Talk:Zombi 2

Long time Wikipedia fan, rare editor here. I tweaked a small section of the history of the home video releases to tone down some of the language used within the home video releases. I noticed how it stated hardcore fans were angered by the framing and picture quality of the VHS as well as the picture quality of the Anchor Bay DVD. Such a bold blanket statement of uproar amongst fans would, IMHO, needs a citation which was not given. Seems based more on assumptions than concrete fact. So I toned it down a bit. A minor thing but if anyone has an issue, I will not be upset if the changes are reversed as I do not edit very often and do not have the same feel for editing as others do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.203.94 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The police boat is not wearing the French tricolor. It's the New York Flag, a tricolor with a mark in the middle.

I don't believe the MPAA has a rule such as is claimed in that section.

In the scene in which Peter West is given the assignemnt to investigate the killing of a policeman on the boat (from the opening scene), the editor (Lucio Fulci) tells West that he should not "take advanteage that his father owns the newspaper". In the original Italian soundtrack, he is really telling West "not to fall in love with the first prostitute ("putanna") he meets." I wonder how much more dialogue is purposely mis-translated in the film as well.

That's interesting. (The editor suggests he keeps British-isms out of his prose... and not to take advantage that his father owns the paper.) The English dialog was perhaps there to address the actor's English accent and how he got to be a New York journalist. Obviously that wouldn't be needed in the Italian dub; they'd just use an Italian voice actor and a standard Italian accent and not address the character's nationality at all. Format (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am very confused about the Zombie 2 series from this article and from IMDb. Could someone please clarify this for me? The following is the order of the Zombie 2 series films with the alternate titles from IMDb. One list gives only 3 in the series, another gives 4, and yet others give 5. Which is right, or are they all right, and IMDb missed a film. Lady Aleena 12:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Zombi 2 at IMDb (1979)
  • Island of the Flesh-Eaters
  • Island of the Living Dead
  • Ultimi zombi, Gli
  • Zombie (USA)
  • Zombie 2: The Dead Are Among Us
  • Zombie Flesh-Eaters (UK)
• Virus at IMDb (1980/I)
  • Cannibal Virus
  • Hell of the Living Dead
  • Inferno dei morti-viventi
  • Night of the Zombies (USA)
  • Zombi 4 (USA) (pre-release title)
  • Zombi 5: Ultimate Nightmare (Italy)
  • Zombie Creeping Flesh
  • Zombie Inferno
  • Zombie of the Savanna
• After Death at IMDb (1988)
  • Oltre la morte (Italy)
  • Zombie 4: After Death
  • Zombie Flesh Eater 3 (UK)
  • Zombie Flesh Eaters 3 (UK) (DVD title)
• Zombi 3 at IMDb (1988)
  • The Beyond (DVD title)
  • Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 (UK) (video title)

Some quotes from Peter Dendle's The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia relevant to the so-called Zombie series:

Zombi 3: "Despite the name, this outing has nothing to do with the characters or events of Zombi 2." (Dendle 193) Zombi 2: "Romero's Dawn of the Dead was a huge success in Europe, and imitations began appearing almost immediately. Fulci's Zombi 2 was among the first and the best of these (to cash in on the success of Dawn, whose European release title was Zombi, Fulci shamelessly named his unrelated movie Zombi 2)." (Dendle 194) Zombie 5: "Though Usher's assistant Morpho is pretty ugly, there are no zombies. Obviously the distributors who circulated the English-language video prints under the title Zombie 5 couldn't find anything of promotional use in the rambling, pretentious, and outdated yard itself." (Dendle 198). Шизомби 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Zombie 6: Monster Hunter: "Massaccesi's boring formula-slasher Anthropophagus II has only the thinnest connection with zombies, but was given the deceptive title Zombie 6 in certain English-language video releases anyway, [...] Jess Franco's A Virgin Among the Living Dead (1971) was re-dubbed Zombie 4 in some release prints. His boring Neurosis (better known in English as Revenge of the House of Usher) was renamed Zombie 5 when dubbed into English and put to video, though there's nothing even remotely like a zombie in it. Just for the record, no movie named Zombie plus a number has anything to do with any other numbered Zombie movie, even those by the same director (Lucio Fulci did both Zombi 2 and Zombi 3). To illustrate how confused matters can get, consider that Bianchi's Le notti del terrore (1980) has also circulated as Zombie 3, that Fulci's Zombi 2 was released in North America as Zombie, and that Romero's Dawn of the Dead was released in Europe as Zombi. Ironically, despite all this enumeration, no movie has yet been made whose original title is just plain Zombie." (Dendle 198-199).

