Talk:Let the Right One In (film)/Archives 1

Assessment comments from WP:FILM

The article has no coverage of the film's production, so I don't think it meets the criteria for B-Class at this stage. Keeping as Start-Class for now. PC78 (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Girl"

As far as I've understood from reading the novel and watching the film, Eli is not a girl, though his gender is intentionally ambiguous at first.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this mentioned in a few places, but not in any reliable sources and the official film synopses I've seen say "girl". If you can find a reliable source which discusses the gender ambiguity, add it in. GDallimore (Talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Eli says it outright in the film. Same as in the book. I wasn't talking about an intepretation.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, she says "I'm not a girl". This could mean "I'm a vampire" which, to me, is a more plausible explanation than her meaning "I'm a boy". Nevertheless, some people seem to think it's open to interpretation, but it needs reliable sources if these intepretations are to be discussed in the article. GDallimore (Talk) 21:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication in the film that Eli has a self-identification that is genderless. There is intentional misleading of the viewer for dramatic purposes, but only initially. The book and the film script were written by the same person, so let's look at what the respective works actually say:

Firstly, Eli is a male name. Nothing in the film seems to equate vampire status with gender neutrality (Virginia isn't shown as being de-sexed after being bitten). There is a scene with partial nudity where Eli's bare crotch is shown, revealing that the genitalia have been completely removed, rather than never having been there at all. In the Swedish title den rätte, "the right one", is a defintive masculine declension of the adjective rätt, "right; correct", and fits in with the fact that Eli, as a vampire, can't enter someone's home unharmed without being invited. (If the term was referring to someone feminine or of dubious gender, it would be den rätta.) In the book, Eli is "he" or "him" when flashbacks from his past are described.

I don't know exactly how to describe this complicated issue in the article, but "girl" is wrong no matter how you look at it. For the time being, I'm rewording the article to be gender neutral.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been trying to do some more research on this myself. The best I can find is aintitcoolnews. Don't know if we can make something of these interviews in the article. [1] [2]. GDallimore (Talk) 12:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're on the same track here: have you seen the film?

Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because there's no distributor for England yet. Anything I can do to improve the odds of it getting one is good with me... GDallimore (Talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bummer. I hope you can get hold of it somehow soon. I don't think we need to cite outside sources on the gender issue to make the statements credible, though. It's reasonably obvious as long as one has seen the film.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Though the book makes it clear that Eli was at first a boy, the film seems to leave it intentionally ambiguous. And since the book is not the movie, it seems to be that, likewise, the descriptions should be ambiguous, as well. Llamabr (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Eli is physically a boy with a boy's name who masquerades as a girl for his own purposes. The film was based on the book and originally had flashbacks which explained the backstory, but these were cut out as fans of the book would already know the truth about Eli and it was apparently felt that new viewers didn't need to have everything spelled out for them. Eli IS played by a girl, but they even re-dubbed the voice to make the character more masculine. It wasn't intended that viewers individually "interpret" Eli's gender.74.201.136.2 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Alfredson only vaguely stated "There was a scene where we had bits and pieces of it, but it let out too much of the backstory to show that." Much like the actual movie you could read a number of things into that;the current description of the film is fine. While the movie is based off the book it is clear Alfredson has his own take on the story and wanted the viewer to think for themselves. Some interesting comments from him:

"...And the film also suggests that she(Eli) is a fantasy in the end, when she leaves. I don't know if that's your interpretation, but it suggests maybe she wasn't there at all. When he walks around her empty apartment, maybe she was just a fantasy."

".... But I would think that Håkan in the film version could be an old lover to her, as Oskar himself becomes. Love is the only thing that is a threat to Eli, so Håkan would be the only person she could be close to - that is, a person she despises."

"To me this story is totally non-sexual. Traditionally vampirism has some sort of erotic undertone to it, but this is very, very innocent. She asks him twice, 'Would it matter if I were not a girl?' and it doesn't matter as it doesn't have anything to do with sexuality. It would be interesting what they would come up with, but I don't understand what they think. ..... It's suggested. She's a castrated boy. Somehow in my version that's not important. Whether she's a boy or a girl. It doesn't matter." -Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.214.1 (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion after 200 years, Eli became suspended between being male and female or made a transaction to being more female. Kinda like a gender change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.93.225 (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, as he did not have Sex reassignment surgery he is still technically male, if you have read the book, and accept that the film should take the logic in the book as a guideline, there is no doubt at all ElI's gender is male. But after a while, (after his initial cultural expectation that it should be girls he should be emotionally attracted to) it seems it doesn't matter for Oscar at all what Eli's gender is, that much seems clear. Mahjongg (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well think about it this way, casteration, mean the removal of reproductive organs as well as the genitals. When the reproductive organs are removed, it prevents hormones (in this case tetostrone) from being released, since Eli was casterated pre-puberty, very little tetosterone was released. And with that a lack of hormones for 188 years, would render Eli genderless. Perhaps in the film Eli leans more towrds being female. I agree, however, that changing over to becoming a female by have ones reproductive organs removed is impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.190.108.28 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer the term Androgynous over genderless. hormones or not, Eli is still technically male, with male chromosomes. Genderless implies he never had any gender to begin with as in a "genderless pronoun", so human beings can never be "genderless", some plants, and even some animals may be, but not humans. Androgynous means his gender is ambiguous, (prone to different interpretations) which is a more exact description of his state. In any case he can never be a "former boy", because it implies that he is no longer male, but female. For example castrates were never thought of as female, or no longer male. Mahjongg (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, did you mean ambiguous, instead of ambivalent? Sorry for nitpicking. decltype 11:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant ambiguous, thanks. You see, I'm not a native English speaker. I corrected it now, and clarified a bit what I actually meant. Mahjongg (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't argue with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.190.108.28 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any evidence in the movie that Eli's chromosomes are male.Feldercarb (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Alfredson has been quoted as saying he would describe Eli as "Androgyne," but in the book she is a boy without question. Again his wording is cryptic and could be interpreted in a number of ways. This would explain why he curiously inserted what appears to be very much distinctively female pubic hair below the scar in the nude flash; something that was obviously not mentioned in the novel. The film version of Eli is simply an engima and it is clear that intentional on Alfredson's part.-Dan

you are kidding right, are you claiming you can see the difference between male and female public hair? I watched that scene again, i did not see "curiously placed female hair", it was just too dark, and to short to see much of anything. In fact there isn't anything to see, as he is as featureless down there as a ken doll. there is no enigma, only less emphasis on this particular part of the story in the movie. P.S. please sign your posts! Mahjongg (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the explicit intentions of the writer as well as the director, it's perfectly obvious that there's no room for inventive interpretation based on clever speculation about hormone balance or placement of pubic hair. Let's close the book on this one before it gets genuinely bizarre.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Mahjongg (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the Eli prosthetic for whatever reason in the film has developing "hair" and it isn't exactly where you would find hair on a boy; from the angle we also can't see that he's a Ken Doll either. Yes, it is a dark brief flash and judging from internet reactions confused many viewers. Which is the point; without reading the novel or interviews it is doubtful you would walk away with the impression that she was a castrated boy. The fact that there is so much debate on Eli's gender, Hakan, and the character's intentions certainly implies there is a certain degree of vaguness to the movie that has inspired many viewers to fill in the blanks for themselves, assuming they see it as a seperate entity from the novel which would seem to be the case. I like the book but Alfredson has used the words "his version" for the film and offered his own conflicting views in numerous intreviews as I posted above; regardless if the author is a credited screenwriter or not. I won't take anymore valuabe space but I don't see how anyone can argue an individual viewer can't walk away from this mysterious film with different interpretations than the much more explict book. Same personal or not, it is a stand alone movie that wasn't made just for people who read the book. -Dan

If you can find several notable critics who have publicly express this view, then it might possibly be interesting enough to include in the article, but I doubt it. One thing is certain, though: this is on no account going to be included in the plot summary, because this is a retelling of the creators' intentions, and has no room for interpretations from viewers.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I must admit I'm not sure what you guys are arguing at this point. :) But I can confirm that the director has given contradictory and ambiguous responses to this question (and others, too) in different interviews. decltype (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter: There could be additional sources but I must admit the new "Differences in the novel" section seems to be fair and informative. I agree that Alfredson's interviews have been very contradictory and elusive but this is a very young movie and I'm sure more concrete info will be revealed as time passes; we've seen it with other ambiguous films like this. For instance, in the Behind Scenes Feature on the Amercian Release of the DVD Alfredson confirms that he left it up to the viewer to decide for themselves if Hakan is an aged version of Oskar; certainly a huge departure from the novel. Still, I'm content with the article as is for the time being. Hopefully, more will come out someday. :) -Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.145.64.64 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think Eli is genderless because she is a vampire throughout the film, but she is definitely more of a human being by the end of the film. The reason for this is quite simple - she starts to feel love for Oskar throughout the movie. I have heard from somewhere (not sure where) that Love one of the most human emotions. Therefore, as she begins to fall in love, she begins to resemble a human being by more than just physical appearance. I think this is best seen in the scene in which the two kiss - Eli's eyes slowly start to close, until they are completely shut. This, in my opinion, implies that Eli is experiencing pure human love for the first time, and is now more human than she has been throughout the film. Grieferhate (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"She"

I thought that this was settled by the sheer amount of evidence, but apparantly, Eli is not just "not a girl", but also consistently referred to as "she", with all references to the male identity effectively removed. I checked the edit history, and noticed that I had missed this previously, but it appears that the number of gender-specific refernces actually increased in recent edits. Now, we just had a very long discussion where we just determined that there is no evidence whatsoever that Eli is a girl. Where Ajvide Linquist stands is obvious. Alfredsson refers to Eli sporadically as "she", but he's also clearly stating in the interview that we're talking about a castrated boy as a backstory. Other than that, there's the very obvious fact that "Eli" is a male name and, of course, the "I'm not a girl"-statement.

