Talk:Valkyrie (film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Release date

The Internet Movie Database does not qualify as a source for the film's release date. IMDb always attaches a release year to all future films on the site, despite no announcement to support it. The existing Variety citations do not make any mention of the release date, so unless there is a follow-up citation, the release date has yet to be announced. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: An independent source has indicated the release date to be August 8 2008. This should no longer be an issue. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

Casting rumors to keep an eye on. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Script review; probably not that useful right now. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Another trade paper's article about the Scientology issue. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • [(unreliable source - do not use) Tom Cruise Gets Apology From German Official Who Wanted Him Banned]
Headline says it all, really. - Steve TC 11:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a new film

It would be good to include that an identical film has already been made in Germany - approx 3-4 years ago. 07:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Allison 26.06.07

I inserted an overview of earlier German movies, and started two articles which still contain a lot of German. -- Matthead discuß!     O       01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the film? It could probably be listed under July 20 Plot#Popular culture, not here. There's no independent comparison being made between this older film and the upcoming one. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC) - this ones pretty similar, based on the same "real" story..
I think it would be fine to mention the earlier film in this article. There is no limit on how many movies can be made about one historical event. 3 or 4 major films were made about the Titanic, for instance. Steve Dufour 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the recreation of the event in the miniseries War and Remembrance was outstanding. Hard to see how Tom and Co. can top it. Steve Dufour 16:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to list previous similar films in the newest film article -- it's clearly recentism and attempts to promote older film articles with this on-the-rise film article. If anything, a list of films related to July 20 Plot should be provided on that article, because Valkyrie is a stand-alone production; it's not related to the other films except in topic. Like I've mentioned, there's a more suitable place for that. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The list of films based on July 20 Plot have been placed at that article. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Can anyone add a Synopsis section based on the synopsis paragraph in this? The reference is already used in the section for a few new cast members. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 11:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind -- I've included the section. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

These are from the German newspaper Der Spiegel, which may have more detail than current citations.

Should compare these to the Variety citations to see if there isn't any extra information. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

More headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 03:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise's Valkyrie should be quite a ride - Probably too bloggish, but just placing it here. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Headlines to include. In particular, the citation mentions that Cruise took on the role based on his similarity with the protagonist's profile. As a result, we could implement this photo to support that text in Production. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Break 2

Headlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talkcontribs) 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


According to IMDB as of 7/20/07, the movie's title has changed to "Rubicon". Should the article be update now, or later after it has been confirmed with other, more reliable sources?

Later. Nobody seems to know why IMDb changed the title, from what I've seen on sites and forums. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 10:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday's news in Germany stated that Rubicon is only a working title for the production. The release title will remain Valkyrie.—Eickenberg 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a headline available? It'd be nice to have something to cite in case editors come here and try to "update" the article. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I wish I knew. I was reading four newspapers in the café yesterday. I will see if they have the article online. —Eickenberg 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have it. The article was based on a dpa announcement (German Press Agency), which was used by several newspapers. One is here. I translate the relevant passage: "According to a studio spokesman the project still bears the working title Valkyrie. For internal communications the name Rubicon is being used." So… the update: 1. internal communication title = Rubicon; 2. official working title = Valkyrie; 3. final title = n/a. IMDB is (obviously) wrong. —Eickenberg 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented the source. If I am missing any information from it, please feel free to edit! Thank you very much for the headline, as it will help explain matters regarding Rubicon. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Eickenberg, but I think we "fixed" IMDb. I submitted your information to IMDb, and now IMDb shows Valkyrie again. Could be coincidence, too. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 20:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Could be. The info was however from the dpa, which they acquired from a studio executive during a regular press conference, if I remember correctly at the film studios Babelsberg, where part of the film is being shot. But every film title is subject to change. —Eickenberg 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

German response

In updating the new cast entries with a better citation than, I also noted German newspapers' continued criticism of Cruise beyond the initial confusion before the start of production. So I've started a "German response" section that will probably be the norm, and I've attempted to write it to be as balanced as possible. I imported a paragraph from Production to German response, as the confusion has better placement in the latter than the former, it seemed. If there is any concerns about a balanced perspective or the accuracy of any of the information, feel free to initiate discussion here. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erik, I'm responding from the Neutrality Project. I like what you have so far. Do you think it would be necessary to inform readers of scientology's status in germany? It might explain the German response somewhat. You allude to it, but don't directly address it. (Although I can see the risk involved in doing so). Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've actually piped a link to Religion in Germany#Scientology in Germany under "masquerade of religion", but if a better piece of writing about this conflict could be found elsewhere on Wikipedia, the link could be updated. Or something else could be done to inform the reader better. Maybe I can expand an explanation from one of the citations to include more detail. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Eights and zeros

Probably synthesis to mention it here, but the release date of 8-8-08 cannot be a coincidence, because L. Ron Hubbard was obsessed with Eights and zeros: note the Scientology books Scientology: 88, Scientology 8-80, Scientology 8-8008, and Scientology 0-8. wikipediatrix 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I read about that as well. It can warrant inclusion if a reliable source makes a similar observation. Should be interesting if the media inquires filmmakers about the similarity, considering that Cruise is one of the heads of the film's distributor United Artists. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Wilson

Is Patrick Wilson in this or did IMDb get it wrong. He's been listed as starring in this for a while now, but it seems like this contradicts him starring in the Watchmen. annoynmous 04:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He's in the film; I just added a July 26 citation about it, ironically the one that announced him being in Watchmen. I think he has a small role in the film because the press release for Valkyrie (seen here) lists many of the cast, but not Patrick Wilson himself. (One of the reasons I temporarily overlooked him until something valid surfaced.) Watchmen starts in October, so I'm sure he can finish finishing his small role by then. Thanks for the heads-up! —Erik (talkcontrib) - 11:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Small note to close this discussion: Patrick Wilson was originally attached to Valkyrie, but due to reasons explained in the article, he had to drop out. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Cast list order

