Talk:Let Me In (film)/Archive 1

Synopsis
I noticed that the synopsis to the film has been reinstated. This was something I wrote back in July for drafting purposes. However, a DYK reviewer pointed out that it was not cited, and rightfully so. Because it is an upcoming film, any mention of plot details beyond what is mentioned in RSs basically constitutes original research. In other words, it needs to be cited, or removed. decltype (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the reason for its removal and didn't know that plot summaries need to be cited until a film's release. Aren't there plenty of websites that have already posted the synopsis? For An Angel (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-interpretative plot summaries for novels and films are exempt from our usual citation requirements, because they can be verified by using the work itself as a primary source. Of course, this is not the case with an upcoming film. I have looked thoroughly for RSs discussing the actual plot of the remake. The most recent PR only mentions Owen discovering an "unusual path to adulthood" or something in that vein. Although we can expect the plot to stay relatively faithful to the original, any attempt to "mix-and-match" elements from the original with what we know about the remake is synthesis. The plot summary, as written, is a result of me doing just that in my userspace. decltype (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The same name
It seems like there is a minor edit war over whether the lede should read "the novel by the same name" or "the novel Let the Right One In". The reason for the confusion is because one of the English-language editions of the novel was published under the title Let Me In. Please discuss the issue here rather than simply reverting the article to the version you prefer. decltype (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let the Right One In seems most appropriate since it is the title of the book's article. The title change could be explained in the production section, I believe the article on the Swedish film uses a good interview with the writer that could be used as reference here as well. Smetanahue (talk) 14:44, 20 December 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) 07:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded at Talk:Let the Right One In (film). decltype (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Plot section and NPOV
"In adapting the film it was ruined via adjustments made" doesn't seem very neutral. It may well be true, but even after the film has been released and reviewed that still wouldn't be a good way to phrase it. Orourkek (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That was just vandalism. I restored the section as it was before. 99.192.84.169 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Early reviews"
Sandor, first, I could only find one early review, so the use of the plural seems misleading. It's also odd that you claim a source for the claim that it is a remake but did not include any source in your edit. Second, the one review is reported second hand via a blog, which is hardly authoritatively reliable. Third, the presentation of the review even makes clear that this was a test screening of an incomplete version of the film which could be quite different from the final version. Fourth, the claim that it is a remake is ultimately one here presented by this one (non-notable) reviewer. He might think it is a remake, but that does not make it one. Fifth, he reports many ways the new film is different from the older one, including how it begins and differences in characters presented (including noting the inclusion of one character who was in the book but not in the first film. Sixth, I wonder if the reviewer even read the book because he talks about the Rubik's cube scene as if that were not in the book, which it is. There still is not compelling evidence to say that Reeves did not, at least in part, base his film directly on the book (as he has claimed he did and the novel's author also claimed), so the article should still say that the new film is based on both the novel and the earlier film, not just the film. 99.192.68.175 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So when the bulk of the reviews do come out, and from reliable sources (I.E. Ebert), and they all refer to it as a remake, will that be enough? Because Reeves can say whatever he wants to sell his film, but that does not necessarily make it objective fact. If Reeves is copying scenes exclusive to the film and not the book (the presentation of the pool scene, Eli vomiting up the candy) and not adding anything of note from the book in his adaptation (there was a cop in the book but it's not the same cop in the film), then in the end it qualifies more as a remake than a readaptation of the book.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First, it is possible for the bulk of reviews to be wrong about whether the film is a remake or not. This is because the word "remake" is pretty commonly misused. Second, you seem to think that the question is an either/or one here, or at least which it is "more" based on. The current article says that the new film is based on both sources, but does not say which one (if either) it is more based on. The change you made recently was to remove the claim that it was based on the novel at all, which would be wrong even if it were more based on the first film than the novel. Third, you can dismiss what Reeves says as just marketing talk, but that is just an assumption of motive. Maybe he is saying he used the novel because he really did.


