![]() | 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 propose the removal of File:Valkyriecast.jpg because I do not think it has strong enough rationale to stick around as the article will eventually have a Good Article nomination. I think that it really has been a nice image to support the article as it grows, but I think now that we have quite a bit of content, we can find alternative images to include instead. We could use a quote box in the "Cast" section instead. Another possibility is the shot of von Stauffenberg saluting with his stump, which could go into the "Visual effects" section. Any other ideas? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Should the article mention journalists signing contracts not to talk about Scientology, liking the film, and similar?
-- 129.241.217.35 ( talk) 09:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Strauss, Bob (2009). "Mission impossible".
Film Comment. 45 (1): 22–25. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Above are some quotes that could be used in the article. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Moved from my talk page to here, where it should be:
I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed the son's remark was already in the article. About the info from Nova, well, it was on tv, so that makes it difficult to give a source. Your reservations are understandable, but does this mean that we can't use info from tv news?
Anyway, that Stauffenberg wasn't the initiator of the assassination plan is an 'established fact', at least I heard that in a documentary on Belgian tv, and the Wikipedia article on
Stauffenberg confirms this - the brain behind it was Olbricht. The
Operation Walküre article is alas way too short, only mentioning that Stauffenberg was pivotal because he could get close to Hitler. Funny - I now read that Operation Walküre was approved by Hitler himself. :) I already wondered how they could set up such a large-scale operation in secrecy.
So the only remaining question here is whether the film suggests otherwise - I haven't watched it yet, largely because of the historical inaccuracy.
Btw, a rather nasty twist to this whole story and the notion that Stauffenberg was a hero is that it seems like he really wanted to assassinate Hitler for the benefit of Germany, nazism and all. He had already fought for the expansion of Germany and considered Hitler a threat to keeping that with his too big ambitions. At least, that's what I understood from the documentary, that he wanted to establish a new government to consolidate Germany's conquests, even though they didn't explicitly say that. But the Stauffenberg article confirms part of that.
I'm sorry, I'm too busy with other things at the moment to delve too deep into this. Maybe at a later time, if others haven't found better sources yet.
DirkvdM (
talk)
19:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
In his Pajamas Media review, John Rosenthal (echoing Olivier Guez's Le Monde article) speaks of some of the things one would never know from watching the movie, including one scene that he calls the "most outrageously bogus sequence in the entire film."
'In fact, Stauffenberg served the Nazi regime loyally almost to the very end and continued to share its most fundamental ideas and “values” even when he finally turned against it. What Stauffenberg and his fellow plotters “saw” was not evil. What they saw … was that Germany was going to lose the war and that the reckoning would be severe when it did. The need to prevent this impending “catastrophe” for the “fatherland” is the common thread running through all their known statements. … Above all, Stauffenberg was a great German chauvinist whose convictions about the natural superiority of the German “race” or Volk were arguably even more pronounced than those of Hitler himself. This can be seen most clearly in the “oath” that Stauffenberg and his fellow plotters composed for themselves just weeks before the assassination attempt.'
" Valkyrie’s Revisionism by John Rosenthal" added to the external links section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.159.200.214 ( talk • contribs) 17:43, February 7, 2009
Is there any reference were those who did the film explain why Rommel is totally absent from the film ? In other films and series about the conspiracy to kill Hitler, Rommel appears usually. 82.154.85.213 ( talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I find rather offensive the attempt to discredit Stauffenberg by claiming incongruous and vicious lies about his religious and political beliefs. First, he was a catholic and a monarchist, never was a nazi or a Nazi Party member, wasn´t an anti-semite and regretted the Krystal Nacht, in 1938. These facts are more then proved and I regret sincerely that some sionist fanatics try to discredit Stauffenberg by claiming pure lies. 85.242.237.229 ( talk) 17:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"Above all, Stauffenberg was a great German chauvinist whose convictions about the natural superiority of the German “race” or Volk were arguably even more pronounced than those of Hitler himself." He was a catholic and never joined the Nazi Party. Oskar Schindler was a Nazi Party member, for example, even if he never believed in a superior race or was anti-semite. I think this quote proves what is fanatical sionism. 85.240.21.75 ( talk) 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Can any one knows who was the German general who appears to be killed in the early air bombing ? the same one talkin to Stauffenberg before the Bombing -- Blain Toddi ( talk) 09:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone note any critical reference on the use of the Swastikas in the movie? I have the impression that the art director - someone named Ott, I believe - went a bit overboard with using the Swastika as an artistic element in the film. I recall four scenes:
Etched in pattern in the glass door of the mess hall
On the floor of the swimming pool
Backlit blue on the stage's footlights in the ballroom scene (I was an extra in that, by the way)
Colorful, multifaceted, stained glass window in Goebel's headquarters (filmed in what became the US Army HQ in Berlin after the war)
Historically, the Nazis kept to what nowadays is called a corporate design on the Swastika, which found its base in Hitler's own "Mein Kampf" (see
Swastika): Generally black on white or white on some other background colors (i.e. military vehicles), besides the natural color of the material bearing it such as stone or metal. Don't think any other colors were authorized or used, at least haven't seen any pictures or documentation.