A minor point, but as it has not yet been determined which roles are the most prominent, would alphabetical order not be the most logical next choice? Best regards, Steve TC 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the picture in the article from the Daily Mail identifies the seven actors as the plotters, so I think that after Cruise, the following six could be listed in alphabetical order. Then the rest of them could be listed in a second alphabetical order. That sound good to anyone? I'm not sure about the prominence of the role of Stauffenberg's wife, and I wasn't sure about ranking David Bamber as Hitler higher due to the infamy. Other thoughts are welcome. It's not an easy list to sort, unfortunately. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 20:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So true. I suppose there's no harm in leaving it as it is for now; it should be fine until more is known. As I say, it really is just a minor point. Best regards, Steve TC 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've re-organized part of the cast list to adhere to what was mentioned above, though I wasn't sure how to sort people like Eddie Izzard, Tom Wilkinson, and Stephen Fry. Another interesting issue -- when I describe the roles, should I use past or present tense? The citations for the roles' descriptions may be historical and not cinematical, so I wasn't sure if the descriptions I added for the plotters were appropriate. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The tense is the one I would have used, so I guess I agree with how you've worded it! One further point which has occurred to me upon reading the cast list is the issue of spoilers. Most people (I would hope!) know the outcome of the assassination plot, but perhaps not the individual actions and fates of the protagonists. Cruise's comments on Stauffenberg reveal a little about his character's destiny, so I've added the basic spoiler tag. I'll bow to your superior experience on this one, should you feel the need to remove it. Steve TC 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a tough call... makes me think of that cartoon in which people are standing in line to see Titanic, and an older couple comments on looking forward to seeing how the ship-sinking is displayed, and a teenage couple behind them shouts, "Hey, thanks a lot for ruining the movie!" Details of the July 20 Plot may not be well-known, but I think it's fairly common knowledge that Hitler was not assassinated by his own men. Maybe we can do without the quote temporarily? Just put comment markers around it until we can figure out an approach. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. As for spoilers in general, which will inevitably appear, yeah, I get that most people will (should) know the outcome of the assassination plot, just perhaps not the detail and the ultimate fates of those involved. Did they get away? Were they captured? Executed? These are all questions which should remain unanswered, or hit with a temporary spoiler tag. Steve TC 16:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I restored visibility to the part about Cruise mimicking Stauffenberg's injuries -- shouldn't be a big deal. I think, though, that the actor's perspective of the real-life figure should either be restored at a later time or placed elsewhere. I'm not a huge fan of implementing spoiler tags. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I know. Me neither, to be honest, which is why I subsequently removed the tag. It just struck me that, at this stage in the film's development at least, those visiting the article are likely to want to know about certain production details rather than be surprised with any plot (or perhaps more accurately in this case, character) outcomes. As for its eventual placement within the article, I would think the best place for most of this character information will be in the plot summary, leaving a relatively unadorned cast list in the traditional style in its place. Anyone who then reads the plot summary without having seen the film... well, that'll be their own fault. Steve TC 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Release date

There still appears to be some confusion. A quick hunt on the Google News archive lists several recent stories which state the July release date (note, this is not a comprehensive list):

However, just as many cite August:,,2152770,00.html

Where was the August date originally sourced from? Ah, never mind, I see it. Best regards, Steve TC 08:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found a mention of the new release date in, which we originally cited for the initial release date. This should clear up any issues. Hopefully they'll explain a why, like at 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film)#Release. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 12:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

German vs Nazi

I've changed the descriptions of Ludwig Beck and Friedrich Olbricht from "Nazi General" back to to "German General". Please do not change this back unless you are able to provide a reference that shows that they were members of the NSDAP. If they were not members of the NSDAP, then they were not Nazis.

Compare with how they are described in their own Wikipedia articles:

Ludwig August Theodor Beck (June 29, 1880 – July 21, 1944) was a German general and the Chief of the General Staff of the Oberkommando des Heeres during the early years of the Nazi regime in Germany before World War II.

Friedrich Olbricht (4 October 1888 – 21 July 1944) was a German general and one of the plotters involved in the attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler at the Wolfsschanze in East Prussia on 20 July 1944.

Rubisco 12:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've no objection to this; the cited articles don't describe them as Nazis either. Best regards, Steve TC 12:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, then. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 12:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi is a political affiliation. Nazi with a lower case "n" means one who adhered to the ideology. Nazi with a capital "N" means one who is a "card carrying Nazi" who were part of the party.

So, was he a nazi or Nazi? Or neither?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

“Planning” Operation Valkyrie

Staufenberg and his fellowers did not plan Operation Valkyrie, they modified it. Operation Valkyrie (or Walküre) was an operational plan made by the general staff to subdue unrests among the forced labourers with the use of reserve, educational, guard, and local stationed units of the Wehrmacht. The modification was intended to be used against SS-troops and regime-loyal units of the army after the successful assassination of Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest taking the official synopsis found here and writing it to be more accurate. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Title's importance

There has been extremely unnecessary elaboration on the title of the film. My suggestion is to rewrite the Premise section based on the official synopsis, to which a link has been provided in the above section. Clarify the difference between Operation Valkyrie and the July 20 Plot within the constraints of the content provided there. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


The article says, "The Bambis are Germany's most prestigious media awards, covering film, television and music." The Wikipedia article, Bambi (prize), shows that the history goes back quite a bit. I think it should be included, though I'm not sure where. It seems to fit appropriately under the "German response" section, since it's more about their response to the project being made than it is applauding the merits of the project itself. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I was unsure mainly over whether it deserved mention in this article or Cruise's own, but yes, a line in the "German response" section wouldn't go amiss. Thanks, Steve TC 18:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Will you include it, or should I? I've got the time. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 18:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Done :P - Steve TC 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Test audience" reaction

The following (cited) passage was added to the #Release section:

Other reports stated that the release has been pushed back again in order to re-shoot scenes, because test audiences were unimpressed with parts of the film.

This is something new, something we haven't heard before. It came from the lead paragraph of an article in German publication Der Spiegel (1). The article proper explains:

The release... has been delayed... because it failed to impress audiences in test viewings in its current form, according to media reports.

