Talk:The Zombie Diaries

Critical Reaction

This page shouldn't pretend that this movie was critically acclaimed. There has been speculation that a lot of the positive reviews are from people to do with the film, IMDB and Amazon and Rotten Tomatoes pan it. I liked it, but I'm the kind of person that would like anything with zombies and suspense. Earfetish1 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, over at Play.com the customer reviews give it 2.5 stars out of 5. There are currently 63 reviews; 29 of which give it 1 star. 62.31.56.54 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the imdb hype claiming that many reviews were positive. Yes, many were but many were not and gave it very low star ratings. Currently there are 46 reviews using a 10 star rating. 9 reviews gave 1 star. 8 gave 2 stars. 3 gave 3 stars... Does anybody else find it suspicious that imdb's initial reviews all give it high ratings followed by low ratings? It's as though people involved in the film got in early and were hyping it with fake reviews followed by the low reviews of genuine movie goers who had seen the film. The whole Critical Reaction chapter seems very biased in favour of the film. 62.31.56.54 (talk)

The Critical Reaction chapter seems to be being vandalised by somebody removing all the negative comments and adding positive ones. Wikipedia is not an advertising page for the film. 62.31.56.54 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be referring to my changes. If so, I have never actually seen the film, nor am I involved in any way with it or it's publicity. However, I removed a change that contained uncited speculation about why people voted as they did. It does not belong in an encyclopaedia. I will remove the piece that I do not agree with and leave the rating comment. BananaFiend (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, given the edit-warring and the controversy, I have deleted the critical reaction section. It contained no reliable sources, and much unreferenced opinion. BananaFiend (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

These people should be beaten hard. So hard they get the hint and never make another movie ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.10.23 (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that the director of this film spends a LOT of time on the boards of IMDB fighting with other posters and creating threads claiming the movie was a sucess? Ive never seen a director of any decent skill lower themselves to this desperate posistion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.10.23 (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that the director was involved in the flame wars that were going on over on imdb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.223.109 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Except for the fact he personally signs in and argues with people. This guy is one six pack away from screaming at birds in the park while dribbling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.20.48 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zd cover.jpg

Image:Zd cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Constant amendments to the budget on wiki

There is no evidence that the film was made for $12,000, however the IMDB has stated for a few years now that the budget was £500,000 so that is what it should be stated as on here. Also there is a pedantic amendment changing 'platoon of soldiers' to 'several soldiers'. The soldiers are clearly around 15 in number and accompanied by jeeps etc. The term platoon is more accurate. The reference to the Dawn of the Dead remake is irrelevant in the description of this film. It is however right to discuss the similarities with Diary of the Dead as they both came out around the same time and released by the same distributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.223.109 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussing it is good - but you should also STOP edit-warring and reverting the other person's edits while you talk about it. Try to achieve a consensus here first, before you make any further changes -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree Zebedee, but at the same time it is frustrating when false information is displayed on wikipedia by someone who clearly has some agenda against the film. I would ask Bradswanson to prove that the film was made for $12,000. There is no evidence from what i've researched, yet IMDB displays (and has for some time) that the film was made for £500k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.223.109 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The budget has been listed on Wiki as $12,000 for a long time. It was quite obviously not made for $500,000. Just because one of the directors - and let's be under no illusion here - 86.14.223.109 IS one of the directors, claims on IMDB the budget is $500,000 does not make it so. IMDB details are not verified - people can claim a film cost anything, and anyone watching the Zombie Diaries can see that it had a miniscule budget. Regarding what you deem to be "pedantic amendments", they are simply stating facts. The film features less than ten soldiers. Considering a platoon is typically 30-50 soldiers, then even if there were 15 - which there isn't - then that is still not a platoon. This is clearly a claim by you as one of the directors to make the film appear better than it is. Regarding the comparison with the Romero film, you have obviously stated that Zombie Diaries was released first in an attempt to indicate that the idea was originally yours. In the interest of balance I have pointed out that another earlier Romero film featured a diary sequence in the end credits. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a marketing tool for you to attempt to sell your film or convince film companies and/or investors that you had a big success in the hope of getting future films financed.

