Talk:Midnight movie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Midnight movie was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 27, 2006 Good article nominee Listed


Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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 priority scale.

Contents

[edit] amplitudinous

In the second paragraph after 'On television' the word amplitudinous: "A quarter-century later, Cassandra Peterson established a persona that was essentially a more amplitudinous version of Vampira.". I've checked both dictionary.com and google for this word, and cannot find a definition. Perhaps there is a better known synonym that we could replace it with?

142.59.66.136 00:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement?

I completely fail to see how this article was "improved" in any way (from the introduction to the end), as one earlier editor suggests, with the use of misplaced, unnecessary apostrophes ("it's" for its, "John Water's" for John Waters), redundant and over-usage of the term "midnight movies" (let alone its repeated appearance in quotes), verb conjugations that don't match their subjects ("movies as it's [sic] name implies"), "Other movies" following "other popular movies" (was the second batch unpopular?), an extra "at", a missing "or", a capitalised "Is" in the middle of a sentence... not to mention DVD rentals "has led to the popularity... to fade", when VHS and BETA had already done so, years earlier - and as already stated previously. And midnight movies are shown... to this day?! (This would arguably make them matinees... or at least a less-than-best phrase.)

The added information may have helped... but certainly not these "improvements", IMHO. Sorry. Zephyrad 06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

the article looks nicer, it's unstubyfied, and I realize my grammar/spelling sucks but that's what other people are for. With the not being alive until 1989 thing and the derth of info available about midnight movies I feel I did a pretty good job. Feel free to "improve"! Andman8 17:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous venues

What about the Waverly, now IFC Center? Jonathan F 01:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

It has been suggested that the article List of midnight movies be merged into this article. I support said merger, followed by a thorough cleanup of the page. Any thoughts? --Charles 18:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Thorough cleanup"? What's thoroughly unclean about it at present? Zephyrad 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I did not choose my words very carefully, but I do think the page could use better organization and expansion. With the new list added, that should be expanded with more thorough information, etc. ---Charles 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] made a few edits

I cleaned up a few blatant grammatical errors, such as capitalising Elgin Theater one sentence but not the next, not capitalising the words 'Friday' and 'Saturday,' changing 'blacksploitation' to the spelling featured elsewhere on the website, 'blaxpolitation,' etc. I do have some concerns about certain words which may be weasel words- most notably, when discussing Pink Flamingos, the original author refers to coprophilia and incest as 'extreme perversions' and 'twisted acts.' While they may seem twisted to most of us, to some they are not at all and I fear these words may betray a bias on the part of the original author. Just a heads-up.

I agree with you there... while I like what's been done with the formatting, added pics, links and all, some of the phrasing could be briefer, and I think I saw some redundant mentions. Zephyrad 22:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copro...

Actually, what's on display in Pink Flamingos is coprophagia, rather than coprophilia. The article text indicates that the practice is "illegal," which seems unlikely, although including it in a film might certainly complicate the rating/releasing proces.... Robertissimo 13:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Port-mortem?

What's with the post-mortem tense in the lead? Midnight movies still screen regularly, particularly at Landmark Theatres. --Jonathan F 00:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And what about so-called film marathons? In Poland, there is some phenomenon called eNeMeF (or simply NMF), standing for Nocny Maraton Filmowy (Night Film Marathon), and such shows consists of few somehow related films... It AFAIK started with showing all three episodes of Matrix one after another... then was a similar night with all three parts of The Lord of the Rings, and now some more concept shows are regular. For example, a night of comedy films, a night of horrors, a night of films 'with soul', and so on. I think that similar initiatives are held in other countries, too, and I think it should be mentioned in this article. --88.199.25.133 12:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable midnight movies

I deleted a couple of titles from the list. Basket Case, according to its article, became a cult classic thanks to the advent of home video, not midnight showings. Also, This is Spinal Tap? That might be stretching a bit. It certainly has a cult following, but how is it a notable midnight movie? I also added two glaring omissions. (152.163.101.11 09:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Waters on Williams?

