This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This is a good article, but much of it is unsourced. Many things are already flagged and more should be. I'm hesitant to flag the whole article with a tag at the top, but really, many more citations are needed to make this a more verifiable, valid Wiki article. -- Melty girl 19:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It continues to be, to me and almosty certainly to many others as well, no small amount of consternation for those of us here, monoitoring and editing the Articles related to the two movies, who have to deal with those are try to repeatedly classify the "28" Movies as Zombie flicks simply because "fansites say so" and/or "Well, they're mindless and they attack humans, so they must be modern zombies."
Let me repeat once again, and for as many times as necessary:
IT IS NOT OUR "JOB" HERE AT WIKIPEDIA TO CLASSIFY THIS THAT OR THE OTHER THING AS "X" SIMPLY BECAUSE OUTSIDE SOURCES SAY SO, OR SIMPLY BECAUSE WE WANT SOMETHING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT.
These creatures are NOT re-animated dead, these creatures do NOT have "missing" souls, and these creatures do NOT seek to consume the flesh of the living; therefore, they simply are NOT zombies, and by that fact and that fact alone, the "28" Movies are NOT "Zombie Films."
I ask once again, since I didn't get an answer the last time I asked:
The Movie (and novel) "Cujo," by Stephen King, is about a dog made mindless by a rabies infection, and which subsequently goes an a killing spree, seeking and killing each and every human he can sink his teeth into.
Based on the pretzel logic that some are employing to make "28 Days/Weeks Later" into a zombie flick, do we now classify "Cujo" the Movie/Book as a (dog) Zombie Film, too, since there have been such things as non-humanoid zombies in popular culture??
No?? Didn't think so.
How about the "Cabin Fever" film of recent years?? Are we now to say that that was a zombie movie, too? What about "The Puppet Masters?" Or all the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers?" movies and remakes? Maybe we should re-classify the classic Werewolf and the Wendigo (both mindless man-eaters in most legends, at least while transformed) as Zombies, too, right?? And of course, let's not forget George Romero's own work, "The Crazies," which follows the same plot as the "28" Movies.
At some point the madness has to stop.
In our case as writers of Wiki Articles, our "Stop Point" should have been long, long ago....at the point where we look at a film, see NO 'actual' Zombies in it, and do our job within Wikipedia of saying "these guys may act like Zombies in some ways, but these films are incorrectly classified by many as a film of the Zombie Genre....an incorrect classification for any movie without actual zombies in it."
Or some type of statement to that effect which both states the facts as they stand, and maintains OUR efforts to maintain objectivity in the Articles we create here. Let other people elsewhere classify this that or the other thing whatever way they want if they feel like it.
In other words, we do our job here as precisely and correctly as possible, whenever possible. No more, no less. Thanos777 01:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The Director commentary of the DVD has both Garland and Boyle referring to it as a zombie film, and that numerous scenes were homages to george romero's zombie movies, like the scene in the supermarket is a reference to Dawn of the Dead and the zombie soldier at mansion was a reference to Bub from Day of the dead, also why does it bother you that its a zombie movie, since it does obviously follow the conventions of a zombie movie? simply being part of a genre or sub genre doesnt make a film bad
Yes, they are zombies. Will all the ignorant fools please get over it and accept that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow..There are certainly a LOT of brainless idiots on this site. First off to Melty Girl: It's people like you that fascist dictators like Hitler LOVED. "Hey, the masses say it's a zombie movie, so it is." That's your entire argument. You truly are the sort of person that showed up in Jonestown face-down in a puddle of Kool-Aid..
And to the idiot above me, Lemming.. You're calling other people "ignorant fools"?? Are you kidding me? A "zombie" is an animated corpse. The people in this movie are fully alive. That would make them EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of a zombie. If you can't even grasp that simple premise, it's really a mystery to me how you even manage to sign on to the Internet. Do you have a ghost writer type your comments here?
