![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 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)
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)
"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)
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://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Artoasis ( talk) 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 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)
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)
"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)
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://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Artoasis ( talk) 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)