Talk:Day of the Dead (1985 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rating

What was this movie rated originally? The article states that it was released "unrated by the MPAA," but earlier (due to recent edits), it states that Romero accepted a smaller budget for the film because of his goal of an X-rating. What's the real story behind this? --Myles Long 28 June 2005 19:52 (UTC)

It was released unrated in 1985. Romero was offered 5 million to deliver an R rated film, but he insisted on a gory version and accepted a 2.5 million budget.

The story goes that an X-rated movie would be refused advertising by local newspapers, radio, TV in the United States, so this is where we get the unrated horror movies tradition. Instead the ads carried disclaimers about violent but non-sexual content. Possibly exaggerated or apocryphal, but this is what some directors and producers say on their audio commentaries (including Romero and Rubinstein). 24.33.28.52 07:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No cast information?

Why doesn't someone add a cast info?--FG90 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why remove Trivia?

A Wikipedia advisory box appears in the Trivia section saying that it should be removed. I disagree. Trivia is one of the main benefits of Wikipedia movie articles vs. IMDB articles. Let's resist this movement to remove movie trivia from Wikipedia movie articles. Who's with me?

Best off doing it at WP:TRIVIA rather than here. Actually, it currently says that trivia should not just be removed, it should be intergrated into the article where possible, then removed. Desdinova 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed "hardcore zombie fan" link

I removed the link to someone's myspace page claiming to be a "hardcore zombie fan." It was inappropriate and wikipedia is not a billboard for some goth-emo freak wanting people to see how much of a "hardcore zombie fan" he is. --Jazz Remington 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Filming locations of Day of the Dead" link

I have recently had a link removed, from this database, as it was classed as spam. I am a filming location detective; I work hard compiling my own database, travelling to the filming location, taking photos and videos for others to see. I then add them to my website, which is not for profit www.filminglocationsdetectives.com and once I have updated the website I place a link here for others to click on and find more information. I have no intention to clog up your database with useless and none working links, I would like to appeal to your good selves by re-adding my links again for all to see. --Roland Keates

• There are a couple of reasons (WP:NOR comes to mind for instance), but the biggest one is that you shouldn't post links to websites that you started or are involved with. You are by definition not an objective judge of the value of a site you have a vested interest in. Unless someone that is not you or someone you approached links to the site, it's not appropriate. And even then, it's often still inappropriate. The website also doesn't meet WP:RS. - Richfife 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dayofthedeadsoundtrack.jpg

Image:Dayofthedeadsoundtrack.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 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 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Strength of Zombies

This article claims that Day of the Dead departed in it's depiction of Zombie strength by showing Zombies as much stronger and able to pull apart their victims. Whoever came up with this obviously hasn't seen the end of Dawn of the Dead, in which Zombies are seen to pull apart and pull off limbs of their victims. I would argue that the horror of being killed by a Zombie is depicted as drawn out and horrifying in Dawn as it is in Day. Also, there's still a lot of bias in this article. "1978's Dawn of the Dead is considered by the majority of his fans as the best of the series?" There may be a lot of Dawn fans out there, but there are an equal amount of Day fans, really. There are probably an equal amount of both, surely. What's this "majority" nonsense?

Right on all counts. I removed the part about Dawn being considered the best, which can easily be seen as NPOV. To combat the first point, that part of the article needs a complete rewrite (IMHO). Desdinova 23:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The play-doh thing needs more information. in Dawn of the dead (origonal) Those zombies were able to dig their hands right into a bikers stomach area (had 2 say that as belly and chest didn't seem right) and managed to easily pull apart his organs with easeOsirisV (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thedeadwalk.jpg

Image:Thedeadwalk.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CaptRhodes.jpg

Image:CaptRhodes.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bubgun.jpg

Image:Bubgun.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Day of the dead.jpg

Image:Day of the dead.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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Day of the Dead the beginning

Day of the Dead the beginning is this film a Remake of George A. Romero's Day of the Dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.80.199 (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Deadwalk.jpg

The image Image:Deadwalk.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange Cultural Reference

The Clockwork Orange reference is a bit of a stretch. The only connection that I can see here is that both films use Ode to Joy, but that piece is widely used in films, and generally used as an example of "cultured" music. Is there any other information to back this up? Director commentary or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogisticEarth (talk • contribs) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert undiscussed move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Opposed - not moved per NCF. Skier Dude (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
{{movereq}} This article was moved without discussion, and should be moved back to its original location, as it is clearly the main topic with films for this title. - BilCat (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Such a move is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), which says to use years to disambiguate when multiple films have the same title. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Cybercobra. Multiple films so Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) applies.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF; article is already disambiguated. Everyone, please see discussion here. Erik (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

}}

Bub "in search of" Rhodes?

I'm not convinced that Bub was looking for Rhodes specifically - that Bub specifically connected Rhodes with the death of Doc Frankenstein. He was just mad and looking for people to kill, rather like the snake from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "Adventure of the Speckled Band" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.148 (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

there are no need in trying to connect Bub behavior to one of Sir Doyle characters, you need only to state your thoughs and wait for an analyse. I guess you're wrong, since Bub retained memories from his past life and could, also, retained primitive thinking that allows him to connect Rhodes and the death of his mentor, Dr. Logan. --200.216.236.75 (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Office for Film and Broadcasting?

I'll start right off by saying that I'm Australian so I can't claim to have an intimate knowledge of the USCCBOFB (!?), but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they're probably not big horror movie fans.

I don't think it's appropriate to list the views of those on the edges of public opinion in the critical reception section. These tend to be judgements of the genre as a whole rather than genuine critical analysis of the movie in question. You could cut and paste that paragraph from this article to any other horror movie article and it would be just as true. It's therefore adds nothing to the article and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I appear to be having a monologue on this topic, I'm signaling my intention to remove the reference to the USCCBOFB. I'll take silence as approval. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 07:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-animation by biting only?

The article states that in Romero's world, a corpse will reanimate regardless if it is bitten, as long as it doesn't have any severe head trauma. While I agree this is implied, I don't recall ever seeing someone reanimated without first being bitten. This goes for the 4 films. I can only recall this happening in the remakes; in the Night of the Living Dead remake at the very end when Ben is reanimated after a gunshot wound, in NIGHT when we see the graveyard zombie who clearly has just crawled out of a grave, and in the Dawn remake with the baby zombie. I don't think the remakes (especially Snyder's Dawn) can be considered canon.

As far as I am concerned, there is circumstancial evidence of the "any corpse will rise" idea, but it's not conclusive:

1. If corpses reanimated only after a bite, there wouldn't be many zombies walking around. Usually if a zombie or two gets a hold of you, you will be consumed to the point where there won't be much left of you to be able to walk. In order to have fully or mostly intact zombies walking around, some of them must have died "normally" and then reanimated.

2. The newscaster in NIGHT states that the bodies of the recently deceased are returning to life. He doesn't say "recently bitten", but that doesn't rule it out. Also, at that stage of the game the media didn't seem to know what was going on anyway.

3. In NIGHT you see a naked woman zombie with a toe tag, clearly reanimated out of the morgue. I didn't see any bite marks. This goes for lots of other zombies who don't appear to have any bite marks or gaping holes (especially in the earlier movies).

4. In NIGHT, you have an awful lot of zombies walking around, considering it's such a rural area. Where did they come from? It's highly unlikely that they've all been bitten that early on. Is it implied that they are reanimated corpses from the cemetary?

Some admittedly weak evidence of the "bite only" idea:

1. In NIGHT, Tom and Judy's corpses don't get back up after getting burned in the fire.

2. I don't recall Blades getting bitten, but after being shot by Peter, you never see him later on as a zombie. Then again, maybe that's him in Land of the Dead.

3. In DAY, Logan doesn't appear to have been shot in the head. Nevertheless, he never reanimates.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonlebaron (talk • contribs) .

In the DVD for Dawn, in one of the documentaries (Document of the Dead or The Dead Walk, I forget which), Savini says that he is creating zombies who died a variety of different ways. He mentions a cancer patient at some point. Obviously, this is saying that a zombie could be someone who died of cancer, so not necessarily bitten. Then again, this is Savini talking and I agree after watching the movies again to try to see, I didn't notice any mention of any zombie coming to life unless bitten (unless you could Savini's remake of Night of the Living Dead)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IP 142.192.200.200 (talk) .

It is specifically stated in Night, Dawn, and Land that all corpses are affected. LAND even goes out of its way, during the opening credits, to state definitively that you NEED NOT BE BITTEN to become a zombie, presumably because George was sick of this "debate".24.33.28.52 23:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that biting is not required because if this was the sole cause, there would be no zombies in the first place. --Bacteria 23:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. There seems to be a lack of continuity or clarity about this in the movies. In Night, the reanimation seems to coincide with radiation from the returning space probe, and is spread by biting. In the Director's Cut of Land, a man hangs himself and reanimates (this scene was not in the theatrical version). In the remake of Dawn, the characters debate this very issue. The woman who dies of a gunshot does not in fact reanimate. It's quite obvious why the baby is born as a zombie - it shares bodily fluids with its mother, who turned before it was born. It's also unclear whether zombies derive nourishment of any kind from eating their victims. In Day, Dr. Logan points out that zombies without a stomach will continue to attempt to eat flesh, and that center of the brain is the part of the body that decays last, and whatever phenomenon is causing the zombies resides there. Hmmm. I've also wondered why some of the zombies in Land, particularly the lead zombie, look like they died yesterday, while others are in clearly advanced stages of decay, as one would expect after several years.

How about the effect of the epidemic on animals? Again, this is unclear. No animals are ever shown turning into zombies. In the remake of Dawn, a dog is able to slip by the zombies unharmed. Wouldn't zombies have the instinct to try and eat animals? In Night, a zombie woman eats a bug on a tree, and in Land, there is mention of giving a dog or cat to the zombies fighting in the ring. (What do you call a zombie dog? A ma-stiff.)Twalls

I never saw that part where the guy hangs himself and comes back as a zombie... if I had I wouldn't have even brought it up. That is noteworthy because, (again correct me if I am wrong) that would make it the only time this would happen on camera in the series. I need to get that DVD.

In any case, the animal question is interesting. They don't notice the gator at the beginning of Day.

Final question... if you dig up a coffin and crack it open, is the corpse reanimated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.131.215.20 (talk) .

How about the very first person we see die in the very first movie? It's not clear whether Johnny dies or is just knocked cold when he strikes his head against the tombstone, but presumably if he was just unconscious the marauding hordes of ghouls would have gobbled him up, no? The zombies don't reproduce strategically like vampires, so I can't imagine why they would bite an unconscious body minimally and leave it to rise. Tom and Judy are clearly blown to pieces by the explosion, pieces that the zombies pick up and eat, so obviously they were ineligible for reanimation. Dr. Logan gets shot a whole bunch; there's no reason to assume he wasn't struck in the head.75.49.251.170 (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zombie fluids

The part about Zombie fluids possibly causing zombification is wrong. I refer you to Dawn of the dead, in which I believe all the characters where at some point hit by zomibe blood. Indeed, I think Steven was splattered quite thoroughly, and if memory serves me right, it was long before his death (Although I may be wrong) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.115.70 (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The "baby zombie" is created because he was feed into his then-zombie mother fluids, so body fluid plays a role here. --200.216.236.75 (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If the baby zombie also died in childbirth then the fluids aren't necessarily the cause of zombification, right? In Dawn of the Dead Steven starts acting really bizarre after some zombie blood splashes into his mouth and eye; this behavior leads to him getting bitten so we can't know if the fluid contact would have infected him anyway. 75.49.251.170 (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Day of the Dead (1985 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708212922/http://www.billboard.com:80/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=389&cfgn=Videos&cfn=Top+VHS+Sales&ci=3005087&cdi=6236239&cid=06%2F14%2F1986 to http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=389&cfgn=Videos&cfn=Top+VHS+Sales&ci=3005087&cdi=6236239&cid=06%2F14%2F1986
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110724163538/http://www.leechvideo.com/video/view2122965.html to http://www.leechvideo.com/video/view2122965.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Day of the Dead (1985 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vh1.com/movies/movie/8331/review.jhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914184217/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vh1.com/movies/dvd/118682/dvdmain.jhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025125509/http://www.horror-movies.ca:80/horror_11696.html to http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_11696.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710081511/http://www.ugo.com:80/ugo/html/article/?id=18395 to http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=18395

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Plot Section

I was just glancing at the article, and the plot section is really long and has no breaks in it. If anyone could find a way to break it up and make it a little easier to read and understand, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.191.173 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hear you loud and clear. I was never one for brevity.haha. Will fix according to your wishes.George A Romero (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See [1], to see how a plot section should be written. --Day of the Dead (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of wit. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Day of the Dead (1985) World Premier June 30th, 1985

Hello,

I was wondering why you felt it was necessary to delete my contribution to the Day of the Dead (1985) listing? Was there something you didn't agree with, or perhaps I didn't format it correctly? I feel that the information I provided is very important to the history of the film and that it sheds new light on the fact that Day of the Dead actually had a world premier days earlier then any known record of release. I am not, in any way, someone who haphazardly contributes to wikipedia. I hope to get a response from you concerning this as I am confused. In the meantime, here is a link to the World Premier ticket (front and back) I received in 1985 for Day of the Dead, which was held by United Film Distribution Company (the distributor who released George Romero's film).

Thank you David Brudie (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

http://memorabilia.homepageofthedead.com/?id=271

Heya @David Brundie:. I didn't actually realize you had just edited the article when I removed the Trivia section. Per WP:TRIVIA we generally try to avoid Trivia sections in articles and I found that one while reading. The preferred method of dealing with info that finds its way into Trivia sections is to rework the text with reliable sources and put it into a section of the article that fits. If we can find a good source for the text you had, I'd say it would most likely fit into a release section (you can read about that and other film article conventions at MOS:FILM). I don't play with that end of articles in detail very often but that may actually change the release date we have on the article according to the usage instructions we have for release dates in the infobox. The trick though is that we have to have the reliable sources to do it. I did notice while double checking my edit just now that your text had some mild writing problems but nothing you wrote was unclear so it would be easy to polish up once the sourcing issue is handled. That very much is my area of expertise and if we can find a source that you can use to cover this earlier release, I'd be happy to help with that.

All of that said, I'm hella geeking out on your ticket now. I was still just a hair too young to go see that one in the theatres so I'm super jealous. May not be the best zombie film ever made but I've always enjoyed it. Millahnna (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again @Millahnna

First of all, thank you so much for responding to me and taking an interest. I can tell that, like me, you are a film lover. I have and continue to be very active in the film world, wherever I can be, it's a lifetime passion. So it will be mostly on that level that I am writing to you. Although I have kept the ticket for Day of the Dead all these years I had never fully realized its significance until last week when I was researching release dates for Day of the Dead, for an article I was writing. As I looked through various web sites I could find no information predating July 3rd, 1985 (which was a limited engagement) for the films release in the United States. It seemed very odd because I didn't recall the world premiere I attended in New York taking place so close to 4th of July. I looked at my ticket and saw the date, June 30th, and was pretty surprised as I always assumed the premiere was known by all to be its first showing. Apparently this is not the case.

To be brief, the ticket was given to me at a promotional event at a mall in Long Island in 1985. It was sponsored by a rather popular radio station there called WBAB. As a regular listener, I heard ads telling listeners to be at a certain mall in the area on a certain date to get the ticket for free. When I showed up I actually asked for two of them, one to share with a friend, which never came to happen. I'm glad I did get to keep one because the ticket I used that night was taken at the door. So this keepsake is rare by my estimation.

If I'm reading your reply correctly you state a few times about the importance of 'sources' to validate this showing. Here is where I am at researching that. The theater, the UA HICKSVILLE (which was located on Marie Street, in Hicksville New York) was demolished in 2003. They have no website that still exists through United Artists theaters. There is however a forum based repository of listings for defunct theaters, which I believe was started by Roger Ebert. Unfortunately, there are only 21 comments on that theaters listing and none of them mention the Day of the Dead premiere. I contacted the station manager for the WBAB radio station that gave the tickets out, this morning via email, after searching their website for archival information on past promotions and such, but they do not have anything dating back prior to just a few years ago. After all this time, 32 years, I'm hoping some station record still exists that can be used as reliable source evidence. I also attempted to locate and contact United Film Distribution Company, which was headquartered in Great Neck New York, in 1985 (not far from the Hicksville theater where the world premiere took place), but they are long gone and no longer operate, apparently. So that's where it stands in terms of sources. I do not know who to contact next. The ticket exists, and was made by UFDC, and I was there.

Not sure how to proceed based on all the very helpful suggestions you gave me, however. I have never contributed to Wikipedia before, and frankly am lost at using the editor feature. I do not understand it. The programming language of it, at all. To be honest, just writing to you here is a bit of a learning experience. That's why I left my release contribution in the trivia box. It was easiest, and I didn't want to take the chance of messing up someone's obviously meticulous work within the release section of the listing itself. I really feel that this information needs to be known and that fans would love to here about it, so I'd like to ask if you would be willing to help me. To my knowledge Wikipedia would be the first major listing of 'accurate' release information about Day of the Dead in the world. I think it's important, for many of the reasons. Any assistance you can give me in accomplishing this would be very much appreciated. Even if you could just direct me to someone who would have the time and knowledge to help, if you cannot.

I know the link I gave you to images of the ticket in my first message were rather poor quality (I uploaded them to Home Page of the Dead many years ago), so here are links to new one's I just did. I watermarked them to prevent anyone publicly using these higher resolution scans to duplicate it. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I look forward to your response.

http://s92.photobucket.com/user/knucklemug/media/DOTD%20Ticked%20Back-WM.jpg.html

http://s92.photobucket.com/user/knucklemug/media/DOTD%20Ticked%20Front-WM.jpg.html

David Brudie (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand how you feel about learning the editor and such; I have a decent level of tech saavy but I tend to lose track of what wiki markup I learn unless I use it regularly. And since I mostly focus on writing related edits (a stray comma here, some awkward grammar there), I end up poking at plot summaries more than anything and don't use a lot of markup for the stuff I do. So I may not, in some respects, be the best person to ask these types of questions. But I can usually figure out who to ask so there's that.

With that thought in mind, I'm thinking about copying our entire conversation (or at least the pertinent bits like the research you've done so far) to the article's talk page and maybe dropping a note about it at the film project talk page; the problem of sourcing obscure details from older films (early 90s and prior) has come up before and some folks there may have access to sources we don't or have an idea of how to go about researching something like this. I'm kind of wondering if this isn't going to be a case of microfiche at the library; old newspaper articles might have something. Millahnna (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think there is a compelling argument for adding the date to the infobox. Millahnna was correct to revert the edit because under a strict interpretation of the rules a scan on a personal website is not a WP:Reliable Source. On the other hand Wikipedia is not in the business of perpetuating "alternative facts" and I agree the ticket looks credible. It is obvious somebody has scanned in their ticket and uploaded it so what we essentially have is a non-reliable source acting as an archive for what appears to be a primary source. WP:IAR was pretty much invented for reasons like this and this looks like one of those times where it is reasonable to invoke it, provided there is a consensus to do so. That said I only advocate adding the release date to the infobox and not the rest of the trivia per WP:TRIVIA. Betty Logan (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  Do you know of any articles (film or otherwise) where something similar to this has been done? I'm trying to wrap my head around how we would cite/ref tag this if consensus to make the change is reached. Also, and again assuming, do you think it would work to polish up David's original text and place it in a release section? What I imagined when I first checked his diff upon David contacting me was the usual release section noting this festival release, then the wide release and the assorted box office figures we usually include in such sections. Millahnna (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  I can't think of any examples where this has happened before. But you would basically cite the url for where the ticket scan is hosted per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and perhaps add a hidden note explaining the circumstances. As for the rest of David's text most of it seems to be based on his personal recollection and not something we can provide verification for, apart from the venue which can can be added to the infobox with the date. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible source

David brought this Dread Central piece to my attention. I know we use them as a source for factual info on horror articles a lot. I wanted to make sure we could 1) consider them reliable for this type of information and 2) that the article being about David's memorabilia didn't make it weird in some way as long as we stay aware of WP:COI and edit accordingly. Millahnna (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable Dead Central is but I would wager it is a stronger source than just linking to photographs of memorabilia on somebody's website. Ultimately all secondary sources get their information from primary sources so I don't think that in itself is a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Betty and Millahnna If I'm reading this correctly it seems that this source would be good enough to proceed in updating the release information for this film? If so, is it possible to enlist some help in editing it into the listing for release dates? I am completely stumped as to how and edit something like this without potentially messing it all up. Obviously someone spent a lot of time creating this. Any help in this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you David Brudie (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Betty Logan (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Betty. I also added a couple of words into the "release and reception' section, but I'm not sure if I did the link to source info correctly. If you have a minute could you please have a look and see. Thank you so much for all the help! David Brudie (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Day of the Dead (1985 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091028090847/http://www.deadplaces.net/dotdftmyers.htm to http://www.deadplaces.net/dotdftmyers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)