Talk:The Manster

Untitled

The intro says that it has "creative use of special effects" but then doesn't go on to explain that. Can we get some more detail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.255.148 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Informative page

I made this page with reviews, promotional material, et cetera: http://kristian.anapnea.net/manster/

May I suggest it gets added to "External Links"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.211.216 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Release Date and Production country

So I'm a bit confused with the production country and release date of this film. Stuart Galbraith IV's book The Japanese Filmography states that it was released in 1962, but no release date for 1959 at all. He emphasiszes that it's an American production, filmed in Japan. This also goes for the American Film Institute who state a similar thing. This also goes for Video WatchDog creator Tim Lucas who mentions it being an American production filmed in Japan. The Monthly Film Bulletin notes it's an American Japanese co-production without going into details (this is a review from 1961 mind you) while Keep Watching the Skies! book calls it an American and Japanese co-production, but doesn't go against state why it would be this way, something that the AFI and Galbraith IV's book does do.

Until we get some strong sources that go into detail about why or why it is not part of these productions, I think we should wait it out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I must agree. If anyone can find info that the film was indeed an American/Japanese co-production, please do. If not, then we'll just keep it written as an American film. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28:, this site is not exactly follow WP:RS, but it may point us in the right direction. This site has many articles from the press release and openly admits that there is not a lot known about the production of the film, as even the year it was made is up for debate. The article that interests me the most is the one from The Pacific Stars & Stripes which has a small article on the film reportedly from the 1959 issue states the film opening in Japan in 1959. Other people I've heard say they have Japanese documents covering the film, but it is labeled a "foreign" production in Japanese sources. I'm strongly leaning towards the American production solely for now with that info, but it does appear to have been shown in Japan in 1959...from this single source. Hmm. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously if the 1959 magazine you have actually stated that the film opened in 1959, then obviously it opened in 1959. There can't be any other explanation. That one reference locks it in beyond a doubt, right?68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It was made in Japan as a US/Japanese co-production as the reference books all state. It was co-produced by George Breakston, William Shelton and Ryukichi Aimono (who represented the Japanese company involved.) The cast was more than 1/2 Japanese and the special effects & soundtrack were all done by Japanese technicians, and it was filmed in Japan in a Japanese studio.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You might as well say it was filmed on the moon as well before stating content without a source. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Before we keep adding the same AllMovie source which goes against what three other sources state, the only information I can come up with is a production company titled "United Artists of Japan". However, according to this book, its an American production company. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

1959

Please don't give information regarding this date without a source. The last edit suggested it was in Galbraith IV's book, which I have in my hand. There is nothing regarding the 1950s in that book. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I listed the source, it was All-Movie that listed the 1959 release date. It's also the only Japanese release date that pops up anywhere on the internet. Galbraith is the only reference that lists it as a 1961 movie. It seems the 1959 date is the correct one.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

AllMovie specifically states a US release, which goes against all other major sources (Galbraith, American Film Institute (which has specific details about a premiere)). Your unverified, unsourced, original research does not really add up to much here. Where's the source? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Judging by edits you made that were removed, you added a 1959 release date citing AllMovie (which does not state anything about a Japanese release date) and a wikipedia article to a newspaper with no context to when it said what you claim. That's not good enough content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You are the one who found the Stars and Stripes article that stated the film premiered in 1959 in Japan! Here's what you wrote: "The article that interests me the most is the one from The Pacific Stars & Stripes which has a small article on the film reportedly from the 1959 issue states the film opening in Japan in 1959." Obviously if that magazine came out in 1959 and reviewed the film, that means it definitely was premiered at least somewhere in 1959.68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been come a bit more of a strict editor since then and said it was at least interesting, but as you see, I did not add it as a source to the article. Its from a fansite. If we can source it directly to the newspaper then it might be ok. But we would need a page number for that newspaper article either way and find someone who can source it to that. I've tried newspaper archives online, but can't find a match for this article yet. Beyond that, I have not found any other source claiming the 1959 date and have definitely have found contradictory evidence. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Whups. My bad, the image does state a release. It would still require a page number however. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So now AllMovie and the S&S magazine both mention its being actually released in 1959, and you still won't put it in the article? You've got to be kidding about finding a page number, right? It's a miracle the article still exists at all. At least put that it's a 1959 film in the lead sentence, and later if it gets contradicted, change it. What other contradictory evidence have you found that it wasn't released in 1959? Everything I find on the web says it's a 1959 movie. Why don't you contact George Breakston and we'll ask him? This is getting silly now. lol68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC) I meant Stars and Stripes, not Sight and Sound.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The AllMovie source is very clear. It says " Release Date - Jul 1, 1959 (USA - Unknown)". Where are you getting a Japanese release date from this? I'm not kidding, you are taking information from a self-published fan site by no one I can tell is an authority on the film other than having an impressive collection of unverified materials. It's a good start for me or you shutting down the argument on whether the film was released at this period or not, but its not concrete. As for your "What other contradictory evidence have you found that it wasn't released in 1959?", I don't need to provide any because you have not provided any concrete information. Per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" Don't got the source, then you do not have the content. Personal contacts obviously wouldn't really hold up, can't really cite a personal conversation with someone, even though I know you are kidding. So no, we don't just put information in and hope someone will source it later if you have it, add it. If you don't, then have some patience and eventually you will have some content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Release Date - Jul 1, 1959 (USA - Unknown)" --- to me, that doesn't mean it was released in 1959 in the USA. More than likely it means it's a USA movie, and its initial release (anywhere) was July 1, 1959. Since we know for a fact it was only released in the USA in 1962, that would imply the Japanese release date was 1959. (I actually saw the Manster in the movies as a child in 1962 with Eyes without a Face, so I know for a fact it was 1962 in the USA.) But there's no point in arguing, since you're just going to keep deleting the date if I put it in. (By the way, I didn't put the 1959 date into the Manster wiki article, that was done by whoever initially posted the article on wikipedia, probably years ago. So you're deleting that guy's info, not mine. I just happen to think he was right about the date.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

