Jump to content

Talk:Nosferatu/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Contemporary Criticism

This section needs to be completely rewritten. Although one can understand the gist of it, it comes across as either a badly translated article or as the attempts of a non-native speaker of the English language. Perhaps it can be edited directly or suggested revisions could be entered here for approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.175.29 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It was probably a machine translation (such as Google Translate). If someone wants to rewrite that section, they're welcome to do so. You don't need permission. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would just delete the section. It's practically unreadable and would take forever to make any sense out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.93.132 (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I deleted the section because it is totally incomprehensible as is. If anyone wants to restore this section (rewritten entirely), I say go for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.69.242 (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Oldest film on RT with fresh rating

What about 'the birth of a nation' rated 100% fresh made in 1915, Nosferatu was 1922. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.16.101 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference in Fire Emblem

In the game "Fire Emblem" for the Game Boy Advanced, a druid character learns a spell called "Nosferatu". This spell has the character suck the life from an enemy and restore some of that life to himself as health. Is that a reference to the vampires in this film? Just thought that was interesting. ~VXLBeast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.51.61 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Grievous based upon Nosferatu?

As the one who organized the Nosferatu homages into a proper section in the first place, I really don't think the General Greivous reference belongs. All of th'other references are actual depictions of Count Orlock and/or use th'actual name or some variant. I've seen Clone Wars and Revenge of the Sith and never thought of Nosferatu while looking at Greivous. He's much more metallic grey than white, as a cyborg he is by neccessity bald, and the "bat-like" ears and claws just add sharp angles, which any cartoonist can tell you just makes something look more evil. Finally, the IMDB trivia page for Revenge of the Sith says his design was based on a spray-nozzle. Perhaps Gnrlotto should add the reference to that wikipedia article and leave the Nosferatu reference section alone.--Signor Giuseppe 14:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It says so in the May 2005 issue of Entertainment weekly (page 27) subsection 03, "General Grievous is Darth Vader's Daddy."
http://www.vfxworld.com/?sa=adv&code=319b255d&atype=articles&id=2510
He was based upon "Nosferatu" whether Signor Giuseppe would like that or not.
As an homage, the logical and even-minded person would see just how far reaching the original Albin Grau design is, instead of simply dismissing it based on false notions.
Reverted.
Gnrlotto 22:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey, no need to start name-calling, though, to be fair, my own comment was a little snooty. People do try to add Star Wars t'everything, and I was well justified in being wary. Gnrlotto's link is certainly all the proof anyone needs. If it is true that Grievous's design was based on a spray nozzle, perhaps that note should say that he is derived from both Nosferatu and such-and-such a cleaning supply. Still, maybe the IMDb is wrong; it's happened before.--Signor Giuseppe 06:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Who called names? I certainly did not. Just answered a snippy post, snippily.
Gnrlotto 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
Word--Signor Giuseppe 8 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)


Homages order

Why are the homages listed in reverse chronological order? It seems to me that they should either be by notability or by normal chronological order (which is typically closer to notability anyway). DreamGuy 11:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

That's th'order things tend to be done on th'internet, newest to oldest. It happens with company newsletters, with online journals, even with the "history" function here on Wikipedia. Order of notability would be preferable, but also inescapably subjective. I'm pretty sure none of these homages is extremely notable, mostly just tips-of-the-hat or other subtle references. I think it is helpful to th'article, tho, because it shows how almost a century after this movie came out, it is still exerting its influence on the popular consciousness.--Signor Giuseppe 19:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
That's just the way it's done on "th'internet" is not really an answer, and it isn't correct anyway. That's not how most other articles here do it, and it's counterintuitive. I'm going to switch it to chronological order instead of reverse. DreamGuy 02:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Well I sure as shootin' ain't gonna switch 'er back, 'cuz I like to think I'm not just contrary about those things, but traditionally on the 'pediä, we wait for a response before acting, especially when we know someöne objects, especially when that someöne more-or-less creäted the sexion in question. I know we're supposed to be bold and all that, but I think this is a case when Dream Guy mighta held his horses a bit.
Reverse order has precedent in other places on the web, as I pointed out, and is the standard for any frequently updated mediüm. As in the first discussion on this page, one can see I have my umcomfort with a Star Wars reference beïng not only the first and the longest, as it is a rather subtle homage compared to some of th'others. Still, it happens to be the most recent and thus belongs at the top.--Signor Giuseppe 14:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Please stop talking like a drunken cowboy, it's distracting. But, at any rate, yes, we are supposed to be bold, and yes, we are supposed to fix things that are wrong, and, yes, chronological order is preferred in articles. So sorry you are upset. You might try looking around the encyclopedia to see how things are done here.... pahdner. DreamGuy 14:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Really, it's all okay because DreamGuy didn't say "So sorry your upset." And, while "sure as shootin'" definitely qualifies as "drunken cowboy," "hold your horses" is an accepted figure of speech. This is one of those cases where it's obviöus that one party cares more'n th'other, and I respectfully bow out.--Signor Giuseppe 15:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Please keep to chronological order, oldest to youngest. It's easier both to read and add to that way, and makes more logical sense- it shows how things develop and evolve from their anticents. CFLeon 23:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