This is something slightly different. "According to media reports" it says. So it's not a secondary source in this instance, but a tertiary one. We should instead find the secondary sources to quote. The problem arises in actually finding them. According to searches at Google News , The Times (2) is the only serious outlet which has reported anything like this. Others parrot it, but it's significant that they either directly credit The Times as their source, or in some cases plagiarise the text wholesale. And while The Times is usually credible, we have a problem using its article as the source because it doesn't mention that reshoots are occurring because of poor test screenings. What it actually says is:

Valkyrie... has so far left test audiences unimpressed. The quality of Cruise's German accent was widely commented on. The film has also had to have reshoots after footage was damaged in labs.

And unfortunately for The Times, there haven't been any test screenings, because the film isn't even completed. What The Times really means by this can be determined from looking at the second sentence: "The quality of Cruise's German accent..." What The Times is actually doing is parroting and putting its own spin on pre-existing reports which relayed that the film "has already been panned by critics who have had a sneak peek". These in turn can be sourced to very well publicised comments from bloggers and gossip pages which appeared after the film's first trailer was released. Comments from people such as Roger Friedman at Fox News (3), who criticised various aspects of the trailer, and Cruise's lack of a German accent (you'll note this 'fact' has become inverted in the telling by the time The Times gets to it).

To summarise: even cursory check of the Google News results will reveal the timeline:

  1. Trailer criticised by commentators for various reasons (Cruise's accent, a line about "warm bread").
  2. This is lazily reported upon by journos, using language such as "critics who have seen the film early have panned it."
  3. This in turn evolves into "test audiences were unimpressed" in The Times article, despite the fact that the film isn't completed. The article also mentions straight after that reshoots took place due to chemical damage on the film stock.
  4. Der Spiegel conflates the two issues, relaying that test audience reactions have led to reshoots.

Even taking that at face value, Der Spiegel's story is still cited to "media reports", of which I cannot find one. Until this is either confirmed (or denied), the line should be removed from the article. All the best, Steve TC 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


An AP article at Yahoo! states that the side-by-side profiles of Stauffenberg and Cruise released by United Artists was doctored. We currently have the doctored photograph in the Wikipedia article, so it may need to be removed or re-implemented elsewhere as part of marketing. What do others think? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The claim was printed, and repeated with exaggeration (see above), by press the world over. But then, oops, turns out it was a load of old nonsense and Slate apologised. Actually, the article you link to states as much. Steve TC 19:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused, then... do we have the doctored photo or not? I'm not understanding the outcome. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
We have the one released by United Artists. Which was not doctored. None of the photos were doctored. What happened was that someone got hold of a von Stauffenberg photo similar to the one released by UA. It had enough similarities that they thought it was the same one, but doctored to look more like Cruise. Cue worldwide outrage. Then it was discovered that they were indeed two separate photos. Cue embarrassment for the world's press. Steve TC 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks. I hurriedly went through my Google Alerts and posted this headline without really getting a chance to digest it. Glad we don't have to worry about changing the image -- I think that the comparison is one of the rare Production-starting images that we could have. I was looking at Production, though, and thinking that a rewrite might be in order. There are some back-and-forths in terms of dates, and I'd like to subsection Development and pre-production from actual filming (considering the length of the section). —Erik (talkcontrib) - 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Idea for poster images

I just added information about the film's new poster and trailer based on a Variety article. I think that the new content would permit the inclusion of the current poster image in the "Release" section, but repeating the image seemed a little silly. I checked to see if there were other posters like at MPDB, but they were either foreign or seemed fake. I was thinking that as the film gets closer, we could replace the poster in the infobox with whatever new poster comes out, and move the first one down to the "Release" section. Just putting this idea out early. —Erik (talkcontrib) 19:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Developing "Marketing" section

The New York Times published an article about United Artists and Valkyrie. I've tried to incorporate as much of this as possible, but it has been tricky to rearrange details. There are numerous elements: studio's expectations, release date changes, changing of the guard, and trailer/poster details. Feedback would be greatly appreciated to make sure that this section can flow. —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that sums the situation up quite well. Clear and uncluttered with needless tabloid gossip and speculation. Steve TC 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Also incorporated this from Advertising Age. Also found this from MSNBC, but I think it is pretty weak. We can do better than a scoop article from the gossip section of the website. —Erik (talkcontrib) 20:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking about using this for the "Marketing" section to show how tie into the poor reception about Tom Cruise's eye-patched character. Does anyone think this is too soon? It seems like the Cast section has a decent group image (though we could shore up critical commentary), so maybe the image could be used for this section. —Erik (talkcontrib) 20:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be worth waiting before adding any such image. The "poor reception" seems to me to have been exaggerated and played upon by gossip-mongers in the media (which might be worth a mention in of itself if a source without an obvious NPOV deficiency presents itself), and it's better in my view to at least wait until the film has been seen by people and a proper reaction gauged before we go into anything like that. Steve TC 22:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice we already had a reasonably even-handed comment from the New York Times in there that mentioned this. I suppose the inclusion of the image would be OK for now, but we won't know how lasting or significant an issue it is until after the film is out. In summary then: dunno. Steve TC 22:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess we can wait to see if there is something more useful since we will undoubtedly have more coverage, considering the subject matter and the Scientology/marketing issues. Maybe we could look at pulling screen caps from the trailer(s) to see what fits as we implement more and more coverage. —Erik (talkcontrib) 22:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

History Channel

The History Channel is showing a documentary called Valkyrie: The Plot to Kill Hitler...

  • According to Rorke, Robert (November 23, 2008). "New doc timed to Cruise movie". New York Post.  Check date values in: |date= (help), "The Valkyrie documentary also features newsreel footage from the era and insights from historian Richard Evans from Cambridge. Christopher McQuarrie, the screenwriter for the Cruise film, talks about the challenges he faced in adapting the material for the screen."
  • Also, according to McNamara, Mary (November 23, 2008). "The Men Who Sought to Fell Their Fuhrer". Los Angeles Times.  Check date values in: |date= (help), "There has been so much Sturm und Drang surrounding the making and selling of the upcoming feature film Valkyrie that the story of the attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler is in danger of being overshadowed by more pressing questions such as whether the film will save United Artists or what it will do to Tom Cruise's asking price or why Kenneth Branagh seems to be making a second career out of playing Nazis. Fortunately, History is there to ensure that this does not happen. Valkyrie: The Plot to Kill Hitler, which airs Monday night, has a definite Valkyrie tie-in, including so many clips and behind-the-scenes moments that the term "marketing vehicle" does come to mind."

