Talk:Night of the Living Dead

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)

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)

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.