Talk:Dawn of the Dead (1978 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

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


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)


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.

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)

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?

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Oi!

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

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/w/Talk%7EDawn_of_the_Dead_%281978_film%29_d357.html"