This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This is sort of preemptive strike: This article is not really 53 kb long. When the Reference section and footnotes are removed, the article is only 35 kb; see here. According to Wikipedia:Article size, "only the main body of prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size". Thanks. Dmoon1 21:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Romero has repeatedly stated that in his movies, biting only accelerates the 'zombification' process (in that being bitten kills you faster), but is not the cause. The cause, as stated in Night of the Living Dead, is of radioactive materials returning from some sort of spacecraft (a probe, I believe, it's in the main article). In an interview, I'm wanting to say from the Land of the Dead special features, he stated that one does NOT have to be bitten, and that this is a misconception of his movies. Particularly, in that movie, a man hangs himself and becomes a zombie. I don't like removing people's work, especially when it cites two sources, but it's wrong, and should be corrected. Biting is only the cause in the non Romero movies. The section I'm talking about is under Influences.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Triikan ( talk • contribs)
Love the article as it is now...just a minor quibble regarding part of the above. Romero never intended for there to be an actual cause given for the zombie menace, and mentions that in the commentary. The "radiation" theory was not intended to be the true explanation for the plague. 207.69.137.207 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Using chocolate syrup for blood isn't "innovative". I understand Hitchcock used it in the shower scene in Psycho.
Does anyone else feel that this page is in desperate need of a proper plot summary? The reason I say this is because this article just seems empty without one. If nothing else, I'll type one up (or find one from a good source), but I would really like to know anyone else's thoughts on the matter before I do so.-- Jt 03:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Some anonymous idiot kept adding spam links to some Undead Gaming website. I deleted all the links I could find. ( Ibaranoff24 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC))
I deleted a big long screed on the copyright status of this film - it was clearly POV and non-encyclopediac, contained numerous spelling mistakes, and was (IMO) wrong on certain points of US law. I wouldn't be opposed to a better-written passage outlining any actual controversy on the copyright status of this film (if there is one). unsigned comment posted by Aim Here
One may assume that due to the films underlying social commentary, particularly on racism, the zombie hunters may have killed Ben because he was black.
This is (a) opinion and (b) uncited; together that disqualifies it for inclusion. We're not supposed to do original research on Wikipedia. If you have a citation that supports it, keeping it is OK. -- David.alex.lamb 04:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Commentary on racism in this movie, however powerful to the perceiver, is incidental. Romero rewrote the speaking dialogue for Duane Jones, not the plot. The role was originally written for a white character. This is documented on audio commentaries and in the NOTLD book. 24.33.28.52 06:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
In a duscusion about NOTLD Ms Judith O'Dea and Rus Sreiner both dismissed the idea of 'Social Commentary' or 'Politcal Statement' in the movie. Judith said the reason Duane Jones was chosen by the film makers was because of his superb acting skills that just blew away the film producers at his audition. Johnwrd ( talk) 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
First jhonny's head was smased on a wrave stone not a rock, And second tom set the gas tank on fire not Ben
The proper spelling of the woman's name, according to the credits, is Barbra, not Barbara. I'm a-gonna change all the names that now. 70.171.59.231 05:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously 'Barbra' was a misspelling on the credits. When Johnny taunts her, he is clearly saying "They're coming to get you Bar-bar-a" in his Karloff imitation.
'Barbra' seems to be a misspelling and nothing else. ( 24.62.100.100 ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
Also the shooting script spells the name: Barbara.
John Russo's novelization spells the name: Barbara
The 1990 remake (written by George A. Romero) spells the name: Barbara
The official 'Night of the Living Dead Filmbook' (written by John Russo) spells the name as Barbara
The only place you will find it spelled as 'Barbra' is in the end credits.
( 24.62.100.100 ( talk) 05:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
This seems POV to me. Helen doesn`t become overwhelmed until the ghouls are literally breaking the walls down at the end and pulling her through the holes. It seems like an effort is being made to say something along the lines of "Romero wasn`t a racist but don`t you think he was TOO nice!" Is this appropriate? Not going to change it myself since I`m not sure, but I think this stuff should probably go. 24.33.28.52 07:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That's right, she escapes from the wall pulling. I mixed that up. I still think it's not necessarily appropriate to hold Romero accountable for this lack of conformance with today's attitudes. 24.33.28.52 18:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I see your point about keeping the paragraph, however the term "hysterical" is a bit loaded in this context. Allow me to take this to a different level. I think that perception of Romero's films has changed over time with A) their own familiarity, and B) that of their ripoffs and ripples. Since Helen's only real "mistake" (other than marrying Harry) was to not immediately perform violence on her own daughter when it became necessary, I submit that this is not hysteria but instead something that Romero thought would be a normal mental state for people. When Ben ruthlessly deals with the same little girl, it's not his own daughter that he's shooting (he never even sees the girl until then, making her pretty anonymous).
No males are truly confronted with this dilemma in NIGHT, making comparison difficult; the closest handy similarity is to Roger's freakout in DAWN. Since then, we've evolved this sort of "survival horror mode" which people are presented as slipping into readily, but in Romero's day this was not the case. I've had arguments with people while watching DAWN where they say things like "why does he freak out" and I'm always a little staggered by it... I wind up saying things like "There are dead folk walking around and they eat you and there's no goin' back!" And people are like, "Yeah, so? He knew that already." This is the shift of mentality I'm trying to address. The "my family member is still alive, how could this be a zombie" business is illustrated again with "Miguelito" at the opening of DAWN. Also with a woman though.