 * Having said all that, I would say that in October, after the film is actually finished and released, if there is good evidence that there is nothing significant in the newer film that was in the novel but not in the first film, and if there is something significant in the newer film that was in the older film but not in the novel, then it would make sense to claim that the new film is solely based on the older film and not based on both the film and the book. But until then, I see no good reason to deny that the new film is based at least in part directly on the original novel. 99.192.59.200 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not for us to decide whether the majority of sources are wrong. If the most widely held view is that the film is a remake, the article should be written accordingly. It is true that the view that the film is partly based on the novel should not be entirely dismissed as long as some sources say so (e.g. Reeves). However, this viewpoint can not be given as much prominence as the majority view, which seems to be that the film is a remake.  (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that we should judge whether the majority of sources are wrong. What I am questioning is whether currently there are many "sources" at all for the claim that the film is a remake, given that the film has not yet been released. One might question how many real "sources" for information about whether it is a remake or not there really are. A producer of the film has called it a remake. The director has said it is not. The author of the novel and of the screenplay to the first film (who has talked directly to Reeves about the new film) has also said it is not. These are the only people I know of who are insiders to the American film who have commented on whether or not it is a remake. That seems to be a good enough mix to support the claim, at least for now, that the film is based on both sources.


 * But on the point about what the "majority" of sources say, I would suggest that even if a majority of sources claimed that Humphrey Bogart said, "Play it again, Sam" in Casablanca that it would be wrong for the Wikipedia article on that film to report that he said it. The film itself, even though it is only one source, serves as a trumping source even if 99% of all other sources say otherwise. So, as I said in my last comment, if there is something significant in the American film that does come from the novel but was not in the Swedish film, then the film itself would stand as clear proof that the American film was based, at least in part, on the original novel. This would be true even if every reviewer called the film a "remake". But this is a point to be resolved after the film is actually completed and released. 99.192.59.200 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see where you are coming from, but on Wikipedia, verifiability trumps truth. We must base our articles on what the sources say, regardless of whether it is true. The film is a primary source, and can only be used for simple facts that can be directly inferred from watching it. Any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims must be backed up by reliable secondary sources. Whether the film incorporates certain material from the novel would fall under one or more of those categories.  (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So you mean if sometime in the future someone makes a film called Hearts in Atlantis and bases it on just the second part (also called "Hearts in Atlantis") of Stephen King's book, but the majority of news reports of this film call it a "remake" of the 2001 film (which was based on just the first part of the book - "Low Men in Yellow Coats"), then the Wikipedia page should call it a "remake"? Even if the filmmaker and Stephen King himself point out that this is an error and that there is no overlap of story at all? Something sounds very wrong about that. But even if that is the Wikipedia way, it is not an issue for this article at least until the film is actually finished and released. 99.192.59.200 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Except your comparison is very faulty. Reeves is remaking Alfredson's film. 90% of his script is copied word for word from Alfredson's. He's including stuff exclusive to the first film. He's lifting exact scenes shot for shot from the original film.It's not comparable whatsoever to someone adapting another work from the Hearts in Atlantis collection that the first film didn't even touch on. The first LTROI film and the book are two very different things, and Reeves is clearly using the former as the blueprint for his film.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Except your comparison is very faulty." I didn't make a comparison. 99.192.49.65 (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Plot section should be about the PLOT
The Simon Oakes quotes about whether or not the film is a "remake" do not belong in the plot section. The issue of whether or not it is a remake and the fact that sometimes he says one thing and sometimes another is not relevant to the issue of the plot. I think either both quotes should be removed from that section or both should stay (to make clear he has been equivocal). Obviously, I strongly prefer the removal. The issue of whether the film is a remake is covered in the proper place - the production section - and so is unneeded in the plot section. 142.68.43.191 (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, move it there.
 * BUT...if the film comes out, and it becomes apparent that it's more based on the Swedish film, will you admit that it's a remake? Because it's very clear from early reports and reviews that Reeves' film is a near scene-for-scene remake and owes more to the original film and whenever the book differs from the film, he chooses the film's route (I.E. when Eli tries and vomits up the candy). Even one of the remake's biggest plot points is derived from an interpretation of the film that was nowhere to be found in the book.
 * That's what I found to be so frustrating about saying it's a new take on the book when it's clearly indebted to what Tomas Alfredson and co. did. It's only an adaptation of the book in that the original film was.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence that there are elements in Let Me In that are taken from the film Let The Right One In but absent from the novel would be good evidence that English film is at least partially based on the Swedish film. But if there are also elements in Let Me In that are taken from the novel and absent in the Swedish film, then it cannot be denied that Let Me In is at least partly based on the novel. Reeves has talked in interviews about putting elements in his film that were in the novel but not in the Swedish film. We will have to wait for the release to see if this is so. 142.68.43.191 (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sorry for the trouble.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for apologies. Honest disagreement can be productive in improving pages and we both avoided the all too common Wiki-editing pitfall of name-calling, so I figure we're both doing just fine. 142.68.43.191 (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oakes on remake / not a remake
Oakes said in a recent interview, "I call it his [Reeves'] version. I don't call it his remake or his re-imagining of it." If there is an objection to characterizing this quotation as saying that Reeves is doing "a new version of the novel", then at the very least the exact quote should be added as indicating Oakes contradicting himself on the remake / not a remake question. 142.68.43.191 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't something like "American clone" get the point across? - Gwopy 06:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