Does anyone think that this is worth mentioning in the article? If so, where? It's not studio-sponsored as far as I can tell, but the History Channel is definitely coinciding this documentary with the feature film. —Erik (talkcontrib) 21:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would suitable for a brief mention, but what might be better is if it could be used as an actual citation, if only for some kind of "Real life events"/"Historical context" section that briefly detailed what actually happened; the lead up, the plot and its aftermath. Though I assume there will be more readily-available print sources that cover the same ground. If we stick with the mention only, where would it go exactly? Perhaps in a variation of the "Further reading" section? Steve TC 22:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where it could go... "Release" section seems the most relevant, "Marketing" being second (but less related). I'm not sure about a section like "Further reading" because it's basically like linking to the article about the actual events. I will try to see if I can get the documentary recorded on DVR when I get back to school this Sunday... we could implement whatever useful detail comes up. Maybe we can hold off direct mention of the documentary until the "Release" section has substance so it can be a part of the section, rather than making up half of it at this point. —Erik (talkcontrib) 22:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The History channel has very little to do with History these days-Mostly airing conspiracy theorys and UFO-Bermuda triangle phychosis. This sorry effort to whitewash history will not gain much traction. Germany (THE PEOPLE) gave Hitler almost undivided and fanatical support up to the bitter end resulting in the wholesale slaughter of 6 million Jews and 12 million Russians. Remember without the almost universal German support that Hitler and his Nazi party enjoyed there could be no WW-II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This discussion is over a month old, and we never bothered putting the information into the article. In the future, please use the talk page for suggestions to improve the article. —Erik (talkcontrib) 20:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


Would like to know why the listing of Tom Hollander as Colonel Heinz Brandt keeps getting deleted. Not only is he listed as such on IMDB, but there are stills and video of him in the part on the official site.

Also, I don't believe Stephen Fry is involved with the film any longer either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:33, December 3, 2008

The article cites Tom Hollander as being in the film, but we should find a reliable source to verify his role as Heinz Brandt. Also, until verified otherwise, I think we are assuming that Stephen Fry is in the film. It could be a small role for all we know, one that has not been seen in trailers. —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This picture shows Stephen Fry, second from right. Seems clear that he is in it, but his role is probably minor. —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hollander as Colonel Brandt:
Good call on Fry though.--ExtraordinaryMan (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I just clarified some credits with the official site. I assume your screenshots are from the site, too, but I cannot find them. Can you let me know where to navigate to? I can cite a specific URL and tag additional names in "Cast". —Erik (talkcontrib) 05:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Headlines. I'll try to implement them myself when I have a chunk of time. —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I implemented the Advertising Age article, but I was not sure if there was anything to be culled from USA Today. There is some response to the MSNBC article I mentioned above, so I do not know if that validates the word going around about it. What do others think? —Erik (talkcontrib) 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't know any more. The USA Today article quotes an gossip columnist, who quotes "anonymous sources", who say that Cruise's portrayal is laughable. Do I have that right? What do you have in mind to say about it? Steve TC 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was not sure about. I am leaning toward not worrying about it too much because I think we have sufficient coverage about the marketing and the release, and we will have actual reviews from credible sources soon enough. —Erik (talkcontrib) 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right, maybe we shouldn't worry about it. I think the only way in which we'll ever get a true account that has no agenda to present will be retrospectively. Give it a year and we might have something neutral to cite. :) Steve TC 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we could phase out some citations using this article. The article also talks about production in retrospect, so should the details be worked into the "Production" section for a historical perspective, or would it be better off in the "Release" section? I'm leaning toward the first option... —Erik (talkcontrib) 18:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) Alientraveller (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What a merry-go-round. Steve TC 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to self and others: Find headlines about how Singer handled accents for the film... seems like a part of the article that could be developed. Maybe a "Casting" section if there is enough content? —Erik (talkcontrib) 04:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Correction: The bottom of the "Cast" section covers the accents already, but I think it could be displayed more prominently elsewhere. —Erik (talkcontrib) 04:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article, not sure how to implement. —Erik (talkcontrib) 06:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If any others reliable sources chime in on this (or other issues not best suited to a conventional reception section), a "commentary" subsection of the "Reception" section might be most appropriate; a bit like what we did at The Dark Knight (film)#Commentary and WALL-E#Commentary? Steve TC 21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Two headlines to use. —Erik (talkcontrib) 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Implemented both. Alientraveller (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! :) —Erik (talkcontrib) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) 13:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Long-term layout

Since the film will be out in less than a month, I was thinking that maybe we could attempt some foresight in structuring the article. It is more than likely that there will be German response to the film as a final product, like there was one to its production. I was wondering, how should we structure them? Together in the same section, or separately? Here are a few options:

  1. Subsection "German response" into "To production" and "To final product" subsections (we can rename them, but you get the idea)
  2. Rename "German response" to reflect focus on production, then a "German response" subsection under the "Release" section
  3. Rename "German response" to reflect focus on production, then a "German response" subsection under the "Release" section for non-German-critic reviews, then for a "Critical reception" section (subsection?), have a "German critics" subsection

Another possible section or subsection is an evaluation of historical accuracy... I think it could be a separate section since Germans and non-Germans can weigh in about this, and we could guide any relevant German historical analysis to this kind of section. We'd keep German audience and critic responses in one of the above sections or subsections. Sorry if this sounds too confusing! Figured it would be good to tackle this so we don't shift so much during a time of busy coverage. —Erik (talkcontrib) 21:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a tricky one. This is my second attempt at a response, after changing my mind halfway through the first. I think it all depends on the nature of the German response once the film comes out. I've a feeling that it could be little more than a regurgitation of what we already have, in which case nothing much has to change. If enough information comes to light to warrant its own section, my gut feeling is that it would be best to keep all the "German response" information in one place, using pre- and post-release third level section headings. That way we're not leaving the subject then jumping back into it several sections later. That's if it's more of the same, btw. If the bulk of the new material is of a more traditional film-critic-y nature, or criticising new aspects (historical accuracy and whatnot), I'd go for a subsection of the "Release"/"Reception" section. Steve TC 21:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Alientraveller recently re-sectioned the article, but I am not sure if I favor it. "Perception" strikes me as pretty vague. I think it's an umbrella for too many sections... any chance we can pursue one of the above options instead? —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional reviews

