Talk:Valkyrie (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Images to use

I propose the removal of File:Valkyriecast.jpg because I do not think it has strong enough rationale to stick around as the article will eventually have a Good Article nomination. I think that it really has been a nice image to support the article as it grows, but I think now that we have quite a bit of content, we can find alternative images to include instead. We could use a quote box in the "Cast" section instead. Another possibility is the shot of von Stauffenberg saluting with his stump, which could go into the "Visual effects" section. Any other ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I second Stauffenberg saluting without his hand when the DVD comes out. Alientraveller (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I edited the article to remove the cast image and to move the Cruise/Stauffenberg comparison image in its place. I moved up the Bendlerblock image to neighbor the last paragraph of the "Development" subsection. My thinking is that for the "Filming" subsection, we could add a wide shot that reflects the intense colors. We could probably get one from a trailer if we wanted to. We can also go ahead with the stump-salute image for "Visual effects". Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Journalists signing 'gag' contracts?

Should the article mention journalists signing contracts not to talk about Scientology, liking the film, and similar?

• NTV (Russia): http://news.ntv.ru/149042/ : All journalists had to sign a contract not to ask Tom Cruise about Scientology at the Moscow premiere press conference. NTV reporter says it reminds him of the era which the movie is about.
• LeiWeb (Italy): [1] Interviewers had to sign a contract saying they had watched Valkyrie and enjoyed it, and had to read a letter saying Scientology never was banned in Germany.

--129.241.217.35 (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Film Comment

Strauss, Bob (2009). "Mission impossible". Film Comment. 45 (1): 22–25. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• "McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander dug into the facts and worked up a screenplay that they brought to Singer, who put in eight more months of his own research in Germany. This ranged from examining surprisingly good records detailing every step of the conspiracy ('We benefited from the fact that the Gestapo were so very thorough in their investigation,' Singer notes), to quiet meetings with Stauffenberg's more cooperative descendants to lunch with Hitler's last surviving bodyguard... This enabled Singer to individualize assorted characters via their actions, inactions, and various expressed or implied conflicts, rather than having them announce their beliefs and functions as in so many other historical movies. Which was a sound strategy for a picture that, by its nature, needed to be top-heavy with expositional dialogue to begin with."
• "Re-creations, at Babelsberg and elsewhere, of War Ministry offices, Hitler's East Prussian "Wolf's Lair," the Berghof, and the like were made to the exact specifications of the original buildings, and sometimes decorated with actual Nazi furnishings that collectors surreptitiously loaned to the production. All the tanks, airplanes, staff cars, and even teletype machines that Singer and his longtime cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel lovingly fetishize on screen are real antiques; stuff that was blown up was specially rigged to prevent actual damage." (some redundant but could consolidate some existing citations)
• "The film's 1.85 aspect ratio was a carefully considered choice. 'I knew I'd be dealing a lot more with vertical spaces than horizontal,' Singer says. 'The Third Reich was quite vertical in its design, particularly the fascist architecture of the time.'"
• "One overarching thing was that in a lot of Second World War films that have been made recently, they desaturate the image. It seems to be a strange way of making the film as black-and-white as possible without actually having to make a black-and-white film," the director reckons. 'It's an attempt to approximate the way people think they remember the Second World War, from footage on The History Channel or whatever... My goal was very, very specific from studying the color photography from the war era. There was a lot of Third Reich color photography, color motion picture film, some of which has faded so the colors aren't specific, so you have to mix that research with looking at actual swatches of material and at real uniforms, some of which we used in the picture. The goal for me was to make it look like it would have for someone at that time. So we had to try to not be afraid of the reds, to not be afraid of the grays and blacks and tans and even lavenders - the at times strange palette of colors that existed, particularly among the higher-ranking officers and their uniforms.'"

