Talk:List of English-language films with previous foreign-language film versions

Untitled
To maintain balance, shouldn't this be at List of English-language movies based on foreign-language films? –Hajor 02:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I put this in movie, film, or TV related incomplete lists. I hope no one minds.--T. Anthony 06:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the "foreign language" definition needs to be de-Americanized. A "foreign language" does not include only English, depending on which country you are from. NorthernThunder 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
Perhaps we should organize the list by country? --ConradKilroy 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My Father the Hero
Hi, I added 'My Father the Hero' which is a remake of the French film 'Mon père, ce héros'(French) into the list. Baberlp 16:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not a remake
A "remake" is a film based on a previous film (see Remake). The 2011 film is NOT based on the 2009 film, but is a new adaptation of the novel. The fact that some people call it a remake only shows that they don't know what the word "remake" means or don't know that the earlier film was not a basis for the later film. 99.192.63.21 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Totally disagree with the above. You might as well write that any film inspired by a book/novel cannot be included in this article.
 * Just read carefully the title of this article!
 * Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that the 2009 film is a source for the 2011 film, thus it does not fit the page description. In fact, both the screenwriter and director have said that they had not seen the 2009 film before making their film, so it could not be a basis for the 2011 film. The burden of proof that they did use it as a basis is on those claiming that it is one. Find evidence or leave the page alone. I also note that you do not insist that the page for the 2009 film or for the novel should call the film a "remake". Those pages do not make that claim because it is not true. 99.192.63.21 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I find your final two sentences above rediculous. Why should either the novel article or the original Swedish language film article have any reference, other than "See also", in their respective content.  The onus is on whatever happens later.
 * Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at just about any article on Wikipedia about a film that actually is a remake and the page for the novel they are based on. I might suggest you start with Let Me In (film) and Let the Right One In. Both of those articles say that the second film was based on the first and the page for the second film does call it a "remake" on the page. Also, there is a category for film remakes that the Let Me In (film) page has attached but the The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film) page does not. That is because it is NOT a remake. But if you are so sure, why not go to the talk page for that film and raise the issue there before making changes on this page? Get a consensus that it is a remake, because right now the The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film) page makes no such claim. 99.192.63.21 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The onus is on you to obtain a consensus that it is not a re-make. Until then you have no authority to continue to vandalise the article.
 * Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No. the onus is always on the person who wants to make a positive claim, not a negative one. If an editor claims that some fact is true and wants it put in an article, when it is challenged the person making the claim needs to provide a source. otherwise Wikipedia would be rife with rumours and requiring that they be disproved to be removed. The burden of proof is always on the person adding information. 99.192.77.17 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.63.21)


 * What's "negative" about a re-make?
 * Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You have misunderstood. A "positive claim" is a claim that something IS the case. So to claim that a film IS a remake is a positive claim. A "negative claim" is a claim that something IS NOT the case. So to claim that a film IS NOT a remake is a negative claim. the terms "positive claim" and "negative claim" have nothing to do with a claim being a "good" or a "bad" one. Think more of the idea of Negative and positive rights.


 * Negative claims are often impossible to prove. I cannot prove that there is NO life on planets outside our solar system, for example. So the burden of proof is always on the person making a positive claim. As I just noted in the edit summary, if I or someone else came along and claimed that Star Wars is a remake of 2001: A Space Odyssey, it would be unreasonable to say that the claim should remain in the article until someone can provide a citable source that says that it is NOT (negative claim) a remake. Probably no citable source has ever denied it because no one has ever thought it needed denying. The burden should be on the person saying that it IS (positive claim) a remake. The same goes for someone claiming that ANY film is a remake of another film.


 * While this is not a WP:BLP issue, the principle is the same. If you want to claim that George Lucas is a Satanist and put it in his article, the burden of proof is on the person saying that he IS (positive claim) one, not the person saying he IS NOT (negative claim). Putting the burden of proof on people making positive claims is the only way to keep Wikipedia from being rife with rumours. 99.192.77.17 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I repeat, you are missing the point. Why are you being so protective of the new film?  Is there a hidden agenda, I wonder?  It is a re-make in every meaning of the word.
 * Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Protective? What are you talking about. The determination of whether or not a film is a remake is not about "protecting" it. It is about factual accuracy. Some films are remakes and others are not. It is an editors job to try to get the facts right. But if you think that the issue is about "protecting" then I think it probably is you who has the agenda. My only "agenda" is factual accuracy, as it should be with an encyclopedia. 99.192.69.0 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a dog in this dispute. IP Editor is correct on this point: Whomever makes the positive existential statement, bears the burden of proof (or in the case of Wikipedia, bears the burden of providing a reliable source - WP:BURDEN which see).  If there is a reliable source that supports the assertion that Dragon Tattoo (2011) derives from Dragon Tattoo (2009), some wily Wikipedian will find it.  Until such time, and because the assertion has been challenged (WP:CHALLENGE), this editor thinks that Dragon Tattoo should be removed from this list.
 * --Trappist the monk (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, Trappist. 99.192.85.86 (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.77.17)