There are a couple additional reviews which could be added to the "Critical reception" subsection, listed at Rotten Tomatoes. However, I am not sure EmanuelLevy.Com or Screen International are the best of WP:RS-type sources. Will defer to what others think on this. I am sure that in the coming days/weeks there will be more reviews from more mainstream film critic sources within the entertainment industry. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Both pass muster as reliable sources for reviews; Screen International is published by EMAP and Levy is a noted author and critic. Steve TC 08:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Steve. Still, if desired, we can wait for additional reviews. I think when reviews are added to film articles, at least the ones that get care, they tend not be removed. Depends on if we think that they will be long-lasting. —Erik (talkcontrib) 13:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

New York premiere

The second paragraph of the "Release" section talks about how the New York premiere was a private screening and that there was an attempted protest. I searched around for solid coverage about this event, but I could not find anything good. The FOX News article touches on it, and the MSNBC article is from a gossip column, which I am wary to include (especially since we rejected usage of the same source a few discussions above about early reaction to the film). Do other editors think that this event warrants mention in the article? It does not seem to hold a lot of encyclopedic water. —Erik (talkcontrib) 04:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with FOX News? As for the MSNBC column, I think there's a difference between being a good source of review opinions (which it isn't) and reporting the facts surrounding the premiere. I added a Daily Mail article which mentions the New York premiere but mainly is about the LA premiere. -- (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The FOX News article was by Friedman, who wrote a negative review about the film, and it was reflected not to be unbiased. I tried to find more coverage about these private screenings, but there was nothing found except in gossip columns. Just seems like there are more solidly covered issues like the German response. —Erik (talkcontrib) 08:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, we're not relying on them for reviews. I don't want to put Friedman's review in the review section either (defamer must be less reliable as well), but for main-stream media reports about the premieres they should be acceptable, right? -- (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It does not have to do with reviews, but there is a general sense of antagonism from these gossip columns toward the film. Mail Online completely contrasts later reports that the film was not universally panned. I checked Access World News and Lexis-Nexis Academic, but this does not extend beyond these smearing attempts by these columns. We have solid retrospective coverage about negative reaction to production and concerns over marketing. Let's not give undue weight to this events reserved for gossip columns. —Erik (talkcontrib) 14:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. While the basic factual information presented by these sources is likely correct (dates, times, name of theater), I wouldn't be comfortable citing them for the other events related to the premiere due to the issues Erik raises here. The Mail article in particular contains outright lies. I'd hold off adding anything to do with why the premiere was held where it was, and what occurred outside, until it's presented in a more obviously reliable source and we can determine if it has sufficient relevance. Steve TC 15:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
What outright lies? Now we have The Sun, MSNBC, Fox News, The Daily Mail, and Metro all as sources saying that there were protests at the premiere, and there are even photos proving that the protestors where there. It's an interesting fact about the premiere that there were protestors there, but of course it's not worth its own section all on its own.
Perhaps we should even put in Friedman's review in the review section, but remember to mention that he felt negative towards the film because he was banned from attending the preview screenings?-- (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not questioning that protesters were there; this is obvious enough. What might be in question is whether the protesters were present in sufficient numbers to make this a relevant fact for us to mention here. Additionally, the reason for the premiere's change in location is sourced by the gossip column anonymously, and the bit about Cruise's tunnel is sourced to a Mail gossip article that contains outright lies (that there were speedy reshoots due to test audiences' falling asleep). Steve TC 16:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it a lie that test audiences fell asleep? It seems that factoid has been repeated in several news stories, put in as background information. An earlier article in the same paper says "Extras were wounded during filming, film was destroyed in a lab and had to be re-shot - and, most damningly, there was a rushed re-shoot of key scenes after test audiences fell asleep during secret screenings." [1] -- (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I helped shape a lot of the negative content toward the film in this article, and we've treaded carefully with the sourcing. From what I can tell, there were no actual re-shoots... only a held-off key shoot (the Tunisian battle sequence) that took place last summer. The reason Steve and I question the sources is that they are blatantly negative about the film in an unprofessional capacity. Look at "Critical reception"; the film may not be critically acclaimed, but it certainly is not a farce as the Daily Mail makes it out to be. MSNBC has a similar gossipy approach, writing this and this about the film. It strikes me as played-up viewpoints, so that's why I question how relevant it is to mention the protests, considering how the coverage does not go beyond the gossip columns and these vengeful sources. —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The Sun, MSNBC, Fox News, The Daily Mail, Metro and RTL Television all reported on the premiere protests. I'm not against re-writing the brief mention of the protests, but it should be mentioned that they were there. Not every movie gets protests. It's not like the protests were dangerous, violent or filling the streets though, so no more than a few sentences is warranted.-- (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional source: "Punkt 12, 16. Dezember". Punkt 12. 2008-12-16. RTL Television.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:27, December 29, 2008

Anything useful here? Maybe it could help shore up the details. —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there were German articles saying that the premiere location was kept secret from the press until the last moment in order to stave off Scientology protests. I don't really want to elaborate any more on the protests than what's already in the article now, though. What do you think?-- (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking about expanding the particular passage... I was thinking about replacing some of the more questionable sources with more objective sources. For example, The Sun and MSNBC are tabloid/gossip, and the FOX News and Daily Mail articles just seem overly vengeful in the sense of "Let's put everything negative together about the film, may it be reviews or protests, and put it out there!" So maybe the Metro, RTL Television, and German sources would be better permanent replacements. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Reich" or "The National Socialists" (or Nazis)

It is more correct to list them as "The National Socialists" or "The Nazis" than "The Reich" because the Resistance IS fighting for the Reich. The Reich is the country, part of Germany's name. It has been a Reich for the last 73 years when they launch the coup attempt. The Resistance are loyal patriots to the Reich, trying to save it from the Nazi maniacs. Hence, it is morally and politically proper to not remove their place as patriots of the Reich by giving the Nazis sole claim to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The grouping was based on the official site and was not intended to be that deep in meaning. Most cast lists aren't grouped, but since the official site provided this opportunity, I decided to go ahead with it. I am just going to render the issue moot and remove the grouping titles. —Erik (talkcontrib) 04:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Thats actually a better idea than what I had. Keep politics out. Thank you. (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


How historically accurate is it? Badagnani (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any historians' reviews yet, but here is something from Peter Hoffmann: "The movie also gets a thumbs up from one of the world's leading authorities on Claus von Stauffenberg, the events of July 20, 1944, and German resistance in general: McGill professor Peter Hoffman, who consulted on Valkyrie. There have been several films, mostly German, made about the attempted Hitler assassination and coup, the most recent being a 2004 movie starring The Lives of Others' Sebastian Koch. 'This film is quite different than the 2004 film, which distorts the story in central instances,' Hoffman says. 'The present film, Valkyrie, does not do that. It gives a fundamentally accurate portrait of Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators. There are details which must be counted as liberties. But, fundamentally, the film is decent, respectful and represents the spirit of the conspiracy.'" If you can find reliable sources about historical accuracy, we can see about including them. —Erik (talkcontrib) 01:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone thought about working on the Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg article in parallel?

Not me of course. I've watched this movie and really enjoyed it but I don't have the interest to work on the article about the actual person: Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg. However, I think we should keep that article in mind while working on this one. The man's wiki article should be at least a GA before this one is. N'est-ce pas? Well, yeah. Kein Aber!Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "a victory for United Artists and MGM".

While Variety is a good, reputable source, the author has to be the biggest tool to say that a 30 million open on a film that cost 150 million (budget + marketing) is a victory. This is going to be a huge loss for both. Any other, more accurate articles on the film's release? Lukeatomic (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent; the Variety author may mean a pyrrhic victory against the bad buzz rather than any concrete box office success. I've also found that as much as News Corporation sources have taken every opportunity to denigrate the film, since the first trailer was released Variety has repeatedly shone the best light on it. Still, with dozens of territories still to release the film, it is certainly plausible that the $30 million domestic opening presages an ultimately profitable run. As for what we state in this article, I'd prefer a little more context to the quote, but with the film only in release a few days, further reliable comment on the film's success/failure will likely have to wait. If we provide attribution, I see no real problem with its remaining for now. Steve TC 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes' weekly roundup has weighed in: "MGM performed a Christmas miracle this weekend. The studio took what was long considered a surefire flop anchored by a star on the decline and turned it around and into a big hit." There's some demographic info. in there too, which I'll add in a few moments. Steve TC 01:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

I've started a "Historical accuracy" section to see if we can foster contributions from editors who stop by, since I think that potential resources may not be easily found in Google News Searches or be reported by movie websites. I've started with a quote from Hoffmann, who may be a little biased due to his role as consultant, but it's a start. Should we say anything about the filmmakers' intent in being historically accurate with this film? I know that there are some quotes, but I'd like to keep expression of their intent fairly limited for the sake of balance. —Erik (talkcontrib) 16:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Great idea!Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Historical accuracy be moved up to right after the Plot section? -- (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
There is not truly a set way to organize a film article's sections, but the most widely used approach is to have responses to a film toward the end of the article. For example, "Critical reception" sections are normally found at the end. Since the "Historical accuracy" section will likely have responses from historians, it would have similar placement at this point. Maybe years later, where there is a more retrospective perspective of the film, it can be more like a "Themes" section (generally middle of the article). In the meantime, the near future holds the likelihood of historians' responses rather than actual in-depth studies. —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Whose format?

  • I have got a problem with the so to say contradiction between marketing interesses, Cruises career and the idealistic shape the story is told in. Real means to me it#s god to tell such a historic event in a thriller system. Tension and questions like, what was

the error in Valkyrie action are worth to be shown. May be somebody will learn out of history! But in Germany there are papers who guess it#s just a career trick, to make another holocaust film. Living on in a nazistructure. Calling themselves democrats and chew.....-- (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are the newspapers reliable sources? I understand what you mean by "career trick", but was the coverage a generally objective report of German people believing that it is a "career trick" or was it a gossip column? Even in the US, the gossip columns tend to be vicious and unprofessional. It's best to use reliable sources that can look back on a particular reaction and not be spur-of-the-moment pieces. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

There was some edit warring earlier today about presenting the general consensus of the film by critics. The original wording was "received mixed reviews" with Metacritic as the citation. Attempts were made to re-word "mixed" otherwise, and eventually resulted in the removal of the sentence until a more clearly worded consensus could be found. I restored "mixed reviews" based on The New York Times saying this. However, this was put in quotation marks, and I do not think it should be in quotation marks... this is usually done when expressing one's opinion or using colorful language. We would not say the film got "negative" reviews or "positive" reviews, so we should not say "mixed", either. Thoughts about that? —Erik (talkcontrib) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Received mixed reviews" (sans quotation marks) is a wholly appropriate and uncontroversial paraphrase of the sources, IMO. If the sources are in question, or the other editors feel one or two sources are not enough to "declare" the mixed reception, it will be easy to bolster it with additional cites, but either way quotation marks are not necessary here. Steve TC 02:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm advocating "received mixes reviews" without quotes because I think that's a fair description of the current state of things. It got some very bad reviews and some very good ones - they were mixed. I don't think that has the negative connotation that other contributors felt it had. (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a link to an LA Times article that described the movie's reviews as "respectable", not out of malice but because it seemed like hearsay: we already have an objective (I hope) overview from Metacritic and RT. Does that seem reasonable? (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As much as I personally disliked the movie, I agree with the usage of "received mixed reviews", based on what actual critics said. (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

what the hell is it with wikipedia and quotes from critics

frankly, my dear, i dont give a damn what some guy from some newspaper i will never read (and that will probably be out of business next year) says about a movie.