In addition, the mass of flags flying in front of the one Nazi building (actually the Berlin fair ground halls) was historically inaccurate: such pageantry was reserved for official functions. However, the filmmakers may have thought: Hey, so many flagpoles - might as well make use of them.
Which brings me back to my point: What was the filmmakers' intent on the display of such flamboyancy?
--
Alandeus (
talk)
09:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Good job. These objections shouldn't take long to address...
Intro:
Development:
Filming:
Marketing:
Theatrical run:
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 04:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A good article is:
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
An editor is adding original research to the "Historical accuracy" section. He/she is using books published in 1994 and 2003, which predate the film's release date. This published material is being synthesized with the film to create novel conclusions to include in the article. "I read the book and I watched the film, and I noticed this difference, therefore I report it!" At present, the "Historical accuracy" section uses sources that explicitly compare and contrast film and history. Editors' jobs are to report what has been reported elsewhere, not to create their own conclusions. Information in the 1994 and 2003 books are better reported in the historical articles. If a reader wants to read about a real-life figure vs. how he was portrayed onscreen, he can read the relevant articles and draw conclusions, whether they are right or not, on his own. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
User Erik ( talk · contribs · email) reverted my edition in the phrase While von Stauffenberg listens to Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" in the film, in reality the colonel hated Wagner.
As it is, seems that Stauffenberg put the music to listen because he liked it, when, in fact, it was his children who put it. It would not be a historical inaccuracy, anyway, and I think user Erik should discuss it before delete what he thinks is "unnecessary", as he is not the owner of the article. -- Tonyjeff ( talk) 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The line "In addition, Cruise's inability to adequately portray a German accent led to an inauthenticity that could only be considered embarrassing at best." Is not only pretty loaded and as such contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines, it's also pretty dumb. Having Stauffenberg talk English with a german accent wouldn't make it anymore authentic than having him talk without one. Those guys originally spoke german you know? I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.125.249 ( talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I commented out the following unsourced statement in the "Home media" section: "It was released in Australia on May 27." Is there a source that we can use for this? Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
"Also, when Hitler is seen signing the amendments to Valkyrie, he uses his right hand - Hitler was left handed." There is no citation here. Furthermore, I can't find any article in the Internet that confirms this statement.-- Sepp18 ( talk) 10:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This article was promoted as a Good Article a year ago this month. I'd like to conduct an annual review of the changes made in this time span. The changes are reflected in this diff. My thoughts below:
What do other editors think? Erik ( talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a fine article, thank you. Researching sources for Scientology in Germany, I came across this source and thought I'd drop it on this page, on the off-chance that the odd detail in it might be of use to you. Cheers, -- JN 466 16:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
This may also be of use. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This page supposedly sums up a lot of inaccuracies: http://www.welt.de/kultur/article3072517/Operation-Walkuere-ist-schlecht-erfunden.html Could anyone translate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.10.247 ( talk) 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, we have guidelines at WP:FILMHIST. In particular, the guidelines say, "Analysis should be introduced by reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science." The sources used are books that do not reference the film at all. We cannot add original research by watching the film and reading history books and coming up with novel conclusions to add to Wikipedia. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The quote at the end of the movie does not contain the word "impassioned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.61.15 ( talk) 22:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I have a real problem with the statement "when filmmakers attempted to reconstruct the scene based on eyewitness testimony and photographs, they discovered that the shots that killed von Haeften would also have killed von Stauffenberg, who was actually shot shortly after". The filmmakers could have found no such thing, unless they were using real bullets and found that both actors were killed! 122.59.167.152 ( talk) 23:43, 10 July 2015 (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 propose the removal of File:Valkyriecast.jpg because I do not think it has strong enough rationale to stick around as the article will eventually have a Good Article nomination. I think that it really has been a nice image to support the article as it grows, but I think now that we have quite a bit of content, we can find alternative images to include instead. We could use a quote box in the "Cast" section instead. Another possibility is the shot of von Stauffenberg saluting with his stump, which could go into the "Visual effects" section. Any other ideas? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Should the article mention journalists signing contracts not to talk about Scientology, liking the film, and similar?
