Talk:Night of the Living Dead/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Note about the current length

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)

Biting

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)

I've got the Land of the Dead DVD; I'll look at today or tomorrow and see what Romero says about it and try and incorporate it in there somewhere. Dmoon1 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and bought another copy of the land of the dead dvd. Okay, it's in the commentary track (along with a news report during the intro). At 1m:54s to 2m:04s into the movie, he says (paraphrase): You don't have to be bitten to be a zombie. If you're bitten, you just become a zombie that much quicker because you die quicker. As I said before, I don't like removing people's work, but it is wrong, and now that I've confirmed it, I'll go ahead and change it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Triikan (talk • contribs)

That's fine. I totally forgot to check this out. I restored some of the text you deleted, but without the reference to biting. This sentence practically sums up what was important about Romero's film. Dmoon1 22:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about leaving the rest, but I didn't feel it was right to cite a source that didn't take the time to check themselves. The actual line is fine, though. Triikan 10:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate syrup

Using chocolate syrup for blood isn't "innovative". I understand Hitchcock used it in the shower scene in Psycho.

Could we link to one or two of the better known parodies? Mark Richards 15:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Plot Summary?

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)

A section on the history of the original soundtrack should be added. If memory serves, the soundtrack was taken from an older horror movie (Attack of the Teenage shrews?) as well as public domain 45's. quite unsure though.

I don't really have time to add it right now, but the sound track was from Teenagers from Outerspace and also Night of the Killer Shrews.

I added a plot summary. It's not final -- if anyone wants to pad out the summary with more details, feel free to go ahead. (Ibaranoff24 03:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC))

Undead Gaming

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))

Deleted a screed on the copyright status

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}

• I reverted to an older version because you accidentally deleted the section explaining why this film is in the public domain. (Ibaranoff24 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

Social commentary

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)

I was under that impression as well (having read that opinion in many places), but I just saw the movie yesterday, and it seems completely accidental in the scope of the particular scene of the film - the hunters see something moving in the house and take the shot, without verifying who or what it is. It says something about the trigger-happines of the rednecks, and in the big picture it could be seen as a commentary on racism (even if it is unintentional), but saying the hunters shot him because he was black is simply not true, in my opinion - they would have shot anyone in that scene. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2008 (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)

Summry

First jhonny's head was smased on a wrave stone not a rock, And second tom set the gas tank on fire not Ben

Barbara = Barbra

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))

Helen "hysterical"?

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)

The mention of Helen's hysteria specifies that it doesn't come until late in the film; there's little doubt, no matter the precise timing, she DOES become hysterical and that it contributes to her death, so I don't see a POV problem.

Also, I'm not sure if you're thinking of the right character; Helen dies before the climax, stabbed to death by her own daughter. I don't recall her getting pulled through holes (that was Barbra, who doesn't really lose it until the end, but is in hysterical shock for most of the film). - dharmabum 09:00, 18 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 totally agree with that; what makes it worth mentioning in the article is that his female characters (especially Barbra) drew criticism at the time, making his characters controversial in the context of the film's release. It's also important in the history of Romero's work; he never made that mistake again, and began drawing strong female action characters earlier than most filmmakers as a result. - dharmabum 22:38, 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)

Maybe you could say she was in denial of the reality of the situation, or something along those lines, I agree she doesn't really match the term hysterical (Barbra at times does seem to, especially when they first come to the house as I remember) -- 86.128.253.74 11:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

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)

I think there should be. While I've never heard of Laugh Track: NOTLD, as the owner of a copy of NotDotDotSotBotRotRotTotAotEMAFEHZLDP2iS2D, I think it would be a great addition to the article. Reverend Raven 21:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Roger Ebert

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)

Hmm, that's interesting. I assume the Sun-Times has their date wrong. According to Gagne's book on Romero, The Zombies That Ate Pittsburgh, the October 1968 release is correct, so it was probably a January 1969 article. He mentions and quotes Ebert's review, but unfortunately cites it as appearing in the June 1969 "Reader's Digest", "condensed from an article originally appearing in the Sun-Times." Someone should email the Sun-Times - a Wikipedian correcting a major news outlet would be a rare occurence. ;) - dharmabum 06:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Update

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)

I am Legend

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)

I inserted a blurb about I Am Legend film adaptations as well as Richard Matheson's comment about Night of the Living Dead. Dmoon1 01:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

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))

GA Obtained

I'll save you the time and upgrade it now. A few comments though:

1. There seems to be a bit of over-referencing in the Lead. I've noticed that much of that information is already nicely referenced in the body, so it can be removed in the lead.
2. Vietnan?? I'm very curious as to what the reviewer meant when he made that comparison. Could you expand on his theory? It sounds interesting but leaves you hanging as to what he means exactly.
3. Are the cast members of this film so unnoteworthy as to not require a wikilinked cast section? Are Duane Jones and Judith O'Dea the only 2 notable actors?