so please tell me why all these movie critics from various obscure magazines are 'notable' enough to be in wikipedia...

to the absolutely ridiculous point now, where the article on the july 20th plot is barely as large as the article on this movie about the july 20th plot. please tell me how these quotes from these people are 'notable'.

why not include comments from commenters and message board people, they have about as much weight as random movie critics???

mostly, though, im just trying to ask, WHY IS THIS IN THERE. who GIVES A CRAP. honestly.

additionally, the 'rotten tomato' rating is listed.. WHO CARES. why not list the IMDB rating, thats what the 'general viewer' thinks, and isnt that more important than the critics? is it their job to tell us what is good and bad, or to give us insight into film (like Ebert does) so we can make up our own minds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talkcontribs) 03:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously someone doesn't give a crap. Sound the alarm. We must alert the entire editing community because one person doesn't give a crap. Come on everyone, let's send messages to every notable editor and administrator to address the issue of one person not giving a crap.
If you don't like it, deal with it. Based on your complaints, one would draw the conclusion that you don't like anything about the Reception section, and that it all should just disappear. How about you come up with an actual alternative before you just complain about what you don't like. (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it fair and reasonable that a range of positive and negative responses to the film are listed. Further, Rotten Tomatoes is not a group of "random critics". Rotten tomatoes is used as it is based on the ratings of professional film reviewers/critics, who have their credentials vetted with criteria including:

1) Membership of a professional association
2) A Minimum of 50 published reviews with a byline
3). Currently employed as a film critic, not as a freelance or staff writer. [2].

Such criteria means that reviewers understand the social and legal impact of their work, (having studied ethics and law), as well as investing their own credibility and reputations- they're not random anonymous bloggers. On that note, I shall sign my post, which actually contains my name. Paul Roberton (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in! I did not respond to the initial message because I did not really think that anything could be said to assuage such a vitriolic tone. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible lawsuit over globe

Just read an article that mentioned the producers of Valkyrie could be in legal trouble with the owner of Hitler's globe, who apparently had its likeness copyrighted and is mad about a replica being used in the film without his permission. This would probably be something interesting to mention somewhere in the article (don't really have time to write anything up myself right now). Here's the original link. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw this, but I was not really sure how big of a deal it would be. There's not a good fit for it in the article as far as I can tell. —Erik (talkcontrib) 22:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's plans to extend the Holocaust against the Irish and Scots Celts...

...are not "original research". Hitler's ideologies that the English were "an Aryan but misguided people and nation" and that it was Nazi Germany's destiny for Hitler to take the place of Trevelyan and extend the Holocaust to be a Second Celtic Holocaust are well documented.

"N I N A" is a cultural codeword among North American Celts meaning "No Irish Need Apply". It is a reference to the treatment of arriving Celts in the Boston area (that persons of Celtic origin be denied employment) during the First Celtic Holocaust.

The "Black and Tans" were an auxiliary of the English army used to subjugate the Irish during the 1916-1921 "uprising". Black and Tans often would go door-to-door in Irish neighborhoods using their bayonets to kill persons hiding from them in rolled-up mattresses. The Black-and-Tans were also responsible for the Croke Park Massacre. Hahbie 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That may well be, but my concern is that your additions are prominently featuring an issue that the film seems to only fleetingly touch upon, and therefore the additions may be placing undue weight upon them. Is there possibly a more appropriate article on Wikipedia that the bulk of this information could comfortably sit at? It may also be a concern that the additions are what Wikipedia terms original research; your own links and conclusions made apart from any third party that has commented directly on the film. Steve TC 23:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've removed the content in its entirety due to lack of reliable sources. Editors report what is already published elsewhere, so they cannot weigh in with something like, "It is not known whether the letter actually existed; however, it seems eminently clear that von Stauffenberg saw no causal nexus between the Holocaust and Germany winning World War II." If there is historical context that can be backed by reliable sources, they are more appropriate at the historical articles. The film article has information related to the film. One cannot pick up a history book and start pointing out all the accuracies and inaccuracies of the film. —Erik (talkcontrib) 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You are completely right and accurate in what you state. I was and am totally incorrect, and wrong, on all points, irrevocable, from all standpoints, and in all contexts. I capitulate to the superior intellect, and authority--which is, in a word--you. I am not fit to grovel at your feet. (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Attitude is not necessary. :P People have good ideas that can be shared or see connections that can be made, but Wikipedia is not the forum for such notions. We depend on secondary sources to detail a topic, and only primary sources to the extent that we merely describe it. —Erik (talkcontrib) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you are harassing me, because you have the power, and I don't. (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any power... if you want, we can find other editors to weigh in about the addition. —Erik (talkcontrib) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[3] (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ending of the film

I removed the detail about the title card because it is outside the context of this historical thriller. There were many nuanced details revealed via title cards at the end, but the last major event of the film itself were the series of executions. —Erik (talkcontrib) 16:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good. I haven't seen the film and wasn't sure if I should remove this. On another note, I noticed multiple additions in the cast section. What should be the additions be decided upon, notability of the actor or that of the character s/he portrays? LeaveSleaves 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed it a couple of times before, hence this discussion to explain my latest removal and point to it in the future. There were other title cards, such as for executions not shown onscreen. I think that for the multiple cast members, mentioning red linked actors are okay since there is historical context behind the characters they played. Basically, it would provide meaningful navigation, as opposed to someone who played a background role that is forevermore a blip. What we could do to cut down the list, though, is rewrite the latter part of it as prose. From Göring to Heusinger, we can have a paragraph instead. A similar approach was taken for the smaller roles in The Dark Knight (film) (see second-to-last paragraph of "Cast of characters" section). —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Being a historical film, it is obvious that there would be several characters which are notable in one way or another. But I feel that the focus here should be on characters which have significant part in the film and are not merely present in few scenes or have a minor role. And I liked the approach on The Dark Knight article. LeaveSleaves 17:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
So do you think any names need trimming, or can my suggested range of names be rewritten into prose? Anyone else to include in this range? —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I haven't seen the film. So it's not possible for me to assess which are the minor characters. I'm not insisting that this should be handled immediately. I mentioned it simply because the thought sprang into my mind. Although, if you are sure about the names you suggested I can give it a try. LeaveSleaves 17:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