Above are some quotes that could be used in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nova tv citation

Moved from my talk page to here, where it should be:

Can you provide a citation for the Nova information so it can be verified by other readers? Saying that it is from the program does not help; it needs to be more specific. In addition, the Stauffenberg son's quote is already mentioned halfway through the first paragraph of "Germans' response to production". —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed the son's remark was already in the article. About the info from Nova, well, it was on tv, so that makes it difficult to give a source. Your reservations are understandable, but does this mean that we can't use info from tv news?
Anyway, that Stauffenberg wasn't the initiator of the assassination plan is an 'established fact', at least I heard that in a documentary on Belgian tv, and the Wikipedia article on Stauffenberg confirms this - the brain behind it was Olbricht. The Operation Walküre article is alas way too short, only mentioning that Stauffenberg was pivotal because he could get close to Hitler. Funny - I now read that Operation Walküre was approved by Hitler himself. :) I already wondered how they could set up such a large-scale operation in secrecy.
So the only remaining question here is whether the film suggests otherwise - I haven't watched it yet, largely because of the historical inaccuracy.
Btw, a rather nasty twist to this whole story and the notion that Stauffenberg was a hero is that it seems like he really wanted to assassinate Hitler for the benefit of Germany, nazism and all. He had already fought for the expansion of Germany and considered Hitler a threat to keeping that with his too big ambitions. At least, that's what I understood from the documentary, that he wanted to establish a new government to consolidate Germany's conquests, even though they didn't explicitly say that. But the Stauffenberg article confirms part of that.
I'm sorry, I'm too busy with other things at the moment to delve too deep into this. Maybe at a later time, if others haven't found better sources yet. DirkvdM (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that TV programs can be cited, but verifiability is obviously a bigger challenge for such media. Static reliable sources are obviously easier to verify. For working on the historical accuracy of the article, I think that the best approach is to use commentary that is explicitly comparing and contrasting film and history. Picking up a history book to analyze the film may be too much synthesis, which is why the citations in that section so far are based on what's been published in the past couple of months. Any way to get some specific details about the program? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"In fact, Stauffenberg served the Nazi regime loyally almost to the very end"

In his Pajamas Media review, John Rosenthal (echoing Olivier Guez's Le Monde article) speaks of some of the things one would never know from watching the movie, including one scene that he calls the "most outrageously bogus sequence in the entire film."

'In fact, Stauffenberg served the Nazi regime loyally almost to the very end and continued to share its most fundamental ideas and “values” even when he finally turned against it. What Stauffenberg and his fellow plotters “saw” was not evil. What they saw … was that Germany was going to lose the war and that the reckoning would be severe when it did. The need to prevent this impending “catastrophe” for the “fatherland” is the common thread running through all their known statements. … Above all, Stauffenberg was a great German chauvinist whose convictions about the natural superiority of the German “race” or Volk were arguably even more pronounced than those of Hitler himself. This can be seen most clearly in the “oath” that Stauffenberg and his fellow plotters composed for themselves just weeks before the assassination attempt.'

"Valkyrie’s Revisionism by John Rosenthal" added to the external links section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.159.200.214 (talk • contribs) 17:43, February 7, 2009

That bit about the oath is also said in the BBC review "Newsnight Review: 23 January 2009" which I linked above. Pajamas Media is a blog network, so I'm not sure how "reliable source" this is. What if we instead of this Pajamas Media review can mention the same point from other sources like BBC and Le Monde?

I don't want to keep it in the external links. --JonIsaksen (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with excluding the external link. Analysis of his background can be found from better sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rommel Absence From the Film

Is there any reference were those who did the film explain why Rommel is totally absent from the film ? In other films and series about the conspiracy to kill Hitler, Rommel appears usually.82.154.85.213 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would he appear? Rommel is insignificant to both the actual plot as well as the resistance movement, as there is no hard evidence that he ever directly supported any organized resistance. And the number of plot actors has already been trimmed down more than enough, no reason to insert Rommel just because of his known name. Vandervahn (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Known Facts About Stauffenberg