If we were dealing with gender-neutral references, then it would be no problem, but there's absolutely no motivation for describing Eli as "she". Please fix this asap.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that Alfredson and pretty much everyone else involved in the movie consistently refers to Eli as "she". Also, consider for example this Alfredson quote:

“ It’s just suggested. There is a very short image of his genitals, or her genitals, that you could interpret was a castrated boy ”

The revision I undid read: "There, he meets Eli, who appears to be a pale 12-year-old girl, though it turns out that Eli is an androgynous boy", which I really think shouldn't be in the plot summary, since it is open to interpretation. I really think a gender-neutral version of the plot summary would be the most uncontroversial and best. Note also that Eli is both a male and female name. decltype (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To insist in claiming that Eli is "simply female", and hide all ambiguity about it is just ridiculous, it is clear from all the evidence that he is a castrated boy, but its just toned down a bit in the movie to make it more palatable to a less sophisticated public. I see a growing wish of many posters here to shovel the fact that eli is actually male under, and remove all evidence and discussion about it from the article. But Wikipedia does not sensor, its just tells the facts as they are. There is no problem with addressing eli as "she" in the article, as most people will think about her like that, but a little ambiguity should be in place, just as in the movie. Mahjongg (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course this information should not be removed from the article. But I don't think the plot summary is the place for it. Yes, there are certain scenes that could be interpreted one way or the other, per TA's quote. But like you said, one should strive to state facts, not interpretations. Therefore the plot summary should simply describe what happens, and not the interpretations. "though it turns out that Eli is an androgynous boy" is such an interpretation. decltype (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I have absolutely no problem with your latest revision. For those who still feel that the gender issue isn't properly addressed, would making the "Differences" section a H2 heading (like in V_for_Vendetta_(film)) and expanding it be a reasonable compromise? decltype (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "though it turns out that Eli is an androgynous boy" should not be in the plot summary, as this isn't what most people would notice immediately from watching the film, certainly not right away, (I noticed much more that she jumps from the playground jungle gym quite unnaturally) but mentioning she looks androgynous is an essential plot element. There are many levels to this movie, on the lowest level its just a "shy boy likes tomboy girl" movie with a vampire plot, but underneath that there are many things to discover for the observant watcher, things which will become much more clear when reading the book. It would be a great shame to treat this movie as if it was just another "twilight episode". Mahjongg (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In the interview with Alfredsson quoted previously, it's clear that Eli is a boy and that the backstory obviously matters. And somehow I would think that the script writer would be the one determining the plot, not just the director. But no matter how ambiguous Eli's (still a male name) male identity might be in interviews, there's absolutely nothing that unequivocally establishes a female identity. It should be either "he" or something gender-neutral. "She", however, is just pure speculation.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, see above. I have no problem with gender-neutral, except that the wording becomes slightly akward. But I don't understand why you keep insisting that Eli is a male name, when it is in fact both a male and a female name. The Swedish "Eli" is not related to the Hebrew male name. It's derived from Greek "Elle", "Elios" or "Helena". In Sweden per 2009, there are 148 females and 166 males whose first name is Eli. decltype (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "Eli" had two possible etymologies in Swedish, though that really doesn't change much. We still have the backstory, the writer, the director (in some interviews), the film title (rätte is maculine) and the actual film dialogue ("I'm not a girl") all pointing toward masculinity. Supporting a female gender are only individual speculations about the possible meaning of a quick crotch shot and obviously intentional ambiguity from Alfredsson. So why exactly did we decide to go for the gender that is supported by the weakest arguments?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I returned the original language to "Difference in Novel Section" in describing the flash scene as it was much more neutral and fair. The film never reveals the origin of the scar, it is one of many suggestions that only someone who read the novel can fully comprehend. It would be impossible for viewers to come away from the film with the impression that Eli was castrated as part of a unspecified vampire ritual based off that single scene. That's diving to far into POV as well.-Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.214.1 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't intended only for people who haven't read the book. The plot descriptions are not supposed to represent the viewers' impressions. The plot elements we're discussing are based on the backstory in the book on which they are directly dependent. Trying to artificially lift them clear of that context is what makes this whole thing confusing. It's all perfectly obvious even from the shallowest comparisons between book and film and it's been outright confirmed by the director in at least one interview. And even if you try to muddle the issue by saying that the "I'm not a girl"-statement as meaning "I'm a vampire", it'll still be a matter of pure interpretation.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My only contribution was the line "the film offers a glimpse of a scar...." which was how the section was originally written, so I'm not sure what your complaining about. This was in response to an edit that stated it is revealed in the film version that Eli was a castrated boy because of the scar... blah blah. There has been many additions and edits to the section since that time but the "Differences in Novel" section is presently much tighter and better written without any POV or speculation. Hopefully it stays that way.-Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.145.64.64 (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should deliberately make no reference to any form of gender - the film deliberately leaves Eli's gender ambiguous for a reason. Maybe a vampire has no definitive gender, and Eli is a girl only because that is the form (s)he has taken. The scene when we see Eli naked I think implies that (s)he is actually genderless - Oskar himself looked visibly disturbed by what he saw. I think that, as Eli takes the form of a girl, we should just assume that this is his/her appearance, if not his/her true gender, and that (s)he simply has the emotional feelings of a girl, in that (s)he falls in love with Oskar. Grieferhate (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I came here after wondering about a recent edit. After reading through this section, I think this suggestion is probably the best and least controversial, and it seems that someone has tried to implement it in the past (and stray editors have ignored the warning comment). I've picked out all current female pronouns in the plot section in this edit. Cyanurea (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW My interpretation/impression of the scar scene (without having read the book) was that the process of vampirization had rendered "her" sterile. Eli clearly states she is not a girl, but I had imagined she meant 'I am a vampire' or perhaps a self loathing 'I am something less than human'. If castrated, wouldn't there still be a penis, just no testicles? "The Crying Game" anyone?Feldercarb (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There's different kinds of castration, some involving the removal of the penis. See the page for castration and ctrl+f "penis". Cyanurea (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Release dates

The dates in the infobox refer to the premieres at various film festivals, not the major public openings. Is this standard practice?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is (WP:FilmRelease), although I'm not convinced it's a great practice. I'd need to spend some time seeing how the practice came about before saying anything. If you look into it and find any good reason for it, let me know. At least the article mentions the more general release dates in NO, SE and US. GDallimore (Talk) 12:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I brought up the issue on the talkpage, and there seems to be some disagreement about the guideline. We're not the only ones who believe that the first opening-rule is the best way to go. Either way, there's nothing that states that it can only be the first date. Personally, I think we could just as well change it to the official release date and leave the Gothenburg premiere only in the article text itself.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

will be release in Italy (ITA) 9th January 2009, distributed by Bolero Film

italian website http://www.comingsoon.it/scheda_film.asp?key=47185&film=Lasciami-entrare
translated whit GoogleTranslate http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comingsoon.it%2Fscheda_film.asp%3Fkey%3D47185%26film%3DLasciami-entrare&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=it&tl=en

I propose we get rid of everything but the Swedish October release date per this discussion. There's obviously nothing special about either the US or UK releases that merits infobox inclusion. It could just as well be Russia, Spain or Norway.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

I wrote a plot synopsis. It's not that great, but it's a good start, I think. Of course, feel free to edit it. I'm hoping this will help us get a good synopsis for this movie.—Iggy Koopa (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I felt I had to delete almost all of the synopsis. As someone else also pointed out, it was too long. However, it was very useful to get some of the key points which I think are:

• Oskar and Eli's friendship
• That there are a lot of murders going on
• Hakan getting sloppy, leading to suspicion
• Hakan "breaking down", leading Eli to "release him"
• Eli getting attacked, but Oskar being there to defend her (Hakan replacement)
• Eli prompting Oskar to fight back, causing him to get into more trouble
• Eli defending Oskar, so that they can go off "into the sunset".

Are there any more key points to the story? I'm sure there are many important moments, but those seem to be the key ones to me based on your detailed synopsis.

One important bit that needs to go into the article is the bit about Eli bleeding when she enters somewhere uninvited. However, this can go in a themes section and doesn't need to be in the synopsis section because enough reviewers have commented on it and how it is part of the strength of the film in reinvigorating the vampire genre. If you find any good reviews talking about this aspect, please feel free to start a themes section. GDallimore (Talk) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that's fine. I also believe I need to have some mention of Oskar's dad's homosexuality, but that could go in a themes section too.—Iggy Koopa (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The interviews don't say anything about Eli actually being a girl, nor that he is lacking genitals simply because he's androgynous. There is actually some slightly contradictory statements in both of them. The writer is quoted as referring to Eli as "she", except when he's claimed to be both while the director consistently refers to Eli as a boy. And does anyone in the film ever say anything about Håkan's relation to Eli? I can't recall it and it's not in the interviews either.

I'm not sure the differences from the novel belong in the synopsis section at all. If it's not actually part of the story, it's not a synopsis.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult because, as you say, even the writer and director aren't that consistent in their interpretations and it's clear from a number of blogs I've read that several people have reach different conclusions. I think what we've reached in the article is pretty good, though since it draws on the statements made directly about the sexuality issue rather than trying to make any sort of interpretation based on tangential comments.

I agree that the current placement of the info is not the best possible. If we have something about the production and casting side, I think the sexuality bit would go better in there. Then there's the bit about the possibilities for the remake, which could be put entirely in the remake section - at the moment it's sort of in both to avoid either section being too small. I think the direction the article takes will depend upon the additional information we find and the best way to organise that information as a whole. Right now, we have lots of scattered facts, but I've tried to avoid the article being scattered as a result. GDallimore (Talk) 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not very difficult to say if you study the interviews a bit closer. The info about Eli not being castrated in the film has no support in the sources. Just take a look at these quotes:

Tomas Alfredson: Yeah. He was castrated almost 100 years ago. That's the backstory.

Moriarty: That makes sense.

Tomas Alfredson: There was a scene where we had bits and pieces of it, but it let out too much of the backstory to show that. So now it’s just the one quick glimpse of Eli’s genitals or non-genitals.

Eli being a girl is also entirely a matter of extrapolating more than the interviews actually say. The author doesn't make any direct comments about Eli's gender either way, and going by potentially accidental (or even misquoted) use of personal pronouns is too subjective. There's only one concrete comment on the issue made in the interview by the author:

They [the American publishers] thought my name was too long well, they asked if I could change that too. But I wouldn't agree to that (laughs). Their suggestion, their original suggestion for the title was LET HER IN. (nods ironically) Yeah... so I wonder if they had read the book before they suggested that. But then I suggested LET ME IN instead and then they thought that was fine.

The problem as I see it, is milking second-hand commentary for more or less ambiguous aspects of the storyline. If these things aren't explicitly discussed or commented, but still included in articles, it merely becomes the interpretation of individual editors.

