Talk:Flesh for Frankenstein

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

I've removed this completely incomprehensible sentence: "The film was shot in 3-D in Italy and supports its landscapes and music, including some themes by Richard Wagner." - What the hell does this mean? How does it "support" Italy's "landscapes and music"? What does the German Wagner have to do with Italy other than being one of very many non-Italians to compose opera?

I added that the 3D film was shown in London in the (late) 70s, where I saw it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu McCallum (talk • contribs) 10:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sounds more like a review[edit]

Andy Warhol's Frankenstein is suffused with the crumbling glamour of old Italian films, paying homage to (while simultaneously parodying) the earnest and stark visual and psychological beauty of the horror films on which it is based. Morrissey's sense of ironic detachment gives the film a gruesomely comic modernity and beauty all its own.

Am I the only one with a problem with the wording of this? Sounds a lot more like a review. Seeing as there's only one other post on this talk page I might just edit it myself, but I'll wait a little bit to see if there are any objections. Anoldtreeok (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

I'm reverting the cast section pending discussion here. Also, don't change established citation styles. Wait, did citation style change over at Blood for Dracula too?--tronvillain (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it there as well. Why would you remove page numbers? That's what is required for book sources. Andrzejbanas (talk)

I haven't removed page numbers, they're in the citation. It's three continuous pages, not countess pages spread across a huge tome.--tronvillain (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More pages will be added in the future. I think its better to be specific, especially when we have multiple sources from different pages (which we do). Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to switch citation style because of personal preference, and it's highly unlikely that there's going to be any source on this that uses more than a few continuous pages.--tronvillain (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real switch in citation style. There was no book sources provided, and these ones are cleaner, especially when using so many source all over the place from the book. How exactly is this changing style? It's common in featured articles to combine online and web sources. Might as well plan for the future. I'd be willing to get more book sources. If I did, we'd have to switch it over anyways. By the way, if you could reply to my other statements below @Tronvillain:, that would be helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A switch from a references section to notes and sources (with all sources other than books in the notes section) is clearly a shift in citation style. You aren't using "so many source all over the place from the book."--tronvillain (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just did in my draft page. I'd like to add to this information. This style makes sense now (and it made sense then). Can I add this? or will you just edit it to make less specific? I'd like to follow WP:PAGENUM if we could. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some more book sources to add myself, but as with Curti, your additional books only need a reference to a couple of pages. There's no need to switch style and clutter up the references section with multiple entries for a couple of pages - listing a range is completely consistent with WP:PAGENUM.--tronvillain (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added two books in a draft to return to the book style. Why not prepare for the future? I'm not really convinced that having less specific sources is any better. Perhaps we should get more individuals to look into this to get more opinions.Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "the" book style. You can add books in the established style without switching to notes and sources. I'm willing to bet that your sources don't have more than a page or two on Flesh for Frankenstein? --tronvillain (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example... ^[1]

I'd still rather keep it specific. You claim its "messy" or changing style. Except I didn't change any of the current URLs. I've done this for several GAs and its never been an issue. I think you are misunderstanding the rule. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the references into a footnotes section is a clear change in style. That no one disagreed with you in the past doesn't mean it can't be applied now. --tronvillain (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it with countless articles with no problem. As stated above, countless good and featured film articles do this. Other than its different, what's the issue? I think it makes the citation section a less large blob of text. I didn't change the date formats or anything more particular. So what's the benefit of the other format again?Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That other articles do it is completely irrelevant - one might as well point out that countless good and featured film articles use a MDY date format. It has utility in articles where citations to large numbers of pages spread across an entire book, but that isn't the case here. Here, you're just giving a privileged position to books and creating unnecessary clutter because it's your preferred format. --tronvillain (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is that it just your word against mine. We have two different rules sort of set against each other. I've brought it to WP:FILM with little interest from other users. I believe a change in style would be more about..date formatting or something. Prior to this there were no book sources, now that there are I don't see why adding it in this format makes it "more messy". Personally, its easier to read for me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hallenbeck, Bruce G. (24 April 2009). Comedy-Horror Films: A Chronological History, 1914–2008. McFarland. pp. 101–103. ISBN 978-0-7864-5378-8.

New edits[edit]

Page numbers[edit]

Please do not remove the page numbers. We require them for book sources. See WP:PAGENUM. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above.--tronvillain (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast members[edit]

Per WP:FILMCAST, "A film's cast may vary in size and in importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or it may only have a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose." So we shouldn't list excess cast members here who are mostly not going to have their own wikipedia articles soon. Not to mention there are some that don't have sources.

