Talk:The Zombie Diaries

641:

not verified - people can claim a film cost anything, and anyone watching the Zombie Diaries can see that it had a miniscule budget. Regarding what you deem to be "pedantic amendments", they are simply stating facts. The film features less than ten soldiers. Considering a platoon is typically 30-50 soldiers, then even if there were 15 - which there isn't - then that is still not a platoon. This is clearly a claim by you as one of the directors to make the film appear better than it is. Regarding the comparison with the Romero film, you have obviously stated that Zombie Diaries was released first in an attempt to indicate that the idea was originally yours. In the interest of balance I have pointed out that another earlier Romero film featured a diary sequence in the end credits. Please be aware that Knowledge is not a marketing tool for you to attempt to sell your film or convince film companies and/or investors that you had a big success in the hope of getting future films financed.

646:

that is clearly now disputed. If either of you wishes to add a figure for the budget, please only do so if you can provide a reliable source. As for the "platoon" argument, that seems like pedantic trivia to me and plays no real part in understanding the description of the movie, so I don't really think it matters - but you must stop warring over it. I have no opinion on the "diary" issue myself, other than the same comment about warring. Finally, if anyone thinks they have evidence for a conflict of interest, I suggest you present it in an

175: 1091:? If so, yes. If not, no. And yes a filmmaker's press kit is perfectly okay. It's a verifiable source for how the makers intend the film to be understood, which eliminates need for editors to use their own interpretation. What definitely isn't relevant is adding a comparison which can't backed up by anything other than IMDB - given the user-generated content for IMDB, there's neither verifiability due to the lack of citation or responsibility; nor the assurance that information 500: 221: 203: 50: 105: 81: 115: 754:

12 thousand bucks). There is a thread on wiki about "Low budget film" which has this. The imdb entry was more likely than not added by one of our distributors. Even when we made the sequel on a big 6 figure budget, they told us they don't know how we can make films so cheap. Hollywood doesn't really have a clue on how to control budgets, and they are heavily unionized.

21: 575:

around 15 in number and accompanied by jeeps etc. The term platoon is more accurate. The reference to the Dawn of the Dead remake is irrelevant in the description of this film. It is however right to discuss the similarities with Diary of the Dead as they both came out around the same time and released by the same distributor.

346:

initial reviews all give it high ratings followed by low ratings? It's as though people involved in the film got in early and were hyping it with fake reviews followed by the low reviews of genuine movie goers who had seen the film. The whole Critical Reaction chapter seems very biased in favour of the film.

994:

That "source" is a personally written film blog site of a type that I see deemed unreliable as a source of info on Knowledge virtually 100% of the time. It's also an interview with the writers/directors so as a "published reference", it's hardly likely to be impartial. I note the first "reference" on

803:

While this hasn't been touched in a while, I would like to point out that links 1 and 3 (relating to budget) should be removed, as the first link is dead, and the third link does not relate to budget, other than a comment made by a user. As I posted in the dispute resolution, I did not want to remove

721:

Absolutely I agree we should move on now we have reached a very reasonable consensus. Just to clarify to the IP editor, if you consider being accused of being one of the directors of this film has lowered your reputation, you probably don't think much of the film. And as I said that the directors are

549:

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on

836:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would

753:

Hello! I am one of the directors (although I can't prove it) and as much of a loser as Bradswanson2010 is (clearly a jealous filmmaker, or die-hard Romero fan who can't accept the demise of his hero) he does actually have his facts correct about the budget. We shot the film for 8,100 pounds (about

640:

The budget has been listed on Wiki as $ 12,000 for a long time. It was quite obviously not made for $ 500,000. Just because one of the directors - and let's be under no illusion here - 86.14.223.109 IS one of the directors, claims on IMDB the budget is $ 500,000 does not make it so. IMDB details are

1178:

BradSwanson2010's posts show he is clearly not impartial. Every single update he has ever done is to troll over this page and remove anything that may even slightly paint the film in a positive light (references to Diary of the Dead) and lavishingly adds details such as his huge article on negative

728:

Says the other dire... whoops, I mean person who is the other main contributor to this page. I'm sure you have no interest in making the film look good at all - much like your co-dire... sorry, nearly did it again - much like the other person who has absolutely nothing to do with this film. Nothing

672:

