Talk:Braindead (film)

Rita

The final paragraph of the plot summary starts off with "Lionel, Paquita, Rita and Les are now fighting hundreds of zombies". The Rita character is not previously mentioned elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.46.209 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Goriest

"Possibly the goriest movie ever" - I don't know - it may have a greater quantity of blood and guts, but Bad Taste has a higher quality, and is the only film I have ever seen that genuinely made we want to vomit. M-Henry 10:52, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That depends on how "goriest" is calculated. Most minutes with blood in the scene: Braindead wins over Bad Taste by a mile. Greatest QUANTITY of blood? Brainded again beats Bad Taste, and most other movies. GROSSEST and GORIEST are two seperate things, I would consider the vomit-eating scene in Bad taste to be one of the grossest scenes on film, but doesn't really qualify as "Gore". I think one of the things that make Brainded catch the lable of "goriest" some of the gory things seen that differ from just about any other movie: The mother having eaten the dog scene, Lionel being "re-born", the entire zombie party scene, including the lawnmower scene, Father McGruder and the nurse making out (and eating their faces), all fall into the "Gore" catagory. To me, the scene where Lionel pulls the dog's carcass out of Vera's mouth was way more repulsive, and had much more of a vomit factor than did the "Vomit eating scene" in Bad Taste. If one goes by the definition put forth at http://www.dictionary.net/gore, then the quantity of blood and guts, which the above user says Braindead has more of, cements Braindead as the gorier of the two movies spoke of. 146.63.253.183 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

'Those censors who recognised that the film was a cheerful farce, such as those in Australia and Britain, allowed the 104 minute film to be shown in full. In countries where the censors were unable to see beyond the extreme gore the film was initially banned or left unrated before being heavily cut; the US R-Rated version (released as Dead Alive, because of another film with rights to the title Braindead) is only 85 minutes.'

POV, anyone? Can someone fix this?

-I took a shot, trying to leave the substance of the paragraph intact. 24.18.247.30 23:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Just tightened up the text, beefed up the plot summary, reformatted, and added additional information. Tired to take out POVs and Wiki-link to relevant topics. -Binder 21-Dec-05

-Wow...Looking for some fun watches for a foreign exchange student staying with us and I can't believe how hard it is to find. Unavailable on any of the streamed services, I could buy a DVD but when I dig I find this page and all the info about the banning around the world for the gore and violence-which was obvious farce to me the first time I saw it. I mean, good god. Isn't this the one with the lawnmower held facing forward as the climatic weapon??? Now I have to rewatch and maybe come back with any useful comments. ~dmaxmj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmaxmj (talk • contribs) 22:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Location

When I saw this movie years ago, I thought the house on the hill looked like a place in Hinau Road, Hataitai, Wellington. Does anyone know for sure? Ghouston 13:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was known as the HINAU HILTON, very tongue in cheek. A number of the flatmates there helped with the film process at the time. The front half of the section was sold and developed in the early 2000's. The house had four flats (legally) but many walls were added, removed and altered to create a nice warren of a place that punks, druggies and alternative culture people abused regularly. We had seven people and three dogs in our flat (top right as you look at it in the film - my room was the one with balcony....) NZFiend February 2015

I've done some detective work, and it is definitely the house that is at 12 Hinau Road. It showed up as 33 in the film, but it is now 12, behind a big ugly orange house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.157.97 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Models of NEWTOWN, WELLINGTON trams and shoppes absolutely brilliantly accurate...

References

"Minor" cuts?

Having watched the FSK16 release of the film here in Germany, I can confirm that the cuts made are anything but "minor". There's a report here about the cuts made for anyone who speaks German. The DVD itself is usually to be found in bargain bins going for 2 euros. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 00:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia about blood used

This article originally stated that 300 liters of blood were used in the "lawnmower" scene. This information is taken from IMDb's Trivia page which states that "300 liters of fake blood was used in the final scene of the film." I have changed it accordingly on the wikipedia page, because the final scene of the movie is not the lawnmower scene. The final scene is the encounter on the rooftop with the chest bursting.

That makes much more logical sense, because 300 liters is only 80 gallons. And 80 gallons, at "5 gallons per second" would last only 16 seconds. Where as A Nightmare on Elm Street is listed as using 500 gallons.

In theory, Braindead possibly uses upwards of 5,000 to 10,000 gallons of blood, and quite possibly upwards of 15,000-20,000 in production.

20,000 gallons at 5 gallons per second is 66 minutes of film, and it's hard to say how many outtakes they did, etc.

