Talk:Bela Lugosi filmography

message: Usually a filmography should be on the bio page, but since there's so many of them, perhaps it would make more sense to keep a sepate list. The JPS 17:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but think it should be merged. Helga76 16:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Given the length of the filmography, a seperate filmography is a good idea.  It would look silly otherwise.  Ryan Sudds
I think separate filmographies are fine when the lists are this long. It's clearly noted in the main Lugosi article, so I think the two should remain separate entries. Willerror 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Some films are not linked correctly here - for example "The Dark Eyes of London"(1940) is clearly not "The Dead Eyes of London"(1961). Whatevs, yo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.93.238 (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Just mentioning I'm currently looking at revamping this page into the style of the John Wayne filmography. Ajplmr (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it - all improvements are welcome! Lugnuts (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp 

message: I believe Lulu is incorrectly listed. I've looked at two books on Lugosi's films and both seem to point to this film being listed as Lili. The director Michael Curtiz was at this time using the name Mihály Kertész. Of course he'd go onto later fame with Casablanca and other films but his wiki page seem to back up my claim.
Please look at this link. I'll leave it for about a week before I change the entry, I admit I'm not too knowledgeable on his early career.
Ajplmr (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding Lulu 

message: Not sure exactly what's going on with the film list here. This filmography is cited to Gary Rhodes's (excellent) 1997 work Lugosi: His Life in Films, on Stage, and in the Hearts of Horror Lovers, but the list of films here doesn't precisely match the list of films there. I've added Slaven Fremdes Willens [Slave of a Foreign Will], which was missing from the article (and was his first German film). Contrariwise, I can't find any listing in Rhodes for Die Sklavenhalter von Kansas-City in 1920, and suspect that entry may be spurious. I'm also concerned that the film titles may not be formatted in the same manner as released. For example, we seem to be calling his second German film Nat Pinkerton im Kampf, but Rhodes lists it as simply Nat Pinkerton. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've self-reverted here, actually. IMDB -- not a reliable source, I know -- suggests that Sklaven fremdes Willens is a 1920 film. And, in fact, that its the same film we have listed as Hypnose. Rhodes lists Slaven Fremdes Willens as a 1919 work, and doesn't mention Hypnose/Hypnosis at all. I suspect the missing k in Sklaven is a typographical error, but in any case, working out the correct dates and titles for these European silents is out of my current league. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film list per Rhodes 

message: The theatrical credits should be moved back to the main article. They don’t belong in a filmography. 24.235.74.199 (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: theater

message: In the 1910s section a German movie called "Nachenschnur des tot" is listed, translated as "Necklace of the dead".
I don't have access to the book it's referenced from, so I don't really want to edit directly, but that German title makes no sense.
I assume the first word should be Nackenschnur, which is still not a common word, but would translate as Necklace. If the English translation is assumed correct, it would be "Nackenschnur des/der Toten", for singular/plural. It seems more likely it would be "Nackenschnur des Todes", i.e. "Necklace of Death" Lmartin78 (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necklace of the dead 

message: I'm removing excessive details about films. Try to keep it minimal so people can spot a film but it's name and alternative names. Don't need details like it was a "Dual role" or prodution information. I've removed films that are just archival apperances from previously released material. I.e: "Lock Up Your Daughters" which seemingly had nothing new, while Plan 9 had unseen material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Gary Rhodes, a review in a 1959 British magazine said the film contained new footage of Lugosi introducing the film clips. Also a British fan who actually saw the film in a theater told Forrest J. Ackerman that the film contained new footage of Lugosi narrating over some of the clips. So that's two people who saw the film saying it contained new footage. But you are basically assuming they are both mistaken?  So you never saw the film but you're superimposing your feelings over the testimony of two people who claim they actually saw the movie circa 1959. That's a bold move, I must say. Wiki-readers deserve to get that information and decide for themselves, without the film's very existence being intentionally withheld from the filmography. HerbLightman (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Content