I'm fine with cutting it down, I'm mostly opposed to the sudden infobox switch.--tronvillain (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aritcles are allowed to change. You don't OWN an article. I'd suggest cleaning it up to remove whitespace. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't, but then neither do you. Which is why one is supposed to discuss after a reversion, not instantly undo the revert.--tronvillain (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you accused me of reverting a style. Which I didn't, i added content. I made it clean and understandable. Your edit removed information, re-added unsourced information, and added a running time we can't figure out if it for the initial premiere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accused you of changing an established style, which you did. For runtime, see below. --tronvillain (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, in the cast list you actually removed content and moved what remained off into an infobox. Now, the infobox is an acceptable option as per WP:FILMCAST, but this is hardy a "developed, stable article." --tronvillain (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For an obscure film from this era, its fairly developed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, putting it into an infobox takes the cast list out of the readily accessible list of contents. I'm having trouble even finding another film article that does this - I'm sure they exist, but it doesn't seem to be common. --tronvillain (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually browsed a few that don't seem to do it anymore. It should still be tidied up and have proper names. Currently, it's just copied from IMDb. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about the table (in the style of Fight Club (film)) I just added, to reduce white space? --tronvillain (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its...ok? I feel like the details like "stable boy" are pretty unimportant and trivial. But if we only had two columns, it's kind of not needed to be in a table. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could tweak the descriptions a little. --tronvillain (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Running time[edit]

We need the original theatrical running time per infobox standards. We don't know if that BBFC source lists the German run time. If we can't find it, we shouldn't list a running time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the infobox template doesn't specify that: Insert an approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes. Do not link to minute. The BBFC website is a reliable source—the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute. Do not include any additional run times, such as a director's cut or an unrated version, without consensus. It clearly says the BBFC is a reliable source. --tronvillain (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But its misleading. The running time is different in the Italian version (per the Curti book), and different in the United States. Using the BBFC site for a british release running time doesn't make sense for this release. I'm not saying its a not accurate, but its more complicated with this film. Especially one with credits as confusing as this one.Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced, consistent with the template documentation. And BBFC is preferred because they list submitted runtime, not just the runtime approved for release.--14:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Its a source, but its more complicated than this for this film. Not all infobox information can be filled, and in this case, we have different running times based on different screeneings. Do you know the German runtime? You seem to be avoiding this. You have a british cut time, again, I don't think we'll come to a conclusion. So perhaps we should get third parties in on this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no plausible reason to expect a different runtime in Germany, but then the infobox doesn't specify "runtime at world premiere." The BFCC is recommended for runtime in general, because they provide as submitted rather than just as cut for release. But by all means, take it over to the infobox template talk. --tronvillain (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox should show clear facts. In this case, its not clear, as we have different running times. Per WP:INFOBOX, " The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." As the running times are not clear and different depending on the country, its better to have this information elsewhere in the article I think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The runtime is a clear fact. It's the runtime submitted to the BBFC, the runtime of the major US x-rated release, and the runtime of the currently widely available versions. Nothing requires runtime to be sourced to "runtime at German premiere." --tronvillain (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think anything that requires further explanation in that the infobox can't state, then we should still leave it in the prose. I have two dates that are sourced too. Which should I use for this Italian production? The Italian running time? Or this British one, and why would I use that? It's not related to the UK at all.Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the BFCC is the recommended source because it's the submitted running time, before any cuts - other running times and cuts can be in the prose. --15:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've brought it the template:infobox discussion. Hopefully we'll get some replies there so we can reach a conclusion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I managed to track down something on the German release, from 7 December 1973: https://www.zeit.de/1973/50/filmtips/komplettansicht Interestingly, it seems to have been in 2-D? --tronvillain (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italian title's literal translation[edit]

Could someone please include the literal translation of this film's Italian title? Blood for Dracula has its Italian title translated in its article and this film should have it done, too.Mcfoureyes (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a literal translation you want, why not just do it yourself with an online translator or Italian-English dictionary? Martin IIIa (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Hallenbeck2009-1] Hallenbeck, Bruce G. (24 April 2009). Comedy-Horror Films: A Chronological History, 1914–2008. McFarland. pp. 101–103. ISBN 978-0-7864-5378-8.

[1]