Where did you get those 5000-20000 figures? Did you make them up or actually find them somewhere? I wish we had some actual sources for these numbers. ToastyKen 01:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure everyone here understands just how much 20,000 gallons is. 20,000 gallons, if it were poured to a depth of 1/4", would cover an area about 240 feet by 500 feet. That's a couple of football fields in area, and that is IF it were thick enough to not flow any thinner than 1/4". The blood used in braindead is MUCH thinner, and would spread to an even GREATER area, probably several times that.

I've seen the results of a 55 gallon barrel being spilled, it's an enormous amount of material when compared to the area of the floor in a home, even one as big as Lioenels. 5000 Gallons is not even remotely realistic. True, 85 gallons seems light, but, considering the camera angles were likely chosen to get the greatest effect, and that if could easily be reclaimed and reused with a simple shop-vac, 85 gallons doesn't seem too far out of range. Also, it is doubtful there were as many re-takes as there is in today's big-budget films, I'm guessing very few.146.63.253.183 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote correct?

Shouldn't the "ass" in "Father McGruder: I kick ass for the Lord!" be "arse"?

No, he definetly says "ass". Rzrscm 08:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

...no, he definetly says "arse"... KingLoser (not logged in in work)

I'm not hearing any "R" sound in what Father McGruder says. It's definately a longer A sound than is used in the word "ass", but it sounds much more like the word "ass" spoken with an accent than the word "arse". Though the word "arse" uses the long A, the letter R should be heard. In what Father McGruder said, it is not. The pronunciation that FMG uses DOES approach being a combination of the two words, which is understandable since one of those words is a derivative of the other, but it still sounds much more like "ass" than it does "arse".146.63.253.183 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In New Zealand we speak in a non-rhotic accent: we don't pronounce "r" unless it is followed by a vowel. Typically the "r" just acts to lengthen the vowel. So "car" sounds like "kah" and "arse" sounds like "ah-ss". If there's a clip of this qoute on youtube or something I could check if it actually sounds like how we say it in NZ... 140.184.21.115 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:B00006RHU4.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Image:B00006RHU4.02.LZZZZZZZ.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image rationale for fair use added. --Northmeister 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Graveyard used

Having recently watched this and The Frighteners, it seems fairly obvious to me from a number of shots that the same Graveyard is used in both movies. Since they were both filmed in NZ by the same guy, it seems logical. Don't know how to go about figuring this out for certain, but I'm 90% certain. Headmonkeys July 9 2008

Unsourced material

The following is unsourced information:

• Jackson makes a cameo as the undertaker's assistant in the botched embalming scene.
• The movie was finished under budget with $45,000 remaining. Peter Jackson used it to spend two days shooting the park scene with Lionel and the baby Selwyn. Peter Jackson has gone on to say that it is his favorite scene.
• The location used for the film's opening scene, where the explorer is retrieving the rat-monkey, was used again by Jackson in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, when Aragorn and his companions journey to the Paths of the Dead.
• Braindead set, at the time, the record for the most fake blood used in a movie; over 300 litres were used for the final scene
• In Peter Jackson's 2005 King Kong remake, one of the animal cages in the hold is the cage that contained the Sumatran rat-monkey.
• In a lawsuit, Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd [1993] 1 NZLR 415, it was alleged that the comedy horror film Brain Dead had infringed the privacy of the plaintiffs by containing pictures of the plaintiff's family tombstone. The tombstone appeared on the film for less than 14 seconds. It never appeared in its entirety, only the letters "BRA" were visible behind a person sitting on the wall at the side of the plot. After reviewing the New Zealand judicial authorities on privacy, Gallen J stated: the present situation in New Zealand ... is that there are three strong statements in the High Court in favour of the existence of such a tort in this country and an acceptance by the Court of Appeal that the concept is at least arguable. This case became one of the series of cases which contributed to the introduction of Tort of Invasions of Privacy in New Zealand.
• Cinemassacre.com considers it to be the goriest movie ever made.
• In the Gorillaz song "Clint Eastwood", the music video contains a reference to Braindead, in which Murdoc Niccals is pulled from the crotch down by a zombie gorilla.

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice I have been reverted, yet with no discussion. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try my best to drop down to your level. Hopefully you can comprehend that the movie is the source for many of these. You don't need a weblink for everything on Wikipedia. Good example is the lawsuit. The lawsuit itself is the source. Things like the budget and the Cinemassacre thing would need direct citations, but by all means, keep doing a broad deletion. That's what Wikipedia needs. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I respond, I think we really should establish a few ground rules. You are making a personal attack here, may I suggest that you have a read of our our position on this sort of behaviour? However, you make a reasonable point and I'll merge this into the main article - I should note that it's not trivia! What about the rest of the material? Incidently, weblinks aren't what I'm asking for. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I must say, I find your comments a little strange after I read you write the following:

"I've inserted citation needed tags where they are needed. If citations aren't forthcoming, I'll simply delete them under WP:V, and there's nothing you can do about it." source.