I'm wondering why a NYTimes essay by John Waters on his affection for the works of Tennessee Williams (added here) is appropriate for this article. Aside from it being by Waters, a single paragraph on film adaptations of Williams's works, and a mention of Paul Morrissey, it has nothing at all to do with Midnight Movies. Appropriate for an article on Williams, perhaps, or Waters - but here? Robertissimo 09:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's appropriate because of Waters's description of his own film as a "filth epic." That's called a good quote, my good sir. And we're the first to historicize it. You should be Wikipedia proud, Issimo—DCGeist 10:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Topo is not a spaghetti western and we need an inline citation for Targets being a midnight movie

Wikipedia should be accurate. El Topo is like a spaghetti western (and Jodorowsky was inspired by spaghetti westerns, according to the liner notes of the RaroVideo DVD bootleg of this film) but it is not a spaghetti western, which means Eurowestern. I've looked in Spaghetti Westerns—the Good, the Bad and the Violent: 558 Eurowesterns and Their Personnel, 1961-1977 hoping to see an entry for El Topo, but there wasn't one because Christopher Frayling et al do not consider this film to be part that cycle. El Topo's spaghetti western virtues belong on that article's page. We should strive for accuracy by calling El Topo a surrealist western, the best descriptor (it'd be nice to note the violence too). Also, Targets being a midnight movie is something an exceeding few of us have read or heard before, so an inline citation to a page or paper that states this is essential. --Jonathan F 10:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should be accurate"?!? Stop that crazy talk!
"Exceeding few of us"?!? Just how many people did you discuss this issue with and how few had heard that Targets was a midnight movie? Please share with us...er, me?...their names...if they're OK with that, of course. As stated in the edit summary, the cite that follows the next sentence covers this point. I've never come across a scholarly or encyclopedic standard that encourages (let alone deems "essential") an identical cite after two consecutive, directly informative sentences...indeed, it would be three sentences in a row with virtually identical cites, as the preceding sentence also cites Hoberman and Rosenbaum (1983), p. 95. It is easy enough to gauge from the context--i.e., the closely related sentence with a cite that immediately precedes the sentence in question and the very closely related sentence with a cite that immediately follows the sentence in question--how to go about satisfying one's doubts, if any. In addition, there is no historical argument on this matter. Citation overkill doesn't serve the mission--it makes the article more difficult to read in visual terms and more labored in tone. In sum, this matter falls in the category of (a) uncontroversial, (b) unbizzare, (c) uncomplex, and (d) very, very easy to verify if one reads the article sensibly and thus (e) counterproductive to cite without a broadly compelling reason (like, say, a source that elaborates on the specific matter in an edifying way—I haven't found one in this case). Anyway, maybe you and I should hold off further opining on this matter until the rest of the "exceeding few" have a chance to weigh in.—DCGeist 12:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It was the mischaracterization of El Topo that was inaccurate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not recall indication that Targets found a midnight audience in Easy Riders and Raging Bulls, the Roger Corman (producer of Targets) autobiography How I Made a Hundred Movies in Hollywood and Never Lost a Dime or the section of Frayling's Sergio Leone biography that details the Leone's consideration of Bogdanovich to direct Duck, You Sucker on the strength of Targets. Bogdanovich has claimed that this film won critical praise and an eventual audience but I've not seen it stated that this was a midnight audience. Finally, I've seen Targets, and the DVD case certainly didn't indicate a midnight or even cult following. So if Targets's history as a midnight movie is only recorded in a book on midnight movies, then that book should be cited. --Jonathan F 18:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The "absence of evidence where you'd expect to find it" argument works for me, but only one of these published references is at all relevant. P-l-e-a-s-e take all things in Easy Riders and Raging Bulls and not within quote marks with a large grain of salt (and thus all things not in it...). Here's Biskind on El Topo: "the wild, surreal cult film that ran as a midnight movie in New York and Berkeley throughout the '60s" (p. 76). Neat trick for a movie that debuted in 1970! As for it not coming up in Frayling, Duck, You Sucker went into production well before Targets was repurposed as a midnight movie (remember, it was originally released in 1968). DVD cases? Feh! I pay their lacunae no mind since discovering that the one for The Hot Spot fails to herald it as one of the most splendid movies of the 1990s (I'm losing the thread here, aren't I...) Corman. Aw...how could you let me down like that, King? (But help me here--I know Corman jump-started the movie and Bogdanovich's career, but he was not, in fact, the "producer" and I suspect that he had no long-term financial stake in the picture. The producer was Bogdanovich; the production company of record appears to be Bogdanovich's Saticoy Productions; and the distributor was Paramount. By 1971, it wouldn't be surprising if Corman's interest in the film was nil, other than the pride of having launched yet another talented filmmaker.)...