New review talks about the "remake/re-readaptation" distinction:
"There seems to be some confusion amongst those behind-the-scenes with regard to what exactly Let Me In is. Director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) has claimed that it's another adaptation of Swedish novelist John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel Let the Right One In and not, strictly speaking, a remake of Tomas Alfredson's 2008 Swedish film of the same name. But producer Simon Oakes has insisted that Let Me In is precisely a remake of Alfredson's film. Anyone who treasures Alfredson's excellent adolescent romantic thriller is likely to side with Oakes, as watching Let Me In brings about that distinct feeling of déjà vu all over again.

...

''In adding the detective character, and developing the relationship between Abby and her browbeaten, blood-collecting steward (Richard Jenkins), Let Me In fleetingly differentiates itself from its Swedish antecedent. But the rest of film feels like Reeves tracing over the lines drawn by Alfredson. He offers us a few virtuoso compositions (though nothing compared to the gory subaquatic dénouement of Alfredson's film), but otherwise Reeves' movie is of interest to only that subset of movie-goers who want to see a horror movie about an juvenile predator, but can't be bothered with reading subtitles."''

Link

If more reviews follow suit, would this finally be enough to call this a remake and not a re-adaptation of the novel?--129.63.232.161 (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the review you quote comes from someone who seems to be an unknown as a reviewer, so it would not be a reasonable source. Secondly, you seem to think that the question requires an either/or answer. Either the American film is a new adaptation of the Swedish novel or it is a remake of the Swedish film. But the evidence seems to be (and even the review you quote says this) that BOTH are sources for the American film. The article currently says that both are sources, so unless there is strong evidence that Reeves did NOT use the novel as a source, there seems nothing wrong with the article as it stands. 142.177.30.65 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's more of a remake of the previous film than it is an adaptation of the novel. Reeves follows the movie's version of events scene for scene (sometimes shot for shot) most of the time. It's only an adaptation of the novel in that the film it's based on was. The only people who still refer to it as an adaptation of the novel are those who haven't read the book and are just going off what someone else told them.


 * As for not using the novel as his source, the remake has Hakan as a former childhood friend of Abby. This is based off an interpretation that many had of the Swedish film--it was NOT in the novel, in which Hakan was a pedophile. Reeves only uses the novel's version of events when the first film did it--when the novel differs, he chooses the film's approach.--129.63.184.129 (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "It's more of a remake of the previous film than it is an adaptation of the novel." That's just another way of saying that the film Let Me In is based on both the previous film and the novel, which is what the article says. So the article is accurate as is. 142.68.47.157 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC) (=142.177.30.65)
 * Then shouldn't it be something like the one for Psycho_(1998_film), which states "a remake of the 1960 film directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Both films are adapted from the novel by Robert Bloch" since it's more of a remake than it is a fresh adaptation? --129.63.184.1 (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, because people take the word "remake" to mean that the film was solely based on a previous film. There is no evidence (that I know of) that Van Sant used the original novel at all in making his film, so the mention of the novel on that page seems just to serve to note a chain of source, just so people are aware that the first Psycho was not an original creation for the screen. In the case of Let Me In there are sources cited in the article that say that the novel was one direct source for the film, so the current wording ("...based on the novel Let the Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist and the Swedish film adaptation of the same name.") is perfectly accurate. 99.192.57.230 (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC) (=142.177.30.65)


