Talk:The Driller Killer

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. 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 general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I replaced the original content of this article with the content from the duplicate but incorrectly titled "Driller Killer" article. I did not see any content worth saving from original content under this title as the moved content allready covered the worthwhile info. --Cab88 11:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defacement[edit]

This is clearly a messed up article. Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with the movie to fix it, but someone has combined a video game plot with the movie info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.58.2 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DrillerKillerDVDLE.jpg[edit]

Image:DrillerKillerDVDLE.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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Broadcast[edit]

I seem to remember the film being broadcast (possibly with cuts) on Channel 4 (UK) sometime c. 1997 ? Can anyone confirm ? 86.112.51.161 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Edits[edit]

I saw the template that said the plot synopsis was overly long. I have reduced this from over 1,000 words to about 300. I've seen to movie--there's no need to devote 1,000 words to it. I also cited the material about the remake. I removed material that could not be cited. I've just sent for a documentary on the nasties, so maybe this document will go into more detail about the censorship of this movie. If I can find verification that parts of the movie were blacked out, I will happily add it. Let me know if you have any comments/suggestions.ValkoWhite (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little excessive, I have commented on your user page. The accepted plot length for a feature film is 400-700 words.

After looking over the edits some more, I have noticed some other problems, the director and writer in the link for the remake are not the same person listed in the article. I am going to restore it and hopefully we can work it back to acceptable.

Another problem is that the controversy section is incorrectly titled (as per this MoS entry), it can simply be titled reception. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the original exactly 700 words. Some of the finer details needed to be removed to meet the accepted length. I also proofread it. My concern is that this isn't a description of the whole movie. I was watching an edited copy that cut some narrative scenes. This may be a description of a cut copy. I'll need to see the uncut version before I know what's being described here.

It looks like the remake was scrapped. I'm not sure it should even be mentioned. I left the original material and provided the sources I found about the remake.

There is a reissue of a critical study of the Nasites coming out in June. I may have more information after I get this text.

I'm also trying to find a reliable source to back the claim that the Damned "Nasty" lyrics say "Driller Killer is such a thrill" instead of "thrilling and killing is such a thrill." I think it's "Driller Killer," (If not, Vanian says "thrill" twice, which doesn't make sense) but I want to be able to source this because it's written differently on a lot of on-line lyric sheets. ValkoWhite (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the duplication, as well as IMDB references. IMDB is not seen as a reliable source, anyone can sign up and put anything they like in there. I will check the plot again sometime this week. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rights[edit]

If the film is in the public domain, how can there be two people who own the rights?--77.96.116.198 (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this - and how did it even become public domain? 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any details as to how this happened? Ttenchantr (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since this question has remained unanswered for over eight months and no reliable source can be found to confirm that the film is in the public domain. I have removed all references and related links to the public domain question from the page. Kire1975 (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, which state that this film is in the public domain. It is currently sourced to a Wired article [1] and an alternative source is in a Vice article [2]. Please do not remove sourced content. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources page you linked to states that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. When carefully weighted, it is evident that the Wired listicle that is in dispute here uses an unreliable torrent page as a source. Nothing becomes not in the public domain by being labeled so. Conclusion: the source is unreliable. It must be removed. Kire1975 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wired is a reliable source with an editorial process that reviews content. Your claims about their sourcing are speculation, and your conclusion is inaccurate. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about Bruce Willis being in the film[edit]

Can anyone check to see if these two sources are reliable?

Source 1

Source 2

Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TypePad is a blogging site similar to WordPress.com or Blogspot. Anything there is self-published and likely not reliable. Horror Society is a small, horror-themed website. I sometimes cite them for reviews, but I don't like to cite them for factual statements. If they say a director says something on a DVD commentary, that's alright, but I don't think they do much fact-checking beyond looking stuff up on the IMDb. The other problem is that the TypePad blog says that it's just an offhand joke made by the director. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Is this source reliable? I ask because it says "According to Ferrara, the bum at the start of the film is Bruce Willis in his first film role (you can’t see his face, but Willis says it was absolutely not him)." Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say – maybe so. It's mentioned in other reliable sources, such as this article in The Austin Chronicle, but mostly in terms of its influence as a cable TV show in the 1980s. It seems like it might be alright, though. Given that the sources express some caution about whether Willis actually appears in the film, I think we'd have to be careful about what we said. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I agree. Who knows? Maybe Willis will deny appearing in this film. After all, Tim Robbins denied appearing in Network and Denzel Washington denied appearing in Death Wish. In the meantime, I'm not going to post further information on Willis' alleged involvement with this film. Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Driller Killer-Uncut.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]