← Rewrote the range of names as prose. List appears less indiscriminate now. —Erik (talkcontrib) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

German critics

Now BBC says, "The 46-year-old [Tom Cruise] will be hoping the film is better received than it was in Germany, after critics slammed it." This is in contradiction with what The New York Times said about German critics, so we may need to revise the consensus. It will be easier retrospectively, but we may need to reflect that The New York Times said one thing and BBC said another. Just putting this out here for now. —Erik (talkcontrib) 14:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What was once one of the best news divisions in the world is now... never mind. In any event, they've toned down the language to something more reasonable, yet still weasely: "The 46-year-old is hoping for better reviews of the film, which received negative comments after its recent release in Germany." Maybe a little easier to work in with The New York Times cite. Steve TC 20:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is frustrating...

  • The New York Times says, "Though the Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie received mixed reviews in the United States, it has been greeted with a measured and hospitable reception in Germany, where it was once viewed with suspicion, Reuters reported."
  • BBC says, "The 46-year-old is hoping for better reviews of the film, which received negative comments after its recent release in Germany."
  • Der Spiegel says, "Cruise... has been panned by German reviewers for giving a surprisingly low-key performance that fails to convey the charisma with which Stauffenberg inspired fellow plotters. But the film itself and the cast of support actors have won praise."
  • Variety says, "...initial reviews have been positive, with many observers now hailing Cruise and predicting the pic will even improve the country’s image abroad. Calling for all kids to go see the pic, daily broadsheet Bild called the film 'a cinematic monument to a German hero,' while Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote: 'As a thriller, Valkyrie is nearly perfect.'"

How do we reconcile all this to accurately reflect the German response? —Erik (talkcontrib) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is frustrating. I didn't notice this talk page section before I edited the article, but I added this AFP bit: German critics maul Cruise as anti-Hitler hero: "German critics savaged Tom Cruise's portrayal of Adolf Hitler's would-be killer in "Valkyrie" ahead of the film's release here this week, but relished a homegrown hero getting the Hollywood treatment."
I think what's happening here is that those who write summaries about what the reviewers think are either a bit biased, or are looking for an "angle". The German reviewers never really turned around unless you can find a reviewer who actually changed his opinion.
I think we can sum up the German reception like this:
  • Most reviewers agree that the film isn't as bad as they feared it would be
  • Some like the film itself, some don't
  • They don't like Cruise's acting
  • They are pleased that the history about the anti-Nazi resistance is getting international attention.
--JonIsaksen (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have prepared what the culturally important german magazine "Die Zeit " has written about Valkyrie, and about scientology as well, maybe we should add it to the article. What do you think about it??? This is where the text can be found: If you agree to add I will provide a reference. Thank you.Sha-Sanio (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Trimming down "American critics"

I'm removing the following reviews because I feel that the first three paragraphs of "American critics" adequately cover critical reception of the film. Here's the diff for the removal, and below are the links to the reviews if people think they may have merit:

Please share your thoughts! I think we should switch focus on fine-tuning the consensus of German critics, as seen in the discussion above. Other European reviews could be used, too. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of filming locations

An editor added to the article: "Other locations for government buildings with typical Nazi architecture included the local Luftwaffe district headquarters (later used by Berlin Brigade) and the Berlin fair grounds." Sources used were this and this, which do not qualify as reliable sources. Can we find reliable sources for these locations? Depending on how important they are to the film, it may not be necessary to list them as we identify some major locations already. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Cruising for trouble "...the buildings they used [included] the former Luftwaffe headquarters, which is now the Ministry of Finance, Tempelhof Airport and the Messe Berlin exhibition centre, which was originally built by the Nazis." — Steve TC 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Filming begins in Berlin... is from a division of ITN that sells archive footage. The fairground is mentioned at the bottom of that page in a link to a Reuters story, but might lack enough context to be of use. Steve TC 20:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's plain obvious in the movie which locations were used, besides Reich Air Ministry Building. Messe Berlin, with dozens of flagpoles in front of it, was used instead of the plain Haus des Rundfunks radio building just on the other side of the street, and Tempelhof with its large curved terminal stood in for the proper rural Rangsdorf airfield. Listed in the credits, too. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Headlines redux

Search valkyrie location:Germany in Google News Search with "Last day" or "Past week" criteria to find similar headlines as the week goes on. —Erik (talkcontrib) 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Struck used. I've also struck "Berlin District Posts Warning About Scientology" because while it might infer a link between the posters' being put up and the film's release, the article does not explicitly say this is the case. Steve TC 21:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I checked at WP:RSN#Valkyrie, and I don't think it's worth including. Seems a little too politically slanted. —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I'm not too sure. Look at Max Manus (film) which I'm also working on, though that article is in a much less good state than this one. Erling Fossen's criticism turns out to be a bit misguided, but it is still relevant for the article because he's a famous pundit and the critisism and rebuttal made the rounds in the national media. If those Marxists bring a unique form of critisism and it is relevant in the debate, then it might be good to note their critisism, but if they're only some sort of sowing circle with a website then it won't. See my point? --JonIsaksen (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • We have to consider undue weight as well. I only came across the article in Google News Search, and I was interested in it because it offered something different compared to the other articles. Still, though, I don't know if I'd rush to include it. Maybe if the particular perspective is recurring (as in, let's find other articles with similar commentary)... —Erik (talkcontrib) 23:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Headlines. —Erik (talkcontrib) 17:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Other European critics

I am thinking that we could include an "Other European critics" subsection under "Critical reception" on the basis that their opinions may be more relevant than most since Valkyrie is very much related to the European theater of World War II. What do others think? Reviews are linked above. —Erik (talkcontrib) 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps only if they bring up original positive or negative points which haven't been mentioned in the US and Germany? I added two rather interesting reviews; one is positive to the film but questions the Scientology angle, and the second one is mainly negative but brings up some original points. --JonIsaksen (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)