Talk:Let Me In (film)

Synopsis

I noticed that the synopsis to the film has been reinstated. This was something I wrote back in July for drafting purposes. However, a DYK reviewer pointed out that it was not cited, and rightfully so. Because it is an upcoming film, any mention of plot details beyond what is mentioned in RSs basically constitutes original research. In other words, it needs to be cited, or removed. decltype (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know the reason for its removal and didn't know that plot summaries need to be cited until a film's release. Aren't there plenty of websites that have already posted the synopsis? For An Angel (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-interpretative plot summaries for novels and films are exempt from our usual citation requirements, because they can be verified by using the work itself as a primary source. Of course, this is not the case with an upcoming film. I have looked thoroughly for RSs discussing the actual plot of the remake. The most recent PR only mentions Owen discovering an "unusual path to adulthood" or something in that vein. Although we can expect the plot to stay relatively faithful to the original, any attempt to "mix-and-match" elements from the original with what we know about the remake is synthesis. The plot summary, as written, is a result of me doing just that in my userspace.[1] decltype (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The same name

It seems like there is a minor edit war over whether the lede should read "the novel by the same name" or "the novel Let the Right One In". The reason for the confusion is because one of the English-language editions of the novel was published under the title Let Me In[2]. Please discuss the issue here rather than simply reverting the article to the version you prefer. decltype (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let the Right One In seems most appropriate since it is the title of the book's article. The title change could be explained in the production section, I believe the article on the Swedish film uses a good interview with the writer that could be used as reference here as well. Smetanahue (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The new film version is not a "remake"

For a film to be a "remake" it must be based on a previous film. In fact, the Wikipedia page for Remake explains this quite well. It says: 'The term "remake" is generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier movie as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source.' The English language film Let Me In is a new film based on the novel Let the Right One In, not on the film Let the Right One In. The text of the description even explicitly says this. It is common for people to inaccurately talk of a film as a "remake" when it actually is not (even Tomas Alfredson does it in a quotation in the article), but for encyclopedic accuracy the article should resist using the term "remake" to describe the new film version of the book. 99.192.50.55 (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Let the Right One In (film). decltype (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Plot section and NPOV

"In adapting the film it was ruined via adjustments made" doesn't seem very neutral. It may well be true, but even after the film has been released and reviewed that still wouldn't be a good way to phrase it. Orourkek (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That was just vandalism. I restored the section as it was before. 99.192.84.169 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2010 (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)

Re: "Early reviews"

Sandor, first, I could only find one early review, so the use of the plural seems misleading. It's also odd that you claim a source for the claim that it is a remake but did not include any source in your edit. Second, the one review is reported second hand via a blog, which is hardly authoritatively reliable. Third, the presentation of the review even makes clear that this was a test screening of an incomplete version of the film which could be quite different from the final version. Fourth, the claim that it is a remake is ultimately one here presented by this one (non-notable) reviewer. He might think it is a remake, but that does not make it one. Fifth, he reports many ways the new film is different from the older one, including how it begins and differences in characters presented (including noting the inclusion of one character who was in the book but not in the first film. Sixth, I wonder if the reviewer even read the book because he talks about the Rubik's cube scene as if that were not in the book, which it is. There still is not compelling evidence to say that Reeves did not, at least in part, base his film directly on the book (as he has claimed he did and the novel's author also claimed), so the article should still say that the new film is based on both the novel and the earlier film, not just the film. 99.192.68.175 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So when the bulk of the reviews do come out, and from reliable sources (I.E. Ebert), and they all refer to it as a remake, will that be enough? Because Reeves can say whatever he wants to sell his film, but that does not necessarily make it objective fact. If Reeves is copying scenes exclusive to the film and not the book (the presentation of the pool scene, Eli vomiting up the candy) and not adding anything of note from the book in his adaptation (there was a cop in the book but it's not the same cop in the film), then in the end it qualifies more as a remake than a readaptation of the book.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

First, it is possible for the bulk of reviews to be wrong about whether the film is a remake or not. This is because the word "remake" is pretty commonly misused. Second, you seem to think that the question is an either/or one here, or at least which it is "more" based on. The current article says that the new film is based on both sources, but does not say which one (if either) it is more based on. The change you made recently was to remove the claim that it was based on the novel at all, which would be wrong even if it were more based on the first film than the novel. Third, you can dismiss what Reeves says as just marketing talk, but that is just an assumption of motive. Maybe he is saying he used the novel because he really did.

Having said all that, I would say that in October, after the film is actually finished and released, if there is good evidence that there is nothing significant in the newer film that was in the novel but not in the first film, and if there is something significant in the newer film that was in the older film but not in the novel, then it would make sense to claim that the new film is solely based on the older film and not based on both the film and the book. But until then, I see no good reason to deny that the new film is based at least in part directly on the original novel. 99.192.59.200 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide whether the majority of sources are wrong. If the most widely held view is that the film is a remake, the article should be written accordingly. It is true that the view that the film is partly based on the novel should not be entirely dismissed as long as some sources say so (e.g. Reeves). However, this viewpoint can not be given as much prominence as the majority view, which seems to be that the film is a remake. decltype (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should judge whether the majority of sources are wrong. What I am questioning is whether currently there are many "sources" at all for the claim that the film is a remake, given that the film has not yet been released. One might question how many real "sources" for information about whether it is a remake or not there really are. A producer of the film has called it a remake. The director has said it is not. The author of the novel and of the screenplay to the first film (who has talked directly to Reeves about the new film) has also said it is not. These are the only people I know of who are insiders to the American film who have commented on whether or not it is a remake. That seems to be a good enough mix to support the claim, at least for now, that the film is based on both sources.

But on the point about what the "majority" of sources say, I would suggest that even if a majority of sources claimed that Humphrey Bogart said, "Play it again, Sam" in Casablanca that it would be wrong for the Wikipedia article on that film to report that he said it. The film itself, even though it is only one source, serves as a trumping source even if 99% of all other sources say otherwise. So, as I said in my last comment, if there is something significant in the American film that does come from the novel but was not in the Swedish film, then the film itself would stand as clear proof that the American film was based, at least in part, on the original novel. This would be true even if every reviewer called the film a "remake". But this is a point to be resolved after the film is actually completed and released. 99.192.59.200 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but on Wikipedia, verifiability trumps truth. We must base our articles on what the sources say, regardless of whether it is true. The film is a primary source, and can only be used for simple facts that can be directly inferred from watching it. Any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims must be backed up by reliable secondary sources. Whether the film incorporates certain material from the novel would fall under one or more of those categories. decltype (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So you mean if sometime in the future someone makes a film called Hearts in Atlantis and bases it on just the second part (also called "Hearts in Atlantis") of Stephen King's book, but the majority of news reports of this film call it a "remake" of the 2001 film (which was based on just the first part of the book - "Low Men in Yellow Coats"), then the Wikipedia page should call it a "remake"? Even if the filmmaker and Stephen King himself point out that this is an error and that there is no overlap of story at all? Something sounds very wrong about that. But even if that is the Wikipedia way, it is not an issue for this article at least until the film is actually finished and released. 99.192.59.200 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Except your comparison is very faulty. Reeves is remaking Alfredson's film. 90% of his script is copied word for word from Alfredson's. He's including stuff exclusive to the first film. He's lifting exact scenes shot for shot from the original film.It's not comparable whatsoever to someone adapting another work from the Hearts in Atlantis collection that the first film didn't even touch on. The first LTROI film and the book are two very different things, and Reeves is clearly using the former as the blueprint for his film.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Except your comparison is very faulty." I didn't make a comparison. 99.192.49.65 (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Plot section should be ablut the PLOT

The Simon Oakes quotes about whether or not the film is a "remake" do not belong in the plot section. The issue of whether or not it is a remake and the fact that sometimes he says one thing and sometimes another is not relevant to the issue of the plot. I think either both quotes should be removed from that section or both should stay (to make clear he has been equivocal). Obviously, I strongly prefer the removal. The issue of whether the film is a remake is covered in the proper place - the production section - and so is unneeded in the plot section. 142.68.43.191 (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, move it there.

BUT...if the film comes out, and it becomes apparent that it's more based on the Swedish film, will you admit that it's a remake? Because it's very clear from early reports and reviews that Reeves' film is a near scene-for-scene remake and owes more to the original film and whenever the book differs from the film, he chooses the film's route (I.E. when Eli tries and vomits up the candy). Even one of the remake's biggest plot points is derived from an interpretation of the film that was nowhere to be found in the book.

That's what I found to be so frustrating about saying it's a new take on the book when it's clearly indebted to what Tomas Alfredson and co. did. It's only an adaptation of the book in that the original film was.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence that there are elements in Let Me In that are taken from the film Let The Right One In but absent from the novel would be good evidence that English film is at least partially based on the Swedish film. But if there are also elements in Let Me In that are taken from the novel and absent in the Swedish film, then it cannot be denied that Let Me In is at least partly based on the novel. Reeves has talked in interviews about putting elements in his film that were in the novel but not in the Swedish film. We will have to wait for the release to see if this is so. 142.68.43.191 (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for the trouble.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No need for apologies. Honest disagreement can be productive in improving pages and we both avoided the all too common Wiki-editing pitfall of name-calling, so I figure we're both doing just fine. 142.68.43.191 (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oakes on remake / not a remake

Oakes said in a recent interview, "I call it his [Reeves'] version. I don't call it his remake or his re-imagining of it." If there is an objection to characterizing this quotation as saying that Reeves is doing "a new version of the novel", then at the very least the exact quote should be added as indicating Oakes contradicting himself on the remake / not a remake question. 142.68.43.191 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't something like "American clone" get the point across? - Gwopy 06:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

New review talks about the "remake/re-readaptation" distinction:

"There seems to be some confusion amongst those behind-the-scenes with regard to what exactly Let Me In is. Director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) has claimed that it's another adaptation of Swedish novelist John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel Let the Right One In and not, strictly speaking, a remake of Tomas Alfredson's 2008 Swedish film of the same name. But producer Simon Oakes has insisted that Let Me In is precisely a remake of Alfredson's film. Anyone who treasures Alfredson's excellent adolescent romantic thriller is likely to side with Oakes, as watching Let Me In brings about that distinct feeling of déjà vu all over again.

...

In adding the detective character, and developing the relationship between Abby and her browbeaten, blood-collecting steward (Richard Jenkins), Let Me In fleetingly differentiates itself from its Swedish antecedent. But the rest of film feels like Reeves tracing over the lines drawn by Alfredson. He offers us a few virtuoso compositions (though nothing compared to the gory subaquatic dénouement of Alfredson's film), but otherwise Reeves' movie is of interest to only that subset of movie-goers who want to see a horror movie about an juvenile predator, but can't be bothered with reading subtitles."

Link

If more reviews follow suit, would this finally be enough to call this a remake and not a re-adaptation of the novel?--129.63.232.161 (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the review you quote comes from someone who seems to be an unknown as a reviewer, so it would not be a reasonable source. Secondly, you seem to think that the question requires an either/or answer. Either the American film is a new adaptation of the Swedish novel or it is a remake of the Swedish film. But the evidence seems to be (and even the review you quote says this) that BOTH are sources for the American film. The article currently says that both are sources, so unless there is strong evidence that Reeves did NOT use the novel as a source, there seems nothing wrong with the article as it stands. 142.177.30.65 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's more of a remake of the previous film than it is an adaptation of the novel. Reeves follows the movie's version of events scene for scene (sometimes shot for shot) most of the time. It's only an adaptation of the novel in that the film it's based on was. The only people who still refer to it as an adaptation of the novel are those who haven't read the book and are just going off what someone else told them.

As for not using the novel as his source, the remake has Hakan as a former childhood friend of Abby. This is based off an interpretation that many had of the Swedish film--it was NOT in the novel, in which Hakan was a pedophile. Reeves only uses the novel's version of events when the first film did it--when the novel differs, he chooses the film's approach.--129.63.184.129 (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"It's more of a remake of the previous film than it is an adaptation of the novel." That's just another way of saying that the film Let Me In is based on both the previous film and the novel, which is what the article says. So the article is accurate as is. 142.68.47.157 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC) (=142.177.30.65)

Then shouldn't it be something like the one for Psycho_(1998_film), which states "a remake of the 1960 film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Both films are adapted from the novel by Robert Bloch" since it's more of a remake than it is a fresh adaptation? --129.63.184.1 (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because people take the word "remake" to mean that the film was solely based on a previous film. There is no evidence (that I know of) that Van Sant used the original novel at all in making his film, so the mention of the novel on that page seems just to serve to note a chain of source, just so people are aware that the first Psycho was not an original creation for the screen. In the case of Let Me In there are sources cited in the article that say that the novel was one direct source for the film, so the current wording ("...based on the novel Let the Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist and the Swedish film adaptation of the same name.") is perfectly accurate. 99.192.57.230 (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC) (=142.177.30.65)

By saying "Based on the novel LTROI" first and then saying "and the film of the same name" you are giving greater prominence to this being an adaptation of the novel, when it is more of a shot-for-shot remake of the Swedish adaptation or at the very least saying that it is equally an adaptation of the novel as it is a remake. Both are false and misleading.--129.63.184.129 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Furthermore, I have no idea how one could indicate the degree to which each source played a role in the making of this film. Saying something like "It's 75% based on the previous film and 25% based on the novel"? Besides, one would need credible references for such a claim and they differ in the extent to which they credit each source. I have read a few of the reviews of Let Me In as a result of it being shown at TIFF, and if they are any indication of the reviews that will follow, there will be a number of credible references that offer opinions on the degree of similarity of the films. When those reviews come out (which should be soon, as the film will be released generally in two weeks) quotations from a few of them would be very appropriate for a "Critical reception" section of the article. I suggest that you wait for those reviews from notable reviewers to come out and then add comments from them to this effect. 142.177.27.27 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC) (=142.177.30.65)

Can the "Premise" section be eliminated?

The section called "Premise" was, until two weeks ago, called "Plot". Then it was changed to "Notes" by an editor who (correctly) pointed out that the section did not really describe the plot. The section was then changed to "Premise", but the section does not really set out the premise of the film either. All it does is say is that (1) the main character's names were changed, (2) the location was changed, (3) they got permission to use the place name, and (4) a general statement by a producer. I don't know that (1) is really necessary, (2) is well covered in the "Plot" and "Production" sections, (3) seems trivial and, at best, something that could be put in the production section, and (4) seems out of date now that better information on the plot is available (and not needed since he is quoted in the "Production" section already). So I wonder what views people have about removing the section and perhaps moving (3) to the "Production" section in the process. 142.68.48.133 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Merged it into the Production section. Geoff B (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.212.149 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Interpretation

I'm usually one to balk at criticisms in Wikipedia for "over-interpreting," but in my opinion the amount of interpretation in this article really is "over-the-top." For example, the girl's motivations and inner feelings are intentionally supposed to be ambiguous. If one hasn't understood that, then I'd say that one has completely missed the whole point of the story. The reasons why he leaves with her are supposed to be unclear - it's not for "their survival," etc. There's no grounds for making any concrete conclusions about what the vampire girl's motivations may or may not have been. Likewise with the boy himself. It "defeats the whole point" and also i.m.o. it is not logically sound to reach these conclusions based on what were intentionally ambiguous "premises" presented during the movie.

I also feel that the article is too short - it needs to be expanded and the names of the characters need to be mentioned when describing their actions, etc. <span style="font-size: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.212.149 (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

NOT A REMAKE... PERIOD!

Why is this point even being argued, this isn't a remake in anyway. It is another adaptation of the same book. I suppose the upcoming Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a remake and how about The Taking of Pelham 123 Tony Scott version. That isn't a remake. People, just because another version came before doesn't mean it is a remake. So some research in the English language, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.160.169 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You do some research in the English language, please. There are sources in the article that state it is a remake. Geoff B (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

128.205.160.169, both the writer and director of the upcoming version of Girl With The Dragon Tattoo are on record as having not seen the Swedish film, so there is good reason to think their film will only be based on the book. The article for Scott's The Taking of Pelham 123 points out (with citations) places where the film is more like the 1974 film than the novel, and so correctly says that the Scott film is based on both sources. The "production" section of this article gives multiple references (with citations) that demonstrate that it also is based on both the previous film and on the novel. This article correctly reports that both are sources. Some crazy people come here ranting that no credit should be given to the novel as a source. Other crazy people come here ranting that no credit should be given to the previous film as a source. But crazy rants are not "research".142.177.23.201 (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)