OK, Seeing as neither of the two warring editors has provided a reliable source for their claims regarding the film's budget, I have removed both claims and left it blank - IMDB is not a reliable source, as it is open to unsupervised editing, and I don't think we can retain the $12,000 figure as that is clearly now disputed. If either of you wishes to add a figure for the budget, please only do so if you can provide a reliable source. As for the "platoon" argument, that seems like pedantic trivia to me and plays no real part in understanding the description of the movie, so I don't really think it matters - but you must stop warring over it. I have no opinion on the "diary" issue myself, other than the same comment about warring. Finally, if anyone thinks they have evidence for a conflict of interest, I suggest you present it in an ANI report, but refrain from making public accusations here. Now, this is my last attempt to try to help gain consensus - the next edit warring I see here will result in an edit-war report against both editors -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: I've also changed it to just say "soldiers of the British army". "Platoon" is not just a collective noun for soldiers, and whether a group of soldiers constitutes a platoon is not just based on how many there are. Also, "several" seems clumsy. Whether the soldiers actually constitute a platoon, or whatever, seems of no material relevance to the plot description, and so I hope the way I have changed it is suitably neutral now. I may have a think about the "diary" part later and try to word it in a suitably neutral way too, avoiding both editors' arguments -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How you have left it seems good to me, thank you. Bradswanson2010.

It is fine now, but Bradswanson's comments above are nothing short of libel and have no place on wikipedia. I would like to clarify that I am not the director of this film.

Glad you're both happy with the current state of this now - discussions can easily get a little heated at times of disagreement, but I'd suggest that we can move on from this now that we all find the content acceptable -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely I agree we should move on now we have reached a very reasonable consensus. Just to clarify to the IP editor, if you consider being accused of being one of the directors of this film has lowered your reputation, you probably don't think much of the film. And as I said that the directors are the ones who are seeking to make the film seem better than it is by filling IMDB and Wikipedia with spurious "facts" - and you say you are not one of them - then I have not libelled you. However you have libellously stated that I have an agenda against the film. But I forgive you. Bradswanson2010.

Brad, my I suggest you and the IP editor consider getting a life now that a consensus has been agreed on this particular issue?

Says the other dire... whoops, I mean person who is the other main contributor to this page. I'm sure you have no interest in making the film look good at all - much like your co-dire... sorry, nearly did it again - much like the other person who has absolutely nothing to do with this film. Nothing at all. Just like you. Totally impartial. Absolutely. Bradswanson2010

Oh come on children - stop it, please! -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I am one of the directors (although I can't prove it) and as much of a loser as Bradswanson2010 is (clearly a jealous filmmaker, or die-hard Romero fan who can't accept the demise of his hero) he does actually have his facts correct about the budget. We shot the film for 8,100 pounds (about 12 thousand bucks). There is a thread on wiki about "Low budget film" which has this. The imdb entry was more likely than not added by one of our distributors. Even when we made the sequel on a big 6 figure budget, they told us they don't know how we can make films so cheap. Hollywood doesn't really have a clue on how to control budgets, and they are heavily unionized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.170.29 (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I believe you when you say you are one of the directors, so thank you for confirming the budget, Michael. Of course it is possible to make a film for £8,100, it just ends up looking like a film that was made for £8,100. It also means you don't pay your cast or crew. As you made the film for £8,100 pounds, I assume that means you did not pay your cast and crew properly? Bradswanson2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

While this hasn't been touched in a while, I would like to point out that links 1 and 3 (relating to budget) should be removed, as the first link is dead, and the third link does not relate to budget, other than a comment made by a user. As I posted in the dispute resolution, I did not want to remove these myself. I would rather have a more experienced editor do so, if they agree. Acronin3 (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material that advances a position

I'm not a fan of this movie and I could care less if the article criticizes it...however, the statement about there being a video camera scene in Dawn of the Dead and therefore implying that this film copied it violates Wikipedia's rules on synthesis:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.