nosferatu etymology

The derivation of "nosferatu" from *νοσοφορος is highly speculative. The earliest known instance of the word is from the 19th century English author Emily Gerard (Bram Stoker's source), who clearly indicates that it's Romanian (a Romance language), not Greek. The fact that it sort of sounds like *νοσοφορος, which is completely unattested in Greek as far as I can tell, isn't really enough to conclude that this one is right and all the others are wrong. At the very least, a source should be cited for this since there are numerous alternative etymologies that have been proposed.

Ben B.

Public Domain?

If Nosferatu is public domain, can we have a short clip of the film on the article? Borisblue 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Film clips are not put into Wikipedia articles by policy. DreamGuy 20:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
What policy? Film clips are prefectly fine to upload on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason why the whole dang film shouldn't be hosted. --SeizureDog 22:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I know this is old, but anyone who sees this now and is confused into thinking SeizureDog is right should dee WP:NOT. We don't host films here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This movie was released prior to 1923, meaning that in the US it IS in the public domain. However, there are numerous scores that accompany the movie which may be copyright protected. So, if you do upload it, be careful regarding the music. Yet, in the US it is public domain. I know this is US-centric, but hey, tough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the Murnau-foundation the movie is in "real" public domain in 2019, when Henrik Galeen is dead 70 years. Since it is a German work, 70pma applies normally. So while you can use it in US because of that PD-1923-rule you should be very carefully if you want to use it anywhere outside US, especially since there was a lot of legal quarrel with this movie already. -- Cecil (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Page content out of scope

The Nosferatu (World of Darkness) should be on the dablink too, and three of them are really too much. I propose to rename this page in something like "Nosferatu (1922 film)" and make "Nosferatu" page a disambiguation one. Elenthel 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've received no objections. However, moving the page would require a great deal of effort due to the predictably huge number of links-to pages. Therefore I created Nosferatu (word) and Nosferatu (disambiguation) pages to help this situation. The 'origins' section was largely moved to the former. Elenthel 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I TOTALLY agree with this, as according to the manual of style, since this is English Wikipedia it should be catagorized under it's International English title. Let me know if you need help. SIckBoy 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Names

The persons' name in the article are a bit different from those in the film (e.g. Mina instead of Nina, Jonathan instead of Jonathon). Wouldn't the other way be a bit more correct? 84.236.49.87 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That depends on which version of the film one is talking about. When copies of the film were circulated in the 1930s, the characters names were changed to their equivalents in the novel - Count Orlock as Dracula, and so on. More confusing is the name of the German town were most of the action takes place - it's Wisborg, or Bremen, depending on the print (and filmed in Wismar, IIRC. Gee, simple!) It doesn't help that Herzog's remake uses the now public domain names from Stoker's novel. Most versions of the film I've seen don't have Jonathan (Jonathon) Harker at all, going by the name of Thomas Hutter. And there's a bit of flexibility concerning the 'Mina' character. The film's Ellen combines aspects of Lucy (particularly her sleepwalking and death at the hands of Nosferatu) and Mina (engaged/married to Hutter/Harker). Consequently she's sometimes called Lucy, as in the Herzog remake, where Doctor Sievers' wife, Ruth, is called Mina. Arrogant Papist 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Does somebody know when the change of the city names was done and why? I can imagine Mina-Nina was an accident, but Wismar-Bremen are too different to be a typo. Is it known whether the original version stated in fact Wismar as the town of Orlok's arrival? --Vancouver robin 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In the BfI DVD restored version, the woman living with Harding is shown in the cast list as his sister Ruth (which happens also to be the actor's name), not his wife Annie. "Professor Sievers, the town physician" has no visible wife, so there's no name clash. AsproZingel (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I know-silly question!