 * Yesterday, I invited Trappist the monk to advise me on the film as we had already had a short dialogue on the subject last November and believed he would throw water on the fire. It would seem that it is difficult to raise an issue on a discussion page without it becoming emotive.  I respect his opinion here but I am curious to know why the issue seems to rest purely on semantics.
 * Whether or not it is a "remake", or not a remake, does not alter the fact that it is the second film within two years based on a Swedish novel. The first is a Swedish-language film and the second an English-language film.  Why doesn't that qualify it to be included in a dismally short article which opens with a plea for more input, for heavens' sake?
 * Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct, it is the second film within two years based on the Swedish novel. And the actual definition from a Dictionary (not Wikipedia as it doesn't contain ever any own 'exclusive' information) is that a remake 'renews', and that's what this film does. It 'renews'.--Charlr6 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good questions, Gareth. Let me try to offer some answers. Here are the points not in dispute: (1) Prior to any movie being made, there first was a novel. (2) In 2009, a Swedish film adaptation of that novel was released. (3) In 2011 an English language film was released that was based on, at least in part, the original novel. (4) There is no doubt that the Swedish film came first and that the English language film came later. So far, so good. Now that leaves two questions in dispute: (A) Was the 2011 film also based on, at least in part, the 2009 film? and (B) Does the answer to question A matter when deciding whether or not the film is a "remake"?


 * The answer to (A) is in dispute, and so (as I and Trappist have both pointed out) the burden of proof falls to the person making the positive claim, that it is based on, at least in part, the previous film. Without a valid source showing that the 2011 really was based on the 2009 film, then it cannot be included in a list called "List of English-language films based on foreign-language films". And since neither the director nor the screenwriter of the 2011 film saw the 2009 film, it does not seem possible that the 2011 film could be based on the 2009 film at all. Whether or not the article is "dismally short" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is accuracy.


 * The answer to (B) is a bit more clear. The definition of "remake" offered on the Wikipedia page for Remake makes it clear that the answer does matter, and that a film is not a remake of a previous film unless it is based on, at least in part, a previous film. That is also the definition used generally on all Wikipedia movie pages. It's why the pages for films like Let Me In (film) and Footloose (2011 film) explicitly say that the film is a remake and those pages are tagged with the category: "Category:Film remakes" but films like True Grit (2010 film) and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film) are not called remakes and not tagged with the category "Category:Film remakes". It's because in both of the latter cases the films are just new adaptations of the same source novels and not based on the earlier films at all.


 * If someone wants to dispute that definition of "remake" then it should probably be presented to the WikiProject Film for discussion first, but it is the definition used here and does match the generally accepted use of the term. (If you google the phrase "not a remake" in quotation marks you will find that very often the explanation given for what a film thought to be a remake is not one is because the newer film in question was not based on the older film, but merely shares a common source material.)


 * My goal in editing this page and others is factual accuracy. It might seem to be making a big deal of semantics at times, but accuracy in the details is often like that. If the page were called "List of English-language films based on foreign-language films or based on the same source material as foreign-language films" then the 2011 film should certainly be included. But that's not this list. So until there is a valid source to support the claim that the 2011 film was based on the 2009 film, the item must remain off the list. 99.192.52.224 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.85.86)


 * "Without a valid source showing that the 2011 really was based on the 2009 film"
 * Not once have you sourced anything except that the link to the Wiki page on what a remake 'according' to Wikipedia is.


 * "The definition of "remake" offered on the Wikipedia page for Remake..."
 * All that page is, is a list of information gathered from numerous sites and wrote in a way that the main editor of the page pleases, and writes it in a way to provide his opinion in. If no one does that in Wikipedia, then this wouldn't be happening right now, this discussion. You are trying to say it's not a remake and we are trying to say it is. You are only following what the 'Wikipedia' definition of a remake is, not an actual Dictionary, which is what I did. And the dictionary clearly states that a remake is when a film "renews" a previous piece of work. It doesn't say it can't be or can be based upon a book at all, so there fore, it doesn't matter. I could go onto the Wikipedia page and find tons of different Dictionary sites with the definition of remake and add that in and reference those sites and then all of a sudden the Wikipedia page on remake would be several paragraphs on how remakes 'renew' films that have previously been made.


 * "If someone wants to dispute that definition of "remake"..."
 * We have not disputed the definition, how many times do I have to say that? I got the definition from a DICTIONARY, a book and website that gives short simple definitions (sometimes detailed) on what a certain word means. Wikipedia gathers its informations from different articles and then whoever the main editor of the page is, they will edit it in a way to make to make the information suit themselves. Like I said above, I could find the definition of remake from dictionaries (books and websites) and then change the page to suit what I want and believe and therefore all of a sudden Wikipedia's definition of a remake would be to 'renew', like the dictionaries say.