PS: I've also changed it to just say "soldiers of the British army". "Platoon" is not just a collective noun for soldiers, and whether a group of soldiers constitutes a platoon is not just based on how many there are. Also, "several" seems clumsy. Whether the soldiers actually constitute a platoon,

1206:

Any updates have been to update the facts. It's not easy to find any positive reviews of the film as there are so few positive and so many overwhelmingly negative. Any "lavishing" details are just references to existing reviews; please feel free to check the sites referenced. If you have a problem

775:

Hello! I believe you when you say you are one of the directors, so thank you for confirming the budget, Michael. Of course it is possible to make a film for £8,100, it just ends up looking like a film that was made for £8,100. It also means you don't pay your cast or crew. As you made the film for

722:

the ones who are seeking to make the film seem better than it is by filling IMDB and Knowledge with spurious "facts" - and you say you are not one of them - then I have not libelled you. However you have libellously stated that I have an agenda against the film. But I forgive you. Bradswanson2010.

379:

I think you might be referring to my changes. If so, I have never actually seen the film, nor am I involved in any way with it or it's publicity. However, I removed a change that contained uncited speculation about why people voted as they did. It does not belong in an encyclopaedia. I will remove

1150:

No the blog does not pass - it's as verifiable as imdb. Stating that Dawn of the Dead featured found footage in the end credits is not comparing it with the Zombie Diaries, it is counter balancing the insinuation that because it was made before Diary of the Dead that it must have influenced it in

1134:

It's apparently irrelevant in that no published source has yet to draw the comparison between the two films. Zombie Diaries and Diary of the Dead are both 'found footage' films involving the zombie apocalypse; both films were shot entirely in a hand-held documentary format. Dawn of the Dead was a

645:

OK, Seeing as neither of the two warring editors has provided a reliable source for their claims regarding the film's budget, I have removed both claims and left it blank - IMDB is not a reliable source, as it is open to unsupervised editing, and I don't think we can retain the $ 12,000 figure as

618:

I agree Zebedee, but at the same time it is frustrating when false information is displayed on wikipedia by someone who clearly has some agenda against the film. I would ask Bradswanson to prove that the film was made for $ 12,000. There is no evidence from what i've researched, yet IMDB displays

574:

There is no evidence that the film was made for $ 12,000, however the IMDB has stated for a few years now that the budget was £500,000 so that is what it should be stated as on here. Also there is a pedantic amendment changing 'platoon of soldiers' to 'several soldiers'. The soldiers are clearly

1032:

Interviews with the filmmakers are always relevant to an article if they can be properly attributed to it. As the point stands at present, it simply advances the position that Zombie Diaries didn't steal from Diary of the Dead, as it is highly unlikely that an obscure film would impact a noted

345:

I removed the imdb hype claiming that many reviews were positive. Yes, many were but many were not and gave it very low star ratings. Currently there are 46 reviews using a 10 star rating. 9 reviews gave 1 star. 8 gave 2 stars. 3 gave 3 stars... Does anybody else find it suspicious that imdb's

999:

films except on sites and message boards such as imdb where the directors themselves make the comparison to hype their film up. The only reason the fact that this film was shot before diary of the dead is mentioned is to insinuate that the filmmakers came up with that as original idea. In the

295:

This page shouldn't pretend that this movie was critically acclaimed. There has been speculation that a lot of the positive reviews are from people to do with the film, IMDB and Amazon and Rotten Tomatoes pan it. I liked it, but I'm the kind of person that would like anything with zombies and

1058:

Let me get this straight: THe fact that this film used a certain plot device before one well known film is relevant, but the fact another used the same plot device before this film, is irrelevant? And imdb is an unreliable source, but a film blog probably written by someone friendly with the

430:

Is it worth mentioning that the director of this film spends a LOT of time on the boards of IMDB fighting with other posters and creating threads claiming the movie was a sucess? Ive never seen a director of any decent skill lower themselves to this desperate posistion.

673:

or whatever, seems of no material relevance to the plot description, and so I hope the way I have changed it is suitably neutral now. I may have a think about the "diary" part later and try to word it in a suitably neutral way too, avoiding both editors' arguments --

1207:

with them, I suggest Knowledge is not the place to vent your frustrations. The diary of the Dead reference has been dealt with and agreed on. I note all your updates refer only to this page too - perhaps you are connected to the film? Bradswanson2010

1179:

reviews of the sequel. He failed to include a number of mainstream publications (TimeOut, Daily Star) who gave the film a positive review, instead falsely claiming the film was universally panned. He clearly has a vendetta against the film.