I find rather offensive the attempt to discredit Stauffenberg by claiming incongruous and vicious lies about his religious and political beliefs. First, he was a catholic and a monarchist, never was a nazi or a Nazi Party member, wasn´t an anti-semite and regretted the Krystal Nacht, in 1938. These facts are more then proved and I regret sincerely that some sionist fanatics try to discredit Stauffenberg by claiming pure lies.85.242.237.229 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Rosenthal link, it was removed from the article. Discussions about the article and its links are not removed. It is the article that is representative of the topic, not the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Above all, Stauffenberg was a great German chauvinist whose convictions about the natural superiority of the German “race” or Volk were arguably even more pronounced than those of Hitler himself." He was a catholic and never joined the Nazi Party. Oskar Schindler was a Nazi Party member, for example, even if he never believed in a superior race or was anti-semite. I think this quote proves what is fanatical sionism.85.240.21.75 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

General in Tunisia

Can any one knows who was the German general who appears to be killed in the early air bombing ? the same one talkin to Stauffenberg before the Bombing --Blain Toddi (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of Swastika

Did anyone note any critical reference on the use of the Swastikas in the movie? I have the impression that the art director - someone named Ott, I believe - went a bit overboard with using the Swastika as an artistic element in the film. I recall four scenes:
Etched in pattern in the glass door of the mess hall
On the floor of the swimming pool
Backlit blue on the stage's footlights in the ballroom scene (I was an extra in that, by the way)
Colorful, multifaceted, stained glass window in Goebel's headquarters (filmed in what became the US Army HQ in Berlin after the war)
Historically, the Nazis kept to what nowadays is called a corporate design on the Swastika, which found its base in Hitler's own "Mein Kampf" (see Swastika): Generally black on white or white on some other background colors (i.e. military vehicles), besides the natural color of the material bearing it such as stone or metal. Don't think any other colors were authorized or used, at least haven't seen any pictures or documentation.
In addition, the mass of flags flying in front of the one Nazi building (actually the Berlin fair ground halls) was historically inaccurate: such pageantry was reserved for official functions. However, the filmmakers may have thought: Hey, so many flagpoles - might as well make use of them.
Which brings me back to my point: What was the filmmakers' intent on the display of such flamboyancy? --Alandeus (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for a reference to cover this? I don't know of any offhand; perhaps a featurette on the DVD. We can't discuss a topic like this in general, though (per talk page guidelines) unless it's to improve the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the "Production notes" on the official website, Singer and Sigel envisioned a "moody beauty and intensity of classic film". An "impressionistic style" of earlier production was held back. They intended to be "respectful of reality" and also to "look accurate". However, despite the historical and technical accuracy of the film, the "glamorous" use of the swastika was noted by some: The critic on The Shiznit notes, "there's the unavoidable feel of parody – one officer takes a swim in a pool daubed with a giant swastika." Elisabeth, the critic from Killsmedead finds that "The best thing about the (swastika) pool tiles was that they were completely unnecessary," The critic on The Hussy assumes that "Cinematographer …Sigel riffs throughout on Nazi kitsch, giving us imposing shots of Swastika-adorned swimming pools." In Metroactive (and others) Richard von Busack critiques the "Las Vegas–style overreaching of the Berlin architecture." On the other hand, Roger Friedman seems to miss swastikas: "Suddenly, we have German officers in World War II who are not wearing arm bands. Their swastikas are now small tokens on chests of medals… Bryan Singer is so sparing with his Nazi flags, swastikas, etc that you’d think the Nazis hardly existed." Friedman's views or expertise are known as controversial though. Alandeus (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Valkyrie (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Good job. These objections shouldn't take long to address...

Intro:

• The lead section really does need to identify that this is an American film, as per Wikipedia:FILMPLOT#Lead_section. I know you reverted this change earlier, but I really don't think it's confusing to describe it as an "American 2008 historical thriller film". I think that explains the context just fine, but if you really think it's confusing, I guess you could try American-made or write at the end "filmed by the American studio United Artists" or something like that. Personally, I'm just in favor of simply using the word "American", but either way, we need some mention of it.

Development:

• Can you add a bit of context to the first reference to Nathan Alexander? Who is he? A producer? A writer?
• "The creative team acknowledged the controversy over..." I would prefer the word "ambiguity" to "controversy."

Filming:

• "They demanded $11 million in compensation, rejecting a settlement offered by the studio." Was this matter ever resolved? If not, I'd add something like "{{As of|2009}}, the matter has not been resolved." or something like that.

