Talk:Night of the Living Dead (1990 film)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Night of the Living Dead (1990 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Confusion here
editThere is some confusion here: currently, there are two entries for this film. The first is listed here, obviously. The second is listed under "Night of the Dead." How does one go about removing one of these (or absorbing one into the other)? Perhaps someone who does know this process might want to do so. Personally, I vote for "Night of the Dead" being removed -- after all, the movie isn't called "Night of the Dead." Additionally, this action will require some changes elsewhere; links to the removed entry will have to be changed. --Altermoor 13:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why was the Production Information removed? If you have a good reason for it, this is the place to air that. Otherwise, leave it alone. --Altermoor 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Is that the correct image for this film? It looks like a poster for the original, 1960s version to me, but I could easily be wrong. -Elizabennet 23:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence from the article makes no sense: "Ben then spits his last cigarette out of his mouth and begins laughing at the irony of the news on the radio playing next to them that they have just now discovered that flesh-eating zombies have attached as the mass of undead bang on the door." Not sure what the "attached" bit is supposed to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.224.133 (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Plot vs spoiler
editThe plot contains unexpected differences between this and the earlier film. Therefore, having a heading named "plot" does not adequately foreshadow the spoilers revealed. This is why the spoiler tags are helpful and needed here. Johntex\talk 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't someone reading the plot section expect to find information about the plot in that section? What else would he expect to find? --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- The section title is quite clear that the section is about "plot". As someone else once remarked, it would be equally be bad to see "Technical details. Note: technical details follow." There's no need for a spoiler tag here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Partial rewrite
editI don't know how much effort I'm going to put into continuing on this rewrite, but I've added a bit of sourced information. The sources that I added have additional information that can be added to the article. In particular, the review by Dave Kehr has some quite insightful comments about the film's themes, and this could be supplemented by a few of the other reviews. The Behind the Scenes book has a few more tidbits that I didn't bother to quote, such as casting. It also does a very brief survey of critical reception, and it states that Ebert in particular disliked the film because of its themes. Obviously, there's enough content here to support a decent "themes" section. I might get around to that if nobody else does. That long Los Angeles Times article about the film's production also has a few more bits that I didn't quote. Overall, I'm satisfied with what I got from it, but I wish there were more to say about the film's production. From what I've read, Savini has been outspoken about his troubles on the set, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find more interviews. I'm a bit tired of scouring Google right now, however. I'll see what I can dig up later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)