btw, if you search for the words "THE MANSTER RELEASE DATE" on Google, the July 1, 1959 date pops right up. It's also on imdb, which I know you assume is incorrect, but that date is everywhere! If it just said 1959, I'd say maybe it was wrong, but "July 1, 1959" is pretty specific, no? They all agree even on the July 1st date! It obviously refers to its Japan release, but whatever. I have no idea how you could find anything more specific than that.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not really agree with your idea on how to interpret the AllMovie source, specifically the "it more than likely says". It either says it does or not does not, and I can not imagine what the USA text would mean otherwise. I'm not saying if you combined them it would definitely suggest that it was released in that year. For the record, I do not doubt that is the correct release date, but we still need a source that doesn't "kinda sorta say that", we need one that says it (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE). Do you read the rules I post to you? Because if so, I am not really sure how you think you are following them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I go to hundreds of wiki pages that dont have a single reference source anywhere on them. So I don't think i'm the only one on wiki who's not following them strictly. The USA in that quote probably refers to the fact that they thought it was an American film, not that it was released in the USA in 1959. Unfortunately, the Manster could very easily have been made (& released) in either 1959 or 1961, it's impossible to tell from the style of the photography, or from the fact that it was in B&W, or even from the actors who were in it (Jerry Ito and the guy who played the mad doctor were in a million Japanese movies between 1958 and 1963. If one of the actors had died in 1959, maybe that would clinch it, but even then you'd say the film might not have been released in '59. For years I assumed it was made in 1961 or 1962, since that's when I saw it in the movies. But then again, Eyes Without a Face was technically made in '59 (released in France in 1960, and wound up premiering in the US in July, 1962 along with the Manster! So that Stars and Stripes magazine which was on the newsstands in 1959 and reviewed the film as being released at that time has to be viewed as the ultimate source. The film had to have come out in Japan in 1959, or how else could the magazine review it?68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't use it because it does not come from a reliable source (see WP:RSSELF). Like, let's say someone uploaded that some image hosting site, and someone else uploaded it and started editing it around to state different things. That's why we use published sources when dealing with this material, not things people can edit to cause false information swimming around. It's a good starting point, but we need to find a published source containing the articles information. We have not yet, without using fansites (see WP:SPS). I would not deny that several pages have unpublished and unsourced content, but like all pages breaking the rules or not following them, this content will just eventually be removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the bmoviecentral site (nothing on the page indicates where it was released and the site itself appears to be a b-movie fansite. Fails WP:RS). As for the others, remember WP:STICKTOSOURCE, don't mention things (i.e: trivia) you personally find interesting. The source states two people, does not state they are the same person and this person does not seem to be involved in special effects otherwise. Trivial, and unsupported by your sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