Marketing:

• "The trailer was also described as 'dour and ... like it was selling a talky stage play with a cast of old British actors'. This has to be attributed with a name, or at the very least a publication or group, even though it is also cited with a source.
• "The team element was based on market research of focus groups who indicated that they liked Cruise as 'a character leading a group of people toward solving a problem'". This, too, needs a similar attribution.

Theatrical run:

• "Despite being above early estimates in its opening weekend, Valkyrie continues to be a financial risk for United Artists, with its performance intended to be closely monitored in ensuing weeks." Can this be updated at this point?
• "Some German theater owners expect the film to have "long legs" for its theatrical run, based on interest from school groups and other curious moviegoers." This, too, seems a bit dated.c
• "The premiere of the film has renewed the topic of the German Resistance among the German populace." This seems POV a bit. Can you attribute it to anybody or any group? Like "Historians say..." or "Reviewers say..." or whatever?

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I modified the first paragraph of the lead section to mention the American studio. (Not sure if it still reads well... let me know!) I attributed the "dour" trailer description to Variety, and I clarified that the "team element" was drawn from the studio's focus groups. For the latter, let me know if this attribution is acceptable... I was not really sure what you were looking for. I also commented out the antiquated sentences since I don't believe there will be any real follow-up. Also attributed BBC News about reporting the renewal of interest in the German Resistance. I suppose my mentality with attribution is that if reported information is pretty opinionated (like reviews) or contestable (in relation to controversies), I will clearly identify the person. Otherwise, I don't feel that unchallenged statements need that level of specification. Before I forget, the remaining issue is the lawsuit. I do not know what the outcome was, so I hate to have a sentence that is ignorant about the outcome. A solution is to remove it entirely... what do you think? I can poke around to find some answers before we do anything like that. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Leave it as is for now, and try to fix it whenever you can. I wouldn't hold up the GAN for something like that, although it probably would be a problem for a FA nomination.

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research

An editor is adding original research to the "Historical accuracy" section. He/she is using books published in 1994 and 2003, which predate the film's release date. This published material is being synthesized with the film to create novel conclusions to include in the article. "I read the book and I watched the film, and I noticed this difference, therefore I report it!" At present, the "Historical accuracy" section uses sources that explicitly compare and contrast film and history. Editors' jobs are to report what has been reported elsewhere, not to create their own conclusions. Information in the 1994 and 2003 books are better reported in the historical articles. If a reader wants to read about a real-life figure vs. how he was portrayed onscreen, he can read the relevant articles and draw conclusions, whether they are right or not, on his own. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

User Erik (talk · contribs · email) reverted my edition in the phrase While von Stauffenberg listens to Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" in the film, in reality the colonel hated Wagner.

As it is, seems that Stauffenberg put the music to listen because he liked it, when, in fact, it was his children who put it. It would not be a historical inaccuracy, anyway, and I think user Erik should discuss it before delete what he thinks is "unnecessary", as he is not the owner of the article. --Tonyjeff (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What you added was personal commentary, which qualifies as original research. I was preserving the content to what the citation actually covered. We don't get to insert our own opinions and clarifications into Wikipedia articles; we let the citations speak for themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack.Net

• John Ottman Flies With Valkyrie —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cruise's accent

The line "In addition, Cruise's inability to adequately portray a German accent led to an inauthenticity that could only be considered embarrassing at best." Is not only pretty loaded and as such contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines, it's also pretty dumb. Having Stauffenberg talk English with a german accent wouldn't make it anymore authentic than having him talk without one. Those guys originally spoke german you know? I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.125.249 (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian release date

I commented out the following unsourced statement in the "Home media" section: "It was released in Australia on May 27." Is there a source that we can use for this? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Adolf Hitler left-handed?!