Who is concerned about deleting material from Wikipedia again? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Awwww, I've got a wiki-stalker. I'm flattered at your obsession. Really! Now run along. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. I was merely surprised at your insulting demeanour so I was interested in what you wrote on talk pages, where I stumbled upon that comment. The irony was amazing! Tell me, are you going to respond to the comments I made about personal attacks? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: WKOM has been blocked for a week for his comments.-Wafulz (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess not then. Could not have happened to a nicer editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Who actually won the lawsuit regarding the grave? F W Nietzsche (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

US DVD cover

I uploaded a photo of both a Braindead poster and Dead Alive DVD cover. I placed the Dead Alive DVD cover as a small, unobtrusive, thumbnail box within the article. It was removed with the user stating: "Unnecessary slant towards US readers - if the situation were reversed, we would not see an Aussie cover." I disagree with this assessment and would like to state that it is not my intention. One of the reasons to placing a Fair Use picture on a Wikipedia page is that the subject of discussion can be easily identified for the reader. My inclusion of this the picture of the Dead Alive DVD cover is meant to help North American users to know that they are on the page they intended to find. But it is not meant as a slant on the article. If I included a US poster for Dead Alive in the infobox, when the film is clearly a New Zealand film originally titled Braindead, that would irrefutably be a slant on the article for US readers. But by adding an unobtrusive, small thumbnailed picture of the retitled video for North American audiences this is not a slant. It merely assists American and Canadian users in identifying the subject.

I don't think it is true what the previous user stated that if the countries were reversed we would not see a similar picture. If a film, released in America first under one title, were rereleased in New Zealand or Australia, the UK, or any other major English speaking, film producing country then absolutely we should see a thumbnail added for that change in title (as long as the main infobox reflects the title of origin). The reason for this is the same as I mentioned above. English speaking Wikipeida users, no matter what their country, will benefit in their search for a subject with the inclusion of a picture of the release in their country's version of the poster or video package. Danleary25 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit was again removed with the explanation: "It doesn't matter. There can be no legitimate fair use rationale for including two covers. We're to use the fewest number of fair use images as we can, so how can you validate two cover images?" That's not an argument against my point. That's as much as saying. "I don't care what reasons you have." I stated the validation for two covers and that point has not been countered. I stated why this image should be included: Because it helps US and Canadian users to identify that they are on the page the intended to view. If you don't find this sufficient enough then I will place the thumbnail in the alternate versions, where the DVD cover illiterates the difference between international versions of the film. In that way it more precisely illustrates critical commentary of a subject within the article that no free image can. This is completely in accordance with Wikipedia non-free use criteria. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images

Likewise, I response to "We're to use the fewest number of fair use images as we can", as I stated this picture fulfills an illustration of a critical commentary on the international version of the film, that the text alone does not. The idea that we're supposed to use as few images as possible is always a thin argument when it is the one and only argument against an image. There is, under most circumstances, never a free image in the world of media. And further more, the use of this additional non-free cover is, I feel, justified, for the reasons I stated above, which you have not argued against.

Finally, I Spit on Your Grave and Kill Bill are two articles I have found in the last few minutes which do contain more than one international cover/poster for a film. The use of the Dead Alive DVD cover on this page serves the exact same purpose as those articles. Danleary25 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. You can't just plop any image down that you feel like. You want me to go through your arguments? Okay.

1. There is not critical commentary in showing two covers for a movie.
2. The article can already be easily identified by the reader because it has a cover already. There is NO fair use rationale to include two covers - I've been in many similar discussions that did not result in the allowance of any inclusion of an extra cover.
3. How many American readers need a box art to tell them that this zombie film, called Dead Alive in the lead, is their zombie film called Dead Alive?
4. "It's useful" is not a fair use exception. Fair use images are, typically, not allowed. That is the reason for fair use rationales - your fair use rationale is weak, and not supported anywhere.
5. It doesn't matter. In looking at the fair use rationale presented, you suggest that it is included as critical commentary for the article. What commentary? At what point did "Braindead is also called Dead Alive" critical commentary? The boxart does not illustrate the article at all, it doesn't expand the reader's knowledge of the article, so what purpose does it have? You also say it illustrates something that cannot be put into words. Well, let's see... "it's also called Dead Alive". Huh, that was easier than suggested it would be.
6. No, it's not "I don't care", it's "your reasons don't adhere to fair use standards." Identification purposes do not constitute fair use. Wikipedia is supposed to be as fair use as humanly possible, and if you're going to include a second cover, the reason has to be very compelling. And why do you keep bringing up critical commentary? Don't just throw phrases around; there is no critical commentary over the name change in this article.
7. Why are you citing what a Start-class article and a B-class article do? There's a reason why no guideline suggests we use them as an example of what should be done. The fact of the matter is that the article contains NO commentary that makes the US box important to be shown. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the second cover image should not remain without critical commentary. See MOS:FILM#Home media: "The image in the film article's infobox serves as cover art and identifies the topic. With this significant identification already in place, the inclusion of additional cover art must be rationalized with a non-identification purpose. Additions can be used to illustrate secondary sources' coverage of the appearance of cover art and packaging." —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit block bot