Suggest "immobilized" as a description of Helen's state rather than "hysterical." The history of that term makes it seem like an extra nudge of accusation. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Sorry this got so long. 24.33.28.52 03:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Should there be any mention of the artificial 3D version, or Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D, or Laugh Track: Night of the Living Dead? I've only seen NotDotDotSotBotRotRotTotAotEMAFEHZLDP2iS2D, and that was years ago. Шизомби 23:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
How did Roger Ebert review this movie in January 1967 [1], when the release date was October 1968 [2]? Steve 06:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have rewrote/revised/updated this article. Much of the original information was retained. I found some clearer screenshots to replace those previously used, however. The redlinks will be replaced over time. The article is a little on the bulky side at around 51 kb; there was just too much information available and this horror film was more important than I previously imagined when I began rewriting the article. I think it probably still needs a good copy-edit and put up for peer review. Any comments will be helpful. Dmoon1 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That I Am Legend was also made into The Last Man on Earth (1964) and The Omega Man (1971) may deserve a mention in the writing section. Too peripheral?-- Fuhghettaboutit 21:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It is my opinion that all of the screen captures from the original black and white version of the film, on this page and on pages related to the film, should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. Since the black and white version of the film is in the public domain, there's no reason for all of these screencaps to take up space on Wikipedia. Also, this way, images can be used on all WikiProjects, including the non-English versions of the article. ( Ibaranoff24 03:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC))
I'll save you the time and upgrade it now. A few comments though:
-- P-Chan 21:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Response:
Thanks again. Dmoon1 22:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The Plague of the Zombies is stated as being set in the Carribean, but in actual fact it takes place in Cornwall... It does involve a Voodoo witch doctor however. I think it, as well as the other two films in the sentence, should be left in, but am not sure how to rephrase things short of cutting out the Carribean reference altogether. Any ideas?
I'd also argue strongly that Shaun Of The Dead is a tribute and not a parody...
MrKWatkins 00:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Night of the Living Dead recently became a featured article! Thanks to everyone who contributed during peer review and supported the article during FAC. Dmoon1 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Up To Date website should have an interview posted soon. -- Gbleem 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There has been some discussion at Talk:Zombie about whether voodoo zombies and Romero zombies are sufficiently different to merit separate articles, with zombie being merely a redirect or little more than a redirect. I read somehwere that the NoLD creatures were first described as "zombies" in a (French?) magazine review; they seem to me to be closer to ghouls, though combining features of both. jnestorius( talk) 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has been vandalized quite a lot very recently... Should it be protected so that only wikipedia members may edit it? HumanProdigy 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
someone really wants to waste their time on halloween by vandalizing the page rather than going out and having fun in the real world. can we protect this? --13:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) azra'el
The article was vandalised quite badly by 24.97.33.132 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I see from this user's talk page that they have vandalised several articles already and are on their last warning. I don't know what action needs to be taken? Will2710 13:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I kinda messed up the artical but someone rellay vandalized it and I just did a quick copy and paste fix user:ro-man 8:57 31,october 2006
i think it should be protected. at least while its up on the main page. azra'el 13:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
good job people
On 11\1\06, the channel G4, they showed Night of the Living Dead in 3 ways at the same time. The normal, with George Romono commentary, and a live at the time redo of the movie. Should this be included in the article? -- ASDFGHJKL 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
'resourceful Negro' wtf is this country on?? had a white guy played lead, it wouldn't be 'resourceful' this and 'surprisingly clever' that. nothing has changed in this country since back then. Jones played the part extremely well (the fact that this particular film is highly regarded as the best of all zombie remakes defends my point), yet you still can't get past him being African American?? Panda
jackie chan was never in the movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.193.116 ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
Could we trim this plot down? It slightly concerns me that a 96 minute horror movie, whose plot is basically about a small group of people hold up in a house while zombies come to eat them, probably doesn't need 958 words of description. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I can say that when I looked at the link you gave me, that the first two paragraphs were about to look almost word for word how I was going to trim them. I like the original version. There is less of that POV qualifying of characters. I think the current version say something like "stubborn, uptight Harry". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
can anybody else confirm that the opening scene was filmed in butler? from what i understand it was filmed in hickory, pa (also known as cherry valley) outside of the old school house there. i was told that my cousins, who lived next to the school, were extras in the movie. thoughts on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sefzik ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Despite the fact that John Russo was involved in Return of the Living Dead, which is not nearly up to par of Romero's films, it is unrelated to the Dead series and has nothing to do with them. I don't know why it keeps appearing in the "followed by" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.175.33.135 ( talk) 05:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
The citations should be updated to use the cite web and cite book templates. ( Ibaranoff24 04:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
I was just curious as to whether or not the color versions or any other versions of NotLD were Public Domain along with the original version? I want to download them if so, but I don't wanna download them illegally if they are not. Thanks. Jay 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not the 'Mike Nelson' solo commentary on the RiffTrax version, it's a brand new commentary with 'The Film Crew' which includes Nelson. The DVD has a different commentary all together with different jokes.( 24.62.100.100 ( talk) 05:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
Quote:"The original would be public domain, but any other version (color, Russo's re-edit, etc.) would be under copyright to whomever it was that created that variation"
That is not exactly the truth. While the colorized versions (Yes, two exist) are considered to be unique versions by copyright law, other versions (fan edits, and such) would be just as much in the public domain as the original 1968 black & white version is.
