Talk:Vampyr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this page is poo! it must be made better. there must be a discussion of the groundbreaking aspects of cinematography, use of sound, and innovative special effects of this excellent and important historical film. 192.211.25.9 12:46, 01:00, 9 October 2005 UTC
- Some fellow called Fordmadoxfraud has recently employed some butcher-style editing to this article, apparently insisting that Vampyr is above even the slightest negative observation in relation to its reception by modern audiences. Well, as critic Richard Scheib puts it: "Vampyr was not a success when it was released – indeed it resulted in the collapse of director Carl Dreyer’s production company, causing him to have a nervous breakdown and not return to filmmaking for an entire decade.[1]" The film was in fact considered so boring it was reduced in length and "the long periods of silence replaced by dubbed explanation". That was in 1932. Now, does Fordmadoxfraud seriously suggest that modern audiences raised on MTV have become less impatient?! I personally love this film, as do most critics, but I've seen enough people walk out or literally fall asleep during screenings of Vampyr to know that critics and film society audiences do not represent the entire human species. --Minutae 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm saying negative information needs proper citation, particularly when it's something like "People think this movie is boring." Who thinks that? Some non-notable internet critic doesn't count. Also, please take some time to read through Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. Ford MF 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are both misquoting me and ignoring that I did in fact immediately respond to the request for citation. Richard Scheib, quoted above, may not meet with your elitist standards, but he is never the less quite correct. And Casper Tybjerg, cited in the article, is certainly not "some non-notable internet critic", but one of the world's leading authorities on Dreyer. There's a current tendency for critics to only mention the strengths of Dreyer's films, but a fair, complete appraisal of any work of art must discuss both its positive and negative aspects. I've tried to address this in an intelligent fashion. I accept your initial edit as a "good faith" move, but not the second time where you might have paused for thought instead of just impatiently erasing a huge chunk of informative text, some of which you happen to disagree with. --Minutae 09:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm saying negative information needs proper citation, particularly when it's something like "People think this movie is boring." Who thinks that? Some non-notable internet critic doesn't count. Also, please take some time to read through Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. Ford MF 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Categories: WikiProject Films core articles | Start-Class French cinema articles | Low-importance French cinema articles | French cinema task force articles | Start-Class film articles | Low-importance film articles | WikiProject Horror articles | Start-Class horror articles | Start-Class Denmark articles | Low-importance Denmark articles

