Talk:Night of the Living Dead/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

So if it's in the Public Domain....

Would it benefit Wikipedia Or WikiCommons to have the movie uploaded?----Occono (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

archive question

Archive 2 contains one posting. I know some talk sections can get overly long, but one posting seems a tad overzealous archiving. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Critical comments

While she asserts that "there are no Vietnamese in Night of the Living Dead, [...] they constitute an absent presence whose significance can be understood if narrative is construed". She points to aspects of the Vietnam War paralleled in the film: grainy black-and-white newsreels, search-and-destroy operations, helicopters, and graphic carnage.[68]

You have got to be @#$ing me. In any linguistic or grammatical or logical context, that statement is beyond idiotic. There were no Vietnamese, so it's obviously about Vietnam? What about the Nazis? I didn't see any Nazis, either. Nor Napoleon. And of course, there have never been any other grainy, black and white movies with helicopters and violence. Helicopters were only used in Vietnam. And no one ever actually uses guns against the opposition.

Yes, I'm mocking her. It's cute that she thinks she's clever and has written a book, but the useful content of this quote is negative. You can feel your IQ drop while reading it.

She can construe all the narrative she wants about zombies. I strongly suggest removing that quote, because it detracts from the credibility of the article.Mzmadmike (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Bishop, Kyle Williams (2010). "The Dead Walk the Earth: The Triumph of the Zombie Social Metaphor in Dawn of the Dead". American Zombie Gothic: The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of the Walking Dead in Popular Culture. McFarland. pp. 129–157. ISBN 0786448067.

Barbara/Barbra

This article switches constantly from Barbra to Barbara and back again. I guess all mentions should be standardised to Barbra as per the film's closing credits, but as I'm not passionate about this film I'll leave it to someone who is. Draggleduck (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The script's spelling is 'Barbara'. It was misspelled as 'Barbra' on the end credits (24.62.224.219 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

ghouls?

Why are the zombies soley referred to as 'ghouls' throughout the article and not zombies? :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ghoul" is the term Romero used in the script. --Erik Lönnrot (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

'Barbara', not 'Barbra' is how the character's name was spelled in Romero's script, despite the misspelling on the end credits. Should we use 'Barbara' as well? (24.62.224.219 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

NOTLD movie list?

Is there a place for films that use footage from NOTLD in them? For instance I was watching the Troma film Blood Junkie and it had a kid watching TV, and NOTLD was on. Mathewignash (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ghouls vs. Zombies

The term "zombie" is never uttered in the film, but the term "ghoul" is mentioned numerous times. How did the creatures in the film become identified with zombies subsequent to the film's release? Zombies were not associated with eating human flesh until this film. All previous zombie films were based on the Haitian conception of a zombie--an enslaved person either dead and brought back to life or drugged, who can generally be cured if allowed to eat salt. the term "zombie" most certainly appears in Dawn of the Dead, and Dario Argento even researched zombies for his contribution to the screenplay, but I am interested in knowing how the confusion came about such that the term "ghoul" has essentially been replaced with "zombie" creating confusion on the rare occasions these days when someone makes a film about true zombies, such as The Dead Don't Die or The Serpent and the Rainbow (good book, terrible film). --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Footnote #85

Could someone explain this footnote?

[[Hal Roach|Hal Roach Studios]] released a colorized version in 1986 that featured ghouls with pale green skin.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.copyright.gov/records/ |title=Copyright Catalog (1978 to present) — ''Night of the Living Dead'' |accessdate=2008-01-16 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date= |work= |publisher=[[United States Copyright Office]]}}</ref>

The citation makes no sense with the cited sentence. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues with this article

This article has issues to resolve. IMDB is unreliable, unless their self-publications, such as IMDB list of merchandise and most popular, are mentioned. Entries of the remakes were entered with one overcited statement. Some entries may no longer be necessary. Right now, this is a Featured Article. What can we do besides removing IMDB as unreliable? --George Ho (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources, such as IMDB

IMDB is totally unreliable yet used as sources. I can't tell you which ones for this article is too long to find, but, if you want which, I may reveal. --George Ho (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been bold. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_of_the_Living_Dead&diff=469710183&oldid=469709682. Are there objections? --George Ho (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

IMdB is fairly reliable, though not necessarily complete, for widely watched films & actors. We routinely use it, though a IMdB entry does not prove notability. If you object to specific statements, say which and give your evidence. Otherwise, why are you more reliable than they are? Are you doubting that Duane Jones or Judy O'Dea or Keith Wayne or Judith Ridley or S. W. Hinzman starred in the movies mentioned? Or are you saying they starred in additional movies that should be mentioned? Or are you saying that it shouldn't be included what later films they worked in? DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User-submitted, to be honest, even if IMDB provides factual information. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think if you can find a more reliable source than IMdB then, please, put them in; however, if you cannot find better sources, I think it would be best to put the references back to IMdB. Akihironihongo (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I added back IMDB references; nevertheless, I still think they are unreliable. I will have its FA status reassessed after 24 hours of this post, unless objections come about. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fake Name for Ben Deleted

A fake name for the character Ben giving him the fictitious last name 'Huss' was apparently an act of vandalism that went unquestioned, un-reverted and unquestioned for over an entire year, which is really amazing. In that time, people have seemingly passed along this false information since "it must be true, it was on Wikipedia." I think real fans of the film should be more vigilant on these pages, as the recent editors didn't even recognize this vandalism (67.234.138.239 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Addition by anonymous users about band of doubtful notability, referenced by the band's home page. No edit summary.

I reverted this edit (twice) because it looks to me to be non-notable. An IP reverted me without comment. Let's find consensus here, as per WP:BRD. -- Nczempin (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say that notability of the band is irrelevant to the notability of the work being referenced. If it is a legitimate revision of Night of the Living Dead then it should be listed, but with a press article for reference. Avlspacebunny (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Then anyone with video editing on their software could release a "legitimate revision" and note it here. It lacks notability and is using Wikipedia to advertise. Delete it. (67.234.138.239 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

That is why it needs a media source. If it is getting play in cinemas and being distributed enough to be reported on by 3rd party sources then I would consider it notable enough for inclusion... if it is simply leading to a sales page, then no it should not be listed. (edit- it was me who undid the initial revision, I do not have a media source but I have seen this revision advertised on billboards and television) 74.243.180.71 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of edit to copyright status section

This is the first time I've heard of a sourced vandalism. It's in the public notice on page 80 of this issue of Broadcasting Magazine, for those wondering where I got this information. --2600:6C5D:5B00:A84D:85D4:F4FC:E11E:842D (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)