Talk:Hitler: The Rise of Evil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the War films task force.


Moved from 'Hitler: Rise of Evil' since IMDb and the DVD cover both have the 'The'. --Wooden

Removal of criticism section[edit]

The criticism section does not read as NOV and does not include any references, either. I am removing it for the time being until someone can add a more concrete criticism section that follows NOV and properly cites its sources regarding criticism. --Blood-Doll 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTA)

Broader Historical Inaccuracies[edit]

The movie depicts hugely inflationary prices in 1929 and 1930, a time when the German government was no longer printing money and in fact was cutting spending under Chancellor Bruening, an unpopular move with the Social Democrats who wanted more unemployment insurance payments to workers. -- (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2010 (UTA)

The first part of inaccuracies: "At the beginning of the film, Hitler's mother is shown addressing her husband as "Onkel Alois". Although Alois Hitler was Kara Pölzl's grand-uncle, such a form of address would be very unusual if not outright grotesque." Is not accurate- it is well-known that after their marriage Hitler's mother did indeed refer to her husband as 'Uncle'- presumably as their little joke. Cited references regarding this are in all the other wiki articles relating to Hitler's family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added a criticism section[edit]

With a reference provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propaganda328 (talkcont ribs) 18:17, 18 July 2010 (UTA)

Criticism section is problematic[edit]

The "criticism" section continues to violate the Neutral Point of View rule (e.g., "In reality, Hitler was very good looking...") The sole reference to the imdb comment page misquotes its source, and since when is an imdb user's opinion a reliable source for facts? There needs to be a direct link to the author Ian Kershaw's criticism of the miniseries; otherwise, this criticism section should be removed completely. Firehorse44 (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Having waited a week, I have now deleted this section, which simply repeated information already included in the first paragraph of the above "Historical inaccuracies and criticism" section. I have edited that paragraph and added a reference to make the Kershaw connection clearer. As for the comments about Hitler's charm and intelligence, etc., I think such subject matter merits a more objective and rigorous approach. There is ample literature that one might reference (e.g., Kershaw) on AH's oratorical skills and charisma to offer a more credible criticism than a link to an imdb user review.Firehorse44 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The portrayal of Hitler being promoted to "corporal" is inaccurate. A common mistake, but still false. He never advanced over the rank of "Obergefreiter". -- (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary ends faulty[edit]

The plot summary ends with stating "The film ends with Hitler becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and declaring the '1000-year Reich' [...]." This is incorrect, as it ends after the alleged "Röhm-Putsch" and the murder of Röhm by concentration camp guards. This places the end somewhere after July 1st 1934 (and not 1933). --Ephesos (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And even that is incorrect. Rohm was killed at Stadelheim prison in Munich. He was shot by Eicke, the commandant of Dachau (not a guard), assisted by Eicke's ADC, Lippert (Kershaw, Vol 1, 514-16). Theonemacduff (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edited and moved Inaccuracies to after Controvery[edit]

Following standard practice of putting the more important things earlier, I moved the "Inaccuracies" section to after the "Controversy" section. I also cut the first paragraph of "Inaccuracies" as it completely misrepresented Ian Kershaw's biography being removed as a sole source of information for the film. It stated he quit due to his complaints about historical inaccuracies, based entirely on a poorly-worded headline at the The article actually said, "the author gave no detail on why he left the production," and quoted Kewshaw as saying, "I took the decision some months ago. I have not fallen out with the production company but have had no dealings with them since I withdrew." Whether or not Kershaw left or was removed as primary source is itself debatable; Atlantis maintains that they decided to remove Kershaw's book as the sole source (and primary credit), due to their using other sources of information for the film. I also removed "Criticism" from the header of the "Inaccuracies" section, as the section is really only concerned with very minor technical inaccuracies and exact timeline of events substitutions. The prior writers of the section appear to be trying to discredit the film by pointing out minor inaccuracies, missing the point that it is a dramatization and in the course of minor changes follows the literary dictum, "the lie that tells the truth". The only "criticism" referenced was by no professional or known critic, or an academic in the field, but only a private blog. Alec the writer (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, seeing 'fact' tags all over the place in an article makes it look a mess. Toland's biography allowed me to quickly find references to 3 of the requested "citations needed" in the 'historical inaccuracies' section. Perhaps we should give the contributor the benefit of doubt and assume the entries are accurate and meticulously researched? I'll remove the remaining tags in a few weeks unless no-one objects. If anyone can demonstrate that the quoted inaccuracies are inaccurate, they can, of course with justification, remove them! (btw. Robert Carlyle makes a rubbish Hitler -he's too skinny and too short;))1812ahill (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hitler: The Rise of Evil. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies section[edit]

Has this show actually been criticised by any reliable sources for historical inaccuracies? The entire, overly large, section doesn't contain a single source that mentions the show.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)