This is NOT a zombie movie. Period. End of story. 68.239.21.129 ( talk) 06:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone has their undies in a bundle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.110 ( talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
He seriously invoked Hitler in a debate about a zombie film. Wow. Prove's Godwin's law though. Also that he probably needs a hobby, or to lose his virginity. 74.64.22.193 ( talk) 06:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't it stated by one of the characters in one of the films that the Rage Infected could be killed just like any unifected person. Also didn't someome say (can't remember if its the same character or someone else) that because the Infected didn't eat or drink, they would slowly die off. Or something like that anyway. 194.74.238.137 ( talk) 10:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The rigidity in the definition of "zombie" put forth by the original user is absurd. As you emphatically insist that zombies are reanimated corpses, you're completely (and perhaps conveniently) ignoring what "zombie" as a term originally referred to. Another user pointed it out; zombies were originally LIVING PEOPLE under mind control by a voodoo practitioner. Early zombie films such as White Zombie and Revolt of the Zombies reflected this use of the term, and a few modern ones have taken a stab at it as well, such as The Serpent and the Rainbow.
Romero is pretty much responsible for our notion of the "undead zombie." You're basing ALL of your definition on a film that redefined the zombie and then insisting that another film cannot do the same. If you knew anything about where the term came from or the history behind it, you'd know that these reanimated corpses are more similar to descriptions of vampires pre-Stoker and have little to do with our modern concept of either vampires or zombies. The parallel of eating flesh to drinking blood should be clear enough on it's own. Debonair shapeshifters came much later in the history of the vampire, and many old stories describe them aimlessly wandering, unable to speak or communicate, in search of food, much like Romero designed his zombies.
Of course the Infected of 28 Days Later don't fit the Romero model to a tee, but the changes are superficial at best. Look at what's terrifying and inhuman about these creatures rather than focusing on supernatural or biological elements that have little to do with reality and there's no other conclusion but that they are indeed zombies. What's scary about zombies doesn't inherently have anything to do with their reanimation. The terror and horror comes from seeing a familiar form (a human) behave so obviously inhuman. It's seeing your neighbors and friends feast on each other, it's watching how quickly the plague spreads, how indiscriminate zombies are with their victims. The core of zombie horror stems from the cannibalism, vast numbers, and animalistic nature. Whether they rise from the grave or contract the flu, the end result is the same. The details of what creates the zombie are the same. If the victims in 28 Days Later technically underwent death, however briefly, before their transformation, would you have any trouble calling it a zombie then? Of course not. It's a ridiculous detail to get hung up on. The Infected do what zombies do, I believe that the filmmakers simply wanted to remove the mysterious supernatural element from it.
If the term "zombie" was some sort of medical term then your argument might make sense, but the truth is that "zombie" has evolved over time just like vampires, werewolves, and other creatures with far flung origins that have been appropriated into pop culture. Do you have any idea how silly it sounds to say, "well, it does what zombies do, but it didn't get there 'the right way' so technically it's not a zombie." It's all made up, 100% of it, even the undead notion of zombies that you so desperately cling to. Back in '68 there was probably someone just like you who saw Night of the Living Dead and had this same discussion somehow or another, "hey those things aren't really zombie because zombies ARE NOT already dead!"
So relax. Taking such fictional constructs so seriously isn't worth your time, especially since no one can ever really be right or wrong since THE DAMN THINGS DON'T EXIST!
And brushing up a little on what you so staunchly defend is always a good idea before going a crusade like this - why don't you head over to the article for Lugosi's White Zombie and insist that they're not zombies since they aren't undead, ignoring the 3 decade gap before anyone even though of zombies as undead. Patrick of J ( talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The following was copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films:
Subtitle was: What about non-English, non-subtitled plot points in English-language films?
...What about when the dialogue in question is not in English and it's not subtitled? For example, at the end of 28 Days Later, a jet flies over the heads of the protagonists and the pilot's radio is played as a voiceover, and it's not in English. The majority of English speakers are not going to understand the language spoken, and few will be able to identify which country's military the jet belongs to. Yet someone added to the Plot section that the jet is Finnish and that the pilot requests a helicopter, but didn't mention that this is not sub-titled. This makes the ending of the film seem less ambiguous than it would have seemed to most, because it tilts the ending more towards the definite prospect of rescue for the protagonists. Still, I don't know if the translation is good. Because this is not easily verifiable to most English-speaking editors, does this translation require a citation? If it is explained on the DVD extras, should the DVD be cited as the source, or is no citation required? OR, does the translation even belong in the Plot section at all -- should it go in another section? There is a similar situation with unsubtitled Czech spoken in Once. Thanks, Melty girl 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If something's not translated by the filmmakers then the audience isn't expected or supposed to know what's said. Either it's supposed to be ambiguous or it's trivial or obvious. Knife in the Water's director, Roman Polanski, did the subtitles himself for the Criterion DVD and skipped over some of the dialog but only obvious things, such as one character would tell the other to do something and the other would turn off the car radio. Easy and also not worth mentioning in the plot. In other cases, ambiguity may be the intention. A good example of ambiguity is the end of Lost in Translation, not because of the language but because the last line was whispered inaudibly. In the case of 28 Weeks Later, that the pilots aren't American and the word "helikopterin" seem to indicate that the survivors will get picked up but one definitely should not be including what might happen. I'd maybe include the translation in a footnote with <ref></ref> but it's not necessary, per se. Once I haven't seen yet but it's usually not that difficult to tell when someone's saying "I love you" regardless of the language. Again, maybe a footnote. So, I'd really say each case should be looked at individually but English-language movies are patently designed for English-speakers so you've got all the tools necessary to summarize a plot. I'm not sure translation qualifies as original research but if something is translated the original language should be made available as well. Also, I don't think you need to source that a specific language is used as it can be confirmed by millions of people and the region, at least, could be guessed by many times more than that. But there's no harm in citing it if you wish to. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with deleting the quotes. The obvious final word would be critical (or scholarly) consensus. Which would go in the reception (or interpretation, for out loftier film articles) section. Production if the filmmakers talk about it, and it's notable. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
More on this topic for User:Kizor. A quote from WP:PSTS: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.:" Your primary source is the film, which is the source for the whole Plot section. But this source, the film, intentionally does not provide a translation for the pilot's words. It takes specialist knowledge to even know that the language is Finnish, much less what the pilot is saying. The voiceover is like an Easter egg for Finnish speakers, but the vast majority of English speakers cannot know what the pilot is saying. If it was subtitled in English, then you could add what's said. But since it is not, you would need a secondary source to explain what was said; and even then, it should probably go in a different section of the article than the Plot section, since it was not subtitled in the film itself, and therefore is background information, not an upfront Plot occurrence. -- Melty girl 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what version you all saw, but I saw the English version, and the first time I saw it I didn't think he said anything, but after seeing this discussion I saw it again, and he definitely says IN ENGLISH 'Lads, get a helicopter in.' I haven't seen the Finnish version, nor do I speak Finnish so I can't compare. There seem to be a lot of people who watched this film in Finnish for some bizarre reason. In any case I don't think it's particularly important to the plot. VenomousConcept ( talk) 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Resetting indent. Here's a translation for the most important finnish line. Can that be considered a viable source? Earlier lines by the jet pilot also imply that he's searching for survivors. I was disappointed this wasn't mentioned in the article itself. I believe there is a place for all information in Wikipedia. - 91.153.24.112 ( talk) 07:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to confuse things more, but I believe there is a factual error on the current page. I'm fairly certain the plane at the end of the film is not a Hawker Harrier [1], but rather a Hawker Hunter [2]. The shape is different from the Harrier, notably the triangular inlets where the fuselage meets the wings. The Harrier, on the other hand, has large half-moon inlets on either side of the fuselage, just aft of the cockpit. I did a quick frame-by-frame, referencing Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide [3], and I'm pretty sure of my identification. This would also almost certainly make it not an aircraft of the Finnish Air Force, as they never operated the Hunter. As per user Khilon, I also agree that the plane uses the markings of the RAF. I was going to go ahead and edit the page, but I figured discussing it here first would be a better idea. Having noticed that no one has commented here in nearly 3 years, I wonder if my comment will fall on deaf ears. Cheers! Chrismelito ( talk) 06:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The last words by the pilot "Lähetätkö helikopterin?" means exactly "Could you send a helicopter" and yes, im finnish. so please STFU now IT REALLY IS FINNISH!!!! WOHOO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.206.60 ( talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I am Finnish and I speak English fluently. First thing the pilot says is "Toistan: viski 000809,0" which means "I repeat: whiskey 000809,0". When the pilot sees the three main characters he says something like "Ihan kuin siellä olis valkoisen päällä sellaista... joo, jotain" which translates to something like "On top of a white thing it looks like there's some kind of... yes, something." Then the pilot mumbles something that cannot be heard, and finally the last sentence is "Lähetätkö helikopterin" like the others mentioned already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.105.128 ( talk) 20:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
References
Hi, all. I added Edgar Wright's name to the blurb about shaun of the dead, and removed shit from bullshit, not because it's vulgar, but because it's not heard in the film. (It's cut off as Shaun turns off the TV.) Fultron89 ( talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, what's the go with that? 49 minutes in, "I hate you," we all saw it, we all face palmed at the break in consistancy, we all noticed it was added post production as the kids mouth is wide open with tongue in plain view .. unless he's a ventriloquist. Do we know WHY Boyle ruined the continuancy of the theme in the movie by adding that snippet in? It's notable, only zed to speak in the flick. Go figure. 122.107.56.47 ( talk) 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC) If you watch the director's commentary, he mentions how it can be heard, so it aint our imagination. He says that a lot of the sound from the infected was from people yelling angry things, and you can still hear what the kid is saying. Weird that he didn't change it. Iowaseven ( talk) 02:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's supposed to be subliminal, they made the infected noises from people shouting angry things, all the infected sounds are like that, they messed up on that one and you can make out the words. Asking why they didn't change it is as stupid as why didn't they change the guy taking out the rubbish in on of the abandoned london scenes. It's a goof, they didn't notice untill later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.240.157 ( talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Not trying to be picky, but the interior for the mansion may be Trafalgar Park near Salisbury. However, the exterior and the lawn that was covered in barbed wire etc was actually Beamish Hall Hotel in County Durham. I know this because whilst visiting fairly recently, the hotel still has photos of the cast on location but i cannot cite a reference. Any ideas how this should be corrected? -- Shkermaker ( talk) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Should Left 4 Dead's similarities with 28 Days Later be noted? 69.12.204.112 ( talk) 01:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. There are other video games with similarities to 28 Days Later, like Resident Evil 4 and 5, just to name a few others. Basically, any media featuring zombies who are really living people that have lost their minds and want to kill everything that moves due to an evil or experimental virus, infection, or parasite has a similarity to 28 Days Later. -- Greatrobo76 ( talk) 00:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:28dayslater poster.jpg, found on 28 Days Later, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this line:
"The character Jim was English in the original script, and several scenes were actually shot with Cillian Murphy using an English accent. Due to Murphy's request, he continued the shoot using his own Irish accent, dubbing over his English-accented lines in post-production."
In searching through 8 years of interviews with Murphy, including several where the topic of accents even came up, he made no mention of this supposed facet. Nor was I able to find any mention of this in any interview with Danny Boyle or the film's Production Notes. Every single mention of claim I was able to locate used this wiki article as a the source. Unless someone has some information that confirms it that they want to produce, I'd say this is bad info. On Thermonuclear War ( talk) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
How exactly is this a Sci-Fi movie? It's a horror movie, possibly a Thriller/Suspense, but it's in no way a Sci-Fi movie.
Someone should change the introductory line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.110 ( talk) 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to find either a source for this line or an actual copy of the alleged promotion: "One month before the film was released in cinemas, various newspapers included a short panel comic book style promotion for the film, in which various scenes showed a chaotic London during those 27 days with people trying to escape the city en masse."
Does anyone have a copy? I've tried searching for it, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of its existence. -- Mr. Corgi ( talk) 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyone have a clue if the numbering of the blockade was intentional, Douglas Adams and all the rest?-- 217.225.159.123 ( talk) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, first of all, it's not clear that "many sources explicitly state it is a zombie film" - there is actually only one such source used in the article to support the "zombie film" statement. Second, the source is wrong. 28 Days Later isn't a zombie film, as there aren't any zombies in it. Do we really need to categorize the article wrongly just because one source states something incorrect? Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 21:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Geoff B ( talk) 12:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Several of those sources are simply opinion. The Denogeek is particularly bad because it boils down to "I don't care about cannon" and "I can make up what I want." If I used the same logic I could call my Ford Focus as Ferrari because they're both cars. Simply put, the film's marketers misused the zombie label then repeated it to the point where people believed it. This website's definition of zombie is: undead corpse or a person in a trance controlled by a wizard. 28 Days is neither, so the label should be removed. Larylich ( talk) 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In articles or newsgroups that allows for discussions or comments, you will find people challenging the notion that this film is a zombie film everytime the topic comes up. I can provide a sample list of those websites if you you wish. Thank you! Larylich ( talk) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The category "zombie films" includes 28 Weeks Later in its list... should it be deleted? (Just as a personal opinion, I know those aren't cannon zombies, but I do think it should be considered a zombie film. It's merely an update, a reimagining, or a modern take on zombies. But I do realize it broadens the definition dangerously to the point that Frankenstein could be included as well...-- Munin75 ( talk) 08:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't it stated by one of the characters in one of the films that the Rage Infected could be killed just like any unifected person. Also didn't someome say (can't remember if its the same character or someone else) that because the Infected didn't eat or drink, they would slowly die off. Or something like that anyway. 194.74.238.137 ( talk) 10:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:In The House - In A Heartbeat.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
I never got around to dealing with it, but there was once an article about the Rage virus. I planned to try to improve it to be its own article or at least slip into this one, but never found the time or the energy. I don't want to just outright delete it, so if anyone wants to give it a go, I saved it here. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Much of the plot summary is very poorly written. For instance what does this mean? - "After 5 days of the infection, a state of emergency is brought. After 10 days, the evacuation of the surviving residents is ordered. After 20 days, it is presumed as devastation, as the most of the Britain mainland is infected, and the survivors seek refuge" States of emergency are declared, not brought (and it seems odd that the authorities waited 5 days!); devastation had occured, it is not "presumed"; if residents are being evacuated after 10 days, why do they wait 20 days to seek refuge! 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The plot summary is absurdly long, currently 1,095 words, and must be reduced. WP:FILMPLOT says summaries should be 700 words long at maximum, making this about 500 words too long. This film is neither so long nor so complex to justify this excessive summary, it needs to be edited. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This is a good article, but much of it is unsourced. Many things are already flagged and more should be. I'm hesitant to flag the whole article with a tag at the top, but really, many more citations are needed to make this a more verifiable, valid Wiki article. -- Melty girl 19:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It continues to be, to me and almosty certainly to many others as well, no small amount of consternation for those of us here, monoitoring and editing the Articles related to the two movies, who have to deal with those are try to repeatedly classify the "28" Movies as Zombie flicks simply because "fansites say so" and/or "Well, they're mindless and they attack humans, so they must be modern zombies."
Let me repeat once again, and for as many times as necessary:
IT IS NOT OUR "JOB" HERE AT WIKIPEDIA TO CLASSIFY THIS THAT OR THE OTHER THING AS "X" SIMPLY BECAUSE OUTSIDE SOURCES SAY SO, OR SIMPLY BECAUSE WE WANT SOMETHING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT.
These creatures are NOT re-animated dead, these creatures do NOT have "missing" souls, and these creatures do NOT seek to consume the flesh of the living; therefore, they simply are NOT zombies, and by that fact and that fact alone, the "28" Movies are NOT "Zombie Films."
I ask once again, since I didn't get an answer the last time I asked:
The Movie (and novel) "Cujo," by Stephen King, is about a dog made mindless by a rabies infection, and which subsequently goes an a killing spree, seeking and killing each and every human he can sink his teeth into.
Based on the pretzel logic that some are employing to make "28 Days/Weeks Later" into a zombie flick, do we now classify "Cujo" the Movie/Book as a (dog) Zombie Film, too, since there have been such things as non-humanoid zombies in popular culture??
No?? Didn't think so.
How about the "Cabin Fever" film of recent years?? Are we now to say that that was a zombie movie, too? What about "The Puppet Masters?" Or all the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers?" movies and remakes? Maybe we should re-classify the classic Werewolf and the Wendigo (both mindless man-eaters in most legends, at least while transformed) as Zombies, too, right?? And of course, let's not forget George Romero's own work, "The Crazies," which follows the same plot as the "28" Movies.
At some point the madness has to stop.
In our case as writers of Wiki Articles, our "Stop Point" should have been long, long ago....at the point where we look at a film, see NO 'actual' Zombies in it, and do our job within Wikipedia of saying "these guys may act like Zombies in some ways, but these films are incorrectly classified by many as a film of the Zombie Genre....an incorrect classification for any movie without actual zombies in it."
Or some type of statement to that effect which both states the facts as they stand, and maintains OUR efforts to maintain objectivity in the Articles we create here. Let other people elsewhere classify this that or the other thing whatever way they want if they feel like it.
In other words, we do our job here as precisely and correctly as possible, whenever possible. No more, no less. Thanos777 01:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The Director commentary of the DVD has both Garland and Boyle referring to it as a zombie film, and that numerous scenes were homages to george romero's zombie movies, like the scene in the supermarket is a reference to Dawn of the Dead and the zombie soldier at mansion was a reference to Bub from Day of the dead, also why does it bother you that its a zombie movie, since it does obviously follow the conventions of a zombie movie? simply being part of a genre or sub genre doesnt make a film bad
Yes, they are zombies. Will all the ignorant fools please get over it and accept that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow..There are certainly a LOT of brainless idiots on this site. First off to Melty Girl: It's people like you that fascist dictators like Hitler LOVED. "Hey, the masses say it's a zombie movie, so it is." That's your entire argument. You truly are the sort of person that showed up in Jonestown face-down in a puddle of Kool-Aid..
And to the idiot above me, Lemming.. You're calling other people "ignorant fools"?? Are you kidding me? A "zombie" is an animated corpse. The people in this movie are fully alive. That would make them EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of a zombie. If you can't even grasp that simple premise, it's really a mystery to me how you even manage to sign on to the Internet. Do you have a ghost writer type your comments here?
This is NOT a zombie movie. Period. End of story. 68.239.21.129 ( talk) 06:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone has their undies in a bundle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.110 ( talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
He seriously invoked Hitler in a debate about a zombie film. Wow. Prove's Godwin's law though. Also that he probably needs a hobby, or to lose his virginity. 74.64.22.193 ( talk) 06:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't it stated by one of the characters in one of the films that the Rage Infected could be killed just like any unifected person. Also didn't someome say (can't remember if its the same character or someone else) that because the Infected didn't eat or drink, they would slowly die off. Or something like that anyway. 194.74.238.137 ( talk) 10:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The rigidity in the definition of "zombie" put forth by the original user is absurd. As you emphatically insist that zombies are reanimated corpses, you're completely (and perhaps conveniently) ignoring what "zombie" as a term originally referred to. Another user pointed it out; zombies were originally LIVING PEOPLE under mind control by a voodoo practitioner. Early zombie films such as White Zombie and Revolt of the Zombies reflected this use of the term, and a few modern ones have taken a stab at it as well, such as The Serpent and the Rainbow.
Romero is pretty much responsible for our notion of the "undead zombie." You're basing ALL of your definition on a film that redefined the zombie and then insisting that another film cannot do the same. If you knew anything about where the term came from or the history behind it, you'd know that these reanimated corpses are more similar to descriptions of vampires pre-Stoker and have little to do with our modern concept of either vampires or zombies. The parallel of eating flesh to drinking blood should be clear enough on it's own. Debonair shapeshifters came much later in the history of the vampire, and many old stories describe them aimlessly wandering, unable to speak or communicate, in search of food, much like Romero designed his zombies.
Of course the Infected of 28 Days Later don't fit the Romero model to a tee, but the changes are superficial at best. Look at what's terrifying and inhuman about these creatures rather than focusing on supernatural or biological elements that have little to do with reality and there's no other conclusion but that they are indeed zombies. What's scary about zombies doesn't inherently have anything to do with their reanimation. The terror and horror comes from seeing a familiar form (a human) behave so obviously inhuman. It's seeing your neighbors and friends feast on each other, it's watching how quickly the plague spreads, how indiscriminate zombies are with their victims. The core of zombie horror stems from the cannibalism, vast numbers, and animalistic nature. Whether they rise from the grave or contract the flu, the end result is the same. The details of what creates the zombie are the same. If the victims in 28 Days Later technically underwent death, however briefly, before their transformation, would you have any trouble calling it a zombie then? Of course not. It's a ridiculous detail to get hung up on. The Infected do what zombies do, I believe that the filmmakers simply wanted to remove the mysterious supernatural element from it.