 * And you said "I and Trappist", well, that's only two of you. Myself, Martinevans123 and Gareth Griffith-Jones believe its' a remake. So then as there are more of us believing it's a remake, then we can add in the article it is a remake. But we could only do that until there is a third editor on your side or a fourth resulting in there being more believing it's not a remake.


 * And you never answered my question from my page, why can't you just register? It would be the more mature thing to do, because if it was myself, Martinevans123, Gareth Griffith-Jones and Trappist the monk actually talking in real life, you are practically the stranger we know nothing about who comes up and jumps into our conversation. Don't go twisting my words again and say I'm saying non-posters don't have a right to speak as much as registered posters do. But if you feel strongly about editing on Wikipedia, then register. It's VERY easy. Charlr6 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "you are practically the stranger we know nothing about" --- Why does that matter? "And you never answered my question from my page, why can't you just register?" --- Registration is not required of Wikipedia editors. But also, many people who register do not give their name or any other information about themselves when they do so. Wikipedia does not require any of that, so even if I was using a registered name, you still might know nothing about me. Trappist the monk, who you mentioned, does not give his real name or any other information about himself, for example. You know no more about him than you do about me. Besides, who I am, who he is, or who you are is not the issue. The facts about what should be on article pages is. 99.192.52.224 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Registration isn't required, and I am not asking for you to give your name or tons of information, I never did, did I? It would just be more civil if you did, and if you did at least people would be able to see basic information like if you said you were from the US and that you are a fan of Back to the Future, even if that was the only information on you. But on contributions you've made we might recognise your name in the 'history' section of certain pages and be able to see that you are possible interested in the page your are editing. And Trappist the monk is registered and has a talk page, I know more about him than you. I could read his talk page and see what people have posted. Why is it so hard for you to simply register? And the answer you gave was practically "because I don't have to". What are you scared of? You don't even need to give your proper name, you could just create a random name and say one thing like you possibly live in the United States, but you don't even have to do that. But it would be the more adult mature thing to do. If you like to follow it by the book and believe every article on Wikipedia to be true then join Wikipedia and help it more. It would take one single minute.
 * You're IP Address page lists that the first recent edit was on the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo talk page, and the previous edit you made was a year ago. I find it funny how you are active now all of a sudden. So like Gareth Griffith-Jones and Martinevans123 have said, you are a lurker. It would be strange for you not to be and then suddenly you burst onto Wikipedia making posts.


 * But this film 'renews' the previous Swedish film, even if it's closer to the book and they take no scenes directly from the previous film, it's a new version so it 'renews' the story. Charlr6 (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we can make the discussion here much simpler. This page is called "List of English-language films based on foreign-language films". You will notice that the word "remake" is not used in the title nor is it used in the description of the page contents. So we can set aside any discussion of what the word "remake" means for the purposes of this page. The relevant term is not "remake" but "based on", which is a part of the title of the page. If, as you concede, no scenes were taken from the previous film, then it was not "based on" the previous film, and thus does not meet the criteria for inclusion. And even if you disagree with that, WP:BURDEN and the above discussion of it makes it clear that no source is required to remove disputed content, but a source is required to add it. Without a source that the 2011 film was "based on" the 2009 film, it should not be included here. 99.192.52.224 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect in stating that Trappist the monk agrees with you on this subject in his reply to my request for his input on this matter. He states quite clearly that he has no specific knowledge.  He merely says that he supports you with regard to our needing to provide a source, and, furthermore, believes we will soon receive several.  We have already received one.  More will follow, I am assured.
 * Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 99.192.52.224, you are playing on words here I think. The title of this list is "List of English-language films with previous foreign-language film versions". There are a lot of valid sources stating that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film) is a remake of the Swedish version, for example The guardian, or the Christian Science monitor. The entertainment time goes further, writing "In that sense, Mara is the face and heart of the film: a well-wrought simulacrum of the original. Seeing Fincher’s version is like getting a Christmas gift of a book you already have". Hervegirod (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, Hervegirod, the title of the page was "List of English-language films based on foreign-language films"`when I made that comment. It was only after that that Charlr6 changed the title to the current one. So, no, I wasn't playing with words. As for the "remake / not a remake" issue, it's a moot point now that the title of the page has been changed to include both films that are remakes and films that are not. 99.192.52.224 (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry for the confusion Hervegirod.
 * 99.192.52.224 or whoever you are, thanks for adding the extra collumn. It helps the article more. It would take me about ten minutes to find the right code Wikipedia code, haha. Charlr6 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request to remove Wikipedia reference
Schazjmd  (talk)  23:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the German table, for Head Full of Honey (2018), replace the reference  with ref  
 * , I've unprotected, so feel free to make the change yourself. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks! Schazjmd   (talk)  00:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

How Head Full of Honey performed
, I got distracted by the edit war regarding the source and missed the obvious objection to the inclusion of the remake "bombing": the tables in this article do not have a column for general notes about the remake. Fortunately, after I added a proper source, caught the mistake and removed it. The information should not be restored. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good thinking. Let's not have it restored. Call me when you get the chance (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)