This edit-block bot disallows 'no-one will love you as much as your mother'. Expansion (and correction of errors) in the grotesque storyline are accepted, but the above triggers an automatic vsndalism block. Does anyone know why this particular mild phrase is blocked? thanks! Jommoner (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved - I put 'the one who bore you' rather than 'mother' as the latter is construed as auto-vandalism although it is just talking about Lionel's mother. The edits do add to the plot but I would be grateful if someone who can evade the above-bot due to having higher posting privileges can correct the above. I do find it funny it was the word 'mother' that gets blocked while discussion of zombies, lawnmowers, body parts, blood, intestines, priests, breasts and so on don't get blocked! Jommoner (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Braindead (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/20150713223109/http://www.ozornewzealand.com/ to http://www.ozornewzealand.com

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Braindead (film) → Dead Alive – With full acknowledgement that Braindead is the original NZ title, the vast majority of film databases and horror encyclopedias refer to it now as Dead Alive primarily (listing Braindead as an alternative title), making it the WP:COMMONNAME. There are two other horror films named Brain Dead, a WP:SMALLDETAILS difference which may mean the current title is WP:INCDAB. Lastly, the proposed title is already a long-standing primary redirect, and provides WP:NATURALDIS. Netoholic @ 20:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 05:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 05:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose move. From the film's page on IMDB], the only country where the film was released as Dead Alive was the United States. Throughout the rest of the world where an English language title was used it was Braindead. So apart from one country where the title Dead Alive was used, the common name for the film is overwhelmingly Braindead. Paora (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Known as Braindead in its native country and others (including the UK). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I see here that the BFI has Braindead for the title, so I suggest fleshing out the claim that "the vast majority of film databases and horror encyclopedias refer to it" as Dead Alive if BFI doesn't. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Erik: General movie databases: Rotten Tomatoes, All Movie, Metacritic. Print genre film encyclopedias: The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia, Icons of Horror and the Supernatural, Encyclopedia of the Zombie. -- Netoholic @ 19:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Hardly surprising since all of the above databases are American-based and the encyclopedias listed are all American publications. As noted above, the US is the only country where the title Dead Alive was used. Paora (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

They are top-tier movie databases that we use extensively on Wikipedia (and this article specifically) and which represent a very large segment of the English-speaking world. WP:COMMONNAME is based on "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". This film was a box-office bomb in NZ and other regions, and its popularity grew massively in the North America in particular. You cannot just dismiss out-of-hand the English speakers in two countries like this. I note your user page says you are from NZ... I hope you're not letting that skew your evaluation of this. -- Netoholic @ 01:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I'm not dismissing anything out of hand. I am merely pointing out that relying on sources from a single country (US) may not be a reliable representation of the whole of the English-speaking world, and I am not influenced by the fact that I live in New Zealand in my reasoning. What I am influenced by is that there is only one country (not all of North America) where the film was known as Dead Alive, not two as you suggest; in Canada the film's English title was Braindead, according to IMDB, and I have seen nothing to suggest the contrary. Moreover, there are US sources that refer to the film primarily as Braindead, with Dead Alive relegated to "a.k.a." status; e.g. this story from The Hollywood Reporter, and this one on Film Threat, which I would also regard as reliable sources. Paora (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