--P-Chan 21:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Response:

1. I removed some of the refs in the lead that do not correspond with figures or direct quotes.
2. Will work on this soon; I have some more information that I omitted because I thought the article might be getting long. Added some additional info in the Criticism sub-section. I hope this is clear, Higashi's analysis is a litte too deep (she uses Foucault for God's sake!!!!). Dmoon1 05:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
3. O'Dea and Jones's names were wiki-linked in the lead and the rest of the cast is linked in the plot section. I went ahead and linked them again in the cast section. If someone objects to this it is no problem to just un-link them.

Thanks again. Dmoon1 22:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Foucault? That's funny.  :) --P-Chan 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Influence Section

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)

I tweaked the sentence in the section about the Carribean and Voodoo zombies. Parody, however, isn't always negative and can act as a sort of tribute to poke "affectionate fun" at an object. I think parody sounds better here than spoof (although spoof links to parody); spoof to me has more satirical or negative connotations. Dmoon1 02:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured

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)

New Interview

Up To Date website should have an interview posted soon. --Gbleem 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Redefinition of Zombie

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)

protection?

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)

Certainly not while it's on the main page, unless the vandalism gets so bad we can't keep on top of it. —Angr 09:20, 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

Vandalism

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 fixuser: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)

Wikipedia policy is not to protect pages on the main page. Doing so is very bad PR. —Angr 13:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

nice, reached FA status just in time holoween :)

good job people

Well, not quite "just in time"; it was promoted in July. It just got saved up for a Halloween appearance on the Main Page. —Angr 20:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

G4's Special Screening

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)

Ignorance

'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

That comment was made by Roger Ebert in an early article of his from 1968. It is not the invention of an editor of this article. "Negro" was the term preferred to refer to Black people at that time. He was "comparitively calm and resourceful" because the other survivors in the house were in varying stages of panic and didn't know what to do. There is no racism inherent in that quote and it is helpful to the article. Finite 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

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).

Plot

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)

The plot is already shorter than most FA film articles, and the article passed FAC with this synopsis. Dmoon1 16:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I know plenty of FA horror film articles that don't have this length. Secondly, i believe that every FA tag says "if it can be improved do so", and regarding WikiProject's own MOS for plots (600-700) and Wikipedia's policy on what they are not regarding plots, this particular one is a bit long. How can each of the FA Halloweens have plots that are much shorter. Both Gremlins, Casablance, there is a slew of them. Is it your assertion that this plot would be damaged if made shorter? When I read it, it feels more like a substitution for watching the film. I see a lot of minute details that could be expunged without losing the plot. It's a horror movie from 1968, it isn't the complicated in plot. My point is that for the subject matter, and the plot of the film itself, there is nothing that screams "we need these details". The only reason I haven't just trimmed it myself is because for one I don't monitor this page, and would feel that those that do monitor it on a regular basis would be best qualified to do so, and secondly it's been years since I've seen the film. I wouldn't want to remove something I might not remember, under the impression that if I didn't remember it then it wasn't important.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the primary editor of all three Halloween film FAs as well as this one, so I can confirm that (for some reason) it was more difficult to write this plot summary than the Halloween films, which had a much simpler plot. Some of the more minute details were most likely added when this article was on the Main Page in October. Please, suggest what you think can be trimmed. I'm not opposed to shortening the plot summary, but not just for the sake of doing so. Dmoon1 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me read the entire thing a couple times (which should refresh my memory of the film), but I initially noticed some small details like: The infuriated Ben settles his score shortly thereafter by giving Harry a severe beating. This just seems irrelevant to the plot as a whole. Also in one of the film's most ghastly and memorable scenes is rather original research, because it's someone's opinion. If it's sourced and discussed later in the article, great, but there's no source here and it's not part of the "plot" because Romero doesn't narrate saying such things. I'll have to read it all, that was just a skim to look at what would catch my eye. I'll try and see if I can just pull out things like that, or shorten sentences without losing the focus. If you don't like what you see you can revert and we can discuss what looked fine and what didn't afterward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about these two instances. I haven't looked at the current version myself in a while, but I don't think these were originally in the article during FAC. This is how the plot looked in July 2006 when the article was up for FA. I had no idea it had grown so large. Dmoon1 17:05, 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)

I just went ahead and inserted the original version of the synopsis that passed FAC. Dmoon1 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw, it looks much better now. I was reading through the rest of the article (b/c I've been working on the Friday the 13th article in my sandbox) and it's rather interesting. Everyone that worked on this article did a great job.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was mostly a solo act. I did the research and writing, but a few others copyedited before and during FAC. Dmoon1 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

filming location

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).

Return of the Living Dead has nothing to do with this film

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).

References

The citations should be updated to use the cite web and cite book templates. (Ibaranoff24 04:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Color/Other Versions Public Domain?

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)

If I understand it correctly, any variation would belong to the person who created it. 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. IrishGuy ^talk 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I wondered if that was the case. Thanks a lot for the info man, Jay 04:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• RiffTrax has the colorized version available to download (not for free, mind you), but the Mike Nelson commentary is embedded into the file, thus, you can't turn it off, you have to watch the film with the commentary. (I think - I've never downloaded it, since I already own the DVD.) (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 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))

Edits with no music and new scenes would be new art and would qualify for copyright. Copyright covers the whole of the work. Recombinations of public domain material in new ways can be covered by copyright. DreamGuy (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed bit about race in the plot

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)

I agree, critical commentary should not be placed in the plot section. Dmoon1 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "ghoul"

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))

Public domain?

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))

Merger proposal

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)

Duane Jones not a "professor"

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807135603/http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv400.pdf?docID=245 to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv400.pdf?docID=245

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

YouTube

This upload of the movie is the only HD version in widescreen, reflecting the film's theatrical distribution.

Images and Videos?

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)

@Paleface Jack: I agree. I'm going to remove some of them; there are far too many. I've done some work on organizing the article and repairing and combing through references, so I do think it looks in considerably better shape than it did. --Drown Soda (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Keep up the good work.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://www.heavytrend.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008151409/http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_16657.html to http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_16657.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107012902/http://blogcritics.org/video/article/dvd-review-rifftrax-night-of-the/ to http://blogcritics.org/video/article/dvd-review-rifftrax-night-of-the/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130215015008/http://www.fangoria.com/index.php/moviestv/fearful-features/8565-mimesis-night-of-living-the-dead to http://www.fangoria.com/index.php/moviestv/fearful-features/8565-mimesis-night-of-living-the-dead
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125091638/http://www.hulu.com/watch/41065/night-of-the-living-dead to http://www.hulu.com/watch/41065/night-of-the-living-dead
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722182718/http://www.gomusicals.com/p/night-living-dead-musical.html to http://www.gomusicals.com/p/night-living-dead-musical.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Night of the Living Dead/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

Lead

• The lead does not summarize all of the main ideas of the article. I can see quite a bit of room for expansion here; ideally, a good lead should have 3-4 solid paragraphs of at least several sentences that hit the main points. At least every main section should have something about it in the lead. Right now, the current lead doesn't reflect the Critical Analysis section at all, which I think the political points of the section are relevant for the lead. There's little about the production other than the dollar amount of the budget. There's no reference to the number of revisions the movie has had, which says quite a bit about the film's legacy. Nor is there anything about the copyright status that has led to its re-releases. Lastly, surely it should say something about popularizing zombies? As popular as zombie films are nowadays, how could its cultural impact not be mentioned?
• Infobox says "Music by: See Music". I'd just drop that out; it's redundant to refer someone to the music section in the article if you can't summarize it in the infobox.
  • Removed
• Are we 100% certain the image in the infobox is free material? I understand that the film itself is in the public domain, but I looked closely at a zoomed-up image of the poster and I saw a copyright notice in the bottom left corner for Continental Distributing. It would be acceptable use regardless of if it was copyrighted or not because it'd definitely qualify for fair use as identification of the film, but we have to make sure we get this right.
  • I switched images

Plot

• There are a lot of short and choppy paragraphs in this section. Can any of this be condensed into a neater layout? Ideally 3-4 paragraphs is a good fit here too. Be careful about starting consecutive sentences with the same noun; it makes for unengaging prose. As you go, be careful not to expand this too much; we're already at the word limit for a plot per MOS:FILM.
  • Fixed
• Barbra and Johnny Blair drive to rural Pennsylvania to visit their father's grave. Barbra is attacked by a strange man walking in the cemetery. - Look at sentence fluency here, this reads choppy. I recommend: "Barbra and Johnny Blair drive to rural Pennsylvania to visit their father's grave. While in the cemetery, Barbra is attacked by a strange man."
  • Fixed
• After a mishap with the car, Barbra escapes on foot, with the stranger in pursuit, and later arrives at a farmhouse, where she discovers a woman's mangled corpse. This is a run-on sentence. I recommend you break it up a bit.
  • Fixed
• Ben and Barbra are unaware that the farmhouse has a cellar, housing an angry married couple, Harry and Helen Cooper, along with their daughter Karen. Another run-on sentence.
  • Fixed
• Ben finds a television, and they watch an emergency broadcaster report... Who's they, exactly?
  • Fixed
• Experts, scientists, and the United States military fail to discover the cause, though one scientist suspects radioactive contamination from a space probe. It returned from Venus, and was deliberately exploded in the Earth's atmosphere when the radiation was detected. Please reword, this reads awkwardly.
  • Fixed
• Tom and Judy try to drive the truck away from the pump, but Judy is unable to free herself from its door, and the truck explodes, killing them both; the zombies promptly eat the charred remains. Run-on sentence.
  • Fixed
• Eventually forcing his way back in, Ben beats Harry, angered by his cowardice, while the zombies feed on the remains of Tom and Judy. Another run on sentence.
  • Fixed
• In the chaos, the two fight and Ben manages to wrestle the gun away and shoots Harry. This reads awkwardly; the two uses of "and" and the verb tenses make this read odd. Please reword.
  • Fixed
• Ben fights off Karen and seals himself inside the cellar (which he initially refused to do earlier) I'd go with dashes instead of parentheses here.
  • Fixed

Cast

• He was in a few other films Unprofessional wording. Do we know how many other films? Can we name a couple? Can this be reworded with more specifics?
  • Fixed
• Besides acting, O'Dea performed her own stunts, which she jokingly claimed amounted to "lots of running". "I honestly had no idea it would have such a lasting impact on our culture", assessing Night of the Living Dead. Couple of issues here. Double quotes at end and start of next sentence reads very awkwardly. Using "Besides" to start the sentence makes it seem like O'Dea performed her own stunts but not while she was acting in this movie — perhaps "In addition to" might be a better replacement.
  • Reworded
• Keith Wayne as Tom Everyone else gets a fact about them, why not Keith Wayne? He does have an article.

Critical analysis

• Everything looks good here for the material itself - paragraphs all look good, citations are all in line (noting that I have not yet analyzed references for reliability and will do that last). However, I think it's in the wrong place; it should come after the release, to put the article into chronological order. I also don't think "Critical analysis" is quite the right term for it when we consider there's a later subsection on "critical reception" which both refer to two different kinds of critics, and this can cause some confusion. I'll propose a couple of possible solutions: you can either combine the critical reception subsection with this one to create a "Reception" section (and you can use subsections as needed) or you could do the same idea but with the Legacy section and combine it with the zombie commentary.

Production

• They wanted to capitalize on the film industry's "thirst for the bizarre",[24] according to Romero.. Move the citation to the end of this sentence; surely the source attributes the quote to Romero or else it wouldn't be cited. A citation doesn't need to be immediately after a direct quote if there's a bit more to the fact in the same citation, like that it was according to Romero.
  • Fixed
• They pitched their idea for a then-untitled horror film. Who's they? Unclear if this is Romero and Streiner, or Eastman and Hardman.
• Another ten investors were found when it was found that another $6,000 was required but this was also soon found to be inadequate. Repetition of "found" reads awkwardly; choose another word. Also, a comma may need to be inserted before "but" since this sentence reads a bit like a run-on.
• Russo came up with the concept that they would be the recently dead only, because they could not afford to bring long-dead people out of their graves, or at least "we" thought. This almost reads like "we" is all of us reading the article. Please clarify.
• Is the third block quote necessary? It appears to be the weakest of the three block quotes and looks like it could be paraphrased pretty easily and put into the prose. I won't call this a barrier to GA, but I would like you to consider this and let me know your thoughts.
• In fact, Romero would later confess that he felt the film's antagonists were distinct enough from Haitian zombies that they were "something completely new" with Romero actively avoiding any similarities between the two creatures although he notes that he may have subtly been inspired by them. Another run-on sentence. Remove the "In fact" as excessive and break up this sentence with commas or separate it into two or three sentences.
• Combine the first two paragraphs of the Principal Photography subsection; it fits with the first paragraph and doesn't need to be on its own.
• Romero's decision to direct Night of the Living Dead essentially launched his career as a horror director Is "essentially" a necessary word here?
• (that piece of music accompanying each time that George C. Scott's character, a doctor who is secretly a drug addict, is injecting himself with morphine) Is this parenthetical statement necessary? It seems like too much detail for this article, and makes its sentence read as a run-on.
  • Fixed
• Sound tech R. Lococo's choices worked well, as film historian Sumiko Higashi believes that the music "signifies the nature of events that await." Does the source specify that the choices worked well? I don't see a connection directly between signifying the nature of future events and good sound choices for a movie, but if the source says they worked well and shows this as positive commentary, I'm okay with the statement.

Release

• I would incorporate the copyright status section from further down into a subsection at the bottom of this one. It is relevant to the release of the film and covers re-releases, and so I believe it would work better in this section.
• Nationally, it was shown as a Saturday afternoon matinée – as was typical for horror films at the time Just making sure, do the sources specify this part of the fact that this was a typical showing for horror films?
• The MPAA film rating system was not in place until November 1968, so even young children were able to purchase tickets. Use of the word "even" here is redundant.
• According to Ebert, the film affected the audience immediately:[62] If the block quote is from this source, the citation needs to be at the end of the quote.
• One commentator asserts that the film garnered little attention from critics, "except to provoke argument about censoring its grisly scenes".[57] Either blend this in to another paragraph, or strike it. It stands out as being incomplete as a sentence on his own.
• Night of the Living Dead was also awarded two distinguished honors decades after its debut. Use of the word "also" here is excessive and needs to be removed.
  • Fixed
• The paragraph that starts with "Some reviewers disliked the film's gory special effects." seems short. This could be an option for our sentence about the one commentator, since they both talk about the gore and grisly scenes to give it more depth.
• Be careful not to start two paragraphs in a row with "Some reviewers..."
• Could the Critical reception be split into Critical reception and Accolades? In addition to the few listed, an IMDB check has shown two more awards a Saturn Award nominee from 2018 (Best DVD/Blu-Ray Special Edition Release) and a 2011 Horror Host Hall Of Fame winner. --Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Those awards are insignificant
    • I would agree with MagicatthemovieS on this one, Gonnym. We want to be careful about adding information considered trivial, like a minor movie award without broad recognition. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Revisions

• The paragraph about the MST3K RiffTrax feels like WP:TRIVIA to me. If more can be said critically about it, great, but if not I would remove it.
  • Removed
• Russo took liberties with the original script. The additions are neither clearly identified nor even listed. However, Entertainment Weekly reported "no bad blood" between Russo and Romero. Very awkward use of "however". There's nothing that implies in the earlier sentences that Russo and Romero had any contention at all.
  • Fixed
• I think it would be okay to have the non-free colorized image here, but I would use a template like Template:Non-free use rationale 2 for a fair use rationale because it's not typical for movie articles to have a shot from the movie that isn't free. I believe there is a good rationale here to demonstrate the colorization, but we need to demonstrate the fair-use rationale better and the template can help.
  • Added that

Related works

• No citations at all in the section about Romero's Dead films. Also no citation at the end of the bit about Rise of the Living Dead.
• I would eliminate the first three subsections totally, and incorporate Return of the Living Dead's see also into the first see also. At one paragraph each, one section will do for all three parts using only paragraphs to separate them.
  • Shouldn't Living Dead should be mentioned here? --Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• I would combine the first two paragraphs of the Remakes subsection and the next two unless further expansion can be done.

Copyright status

• As suggested earlier, I would incorporate this into the Release section as its own subsection.
  • Fixed
• I would combine the last two paragraphs in this section as having the same main idea.
  • Fixed
• How can the Criterion Collection restoration of Night of the Living Dead be protected by copyright? The special features on the Blu-ray definitely would be. A re-mixed surround soundtrack probably would be. But the original film with with the original mono audio shouldn't be copyright even though it took a lot of time and money to restore. A faithful reproduction (slavish copy) of a public domain work doesn't revive copyright. Under the rule in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation, a mere 'record' photograph of a 2D work of art (i.e. a photograph which is an as-accurate-as-possible copy of the original) acquires no copyright protection. If someone carefully scans the Mona Lisa, even if they spend a lot of money making the scanned image, they don't suddenly have a revived copyright. The Footnote 89 reference to the U.S. Copyright Records database is for the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyEdwards (talk • contribs) 01:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Legacy

• Again, I think Critical analysis could go in here as well. Surely the legacy of this movie goes beyond just zombies? The critical analysis section speaks a lot about political commentary, and those reviews are more modern. I would argue that that is a part of the film's legacy, as well.
  • Fixed
• Otherwise, this short section reads well. Well done.

References

• Please check for possible copyright violations. While this tool is not a guarantee of copyright violations (especially when one takes direct quotes), seeing some articles at 90% or more likelihood is a red flag.
• Checklinks indicates some dead links, please address.
• I recommend archiving your sources to prevent link rot. This tool I linked makes it super-easy, and could help with your dead links as well. Make sure you mark that you want to archive all links, not just dead ones.
• Rolfe, James (2007). Night of the Living Dead. Cinemassacre's Monster Madness (Audio commentary). Is this an audio commentary by someone associate with the movie, or just someone at random? Who is Cinemassacre's Monster Madness and how is it a reliable source?
• Does IMDb meet the standard of reliability?
• Alexander, Chris (July 21, 2016). "RIP: Bill "Chilly Billy" Cardille". ComingSoon.net. Retrieved December 19, 2016. Who publishes comingsoon.net? It looks like a reliable source, but we'll need to know who publishes it to establish that it's not just a fan site.
• Mark Deming, review of Night of the Living Dead, at Allmovie. Retrieved June 24, 2006. Use a citation template for this one.
• Need more info on sources 41 and 42 to establish that they are reliable. Who published them, what website are they from, and what establishes that they are reliable?
• I'm okay with using Homepage of the Dead solely for its interview with Eastman, as a primary source of comments from the interviewees. It is not otherwise a reliable source imo, so source 43 cannot be used. There are others down the line as well, and I cannot pass this article as a GA if they are used.
• Same with House of Horrors, I don't see this as a reliable source.
• HorrorDirectors.com explicitly says it's a WordPress site. Its reliability cannot be established.
• Note the publisher of filmsite.org to establish its reliability.
• What makes Films101.com a reliable source?
• What makes AltFilmGuide.com a reliable source?
• Source 79 needs more information to establish reliability.
• Entertainment Weekly, quoted at Homepage of the Dead. Retrieved June 24, 2006.. Can you find the actual quote from EW? Need to eliminate Homepage of the Dead as much as possible.
• What makes HorrorMovies.ca a reliable source?

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)

Nomination failed

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)

New owners of the distribution/image/licensing rights.

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)

IMBd does not qualify as a Wikipedia citation. Ditto Facebook. Can you provide an independent published source with the information> David notMD (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The original film is in the public domain so no idea what they bought. --Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC) 72.228.157.238 (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC) They have rights to the colorized versions and remastered

Merger proposal

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)

• Support merge with the unique bits of information added here to a sub-header of Night of the Living Dead#Revisions. --Gonnym (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Merge - A description of what was done (not a list of the differences) should then be added under "Release".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Revision to lead suggestion

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)

Netflix Removal in Germany

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)

Well, as of today (April 10, 2020), the 1968 version is available on Amazon Prime in Germany, so I can't really believe that the film got removed from Netflix but not from an immediate competitor. 2.244.37.139 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 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: ). 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: ). 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: ). 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

Cast

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)

Thanks. I was just about to add a message on your talk page, Rjjiii. The seven in question are integral characters. The entire movie is based very largely around the events in the house and there were only seven inside the house and these seven were the individuals whom the storyline is based upon and who we can study the characters of. Others like the sheriff or the 1st zombie or the TV narrator reciting newscast warnings were supplementary characters to scenes preceding Ben and Barbara fleeing to that household and the "morning after" when the posse started killing the zombies as they culled towards the house.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Trowel

Yeah, that makes sense. I've done the cast where there were available web sources first. I'm tracking down book sources now. For Schon especially, I don't expect there will be much usable online, but will no doubt find at least enough for sentence from one of the books listed in the references. Thanks for the explanation, Rjjiii (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A reputable source for Kyra Schon would be the printed book Notes From Underwhelmed ISBN 978-1-411-64028-3. Page 75.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

If this is the 2009 book, it appears to be self-published. I used Joe Kane (2010) for Schon. Rjjiii (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Nominating for GA/FA in the future

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)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Night of the Living Dead/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

Just to clarify, this was part of an idea to have a DYK set of Halloween hooks and I said I could review any pending spooky GANs, which led me here per a suggestion from the unrelated Vaticidalprophet... no canvassing, we promise. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:48, 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.	The script primarily drew influence from Richard Matheson's 1954 novel I Am Legend. - either cut influence or say "was influenced by"  Done across the east coast of the United States - East Coast is capitalized  Done to watch the 3 AM news update - "AM" should be "a.m."/"am" with a nbsp between it and the number (MOS:TIME)  Done Wl posse to Posse comitatus  Done Karl Hardman as Harry Cooper. One of the film's producers, Hardman, played the role of husband to his real-life partner Eastman. - I'm confused- is Hardman a producer, or is there another producer named Hardman, and who's Eastman? Because Marilyn Eastman is discussed below that, you should use her full name  Done (see below) Before the cast list, Hardman Associates isn't mentioned once, so mentioning it in the cast list is confusing- clarify  Done (see below) The first time a name is said outside of the lead, use their full name and link them (if not an actor)- this notably applies to Romero  Done The 'External video' box lacks any context- I can assume it's the Calgon commercial mentioned in the text, but that's not directly stated  Done but this would still be insufficient - make past tense (WP:INTOTHEWOULDS)  Done The script was co-written by John Russo and George A. Romero - if their full names are stated earlier in the prose outside the lead, no need to use their full names here  Done Costs adjusted for inflation need to be cited (see Fleetwood Park Racetrack for an example)  Done Eastman modified cellar scenes featuring dialogue between Helen and Harry Cooper - modified what? The section talks about improved dialogue, so what is there to modify?  Done Although the film is regarded as one of the launching pads for the modern zombie movie,[56] the screenplay never uses the word.[57] In a 2013 interview, Romero said that he felt the film's antagonists were not the zombies of Haitian folklore and that he actively avoided any similarities.[57] Professor of religious studies, Kim Paffenroth, has noted that Romero's antagonists broke with earlier traditions of "voodoo zombies" by having no human villain in control of the zombie and thus no potential to ever restore the monsters' humanity.[58] - IMO, this belongs better under "Legacy"  Done written for a white actor, but upon casting African-American actor Duane Jones, - there may be some MoS policy I'm unaware of, but if you use "white" to describe "actor", then "black" should be used to describe "actor Duane Jones"  Done In 2011, when the cemetery chapel was under warrant for demolition; Gary R. Steiner led a successful effort to raise funding to restore the building - semicolon should be a comma  Done was the first feature-length film directed by George A. Romero - no need for full name not done: Some readers skim hard, so I think it makes sense to have his full name under "Directing" where someone might jump to look for info about him. He asks, "What girl has not - should be past tense: 'he asked'  Done The musical piece during the scene in the film where Ben finds the rifle in the closet inside the farmhouse as the radio reports of mayhem play in the background - this is much too detailed for referencing a single scene, cut down  Done Wl sadism to Sadomasochism  Done In 1999, co-writer John A. Russo - delink russo and just use his surname  Done undertaken by the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) - no need to link both, and I don't see why the abbreviation is needed either, since the museum is mentioned earlier in the article  Done Image caption: Cover for Dawn of the Dead dead album - two "dead"s?  Done O'Bannon's The Return of the Living Dead would arrive in theaters - make past tense  Done In a previous case, Dawn Associates v. Links - clarify that it's a court case  Done the film has yet to go into production. - add "as of..."  Done In April 2021, Heavy Metal magazine began publishing a graphic novel adaptation of the story titled The Rise from Romero's script and with art by Diego Yapur - this makes it sound like the novel is still being published; that may be true, but it won't age well. Make it past tense  Done Wl Vietnam War  Done did work with Romero - worked with Romero...  Done What's the difference between the sections "Revisions" and "Remakes"? Clarify  Done several independent producers have done remakes. - have created remakes  Done has been performed in Toronto, Leeds and Auckland among others - other whats?  Done Wl racism to Racism in the United States  Done Film historian Robin Wood organized "The American Nightmare"—a retrospective framing horror - a retrospective what? Documentary? Exhibition?  Done a grotesque echo of the conflict then raging in Vietnam." - period goes outside quote mark per MOS:QINQ  Done Other prevalent themes included "the flaws inherent in the media, local and federal government agencies, and the entire mechanism of civil defense". - attribute the quote  Done Film historian Linda Badley explains that the film was so horrifying because the monsters were not creatures from outer space or some exotic environment, "They're us." - add "but rather that" before the quote  Done 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.	Add alt text to images (WP:ALT)  Done I feel like lots of the details about individual cast members are more suited for their articles rather than this one; cut down appropriately  Done (see below) 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).	What makes the following reliable sources: www.image-ten.com Homepage of the Dead TribLIVE diamonddead.com Ain't It Cool News HorrorMovies.ca Events.getoutaz.com Cinema-suicide.com ScreenAge Wasteland www.scoop.co.nz Allmovie Sequart 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 is showing a rather high copyvio score because there are tons of quotes. Paraphrase rather than quoting directly to cut those numbers down 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.

Source reliability

Responding to questioned sources:

• www.image-ten.com Primary source: studio.
• Homepage of the Dead Primary source: Karl Hardman and Marilyn Eastman.
• TribLIVE This 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.com Primary source: George Romero.
• Ain't It Cool News Influential pop culture site: Used by the The Guardian, New York Times,[4] and MIT.[5]
• HorrorMovies.ca removed
• Events.getoutaz.com Published 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 I removed the sentence with this citation as unnecessary.
• ScreenAge Wasteland Covered in the linked wiki article.
• www.scoop.co.nz Independent 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 I've replaced one citation with shortened footnotes to more reliable sources and removed the other as redundant. The external link at the bottom is not used to cite content.
• Sequart Replaced with Harper (2005).

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)

Also, @MyCatIsAChonk: I have paraphrased the long quotes except for the Ebert review block quotation. I'll scan the text soon and look for smaller quotations to paraphrase. I don't think these will affect Earwig's score. There are a lot of proper nouns in the article (people, films, companies, lawsuits, etc.), and that's what I mainly see Earwig highlighting now. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii done reviewing, lovely work. After the prose is adjusted per above comments, it's close to FA already, like you mentioned on the article's talk page. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Cast

@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)

Very nice work, I think the cast list looks much better. Good to go for GA- hope to see it at DYK soon ;) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 17:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Night of the Living Dead (entire film)

• ... that Night of the Living Dead was mistakenly released into the public domain because the original distributor failed to replace the copyright notice when changing the film's name? Source: "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)."
  Boluk, Stephanie; Lenz, Wylie (2011). "Introduction: Generation Z, the Age of Apocalypse". In Boluk, Stephanie; Lenz, Wylie (eds.). Generation Zombie: Essays on the Living Dead in Modern Culture. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-6140-0. Archived from the original on June 5, 2021. Retrieved November 18, 2020.
  
  "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)"
  Kane, Joe (2010). Night of the Living Dead: Behind the Scenes of the Most Terrifying Zombie Movie Ever. Citadel Press. ISBN 978-0-806-53331-5.
  • ALT1: ... that Night of the Living Dead was mistakenly released into the public domain? Source: Same as the first hook. This is just cut shorter.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/September 1983 Laws
  • Comment: This is a nomination for the Halloween set. The image slot is the entire public domain film available from the commons. If not one of the hooks above, I think the hook should somehow address the film being in the public domain because having the entire film on the front page immediately raises that question.

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.

• Great article and timely nomination. Well-sourced. Both hooks great but I will say I slightly prefer the concise version in ALT1.--NØ 16:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"They're coming to get you, Barbara" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Split the list of public domain remakes off into a "Remakes of Night of the Living Dead" article

Draft:Night of the Living Dead remakes

After working on the article and nominating it for GA, I thought the list of remakes should be split into its own article. Except for the 1990 remake, sources on the original film don't discuss these specific remakes (WP:DUE). Sources on the original film do mention that the film is frequently remade. I think the current remake section should retain the information about 1990 film, note how often the film is remade, and link to an article focused on the remakes. As time goes on, the film will likely continue to see remakes, and they can be given more space in a list article. I'll hold off a few weeks on splitting to see if others have feedback. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)