Though Dendle didn't mention it, the Dutch director Richard Raaphorst had a bit of fun with the number zombie movies by naming his zombie comedy/horror short Zombi 1 (1995)[1]. Шизомби 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Schizombie...add that to the Living Dead article and please change this one to reflect your findings. It would help Living Dead researchers greatly in my opinion. My only interest in this subject is for the film series lists, but hopefully my interest will help make these articles more concise.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll try to get to this. Jay Slater's Eaten Alive! : Italian Cannibal and Zombie Movies also makes several references to the unofficial sequels in the so-called Zombie series" that could be incorporated. Шизомби 23:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The version I've got of the movie is in english, and with barely no connection between lip movement and speech (with other word: it is dubbed). Further, the DVD has no meny, no chapter, and only subtitles in one language (swedish), which can't be turned of. Shouldn't there be a mention of any dubbed versions in the article? --Konstantin 17:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that, like many Italian films (including The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly), the English speaking actors did their dialogue in English, the Italian actors did their dialogue in Italian - but no sound was recorded during filming. Then in post production Italian and English soundtracks are created. Depending in the language, the actors re-voice their own scenes, and voice actors re-voice the acting parts played in the foreign language. Format (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I recognized four VAs from the English dub, all of which were removed just as quickly as I added them:

• • • Nick Alexander as Bryan Hart
    • Lewis E. Cianelli as the editor-in-chief
    • Edward Mannix as the cop guarding Dr. Bolt's boat
    • Susan Spafford as Paola Menard

Yes, I understand that this is an Italian film and is to be treated as such, but at the same time I believe the loop groups that gave the characters their voices in the Italian original and English dubbed versions need some exposure on pages for Italian films that were dubbed in English. Here's a forum thread which, while by no means comprehensive, gives us quite a bit of insight into the English dubbing of Italian films. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware that dubbing in Italian films of that time period was generally anticipated from the get-go, but the fact is that the film's original release was with Italian actors, in Italian. I own dubbed versions of Subway and Nikita, and could no doubt find a list of the dub artists, but those films are still French-language films with French casts; there's a French dub of Eyes Wide Shut but I'm not going to list Yvan Attal on that film's cast list. To assume that the dub artists for one language are worth including here is giving undue importance to that language, as Zombi 2 has been widely released in several languages, and we're hardly likely to include the French, Spanish, etc, dub artists here too. We might have English-language versions of the film, but their importance is not above any other dub, and rather than comprehensively sourcing every dubbed version to reliable sources, it's better to avoid going into the area at all. It's safe to assume that a foreign-language film will receive an English-language dub at some point, so it's not really informing a reader of much; and a comprehensive list of everyone involved with the film at some point is a task for a site like IMDB, not here. GRAPPLE X 00:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, if that's what you believe, my good sir, then by all means go ahead and contribute to the IMDb as far as English dubs of Eurocult films are concerned (the IMDb won't give me the time day as an editor 99.9% of the time). For example, the IMDb lists all the above VA's for the English dub of the film except for Mr. Cianelli, who dubbed Lucio Fulci's voice as the editor-in-chief; however, I didn't source the IMDb when adding them because, obviously, it's unreliable. On a side note, I was thinking one of us should start a Wiki dedicated to cataloging English dub VA's for Eurocult films such as this one. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I finally got around to creating that Wiki I mentioned. You can check it out and contribute here.

£410 million? Shurely shum mishtake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.112.171 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Corrected, 410,000,000 lira equv to around 8,000,000 USD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.129.59 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

$8 million USD may be a small budget in 2016, but in 1979 you could almost film "Star Wars" for that kind of money. Lucio Fulci's horror films were done on small, shoestring budgets. $800K is even too large a budget for the type of film that was usually commissioned from Italian filmmakers at the time. Looking in a webpage that holds historic Italian Lira to USD conversion rates, we see that - on June 15 1979 - a midmark point, $1 USD = 851 Lire. So if we take the given number of 410 Million Lire and divide it by 851 we get $481,780 USD, which is more realistic than the $8 Million budget shown above. If you get the 2 DVD special edition Zombie, where the producers, actors and behind the scenes people are interviewed, the producer mentions that they sold the rights to Zombie to distributors for about $1 Million USD - a 100+% profit over their cost, but that the movie went on to become such a worldwide success, that it ended up earning many more times that amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.245.248 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

This article is missing information on the film's production making the article incomplete, this should be added to the article in order to complete the information on the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The video nasty section should either be deleted or have citations added to it considering that it lacks any citations that would prove the information that it has.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is without a doubt the most poorly written and developed article on wikipiedia. It is poorly written, many sections are either unsourced, or are missing proper citations while other sections are not properly developed. I have already added a rewrite tag to the article and hopefully this article will get the attention it deserves.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Big ups to @Grapple X: for tackling this article and turning it from a horrible fan crusty mess to something that resembles a film article! Excellent work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zombi 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Hi, I quite like this film, so will review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
• First thing, it seems all the reviews cited are very recent (and seem retrospective), which should probably be stated. Contemporary reviews seem to be absent, and I'd expect there to be at least some discussion of these.