 * By saying "Based on the novel LTROI" first and then saying "and the film of the same name" you are giving greater prominence to this being an adaptation of the novel, when it is more of a shot-for-shot remake of the Swedish adaptation or at the very least saying that it is equally an adaptation of the novel as it is a remake. Both are false and misleading.--129.63.184.129 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Furthermore, I have no idea how one could indicate the degree to which each source played a role in the making of this film. Saying something like "It's 75% based on the previous film and 25% based on the novel"? Besides, one would need credible references for such a claim and they differ in the extent to which they credit each source. I have read a few of the reviews of Let Me In as a result of it being shown at TIFF, and if they are any indication of the reviews that will follow, there will be a number of credible references that offer opinions on the degree of similarity of the films. When those reviews come out (which should be soon, as the film will be released generally in two weeks) quotations from a few of them would be very appropriate for a "Critical reception" section of the article. I suggest that you wait for those reviews from notable reviewers to come out and then add comments from them to this effect. 142.177.27.27 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC) (=142.177.30.65)

Excessive interpretation
I'm usually one to balk at criticisms in Wikipedia for "over-interpreting," but in my opinion the amount of interpretation in this article really is "over-the-top." For example, the girl's motivations and inner feelings are intentionally supposed to be ambiguous. If one hasn't understood that, then I'd say that one has completely missed the whole point of the story. The reasons why he leaves with her are supposed to be unclear - it's not for "their survival," etc. There's no grounds for making any concrete conclusions about what the vampire girl's motivations may or may not have been. Likewise with the boy himself. It "defeats the whole point" and also i.m.o. it is not logically sound to reach these conclusions based on what were intentionally ambiguous "premises" presented during the movie.

I also feel that the article is too short - it needs to be expanded and the names of the characters need to be mentioned when describing their actions, etc. <span style="font-size:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.212.149 (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can the "Premise" section be eliminated?
The section called "Premise" was, until two weeks ago, called "Plot". Then it was changed to "Notes" by an editor who (correctly) pointed out that the section did not really describe the plot. The section was then changed to "Premise", but the section does not really set out the premise of the film either. All it does is say is that (1) the main character's names were changed, (2) the location was changed, (3) they got permission to use the place name, and (4) a general statement by a producer. I don't know that (1) is really necessary, (2) is well covered in the "Plot" and "Production" sections, (3) seems trivial and, at best, something that could be put in the production section, and (4) seems out of date now that better information on the plot is available (and not needed since he is quoted in the "Production" section already). So I wonder what views people have about removing the section and perhaps moving (3) to the "Production" section in the process. 142.68.48.133 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merged it into the Production section. Geoff B (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.212.149 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually no its not because these are peoples reviews of the movie that they already consider a remake, when the creators are quoted as saying they followed the book. You have the absolute gall to say the people who made the movie and said it was based on the book, made a remake. That is an opinion. Not one of those sources, not one says that the creators admitted they based this movie off the original. But in the sources used in the article are sources, and quotes, where the author and director say they based it off the book. Your using OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.130.150 (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Taps out kiss?
A recent edit has added that Abby taps out "kiss" in Morse Code at the end, and Owen reciprocates. This DOES happen in the Swedish original, but I don't know about LMI. I don't think IMDB supports that interpretation. They tap out something - it could be "Help, I'm suffocating..." Myles325a (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Citing certain reviews
I noticed a few editors sourced several negative reviews. When reading the critical response now, there are more negative views of the film than positive reviews. Doesn't this give off an inaccurate viewing of the film, considering that it did got overwhelmingly positive reviews with aggregate websites such as rotten tomatoes scoring it a near 90%. There seems to be too much bias in the choosing of reviews shown to give a positive reviewed film a very negative image. Mases26 (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just checked and there's only one more negative review than there is positive. But I added three more positive reviews to balance it out.--24.147.231.200 (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a remake
Why is this point even being argued, this isn't a remake in anyway. It is another adaptation of the same book. I suppose the upcoming Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a remake and how about The Taking of Pelham 123 Tony Scott version. That isn't a remake. People, just because another version came before doesn't mean it is a remake. So some research in the English language, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.160.169 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You do some research in the English language, please. There are sources in the article that state it is a remake.  Geoff B (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 128.205.160.169, both the writer and director of the upcoming version of Girl With The Dragon Tattoo are on record as having not seen the Swedish film, so there is good reason to think their film will only be based on the book. The article for Scott's The Taking of Pelham 123 points out (with citations) places where the film is more like the 1974 film than the novel, and so correctly says that the Scott film is based on both sources. The "production" section of this article gives multiple references (with citations) that demonstrate that it also is based on both the previous film and on the novel. This article correctly reports that both are sources. Some crazy people come here ranting that no credit should be given to the novel as a source. Other crazy people come here ranting that no credit should be given to the previous film as a source. But crazy rants are not "research".142.177.23.201 (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Check your sources. The article calls Let me in a remake but the producer does not. Also the director and author dont consider it as such. The article even says that the writer was told by the director it was not a remake. Stop putting in original research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.130.150 (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not original research. See these sources:


 * http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/Let-Me-In-4871.html
 * http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/46029/let-me-in
 * http://www.fearnet.com/news/b15947_exclusive_we_chat_with_hammer_chief.html
 * http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38870
 * http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/30/original-let-the-right-one-in-director-talks-remake
 * http://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/film/article4597816.ab
 * Your claim of OR is untrue. Geoff B (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are reviews calling it remake because they claim its based off the original movie. But the author/screen writer, and director said its based off the book. Your using OR because you believe its your opinion its a remake, but the people that MADE the movie said they based it off the book. Its their opinion and their creative process that matters, not yours or anyone elses opinion that its a remake. Find ONE source where anyone involved with the movie said its a remake, which you havent. You keep showing what other people believe. Have you even read these links? No one who made the movie says that it is based off the original movie, only reviewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.130.150 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Noticed the edit war, became curious about the dispute, and after reading this interview with the director (http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/03/16/sxsw-interview-let-me-in-director-matt-reeves-on-remaking-le/) I can see the confusion. We need a definition of what a "remake" of a prior movie is. The director became aware of the story through the first movie, then read the book. He basically said he drew from the book to create his story, but he also admitted his movie probably would not have been made if the Swedish movie wasn't made first. There is no hard evidence that he drew directly from the first movie to make the second, the first movie may have only caused him to be aware that the story existed at all. When he had a question about the story, according to the interview he directly asked the author. I came into the dispute with an open mind, and I still don't know who is right, so it comes down to the definition of remake. People who come into it from either side could read that interview and take different things from it to claim their side of this dispute was validated. Good luck resolving this. Aaron north  (T/C) 05:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Aaron, your observations are quite helpful here. I would add a couple of comments. Firstly, I think the term "remake" itself is problematic. The use of the word seems to suggest to people that a prior film was the only source for a subsequent film when, in fact, there might be multiple sources. So, in the case of Let Me In, if both the novel and the film Let The Right One In are sources that this film is based on, it is best to avoid using the word "remake".


 * Secondly, the question of what counts as a reliable source for claims about the source material is a good one. Reviewers (and the public generally) do have a tendency to call any film a "remake" where a previous film exists of the same material even when the newer film is not at all based on the older one. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a good example, as neither the writer nor the director of the English film has seen the Swedish film and are working from the novel directly for their film, yet most media reports call it a "remake" of the Swedish film.


 * In the case of Let Me In, reviewers who have seen both films have almost universally said that the two are very similar in what portions of the novel they choose to present and what they choose to omit. They generally take it as obvious from the content of the films themselves that the Swedish film was a source for the American film. They are not just assuming that the older film is a source, they are concluding that it is based on their expertise as reviewers and having seen both films (and in some cases, also having read the book). So while I would be very skeptical of general media accounts calling a film a "remake", especially if they come before the film is even made, these reviews should have more weight as reliable sources.


 * Also, Reeves has made it clear in interviews (cited in the article) that he used the novel as a source. (So those who adamantly try to remove reference to the novel as a source material are clearly wrong.) He also has talked about seeing the Swedish film, being very moved by it, thinking about how it reminded him of his own childhood, and how when asked to remake it (and "remake" is the term the producers used) he was inspired to think about how the story could work in an American setting. Besides, Reeves has never said that his film is not based in part on the Swedish film. If anything, his not using the word "remake" is more a rejection of the idea that the word implies that the Swedish film was his only source.


