Talk:Night of the Ghouls

There is actually a deathgrind (grindcore and deathmetal) band with this name. Check it out on Limewire or something.

Source of print?
this article suggests another source for the long lost print. - 134.76.54.249 (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually the same source. I found a couple of follow ups in Fangoria 26 and 29 about distributors negotiating with Wade Williams, and this distributor lost. I'll try to see about adding it. --tronvillain (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Release
One cast member of the film states it did have a screening in 1959, however, no other legitimate sources seem to be able to back this up. I would state it's importance to note a cast member claims this, but if there is no further information, this film should not be considered release, especially with all the evidence of its not even being seen until the 1980s. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally I feel the recollection of one of the cast members is more valid than if the mention of the "brief preview screening" appeared in a reference book written by an author who probably wasn't even born when this film was being made. Paul Marco was in all likelihood AT the screening, knowing how close he was to Wood. His recollections should be the most valid source there is, regarding this film. Do you think he was misremembering the screening? But I see what you mean....that we have only his word that it happened. (Still, let's consider....the man was actually THERE!)68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's something else interesting....self-proclaimed Ed Wood authority Joe Blevins states "....there is ample evidence that the movie did premiere under its original title (Revenge of the Dead) in 1959 and may have played a few times in Los Angeles back then, too. There are photos of the film's premiere, showing cast members Criswell, Tor Johnson, Valda Hansen, and Paul Marco mugging for the camera." (Note it says "Paul Marco" was there at the screening. Marco is actually in the photos that were taken at the event.)68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Now that I think of though, why was there never a one-sheet poster made for this film? The only "poster art" that exists seems to be the vhs box art or the dvd case art.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm thinking. It may not have been a public screening. Films that were b-pictures like this generally did not get big "premieres" like the one seen in Tim Burton's Ed Wood film. Blevins says it was screened, but like, no information about any premiere at all from a secondary source? I think we need to clarify it with sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

(I think the big Plan 9 premiere in the ED WOOD movie was supposed to be a fantasy sequence, that Ed Wood was imagining it being in a big theatre in his mind. Because there's an earlier fantasy sequence in the film where Wood meets Orson Welles, and that never happend in real life)68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If there was a screening, in all likelihood, it took place in a small local theater Wood rented for a night. If photos exist of the cast members "mugging" at the premiere, it had to have occurred at a theater of some kind, and if Valda Hansen was in the photos, it must have been "Night of the Ghouls", because she wasn't in "Plan 9". The thing is, I can't find the photos of them mugging at a premiere anywhere on the web. I'll bet the photos appeared in an issue of CULT MOVIES if they appeared anywhere at all. That magazine was all Wood and Lugosi!68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but its all speculation. We need third party proof and further elaboration to move forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Follow-ups
I see some information in the article has been added with new sources. On checking a copy of the book, these appear to be preview or test screenings, not actual public ones. Per WP:FILMRELEASE "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. " As this is what the source states, we should stick to that. I've also removed excess information that is stated that were near the citation as they are not in the source as indicated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

2022
I've seen edits adding a date to this article cited to an Ed Wood book. I checked the copy on Archive.org and there is no mention of it on the said page. Searching through the book for "March" had nothing related to the date either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You state "Release dates should be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release". The film was definitely shown theatrically in a movie house on a double bill with the Lana Turner movie Imitation of Life on Mar. 20, 1959. That is a fact, according to Paul Marco, Rudolph Grey and Valda Hansen. That definitely counts as a public screening. Just because the film was never shown afterwards on late night TV doesn't negate the fact that it did play theatrically on a double bill with the Lana Turner movie on the big screen. HerbLightman (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The two sources I included tell the story. The Rudolph Grey source states "Ghouls" played on a double bill with the Lana Turner film, and the TCM.com source identifies the exact date the Lana Turner film opened in Los Angeles as March 20, 1959. Therefore "Ghouls" also was shown theatrically in L.A. the week of March 20, 1959. So if you don't count that as a public screening, then you're saying that the Lana Turner film was never shown theatrically either, I guess? Because they both played together in the same theater!
 * You are combining two sources into one, which we shouldn't do. There is no written proof that screening was public or not and there's no promotional items for it. So no, that is not proof. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the source, Marco calls it a "preview", that's not a public screening. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The film was shown in a theatre on the big screen, that's a public screening. The screening was open to the public. Even a "preview" or a "premiere" is an actual theatrical screening, as long as it was open to the public, no? The showing was open to the public just like any other film. Why are you singling only this film out? To perpetuate the fan myth that the film wasn't seen by anyone until 1984? That's simply not true. That's an urban legend. HerbLightman (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Backing this up, Tom Weaver states in the book on Bride of the Monster that the film had it's world premiere on that home video release. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not true, that's just the year it finally came out on home video. HerbLightman (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what the source says. We (and general film organization) doesn't include preview screenings as not official releases of films (as they are not made available to the general public). The book source calls it a preview itself. You'll have to provide actual dates and research and not WP:OR original research as has been done before which took several jumps to assume a date. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Night of the Ghouls (1959).webm