-- 129.241.217.35 ( talk) 09:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Strauss, Bob (2009). "Mission impossible".
Film Comment. 45 (1): 22–25. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Above are some quotes that could be used in the article. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Moved from my talk page to here, where it should be:
I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed the son's remark was already in the article. About the info from Nova, well, it was on tv, so that makes it difficult to give a source. Your reservations are understandable, but does this mean that we can't use info from tv news?
Anyway, that Stauffenberg wasn't the initiator of the assassination plan is an 'established fact', at least I heard that in a documentary on Belgian tv, and the Wikipedia article on
Stauffenberg confirms this - the brain behind it was Olbricht. The
Operation Walküre article is alas way too short, only mentioning that Stauffenberg was pivotal because he could get close to Hitler. Funny - I now read that Operation Walküre was approved by Hitler himself. :) I already wondered how they could set up such a large-scale operation in secrecy.
So the only remaining question here is whether the film suggests otherwise - I haven't watched it yet, largely because of the historical inaccuracy.
Btw, a rather nasty twist to this whole story and the notion that Stauffenberg was a hero is that it seems like he really wanted to assassinate Hitler for the benefit of Germany, nazism and all. He had already fought for the expansion of Germany and considered Hitler a threat to keeping that with his too big ambitions. At least, that's what I understood from the documentary, that he wanted to establish a new government to consolidate Germany's conquests, even though they didn't explicitly say that. But the Stauffenberg article confirms part of that.
I'm sorry, I'm too busy with other things at the moment to delve too deep into this. Maybe at a later time, if others haven't found better sources yet.
DirkvdM (
talk)
19:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
In his Pajamas Media review, John Rosenthal (echoing Olivier Guez's Le Monde article) speaks of some of the things one would never know from watching the movie, including one scene that he calls the "most outrageously bogus sequence in the entire film."
'In fact, Stauffenberg served the Nazi regime loyally almost to the very end and continued to share its most fundamental ideas and “values” even when he finally turned against it. What Stauffenberg and his fellow plotters “saw” was not evil. What they saw … was that Germany was going to lose the war and that the reckoning would be severe when it did. The need to prevent this impending “catastrophe” for the “fatherland” is the common thread running through all their known statements. … Above all, Stauffenberg was a great German chauvinist whose convictions about the natural superiority of the German “race” or Volk were arguably even more pronounced than those of Hitler himself. This can be seen most clearly in the “oath” that Stauffenberg and his fellow plotters composed for themselves just weeks before the assassination attempt.'
" Valkyrie’s Revisionism by John Rosenthal" added to the external links section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.159.200.214 ( talk • contribs) 17:43, February 7, 2009
Is there any reference were those who did the film explain why Rommel is totally absent from the film ? In other films and series about the conspiracy to kill Hitler, Rommel appears usually. 82.154.85.213 ( talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I find rather offensive the attempt to discredit Stauffenberg by claiming incongruous and vicious lies about his religious and political beliefs. First, he was a catholic and a monarchist, never was a nazi or a Nazi Party member, wasn´t an anti-semite and regretted the Krystal Nacht, in 1938. These facts are more then proved and I regret sincerely that some sionist fanatics try to discredit Stauffenberg by claiming pure lies. 85.242.237.229 ( talk) 17:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"Above all, Stauffenberg was a great German chauvinist whose convictions about the natural superiority of the German “race” or Volk were arguably even more pronounced than those of Hitler himself." He was a catholic and never joined the Nazi Party. Oskar Schindler was a Nazi Party member, for example, even if he never believed in a superior race or was anti-semite. I think this quote proves what is fanatical sionism. 85.240.21.75 ( talk) 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Can any one knows who was the German general who appears to be killed in the early air bombing ? the same one talkin to Stauffenberg before the Bombing -- Blain Toddi ( talk) 09:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone note any critical reference on the use of the Swastikas in the movie? I have the impression that the art director - someone named Ott, I believe - went a bit overboard with using the Swastika as an artistic element in the film. I recall four scenes:
Etched in pattern in the glass door of the mess hall
On the floor of the swimming pool
Backlit blue on the stage's footlights in the ballroom scene (I was an extra in that, by the way)
Colorful, multifaceted, stained glass window in Goebel's headquarters (filmed in what became the US Army HQ in Berlin after the war)
Historically, the Nazis kept to what nowadays is called a corporate design on the Swastika, which found its base in Hitler's own "Mein Kampf" (see
Swastika): Generally black on white or white on some other background colors (i.e. military vehicles), besides the natural color of the material bearing it such as stone or metal. Don't think any other colors were authorized or used, at least haven't seen any pictures or documentation.