700:

Glad you're both happy with the current state of this now - discussions can easily get a little heated at times of disagreement, but I'd suggest that we can move on from this now that we all find the content acceptable --

1033:

director's work; whereas the opposite may have been assumed without such knowledge. IMDB, on the other hand, should never be used a source, as its content is almost entirely user-generated and is not deemed reliable.

650:

report, but refrain from making public accusations here. Now, this is my last attempt to try to help gain consensus - the next edit warring I see here will result in an edit-war report against both editors --

597:

Discussing it is good - but you should also STOP edit-warring and reverting the other person's edits while you talk about it. Try to achieve a consensus here first, before you make any further changes --

940:

Ghostface is correct here—without a reference to back up any comparison, implying inspiration from another source simply on the basis of perceived similarity is OR. You'd need to source to bring in the

240:

and other media on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the

546:

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

879:

copied this film? The line does not seek to "compare" the two diary films, it seeks to imply that Zombie Diaries had some wonderful original idea that was then copied. Pointing out that

357:

The Critical Reaction chapter seems to be being vandalised by somebody removing all the negative comments and adding positive ones. Knowledge is not an advertising page for the film.

184: 91: 1000:

interests of balance it should also be mentioned that Dawn of the Dead predates this film and employed the same technique in its credits. It is mentioned several times here:

696:

It is fine now, but Bradswanson's comments above are nothing short of libel and have no place on wikipedia. I would like to clarify that I am not the director of this film.

31: 852:

had a brief video diary sequence at the end credits. I'm not really seeing the connection and I don't think Romero or the filmmakers on this film were influenced by it.--

926:

if you want, but you're likely to get the same answer. It's not up to the Knowledge editors to draw conclusions, just report on ones that have been already made.--

395:

OK, given the edit-warring and the controversy, I have deleted the critical reaction section. It contained no reliable sources, and much unreferenced opinion.

969:

I agree with Grapple X. A quick search engine test (for reliable sources) does not show any commentary about the relationship. It does not seem worth noting.

1275: 1295: 1280: 267: 527:, 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 914:

is backed by a source; both films were compared to each other in a published reference. To bring in a third unrelated film and propose a connection is

473:

Except for the fact he personally signs in and argues with people. This guy is one six pack away from screaming at birds in the park while dribbling.

242: 825:

I'm not a fan of this movie and I could care less if the article criticizes it...however, the statement about there being a video camera scene in

524: 273: 1151:

some way when it clearly did not. No proper published source has drawn comparison between Zombie Diaries and Diary of the Dead. Bradswanson2010

995:

the page is the films own press kit! Not exactly independent or impartial there either. There are no noticable comparisons between either of the

551: 543: 539: 516: 1250: 1223: 1167: 1135:

straightforward zombie film which had a found footage clip that played over the closing credits. One of these things is not like the other.--

1075: 1020: 899: 792: 1300: 1290: 761: 626: 582: 555: 459: 311: 1285: 1270: 480: 438: 416: 1195: 358: 347: 325: 324:

Yes, over at Play.com the customer reviews give it 2.5 stars out of 5. There are currently 63 reviews; 29 of which give it 1 star.

725:

Brad, my I suggest you and the IP editor consider getting a life now that a consensus has been agreed on this particular issue?

133: 1059:

filmmakers is reliable? I notice you're ok with the filmmakers own press kit being used as a source too? Bradswanson2010

742: 710: 682: 660: 607: 145: 137: 228: 208: 61: 871:"implies this film copied it", then the statement that this film was completed prior to the announcement of Romero's 978: 452:

There is no evidence whatsoever that the director was involved in the flame wars that were going on over on imdb.

141: 128: 86: 1246: 1219: 1163: 1071: 1016: 895: 788: 27: 1234:

PS: Please provide references for your review quotes or they will be removed as unverifiable. Bradswanson2010

1140: 931: 857: 734: 702: 674: 652: 599: 765: 49: 630: 586: 484: 463: 315: 442: 420: 1191: 400: 385: 362: 351: 329: 67: 535: 507: 1242: 1238: 1215: 1211: 1183: 1159: 1155: 1067: 1063: 1012: 1008: 891: 887: 784: 780: 757: 622: 578: 476: 455: 434: 412: 368: 335: 301: 511:

is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under

174: 20: 1136: 1120: 1043: 955: 927: 853: 561: 409:

These people should be beaten hard. So hard they get the hint and never make another movie ever.

809: 776:£8,100 pounds, I assume that means you did not pay your cast and crew properly? Bradswanson2010 512: 1187: 396: 381: 837:

be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.

297: 829:

and therefore implying that this film copied it violates Knowledge's rules on synthesis:

1111: 1034: 974: 946: 923: 848:

films is valid--both are films that are shot entirely in hand-held documentary format.

237: 499: 1264: 919: 819: 805: 647: 1107: 1088: 915: 883:

already employed this technique shows that this is not the case. Bradswanson2010.

528: 804:

these myself. I would rather have a more experienced editor do so, if they agree.

922:

unless you have a source that comments on the connection. I can bring this up to

132:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can 233: 232:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in 120: 1001: 110: 104: 80: 1254: 1227: 1199: 1171: 1144: 1129: 1079: 1052: 1024: 982: 970: 964: 935: 903: 861: 813: 796: 769: 747: 715: 687: 665: 634: 612: 590: 564: 488: 467: 446: 424: 404: 389: 372: 339: 319: 305: 220: 202: 149: 729:

at all. Just like you. Totally impartial. Absolutely. Bradswanson2010

693:

How you have left it seems good to me, thank you. Bradswanson2010.

380:

the piece that I do not agree with and leave the rating comment.

43: 15: 498: 173: 867:

If the statement about there being a video camera scene in

619:(and has for some time) that the film was made for £500k. 523:

Knowledge article constitutes fair use. In addition to the

1099:, and is now being used to back up the same information 820:

Synthesis of published material that advances a position

910:

The statement that one film predates another with both

554:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 272:This article has not yet received a rating on the 844:Not to mention that a comparison between the two 148:. To improve this article, please refer to the 8: 47: 1110:and compare it to the criteria mentioned. 1106:tl;dr—IMDB no, press kit yes, blog? Check 1002:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363547/trivia 733:Oh come on children - stop it, please! -- 197: 144:. To use this banner, please refer to the 75: 26:This article was previously nominated for 1004:or just watch the film. Bradswanson2010 570:Constant amendments to the budget on wiki 495:Fair use rationale for Image:Zd cover.jpg 246:to talk over new ideas and suggestions. 199: 77: 544:Knowledge:Fair use rationale guideline 7: 226:This article is within the scope of 126:This article is within the scope of 1276:Start-Class British cinema articles 66:It is of interest to the following 1296:Unknown-importance horror articles 1281:British cinema task force articles 14: 182:This article is supported by the 542:. Using one of the templates at 219: 201: 142:regional and topical task forces 113: 103: 79: 48: 19: 556:Media copyright questions page 1: 525:boilerplate fair use template 306:02:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 565:16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 552:criteria for speedy deletion 252:Knowledge:WikiProject Horror 1301:WikiProject Horror articles 1291:Start-Class horror articles 255:Template:WikiProject Horror 1317: 875:must therefore imply that 814:19:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 748:18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) 716:09:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC) 688:14:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 666:13:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 635:19:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 613:16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 591:15:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 536:the image description page 468:15:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 447:23:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC) 425:10:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC) 405:11:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 390:09:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 373:09:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 340:23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 274:project's importance scale 243:general Project discussion 158:Knowledge:WikiProject Film 1286:WikiProject Film articles 1271:Start-Class film articles 1255:21:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC) 1228:21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC) 1200:12:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC) 1172:06:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 1145:18:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 1130:11:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 1080:11:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 1053:02:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 1025:02:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 983:16:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 965:16:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 936:16:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 904:10:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 862:05:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 797:23:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 770:03:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 538:and edit it to include a 489:06:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 320:16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 271: 214: 185:British cinema task force 181: 161:Template:WikiProject Film 98: 74: 517:explanation or rationale 503: 178: 56:This article is rated 519:as to why its use in 502: 177: 1087:Does said blog pass 1103:in the first place. 134:join the discussion 1095:wasn't taken from 540:fair use rationale 508:Image:Zd cover.jpg 504: 229:WikiProject Horror 179: 62:content assessment 1258: 1241:comment added by 1231: 1214:comment added by 1203: 1186:comment added by 1175: 1158:comment added by 1126: 1117: 1083: 1066:comment added by 1049: 1040: 1028: 1011:comment added by 961: 952: 916:original research 907: 890:comment added by 881:Diary of the Dead 877:Diary of the Dead 873:Diary of the Dead 800: 783:comment added by 760:comment added by 625:comment added by 581:comment added by 479:comment added by 458:comment added by 437:comment added by 415:comment added by 375: 342: 291:Critical Reaction 288: 287: 284: 283: 280: 279: 196: 195: 192: 191: 136:and see lists of 42: 41: 1308: 1257: 1235: 1230: 1208: 1202: 1180: 1174: 1152: 1127: 1122: 1118: 1113: 1082: 1060: 1050: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1027: 1005: 962: 957: 953: 948: 906: 884: 869:Dawn of the Dead 850:Dawn of the Dead 827:Dawn of the Dead 799: 777: 772: 745: 740: 713: 708: 685: 680: 663: 658: 637: 610: 605: 593: 515:but there is no 491: 470: 449: 427: 366: 333: 260: 259: 256: 253: 250: 223: 216: 215: 205: 198: 166: 165: 162: 159: 156: 129:WikiProject Film 123: 118: 117: 116: 107: 100: 99: 94: 83: 76: 59: 53: 52: 44: 30:. The result of 23: 16: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1261: 1260: 1243:Bradswanson2010 1236: 1216:Bradswanson2010 1209: 1181: 1160:Bradswanson2010 1153: 1121: 1112: 1068:Bradswanson2010 1061: 1044: 1035: 1013:Bradswanson2010 1006: 956: 947: 892:Bradswanson2010 885: 823: 785:Bradswanson2010 778: 755: 743: 735: 711: 703: 683: 675: 661: 653: 620: 608: 600: 576: 572: 497: 474: 453: 432: 410: 293: 258:horror articles 257: 254: 251: 248: 247: 163: 160: 157: 154: 153: 119: 114: 112: 89: 60:on Knowledge's 57: 12: 11: 5: 1314: 1312: 1304: 1303: 1298: 1293: 1288: 1283: 1278: 1273: 1263: 1262: 1148: 1147: 1137:CyberGhostface 1132: 1104: 1056: 1055: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 928:CyberGhostface 854:CyberGhostface 842: 841: 840: 839: 822: 817: 762:207.119.170.29 751: 750: 719: 718: 691: 690: 669: 668: 616: 615: 571: 568: 562:BetacommandBot 496: 493: 393: 392: 292: 289: 286: 285: 282: 281: 278: 277: 270: 264: 263: 261: 224: 212: 211: 206: 194: 193: 190: 189: 180: 170: 169: 167: 125: 124: 108: 96: 95: 84: 72: 71: 65: 54: 40: 39: 32:the discussion 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1313: 1302: 1299: 1297: 1294: 1292: 1289: 1287: 1284: 1282: 1279: 1277: 1274: 1272: 1269: 1268: 1266: 1259: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1232: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1176: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1133: 1131: 1128: 1125: 1119: 1116: 1109: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1042: 1039: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1003: 998: 984: 980: 976: 972: 968: 967: 966: 963: 960: 954: 951: 944: 939: 938: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 908: 905: 901: 897: 893: 889: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 865: 864: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 838: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 828: 821: 818: 816: 815: 811: 807: 801: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 773: 771: 767: 763: 759: 749: 746: 741: 739: 732: 731: 730: 726: 723: 717: 714: 709: 707: 699: 698: 697: 694: 689: 686: 681: 679: 671: 670: 667: 664: 659: 657: 649: 644: 643: 642: 638: 636: 632: 628: 627:86.14.223.109 624: 614: 611: 606: 604: 596: 595: 594: 592: 588: 584: 583:86.14.223.109 580: 569: 567: 566: 563: 559: 558:. Thank you. 557: 553: 547: 545: 541: 537: 534:Please go to 532: 530: 526: 522: 518: 514: 510: 509: 501: 494: 492: 490: 486: 482: 478: 471: 469: 465: 461: 460:86.14.223.109 457: 450: 448: 444: 440: 436: 428: 426: 422: 418: 414: 407: 406: 402: 398: 391: 387: 383: 378: 377: 376: 374: 371:was added at 370: 364: 360: 355: 353: 349: 343: 341: 338:was added at 337: 331: 327: 322: 321: 317: 313: 312:84.234.60.154 308: 307: 303: 299: 290: 275: 269: 266: 265: 262: 245: 244: 239: 235: 231: 230: 225: 222: 218: 217: 213: 210: 207: 204: 200: 187: 186: 176: 172: 171: 168: 164:film articles 151: 147: 146:documentation 143: 139: 135: 131: 130: 122: 111: 109: 106: 102: 101: 97: 93: 88: 85: 82: 78: 73: 69: 63: 55: 51: 46: 45: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 1237:— Preceding 1233: 1210:— Preceding 1205: 1182:— Preceding 1177: 1154:— Preceding 1149: 1123: 1114: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1062:— Preceding 1057: 1046: 1037: 1007:— Preceding 996: 993: 958: 949: 945:comparison. 942: 911: 886:— Preceding 880: 876: 872: 868: 849: 845: 843: 835: 826: 824: 802: 779:— Preceding 774: 756:— Preceding 752: 744:said Zebedee 737: 727: 724: 720: 712:said Zebedee 705: 695: 692: 684:said Zebedee 677: 662:said Zebedee 655: 639: 617: 609:said Zebedee 602: 573: 560: 548: 533: 520: 506: 505: 481:121.75.20.48 472: 451: 439:219.89.10.23 429: 417:219.89.10.23 408: 394: 356: 344: 323: 309: 294: 241: 227: 183: 127: 68:WikiProjects 35: 1188:Filmfan1964 621:—Preceding 577:—Preceding 475:—Preceding 454:—Preceding 433:—Preceding 411:—Preceding 397:BananaFiend 382:BananaFiend 367:—Preceding 359:62.31.56.54 348:62.31.56.54 334:—Preceding 326:62.31.56.54 121:Film portal 58:Start-class 1265:Categories 298:Earfetish1 296:suspense. 238:literature 150:guidelines 138:open tasks 920:synthesis 310:Right. -- 1251:contribs 1239:unsigned 1224:contribs 1212:unsigned 1196:contribs 1184:unsigned 1168:contribs 1156:unsigned 1076:contribs 1064:unsigned 1021:contribs 1009:unsigned 979:contribs 900:contribs 888:unsigned 806:Acronin3 793:contribs 781:unsigned 758:unsigned 623:unsigned 579:unsigned 529:fair use 513:fair use 477:unsigned 456:unsigned 435:unsigned 413:unsigned 28:deletion 1115:GRAPPLE 1038:GRAPPLE 997:Diaries 950:GRAPPLE 924:WP:FILM 912:Diaries 369:comment 336:comment 92:British 249:Horror 209:Horror 64:scale. 1108:WP:RS 1093:there 1089:WP:RS 846:Diary 736:Boing 704:Boing 676:Boing 654:Boing 601:Boing 1247:talk 1220:talk 1192:talk 1164:talk 1141:talk 1101:here 1097:here 1072:talk 1017:talk 975:talk 971:Erik 943:Dawn 932:talk 918:and 896:talk 858:talk 810:talk 789:talk 766:talk 631:talk 587:talk 521:this 485:talk 464:talk 443:talk 421:talk 401:talk 386:talk 363:talk 352:talk 330:talk 316:talk 302:talk 234:film 155:Film 140:and 87:Film 36:keep 34:was 648:ANI 365:) 332:) 268:??? 1267:: 1253:) 1249:• 1226:) 1222:• 1198:) 1194:• 1170:) 1166:• 1143:) 1078:) 1074:• 1023:) 1019:• 981:) 977:| 934:) 902:) 898:• 860:) 812:) 795:) 791:• 768:) 633:) 589:) 531:. 487:) 466:) 445:) 423:) 403:) 388:) 354:) 318:) 304:) 236:, 90:: 1245:( 1218:( 1190:( 1162:( 1139:( 1124:X 1070:( 1047:X 1015:( 973:( 959:X 930:( 894:( 856:( 808:( 787:( 764:( 738:! 706:! 678:! 656:! 629:( 603:! 585:( 483:( 462:( 441:( 419:( 399:( 384:( 361:( 350:( 328:( 314:( 300:( 276:. 188:. 152:. 70:: 38:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index