...And after all, the book is cited--when two sentences are related as these two are, and a cite follows the second sentence, it's a fairly safe bet that one will find the verification one seeks for the first there...especially if the same exact source is cited immediately before the sentence in question as well. By the logic you're insisting on, the standard for citation would be: "If I haven't encountered this datum, a citation is required after the next available period or appropriate punctuation mark." Given the nature of all encyclopedias (we read them to learn things we don't know), this standard would obviously lead to a citation for every single datum in every single Wikipedia article. There's a rigorous but self-defeating approach: Who wants to read such an article? I've seen a few articles like that on what might otherwise be interesting topics--and there's exceeding few of us who want to read them. Thus they fail in their purpose. Sometimes that approach is absolutely necessary, to address prevalent misinformation--so one does it, but unhappily. I've written at least one article that required in a couple sections a cite for every sentence...and I don't particularly want to read those sections. Aside from such relatively rare cases, here's a sensible way to approach it—ask the question: Does the article give you sufficient source information to verify the noncontroversial, nonbizzare, noncomplex information presented in it, should you desire to do so? Simply look at the notes, and this one clearly does.—DCGeist 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You should just read those books rather than giving them the dismissive comment treatment (I mean, if you want to. I found them interesting enough). They're referenced because they mention the release or reception of Targets. (I can't believe we're still talking about this movie, but I brought it up after all.) Targets simply isn't known to be a midnight movie so a citation would be helpful for confirming the article's claim. Dunno, up to you. --Jonathan F 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? What makes you think I haven't read these books and how do you characterize my response as the "dismissive comment treatment"?
  • Biskind is a lively, compelling writer, but one should not rely on him for basic historic facts outside of his direct interviews. He's a bright stylist and a sloppy scholar. As one of his readers, you should know this. I didn't make this point via a dismissive comment; I quoted him making a directly relevant and egregious error.
  • Indeed I haven't read Frayling, but I didn't dismiss him at all. I just noted that you looked in him for something that you shouldn't have expected to find, because you'd forgotten the relevant chronology. The biography is of Leone, after all, not Bogdanovich.
  • I've read Corman. Love him. I don't have the book on hand. Do you? (You misidentified his role on Targets, so maybe you don't.) If you do, could you address the issues I raised, rather than giving them the "I'll just ignore that" treatment? If Corman appears to have had an ongoing stake in Targets and failed to mention its early role in the midnight movie phenomenon, that would be curious and worth investigating. If he did not, as I suspect, then there's no reason to expect that its rerelease in the 1970s would be discussed in his book. How exactly does Corman characterize his stake in the film, other than helping Bogdanovich get it rolling? Even if the answer doesn't lead to any change in the midnight movie article, it would surely be applicable to the currently thin article on Targets itself.—DCGeist 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, you're missing the point. With the above, all I meant to say is I've come across a few more than passing mentions of this film among which there was acknowledgement that it drew some attention, yet no indications of a midnight following. That Targets is a midnight movie appears to be a rarely recorded historical fact, so it should be cited. This is not even the main concern, which is that the article claims Targets is a notable midnight movie, which I don't buy. --Jonathan F 02:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm missing the point. You're saying the second midnight movie scheduled at the movie house where the phenomenon took off is not historically notable? The article doesn't claim or even suggest that it developed a long-term "midnight following" the way some other films did. It simply (a) notes its place in history, (b) states that it was successful during its midnight run at one theater at that significant point in history, and (c) suggests why it was successful at that point. One sentence is devoted to it. A sensible reading of the article gives the citation. Some notable movies are notable for multiple reasons and/or are widely famed; some notable movies are notable for much narrower, but still historically significant reasons. What precisely are you not "buying"? In other words, what in the following sentence...
The Elgin soon came up with another midnight hit in Peter Bogdanovich's spree-killer thriller Targets (1968), featuring one of the last performances by horror movie mainstay Boris Karloff and a tale that resonated with the assassinations and other political violence of recent years.
...do you find difficult to believe? Find so difficult to believe that the relevant citation following the next, closely related sentence is insufficient. Depending on the precise nature of the disbelief, redundantly citing a single source directly after this sentence's own period may hardly be sufficient to resolve the matter.
To sum up: (A) You're right, I'm missing something here. (B) You state as a problem that you've found no indications of a "midnight following" for the film, yet the article doesn't claim a "midnight following" for the film. (C) You state that you don't "buy" Targets as a "notable midnight movie," when by any straightforward standard it is, in however specific a way. Give me (D) <<Whatever it is I'm missing.>>
By the way, I'm not grinding this out just for the sake of repartee. Your insistence on the specificity of "spaghetti Western" as a label led to a clear improvement in the article. I'd like this colloquy to lead to the same. Simply adding a redundant citation doesn't strike me as an improvement--rather, the reverse. But understanding what you're really getting at could certainly lead to one.—DCGeist 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, all that text is fine. It's what you've just stated: Targets never went on to have the cult following the others did. It is only historically a midnight movie, and only notable for being programmed at The Elgin. But it is not a notable midnight movie, because it is no longer a midnight movie. Thus, it should be removed from that graphic at the bottom of the article to leave room for Donnie Darko. --Jonathan F 05:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "notable midnight movies" graphic

Aaaahhh... Notability rears its ugly head. First off, take a look online--I'm not so sure Targets lacks a cult following. Next, I wonder why you'd choose to scrap it instead of, say, 200 Motels. The issue here is similar to that with any list (or, in this case, list-type graphic) that presumes to identify notability. When I started working on the article, I tweaked the roster of films displayed in the graphic to try to get the most representative array of "Significant midnight movies of the classic era," avoiding the chimera of "most notable." Let's see...in sum, I removed Phantom of the Paradise, Dawn of the Dead, and The Toxic Avenger, substituting Targets, Flesh Gordon, and The Warriors. The criteria was not general fame, size of latter-day cult following, or, lord knows, quality, but historical significance in the midnight movie context. How Phantom got in there is a mystery, and while Toxie is a great cult film, it came after the classic midnight movie phenomenon had passed. There's no mark against the wonderful Dawn of the Dead other than that it's redundant of Romero/Night of the L.D. and I thought a broader selection would be more edifying.

Changing the graphic's title might be a solution--the one I was mentally working with seems a little unwieldy. Eliminating the graphic entirely might be another--Wikipedia best practices increasingly lean against these subjective sort of lists in articles...but it's so pretty!! And, as I say, I endeavored, as best I could, to give it a less subjective, more clearly historical angle. Entirely changing the present logic of it, as you suggest, is a third possible solution--swinging all the way to "notability." So in Donnie Darko...and in Priscilla...and in The Goonies, it would seem...and in at least one of these Hughes movies the kids seem to dig, but which one?...and Harold and Maude, because that later became a midnight fave...and Dawn of the Dead, definitely...and is Toxie back? And what goes out? Is that really the most useful way to go? I don't think so. I think keeping the historical orientation and changing the graphic title produces the most useful result.—DCGeist 07:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight movie origins

Could the midnight movie's television pedigree be supported by citations? Also could a more standard definition be written in the lead, one that simply states what a midnight movie is without immediately delving into its history? --Jonathan F 01:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thereeler.com/reviews/el_topo.php Okay. ––Jonathan F 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Status 9 months later (delisted)

After reviewing the article a bit, I've noticed a number of issues with the article that bar the article from GA status, based on the GA criteria. Those issues, among others, are the following:

  • Many of the images either lack a fair-use rationale, source information, or both.
  • Many instances of POV language. For instance the term "classic" is entirely over used.
  • Many instances of un-encyclopedic tone. For instance the Donnie Darko image caption.
  • Lack of breadth. Almost completely a historical account. What about midnight movie's cultural effects and impact? What about the actual traits of a midnight movie? What about famous midnight movie filmmakers? Etc.

For these reasons I have delisted this article from GA status. Once the issues are addressed you are welcome to renominate the article. Additionally, if you find my delisting to be in error, you may nominate the article for Good Article review. If you have any questions or concerns, let me know on my talk page. Drewcifer 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added film rationale for all of the images and cleaned up the Donnie Darko image caption. --J.D. 15:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Captions must refere to information in the article section it is included in. Also these captions are far to long.--Amadscientist 05:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
(A) That's wrong—there's no such requirement for captions on Wikipedia and no such standard for captions in published scholarly works.
(B) That's wrong—they're of perfectly reasonable length.—DCGeist 05:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Images violate Fair Use Rational

According to wikipedia policy a minimal amount of images are to be used. This article has too many Fair use images for the article size and in fact uses images that are not referenced in the article or section they apear. There are ten criteria that must be met and if any of them are not met the image may be deleted. All of the images need caption changes and still may need more rational to keep. Here is the policy as writen by Wiki;

[edit] Policy

For purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted material lacking a free content license. It may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

  1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)
  2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
  3. Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
    Minimal extent of use. The entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used (especially where the original could be used for piracy). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace.
  4. Previous publication. Non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia.
  5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic.
  6. Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy.
  7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
  8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.
  9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is only allowed in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace. Subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
  10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
    • (a) Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source. See: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Images.
    • (b) A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
    • The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

Currently the fair use images do are not captioned with information from the article. This needs to be changed. I will not delete the images immediately to give time for the changes but a reduction of images is also needed. There are too many. At least one is not even mentioned in the article at all.

I have attempted in good faith to explain the problem with images. I have even attempted to make the changes myself but they were reverted. This article cannot pass GA review with the images as they are.--Amadscientist 07:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How stupid. The use of images in the article entirely respects Wikipedia's fair use image policy. Reduplicating the policy on this page rather than simply linking to it betrays the lack of good sense behind this baseless charge.—DCGeist 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of civility shows the type of editor you are. I am not going to attempt to converse with you on this issue. I have chosen to add the information rather than link it so that it is seen by all. I will not attempt further discussion as you should know what you are doing. If you don't it is not my problem. If the images do not follow the ten criteria as above the any image that does not meet criteria may be deleted.--Amadscientist 07:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on. Caption text constitutes article content. Every single image clearly contributes to an understanding of the subject. You say "there are too many"? On what basis? I say the article could use twice as many images. There's simply no objective rationale for claiming there are "too many" images. I think they are too few. Shall we thumb wrestle?—DCGeist 07:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actualy there is. If you read that (and yes I am conversing with you I guess) a single image is what should be used if at all possible. If a single image is not enough a minimal amount may be used. Please see Project film talk page for current discussion on this subject. I am not deleting the images at this time as good faith that it will be worked on. However since my work was reverted I see no ther choice but to make it clear what is wrong and then take action after a reasonable amount of time has passed. But Your current attitude of uncivility is clear to what your actions will be. Again the article is currently not passing GA rating due to image problems that have not been resolved. A look at the fair use rational shows that it is stated that all ten criteria are met but they article shows differently.--Amadscientist 07:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care how many articles you have written. There are other problems with this article and the images that I did not mention and since you can't stick to being civil and keep the conversation to the discussion page rather than posting insults on my talk page I will no longer point them out. I will buddy up with an Administrator and a project participant to further take care of the problem.--Amadscientist 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this has turned into quite a heated debate! I don't have any authority over what happens here, aside from being the one who started this whole mess, but I thought I'd give my opinion nonetheless. So, I'll address all the points:

  • Too many images? That's impossible to say, since yes, that is a subjective qualification. My opinion is that there are too many images, since there is not enough prose to directly address all the images (more below on that). Add some more prose, and it'll probably work itself out.
  • Are the (non-free) images needed? As the article stands, no. Most of them are only serving as self-contained examples of the genre, not in any form of commentary or further topical explanation.
  • Should they be mentioned explicitly in the prose? Yes and no. They should have some sort of direct link to the prose. You can accomplish this in one of two ways: in the prose say "Movie X was a landmark midnight movie because Y." Or "Midnight movies had the trait of being Z. (then in the caption of the an image: Movie X is an example of Z". Or something along those lines. The first way is HIGHLY preferable to the second, since the second can always be disputed, the first not so much. As they stand they mostly serve no purpose other than decoration. The Scarecrow image in particular comes to mind.
  • Are the captions too big? For the most part, yes. See WP:CAP for some guidelines on that. Try and keep things as concise as possible, and where more explanation is needed, place the info in the prose (see my point above).
  • Are they too high of resolution? Yes. 300x300 pixels is generally the limit for non-free images.
  • Will the images be deleted unless these issues are addressed? Yes.
  • Will the article pass GA review if these issues aren't addressed (if you choose to do so at some point)? No, that's why I delisted it in the first place.

I hope those points above help out a little bit. Let me know if you need any help. And by all means, stay cool: no need for an argument you guys! Drewcifer 08:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'll shepherd the article and its contents--text and images alike--to make sure its present quality is maintained...maybe even improved, if someone who cares about that takes an interest. Y'all do what you feel compelled to do, and we'll do ya one better. "They article shows differently"—shall we laugh or cry? Time and devotion will tell. They always do.—DCGeist 08:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
What I see in the images--apologize if I reiterate what someone else has stated.
This: A classic midnight movie in every sense of the term, Tod Browning's Freaks (1932) is the sort of (then) obscure horror film shown on late-night TV beginning in the 1950s; in the 1970s and early 1980s it was a staple of midnight screenings at theaters around the U.S. (in the first caption) is not cited. It needs to be. The image is fine, because it's public domain, but the caption itself needs citing.
All other images appear to be simply eye candy. I know people hate that term, but nothing in the text adjacent to the images, and nothing in the captions suggest that these images could not be replaced by one of a hundred other images of the same thing. The point of using non-free images is that we are using images for an encyclopedic purpose, and if you can replace a screenshot with a hundred others, then it means that the one you are using is not significant in illustrating something that the text says.
Invocation of My Demon Brother image - It starts off with a purpose but goes no where. It appears that you are trying to show the superimposing of images the film uses, but from what I read in the text next to it, it wasn't the style of film that connected it to midnight movies. What isn't said, and needs to be said if it is the point of the image, is that the style of filming was what "inaguarted midnight movies." Otherwise, it just appears that the movie itself, and not that particular scene, nor the style of the film, was what created started it all. If it wasn't the style of film, then the image is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Scarecrow in a Garden of Cucumbers image - This film is not mentioned in the text at all, and doesn't explain what connection it even has to "midnight movies" other than having a midnight premiere. The same goes for Liquid Sky. It's only mentioned in the caption for the image, which makes me think that neither of these two images are necessary, as they can easily just have their captions moved to the section they are in. Nothing says that we need an image to illustrate what is being said, as both instances merely talks about the film's release, and not the image in question.
What I gathered from most of these images is that if a film had midnight showings then it got an image. Why don't all the other films have images? If there isn't a significance to the image itself, then it doesn't meet WP:FU criteria. Right now, I only see purpose for the first image, and that's because it's PD and thus free.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well so much for all of the above. DCGeist has taken control of this article and will not allow anyone to change his work. This IS NOT what wiki is about. But whatever. This will always be a B rating. Which seems appropriate for someone that overthinks something very simple.--Amadscientist 06:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent spree of edits provides glaring evidence that you don't really give a damn about the article. Your revert produces the following:
  • A completely unintelligible caption that reads "A classic midnight movie Tod Browning's Freaks (1932) was shown on late-night TV beginning in the 1950s; in the 1970s and early 1980s"
  • The complete elimination of the Patterson (2007) citation and source
  • A lede graf that (a) essentially repeats the very same mangled caption quoted above and (b) is incoherent and wildly unbalanced
  • A ridiculous sentence in that graf that reads in its entirety "A classic midnight movie, Tod Browning's Freaks (1932), an obscure horror film shown on late-night TV beginning in the 1950s; in the 1970s and early 1980s it was a staple of midnight screenings at theaters around the U.S"
  • The disarrangement of the discussion of WCGV's programming approach into a complete non sequitur
  • The complete elimination of the discussion of the Toronto International Film Festival's nightly Midnight Madness section
  • The complete elimination of the Corliss and Catto (2007) citation and source
You'll always be an F rating, my friend.—DCGeist 06:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should start a collection of his improvements to articles. A recent one, destined to become a classic, is here at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superman_Returns&diff=prev&oldid=159118300 , where he changed "During Superman's absence, Lex Luthor has been released. While he is gone Superman misses the trial to testify against Lex, who, upon his release, tricks a rich widow into a sham wedding to get his hands on her money." into "While he is was gone Superman has missed the trial to testify against Lex. Upon his release, he tricks a rich widow into a sham wedding to get his hands on her money." Short choppy sentences with verb tense disagreeements ... the key to editing Wikipedia.Kww 11:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone insists on using a graphic of an advertisement for Elvira's Movie Macabre that appears on my website Milwaukee Horror Hosts. At the bottom of each page on my site is a clear statement which says that the graphics are the property of their respective owners, are protected by copyright, and may not be used without permission. I have that permission. Whoever grabbed the graphic does not. In addition, I spent quite a bit of time cleaning up the graphics used on my site, and it is at a minimum, a courtesy to ask permission to use that specific graphic -- besides that needed from the original owners.Nitelinger 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)