 * So it seems to me clear that there is good evidence for the claim that both the novel and the Swedish film were sources for Let Me In. It also seems best to avoid using the word "remake" in the article (although keeping it in the category "Film Remakes" at the bottom of the page seems fine). The wording as it stands now, "based on the 2008 Swedish film Let the Right One In, directed by Tomas Alfredson and the novel Let the Right One In by John Ajvide Lindqvist" is accurate.99.192.49.185 (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ADDENDUM: I just looked up a couple of interviews Reeves gave. If you read this one you will see Reeves talk very clearly about the novel as source (especially in his attributing the idea of having a policeman as a character from the book, a character absent in the Swedish film). If you read this one  you will see Reeves similarly emphasizes how the novel was a source, but also, in talking about "The Father" character and his relationship with Eli/Abby, he says: "In the novel it’s quite different. In the novel, the character that Richard plays has a very, very powerful back story. I knew that with the story being the focus of the kids, that the back story – didn’t really have a way to get into the story without throwing off the balance of the love story. What I wanted to do, and certainly when I first watched the movie before I read the novel, I had an interpretation because it was ambiguous in Alfredson’s film – what their relationship was. But there did seem to be this implication of a kind of cycle. That was kind of how I approached it...." So the interpretation he drew of this character based on watching the Alfredson film was the source of the approach to this character in his film. Both novel and prior film are sources. QED.99.192.49.185 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Now to see if 99.92.130.150 can wrap his head around that! Geoff B (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A) They are reviewers who could easily just assume that because the other movie exists the current one would be based off it. Also when its been said, oh i dont know, that the movie was NOT used as a source for this movie, thoughts they had about the movie when they saw the sweedish film is irrelevant. Also mor importanly, the people who made the movie, not a reviewer said what they based it off of, so the thoughts of a reviewer about what the movie is based off of is completely irrelevant. Also considering how much OR is in this article to begin with, no one wants a true consensis about this article, but an illusion based on everyones already preconcieved notions of the movie so whats the poin in trying to argue, when the opinion about the basis of the movie, trumps that of the creators intention? Its ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.130.150 (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) "They are reviewers who could easily just assume...." Yes they could just assume, but why do you think they are just assuming. If the reviewers just called it a "remake" and did not say how the newer film was like the older one, then you would have a case. But in review after review they actually point out how the one is like the other. That's not assuming. It's concluding based on evidence.
 * (2) "...its (sic) been said ... that the movie was NOT used as a source for this movie...." Where has that been said? Please note that saying 'it's not a remake' is not to deny that the previous movie was one source for the new film, just that it was not the only source or to deny that the newer film contains no creative content that was not already in the first one. If you can find a source for this you might have a case.
 * (3) "...thoughts they (sic) had about the movie when they saw the sweedish (sic) film is (sic) irrelevant." Not if those thoughts are things like 'that's a good way to approach this character's story. I should do it like that as well,' which is the essence of what the Reeves quotation says. This thought is indisputable proof that Reeves based something in his film on Alfredson's film, thus that both the novel and prior film are sources.
 * (4) "...considering how much OR is in this article to begin with...." Yeah? Like what? If you can point some examples out they can be changed. If not, then this sounds like a hollow complaint based on being unhappy that your claims about the source material are not being accepted.
 * (5) "...no one wants a true consensis (sic) about this article...." Whether there is OR or not elsewhere in the article has nothing to do with whether people want a consensus. Unanimity is often not possible, even when the parties to a discussion work hard to seek a consensus. This sounds like another ad hominem claim.
 * (6) "...an illusion based on everyones (sic) already preconcieved (sic) notions of the movie...." Not true. If you look at discussions on this page above, you will see that months before the film was released I defended the position that the article should state that Let Me In is only based on the novel, not based just on the film or even based on both the novel and earlier film. (All comments above signed by IP numbers beginning with either "142" or "99.192" are from me. Go read them.) This was because (a) before the film was released it was not legitimate to give weight to media reports that called the film a "remake" because without having seen the film, they could only be making assumptions, and (b) because Reeves was only on record at the time as saying that it was a new adaptation of the novel and not a remake. So my position when the evidence supported it was that the article should say that Let Me In was only based on the novel. You will see that back then the 'Reeves-is-an-evil-bastard-raping-our-beloved-film' folks and the 'all-American-remakes-of foreign-films-are-shit' folks accused me of bias then, too, just a bias in the other direction. With Reeves' more recent admission and the weight of so many film experts having seen both films and concluding that the one is based (at least in part) on the other my position changed. That change was based on listening to the evidence. If anyone is blindly sticking to a preconception it is you.
 * (7) "...so whats the poin (sic) in trying to argue...." Good question. If you really do feel this way, just what is the point in your arguing?142.68.41.126 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Writer Ajvide Lindqvist, on the other hand, says that Reeves told him that he "will make a new film based on the book, and not remake the Swedish film" and so "it'll be something completely different, but it's going to be really interesting to see." Right there said based on the book. Doesnt say based on the movie. And conclusion of a critic who a)didnt make the movie and b)as both movies are based off the book commonalities exist does not imply one is based off the other. Once again, quote, sourced and used in the article, and yet still people say its also based off the movie. Its just opinioned based again. Once again whats the point, source and qoute right there. Says based off the book. Doesnt says anywhere its based off the movie by anyone who MADE the movie, just reviewers concluding it is. However, commonalities would be nay have been found if no one saw the original because they are based on the same source. When the thoughts of the creators behind it are second to reviewers and opinions of people who edit the article about it, yeah what is the point of arguing, when no one listens. And just because you had an opininion before and you changed your mind has anything to do with this? Everyone is still letting their opinions color the facts. When you have a quote by someone who wrote the book and the new movie who says its based off his book, and yet people still say its based off the original, thats purely an opinion and pathetic. Something completely different and based off the book, quoted, wow, yeah can see how people can still conclude its based off the other movie. And just because Reaves appreciated something of the original movie doesnt mean he based his movie off it. Someone cant appreciate something about a similar work and do something different without people saying he based his work of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.130.150 (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly, there is no point in continuing this discussion. But you should keep in mind that since you twice in two days engaged in an edit war over this issue (the first time resulting in you being blocked after you reverted the same information six times in a few hours and the second time resulting in the page being protected from unregistered editors) that if you decide to do that again you should expect an admin to block you for a much longer time. You might also consider stopping calling everyone who disagrees with you "biased" and "pathetic". That sort of discussion style is not viewed very favourably either.142.68.41.126 (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Some things to consider:


 * 1. Reeves has admitted elsewhere that he has used content from the Alfredson film in his remake. I.E at Comic-Con he said "I took stuff from the novel, took stuff from the film, etc"
 * 2. The film explicitly credits the screenplay for the film in addition to the novel.
 * 3. There are a number of elements in Reeves film that was in the Swedish film that weren't in the novel. So you can't say that it's a straight out adaptation of the novel because Reeves is using plot points and scenes that only exist in the film. For example, the scene where Abby tries to eat the candy and throws up only appeared in the film elsewhere and not in the book. The entire concept of Hakan being a former childhood friend originated with Alfredson's film--in the novel, he was a pedophile.
 * 4. The early comment from Lindqvist was that he had heard that it was based on the novel from Reeves. He was making a guess based on the same information that everyone else had at the time. If you look at the full interview, he goes on to say how he thinks the remake will have the Hakan zombie from the book and etceteras. He was just guessing.

To say "it's not a remake...period" is nothing short of ignorant. Reeves' film owes a lot to the Swedish film, arguably moreso than the book.--129.63.166.36 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Of all the points you mention, the most indisputable evidence that Let Me In is based on both is #2. I have not seen the film, so did not know that explicit credit is given. I would say this is more than enough to conclude that the article as it stands now is accurate. Fortunately, the debate over whether Let Me In owes more to the novel or to the prior film is one that we can leave to the fan sites. Thanks for that info. 99.192.54.53 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is a remake, what director would make a film that was essentially exactly the same as one made two years earlier unless it was done to sell to an English speaking audience? Of course the director would probably not outright admit that, but many critics have pointed out that it is indeed a remake. 124.171.6.113 (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)