The differences between the novel and film are really details about production so I renamed the section "Production". This facilitates separation without atomizing the article too much.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When you have read the book there can absolutely be no doubt about the male gender of Eli, and in one scene in the film you can actually see he is castrated, you can even see the scars that are left. Mahjongg (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Except this isn't the book and it's clear from some of the reviews that people have interpreted the film in different ways. GDallimore (Talk) 15:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the book, in the FILM you can SEE Eli is castrated, when he leaves a shower in one short scene! Mahjongg (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What critics think about Eli's gender doesn't change what the script writer and director intended, and that's what we're describing here. The book is indeed a seprate issue, but since it was written by the same person who wrote the film script it has to be weighed in. There's also really nothing that implies actual genderlessness, and certainly not that Eli's a girl. Maybe there should be some information about the gender issue has been to some viewers, but it doesn't belong in a plot summary.

I added info about the major plot detail of Håkan being a pedophile and that he comes back from the dead. It don't know if it's too detailed, but it is a rather major aspect of the book that was removed.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I took those bits out again (sorry) since there has been no discussion about them in any sources. A few comments on web reviews, but nothing reliable. GDallimore (Talk) 15:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nothing reliable"? I'm talking about differences that are evident to anyone who has seen the film and read the book. If you disagree with me because you have read the book and seen the film and don't think I've made accurate observations, fine, but don't remove stuff just because you can't fine online references to it.

I removed the statement that Leandersson was cast to accentuate the missing backstory. This isn't accurate since Eli looks androgynous in the book as well. The comment Alfredson made was this:

Yes. Opposites. So that was quite complicated, and then, ummm... there’s this thing that Eli is... a former boy. It’s a boy from the beginning. So that person would have to be a little... androgyne? How do you say?

This is a comment that immidiately follows a discussion about the difficulty of casting child actors, not that the backstory needed boosting.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Per "reliable" I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying it's not important unless someone reliable says it's important. Listing differences between book and film is trivia unless someone has commented on those differences and, preferably, commented on the impact that those differences have had. Also, I thought I'd read the interviews properly, but will have another look. Sorry if I got it wrong. GDallimore (Talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added information about Håkan in slightly different wording. Since this touches on some very major changes without getting overly detailed or commenting explicitly on the importance, I don't feel this is something that needs to be supported with citations. Seeing the film as well as reading the book is quite enough to understand the point.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point. You say they're important changes, but unless you can cite a reliable source which confirms that these changes are important and worth mentioning, they are trivia and we shouldn't mention them. GDallimore (Talk) 14:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Observations concerning an article topic don't require secondary sources simply because you say they do. The problem is that you're commenting the details of a book that you haven't read made into a film you haven't seen.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Adaptations. No need to be rude, particularly when you're in the wrong. GDallimore (Talk) 15:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm being rude. I'm trying to point out that you're being inconstructive by taking the liberty of deciding which plot elements are relevant without first-hand knowledge. I can't stress it enough. It's like trying to compare paintings without even having seen either the original or the adaptation; it's bound to lead to repeated misinterpretations, just like it did concerning Eli's gender.

What part of that guideline do you feel is applicable here? I haven't exactly started a tedious list of uninteresting differences. That would be: "When the protagonists first meet, the curtains are red rather than blue, and are made of satin, not cotton." In the book Håkan is a pedophile that becomes undead. He murders hospital staff, almost rapes Eli, and eventually winds up locked up in a basement room alone with one of the teenage boys who goes mad because he is forced to fend him off by slowly beating him into small bits of wriggling flesh in total darkness. In the film he's a very anonymous helper who eventually gets killed and stays dead. That's a difference that goes beyond mere plotcruft, which is what I believe the guideline is trying to prevent.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I do not know the source material actually puts me at an advantage over you in writing this article since I have no agenda to bring to it and no advance knowledge. Rather, I can act as a cipher for the sources we find to create an encyclopic article in keeping with Wikipedia policies: something that you seem unable to do.

Since you don't seem to like the film guidelines, here's another one: No original research. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought" - you are essentially publishing your original thoughts that these plot differences are important. I am asking you to provide a reliable source confirming that somebody else thinks these differences are important. Failure to do this means that the information you have added has no real world context (contrary to the film guideline) and just looks like trivia. We used to have in the article the statement by the author that the book is much more violent, but that got lost somewhere. Your specific statement of one particular violent moment needs replacing with that more general one by the author.

Your additions have no real world context, constitute original research in suggesting these facts are important and look like trivia. The only reason you have given for keeping it is "but it's true" - to which I direct you to the very first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability. GDallimore (Talk) 10:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating your impartialness quite a bit, and I think you're gaming the guidelines and policies a bit too hard. I think you should solicit outside comments to resolve this.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Really guys? There's so much more that could be done to improve this article, and you're arguing about the wrong things.--88.227.200.19 (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Length and detail of plot summary

I'm new at this, so I apologize if I'm doing this wrong, or saying something obviously incorrect. My comment is that I think the synopsis should be detailed, so long as it's correct. I've gone to pages with detailed plotlines, and they can be very useful. It was different in a paper world, where long content was bulky. In the electronic world, however, I can simply scroll past something about which I don't care. I do not think deletions should be made from the synopsis so long as the material is not irrelevant and completely uninteresting, and is correct. XtremErisa (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true that wiki is not paper. However, in our descriptions of fictional works, the main focus should always be the out-of-universe perspective, and the main context is critical commentary. There's been comments about how this plot summary is too detailed. In trimming the plot, I followed the WikiProject Films style guideline who recommends that a plot summary be no more than 700 characters. While this is certainly not a hard rule, plot summaries should, in general, be kept reasonably concise.

Another thing: In your additions to the plot you seem to have introduced tidbits of analysis and original research. Text that does not merely reiterate what is seen on the screen should be put in other sections of the article, and must be cited to reliable sources. In short, unless a third party source has described a scene as having a "distinctly American twist", we can't put it in the article. While the length and detail of the plot is negotiable to some extent, addition of unsourced material is not, as it goes against our core policies for verifiability and no original research. For these reasons I have reverted your changes for now. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, and thank you. I see you took my correction. As to the additional information, I am going to put the edits back in with some changes, trying to abide by what you say above. If it's still no good, please feel free to reverse again, but please explain again what I did wrong. Thanks. XtremErisa (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately, I still think the description of the brands of cars, and the smurfs are problematic, because those claims can not be directly inferred by watching the movie, and as such, constitute original research. For these reasons this section does not naturally belong in the plot. I also see that you introduce the newspaper article about Jocke. Since the plot summary does not mention that Jocke is dumped into the water, someone reading the plot summary won't know who "the man in the ice" is, and why the article is significant. My personal opinion is that the rest is too detailed, but it does not violate any policies. decltype (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the deletion of the newspaper reference, for the reason you say. However, I think the parenthetical on the toys should be retained. The Corvettes, Mustang and Smurfs are all plainly visable to, although easily missable by, the audience, and so there is no research needed. That would be like saying that you couldn't make note of someone walking into Macy's, because it would take someone external to confirm that Macy's is Macy's. So, I'm trying to add a stripped-down parenthetical again, because I think it gives significant atmospheric information. Thx. XtremErisa (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I respect your viewpoint, and I really do not want to start an edit war over this, so I'll just note here that I still think it adds too much detail. Regards, decltype (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping this would elicit some feedback, but since it hasn't, I will take out the car brands again if there are no objections in a week, because consensus never existed that they should be in the article. decltype (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversed posters

I put the Swedish poster up on the infobox and the US poster in the release section, since it's a Swedish film.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is the best. I put it the other way because of the general guidance throughout WP:Film of remembering that this is an Engilsh language encyclopedia so there should be a focus on English language releases. So, for example, the title of the article is the English translation of the film, not the original Swedish title. Might not having an English language poster be the best way to match that? I don't mind either way, but thought you might not have taken that into considersation before making the switch. GDallimore (Talk) 01:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at articles for other foreign films, for the most part the original theatrical poster is used. On an unrelated case, this was discussed on the Film WikiProject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Posters_for_foreign_films and the consensus was that the original should be used. But in this case, I personally find the American poster to be better looking (I know, I know, that shouldn't be a reason to keep it) and I only reversed it because of the guidelines, so if you want to change it back I won't contest it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll change it back to the American poster for now unless there's any other discussion on it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I don't know which is best and don't have any real preference. If you think WP:Film supports using the Swedish poster over the US one, I'm more than happy to accept that (even if the US poster is more of a grabber). One thing, though: while I agree that the "original" poster should be used, since the film was released in the US and Sweden at the same time, there isn't any "original" poster to speak of so I don't think that guideline really helps us. GDallimore (Talk) 03:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy with having the US poster be at the top of the article. And the Swedish poster is still there, so it's not like one has to be removed. (O/t, but have you read the book that the film is based on?)--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting more and more skeptical to having the US poster in the infobox. The US release seems to have been very limited and doesn't seem to merit more attention that the release either domestically or elsewhere. Aesthetic disagreements aside, the Swedish theatrical poster should have precedence in this case.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis length

I've looked at film FAs like 300 (film), Alien vs Predator (film) and Mulholland Drive (film), and the synopses there are a bit more fleshed out. I'm all for keeping the synopsis brief, but since there's been regular attempts at expansion maybe we should expand the section a bit. For example, Lacke, Virginia and their gang could be described in some detail, since they are reasonably important characters.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What it does definitely need is a good summary of the events surrounding Eli entering without being invited. Various attempts to add that have been made, but they have all been impossible to break down to something briefer. GDallimore (Talk) 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Morse code

Okay, there's been some sort of mini-edit war over the ending. One side seems to favor stating that Oskar is tapping "puss" (kiss in Swedish) in morse code at the end and the other side favors simply not mentioning it. So, I wanted to bring up a discussion about this to decide whether we'd say what Oskar is saying to Eli or not. I personally favor telling the reader that Oskar is tapping "puss", but others may feel differently—Iggy Koopa (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for including it. The only ref I could find for it is IMDB trivia though, I don't know if that's considered a reliable source. Decltype (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a matter of finding a reliable source or not. It's a matter of someone who knows Morse Code watching the movie and seeing him spell out something in response and then a matter of someone who knows Swedish (or the meaning of the Swedish word that's spelled out) to say what the meaning is. I can confirm that, if Oskar is indeed signaling "puss", he is tapping the Swedish word for "kiss" into the box. All we need now is someone to watch the movie and see what Oskar is tapping into the box. It doesn't need a "source" since it can be deduced by viewing the movie.—Iggy Koopa (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. I am 100% sure that the tapped sequence matches that of PUSS (.--. ..- ... ...), but if the timing was slightly different, it could be interpreted as WIASS (.-- .. .- ... ...), for example. Also, on IMDB there was a debate about whether "kiss" is an accurate translation of "puss". If I recall correctly, some people argued that the Swedish equivalent of "kiss" is "kyss", while "puss" is equivalent to "peck" or "small kiss".