  I could specify the era the reviews are from if you think that would be useful, but there's nothing contemporary at all I could find—the BBFC cuts and ban were really the only reaction I could find sources for from the time. It was just a grindhouse-style exploitation film so reviews weren't really necessary at the time; you either knew you wanted to see it or you knew you didn't. GRAPPLE ^X 15:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it's still important to try and get some, because it shows how these films were viewed. For example, I was able to find the Monthly Film Bulletin review for it. MFB is pretty good as it's often not just trashing a shlocky film because of it's genre and managed to find some nice things about the picture. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, I doubt there was no kind of critical reaction at least in Italy at the time. The problem might just be that it can be hard to find them. But that's one of the hurdles when writing about non-English language films if one is not a native. Should be worth trying to find more on this to make the article comprehensive. In any case, yes, you should make it clear when a review is retrospective and not contemporary. FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've added a contemporary review from La Stampa, an Italian newspaper. Both these reviews are labelled as contemporary reviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Great. The recent reviews should also be noted as such, preferably by date. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've added years to a few of them, between that and the paragraph breaks it should now be clear where the modern critique is. GRAPPLE ^X 09:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is that a bit redundant if the publishing date is already in the citation? They are already a bit wordy, but I can add them if you think it's absolutely needed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, most readers won't look at the refs. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Another thing, the infobox image is way too high res to act as fair use.

Fixed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The article seems to miss a cast list.

  Cast are listed in the plot section, a separate section is redundant after that. GRAPPLE ^X 14:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Could also need a list of home media releases.

  I'll work on what I can for this today, I can probably source a few more recent DVD releases but I'm not sure how well the VHS history will be documented. GRAPPLE ^X 14:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Home video history now present. GRAPPLE ^X 09:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• "her eye gouged out by splintered wood during this." Wording seems clumsy. "During which her eye is..." or some such might be better.

  Reworded to "dragged through the hole and killed, with her her eye being gouged out by splintered wood". GRAPPLE ^X 17:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• "Barrett dives in the ocean around the boat." I'm a bit unsure, but it seems like an oversight not to mention that she is practically naked in this scene...

  Enjoyable, but maybe not encyclopaedic. GRAPPLE ^X 17:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• "by a bloated zombie." Who says it is bloated? Decomposing, yes, but I guess that's a given.

  Changed to "submerged" to convey it's been under there a while. GRAPPLE ^X 17:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• "Barrett's zombie attacks" Seems a bit weird to use genitive here.

  Now "the undead Barrett attacks"

• "Screenwriter Dardano Sacchetti had worked with Fulci on the former film already." Which former film?

  Looks like an artefact of a previous draft with fewer paragraph breaks, this was meant to refer to Sette note in nero (the former of the two films mentioned at the end of the last paragraph). Reworded to name it directly. GRAPPLE ^X 17:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The alternate titles listed under release should be made into redirects to this article.

  Anything that wasn't, now is. GRAPPLE ^X 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Anything on rights issues in relation to Dawn of the Dead? Wouldn't there be legal issues when marketing it as a sequel? Or is the situation similar to Alien 2?

  Exactly the same; Italian copyright doesn't extend to preventing others from marketing a sequel to a given work. GRAPPLE ^X 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Could this be explained then? FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Sure, have added it into the production section. GRAPPLE ^X 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Has Romero remarked on the film?

  Not that I've seen, though to be fair I never though to look specifically. But he didn't turn up when I was searching the film online at all. GRAPPLE ^X 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• "chalking up much of its "video nasty" reputation to a single scene of a woman's eye being gouged out" Seems a bit odd to describe it as such when the scene is already presented and the character is named earlier. Perhaps say "the eye gouging scene " or some such.

  Reworded. GRAPPLE ^X 18:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The intro seems a bit too short.

  Expanded it out a little. GRAPPLE ^X 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Is there really no more precise release date than just September?

  The only exact date I could find was on imdb, which is not only not reliable as a source, but lists August, which I do have reliably sourced as when there was a test screening rather than the wide release. GRAPPLE ^X 18:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• All looks good then, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Island of the Living Dead" is a completely different movie that can out in (2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

An editor has now upon three occcasions removed the cast names from the plot section and added a cast list, on the basis that other articles have them. There is no mandated form for film cast lists in articles. WP:FILMCAST states "A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. " A dedicated section may be justified to provide context for casting details, but this isn't what is being doing here. An editor is simply removing the names from the plot summary (where they are arguably more helpful) and grouping them together as a bare list. In many cases it is just providing the same information and making it less useful. In cases where the casting information is established the form should not be altered without consultation, especially when the alterations are challenged. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Again, separate sections for plot and cast is ***established practice*** on this site, even for advanced articles, including featuring notable names (whether in Italian genre cinema, or otherwise). Just about every other Fulci film on this site has a separate plot summary and cast list. Also, the separate sections are more aesthetically pleasing. I'm sitting here laughing, thinking how outrageously petty and insular this is.... If you're attempting to chase new people off this site with your attitude, you're doing a good job. Prestbury+2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are several "established" practices. One established practice is to simply provide the cast names in the plot summary when no further information is provided about the casting. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It takes TWO to tango, and your fixation on "one established practice" and your ridiculously overzealous editing and instant clamping down on other contributors (as a glance at your history shows) means there's no productive discussion to be had here. Prestbury+2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have no objection to adding bare bone cast lists per se in cases where the articles do not have cast listings, but in cases where the cast listings are already integrated into the article in a useful manner you are making them less useful. Betty Logan (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cast lists should be separate from plot summaries, as it makes them clearer and easier to read. But just forget it. I can't be bothered going through this crap just because of a credits list. Prestbury+2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It depends on the format. If there is a large cast then yes, sometimes it is better to have a dedicated section. If there is a significant amount of casting information then yes, it is sometimes beneficial to have a dedicated casting section. However, Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statistics and as a rule we do not include entire cast lists in film articles. Many readers—myself included—find it useful to have the cast names in the plot so we don't have scroll down to another part of the article to see who is playing who! Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

We are not an indiscriminate provider of information; everything here should be encyclopaedic in nature. Providing cast names in the running prose of a plot summary not only gives context (actors and characters mentioned together aids understanding of who played what, versus cross referencing the prose with a later list), and also ensures that only names which are actually important enough to warrant mentioning are listed. It also circumvents the fact that bulleted cast lists are often entirely unsourced, whereas cast-in-plot mentions demonstrate that we're using the primary source of the article for it. The idea that "Just about every other Fulci film on this site has a separate plot summary and cast list" is also poor reasoning—see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It would be just as, if not more, logical to say "every Fulci film with an article of assessed quality doesn't have separate plot summaries and cast lists and should therefore be the template". If you want to look at featured articles on films, you'll see that bare-bones, unsourced cast lists are avoided—Eraserhead, for example, doesn't use one, or Manhunter uses a select list of important cast members as a platform for sourced information on the casting process. Trying to replicate IMDB does not improve the quality, readability or usefulness of any of our articles. GRAPPLE ^X 08:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just so I understand, I know that Grapple X has removed the "3 billion" and changed it back as it is a European film. I don't really understand this and am not sure how to google it to figure it out. Why is it not like this in Europe? Could you explain it here? If it is specifically different enough than actually reading it, perhaps a footnote in the article could be added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

See long and short scales. Europe uses the "long scale" numbering system, where a billion is 1,000,000,000,000 (and subsequent named numbers are one million times as big as the last, so a trillion is eighteen zeroes, etc). The UK has largely moved to the American short scale model but continental Europe still uses the original long scale system, so "billion", "trillion" etc can be ambiguous in those settings, whereas numerals will not be. GRAPPLE ^X 08:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is widely referred to as Zombie Flesh Eaters.93.72.140.2 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not really a common enough title. For example, in the United States its never been released under that title. As its not simple to choose one of its many English titles (the two biggest ones seemingly Zombie Flesh Eaters and simply Zombie), let's stick with the Italian title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've edited and clarified the running time on its original theatrical release per the Monthly Film Bulletin source. The editor had previously added content, and per their edit history, it seems to be a running time, but has been adding it in ways that go against the infobox standards on running time. I've added a source via the monthly film bulletin, which states the UK running time of a film on its theatrical release, and if its been cut down from the original run time. I believe this should clarify information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looking over this article, I noticed there are a couple of pieces of information absent from the article, notably information on the makeup/special effects. This needs to be added to the article as a sub-section in the production section with proper citations from reliable sources. Also there is no information on the film's impact and legacy, the influence and the cultural impact was pretty significant from what I have seen. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I am including the links to the film's inclusion of lists for the greatest zombie films of all time:Reply

• Variety- https://variety.com/lists/best-zombie-movies/the-return-of-the-living-dead-1985/
• Past Magazine- https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/the-zombies/the-50-best-zombie-movies-of-all-time
• Collider- https://collider.com/best-zombie-movies-of-all-time/#zombi-2-1971
• Looper- https://www.looper.com/620948/best-zombie-movies-all-time/\
• Empire magazine- https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-zombie-movies/
• Time Out- https://www.timeout.com/film/the-best-zombie-movies
• MovieWeb- https://movieweb.com/best-zombie-movies-all-time/#zombie-1979

--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply