Talk:Valkyrie (film)

Annual review

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:

• First, per WP:NBSP, the non-breaking spaces for months and days should be restored since a break between these elements would be confusing on a new line in the "References" section.
• "Bernard Hill as a General working with Stauffenberg in Tunisia, and Ian McNeice as the composite "Pompous General" who attempts to disrupt the coup headquarters. Though the general is not named in the film, McQuarrie and Alexander said the character was based on General Joachim von Kortzfleisch, who tried to disrupt the coup in the same fashion." This passage was added in "Cast". While I don't mind the names and credits, the based-on information should be cited.
• Restore link to Michael Brand (politician). Not sure why his name was de-linked; cover-up? :)
• "Valkyrie opened at #2 on the DVD sales chart, selling 844,000 units translating to revenue of $14,816,833. According to the latest figures, 1,533,200 units have been sold, bringing in $25,790,070 in revenue." Could be somewhat rewritten ("units" sounds out of place), and the citation for this passage should be templated for consistency.

What do other editors think? Erik (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Source

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, --JN466 16:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for the link. Erik (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This may also be of use. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Historic inaccuracies

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)

Bit after the fact the fact but the German articles simply notes this film is so far from historical reality that there are simply too many faults to note. In fact the film is about as close to what actually happened as The Bridge at Remagen is to the real capture of the Ludendorf Bridge!!! The actual section on the "Historical accuracy" in the article is frankly a joke and doesn't address even the most basic of problems of the film, e.g. like simple chronology (Staffaunberg was not a Colonel until 1 July '44) and, as the German article states, turns some very real brave men (e.g. Olbricht) in to wimps and procrastinators. Furthermore the workings of the German military seems to be have been lost on Singer and his production team. For instance, the Wolf's Lair, just one of Hitler's many bunkers, was not guarded by the Wehrmacht, it was guarded by the Reichssicherheitsdienst, a hardcore of the hardcore of the SS. Hitler was surrounded night and day by the SS not the Wehrmacht. For historical accuracy Downfall is a much more accurate and concise film for tone, setting and military history.109.155.72.55 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

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 magazine article from the World War II history journal deals specifically with this issue - mainly that the film changed history to show the first attempt at the Wolf's Lair instead of at the Eagle's Nest - the second source (written before the film) provides background as to the real history. This issue with the film has also been discussed in at least three other recent articles which could pretty easily be located. I don't have a problem with taking this out - but if we do the entire section needs to go, not just the part I added. Right now, this removal appears to be taking out but one segment, which is clearly cited and sourced, for unknown reasons. I'm not on the site enough to police this, so I'm sure if it keeps getting removed over and over I won't be able to catch it, but this is a major historical accuracy point which needs to be mentioned about the film. -OberRanks (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that the first reference comes from this? Okay, that is fine to include then. It had sounded like a history book. :) If you could add the other commentary about the film from that magazine, that would be great. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The magazine is the primary source for the issue about the filmmaker moving the first assassination location. I also added an interview reference, but my knowledge on how to cite those is very weak so it could probably use a clean-up to meet MOS on interview cites. Thanks and have a great day. -OberRanks (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Memorial Quote

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)

Execution

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)