What country a database is "based" isn't a representation of its influence in the English-speaking world. The point is that we have to use the title that most English speakers would know it as - and even if the rresults are about even, then WP:NATURALDIS says we can use less common, but unique, titles. -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

the title that most English speakers would know it as does not equate to the title that most American English speakers would know it as! If that were the case then WP:ENGVAR would not exist. In other English-speaking countries, including its country of origin, it is known as Braindead. America having more people is categorically not a valid argument, as we have long established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything I'm saying is based on what the film is called in the majority of English sources. I would never imply that any single country's sources should take priority... just as I would not ignore the sources that are from any particular country, as you both seem to be doing. -- Netoholic @ 06:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I categorically refute any suggestion that I am ignoring sources from any particular country. Indeed, in one of my earlier responses I noted two reliable US sources that use Braindead. I acknowledge that the following is not definitive, but a quick Google search of "Dead Alive" combined with "Peter Jackson" gives about 60,500 hits, whereas a search for "Braindead" combined with "Peter Jackson" gives about 136,000 hits. Allowing for the fact that all of the "Dead Alive" hits may include "Braindead" somewhere in the text, there are over 75,000 hits that do not include "Dead Alive", compared with 60,500 that do. Therefore, I disagree with the suggestion that the film is called Dead Alive in the majority of English sources. Paora (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Paora: Raw Google WP:HITS are dangerous to rely on. For example, Google maintains localized search results which can impart a bias in what you see, and those results totals can be misleading. To illustrate this - do your search again, and this time use the results page numbers at the bottom of the page to get to the last page of results. Once you are there, notice how vastly different the total results at the top of the page becomes (for me dropping from tens of thousands to less than 150 for both searches). Here are my two search strings - Braindead vs Dead Alive - and the total results after paging to the end is 131 vs 133 for me. Not all of these results are reliable sources, of course, but at least its clear that your claim is biased in some way. With such even results, if you think Dead Alive is slightly-less used in reliable sources, then at least acknowledge that WP:NATURALDIS allows us to use it as a title an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. -- Netoholic @ 16:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Given naming conventions for films generally prefer the native name, especially if that is in English, and certainly prefer the common name in English (which is very clearly Braindead given that only one country seems to call it anything else), I think this is a misinterpretation of NATURALDIS. Most non-Americans looking for this New Zealand film will not be looking for Dead Alive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Alright, since you brought up readers by country - take a look at this. This Wikipedia gets more views (3 billion in March) from the United States than all other English-speaking countries combined, and so most readers (in total, regardless of country) will be looking for Dead Alive. If you care how this impacts most readers, then you have to take this in consideration and stop acting as if the readers in this one country don't count. This is a perfect application of WP:NATURALDIS. -- Netoholic @ 17:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

For pity's sake, do you really not get that if this were relevant every article except those very specific to other countries would be at the American version and spelling and WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN wouldn't be a thing? America has a very large population with a very large internet usage. Of course the majority of web hits are going to be American! That is exactly the reason (given this is English-language Wikipedia and not American Wikipedia) that these policies were introduced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This RM discussion of the appropriate title has absolutely nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR. -- Netoholic @ 01:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read comments before replying to them. I was making the point that we don't prefer American terms just because America is the bigger country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No, you are doing worse - saying that we should set aside the fact that most readers come from America. This is a rare situation where a film under one name was a flop in its original country, but then was a cult success in another country under a different name. WP:COMMONNAME only cares what most sources say and what most readers will be looking for, and that is pretty clearly the title Dead Alive. The major sources in this article, specifically the film databases we use most often across most film articles, all point to that. You (a Brit per your user page) and Paora (a NZ according to his) are letting your nationality drive your views rather than looking at all the evidence broadly. -- Netoholic @ 13:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No, we are applying policies that say that the name used in America should not be the name used on Wikipedia just because it's the name used in America (which, as we all know because many editors with similar views to yours have pointed it out to us, has lots and lots of people who all use the internet a lot). The fact it was a flop in New Zealand when it was originally released is utterly irrelevant (and is really not an uncommon situation for cult films released anywhere in the world). It was not only a cult success in America. And in the rest of the world outside America it is known as Braindead. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have never said that. "Just because it's the name used in America" is exactly as ridiculous as "Known as Braindead in its native country". We must focus on COMMONNAME among sources AND the exceptions of the majority of readers of this topic. This is something you are not doing. -- Netoholic @ 01:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Netoholic: More than once now, you have suggested that because I happen to live in New Zealand my reasoning is being "skewed" or I am "letting [my] nationality drive [my] views" because I reach a conclusion that differs from your own. I refute this, and would respectfully ask that you assume good faith. Please only comment on content, not on the contributor. Paora (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

When the given arguments are not based on the preponderance of sources, then we must fall back to pointing out where the bias is being introduced. It is your personal preference driving your vote, not the interests of most readers nor accountability to the sources. -- Netoholic @ 01:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Looking through the sources used in the article they seem to be split over usage. Neither variant emerges as the WP:COMMONNAME. In truth both names are commonly used and both would be acceptable titles for the article. However, I generally prefer to stick with the native title unless there is a clearly more dominant alternative. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.