Talk:The Naked Monster
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | A fact from The Naked Monster appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 August 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Removal of "needs infobox" tag
editThis article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 17:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Note to David Gerard-- the point of using the "Spoiler" subheading is that it's a gag. I don't think it's that out of the realm of wikipedia rules, is it? Artwork of the dvd box is used by permission of the distributor and copyright holder. (It was not made before 1964, despite the presence of the older members of the cast.)Ted Newsom 03:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Naked monster key art 4 wiki.jpg
edit
Image:Naked monster key art 4 wiki.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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.
Article improvement requested
editI have added mutiple sources and expanded the article somewhat. I request assistance in expanding the "Critical reception" section through use of the multiple available sources, as we have plenty from which to work. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
should be noted ...
editAbbythecat (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC) It should be noted that this is a fan-made film. This is obvious as it uses characters copyrighted by real movie studios. For instance, Clete and Helen are from Revenge of the Creature, a film owned by Universal, so they own the rights to these characters. Godzilla is in this, and Toho owns him. This is even evident in the dialogue. For example, the Tobey character is supposed to be from The Thing, yet he says he once fought Billy Jack. Tobey was in Billy Jack, but not as his The Thing character, and his character in BJ is killed. So this is a fan-made 'film-within-a-film', with everyone playing themselves playing their old characters. This subtle difference allows the film-maker to avoid a lot of copyright violations. If the actors really are playing their copyrighted characters, the studios who own these characters, like Toho and Universal, could sue. So I made a few edits to clarify this and avoid any lawsuits. It's a good film, IF you look at it in the right way, as a fan's 'film-within-a-film' parody (the ending verifies this, as the director walks into the picture and talks about old horror movies). If anyone else has any opinions on this, please let me know. Put simply, this just legally cannot be a 'real movie', because, as I stated, if it was, it broke several copyright laws. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- sigh *. The character called "Dr. Helen Dobson" in the film is clearly not the SAME "Dr. Helen Dobson in "Revenge of the Creature, since THAT Helen Dobson never explored a monster island with Colonel Patrick Hendry (see below), or, as far as we know, became a specialist in prehistoric monsters. Ditto "Clete Ferguson," who clearly is not the same "Clete Ferguson," since this "Clete Ferguson" also refers to fighting a giant tarantula, which THAT "Clete Ferguson" did not do. As you point out, the character of "CAPTAIN Patrick Hendry" is obviously not the same as this film's "COLONEL Patrick Hendry," because THIS one fought Billy Jack, a giant octopus, and a vampire creature. Sometimes characters will have similar names...
"Real movie"? Please, Abby-- before you start claiming this broke any copyright laws, read up on the "2LiveCrew" decision regarding "Pretty Woman." It's called "parody." And thank you very, very much for the kind words. Ted Newsom (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Abbythecat (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Mr. Newsom, I thank you for the information. I didn't know about the parody copyright law. I think your movie is one of the best ever made. I just wanted to tell you that. I was thrown under the bus by Robert McClenon a year ago and haven't been on Wikipedia since then. But I had to return to praise your movie. Thanks for making a wonderful film! AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)