Even if you were to add original music, or new scenes only those elements would/might be copyrighted. If you added ghoul footage from 'The Last Man on Earth' for instance, it would be as public domain as before.
The colorized version is completely protected by copyright law.
( 24.62.100.100 ( talk) 05:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
I removed the bit at the end that says "this is seen by many as a reference to racial segregation and racism in general in that racism is a far greater threat than zombies" for a couple of reasons. I am aware that it has been brought up by a couple of critics/fans, but at the same time, its not the definitive take on the film. In the original script, for example, the character who is shot is not black. And I haven't seen the documentary on the new DVD, but I recall hearing that the actor wanted to make the race an issue in the film but Romero told him not to. I noticed that later sections include actual sourced commentary on this controversy, so that should be enough.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The current article says "the word "zombie" itself is never used - the word used in the film is ghoul", but is that word even used in dialogue, or just in Romero's stage directions? It's been a while since I've watched it, but these [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/n/night-of-the-living-dead-script.html subtitles] don't seem to use the word once. -- McGeddon ( talk) 14:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The word ghoul is used multiple times in the film. MorbidAnatomy ( talk) 02:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I have just watched the film and the word ghoul is used in the film by TV news reporters. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0078pw1/Night_of_the_Living_Dead/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.53.172 ( talk) 00:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Your memory must be a bit foggy, the term "ghoul" or "ghouls" is used a few times in the film by Bill Cardille and, if my memory serves me correctly, Charles Craig.( 67.234.156.80 ( talk) 18:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC))
The article says "The film has entered the public domain due to an error by the distributor."
I have tried to look for futher details in the cited source - but cannot see it. Is this really true. If so - please explain further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.53.172 ( talk) 01:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The film's distributor, The Walter Reade Corporation replace the original title card which had the title 'Night of the Flesh Eaters' with a new overlay that had the present title 'Night of the Living Dead', but neglected to include a copyright notice under the title, which under the copyright law at the time, threw it immediately into the public domain.( 67.234.156.80 ( talk) 18:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC))
I propose that Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition be merged into Night of the Living Dead. I think that the content in the Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition article can easily be explained in the context of Night of the Living Dead, and the Night of the Living Dead article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. And the Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition article has several severe problems (e.g. length, language, formatting). Oneiros ( talk) 21:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. "Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition" is not simple version of "Night of the Living Dead". Another director, another scenario, another subject... It's a Russo's film, not Romero's!! ---- Vanquisher.UA (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is Duane Jones described as "a distinguished gentleman and former university professor, in real life"? He was an acting teacher, not a professor. And no one refers to distinguished gentlemen these days! Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Night of the Living Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This upload of the movie is the only HD version in widescreen, reflecting the film's theatrical distribution.
Hello. I recently noticed that this article was up for GA nomination. It's been a while since this article was GA status and I'm looking forward to that. However, is it really necessary to include all those images and videos in the article. The number of images seems a bit excessive to me.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 15:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice. Keep up the good work.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Night of the Living Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Red Phoenix ( talk · contribs) 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
How does such an iconic movie like Night of the Living Dead not get reviewed since a nomination in September? I'll put my name down for this one. Expect me to work on comments for the next couple of days as I fully review the article in detail.
Red Phoenix
talk 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to stop right there for now. A lot of the prose and image issues are pretty easily fixable, I think, with a bit of elbow grease. The references, however, concern me. I'm not even done going through references, but I'm finding a lot of questionable reliability, such as a lot of fan sites being used to cite facts. I'll let you go through what we have so far and come back with more later if progress is made toward getting this straightened out. As it is now, I'll put this article on hold. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 16:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Per a request from the nominator, I have gone ahead and failed this nomination. It's a shame; the potential for greatness is here, but the references really need to be weeded out. We have to be careful on what is a reliable source and what is not, and from reading the WP:FAR about this article, it seems the same issues were brought up there as well. If you get it shaped up and back to GAN, ping me; I'd be glad to review this article again so it doesn't have to sit for 8 months awaiting review a second time. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Living Dead Media recently bought the distribution rights for this film. The information can be found on the imdb page, Janus Films who restored the film also have this posted. Additionally the facebook page with 434,000 followers was recently taken over by Living Dead Media and completely revamped after proven to facebook they own the rights. I work for living dead media and would appreciate if these changes could be made. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.41.74 ( talk) 03:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I propose that Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition be merged into this article (or, specifically, merely redirected here). Two years ago, I had boldly redirected it myself, as I did not see anything "significant about this article that isn't covered under the Revisions section of Night of the Living Dead." As far as I can tell, the only additional material that the 30th Anniversary page has is a longer critical reception section and a far too lengthy Plot section. But just because a revised/extended version has a couple different plot points and different critical reception than the original doesn't mean that version warrants its own article. See Daredevil's Director's Cut and Aliens' Special Edition. Enter Movie ( talk) 04:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. This could be covered in the same article, with a a section about derivative works. Dimadick ( talk) 06:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Wondering whether and how it might be added to the lead that this was Romero's first feature length film. I think that is significant and would be useful to include in the lead. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 05:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
There is some dispute, if really this version or a 1990 remake was offered by Netflix and then removed. The KJM sometimes has had problems to separate both films. In theory the 1968 version is 16+, the 1990 is "banned to be sold" (usually only used for content promoting violence). -- TheK ( talk) 23:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't want to edit the article since English is not my first language, but I have additional information on the German ban. In 2009 the BPjM put a DVD of the original Night of the Living Dead on the index. They then explained that this was a mistake, the original had been confused with the 1990 remake (banned in Germany since 1996). They expected that this mistake would be rectified the following month (source in German: [1]). This didn't happen though, because as it turned out a Berlin court actually banned a certain DVD of the original in the year 2000. In the paperwork the court justified it by stating that previous releases of the film had already been banned, thus confirming that they also confused the original with the 1990 remake (source in German: [2]). So officially, one particular DVD release of the original remained banned in Germany until February of 2020, when the ban on the 1990 remake finally got lifted, thus also removing the quasi-ban on the 1968 original (source in German: [3]). As to the removal of the film on Netflix, I have no idea what motivated them to do that, considering original and remake are free for distribution as of February 2020. Hope this will be helpful in some way. 77.11.70.132 ( talk) 17:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
References
Hello Kieronoldham, I saw your comment on a diff regarding the cast. Are you saying that we should add them to the article? Or something different? Ridley and Schon were in the cast section before without a viable source. Regards, Rjjiii ( talk) 03:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
As this article was once a Featured Article, I am going through the last GA review and the FAR critiques. Once I address those, I will likely nominate the article for GA (and maybe FA, but I am currently unfamiliar with that whole system). I thought it would be courteous to ping major and recent contributors to offer thanks for the work you all have put into the article and to invite feedback, edits, and so on. So thanks to: Udar55, MagicatthemovieS, Gonnym, PatTheMoron, DrJohnnyDiablo, Drown Soda, Ched, and Dmoon1! Regards, Rjjiii( talk) 02:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk ( talk · contribs) 01:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Starting per a request on the Discord server, so let's hope it can make it to DYK in time for Halloween! MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 01:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Prose is clear and concise | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
No MoS violations | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Refs are in a proper "References" section | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Sources are reliable | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I don't see the need for a spotcheck- no OR visible | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no violations | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are properly PD/Gnu tagged | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and captioned | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Responding to questioned sources:
www.image-ten.comPrimary source: studio.
Homepage of the DeadPrimary source: Karl Hardman and Marilyn Eastman.
TribLIVEThis is an online news site formed from several PA newspapers (Tribune-Review, Valley News Dispatch, Leader Times, Daily Courier and The Valley Independent) see Pittsburgh Tribune-Review or [3].
diamonddead.comPrimary source: George Romero.
Ain't It Cool NewsInfluential pop culture site: Used by the The Guardian, New York Times, [4] and MIT. [5]
HorrorMovies.ca
Events.getoutaz.comPublished by the East Valley Tribune, a major Arizona newspaper. On archived versions of the newspaper site from that time there is a "Get Out" tab [6] linking to getoutaz.com.
Cinema-suicide.com
ScreenAge Wasteland
www.scoop.co.nzIndependent news site and member of the NZ Media Council. [7] It's used to cite a single fact that the play was performed in Auckland, New Zealand.
Allmovie
Sequart
Here's a diff if any of my explanations of changes don't make sense: [8] Thanks for taking a look at the article, Rjjiii ( talk) 03:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@ MyCatIsAChonk: I think most of the issues in other sections were straightforward. For the cast, I added a one-paragraph introduction and cut down the info on individual cast members. Let me know if the list is too verbose still and I can do a second pass to flatten it more. Keith Wayne is up for deletion, so I put the anchor into the article for a redirect, but have left the link in for now. Thanks for the kind words and the fresh eyes. This has been quite helpful. Rjjiii ( talk) 06:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk 17:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
First, Night of the Living Dead was famously the source of a legal conflict resulted in the film entering the public domain when the distributor, the Walter Reade Organization, forgot to add a copyright notice after making changes to the title screen(Boluk & Lenz, 2011, p. 5)."
Around the same time, the Image Ten crew absorbed an even greater shock: Their picture didn't have a legal copyright. "Our first finished 35-millimeter print bore the title Night of the Flesh Eaters, Russo explains, "but we had to change it when we got threatened by a lawyer whose clients had already made a picture by that name" [1964's The Flesh Eaters, which has since acquired its own small but loyal cult following]. Romero picks up the sad story. "When Walter Reade put the film out, they changed the title. They titled it Night of the Living Dead. They didn't include the copyright on the titles ...(Kane, 2010, p. 93)"
Improved to Good Article status by Rjjiii ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Night of the Living Dead; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The redirect They're coming to get you, Barbara has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12 § They're coming to get you, Barbara until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 07:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This is sort of preemptive strike: This article is not really 53 kb long. When the Reference section and footnotes are removed, the article is only 35 kb; see here. According to Wikipedia:Article size, "only the main body of prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size". Thanks. Dmoon1 21:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Romero has repeatedly stated that in his movies, biting only accelerates the 'zombification' process (in that being bitten kills you faster), but is not the cause. The cause, as stated in Night of the Living Dead, is of radioactive materials returning from some sort of spacecraft (a probe, I believe, it's in the main article). In an interview, I'm wanting to say from the Land of the Dead special features, he stated that one does NOT have to be bitten, and that this is a misconception of his movies. Particularly, in that movie, a man hangs himself and becomes a zombie. I don't like removing people's work, especially when it cites two sources, but it's wrong, and should be corrected. Biting is only the cause in the non Romero movies. The section I'm talking about is under Influences.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Triikan ( talk • contribs)
Love the article as it is now...just a minor quibble regarding part of the above. Romero never intended for there to be an actual cause given for the zombie menace, and mentions that in the commentary. The "radiation" theory was not intended to be the true explanation for the plague. 207.69.137.207 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Using chocolate syrup for blood isn't "innovative". I understand Hitchcock used it in the shower scene in Psycho.
Does anyone else feel that this page is in desperate need of a proper plot summary? The reason I say this is because this article just seems empty without one. If nothing else, I'll type one up (or find one from a good source), but I would really like to know anyone else's thoughts on the matter before I do so.-- Jt 03:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Some anonymous idiot kept adding spam links to some Undead Gaming website. I deleted all the links I could find. ( Ibaranoff24 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC))
I deleted a big long screed on the copyright status of this film - it was clearly POV and non-encyclopediac, contained numerous spelling mistakes, and was (IMO) wrong on certain points of US law. I wouldn't be opposed to a better-written passage outlining any actual controversy on the copyright status of this film (if there is one). unsigned comment posted by Aim Here
One may assume that due to the films underlying social commentary, particularly on racism, the zombie hunters may have killed Ben because he was black.
This is (a) opinion and (b) uncited; together that disqualifies it for inclusion. We're not supposed to do original research on Wikipedia. If you have a citation that supports it, keeping it is OK. -- David.alex.lamb 04:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Commentary on racism in this movie, however powerful to the perceiver, is incidental. Romero rewrote the speaking dialogue for Duane Jones, not the plot. The role was originally written for a white character. This is documented on audio commentaries and in the NOTLD book. 24.33.28.52 06:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
In a duscusion about NOTLD Ms Judith O'Dea and Rus Sreiner both dismissed the idea of 'Social Commentary' or 'Politcal Statement' in the movie. Judith said the reason Duane Jones was chosen by the film makers was because of his superb acting skills that just blew away the film producers at his audition. Johnwrd ( talk) 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
First jhonny's head was smased on a wrave stone not a rock, And second tom set the gas tank on fire not Ben
The proper spelling of the woman's name, according to the credits, is Barbra, not Barbara. I'm a-gonna change all the names that now. 70.171.59.231 05:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously 'Barbra' was a misspelling on the credits. When Johnny taunts her, he is clearly saying "They're coming to get you Bar-bar-a" in his Karloff imitation.
'Barbra' seems to be a misspelling and nothing else. ( 24.62.100.100 ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
Also the shooting script spells the name: Barbara.
John Russo's novelization spells the name: Barbara
The 1990 remake (written by George A. Romero) spells the name: Barbara
The official 'Night of the Living Dead Filmbook' (written by John Russo) spells the name as Barbara
The only place you will find it spelled as 'Barbra' is in the end credits.
( 24.62.100.100 ( talk) 05:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
This seems POV to me. Helen doesn`t become overwhelmed until the ghouls are literally breaking the walls down at the end and pulling her through the holes. It seems like an effort is being made to say something along the lines of "Romero wasn`t a racist but don`t you think he was TOO nice!" Is this appropriate? Not going to change it myself since I`m not sure, but I think this stuff should probably go. 24.33.28.52 07:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That's right, she escapes from the wall pulling. I mixed that up. I still think it's not necessarily appropriate to hold Romero accountable for this lack of conformance with today's attitudes. 24.33.28.52 18:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I see your point about keeping the paragraph, however the term "hysterical" is a bit loaded in this context. Allow me to take this to a different level. I think that perception of Romero's films has changed over time with A) their own familiarity, and B) that of their ripoffs and ripples. Since Helen's only real "mistake" (other than marrying Harry) was to not immediately perform violence on her own daughter when it became necessary, I submit that this is not hysteria but instead something that Romero thought would be a normal mental state for people. When Ben ruthlessly deals with the same little girl, it's not his own daughter that he's shooting (he never even sees the girl until then, making her pretty anonymous).
No males are truly confronted with this dilemma in NIGHT, making comparison difficult; the closest handy similarity is to Roger's freakout in DAWN. Since then, we've evolved this sort of "survival horror mode" which people are presented as slipping into readily, but in Romero's day this was not the case. I've had arguments with people while watching DAWN where they say things like "why does he freak out" and I'm always a little staggered by it... I wind up saying things like "There are dead folk walking around and they eat you and there's no goin' back!" And people are like, "Yeah, so? He knew that already." This is the shift of mentality I'm trying to address. The "my family member is still alive, how could this be a zombie" business is illustrated again with "Miguelito" at the opening of DAWN. Also with a woman though.
Suggest "immobilized" as a description of Helen's state rather than "hysterical." The history of that term makes it seem like an extra nudge of accusation. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Sorry this got so long. 24.33.28.52 03:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Should there be any mention of the artificial 3D version, or Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D, or Laugh Track: Night of the Living Dead? I've only seen NotDotDotSotBotRotRotTotAotEMAFEHZLDP2iS2D, and that was years ago. Шизомби 23:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
How did Roger Ebert review this movie in January 1967 [1], when the release date was October 1968 [2]? Steve 06:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have rewrote/revised/updated this article. Much of the original information was retained. I found some clearer screenshots to replace those previously used, however. The redlinks will be replaced over time. The article is a little on the bulky side at around 51 kb; there was just too much information available and this horror film was more important than I previously imagined when I began rewriting the article. I think it probably still needs a good copy-edit and put up for peer review. Any comments will be helpful. Dmoon1 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That I Am Legend was also made into The Last Man on Earth (1964) and The Omega Man (1971) may deserve a mention in the writing section. Too peripheral?-- Fuhghettaboutit 21:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It is my opinion that all of the screen captures from the original black and white version of the film, on this page and on pages related to the film, should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. Since the black and white version of the film is in the public domain, there's no reason for all of these screencaps to take up space on Wikipedia. Also, this way, images can be used on all WikiProjects, including the non-English versions of the article. ( Ibaranoff24 03:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC))
I'll save you the time and upgrade it now. A few comments though:
-- P-Chan 21:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Response:
Thanks again. Dmoon1 22:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The Plague of the Zombies is stated as being set in the Carribean, but in actual fact it takes place in Cornwall... It does involve a Voodoo witch doctor however. I think it, as well as the other two films in the sentence, should be left in, but am not sure how to rephrase things short of cutting out the Carribean reference altogether. Any ideas?
I'd also argue strongly that Shaun Of The Dead is a tribute and not a parody...
MrKWatkins 00:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Night of the Living Dead recently became a featured article! Thanks to everyone who contributed during peer review and supported the article during FAC. Dmoon1 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Up To Date website should have an interview posted soon. -- Gbleem 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There has been some discussion at Talk:Zombie about whether voodoo zombies and Romero zombies are sufficiently different to merit separate articles, with zombie being merely a redirect or little more than a redirect. I read somehwere that the NoLD creatures were first described as "zombies" in a (French?) magazine review; they seem to me to be closer to ghouls, though combining features of both. jnestorius( talk) 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has been vandalized quite a lot very recently... Should it be protected so that only wikipedia members may edit it? HumanProdigy 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
someone really wants to waste their time on halloween by vandalizing the page rather than going out and having fun in the real world. can we protect this? --13:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) azra'el
The article was vandalised quite badly by 24.97.33.132 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I see from this user's talk page that they have vandalised several articles already and are on their last warning. I don't know what action needs to be taken? Will2710 13:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I kinda messed up the artical but someone rellay vandalized it and I just did a quick copy and paste fix user:ro-man 8:57 31,october 2006
i think it should be protected. at least while its up on the main page. azra'el 13:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
good job people
On 11\1\06, the channel G4, they showed Night of the Living Dead in 3 ways at the same time. The normal, with George Romono commentary, and a live at the time redo of the movie. Should this be included in the article? -- ASDFGHJKL 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
'resourceful Negro' wtf is this country on?? had a white guy played lead, it wouldn't be 'resourceful' this and 'surprisingly clever' that. nothing has changed in this country since back then. Jones played the part extremely well (the fact that this particular film is highly regarded as the best of all zombie remakes defends my point), yet you still can't get past him being African American?? Panda
jackie chan was never in the movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.193.116 ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
Could we trim this plot down? It slightly concerns me that a 96 minute horror movie, whose plot is basically about a small group of people hold up in a house while zombies come to eat them, probably doesn't need 958 words of description. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I can say that when I looked at the link you gave me, that the first two paragraphs were about to look almost word for word how I was going to trim them. I like the original version. There is less of that POV qualifying of characters. I think the current version say something like "stubborn, uptight Harry". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
can anybody else confirm that the opening scene was filmed in butler? from what i understand it was filmed in hickory, pa (also known as cherry valley) outside of the old school house there. i was told that my cousins, who lived next to the school, were extras in the movie. thoughts on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sefzik ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Despite the fact that John Russo was involved in Return of the Living Dead, which is not nearly up to par of Romero's films, it is unrelated to the Dead series and has nothing to do with them. I don't know why it keeps appearing in the "followed by" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.175.33.135 ( talk) 05:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
The citations should be updated to use the cite web and cite book templates. ( Ibaranoff24 04:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
I was just curious as to whether or not the color versions or any other versions of NotLD were Public Domain along with the original version? I want to download them if so, but I don't wanna download them illegally if they are not. Thanks. Jay 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not the 'Mike Nelson' solo commentary on the RiffTrax version, it's a brand new commentary with 'The Film Crew' which includes Nelson. The DVD has a different commentary all together with different jokes.( 24.62.100.100 ( talk) 05:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
Quote:"The original would be public domain, but any other version (color, Russo's re-edit, etc.) would be under copyright to whomever it was that created that variation"
That is not exactly the truth. While the colorized versions (Yes, two exist) are considered to be unique versions by copyright law, other versions (fan edits, and such) would be just as much in the public domain as the original 1968 black & white version is.
Even if you were to add original music, or new scenes only those elements would/might be copyrighted. If you added ghoul footage from 'The Last Man on Earth' for instance, it would be as public domain as before.
The colorized version is completely protected by copyright law.
( 24.62.100.100 ( talk) 05:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
I removed the bit at the end that says "this is seen by many as a reference to racial segregation and racism in general in that racism is a far greater threat than zombies" for a couple of reasons. I am aware that it has been brought up by a couple of critics/fans, but at the same time, its not the definitive take on the film. In the original script, for example, the character who is shot is not black. And I haven't seen the documentary on the new DVD, but I recall hearing that the actor wanted to make the race an issue in the film but Romero told him not to. I noticed that later sections include actual sourced commentary on this controversy, so that should be enough.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The current article says "the word "zombie" itself is never used - the word used in the film is ghoul", but is that word even used in dialogue, or just in Romero's stage directions? It's been a while since I've watched it, but these [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/n/night-of-the-living-dead-script.html subtitles] don't seem to use the word once. -- McGeddon ( talk) 14:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The word ghoul is used multiple times in the film. MorbidAnatomy ( talk) 02:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I have just watched the film and the word ghoul is used in the film by TV news reporters. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0078pw1/Night_of_the_Living_Dead/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.53.172 ( talk) 00:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Your memory must be a bit foggy, the term "ghoul" or "ghouls" is used a few times in the film by Bill Cardille and, if my memory serves me correctly, Charles Craig.( 67.234.156.80 ( talk) 18:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC))
The article says "The film has entered the public domain due to an error by the distributor."
I have tried to look for futher details in the cited source - but cannot see it. Is this really true. If so - please explain further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.53.172 ( talk) 01:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The film's distributor, The Walter Reade Corporation replace the original title card which had the title 'Night of the Flesh Eaters' with a new overlay that had the present title 'Night of the Living Dead', but neglected to include a copyright notice under the title, which under the copyright law at the time, threw it immediately into the public domain.( 67.234.156.80 ( talk) 18:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC))
I propose that Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition be merged into Night of the Living Dead. I think that the content in the Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition article can easily be explained in the context of Night of the Living Dead, and the Night of the Living Dead article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. And the Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition article has several severe problems (e.g. length, language, formatting). Oneiros ( talk) 21:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. "Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition" is not simple version of "Night of the Living Dead". Another director, another scenario, another subject... It's a Russo's film, not Romero's!! ---- Vanquisher.UA (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is Duane Jones described as "a distinguished gentleman and former university professor, in real life"? He was an acting teacher, not a professor. And no one refers to distinguished gentlemen these days! Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Night of the Living Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This upload of the movie is the only HD version in widescreen, reflecting the film's theatrical distribution.
Hello. I recently noticed that this article was up for GA nomination. It's been a while since this article was GA status and I'm looking forward to that. However, is it really necessary to include all those images and videos in the article. The number of images seems a bit excessive to me.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 15:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice. Keep up the good work.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Night of the Living Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Red Phoenix ( talk · contribs) 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
How does such an iconic movie like Night of the Living Dead not get reviewed since a nomination in September? I'll put my name down for this one. Expect me to work on comments for the next couple of days as I fully review the article in detail.
Red Phoenix
talk 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to stop right there for now. A lot of the prose and image issues are pretty easily fixable, I think, with a bit of elbow grease. The references, however, concern me. I'm not even done going through references, but I'm finding a lot of questionable reliability, such as a lot of fan sites being used to cite facts. I'll let you go through what we have so far and come back with more later if progress is made toward getting this straightened out. As it is now, I'll put this article on hold. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 16:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Per a request from the nominator, I have gone ahead and failed this nomination. It's a shame; the potential for greatness is here, but the references really need to be weeded out. We have to be careful on what is a reliable source and what is not, and from reading the WP:FAR about this article, it seems the same issues were brought up there as well. If you get it shaped up and back to GAN, ping me; I'd be glad to review this article again so it doesn't have to sit for 8 months awaiting review a second time. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Living Dead Media recently bought the distribution rights for this film. The information can be found on the imdb page, Janus Films who restored the film also have this posted. Additionally the facebook page with 434,000 followers was recently taken over by Living Dead Media and completely revamped after proven to facebook they own the rights. I work for living dead media and would appreciate if these changes could be made. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.41.74 ( talk) 03:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I propose that Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition be merged into this article (or, specifically, merely redirected here). Two years ago, I had boldly redirected it myself, as I did not see anything "significant about this article that isn't covered under the Revisions section of Night of the Living Dead." As far as I can tell, the only additional material that the 30th Anniversary page has is a longer critical reception section and a far too lengthy Plot section. But just because a revised/extended version has a couple different plot points and different critical reception than the original doesn't mean that version warrants its own article. See Daredevil's Director's Cut and Aliens' Special Edition. Enter Movie ( talk) 04:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. This could be covered in the same article, with a a section about derivative works. Dimadick ( talk) 06:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Wondering whether and how it might be added to the lead that this was Romero's first feature length film. I think that is significant and would be useful to include in the lead. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 05:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
There is some dispute, if really this version or a 1990 remake was offered by Netflix and then removed. The KJM sometimes has had problems to separate both films. In theory the 1968 version is 16+, the 1990 is "banned to be sold" (usually only used for content promoting violence). -- TheK ( talk) 23:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't want to edit the article since English is not my first language, but I have additional information on the German ban. In 2009 the BPjM put a DVD of the original Night of the Living Dead on the index. They then explained that this was a mistake, the original had been confused with the 1990 remake (banned in Germany since 1996). They expected that this mistake would be rectified the following month (source in German: [1]). This didn't happen though, because as it turned out a Berlin court actually banned a certain DVD of the original in the year 2000. In the paperwork the court justified it by stating that previous releases of the film had already been banned, thus confirming that they also confused the original with the 1990 remake (source in German: [2]). So officially, one particular DVD release of the original remained banned in Germany until February of 2020, when the ban on the 1990 remake finally got lifted, thus also removing the quasi-ban on the 1968 original (source in German: [3]). As to the removal of the film on Netflix, I have no idea what motivated them to do that, considering original and remake are free for distribution as of February 2020. Hope this will be helpful in some way. 77.11.70.132 ( talk) 17:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
References
Hello Kieronoldham, I saw your comment on a diff regarding the cast. Are you saying that we should add them to the article? Or something different? Ridley and Schon were in the cast section before without a viable source. Regards, Rjjiii ( talk) 03:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
As this article was once a Featured Article, I am going through the last GA review and the FAR critiques. Once I address those, I will likely nominate the article for GA (and maybe FA, but I am currently unfamiliar with that whole system). I thought it would be courteous to ping major and recent contributors to offer thanks for the work you all have put into the article and to invite feedback, edits, and so on. So thanks to: Udar55, MagicatthemovieS, Gonnym, PatTheMoron, DrJohnnyDiablo, Drown Soda, Ched, and Dmoon1! Regards, Rjjiii( talk) 02:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk ( talk · contribs) 01:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Starting per a request on the Discord server, so let's hope it can make it to DYK in time for Halloween! MyCatIsAChonk ( talk) ( not me) ( also not me) ( still no) 01:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Prose is clear and concise | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
No MoS violations | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Refs are in a proper "References" section | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Sources are reliable | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I don't see the need for a spotcheck- no OR visible | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no violations | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are properly PD/Gnu tagged | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and captioned | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Responding to questioned sources:
www.image-ten.comPrimary source: studio.
Homepage of the DeadPrimary source: Karl Hardman and Marilyn Eastman.
TribLIVEThis is an online news site formed from several PA newspapers (Tribune-Review, Valley News Dispatch, Leader Times, Daily Courier and The Valley Independent) see Pittsburgh Tribune-Review or [3].
diamonddead.comPrimary source: George Romero.
Ain't It Cool NewsInfluential pop culture site: Used by the The Guardian, New York Times, [4] and MIT. [5]
HorrorMovies.ca
Events.getoutaz.comPublished by the East Valley Tribune, a major Arizona newspaper. On archived versions of the newspaper site from that time there is a "Get Out" tab [6] linking to getoutaz.com.
Cinema-suicide.com
ScreenAge Wasteland
www.scoop.co.nzIndependent news site and member of the NZ Media Council. [7] It's used to cite a single fact that the play was performed in Auckland, New Zealand.
Allmovie
Sequart
Here's a diff if any of my explanations of changes don't make sense: [8] Thanks for taking a look at the article, Rjjiii ( talk) 03:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@ MyCatIsAChonk: I think most of the issues in other sections were straightforward. For the cast, I added a one-paragraph introduction and cut down the info on individual cast members. Let me know if the list is too verbose still and I can do a second pass to flatten it more. Keith Wayne is up for deletion, so I put the anchor into the article for a redirect, but have left the link in for now. Thanks for the kind words and the fresh eyes. This has been quite helpful. Rjjiii ( talk) 06:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk 17:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
First, Night of the Living Dead was famously the source of a legal conflict resulted in the film entering the public domain when the distributor, the Walter Reade Organization, forgot to add a copyright notice after making changes to the title screen(Boluk & Lenz, 2011, p. 5)."
Around the same time, the Image Ten crew absorbed an even greater shock: Their picture didn't have a legal copyright. "Our first finished 35-millimeter print bore the title Night of the Flesh Eaters, Russo explains, "but we had to change it when we got threatened by a lawyer whose clients had already made a picture by that name" [1964's The Flesh Eaters, which has since acquired its own small but loyal cult following]. Romero picks up the sad story. "When Walter Reade put the film out, they changed the title. They titled it Night of the Living Dead. They didn't include the copyright on the titles ...(Kane, 2010, p. 93)"
Improved to Good Article status by Rjjiii ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Night of the Living Dead; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The redirect They're coming to get you, Barbara has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12 § They're coming to get you, Barbara until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 07:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)