"Also, when Hitler is seen signing the amendments to Valkyrie, he uses his right hand - Hitler was left handed." There is no citation here. Furthermore, I can't find any article in the Internet that confirms this statement.--Sepp18 (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That was removed yesterday, only a few minutes after it was inserted. Steve ^T • C 11:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Annual review

This article was promoted as a Good Article a year ago this month. I'd like to conduct an annual review of the changes made in this time span. The changes are reflected in this diff. My thoughts below:

• First, per WP:NBSP, the non-breaking spaces for months and days should be restored since a break between these elements would be confusing on a new line in the "References" section.
• "Bernard Hill as a General working with Stauffenberg in Tunisia, and Ian McNeice as the composite "Pompous General" who attempts to disrupt the coup headquarters. Though the general is not named in the film, McQuarrie and Alexander said the character was based on General Joachim von Kortzfleisch, who tried to disrupt the coup in the same fashion." This passage was added in "Cast". While I don't mind the names and credits, the based-on information should be cited.
• Restore link to Michael Brand (politician). Not sure why his name was de-linked; cover-up? :)
• "Valkyrie opened at #2 on the DVD sales chart, selling 844,000 units translating to revenue of $14,816,833. According to the latest figures, 1,533,200 units have been sold, bringing in $25,790,070 in revenue." Could be somewhat rewritten ("units" sounds out of place), and the citation for this passage should be templated for consistency.

What do other editors think? Erik (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Source

This is a fine article, thank you. Researching sources for Scientology in Germany, I came across this source and thought I'd drop it on this page, on the off-chance that the odd detail in it might be of use to you. Cheers, --JN466 16:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for the link. Erik (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This may also be of use. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Historic inaccuracies

This page supposedly sums up a lot of inaccuracies: http://www.welt.de/kultur/article3072517/Operation-Walkuere-ist-schlecht-erfunden.html Could anyone translate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.10.247 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Bit after the fact the fact but the German articles simply notes this film is so far from historical reality that there are simply too many faults to note. In fact the film is about as close to what actually happened as The Bridge at Remagen is to the real capture of the Ludendorf Bridge!!! The actual section on the "Historical accuracy" in the article is frankly a joke and doesn't address even the most basic of problems of the film, e.g. like simple chronology (Staffaunberg was not a Colonel until 1 July '44) and, as the German article states, turns some very real brave men (e.g. Olbricht) in to wimps and procrastinators. Furthermore the workings of the German military seems to be have been lost on Singer and his production team. For instance, the Wolf's Lair, just one of Hitler's many bunkers, was not guarded by the Wehrmacht, it was guarded by the Reichssicherheitsdienst, a hardcore of the hardcore of the SS. Hitler was surrounded night and day by the SS not the Wehrmacht. For historical accuracy Downfall is a much more accurate and concise film for tone, setting and military history.109.155.72.55 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

Regarding this edit, we have guidelines at WP:FILMHIST. In particular, the guidelines say, "Analysis should be introduced by reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science." The sources used are books that do not reference the film at all. We cannot add original research by watching the film and reading history books and coming up with novel conclusions to add to Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The magazine article from the World War II history journal deals specifically with this issue - mainly that the film changed history to show the first attempt at the Wolf's Lair instead of at the Eagle's Nest - the second source (written before the film) provides background as to the real history. This issue with the film has also been discussed in at least three other recent articles which could pretty easily be located. I don't have a problem with taking this out - but if we do the entire section needs to go, not just the part I added. Right now, this removal appears to be taking out but one segment, which is clearly cited and sourced, for unknown reasons. I'm not on the site enough to police this, so I'm sure if it keeps getting removed over and over I won't be able to catch it, but this is a major historical accuracy point which needs to be mentioned about the film. -OberRanks (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that the first reference comes from this? Okay, that is fine to include then. It had sounded like a history book. :) If you could add the other commentary about the film from that magazine, that would be great. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The magazine is the primary source for the issue about the filmmaker moving the first assassination location. I also added an interview reference, but my knowledge on how to cite those is very weak so it could probably use a clean-up to meet MOS on interview cites. Thanks and have a great day. -OberRanks (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Memorial Quote

The quote at the end of the movie does not contain the word "impassioned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.61.15 (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Execution

I have a real problem with the statement "when filmmakers attempted to reconstruct the scene based on eyewitness testimony and photographs, they discovered that the shots that killed von Haeften would also have killed von Stauffenberg, who was actually shot shortly after". The filmmakers could have found no such thing, unless they were using real bullets and found that both actors were killed!122.59.167.152 (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)