That's why it would be really nice with a source. All that being said, I still wouldn't have a problem with it being added, but apparently some editors did, possibly for the reasons above.Decltype (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Both puss and kyss are correctly translated as "kiss" since the distinction made in Swedish between the two terms doesn't exist in English.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Curious - could someone try to clarify that distinction to us exclusively English speakers? Always good to learn where one's native language differs or falls short 92.29.237.135 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Oscar" is the NATO phonetic code for the letter "O" (---). Are there any hidden Morse codes in the film relating to names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWernham (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

American Cinematographer

American Cinematographer has an article called An Unusual Romance about the film's cinematography. Could be of use for the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS B-class assessment

Per a request at WP:FILMS assessment department, the article has been reviewed to determine if it meets the B-class criteria. After making some minor fixes and changes, I believe that the article now meets the B-class criteria. I would recommend updating the citations to include more details (author, date, access date, publisher, etc.), perhaps by using the citation templates (WP:CITET). Continue to expand on the article if possible, and consider heading on to GA at some point. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes and suggestions! decltype (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Book sequel

In know this is the wrong page to put this but I haven't had any responses on the book page so I'll put it here: "I've heard that Linquist is writing an epilogue to LTROI. Is this true?" And if it is true can anyone tell me where it was mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.93.225 (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

He's talked about possibly doing it, yes. Check out the Ain't It Cool interview linked on the book page. I think it's in there.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DVD subtitles fiasco in America worth mentioning?

Icons of Fright did a rather lengthy article on the quality of subtitles in the American release here. Is it worth mentioning for the article?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's worse than I thought.... Anyway, my suggestion is to be bold :). The only caveat is whether Icons of Fright really is a reliable source?

I dunno. I've actually done a stint of subtitling, and I always loathe to see crappy work like that. Are regional distributor glitches really that big of a deal, though? Do we have anything similar in GA or FA film articles?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read the "Icons of Fright" link and they substantiate their claims with stills from the movie with the different translations so it looks fairly reliable to me plus it's interesting information. I think it should be in the article. Spiros Bousbouras (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see now that is has been included. Good.Spiros Bousbouras (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that this is still bugging me. We're talking about a subtitle snafu in one of many DVD-releases. These things happen all the time, and they're not really that interesting. They can be very upsetting to the individual consumer, but this has very little to do with the film. I think the relevance borders the trivial. Can someone give example of something of equally low notability present in an approved article about a film?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Logical errors in this section

A commotion muffled by the water takes place above the surface. Feet skim across the waterline and Jimmy's severed head drops into the other end of the pool, then his arm is severed as well. Someone pulls the hypoxic Oskar out of the water and he smiles broadly as he looks upon Eli's blood-spattered face. A cut from Eli's face shows three dismembered bodies around the pool and a reluctant bully sobbing to one side, but Oskar and Eli are not there. This section contains a few logical errors or improbabilities. First, the story goes that there are three "bad guys" who enter the swimming pool, but this section claims that after eli's attack there are three dead bodies of baddies, and a fourth one who is still alive. Then the section claims you see "feet drag though the water then jimmy's severed head drops in the water", which is illogical. Its improbable that its Jimmy's head that drops into the pool, its much more probable the head belongs to the body that was dragged through the pool, and if i'm not mistaken you can see that the body that is laying near where the feet were dragged to is decapitated. It is also illogical that the severed arm does not drop the instant it is severed from Jimmy's body. I's my interpretation that the head and "dragged feet" belong to either Conny, or Martin (the fourth bully). Someone should carefully review the scene and pay attention to the shoes of each bully to see which one was dragged though the pool, and decapitated. Mahjongg (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reference to three bullies entering in the plot summary. Probably it's been changed. It was still correct, though, since Martin entered before the others. I am certain that it's Jimmy's head that lands in the water, even though it's a little illogical, since he is still holding Oskar. As for the feet being dragged, I think it's Martin, (blue sneakers) but I would have to recheck to be sure. decltype (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

okay, I tend to agree, after carefully reviewing the scene. The body of the boy that was dragged through the pool is definitely Martin, with his light blue training suit, he seems to still have a head, although its very hard to see, but there isn't a lot of blood around him. Jimmy is a different story, he is laying in a large pool of blood around his upper body, Its hard to tell if he still has his head, but is possible its not there, Conny is laying beside him, with little blood and he still has his head. You are right the paragraph does not say in so many words that three bullies entered the swimming pool. Mahjongg (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Eli's gender solved

I saw the film this evening at Ebertfest, and the director was present. During the Q&A he was asked point blank about Eli's gender and he replied that while in the book Eli is a boy, in the film Eli is a girl. Likewise in the film Hakkan is not a pedophile, but the director intended him to be a foreshadowing of Oskar's future. NorthernMagnolia (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds really interesting. Unfortunately, the director is notorious for contradicting himself. About the only thing you can be sure of, is that he won't give the same answer twice. 3DES / decltype (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a bias POV. I'd think the director knows the film. NorthernMagnolia (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course he does. It wasn't my intention to imply otherwise, I was merely being facetious. I apologize if you got offended, I should have worded myself differently. Tomas has done an enormous amount of interviews, and appeared at a lot of film festivals, and the things you cite here contradicts what he has said previously. He has even made a point that he tries to find something new and interesting to say every time.
All that being said, I do find this genuinely interesting, and would really like to hear more about it. But since this is basically unsourced / primary source material, it's not of any consequence to the article. If it is published in a reliable secondary source, it may be a different matter. Still, I really think that the way this is currently presented in the article is fairly neutral, and represents consensus. 3DES / decltype (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when are things like these entirely up to directors that haven't even written their own scripts? One would think that Ajvide Lindqvist, being author of both novel and screenplay, would have equal authority on this issue. It is after all an issue that is based on a very unambiguous backstory, but which is treated semi-ambigously in the film. That an after-the-fact comment from the director would suddenly once and for all decide the gender of a character that isn't specified in the film is just bizarre. To me it smacks of canon creation à la Star Wars or Pokémon.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That the comment isn't even sourced doesn't exactly help. decltype (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter: Any screenwriter will tell you that the story is out of your hands once the film goes into production in most if not all cases. This is well known. From the article: Ajvide Lindqvist. "It doesn't really matter that [Alfredson] didn't want to do it the way I wanted it in every respect. He could obviously never do that. The film is his creative process." However, I must agree that without a source this shouldn't be considered for the article though the director has already made similar claims. The Hakan issue was actually addressed very explicity in the US DVD extra feature, and yes it was very much the film's intention to suggest he is Oskar's possible future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.158.233 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about who has the biggest influence on production, but about how obviously ambiguous the film is on the matter. We've already been through the details a few times, and the film says absolutely nothing defintive. If anything, it has plenty of fact leaning towards the original male gender of the backstory from the novel. Trying to solve the issue by interpreting the director's contradictory comments has very little value. A much better solution is to just use neutral or non-committing gender references when referring to the plot. Any other (notable) comments from the director, writer or any other significant person can be included in the production info, and will allow readers to decide for themselves.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed "androgynous" from the plot summary; hope I don't offend anyone by making this edit after such an elaborate discussion but she doesn't *appear* androgynous to the viewer at the beginning of the movie at all - she just appears to be a 12 year old girl. While I've read the issues with the plot of the book, the only things hinting at an ambiguous gender are her "I'm not a girl"-statements, as well as the "scare shot", but both come much later in the movie. I think the gender issue is very well repesented in the Screenplay-section. 92.225.139.204 (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. The only ambiguity of Eli's gender are the "scare shot" that you refer to, and the "I'm not a girl" statements. The latter may not even suggest an ambiguous gender - maybe she meant "I'm a vampire," which would imply that she is the gender of the form she takes. I think, though, that Eli is a girl, because she is much more human at the end of the film than at the beginning, because Eli has experienced true love at that point, and it has been said by many philosophers, including Plato, that Love is perhaps the most human emotion in the world. If it were used in this context, then the film would be something of a "beauty and the beast" story, with the gender roles switched. Grieferhate (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is all baseless wishful thinking, if you would have read the book this film is based on you would know for a fact that eli is a castrated boy. The film initially closely followed this as a given too, and its only because some key scenes were cut that its less obvious for an uninitiated viewer that eli is a boy. In no way this removes the fact that he is a boy, even if people are uncomfortable with it. If you look carefully the "scare shot" actually is a "scar shot", showing the scar of the castration. Mahjongg (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Maybe it is completely wishful thinking. However, what one has to remember is that a film is different to a book and most films are based on books. They do not have to be exactly the same. For instance, the book "My Sister's Keeper" and its film adaptation have got significantly changed endings that completely change the plot. The scar shot could indeed indicate that Eli is castrated, but it may also conceivably indicate a botched trans-gender operation. I guess it depends whether you classify a boy who's had a gender change operation as a girl or a boy with disfigured genitalia. I personally go for the former. If you go for the latter, that makes sense as well. I think that we should all just leave the ambiguous gender at that, and assume that Eli is either a girl or a castrated boy. In the end, what difference does it make? Grieferhate (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it doesn't really matter if Eli is a boy or a girl (at least not to me). Yes, I know that a movie versions of a book do not always follow the book, but in this case it was filmed following the book. As the article itself shows the movie was shot with eli being a boy, just like as in the book, not as a "reinterpretation" where Eli is just a girl (who happens to be a Vampire mind you). It was only after the film was shot, during the cutting that parts relevant to this topic were removed. Who knows why, perhaps it was a coincidence, perhaps it was to make the film more "suitable for a wider audience". In any case, enough of the original intentions of the director are left (especially for a reader of the book) to still recognize Eli as a boy, or at the very least to be puzzled about her real gender. For example the castration scar, the "I am not a girl", and the scene "if I wasn't a girl would you still like me" remarks and not to forget the scene with the following dialog "(Oskar) Do you want to be my girlfriend?.....(Eli) Oskar...I am not a Girl". Plus fact of the dubbing of the original female actors voice for one with a more masculine character,. All these elements, wouldn't be present in the film if it was planned from the beginning to turn Eli into a girl in the film, it would have sufficed to leave them all out if that was the case. And then there are the remarks made by the film makers about the subject. Saying the "scar may also conceivably indicate a botched trans-gender operation" is just grasping for straws, it does not make sense in the context in this movie, It explains nothing. Why on earth would a boy vampire have gotten a "botched trans-gender operation"? Its simply not logical. Also, in principle a vampire cannot be damaged this way, (according to vampire lore), he would just "heal back". In fact why he has this scar is explained in the book too, its because the castration (by a sadistic vampire) was done just before Eli was turned into a vampire. Enough said. Mahjongg (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Eli is indeed a castrated boy, but that (s)he now uses the identity of a girl because (s)he now thinks of him/herself as a girl. Is this the case? If so, it would certainly explain the whole relationship with Oskar business86.174.1.55 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

• You can see a close up of the operation's scars 1.5 hours into the film, shortly after the treshold demonstration. He is a castrated boy for sure.--Nemissimo (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Eli as an old woman

This edit[3] introduced the idea that Eli is shown with the "face of an old woman" in the film, which is entirely new to me. It looked doubtful enough to be removed. Just to make sure, though, has anyone else heard of this?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's actually correct. Susanne Ruben played "older Eli". It is particularly visible when Eli licks up the blood from the floor, and also in the "bli mig lite"-scene. decltype (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw it as well.--Nemissimo (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Romantic vampire horror film"

The description of what kind of film it is in the lead has been changed around quite a few times now. Both horror and romantic seems to me to be slightly debatable, while vampire is not. Smetanahue argued in the latest revert that vampire films is not a genre, but that's clearly not a valid argument. What bothers me is if this film is really best described as being in the same category as When Harry Met Sally and The Ring rather than the more specific vampire genre.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not starting a discussion before my edit. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Lead section says that "major genre(s)" should be included in the first sentence, and I stand by my statement that vampire film is not a genre. A genre is determined by narrative conventions, and the presence of a certain folkloric being does not automaticly imply any such conventions. The name of the wikipedia article vampire film could also be disputed since the article rather is about "vampires in film," but that discussion doesn't belong here.

Let the Right One In clearly qualifies for the definition of both Romance film ("the central plot ... revolves around the romantic involvement of the story's protagonists") and horror film ("strive to elicit the emotions of fear, horror and terror from viewers"). That it isn't a romantic comedy doesn't take away the elements of romance, and that it isn't a horror thriller or mystery film doesn't terminate the horror elements. In fact it is closer to classic horror films such as The Golem: How He Came into the World or The Phantom Carriage, and it borders gothic fiction which is usually credited as important in the development of the horror genre. Furthermore it is generally referred to as a romantic horror film in media - some examples: [4] [5] [6]

The lead section also mentions the vampirism in the summary of the premise ("a vampire child in Blackeberg"), so having it as the genre as well would in my opinion be superfluous. Anyway I appreciate you commitment to the subject and numerous contributions to the article, and once again I apologize for not starting this discussion first. Smetanahue (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've no strong preference. While I do think that "vampire" is a genre, and implies certain conventions (not necessarily narrative), I also believe the film could be said (and indeed has been said) to fit the horror and romance genres. decltype (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The romance genre really needs to be removed, and I'm going to do it. The relationship between the two protagonists is a friendship, it has nothing to do with physical attraction. For one thing, Oskar is too young to be interested in girls and Eli is an asexual creature with no gender. The director has also gone on record saying that he has made a vampire film that is absolutely not about sex, as Mark Kermode repeated in his review. Why can't someone make a movie about two people who have a close relationship without everyone assuming it's a love story? Ash Loomis (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see why love / romance in any way implies sexuality. The film has been described as a romance / love story in numerous reviews found in WP:RS, and also by the director himself.

• For me, it's the love story. This is a love story with horror elements woven into it.
• (...) We concentrated more on the love story for the film.
• I cut the novel to only one track: the love story. What makes it unusual is that it is a love story with no sex (...)
• (...) at a very early stage we decided to cut out the fillet – to concentrate on the love story between the boy and the vampire.

I feel your reversion goes against consensus, but rather than reverting, I'll just note my disagreement with your assessment here, in case anyone else wants to chime in. decltype (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The article body also refers to it as a love story on several occations. I will change it back to "romantic horror". Smetanahue (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The summary on the back of the DVD case describes Eli and Oskar's relationship as romantic, so I guess that about sums it up. 75.157.78.82 (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My original Swedish Blu-ray copy says "Drama, Thriller". (Drakkr (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC))

The Foreign Oscar circus, now clarified

The Swedish Film Institute has published an article (in Swedish) where they interview everybody involved and explain everything regarding this film's eligibility/ineligibility for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. I think this should be incorporated somewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where. Release, awards, reception? Smetanahue (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, very interesting read. <redacted>. Seriously though, I'm leaning towards "Awards", since there's already a mention of it in "Release" (The one you made earlier today), and it's really been more of an "Awards controversy". Just my opinion. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added an attempt under Awards. The prose can probably be improved, and I'm not completely sure about the structure. It's almost as long as the rest of the prose in the section. (I don't think Tomas Alfredson's ex-wife had anything to do with it though ;) ) Smetanahue (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think so either, but Alfredson has acknowledged that the situation is a bit problematic: "Jo, det är lite obekvämt ... Under tiden som Daniel jobbade som dramachef på SVT försökte jag inte ens få jobb där. Jag ville inte bli misstänkt för någon slags nepotism."^[7]. Anyway, nice addition. Regards, decltype (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The new film version is not a "remake"

For a film to be a "remake" it must be based on a previous film. In fact, the Wikipedia page for Remake explains this quite well. It says: 'The term "remake" is generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier movie as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source.' The English language film Let Me In is a new film based on the novel Let the Right One In, not on the film Let the Right One In. The text of the description even explicitly says this. It is common for people to inaccurately talk of a film as a "remake" when it actually is not (even Tomas Alfredson does it in a quotation in the article), but for encyclopedic accuracy the article should resist using the term "remake" to describe the new film version of the book. 99.192.50.55 (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly skeptical to this take on the issue. It seems to me that the reason Reeves is making a new film is because of this film, not just because of the book. And if even Alfredsson calls it a remake, there seems to be reason to define it as one. Focusing on technicalities and that "everyone got it wrong but us" seems like a slightly dubious position to take.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Peter. As long as the majority of sources refer to Let Me In as a remake, which you seem to agree is the case, then we should do the same. decltype (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia at its worst. God forbid that Wikipedia should get a fact right when most people get it wring! Good encyclopedias correct errors, no matter how commonly stated they are. The changes I made did not do anything to obscure information in the article - it just eliminated the use of the term "remake", which is not a loss unless Wikipedia wants to endorse this erroneous use of the term. But if you really think that the term "remake" applies here, then you better go to the Wikipedia page for remake and change the definition there. Because as it is, it is directly contradicting this "popular" view of the term. 142.68.41.98 (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (aka 99.192.50.55)

A further point on whether the new film is a remake. Perhaps the word of the author of the book on which both films are based should count for something? In an interview (already extensively used as a source on this article[8]) Lindqvist says, "[Reeves] will make a new film based on the book, and not remake the Swedish film" and "It’s really a re-adaptation." 142.68.41.98 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but an article should represent reliably published viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. When looking at the abundance of sources that refer to the film as a remake, Lindqvist's comment represents a minority view that should not be given undue weight. decltype (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL!!! So when the author of the book the film is based on says its not a remake, the fact that the term is very commonly misused should be preferred simply because it's more common? Welcome to Wikiality! Ok. I surrender. Have an inaccurate article if you must. It's just not worth the effort. 142.68.41.98 (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon, note that Ajvide Lindqvist actually mentions the film as a remake in that interview, but also tries to explain that it's trying to merely translate Alfredsson's film without adding anything new. This is a quite relevant remark to contrast it with more orthodox remakes like Nightwatch which in many ways is just an English-language translation of the Danish Nattevagten. I believe the current wording of the article summarizes this very fact in a balanced and informative way.

I have to admit that "remake" isn't the best term for what Reeves is doing. Would it be a problem to use the term "adaptation" or maybe even "re-adaptation" instead? It seems to me to be slightly better wording for an encyclopedia and would avoid upsetting those who, quite rightfully, think that it's something that should be reserved for more clear-cut remakes.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this phenomenon addressed with regard to the slew of UK to US series clones that have graced our shores of late? The Office, Life on Mars, American Idol, The Weakest Link, ad infinitum? I'm going to sleep, otherwise I'd do the research, but this is not a new problem. 'Remake' seems dismissive, but 'adaption' naively ignores previous adaptions that are most certainly part of the inspiration of the new work. - JeffJonez (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons with US versions of UK TV-series based on original ideas don't seem entirely relevant here if you ask me.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, the people behind this film have been flip-flopping on the matter back and forth. One day it's a remake, the next day it's a "reimagining", then it's another readaptation of the book. But the film is largely and objectively recognized by most as a remake of the Swedish film. Reeves has never flatout said that he's using the book as the source material--he's just gushed about how much it touched him. But whenever someone asks him about specifics, he always changes the subject or gives a vague answer. It's not enough to objectively say that this is not a remake, especially given all the contradictory information from people involved with the production.

Furthermore, the book's original author has no involvement at all with this film besides being, well, the original author.

Calling it an adaptation of the novel is just a way to save face from the negative stigma that "remake" has. The book's a very different entity than the film, and Reeves is clearly basing his film off the latter. Reeves wasn't hired to readapt the book--he was hired to remake the film. The Swedish book was published in America long before the film came out, but no one gave two craps about doing an American adaptation until the Swedish film arrived.

And while I won't use this in the article as it's not a "reliable source", the leaked script review clearly shows that Reeves followed the template of the original film without adding anything significant from the novel that was omitted from the original film--I.E. the return of Hakan as a zombie, the character of Tommy, Oskar setting fire to the class room, etc.--129.63.184.5 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Reeves has never flatout said that he's using the book as the source material." Not true. The Let Me In (film) page has a quote and source of him saying one the two things he said when asked to make the film was to not do a remake (the other was to not change the ages of the kids). "Calling it an adaptation of the novel is just a way to save face from the negative stigma that 'remake' has." Without a source, that is just your opinion. It could well be that they say this because it is not a remake. "The film is largely and objectively recognized by most as a remake of the Swedish film." No. The the word "remake" is frequently carelessly used whenever there is a film and then a subsequent film of the same story. People were calling it a remake before anyone knew anything about its source material. See Sleuth (2007 film) for a good example of how "remake" gets used inaccurately. 99.192.76.219 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When has he specifically stated that the film that he is making is an adaptation of the book and not a remake of the film? But what we do have is the producer of the film and the head of Hammer explicitly referring to this as a remake of the Swedish film numerous times, that they wanted to make the film because the original one was subtitled, etc, etc So, even if Reeves DID say that it's not a remake, the fact that others involved with the production have at the very least shows that this isn't an open-and-shut case. To state as an objective fact that the original film isn't a factor at all and that this is purely another adaptation of the novel is naive at best and misleading at worst.--129.63.184.58 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"When has he specifically stated that the film that he is making is an adaptation of the book and not a remake of the film?" As I wrote last time, it is quoted and cited on the Let Me In (film) page. If you can find a quote from Reeves saying that he based his film on the Swedish one, then there is a case for that view. For another example of the sloppy use of "remake" see this article on "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" [9]. The article keeps saying "remake" even though they quote a clear refutation of that claim. 99.192.76.219 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please post the exact quote and citation here so I can know what you are referring to. All I've seen from Reeves is that he was touched personally by both the film and the novel, not that the novel was the main source material for his version.--129.63.184.58 (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just done some research and he hasn't said anything concrete on the matter if it's a remake or adaptation at all. He says "The film touched me, and so did the book" but NOT "Therefore, I am adapting the book and not the film." What he does say that he is trying to be "reverent" to the original film's story here, so at the very least the original film is a big factor to this film.--129.63.184.58 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The passage quoted on the Let Me In (film) page comes from this: [10]. He says, "When I got approached with the remake, I said two things. First was that we couldn't change the age of the characters. That would ruin the essence of the story and change everything completely.... The second thing I said was that we shouldn't remake it. I read the book too and was completely taken with it...." That seems a pretty clear statement that he was not interested in remaking the first film, but making a new film of the book. 99.192.90.89 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: also read this very recent interview - [11]. He says, again, that he said they should not remake the Swedish film and it was after he read the book that he thought it would be worth doing a second film version. He also talks at length about the first chapter of the book and its influence on his idea for the setting of the American film. He wrote and directed it, so he should know what he based his film on. He also describes how he didn't want his DP or any of the actors to see the Swedish film because he did not want them to copy that film. 99.192.55.146 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not enough to objectively state that this is purely an adaptation of the book, especially with the amount of contradictory information from Reeves himself (again: "I want to stay reverent to the original film", etc) and others involved in the production (Oakes repeatedly referring to this as a remake of the Swedish film). What you are doing is synthesis, using quotes from Reeves to make a conclusion that he did not explicitly state. True, he has read the book and that influenced his decision take on the remake because it reminded him of his childhood. I get that. That does not mean that he's not using the film as the basis for his.

And fwiw, not wanting his actors to be familiar with the original film doesn't mean anything. Lots of remake directors do that. Rob Zombie, for example, asked Malcom McDowell not to see Halloween before doing the remake because he didn't want McDowell's performance to be influenced by Donald Pleasance's.--129.63.70.132 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) I know of nowhere where Reeves describes anything about making the film as remaking any element of the Swedish film. I have given you passages in two interviews where he explicitly says he did not want to remake the Swedish film and discusses specific elements in the book (and names the chapter it's from) he wanted to portray. That is pretty clear evidence it is not a remake. (2) Once can be "reverent" to the Swedish film without the newer film being a remake of it. To be "reverent" is not to say that it was a source. It would be irreverent to make a shitty film when a good one already exists, which seems to be what he is saying here. (3) Oakes did not write the film and he did not direct the film. If he says things that differ from what the writer/director say about the way the writer/director made the film, it cannot be taken as more reliable. (4) You have said, "the people behind this film have been flip-flopping on the matter back and forth. One day it's a remake, the next day it's a "reimagining", then it's another readaptation of the book." If you really believe this, then you should not be re-editing the article to definitively declare that it is a remake. 99.192.58.50 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I know of nowhere where Reeves describes anything about making the film as remaking any element of the Swedish film. I have given you passages in two interviews where he explicitly says he did not want to remake the Swedish film and discusses specific elements in the book (and names the chapter it's from) he wanted to portray. That is pretty clear evidence it is not a remake.

But he has yet to say, "This is not a remake, this is an adaptation of the book." He has given numerous interviews to sell his film and has never clarified this, even when the interviewer refers to it as a remake in front of him. So again, what you are doing falls under synthesis. You are combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

And while this can't be considered "reliable", having the read leaked script review that was floating around the net, it's blatantly obvious that he was using the original film as his starting point. There's nothing significant from the book in his script that wasn't in Alfredson's film. In one significant case where the original film differed from the book, he took the film's interpretation and not the book's! This is probably why he's been mute on the whole affair, because if he did say it wasn't a remake, people would call bullshit on him when the film came out.--129.63.70.132 (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"But he has yet to say, 'This is not a remake, this is an adaptation of the book.' " He has also yet to say 'This is not an adaptation of the book, this is a remake.' But he has said, as I quoted already, that when he was asked to make the film he said two things: "First was that we couldn't change the age of the characters," which they did not do. "The second thing I said was that we shouldn't remake it." He then does not go on to say "but I changed my mind" or "but I did a remake anyway", he goes on to say how much he liked the book. Ajvide Lindqvist, who wrote both the book and the screenplay for the first film and who Reeves says he talked to before starting work on his film has said it is "a new film based on the book, and not remake the Swedish film". That's not synthesis, but two sources saying the same thing. 142.68.51.132 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

He has also yet to say 'This is not an adaptation of the book, this is a remake.

Considering the sheer amount of sources that all refer to this as to this as a remake, including people involved in the production such as the producer, the burden of proof is for you to find a statement from Reeves explicitly referring to this film as a new adaptation of the book. But he hasn't, despite giving numerous interviews on the subject. If it was vice versa, with a number of sources and people involved in making the film all saying that it's not a remake of the film, the burden of proof would be on me to suggest otherwise.

Ajvide Lindqvist, who wrote both the book and the screenplay for the first film and who Reeves says he talked to before starting work on his film has said it is "a new film based on the book, and not remake the Swedish film".

JAL has no involvement whatsoever on this film (besides doing the original, of course). Furthermore, the original director of the first film, Tomas Alfredson, considers this film to be a remake of his film and not another adaptation of the book. So if JAL's statements are being taken as objective fact, then so must Tomas's.--129.63.70.132 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Considering the sheer amount of sources that all refer to this as to this as a remake...." I've already addressed the common sloppy usage of the word "remake" in the media. "JAL has no involvement whatsoever on this film...." Not true. It is his work (whether one thinks it is the novel of his screenplay) that is being adapted. We also know from Reeves himself that Reeves has discussed the work with him. JAL has specifically noted the difference between a remake and a new adaptation and said this is a new adaptation. It would be odd for him to make that claim if it were not true. He should know, as it is his work being adapted (either way). Alfredson has no reported involvement in the new film. I am sure he was sincere in thinking his film was being remade, especially given how the new film was reported, but that does not mean he is right. But once again, at best your position is that it is unclear whether it is a remake or not as there are conflicting statements, which means you should not edit the pages to declare that it is, in fact, a remake. 142.68.51.132 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I can suggest a good compromise. The page(s) can be edited to neither credit Let Me In as a remake of LTROI or as a new adaptation of the novel. Perhaps not saying either way about what the source is might be best for now. The discussion at Let Me In (film)#Production does, however, seem to do a good job of expressing the different things people involved in the various LTROI/LMI projects have said. A statement that the new film has been commonly described as a remake in press reports could be added as well. Does that sound reasonable? 142.68.51.132 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. Sorry for arguing.--129.63.70.132 (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Disagreements can be productive, honest disagreement is always legitimate, and we did keep it civil, so it's all good. If you want to take a shot at doing some edits now, be my guest. I'm going to leave doing any further editing until tomorrow. 142.68.51.132 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Let Me In isn't the only English version. Let the Right One in is available in English. 75.157.78.82 (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

{{whom}}, {{when}}

The tags were addressed in the past as they were deemed to be unjustified.[12][13] I do not think the sentence needs to be rewritten to the active voice when the action itself is important, but the one performing it is of little of no consequence. decltype (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oakes interview comments

In the interview of Simon Oakes he says, "I think in the book, it's very disturbing, the implications, and I think they should be left I the book, which is astonishing.... But I don't think it actually lends anything to the movie. In fact, it detracts from it." What he says is an explanation for why he thinks it is a good thing to leave out the issue of Eli/Abby's gender. He does not say that these were the reasons they were left out. If it was the reason it would have been simple to say "we left it out because it's very disturbing...." Expressing approval for a decision and saying why the decision was made are different things.99.192.90.89 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

References to Eli's gender

I was just wondering - even though there are two whole discussions over Eli's gender and it is determined to be deliberately ambiguous, perhaps we could at least refer to Eli by the "she" term occasionally, as this is the form that she takes throughout the entire film, and all implications that she is a castrated boy are not expanded upon in the final cut. Not being able to use the words "he" and "she" makes new additions and alterations to the article difficult to write. So while I am prepared to accept that Eli's gender is ambiguous, could we at least use the "she" term for her so that the article is easier to write. Grieferhate (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a mistake. First, I don't see that there are any significant alterations to the article needed to make this a problem. yes, for time to time people decide they want to make changes to the plot summary, but those are more personal preferences than important corrections. Second, even if it is more difficult to word things without gendered pronouns using "her" is not accurate. Accuracy should trump simplicity. Third, you say that Eli takes a female form throughout the film. I disagree. Yes, the role is played by a female actor, but the same was true for Linda Hunt when she played a man in The Year of Living Dangerously. Given that Eli also says "I'm not a girl", it is hard to make a case that Eli is self-presenting as a girl. The article is fine as is without a specific gender reference. 99.192.63.127 (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I wrote this moments after discovering that a previous edit of mine had inadvertantly referred to Eli as "her." I felt that now would be a good time to suggest we refer to Eli as a "she" because that feels to be the best option, and make it easier to avoid such mistakes. I see your point, but this is not a discussion about Eli's gender - those have already panned two long ones above. This is simply a suggestion that we are a bit more liberal with the gender references, to make the article easier to alter. Grieferhate (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not giving in to attempts to change references to eli throughout the plot to "her" is the last holdout of the attempt to be truthful to the movie, by at the very least be a bit ambiguous about his gender. Its not just the re-dubbing of the voice by a more male sounding one, and a singular "i'm not a girl", that "could be given a different meaning", its even after removing the implicit scenes much more than that. For example the castration scar, the "I am not a girl", and the scene "if I wasn't a girl would you still like me" remarks and not to forget the scene with the following dialog "(Oskar) Do you want to be my girlfriend?.....(Eli) Oskar...I am not a Girl". It would be a pity if political correctness would go so far that all traces of one of the strongest points of the story would be censored away. Is it really that difficult to keep the ambiguity about eli's gender? I cannot imagine that to be the case. Mahjongg (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that it may not seem to be that difficult to keep the amiguity of Eli's gender, but one should also bear in mind the people who may have seen only the movie, and not read the book - they are people who are not aware of Eli's being a boy, and so can only take what the movie has to offer. They may simply assume Hakan is a foreshadowing of Oskar in the future, and may simply be confused as to some of Eli's statements. I remember watching the movie, coming on to read it and discovering all this hassle over the gender. It has made my efforts to alter the article quite arduous, and I have made several mistakes in the past. I am quite prepared to allow the ambiguity of Eli's gender to remain, but please bear what I've said in mind before anyone lambastes anyone for accidentally making a gender reference to Eli, as I was afraid would happen to me. Grieferhate (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Grieferhate, you keep referring to the difficulty of making future edits to the article. But the plot summary is fine as it is right now. No new edits are needed. People have had a lot more than a year to put a good summary together, and that work is now done. So the issue of making edits easier by allowing the (inaccurate) use of female pronouns is moot. If someone really wants to adjust the plot summary further, it is not because there is a need to do so, so I have no problem with it being awkward to make changes, especially if those changes would make the article less accurate. 99.192.51.92 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Is Eli's real gender really that important storywise? Not really. The scarred crotch shot leaves it up for grabs, as the three-or-so debates on the subject here make obvious. Girl or castrated boy, Oskar likes Eli, so that's reall all that matters in the article. 75.157.78.82 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions of Eli

I was just wandering - is it possible to describe Eli as being "doe-eyed?" The reason why is because the size of Eli's eyes play a large part in the film, especially when determining whether or not Eli is hungry. As Eli's eyes are always at least a little wide, I imagine that the term, "doe-eyed" would be an apt description for them. Grieferhate (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

From www.dictionary.com: "doe-eyed - 1. Having wide-open, innocent-appearing eyes. 2. Credulous and unsophisticated; naive." Eli is certainly not innocent, credulous, unsophisticated, or naive. Besides, a description like "doe-eyed" is highly interpretive, and thus would count as original research. The page is fine as it is. 99.192.76.22 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

99.192... has it right. The problem with the "doe-eyed" description is that it is interpretive - a plot summary based on the primary source (the film itself) should merely be descriptive. decltype (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Predatory may be a better discriptive word for Eli. If you call Eli doe-eyed, you mas as well mention that his/her eyes glow in the dark. Leave the page as-is. 75.157.78.82 (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Having seen the Swedish film but not read the book, my interpretation of the film is that it shows, through Oskar's eyes, the seduction of Oskar by the vampire into starting a career as a replacement for Hakan, the vampire's dead human protector. As noted above, the vampire is a predator. We can be sure that in due course the partially innocent (a 12 year old who collects knives and engages in blood rituals cannot be said to be fully innocent) Oskar will be further corrupted into taking on the role of Haken and end up the same way. The film ends with the boy in thrall to the vampire and still unaware of his fate. Although the film is based on the clichés of teen vampire kitsch, its subtext goes beyond them. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Radical transsexuals running WP??

It would be hard to find anything more droningly stupid than the endless “discussion” on Eli’s (Abby) sex (call me old fashioned but I still think that “gender” belongs to Latin nouns.) It’s almost as if the usual gibes that America has become some kind of place where they “don’t know the boys from the girls” are really true. Well, I come from a place where they do. And get this, Eli was a BOY. End of story. (Actually it is the beginning of one.) He had a penis and balls until the age of 12. Then he was castrated by some demon and turned into a vampire. End of story. I’m not some kind of Stalinist reviser hack that can take DOCUMENTED material and then just put my own slant on it, regardless of the facts. And I don’t WANT to do that anyway, because I am quite happy to note that the book not only STATES that Eli was a boy at the outset, but describes EXACTLY what happened to him. The Swedish film might soft pedal that, and the American one quite typically is happy to pour on the gore but is too gutless to portray the vampire’s sexuality correctly.

As for being “gender neutral” because the films steer away from that theme, some of those pushing this line are just being hypocritical. The plot details given for the WP’s page for the NOVEL similarly deleted any mention of Eli’s back-story, even though it is dealt with in the novel as unambiguously as can be. Yet the same gibberish is given there as here, (and by some of the same editors). Eli is gender-neutral, or it doesn’t matter if he is or isn’t, or it’s somehow ambiguous even though the details are SPELT out, or it’s PC to simply deny the details in the story to pursue some kind of wacky androgynous dream, or whatever. I have just amended the text there. It’s plain ridiculous. There are movie goers everywhere who are interested in what Eli (and later Abby) meant when she said “I’m not a girl”. The truth is quite simple. She is not. That is something she MUST tell a potential lover because it’s not very good to have him find out in the bedroom (as happened in “The Crying Game”). It is absurd that page after page can be spent here maundering on about “gender neutrality” by people who claim that “it doesn’t mean anything to me whether Eli (or Abby) is male or female”.

Well, heads up for this one. IT DOES FOR ME. And it would for just about any normal person in the world. I thought Americans were known for being plain talkers and red-blooded men and women, not bicycle seat sniffers like the French. It’s a wonderful thing: calling a spade a bloody shovel! I do it all the time, and no one misunderstands what I have to say. Never have and never will. Try it out. And while you are doing that, have a look at this typed up interview with the director of the Swedish movie, who quite candidly states that Eli is a “castrated boy”.here Then get back on here and write another 5000 words about how that means something other than what it says. In the meantime, those of us who aren’t members of Transsexuals for a Hermaphrodite Society” will just tune out. Hell, I’m as liberal as all get-out, but if this kind of pansy crap is the future, I’m buying out. Myles325a (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

seems the editors here simply cannot cope with the fact that Eli is a castrated boy, I wondered and was annoyed by that too. What was the bloody limit was that even the article about the book was censored this way. I even took up the book again because I began to wonder if I had read more into it that was there, but no. I totally agree with you that this is a ridiculous situation, you simply cannot understand the complete story unless you understand that Eli is a castrated boy, its a key part of the story. I disagree that its "Radical transsexuals" running WP, its rather radical puritans LOL. Mahjongg (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Op myles325a back live. Thanks, Mahjonng. I have included a sentence in the WP article for the novel to make it clear Eli was originally a boy. I am not familiar enough with the film to make any changes there, but it should be noted that just because the movie soft pedals these themes does not mean they need to be entirely expunged from any account of the movie's plot. When a movie is made of a book like, say, War and Peace, it may require many scenes and sub plots to be excised or greatly diminished. However, an account of such a movie could legitimately flesh in such details from the original source, providing there is an explanation to the effect that changes have been made in the course of filming that novel. This is exactly the sort of exegisis we would expect from a decent encyclopedia. People are looking up a subject because there is some confusion in their minds about what is going on. That is why it is so blatantly ridiculous that information concerning Eli's back story were excised from the plot accounts. This is PRECISELY the reason why many people are looking the book or the film up in WP. Anyone who has seen the film is aware of plot basics. What they are interested in is stuff there that is harder to understand. And some of these editors left in all the no-brainer material and expunged the very stuff people were trying to determine! Myles325a (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Misleading" edits with JAL

Someone should read the interview. It's clear that he was just going off what he was told. I.E. "I hear this..." Lindqvist at one point even guesses that the remake would include the return of Zombie Hakan from the novel, which obviously never happened. The previous article words it to make it sound like Lindqvist was making an objective statement and that he knew what the film was going to entail when he was just making an educated guess.

Also, the film credits the original screenplay to the Swedish film, so this "Don't call it a remake!" hysteria is really starting to get silly.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

First, perhaps you should read the interview. The exact statement made by JAL is: "He will make a new film based on the book, and not remake the Swedish film." That's what the passage in the article said. You changed the passage to read "Reeves told him he would 'make a new film based on the book, and not remake the Swedish film.'" The extra words are not an accurate reflection of what he said.

Second, the need to use the word "remake" is the only silly thing here. The article makes it clear that the Swedish film and the novel were both sources, so there is no need to use the word "remake". The word "remake" is generally thought by people to mean that a previous film is the only source for a subsequent film, and so is better avoided. In fact, the only people who have insisted on using the word "remake" in the article rather than just saying "based on the film and book" are people who would like the article to give no credit to the novel as a source or who would like the article to take the POV that Let Me In is a second-rate rip-off. This is further proof that the word "remake" is taken to mean something other than "based, at least in part, on a prior film".

You are free to think that Reeves is a talentless hack who has desecrated a great film by stealing it scene-for-scene, but that is not what Wikipedia articles are for. That is what a personal blog is for.142.68.49.224 (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

New comment: In your last edit summary you wrote, "You're making it sound like he's making an objective statement as opposed to 'I heard...'" Read the interview. He does make an objective statement. He says, "He will make a new film based on the book, and not remake the Swedish film." He does not say "I heard..." or "Reeves told me..."142.68.49.224 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's clear he's guessing:

The return of Håkan, Virginia drinking her own blood... Virginia’s vampire transformation on the whole and what that leads up to... there are so many other things to take from the book and you can make this entirely different sort of movie, you can make this much more violent horror movie type of film.

It's clear he doesn't know what the film is going to be, he's offering his opinion (at the time) of what it could be. In hindsight, his guessing is wrong. Reeves didn't include the return of Hakan for example. If you were to include the full quote in its entirety, it would be clear to the reader how much Lindqvist actually knew and how much was him guessing. But by picking out certain aspects, you are giving the reader the impression that Lindqvist is making an objective statement of what he knows the film will be.

He also goes on about how Reeves sent him an e-mail and etceteras, so it's obvious that a lot of what he is saying is based on what Reeves told him.

As for it being a remake...that's what it is. If your film is based on another film, then it's a remake. It would only not be a remake if Reeves completely started over. But he didn't.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You can quote all the passages you want from other parts of the interview and sythesize an interpretation, but that is not acceptable practice for Wikipedia editing. The exact sentence that was quoted in the article is stated as an objective fact, and so should not be reported as just a guess. That is to introduce a subjective interpretation to his words.

As for "remake", your statement seems to assume that there are only two possibilities: (1) "...your film is based on another film..." or (2) "...Reeves completely started over." But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility. A film can be based partly on a prior film and partly on the original novel. That is what the evidence shows the film Let Me In was, so the article should accurately report that. Using the word "remake" obscures this fact, so should be left out.142.68.49.224 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Gallery - filming locations - Let the right one in

Hi All! Especially for all fans of the Swedish horror movie "Let the Right One In" we prepared this one of its kind (and first in the world) gallery containing pictures from filming locations in Stockholm's suburbs:

http://photo.slufirski.com/all-galleries/by-theme/famous-filming-locations/let-the-right-one-in

Enjoy! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voytek001 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Let Me In-material

Why are there four paragraphs about the making of Let Me In in this article? As far as I can tell, none of the information is really relevant to how this film was developed. To a minor extent, it's relevant to how this film is perceived, but just about all the information is about the production of a completely different film. Is it even normal to have a separate section for remakes/re-adaptations/new versions?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The section was cut down to just one paragraph that is at least semi-related to this film.

Peter ^Isotalo 03:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Location

The article states that the movie takes place in Blackeberg, which is a part of Bromma, but the movie takes place in Vällingby, a part of Hässelby-Vällingby. Bromma and Hässelby-Vällingby are both parts of Stockholm and they are right next to each other. But the movie clearly plays in Vällingby, which can be scene and heard in various places throughout the movie (e.g. look at the news article Oskar reads about 15min into the movie. It reads "Mordet i Vällingby" and is about the murder shown about 5min before). --2A02:8108:940:7B4:C831:EDF7:D16C:6BDC (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Filming locations are mainly in Luleå in north of Sweden, with a few shots from Blackeberg. The location of the underpass where Jocke is killed is situated in Råcksta, one subway stop from Blackeberg. The story as a whole takes place in Blackeberg, however Vällingby is only a short walk away. What regards the newspaper, Oskar just reads about the Vällingby murder in it.(Drakkr (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC))

American version

Corrected the first sentence to "After the release of Let the Right One In took place..., because the Tribeca Festival (where Hammer acquired the rights) was almost three months after the release of the original film (it even won an award at the Tribeca Festival). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakkr (talk • contribs) 14:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Let the Right One In (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090308073716/http://www.ifmagazine.com:80/feature.asp?article=3112 to http://www.ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=3112
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090331150945/http://stockholm.city.se:80/noje/2008/10/23/_Vi_var_flera_som_ville_filma_Ajvides_bok_/ to http://stockholm.city.se/noje/2008/10/23/_Vi_var_flera_som_ville_filma_Ajvides_bok_/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080830003322/http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk:80/films/let-the-right-one-in/ to http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk/films/let-the-right-one-in/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081020194926/http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk:80/news/view/2040/terror-incognita to http://www.edfilmfest.org.uk/news/view/2040/terror-incognita
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304022251/http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com:80/pages/awards/2008awards to http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/pages/awards/2008awards

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Let the Right One In (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309064204/http://www.filmfestival.org:80/filmfestival/info/en/press/nyheter?itemId=163444 to http://www.filmfestival.org/filmfestival/info/en/press/nyheter?itemId=163444
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081025091651/http://www.expressen.se:80/noje/recensioner/film/1.1341593/blodigt-for-redan-bitna to http://www.expressen.se/noje/recensioner/film/1.1341593/blodigt-for-redan-bitna
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080928061124/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/news/e3i7d59466b16c8ffd1bba385d64ff782c7?imw=Y to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i7d59466b16c8ffd1bba385d64ff782c7?imw=Y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Let the Right One In (film). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090502013311/http://www.sfi.se:80/en-gb/Press/Press-archive/2008-Guldbagge-Award-Winners/ to http://www.sfi.se/en-gb/Press/Press-archive/2008-Guldbagge-Award-Winners/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025091651/http://www.expressen.se/noje/recensioner/film/1.1341593/blodigt-for-redan-bitna to http://www.expressen.se/noje/recensioner/film/1.1341593/blodigt-for-redan-bitna
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090502013311/http://www.sfi.se:80/en-gb/Press/Press-archive/2008-Guldbagge-Award-Winners/ to http://www.sfi.se/en-gb/Press/Press-archive/2008-Guldbagge-Award-Winners/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65olbBrXC to http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090216214508/http://thebsfc.org:80/CurrWin.html to http://www.thebsfc.org/CurrWin.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5u4dHIvuj to http://www.bfca.org/ccawards/2008.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090926185134/http://torontoafterdark.com:80/2008/award-winners-2008/ to http://torontoafterdark.com/2008/award-winners-2008/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Let the Right One In (film). 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/20101201235025/http://totalscifionline.com/interviews/3356-tomas-alfredson-new-wave-vampires to http://totalscifionline.com/interviews/3356-tomas-alfredson-new-wave-vampires
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sfi.se/sv/svensk-film/Filmdatabasen/?itemid=63205&type=MOVIE&iv=Company
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827022413/http://sfi.se/PageFiles/8169/L%C3%85TDENR%C3%84TTE_INTERVJU.pdf to http://sfi.se/PageFiles/8169/L%C3%85TDENR%C3%84TTE_INTERVJU.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090522002421/http://www.forteantimes.com/reviews/films/1628/let_the_right_one_in.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/reviews/films/1628/let_the_right_one_in.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708193402/http://www.filmnyheterna.se/Arkiverade-nyheter/Nyheter/2009/Guldbaggar-for-otackt-ljud-i-Lat-den-ratte-komma-in to http://www.filmnyheterna.se/Arkiverade-nyheter/Nyheter/2009/Guldbaggar-for-otackt-ljud-i-Lat-den-ratte-komma-in/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319011410/http://www.filmink.com.au/review/let-the-right-one-in-film/ to http://www.filmink.com.au/review/let-the-right-one-in-film/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720081636/http://www.melies.org/filer/Press_meliesdOr_eng.pdf to http://www.melies.org/filer/Press_meliesdOr_eng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514085012/http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/lat_den_ratte_komma_in/news/1737665/rotten_tomatoes_critical_consensus_award_2008_presented to http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/lat_den_ratte_komma_in/news/1737665/rotten_tomatoes_critical_consensus_award_2008_presented
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008225403/http://www.filmnyheterna.se/en/Arkiverade-nyheter/Nyheter/2009/Darforvar-Lat-den-ratte-inte-valbar/ to http://www.filmnyheterna.se/en/Arkiverade-nyheter/Nyheter/2009/Darforvar-Lat-den-ratte-inte-valbar/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418040453/http://austinfilmcritics.org/2008.html to http://www.austinfilmcritics.org/2008.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bfca.org/ccawards/2008.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://2008.calgaryfilm.com/default.asp?mode=newsstory&fullstory=120
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://sdfcs.org/?p=11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508061713/http://www.melies.org/dorwinners.asp?year=2008 to http://www.melies.org/dorwinners.asp?year=2008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213011948/http://www.bifa.org.uk/news/winners-announced-12th-british-independent-film-awards-sunday-6-december-brewery-chiswell-stree to http://www.bifa.org.uk/news/winners-announced-12th-british-independent-film-awards-sunday-6-december-brewery-chiswell-stree
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226204811/http://noticias.terra.es/2010/genteycultura/0215/actualidad/slumdog-millionaire-goya-a-la-mejor-pelicula-europea.aspx to http://noticias.terra.es/2010/genteycultura/0215/actualidad/slumdog-millionaire-goya-a-la-mejor-pelicula-europea.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Let the Right One In (film). 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/20090215011654/http://magasinetfilter.se/magasin/filter-4-08/4-08-film.aspx to http://www.magasinetfilter.se/magasin/filter-4-08/4-08-film.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717074852/http://torontofilmcritics.com/blog/2008/12/17/tfca-awards-2008/ to http://torontofilmcritics.com/blog/2008/12/17/tfca-awards-2008/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Let the Right One In (film). 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/20110927183609/http://www.bt.se/noje/tomas-alfredson-om-nya-filmen-br-skildringen-ar-oerhort-karv%28958320%29.gm to http://www.bt.se/noje/tomas-alfredson-om-nya-filmen-br-skildringen-ar-oerhort-karv%28958320%29.gm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719092829/http://www.dalademokraten.se/Templates/pages/news.aspx?id=78208&epslanguage=sv to http://www.dalademokraten.se/Templates/pages/news.aspx?id=78208&epslanguage=sv
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228220312/http://www.ifc.com/film/film-news/2008/10/tomas-alfredson-on-let-the-rig.php to http://www.ifc.com/film/film-news/2008/10/tomas-alfredson-on-let-the-rig.php
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150227232838/http://web.archive.org/web/20090307150325/http%3A//blt.se/noje_o_kultur/hemlighetsfull-gessle-har-jobbat-i-det-tysta%28896595%29.gm to http://blt.se/noje_o_kultur/hemlighetsfull-gessle-har-jobbat-i-det-tysta%28896595%29.gm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303043905/http://www.tribecafilm.com/home/18455719.html to http://www.tribecafilm.com/home/18455719.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090423205534/http://lettherightonein.co.uk/ to http://lettherightonein.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621073928/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=57 to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=57
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501065748/http://sffcc.org/2008awards.html to http://sffcc.org/2008awards.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021130617/http://torontoafterdark.com/2008/program/feature-films/let-the-right-one-in-opening-gala-screening/ to http://torontoafterdark.com/2008/program/feature-films/let-the-right-one-in-opening-gala-screening/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)