Not to mention that a comparison between the two Diary films is valid--both are films that are shot entirely in hand-held documentary format. Dawn of the Dead had a brief video diary sequence at the end credits. I'm not really seeing the connection and I don't think Romero or the filmmakers on this film were influenced by it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If the statement about there being a video camera scene in Dawn of the Dead "implies this film copied it", then the statement that this film was completed prior to the announcement of Romero's Diary of the Dead must therefore imply that Diary of the Dead copied this film? The line does not seek to "compare" the two diary films, it seeks to imply that Zombie Diaries had some wonderful original idea that was then copied. Pointing out that Diary of the Dead already employed this technique shows that this is not the case. Bradswanson2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement that one film predates another with both Diaries is backed by a source; both films were compared to each other in a published reference. To bring in a third unrelated film and propose a connection is original research and synthesis unless you have a source that comments on the connection. I can bring this up to WP:FILM if you want, but you're likely to get the same answer. It's not up to the Wikipedia editors to draw conclusions, just report on ones that have been already made.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghostface is correct here—without a reference to back up any comparison, implying inspiration from another source simply on the basis of perceived similarity is OR. You'd need to source to bring in the Dawn comparison. GRAPPLE X 16:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Grapple X. A quick search engine test (for reliable sources) does not show any commentary about the relationship. It does not seem worth noting. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That "source" is a personally written film blog site of a type that I see deemed unreliable as a source of info on Wikipedia virtually 100% of the time. It's also an interview with the writers/directors so as a "published reference", it's hardly likely to be impartial. I note the first "reference" on the page is the films own press kit! Not exactly independent or impartial there either. There are no noticable comparisons between either of the Diaries films except on sites and message boards such as imdb where the directors themselves make the comparison to hype their film up. The only reason the fact that this film was shot before diary of the dead is mentioned is to insinuate that the filmmakers came up with that as original idea. In the interests of balance it should also be mentioned that Dawn of the Dead predates this film and employed the same technique in its credits. It is mentioned several times here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363547/trivia or just watch the film. Bradswanson2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Interviews with the filmmakers are always relevant to an article if they can be properly attributed to it. As the point stands at present, it simply advances the position that Zombie Diaries didn't steal from Diary of the Dead, as it is highly unlikely that an obscure film would impact a noted director's work; whereas the opposite may have been assumed without such knowledge. IMDB, on the other hand, should never be used a source, as its content is almost entirely user-generated and is not deemed reliable. GRAPPLE X 02:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: THe fact that this film used a certain plot device before one well known film is relevant, but the fact another used the same plot device before this film, is irrelevant? And imdb is an unreliable source, but a film blog probably written by someone friendly with the filmmakers is reliable? I notice you're ok with the filmmakers own press kit being used as a source too? Bradswanson2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Does said blog pass WP:RS? If so, yes. If not, no. And yes a filmmaker's press kit is perfectly okay. It's a verifiable source for how the makers intend the film to be understood, which eliminates need for editors to use their own interpretation. What definitely isn't relevant is adding a comparison which can't backed up by anything other than IMDB - given the user-generated content for IMDB, there's neither verifiability due to the lack of citation or responsibility; nor the assurance that information there wasn't taken from here, and is now being used to back up the same information here in the first place.

tl;dr—IMDB no, press kit yes, blog? Check WP:RS and compare it to the criteria mentioned. GRAPPLE X 11:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's apparently irrelevant in that no published source has yet to draw the comparison between the two films. Zombie Diaries and Diary of the Dead are both 'found footage' films involving the zombie apocalypse; both films were shot entirely in a hand-held documentary format. Dawn of the Dead was a straightforward zombie film which had a found footage clip that played over the closing credits. One of these things is not like the other.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No the blog does not pass - it's as verifiable as imdb. Stating that Dawn of the Dead featured found footage in the end credits is not comparing it with the Zombie Diaries, it is counter balancing the insinuation that because it was made before Diary of the Dead that it must have influenced it in some way when it clearly did not. No proper published source has drawn comparison between Zombie Diaries and Diary of the Dead. Bradswanson2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

BradSwanson2010's posts show he is clearly not impartial. Every single update he has ever done is to troll over this page and remove anything that may even slightly paint the film in a positive light (references to Diary of the Dead) and lavishingly adds details such as his huge article on negative reviews of the sequel. He failed to include a number of mainstream publications (TimeOut, Daily Star) who gave the film a positive review, instead falsely claiming the film was universally panned. He clearly has a vendetta against the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfan1964 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Any updates have been to update the facts. It's not easy to find any positive reviews of the film as there are so few positive and so many overwhelmingly negative. Any "lavishing" details are just references to existing reviews; please feel free to check the sites referenced. If you have a problem with them, I suggest Wikipedia is not the place to vent your frustrations. The diary of the Dead reference has been dealt with and agreed on. I note all your updates refer only to this page too - perhaps you are connected to the film? Bradswanson2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: Please provide references for your review quotes or they will be removed as unverifiable. Bradswanson2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)