Talk:Vampyr

message: this page is poo! it must be made better. there must be a discussion of the groundbreaking aspects of cinematography, use of sound, and innovative special effects of this excellent and important historical film. 192.211.25.9 12:46, 01:00, 9 October 2005 UTC
:Some fellow called Fordmadoxfraud has recently employed some butcher-style editing to this article, apparently insisting that Vampyr is above even the slightest negative observation in relation to its reception by modern audiences. Well, as critic Richard Scheib puts it: "Vampyr was not a success when it was released – indeed it resulted in the collapse of director Carl Dreyer’s production company, causing him to have a nervous breakdown and not return to filmmaking for an entire decade." The film was in fact considered so boring it was reduced in length and "the long periods of silence replaced by dubbed explanation". That was in 1932. Now, does Fordmadoxfraud seriously suggest that modern audiences raised on MTV have become less impatient?! I personally love this film, as do most critics, but I've seen enough people walk out or literally fall asleep during screenings of Vampyr to know that critics and film society audiences do not represent the entire human species. --Minutae 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying negative information needs proper citation, particularly when it's something like "People think this movie is boring."  Who thinks that?  Some non-notable internet critic doesn't count.  Also, please take some time to read through Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  Thanks.  Ford MF 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are both misquoting me and ignoring that I did in fact immediately respond to the request for citation. Richard Scheib, quoted above, may not meet with your elitist standards, but he is never the less quite correct. And Casper Tybjerg, cited in the article, is certainly not "some non-notable internet critic", but one of the world's leading authorities on Dreyer. There's a current tendency for critics to only mention the strengths of Dreyer's films, but a fair, complete appraisal of any work of art must discuss both its positive and negative aspects. I've tried to address this in an intelligent fashion. I accept your initial edit as a "good faith" move, but not the second time where you might have paused for thought instead of just impatiently erasing a huge chunk of informative text, some of which you happen to disagree with. --Minutae 09:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Firstly I remind Minutae to refrain from personal attacks as in the above section, comment on the edits not the editor. The bottom line is that all material requires sources. Editors personal opinions of the subject of the article is simply irrelevant. You need to edit from an objective viewpoint. The DVD section seems to contain personal views which need removing, such as 'Poor quality characterised the original American and British home video releases'. This isnt a cited fact but an unsourced opinion. Maybe it could be explained why the differences between DVD versions are so important that they should command such weight in the article? For example a significant debate or controversy? --neon white talk 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neonwhite, before you get too holy on me, let me point out that the time you spent on writing the above you could have used on finding a source for that DVD quality statement yourself (assuming you are familiar with a search engine called Google). Just because I try to stop an editor from making questionable, uninformed edits doesn't mean I suddenly become solely responsible for researching and adding sources to everything. Your points are correct in principle BUT there's a reality to deal with as well: Many Wikipedia articles contain correct, relevant information waiting to be sourced, and finding a source for a correct, relevant statement is obviously a more productive edit than simply removing it. In other words: Don't be too hasty to remove material only because it isn't sourced if you haven't the faintest knowledge of the given subject. Now, I've added several sources to statements in this article (in fact, I seem to recall that over a year ago I did add a source to the "bad DVD quality" statement, but someone may have found it unnecessary and removed it). In other words, you guys might consider chipping in with some productive work, instead of just tearing down and complaining. And if that's what you consider a "personal attack", too bad. --Minutae (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After writing the above, it took me only a few minutes to Google a source, which I found at www.dvdtalk.com: "People familiar with the old Image release of this film will be very pleased to hear that the Criterion release is a great improvement.  The Image release had a black bar at the bottom (presumably to blot out the subtitles on the print they were using) where burned in subtitles appeared.  That's no longer a problem.  This version presents the film without that horrid bar and preserves the original aspect ratio of 1.19:1.  (The Image disc is cropped to 1.33:1.)  The picture is much cleared and more detailed than the Image version also." I'm sure there are many more such sources to choose from. --Minutae (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to set things straight, I am here to provide a third opinion as part of dispute resolution and hopefully end a stalemate, alothough i could involve myself, i am not here primarily to edit the article or search for sources, etc. May i remind you that wikipedia does not contain any information that can be considered 'correct' or the 'truth'. These are merely subjective ideas. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability. This means that there must be a way for readers of the encyclopedia and other editors to verify the information. If this cannot be done, any material lacking sources should be removed, this is stated in policy. There is no reason why the material cannot be returned to the article should sources be found. The personal attack i was referring to was the comment "I notice on your user page that you boast about the increasing number of edits you can do in a year. Clearly your goal is speed not quality." about Hughcharlesparker, the majority of your posts have been perfectly civil, just remember to keep comments firmly on the subject in hand not judging thew abilities and actions of other editors, and no more need be said on the matter. --neon white talk 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: Hi everyone! I've totally re-did this article with citations and all. If anyone wants to do any cleaning, questioning, or editing on it further, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm just giving everyone a heads up! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Be bold!

message: *BROOKE, Michael & TYBJERG, Caspar: Carl Dreyer [and] Waking life, Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.18 n.9, September 2008, p.32-36, English, illus, Introduction to the life and cinema of Danish filmmaker Carl Dreyer, followed by an appreciation of his film VAMPYR, with attention paid to how advances in sound and lighting make the film an underrated horror masterpiece.
*ZUCKERMAN, David: Canonical pick: Vampyr, Film Comment (0015-119X) v.44 n.4, July 2008, p.76, English, illus, Short DVD review.
*RUDKIN, David: A body of work, Vertigo (0968-7904) v.2 n.9, October 2005, p.17, English, illus, On the occasion of the release of his book 'Vampyr' (BFI, 2005), the author reflects on the aesthetic and influence of Carl Dreyer's work.
*GRANT, Michael: Fulci's Waste Land: Cinema, Horror and the Abominations of… Film Studies (1469-0314) n.5, December 2004, p.30-38, English, illus, Analysis of Carl-Theodor Dreyer's VAMPYR and Lucio Fulci's The BEYOND.
*National Film Theatre Programmes, June 2003, p.13, English
*FISCHER, Wolfgang: Das Gehimnis von Courtempierre.Rudolph Maté fotografiert... Camera Magazin n.3, March 2001, p.29-38, German, illus, Article about VAMPYR and the background to its making. Looks at the photography by Rudolph Maté, its shooting and the effect of certain scenes. Includes analyses of some of the latter using stills.
*KOLLER, Michael: Annotations on film, Metro (0312-2654) n.119, July 1999, p.100, English, illus
*MEGAHEY, Leslie: The Wonderful Face, Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.3 n.7, July 1993, p.31, English, illus, Comments on the acting in VAMPYR and LIEBELEI, especially the facial expressions, which, it is argued, are more powerful than today's special effects and clever editing.
*Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.3 n.6, June 1993, p.70, English, Video note
*Screen (0036-9543) v.17 n.3, October 1976, p.Autumn 29-67, English, Analysis.
*Monthly Film Bulletin v.43 n.511, August 1976, p.180, English
*Midi-Minuit Fantastique n.20, July 1968, French
*Midi-Minuit Fantastique n.20, July 1968, p.68, French
*Film Culture (0015-1211) n.35, December 1964, p.1, English, Article about Carl Dreyer and his films, especially PASSION DE JEANNE D'ARC, VAMPYR, DAY OF WRATH, and ORDET.
*Films and Filming v.7 n.3, December 1960, p.17, English, Detailed analysis.
*Close-up v.8 n.1, March 1931, p.50, English
Resources to use.  Great job with the article so far! —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources to use 

message: :Hi Andrzejbanas, I have a DVD (in Eureka; the Masters of Cinema series) of the movie and the scene of the cover here, that is the daughter of the castle owner lying on the bench appears in the version I have, in about 38 minutes of the movie, I especially checked that because I remembered the comments here to the cover image. So, the cover image is part of the movie (while the cover of my DVD is a totally different one). bw -- Udimu (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Could you screencap it? Does it have the scythe and everything? I'm pretty sure the Criterion and MoC discs are using the same print except the Criterion placed the censored scenes on as an extra. If it is the case, I'll have to remove the image as it doesn't provide any commentary on the article anymore. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: i can make a pic with a digital camera and send it to you. It is just the woman on the bench, not the shadow above her. bw-- Udimu (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the screenshot (totally forgot that I can watch the DVD on my computer). how can i send it to you? -- Udimu (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can post it on my talk page. If you need more instructions, I can provide them here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

text: no idea how to do that (i received e-mails from other wiki writers, but never figured out where to find the e-mail adress), tell me what to do or just send me an e-mail and I will reply and attach the image. bw -- Udimu (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: and now? I have the screen shot. don't you want to see it? bw -- Udimu (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the delay. I'd rather not have my e-mail posted here, so I'll take your word for it and remove the image. It doesn't add much to the article and isn't discussed really either. Thanks for the input though! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

text: ok, but i am not sure why you removed the image. It is another still from the movie; not bad to see it as illustration for the article. bw -- Udimu (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It illustrates the article fine, but for Wikipedia rules, we have must have a reason to show the article off. It's a copy-written image, and unless we can give a reason why we are using it (ie: to show off something that can not be expressed easily in words) we can't use it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Vampyr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419171815/http://www.allmovie.com/dvd/vampyr-1198 to http://allmovie.com/dvd/vampyr-1198
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701120447/http://www.mastersofcinema.org/dreyer/inprint.htm to http://www.mastersofcinema.org/dreyer/inprint.htm
*Added  tag to http://allmovie.com/dvd/vampyr-2-discs-special-edition-criterion-collection-193603
*Added  tag to http://allmovie.com/dvd/strange-adventure-of-allan-gray-197071
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified