Talk:The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies

Sources needed

Quite a bit of the trivia information (and some of the main text) appears to be unsourced. The only source listed at this time is the IMDb entry, which has some of the trivia information, but not nearly all of it. Could the contributing editors please provide sources for this information? Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

There's no given reason for the "neutrality disputed" tag. I'm going to remove it. Grandmasterka 06:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the unexplained NPOV tag. I had planned to add that tag because I suspect that the harshness of some of the views was not supported by any sources (regardless of how accurate it may be), but I decided that we first need to have sources, then we can worry about what their POVs are. But I forgot to remove the tag during my edit (which included many other changes). Thanks to Grandmasterka for fixing my mistake. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Longest title?

Actually, didn't the film known as Marat/Sade have a title longer than this film and the 1996 film? 74.226.219.107 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I've updated the article to address two problems. First, there is no source for the claim that "is also noted for having, at the time of release, the longest title in film history". The failure for us to have noticed Marat/Sade when adding the statement about Don't Be a Menace is a good example of why we need sources, not original research. Second, I've replaced that film with a note that Marat/Sade overtook Zombies 3 years later, but without specifically claiming that it was the new longest-title holder, as I have no source for that claim. (I have, however, sourced the official UK title of Marat/Sade, which for the record is The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade. I saw no compelling reason to include it in the article, let alone the necessarily brief introduction, given that it's a trivial aside and is mentioned in the first sentence of the linked article.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is one film with a longer title...and it's also a comedy/horror film. 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, Hellbound, Flesh-Eating Subhumanoid Zombified Living Dead, Part 3 is the name. (And I had to use the "copy" function to save time...) 65.12.115.249 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone look at the film Dr. Strangelove? The title is "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." It was on 29 January 1964. Gulfy32 03:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced opinions and POV

I've just removed the following line from the text:

At no point is there any visible motivation for anyone's actions nor any discernible logic to the story line.

as well as the adjective "amateurish" from the description of the song-and-dance numbers. I don't recognize User:KarlBunker's professional credentials for making this unpublished review of the film, nor his basis for the deleted sentence. However, I do recognize that referring to other editors' work as that of "fools"[1] is not in keeping with WP:CIVIL. We Wikipedia editors are not film reviewers. I happen to have some experience in performing song-and-dance numbers myself, but even that doesn't give me any ground on which to criticize this film. If we want to include critical statements, we need to source them from reliable publications, not our own opinions (however common or reasonable they might seem). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeffq, You're right that I was uncivil in my edit summary, and I apologize for that. You are quite incorrect in your objections to the sentence in question, however. It constitutes "original research" and "opinion" about as much as the statement "grass is green." No one who has seen the film with an unbiased eye would consider the sentence anything other than plain and unvarnished fact. Furthermore, to remove it renders the article incomplete, because the laughable illogic of the film is a major part of what makes it both notable and enjoyable. However, rather than getting into an edit war with you, I'll accept your deletion for the time being. Clearly defending this movie is a song-and-dance number that you're committed to at the moment. I assume you or some relation of yours was involved in the production? If so, my condolences. KarlBunker 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Karl, you may not have been able to figure out why people were doing the things that they were doing, but the fact that a particular mental challenge is too tough for you does not mean it is impossible for everybody. Nor does it mean that you can repeatedly violate WP:CIVIL, first by referring to your fellow editors as "fools" and then by alleging that anyone who does not agree with your assessment of the movie must have some personal vested interest in the movie. Do you think that this is actually acceptable behavior, Karl? Is this your idea of how mature adults deal with each other? -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

An article on The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies is no place for mature adults, and I certainly haven't noticed the presence of any. Keep dancing, fellas.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KarlBunker (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is certainly no place for you if you feel you have to lash out with insults when people disagree with your opinion and won't let you force that opinion into the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have once again removed the POV text cited above, which KarlBunker recently restored. To address his objections to the removal of this text, here are some easily discernable motivations and logic in Incredibly Strange Creatures:

• Jerry is immature, so he watches the pseudo-strip show partly because he won't let Angela tell him what to do.
• Estrella is a power-mad murdered who enjoys enslaving, abusing, and killing people.
• Angela, like so many young women, is attracted to bad boys. (Of course, that's neither exclusive to the age or the gender.) Bad boys tend to be mean to their girls. Love is not logical, but it does play out this way very often in real life.
• Jerry is a loser, but he does have at least a vestigial morality that causes him to unsuccessfully fight Estrella's control, and regret what he has done, likely motivating his self-inflicted finale.

I could go on and on, Karl. What I think you really mean is that these motivations and logic don't make for a good story, which is entirely subjective. (I happen to agree, but that's completely irrelevant.) This is why I removed that material, and have done so again. If you wish to cite such criticism of the film, you must source it from a reliable publication, in which case it becomes a sourced critical review, which is legitimate article material. If you don't understand the distinction, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which go into some detail on these distinctions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-inflicted? He was shot by a cop while posing no threat to anyone! Oh, and the film sucked. Coolgamer (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Promo Copy

As pointed out by the "365 Stupidest Things Ever Said" calendar, the promo for the film was as follows:

"INCREDIBLE is the word for the world's first monster musical! See in magnificent Eastman color–the DARING DANCING, enticing and horrifying–The INCREDIBLY Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!! Who is the woman branded in birth, wearing the wart of horror?"

I'm not sure how this would be incorporated into the article, so I'm just throwing it out there for people to use. Riggzy 20:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Incrediblystrangecreatures.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

New redirect

Incredibly Strange Creatures... now redirects here Joe Davison 15:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Eliminated Trivia section

I put in the headings recommended by WikiProject Film, and managed to squeeze everything from the trivia/miscellenia heading into them. Things still aren't well cited, but at least they're no longer in bullet-list form.--Dereksmootz (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

References

I've replaced the "citations missing" tag with specific fact tags for items that need reliable sources. I also did some cleanup and reformatting of the existing citations to make them easier to maintain. I suspect a number of factual statements are supported either by the Joe Bob Briggs commentary or other material from the DVD, but we need explicit citations of where this information can be found, not just a line under "References" that means readers must watch all the supplemental material to find it for themselves. To assist efforts to make the DVD extras referenceable, I've left a single bulleted citation for "unspecified commentary and interviews" in the "References" section, including blank parameters like "time" that can be filled in with details. (I suggest replacing the "people" parameter with something like I did for the Briggs commentary, since "cite video" doesn't include a "chapter" parameter that it really needs.)

By the way, I also replaced the "Rquote" template with "Cquote". Rquote is intended for quotes embedded in wrap-around text, but there's not much text here to wrap around, so it's just Incredibly Strange Markup That Broke the Flow and Became a Whitespace Waster. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Zombies?

Are the "monsters" in this movie actually zombies? They are not dead, they don't eat humans, and you don't have to shoot them in the head to kill them. Thoughts? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your definition of "Zombie" is rather limited to the Romero genre, which is not the real definition of a zombie-- ie. The African tribal belief of reanimating a corpse by supernatural force in order to become a slave. In the case of Incredibly Strange Creatures..., the director mentions on the DVD that the "zombies" are actually mixed-up people who think that they are zombies, even though it's not clear whether they've been killed and brought back, or are just horribly scarred hypno-victims. The Photoplayer 05:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Novel?????????

The table has three writers, one for writing the novel. WTF! Was this a joke? The same article says it was written and directed by Steckler, or am I mistaken?. Please clarify --Surten (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Surten

Angels Flight?

I have not seen the film, but I once read a claim that it contained the only known color footage of the old Angels Flight uphill trolley in Downtown Los Angeles. Any truth to this? Roz666 (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No idea about the trolley or the rarity of the footage, but the scene is here at 1h16m, on YouTube. --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)