Talk:Dawn of the Dead (1978 film)/Archive 1

Comment

I added a comprehensive new section on the film's making.

Belgian ending

I removed the reference to the 'belgian ending' wherein the heroine, Fran, meets a horrific demise. There is a long standing controversy as to whether this ending was actually filmed. Director George Romero has stated that it was not filmed, whereas SFX guru Tom Savini says that it was. If someone actually has a copy of this ending, please share it. Brian_Schlosser42 19 March 2004 13:21

In the documentary "Document of the Dead" Romero himself says that both versions were shot. --80.144.216.87 16:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed some references to the suicide endings being shot due to lack of sources. Bulbous (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SWAT

Changed the reference to Pittsburgh SWAT members. The movie, though filmed in Pittsburgh, even sporting Pittsburgh cop cars onscreen, begins in Philadelphia, and thus those two characters are not Pittsburgh SWAT members, but Philadelphia SWAT members.

Plot

Using some of the phrases already in place, I completely re-wrote and expanded upon the plot and general information. --209.195.156.174 06:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Code

What happened to this page? Someone added a bunch of code gibberish. Is there a quick way to just bring the page back a few edits to a point where the page isn't a mess?

Production information

I re-added the Production Information section. Why was it deleted in the first place? If someone is able to give me a good reason, I'll support it. Otherwise, leave it alone. Altermoor 03:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Black & White version?

Sorry to put this here, but a friend of mine insists that he saw a "black and white" version of this movie back in the 70's or 80's. I have no other information. Is this just a case of "movie bad memory syndrome"? Or was there some obscure b&w cut of Dawn of the Dead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.134.46 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Night of the Living Dead is the only B&W Romero Zombie film of which I am aware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.26.131.217 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Soundtrack section

I've added a soundtrack section since I thought it was strange that a soundtrack which receives so much attention (through reference to the film and the like) was absent from the article with no mention of Goblin at all and only the vaguest mention of songs like "The Gonk". I also moved some of the trivia facts to this section. I hope that is ok with everyone. --Thetriangleguy 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Two Things

1. External trivia should be in a different section (some punk band writing a song is not a trivia fact about DAWN). 2. Superfluous listing of jokes from SHAUN OF THE DEAD is not appropriate here. Or anywhere really. 24.33.28.52 06:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I divided up the trivia secion. Really, there is a lot in both sections that are poorly written and could use re-writes, and some of the more important ones could be incorporated into the article itself. I don't see where the list of SHAUN OF THE DEAD jokes is, however. ~CS 17:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I pulled it myself after making the comment (trimmed the Shaun reference down). 24.33.28.52 06:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Novelization Question

Does anyone have any verification for the theory that "Susannah Sparrow" was just Christine under a pen name? If true, that would be worth noting.

Stupid Question

Sorry for asking, but does anyone know the name of the song that runs over the end credits of the film? It's been used loads of time on TV, but I just can't find a name for it. Thanks!

It's covered in the article under the soundtrack section: the track in question is Herbert Chappell's "The Gonk" originally recorded in 1965. I'll make an edit or two to make this more clear. ~CS 23:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Problem

There is a slight problem with formatting in the beginning, but I am unsure how it is supposed to read. I haven't had much practice in editing articles, so I decided to post this here. Help in rectifying the problem would be appreciated.

Gross

Hi! What is the source of the Gross number stated in the article? Isn't it a bit high? --80.144.237.179 10:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The worldwide gross listed in the information box apparently had too many zeros. I changed it from $400,000,000 to $40,000, which is the figure stated in the "Post-production and release" section.

I'm not sure where the $40,000 figure came from. IMDb reports that the worldwide gross was $55,000,000. --Keith111 12:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ratings Confusion

An NC-17 is not "a buffer between R and the X rating." It was introduced by the MPAA to replace the untrademarked X rating, which was being self-applied by pornographers. See MPAA film rating system. --Keith111 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

stop changing the budget. it can be verified in the zombies that ate pittsburgh by paul cagne. it was not 500,000 - it was 1.5 million

I'm not sure who your comment is directed at. I changed the worldwide gross, not the budget figure, as described in the note above. --Keith111 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

nc-17

(re: above comment) re-read this section - it is likening nc-17 to a middle ground between r and x, not stating as a fact that it was.

It is misleading to "liken nc-17 to a middle ground between r and x," because an NC-17 is not, in fact, "like" a middle ground between R and X. The NC-17 rating replaced the X rating. It is essentially the same rating with a new name, in the sense that filmmakers try to avoid the NC-17 rating, just as with the old X rating, and children are not admitted to NC-17 movies playing at theaters—just as they were not permitted to see X-rated movies back when that rating was still being issued. --Keith111 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Budget dispute

I've just reverted the budget back to $500,000. It seems that the $1,500,000 figure comes from the book "The Zombies That Ate Pittsburgh" - which was first published in 1987. According to [1] the $1,500,000 numbers was for foreign distributors to justify charging them more for the film.

Given that the book was published in 1987 - and the interviews were likely done in 1986 - it's not surprising that Romero is still distorting the budget. The foreign distributors they lied to would be the same distributors that they would be trying to sell "Day of the Dead", "Monkey Shines", etc. to. It makes sense that he would maintain the story - so as not to hurt the chances of numerous later films getting brought and distributed.

Some time later the producer Richard Rubenstein comes clean on the "real" budget. IMDB embraces it as the correct budget - as do we. Anyway - that's my interpretation of what's going on. Megapixie 06:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the trivia sections of IMDB are notoriously inaccurate. They are submitted by users and, unlike Wikipedia, not easily changed if incorrect. I'm not certain what the real figure is, but I think a more reliable source than IMDB needs to be found for citation. Citing the DVD commentary directly is probably the most accurate source. I haven't listend to it all the way through, so I don't know offhand what scene he mentions it in. Anyone else? ~CS 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oi!

This article wouldn't look very bad with some screenshots, eh?

Citation?

"Following the scenario set up in the previous movie, Night of the Living Dead, the film depicts the United States of America struck by a plague[citation needed]"

Why does this need citation? Surely the zombies are a plague in every sense of the word? Desdinova

I wondered about that too. Does this mean every description of the story, setting, characters also needs citations? Asa01 08:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the user who tagged it may have simply confused the use of the word "plague" with disease, thus mixing it up with the viral explanation that Romero's film lack, but are insintuated in the Dawn remake and other zombie fiction. The user even added the invisible note that "the movie doesn't specify" with the tag, which indicates that this is a misunderstanding. I call for it to be removed unless I'm missing something.--Bacteria 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly - I removed it. Desdinova 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

This page is way too long. I know it's a popular movie and all but it doesn't need a lengthy section on makeup or individual sections for each disc of the DVD release. This is ridiculous. Doubtless 2/3 of the page can be done away with. Feijuada 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the DVD section to be helpful. I don't think it's superfluous. --Keith111 12:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing character info

What happened to the information on Peter's character? It skips him in the characters section.

Move soundtrack section to seperate article?

I think the soundtrack section should be made into an article of its own, as it is lengthy, yet still worthy of inclusion to Wikipedia. This would also help with the length of the page which has caused some concern form other members. Comments? Desdinova 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Move influence section to seperate article?

It reads like a trivia (list) section, though has the fortune of a different heading. Along with moving the soundtrack section, this would help shorten the overlong article. 74.134.255.99 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Status?

Could someone mention some specific things we need to do to bump the status of this article? I think we should be aiming for FA, and it's definitely within reach. Desdinova 23:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, one thing that I think should be delt with is the apparently American-centered view of the article. It was an Italian/American co-production, and distributed in Italy first, but the article is written from the Americans' point of view. One of the rules of Wikipedia is for each article to represent a worldwide view of its subject, and I don't think that's happening here. (172.162.226.120 11:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

• • this movie wasnt an italian/american coproduction. dario argento's only involvement was money. and the only reason he was able to recut the movie for european release was BECAUSE of the money he contributed. he essentially bought creative rights from george romero. this was an american made independent film, and had nothing to with italy.

There is definitely enough content to warrant GA (possibly even FA) status, imo, but looking through it just now I noticed that the article needs a lot of wikifying and citation. --WTStoffs (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Zombification?

The article seems to say that no one knows the reason for the zombie outbreak, but doesn't NOTLD say that it was radiation from a satellite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.196.136.240 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

In NOTLD they speculate that the undead are a result of radiation, but Romero has said various times [including on the NOTLD commentary track] that he never intended for that to be the actual cause--it was basically just an attempt by the authorities to appear to be in control of the situation. 4.246.84.119 07:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternate ending

I have moved this from the trivia section to just under the plot summary, as the reference to it in the special effects section made no sense when reading the page in order. 134.117.137.188 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the music section

We should split the music off to its own page, and just leave the prose here in the article under a "Music" header. Listing is generally avoided in FAC for films, and since there are two albums we should have plenty of information in the new article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Sickboy3883 11:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Too much trivia?

This article is still listed as having too much trivia in Portal:Film, but I don't even see a trivia section. JordanZed 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Influences and pop culture references are trivia, a section of (sometimes) interesting facts in no real context. Pop culture references are actually worse then trivia, as trivia is usually more heavily related to the topic then "some band said a line that was close to line the guy said in the movie". It's not really interesting people who are interested in the movie, it's more related to whoever is doing the referencing. So unless this info can be integrated into the article, and add some real content, it should be taken out. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 04:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Doug of the Dead

There is a "Mr. Meaty" episode called "Doug of the Dead". The title screen is a direct copy of the movies title screen. Also, the episode is about zombies attacking the mall due to a mysterious mind-control machine. Can someone put this under pop-culture references? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VicAndPhill (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

We're trying to get rid of all the pop culture references, or at least move them to a seperate article. Desdinova 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content tag

A tag was placed on this article advising that it didn't offer a globalized view of the subject. As an American film (yes, co-produced by Italian interests, but still widely considered an American film), I don't see how this tag is appropriate given that the film also takes place in the US, and was filmed there. 23skidoo 04:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Goblin-zombisoundtrack.jpg

Image:Goblin-zombisoundtrack.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Incidental-dawnofthedead.jpg

Image:Incidental-dawnofthedead.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese release date

Did it seriously come out in 1994? Or is that vandalism, and did it come out in 1984? Octane ^{[improve me]} 29.06.07 1949 (UTC)

Problems with production section

The production section, while excellently written and very informative, doesn't list very many (if any) sources for its information. If we are trying to get this article up to FA, we need to radically improve our reference list. Could some of the people who contributed to it add some? Otherwise, it will sadly have to be removed, or at least reworded. Desdinova 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture references to own article?

I am going to move the pop culture section to it's own article, as seems to be the standard with another example being The Raven. Let me know if you disagree. Desdinova 07:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)