not mine, to refuse to listen to others on the talk page. You could have easily came in here and asked "What evidence is there to suggest that the film was based on the Swedish one and not just the book?" as opposed to yelling "THIS FILM IS NOT A REMAKE" and accusing everyone of vandalism because they didn't follow your criteria. If you had been less confrontational people might have been more accommodating.--CyberGhostface (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

American film?

Why is this film repeated referred to as an "American film"? Because of the director?

Hammer studios is certainly not American. And two out of the four main cast members are not American.--Harpospoke (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

American as in the people who watch it who don't get exposed to foreign films and haven't heard of the better Swedish version.124.149.100.88 (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't cloud wikipedia with arrogant and unfounded claim. This is not the place for that type of immature behavior.--DavisJune (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the intensity of the torture scenes, I'd say it certainly caters for a yank audience. ;) 89.240.2.4 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Let Me In (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Let Me In (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Let_Me_In_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=1029032937"