message: Please change the name of the Lugosi film article to the original German title Der Tanz auf dem Vulkan? That was the original name of the German film which ran 100 minutes. "Daughter of the Night" is just the title of the shortened and edited U.S. version of the film, which only ran 60 minutes or so. The name of the film on the Lugosi filmography as well as on the film's article should be Der Tanz auf dem Vulkan, since that was the actual full-length 100-minute movie's name. The film was released years later as "Daughter of the Night" in condensed form only; it's missing about 4 reels and thus does not represent the full-length movie. (In fact, I don't think it was ever shown theatrically under the title "Daughter of the Night" --- that may actually have just been the recent VHS home video release title!)
:Per the article on the film, the film was released in the United States in 1920 as Daughter of the Night. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world." So if you read the article, you'd see this isn't a VHS title, do no speculate stuff when the source is right there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: American viewers might be more familiar with the "Daughter of the Night" title, but that isn't the whole movie! The film with that title is only an edited down version of the real German film. The only way you could see the entire film is to watch the German-titled version, not "Daughter of the Night". HerbLightman (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per film standards, we usually go with the the English title, as that is what users on English-language wikipedia would better understand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ok but we're talking about two very different movies here.  The German movie ran 40 minutes longer. They're two different films really. HerbLightman (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest reading  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) and getting back to me about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Daughter of the Night

message: Asszonyszivek kalandora is a tricky film to place in Lugosi's filmography. 
What we know is (per the Kaffenberger and Rhodes books)
* Lugosi was definitely the star.
* Two act short film.
* No film titled Asszonyszívek kalandora has ever been catalogued by silent film specialists in Hungary, nor has it surfaced in exhaustive searches of Hungarian industry trade publications or period newspapers.
* It's possible Lugosi or someone else has re-titled the film as Asszonyszívek kalandora
* It was shown on October 8, 1922.
It was also seemingly made in the 1910s, but well, see above. I'll add it to 1922 with some notices. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The film was obviously condensed from an earlier Hungarian film (I would say it was LEONI LEO based on the plotline), and Lugosi didn't make any films in Hungary after 1918. So it has to be listed with the other Hungarian movies, I'd say, since it has to be from the pre-1918 period. Rhodes surmised the film was edited in a way to showcase Lugosi's scenes and cutting out the parts Lugosi wasn't in, but I doubt that Lugosi personally edited it or retitled it. I think the Hungarian studio just created it (and retitled it) as an edited version of LEONI LEO, and it was probably shown theatrically in Hungary in that form (maybe as a second attraction). One of Lugosi's contacts in the U.S. probably came across the edited version in a film rental catalog and they probably decided to rent it and screen it for his friends. Lugosi must've just seen it listed in a rental catalog and decided to rent and view it.  That's how it looks to me. But it was definitely produced in Hungary before 1918. (Lugosi wasn't in Hungary after 1918). HerbLightman (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The film wasnt shown theatrically under that title, was it?  I think it was just shown at a couple of private screenings that Lugosi set up, wasn't it?  So if that's the case, the 1922 date is not a theatrical released date. That's just the date Lugosi and his friends screened it.  On the other hand, we know if it was a Hungarian film, it had to be made BEFORE 1918 at the latest. The studio probably re-edited it to showcase Lugosi's scenes after he left their employ, since he was starting to become well known when he emigrated to Germany. HerbLightman (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

text: No, we release in films in order of their public screening and you have to provide proof that things are what you claim "i.e: they are taken from this or that film". So you'll need proof as we don't not publish original research. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly do not believe that the 1922 date of that private screening can possibly be considered as the film's first "public screening". That was hardly a public screening from what I understand. Are you saying that the Hungarian film company created an edited-down version of the film and didn't show it anywhere until 1922 in the U.S. ??  Was the film even in English? We should list it under 1918 and just write "N/A" for the release date. HerbLightman (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No we shouldn't, because a filmography is sorted by it's earliest known public release. Have you even read the source? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Asszonyszivek kalandora