I've read by some people on Youtube that this movie is very scary- one person said "I love this movie, but it scares the @#$% out of me!" And if it truly is a very scary movie, could it be possile to say that it is one of the most frightening horror films ever?

I think most horror fans of today would not be scared. It's best described as creepy rather than scary. There are a few scenes that kind of get under your skin in an indefinable way. Cop 633 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Such as?

Though this may not be the best place for such a discussion, I will say that the scary or creepy aspect of the movie rests in the way it was filmed. There is no sound, and not only is it in black-and-white, the film has this tint to it that gives it an eerie effect. If done in modern color, or even standard black-and-white, the Nosferatu character would look hokey. Shot with this primative, archaic film, it can be scary for some. I would say young children might be scared, but on the whole, no, it's not a scary movie.

Different scores

From what I've heard, the film has been released with different scores. Is there anyone that knows more about it that can add info about it to the article? -Joltman 23:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a fairly recent version on DVD with a soundtrack consisting of music by Type O Negative. Other than that, I am unaware of any other scores not mentioned in the article already. I find it hard to believe the Type O Negative score is not mentioned in the article. 209.254.200.110 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Type-O Negative score was used for a 1998 Arrow Video VHS release entitled Nosferatu, the First Vampire, with an introduction by David Carradine. However, I don't think that it was particularly memorable, as there were other avant-garde (if we can still acll them that) scores applied -- I have one by Club Foot Orchestra and another by Gothic Industrial. More noteworthy is a jazz-influenced score composed by Peter Schirrman sometime in the 1970s, used for theatrical revivals, and which turns up on numeous early DVD releases. WHPratt (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

MOVIES with NOSFERATU mentioned

"Dracula: Dead And Loving It" is a 1995 movie directed by Mel Brooks. In the movie, there is a plot where Mel Brooks is acting together with Harvey Korman, where Mel asks Harvey if he's got a copy of NOSFERATU in his library (The plot of the movie is suppossedly late 1800's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula:_Dead_and_Loving_It —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.5.143.55 (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Nosferatu. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that this page be moved from the German title to Nosferatu as per WP:NC(F). Cop 663 13:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nosferatu Zodd?

In the Berserk manga, there's an intermittently featured villain called Nosferatu Zodd. He was actually the reason why I came here and discovered the origin of the name "Nosferatu" in the first place. I thought he might be worth mentioning in the "Cultural References" section of the article, although there doesn't seem to be a sub-section for print media yet. I suppose he'd have to go under the section labeled "Other".

--PaparazziPulse (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a reference. His name was Nosferatu Zodd because of its reminisense to demons and the undead. Did you even pay attention to the plot of Beserk? Seriously. 60.230.201.56 (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

I'm editing the references to popular culture section so it mentions the Vampire unit in Dungeon Keeper 2 that almost certainly are based on Count Orloks appearance, I hope nobody has objections. --Amras Calmacil (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Characters similiar to book

The article already mentions the similarities between e.g. Ellen and Mina, Orlok and Dracula, Knock and Reinfeld, but there are other characters similiar in this, for example, Ruth (the rich woman friend to Ellen) and Lucy, Dr. Sievers (the Doctor who treats Hutter after his fall or the town doctor) and Doctor Seward, and Mr. Harding (Ruth's husband) and Arthur Holmwood. Would it be fair to mention them, or do we need sources? Themeparkfanatic (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article mention the legal troubles the film went through? DrinkThineCookies (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


I agree. See the movie "In Search of Dracula" for more information.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

On that point, the entry begins by saying "names and other details changed because the studio could not obtain the rights to the novel," with no proof. My understanding is that they were simply trying to avoid having to pay Balcombe and tried to change enough to make an unauthorized version. Does anyone have any reference proving the studio made any attempt to secure the rights before deciding to make those changes? 184.175.6.189 (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Locations

Please note that only a few scenes were shot in Wismar (the opening scene, the Harbour scene). Most of the Wisborg-scenes were shot in Lübeck (streets, Hutters house, the house Orlok bought,...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.207.169 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Production

I have been expanding the sections on pre-production and production from the German wikipedia article w:de:Nosferatu. For the last paragraph in Production I have resorted to citing the editors of the German article because I do not have easy access to the books they cite: Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau: Ein Melancholiker Des Films by Hans Helmut Prinzler; Murnau. Der Klassiker des deutschen Films by Lotte H. Eisner; and Licht aus Berlin: Lang, Lubitsch, Murnau; und weiteres zum Kino: Der Weimarer Republik by Frieda Grafe. Therefore I have resorted to citing "Editors of German wikipedia", giving a wikipedia revision URL and including the cite to Eisner's 1967 book. This is not ideal, but until someone with access to the books can confirm, this seems better than not citing at all. 84user (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jens Geutebrück

I've removed the following:

The only complete, original copy is said to be owned by the German Max Schreck collector Jens Geutebrück.

Since this is not even mentioned in the Jens' page. If instead it's true and you have references you may add it back to **BOTH** pages. --Lo'oris (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Types of film vampires

the film established one of two main depictions of film vampires. The "Nosferatu-type" is a living corpse with rodent features (especially elongated fingernails and incisors), associated with rats and plague, and neither charming nor erotic but rather totally repugnant. The victims usually die and are not turned into vampires themselves. The more common archetype is the "Dracula-type" (established by Bela Lugosi's version of Dracula and perpetuated by Christopher Lee), a charming aristocrat adept at seduction and whose bite turns his victims into new vampires.

Interesting, but looks like OR to me. And I don't think "the Nosferatu type" has much of an existence outside of tributes to Murnau's original. Rather, a Dracula-type vampire may occasionally assume a disgusting or beastly Nosferatu-like form in certain moments of a horror film.

In fact, an interesting point is that most cinematic vampires shapeshift between a deceptive human form and a terrifying monster-like one, and that sudden transition is what startles and scares people. This cheap trick is never used in Nosferatu (not surprisingly, since the film is a pioneering work); rather, Count Orloc looks like pretty much the same nasty scarecrow all the time, so the entire film is more like one long depressing nightmare - or "symphony".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The film/movie version of "Salem's Lot" (not sure if he is depicted the same in the book) the Vampire "Mr Barlow" is 100% a Nosferatu type vampire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.137.110 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Future graphic novel

A Nosferatu Graphic Novel slated for a 2010 release by Viper Comics retells the story of the original 1922 film. With a more current setting and modernized characters, the book seeks to bring the property to a new generation.

I first removed the above text and the accompanying external link with an edit summary of "-spam". It has since been replaced. I have just removed it from the section "Derivative works" and placed it here, so that other editors can decide what to do. I see two problems:

  • it describes a future work
  • it has no independent assertion of notability

It is possible that when the work appears, and it gets written about by reliable sources, that it could be re-incorporated in the article. At least that is my understanding of wikipedia's article guidelines. -84user (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the information with some references. I hope this is the proper procedure. -- 4.153.87.168 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I see it was removed again. Please let me know what makes a reliable source if it cannoy be Amazon.com or ComicMonsters.com. -- 4.153.87.168 (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Books, etc. typically need to have multiple reviews to be considered notable. A new graphic novel is by definition not notable yet. See WP:NBOOK for the precise criteria. If it's not notable, it doesn't need to be mentioned here. Yworo (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I will be adding this: Viper Comics's 2010 Graphic Novel entitled Nosferatu retold the original 1922 film's storyline with a modern setting and cast. Zedura Magazine -- 4.153.81.233 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object; blogs are not reliable sources. Please read our policy on what qualifies as a reliable source. Wikipedia is not for promoting new media in any form. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. It's not a blog, it's a comic review site... but fine. It's in this month's issue of Rue Morgue Magazine, which is on stands in book stores, etc. all across the USA... would that be okay? Also not sure how the heck you can say Wikipedia isn't for promoting new media... are you saying there are no articles on recent movies, cartoons, comics, etc.? Come on... -- 4.153.84.172 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Heck, there are articles on comics that haven't even come out yet, like Batman, Inc. Seems a bit biased. -- 4.153.84.172 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The point to take away about that comic review site is, it's self-published. The writers are the owners of the site. We don't consider that reliable. Again, read the policy on reliable sources, if Rue Morgue meets the criteria described, then of course it can be used. For it to be listed in this article, it must discuss its relationship with the film. And by the way, other stuff exists is never considered a valid argument on Wikipedia. It may very well be that the other Wikipedia articles should be deleted. Not my area... Yworo (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, though, that the rules are kind of iffy to a layman like myself. For example, THIS seems to say I could actually just link to the projet's official webpage as the source: Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. Doesn't make sense to me, you know? Suffice to say I would appreciate your assistance in terms of posting legitimate information about something that does exist and is noteworthy, instead of simply the reasons you can pull it out of the article. I know that's not your duty, but it'd be nice and quite helpful, you know? You're holding me to guidelines that are not currently being used on information IN the actual article you're talking about. IIRC, nothing in the derivative works section of the Nosferatu article has any source listed at all... -- 4.153.84.172 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I checked... Nothing in the derivative works section has any sort of citation, yet that all gets to stay and only my edit is removed and now the reinsertion is contested by you. This smacks of bias in that my edit was about a publisher's Graphic Novel as opposed to a film or play. In other words, it's not "real" art. -- 23:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I looked at the Batman, Inc. article. It's already been reported on in multiple reliable sources, including the Los Angeles Times. If that were the case for the Nosferatu graphic novel, it would be qualified to have its own article as well. Yworo (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit of a dodge. You're answering something I didn't mention - I was taking issue with your statement that Wikipedia isn't for new media, and I pointed out something so new that it isn't even out yet. It directly contradicts your point, and that was what I was pointing out, not the idea that it wasn't noteworthy, which was all that your response addressed. -- 4.153.84.172 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant non-notable new media. Create an account and become part of the community rather than a single-purpose promoter of a marginally-notable graphic novel and perhaps I won't be so terse in my replies. Yworo (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I've made many edits over many years. My IP changes (often slightly) and I've switched ISPs repeatedly over that time. What's up with the assumption, and why do you feel it proper to look down on unregistered users as lesser beings? -- 4.153.85.63 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
All explained in the create an account link I put in the previous comment. I don't put the links in my comments for my benefit, but rather for yours. If you'd actually take the time to read them, you wouldn't ask such questions as they have already been answered. Yworo (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a link to an article on creating articles, mislabeled as an article on creating an account... and it doesn't answer the question of what's up with you looking down on someone for not registering. Would be nice if you could edit/discuss without the weird chip on your shoulder. Anyway, the GN is out now, and I have used a reference that is the website if an actual magazine available for purchse, as opposed to a personal or news blog. I'm re-adding, and would appreciate it if you'd contest it as opposed to simply removing it in what would pretty much amount to vandalism. -- 4.153.81.93 (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, here's the correct link. It'd be nice if you knew that "graphic novel" is not a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized. Guess it's due to too much time reading comic books and not enough time spent learning English grammar and writing style. Yworo (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for shining such a spotlight on your bias. As for your petty insults, don't expect me to lose sleep over that tired cliché tactic. Grammar and spelling correction are the last resorts of someone with no further point to make. -- 4.153.82.103 (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It's also sort of ironic that you wrote this while editing the article: "please learn what a proper noun is and how to capitalize" Need I point out the humor? -- 4.153.82.103 (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
He's got a good point for emphasizing that you register. How do you take someone's edits seriously, if they can't stand behind them enough to attach an identity to them? There are some pages that tend to get vandalized (or edited by idiots) a lot, which are locked from editing by users who aren't logged in. Dementia13 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe some redlinks are good for wikipedia. There are still notable subjects for which the English wikipedia does not yet have articles. They also serve to show readers other articles via "What links here".

So, please leave the redlinks that serve a useful purpose. -84user (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DVD?

Does anyone know if Nosferatu was released on DVD? I think I got a copy from HMV but unsure if it is genuine.--DoctorStrange (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the film was declared a plagiarism of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula and all prints were ordered destroyed by the courts, its copyright could not be renewed and the film is in the public domain worldwide. An unsourced statement in this article that it remains copyright-protected in its native Germany must be incorrect, for surely action against a German film company for acts committed in Germany had to be heard in a German court. The statements about this case in the articles on Stoker's widow, the novel and Stoker himself are similarly lacking geographical identification of the court and source citations (the one about the novel goes farther, carrying a cite request tag on this passage), nor do they claim the film to be copyrighted anywhere. Admittedly, the article on the widow implies that the order had little effect, with screenings in New York City and Detroit in 1929 (again, no source). I strongly suspect that these were isolated and quickly snuffed, if they happened at all. For decades, all published discussions of the film claimed that it was unseen between the court order and the expiration of the novel's copyright in the late 1950s, rendering the order moot. The article on the novel dates the expiration to April 1962, citing as source "Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 70 Cal.App.3d 552 (1977), note 4" and the relevancy of a 1970s lawsuit between Bela Lugosi (his heirs, his estate, whatever) and the movie studio responsible for the film adaptation of the Dracula play for which he recreated his stage role, I can't imagine. The point is, any DVD of Nosferatu is as "genuine" as any other. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nosferatu-movie-poster-11x17-large-style-c.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nosferatu-movie-poster-11x17-large-style-c.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nosferatu-movie-poster-11x17-large-style-c.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

FA Status

Nosferatu is already a Featured Article on the Dutch Wikipedia. I think we would bring some of the contests and sources it has to the English Wikipedia to improve it's status. (New Living Wiki Editor (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

Dr. von Helsing

The article mentions Dr. von Helsing twice, once by another name used in some versions of the film and again, later, stating that he doesn't appear in the original script. Was his appearances added back in after the original script? In the version I have by low-budget DVD producer St. Clair Vision, has a Dr. von Helsing appear, his showing a Venus Flytrap and a "vampire of the plant kingdom" and a polyp. I think his character also appears towards the end of the movie (I'm watching again, so I don't recall off hand).Jtyroler (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't watched it in a while...but he is not mentioned by name in the full credit list here[[1]], although there are two characters referred to as doctors: "Gemeindearzt Dr. Sievers" and "Arzt im Krankenhaus"... The people at filmportal work closely with the Murnau Stiftung, so I would treat their credits pretty much as the definite version. Drow69 (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Professor Bulwer" is the Van Helsing substitute, the teacher who shows examples of natuiral vampirism, namely the spider and the hydra. WHPratt (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Introduction :"... one print of Nosferatu survived ..."

How is a celluloid copy of a motion picture a "print"? --88.66.15.219 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's been accepted terminology for as long as I can remember! WHPratt (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Nosferatu

The film is not lost. We are going to see it in October at a mini theater that shows silent movies in Youngstown, Ohio. Chrissy824 (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Who ever said it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.34 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Salems Lot (film/movie/TV adaptation) 1979

"Mr Barlow" The vampire in the 1979 TV adaptation of the Stephen King book "Salem's Lot" is a Nosferatu type Vampire.

While in the original book he might of not been depicted as such, I still feel the TV adaptation and its Nosferatu inspired Vampire has made enough cultural impact for it to be mentioned in the Nosferatu article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.137.110 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I added a reference to the 1994 video game for the Super Nintendo titled Nosferatu. It seemed valuble because people may want to know that there was a video game that lifted its title from the film. --Person Mcpersonjoe (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this since (as you wrote yourself) "There is virtually no connection to the movie besides the name". I appreciate this was a good-faith attempt to improve the articles, but "in popular culture" sections expand to undue size, and one of the ways they can do this is if the most incidental of mentions is added to an article. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning Up and Expanding

Looking over the article, and considering the vast amount of information that exists on the film, it's surprising to me how underdeveloped and undersourced it is. There is plenty of information that can be added to the production section and its sub-sections, as well as every other section in the article. Information such as the film's rediscovery and home media releases need to be added to the article with proper citations for its information. The reception and legacy section needs to be split into their own sections with the former detailing the film's initial and later reception. The legacy section can be merged with the popular culture section and rewritten so that it's not bullet points but rather well-developed paragraphs. There is SOOOO much that needs to be done here, and considering how High Importance the film is to WikiProject Horror, hopefully someone comes along and gives it the proper attention it is due.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed in the Financial Times

Reviewed in the Financial Times: Nosferatu at 100: why the vampire movie masterpiece still has bite, 5 April 2022, Nigel Andrews. This mention just so that the comment isn’t lost. JDAWiseman (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

All these characters are linked to their counterparts in the Dracula novel/movie, who are named differently. I think the links are not appropriate since this is a different story (legal arguments aside).

Emile Blondet (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You are 100% right Emile Blondet. I'm not sure how I missed this over the years but they have now been removed. Thanks for your vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 01:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nosferatu/Archive_1&oldid=1258330179"