ok, so you really believe there were two different Japanese men who worked on the film who were BOTH named Shinpei Takagi?? Are you serious? In other words, there was an actor in the film named Shinpei Takagi, and a special effects man also named Shinpei Takagi? Is that what you're suggesting? There were two Japanese men working on that film with the same name? I will assume you're just joking on that one.68.129.15.71 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You say I shouldn't include trivia that I personally find interesting? Isn't that the test of whether or not movie fans would find it interesting, being as I collect and research these films? Who should I aim for as an interested audience, sports fans? Most of the Japanese sci-fi films that fans collect were made in Color and Cinemascope, so a lot of collectors would appreciate being told that a film they are just learning about was actually made in a black and white fullscreen format. Most collectors are very surprised to learn that some of the earlier Japanese films were not in color or scope. It's a perfectly legitimate fact to include in an entry, plus I included sources like you said to do, and you still deleted it. You couldn't just leave those 4 or 5 words in the article?68.129.15.71 (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Regarding a site failing the test of not being "published"....if the site is up on the internet for everyone in the world to access, wouldn't that be considered "published" in today's terminology? Isn't that how authors publish their work nowadays, on the web, right? So what exactly do you mean when you say a site that's on the internet is'nt published? If it wasn't published (or made public), how are we able to read it? Technically, every internet site has been published, so wiki should change that rule, don't you think?68.129.15.71 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Another thing, I found 5 more hardcover reference books at my house that all list the film as "THE MANSTER" (1959), but you keep saying a film isn't a 1959 film unless it was theatrically released in 1959, which isnt right. Many 1959 films were only distributed in 1962, such as things like Eyes Without a Face, The Brain That Wouldn't die, etc. If you list them as 1962 films, it throws everything out of line if you try to put the films in chronological order (to see the progression of a certain actor's career, for example.) Every reference source lists Manster as "a 1959 film", and some sources state it was released in 1959, but you don't consider it a 1959 film if it was released in 1962, yet the film was actually a product of 1959, not 1962. The length of time it took for them to find a distributor should have nothing to do with it. You should go by the copyright date on each film, that's when it was finished and available for distribution.68.129.15.71 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Bring your new definitions of published and what is or isn't trivial after reading MOS:TRIVIA, WP:SPS and WP:RS. As for films stating The Manster (1959), I've found several that say The Manster (1962), in fact take a look for yourself. I really insist you bring your findings to WP:FILM's talk page. I don't think I can convince you further and your lack of posting there suggests you already know the conclusion. As for "aren't all websites published", WP:SOURCE states " Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[6] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." and "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." As for black and white information, I don't disagree that it's slightly more interesting, but there is very little documentation about this film. If you can find a source that makes specific detail about it being and black and white and that it was a unique or special element, then re-add it. Otherwise, its trivial. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually 99.9% of the Earth's population consider ANY information regarding The Manster as trivial. I'd assume the .1% of the people who might actually go to a Manster wikipage would find ANYTHING about it interesting that they didn't know before.19:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC) btw, your own definition of published states the word published means "made available to the public in some form", which is what a fansite would be. Published doesnt' necessarily mean on paper with a binding and stored on a shelf in this day and age. Any site on the internet has to be "made available to the public" in order for us to see or read it, right?68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Also That Manster poster you added can't be the original Japanese release poster from '59 since it says "THE SPLIT" on it, which is the title that was used when the film was released in England in 1962. I think the one that you took down was the original Japanese poster actually.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) BTW, didn't you think it strange that the Manster was released initially in Japan three years before it was shown in the US? and you have it listed as "an American horror film" in the article? This if nothing else proves it was a US/Japanese co-production. What other American horror film was initially released in Japan three years before it was shown in the US? None, except maybe "THE GREEN SLIME" which was also a US/Japanese co-production19:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of "i assume" and "everybody this" and "nobody that". It's not my definition of published, its Wikipedias, and it definately ranks peer-reviewed sources (i.e: journals, published books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) over fan sites with no authority. Made to public in this case, means, you could get this information (i.e: you can buy a book/newspaper/etc.). As for the whole released in Japan details, I have yet to find published modern reviews referring to it as a Japanese production. Tim Lucas, who has dedicated his life to writing about writing about these types of genres films specifically states it's an American production filmed in Japan. As does do the other sources backing it up. If you want to use fansites as a source or the multitude of other things you want to do, take it elsewhere as your problem with the sources goes above and beyond The Manster article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In this day and age, where most publishing is done on the internet and not in printed books any more, I don't see why a book or newspaper source should be ranked above a fan site. Just because something is in a book doesn't make it more accurate than a fact published on a fan site. In fact, the fansite would probably be MORE accurate because 1) the internet sites (like wiki) can be constantly updated whereas a book (once it's published) will always contains its errors, and 2) the fansite aside from being more current is run by fanatical fans who spend their waking hours researching these films, whereas the guy who published that old 1993 book you're using is probably dead! So I'd say wiki should definitely think about upgrading its definition of what "published" means, now that we are in the computer age, no? (I must agree that I've found errors in imdb, but then I see errors all the time on wikipedia, despite their inclusion of sources. If imdb is the only source on a particular topic, it should still be able to be used until that particular fact is contradicted or proven false. 99.9 % of the facts on imdb are dead on accurate, it may even have a higher percentage of accuracy than wikipedia. So why this hostility to imdb? This maniacal rule about not using it because it's tainted? lol Almost everything on imdb is dead on accurate.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, even assuming a printed book or newspaper is higher ranked than a fansite, it doesn't mean the fansite CAN'T be used as a source, in the absence of other more trustworthy sources. The fansite is still a source and to disregard anything printed on the site as inaccurate just because it's not in a published book is not logical. In another ten years, there will be no printed books, then what are you going to do?68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I didnt say the Manster wasn't an American film made in Japan, it obviously was. But it was a co-production as well, because a Japanese co-producer put money into the film, and saw to it that the film premiered in Japan three YEARS before it was shown in the USA. Don't you find that strange? I wouldn't call the Manster a purely Japanese horror film either, since the main creative people behind it were Americans, and most of the main actors were British, so it's a "co-production" of some type. The fact that it was released first in Japan shows that the Japanese distributors felt they had a serious interest in this film, a financial one. Also, 1/2 the actors were Japanese, the special effects man was Japanese and the soundtrack was done by a Japanese composer. So I can't see why you won't just put it was a US/Japanese co-production and let it go at that? Deep down inside you must know that it was.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:RS/IMDb, WP:SPS and WP:OR and all your questions will be revealed before your very eyes. Except one, which is we would not put as a Japanese co-production because there does not appear to be any Japanese production company behind it.

We do not use IMDb because its content is submitted be users, and therfore fails WP:RS. You don't appear to be listening to me, so from here on in if you can't read the rules or take my suggestions I do not have much further to say. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to follow-up, but arguing with me and combing together bits and pieces of clues is not a way to conclude anything here. So is it unusual that it was released in Japan first? A little, yes. Does it make anything you are trying to suggest proven? It does not in any way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a Japanese producer named Ryukichi Aimono who put up part of the cash, sources all list his name, but not his company's name, but he was still a producer, wasn't he? You had 3 producers chipping in the money, and one of them was him. So you have 2 American producers working with a Japanese producer.....hence it is a "co-production". That's why the film was released so quickly in Japan, because Mr. Aimono wanted his money back. No one in America was interested in distributing the film until they sold it as part of a double feature in '62. By the way, why are all the main roles played by British actors, if it was an American film? That's another very odd thing. If you look up the British actors in this film, all of their other films were made in England. Why would an American film company bring all those British actors to Japan? And they weren't British actors who used to live in Japan either.68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool story. But you still need a source to make any of it worth its two cents here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I put the source and page number on the wikipage when I entered the Japanese producer's name to the article, and you deleted it all.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You did not actually state what the source was saying, which is really against the rules. The source referred to them as an associate producer, not a producer. There is only one person credited to being a producer which is currently in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

TCM article

I've removed the additions of the TCM article. The article has some interesting point of view, but it does a few things that don't make me think its reliable. Namely, it contradicts itself, it makes suggestions of what potentially could be (which was listed as fact), and the edits removed other content. There is countless contradicting information on the article, so just applying it without any context is not what I'd consider appropriate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the contradictions you mentioned. It lists the film as a Japanese-American co-production, then it says later on that it "may well be" the first ever such co-production between the US and Japan. That's not a contradiction. The fact that it was a co-production is referred to as a fact, the "may be" part refers to the thought that it may have been the first such co-production between those 2 countries. But they're not saying that the film "may be" a co-production. That is obvious from the credits, the initial release date in Japan in 1961 (according to Galbraith) and the fact that the film's original title is in Japanese!68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The wiki article lists the MANSTER as an American film, which it is not. If anything, it was an American-Japanese co-production. In fact, it could be called a Japanese film, why is which it is in Galbraith's Japanese film guide. It was shot in japan, with a Japanese production crew in a Japanese studio, and with mostly Japanese actors. The few caucasian actors were more British than American. The producer Breakston was living in Europe, Africa & Japan and was making films all over the world. He wasn't an American film producer specificaly. The film even had a Japanese title ("The Manster" title was just glued on afterwards by US distributors). It also premiered in Japan a year before it was shown in the US, which is another point that makes it, at the VERY least, an American-Japanese co-production. I cited both Galbraith and TCM as sources that both consider the Manster to be a Japanese film (or at least a co-production). Listing it as an American horror film is just plain inaccurate and very misleading. I'm sure Galbraith would agree on that too. That's why it's in his Guide to Japanese horror films.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have read Galbraiths guide, he mentions he does include non-Japanese productions and specifically references The Manster. Everything else you state is basically speculation. Again, unless you quote me text it just suggests to me you either a: do not read sources or b: are unable to do so. mAndrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There was a Japanese producer named Ryuichi Aimono who put up part of the cash, so you had 3 producers chipping in the money, and one of them was Ryuichi Aimono. So you have 2 American producers working with 1 Japanese producer.....so isn't that a "co-production". That's why the film was released a year earlier in Japan68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, Aimono was an associate producer (see our previous conversation above). I am going to say this once more, and then I will ignore you as you are not getting it. We do not post original research, you are making conclusions that are not stating what the source actually states. You have been banned before for this and you have claimed that sources matter to you, but you are not providing anything new to the table other than the same wiki editing habits that had you banned previously. Please show you have the competence to read the links in this message and not edit the article unless you can find some hard evidence. If you have questions, ask me on the talk page, but if its not anything not stated here already, I probably will not reply. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ok then that's it for me. I supplied the actual name of the Japanese co-producer, but now you say there's no evidence that he actually invested any money in the film. I guess technically that's true, the source didn't say how much cash he invested, but I always thought that's what a producer (or an associate producer) did. If you don't want him mentioned in the article, that's fine. We'll just leave the film as an American horror movie. I certainly don't want to quarrel over it.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest less on just googling peoples name any word you are trying to source and crediting it to a database that does not seem to cater any information on how its information is gathered or sourced. Find published sources, databases that actually state how their information is gathered, etc. I am not disagreeing with you the a Japanese person may have been involved in the production at one point, but its not clear what was done and what company the producers are representing. I appreciate you wanting clarified information, but do not fill in the blanks. Please note, these are not my rules or me trying to get my way, this is me trying to follow the rules of Wikipedia which I have wikilinked to you countless times before. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

1959 notice

There are clearly some sources that state 1959 as a release but contradict the Galbraith book and the sources added were stating they were in the United States, not Japan. I've removed them because they were not Sticking to the source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

As a heads up, we don't use Blu-Ray.com as a source for information. See WP:RSP/BLURAY for more information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

AllMovie source

AllMovie.com lists the specific theatrical Japanese release date, it actually says July 1, 1959 as the first ever release date of the film. .Next to that it says "USA-Unknown", which means they weren't sure of the USA release date. But it specifically lists the first theatrtical showing as being on July 1, 1959. AllMovie is a reference source that is used throughout wikipedia, it is a legitimate source. And it gives the exact release date in 1959, so there's nothing even questionable about this.

Please see the discussion above on it, I can't find any sources backing up a USA release for 1959. You also states what the USA-Unknown means, can you show me where on the site it means that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The AllMovie source says "Release Date - July 1, 1959 (USA - Unknown)" -- That means the film was FIRST RELEASED theatrically on July 1, 1959. But they didn't know the exact USA release date, so they wrote (USA - Unknown). But all that really matters is the film's original release date which they plainly state was July 1, 1959. (The 1962 USA release info is mentioned later on in the main body of the article). EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It does matter, because I can't find any other source backing up an American release for this date. Even copies of Famous Monsters of Filmland only promote the film. Absolutely nothing on a US release on Newspapers.com either (but several closer to the 1960s date). So no, AllMovie, which is an alright source, but is simply wrong in this case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There was no 1959 release date in the US. It was released in Japan in 1959. It was only released in the USA in 1962. The two dates have been clearly established. That's why you can't find a 1959 release date for the US. AllMovie lists the originasl release date as July 1, 1959, and the Stuart Galbraith book on Japanese movies lists that it was released in the US in 1962 on a double bill with "Eyes Without a Face". 1959 was the original release date, and 1962 was the US release date. It's all documented, yet you persist in turning this into a mystery of some sort. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Your AllMovie source doesn't state that as a Japanese release, so we can't use it per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Do not go above and beyond what sources state. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying to list as the Japanese release. Just list it as the film's original theatrical release in general. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The source says "USA-Unknown" as you have just stated, which is not the case from the above mentioned items, so regardless, you are still going against WP:STICKTOSOURCE, specifically that "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." In this case, you are trying to state something the source is not stating. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Update

I've found a date and copies of the magazine that was linked above relating to the release of the newspaper. It can be found here here. I've supplemented the article with this information, so now we can finally add a source of release to this obscure little film oddity. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The main point is to finally identify the film as a 50's horror film, not a 1962 film. Thank you for changing that. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The main point is should be to reflect what sources state, which you is not what you have done in your previous updates/edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)