In addition, the mass of flags flying in front of the one Nazi building (actually the Berlin fair ground halls) was historically inaccurate: such pageantry was reserved for official functions. However, the filmmakers may have thought: Hey, so many flagpoles - might as well make use of them.
Which brings me back to my point: What was the filmmakers' intent on the display of such flamboyancy?
--
Alandeus (
talk)
09:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Good job. These objections shouldn't take long to address...
Intro:
Development:
Filming:
Marketing:
Theatrical run:
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 04:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A good article is:
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
An editor is adding original research to the "Historical accuracy" section. He/she is using books published in 1994 and 2003, which predate the film's release date. This published material is being synthesized with the film to create novel conclusions to include in the article. "I read the book and I watched the film, and I noticed this difference, therefore I report it!" At present, the "Historical accuracy" section uses sources that explicitly compare and contrast film and history. Editors' jobs are to report what has been reported elsewhere, not to create their own conclusions. Information in the 1994 and 2003 books are better reported in the historical articles. If a reader wants to read about a real-life figure vs. how he was portrayed onscreen, he can read the relevant articles and draw conclusions, whether they are right or not, on his own. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 13:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
User Erik ( talk · contribs · email) reverted my edition in the phrase While von Stauffenberg listens to Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" in the film, in reality the colonel hated Wagner.
As it is, seems that Stauffenberg put the music to listen because he liked it, when, in fact, it was his children who put it. It would not be a historical inaccuracy, anyway, and I think user Erik should discuss it before delete what he thinks is "unnecessary", as he is not the owner of the article. -- Tonyjeff ( talk) 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The line "In addition, Cruise's inability to adequately portray a German accent led to an inauthenticity that could only be considered embarrassing at best." Is not only pretty loaded and as such contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines, it's also pretty dumb. Having Stauffenberg talk English with a german accent wouldn't make it anymore authentic than having him talk without one. Those guys originally spoke german you know? I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.125.249 ( talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I commented out the following unsourced statement in the "Home media" section: "It was released in Australia on May 27." Is there a source that we can use for this? Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
"Also, when Hitler is seen signing the amendments to Valkyrie, he uses his right hand - Hitler was left handed." There is no citation here. Furthermore, I can't find any article in the Internet that confirms this statement.-- Sepp18 ( talk) 10:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This article was promoted as a Good Article a year ago this month. I'd like to conduct an annual review of the changes made in this time span. The changes are reflected in this diff. My thoughts below:
What do other editors think? Erik ( talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a fine article, thank you. Researching sources for Scientology in Germany, I came across this source and thought I'd drop it on this page, on the off-chance that the odd detail in it might be of use to you. Cheers, -- JN 466 16:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
This may also be of use. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This page supposedly sums up a lot of inaccuracies: http://www.welt.de/kultur/article3072517/Operation-Walkuere-ist-schlecht-erfunden.html Could anyone translate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.10.247 ( talk) 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, we have guidelines at WP:FILMHIST. In particular, the guidelines say, "Analysis should be introduced by reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science." The sources used are books that do not reference the film at all. We cannot add original research by watching the film and reading history books and coming up with novel conclusions to add to Wikipedia. Erik ( talk | contribs) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The quote at the end of the movie does not contain the word "impassioned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.61.15 ( talk) 22:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I have a real problem with the statement "when filmmakers attempted to reconstruct the scene based on eyewitness testimony and photographs, they discovered that the shots that killed von Haeften would also have killed von Stauffenberg, who was actually shot shortly after". The filmmakers could have found no such thing, unless they were using real bullets and found that both actors were killed! 122.59.167.152 ( talk) 23:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)