If the term "zombie" was some sort of medical term then your argument might make sense, but the truth is that "zombie" has evolved over time just like vampires, werewolves, and other creatures with far flung origins that have been appropriated into pop culture. Do you have any idea how silly it sounds to say, "well, it does what zombies do, but it didn't get there 'the right way' so technically it's not a zombie." It's all made up, 100% of it, even the undead notion of zombies that you so desperately cling to. Back in '68 there was probably someone just like you who saw Night of the Living Dead and had this same discussion somehow or another, "hey those things aren't really zombie because zombies ARE NOT already dead!"
So relax. Taking such fictional constructs so seriously isn't worth your time, especially since no one can ever really be right or wrong since THE DAMN THINGS DON'T EXIST!
And brushing up a little on what you so staunchly defend is always a good idea before going a crusade like this - why don't you head over to the article for Lugosi's White Zombie and insist that they're not zombies since they aren't undead, ignoring the 3 decade gap before anyone even though of zombies as undead. Patrick of J ( talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The following was copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films:
Subtitle was: What about non-English, non-subtitled plot points in English-language films?
...What about when the dialogue in question is not in English and it's not subtitled? For example, at the end of 28 Days Later, a jet flies over the heads of the protagonists and the pilot's radio is played as a voiceover, and it's not in English. The majority of English speakers are not going to understand the language spoken, and few will be able to identify which country's military the jet belongs to. Yet someone added to the Plot section that the jet is Finnish and that the pilot requests a helicopter, but didn't mention that this is not sub-titled. This makes the ending of the film seem less ambiguous than it would have seemed to most, because it tilts the ending more towards the definite prospect of rescue for the protagonists. Still, I don't know if the translation is good. Because this is not easily verifiable to most English-speaking editors, does this translation require a citation? If it is explained on the DVD extras, should the DVD be cited as the source, or is no citation required? OR, does the translation even belong in the Plot section at all -- should it go in another section? There is a similar situation with unsubtitled Czech spoken in Once. Thanks, Melty girl 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If something's not translated by the filmmakers then the audience isn't expected or supposed to know what's said. Either it's supposed to be ambiguous or it's trivial or obvious. Knife in the Water's director, Roman Polanski, did the subtitles himself for the Criterion DVD and skipped over some of the dialog but only obvious things, such as one character would tell the other to do something and the other would turn off the car radio. Easy and also not worth mentioning in the plot. In other cases, ambiguity may be the intention. A good example of ambiguity is the end of Lost in Translation, not because of the language but because the last line was whispered inaudibly. In the case of 28 Weeks Later, that the pilots aren't American and the word "helikopterin" seem to indicate that the survivors will get picked up but one definitely should not be including what might happen. I'd maybe include the translation in a footnote with <ref></ref> but it's not necessary, per se. Once I haven't seen yet but it's usually not that difficult to tell when someone's saying "I love you" regardless of the language. Again, maybe a footnote. So, I'd really say each case should be looked at individually but English-language movies are patently designed for English-speakers so you've got all the tools necessary to summarize a plot. I'm not sure translation qualifies as original research but if something is translated the original language should be made available as well. Also, I don't think you need to source that a specific language is used as it can be confirmed by millions of people and the region, at least, could be guessed by many times more than that. But there's no harm in citing it if you wish to. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with deleting the quotes. The obvious final word would be critical (or scholarly) consensus. Which would go in the reception (or interpretation, for out loftier film articles) section. Production if the filmmakers talk about it, and it's notable. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
More on this topic for User:Kizor. A quote from WP:PSTS: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.:" Your primary source is the film, which is the source for the whole Plot section. But this source, the film, intentionally does not provide a translation for the pilot's words. It takes specialist knowledge to even know that the language is Finnish, much less what the pilot is saying. The voiceover is like an Easter egg for Finnish speakers, but the vast majority of English speakers cannot know what the pilot is saying. If it was subtitled in English, then you could add what's said. But since it is not, you would need a secondary source to explain what was said; and even then, it should probably go in a different section of the article than the Plot section, since it was not subtitled in the film itself, and therefore is background information, not an upfront Plot occurrence. -- Melty girl 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what version you all saw, but I saw the English version, and the first time I saw it I didn't think he said anything, but after seeing this discussion I saw it again, and he definitely says IN ENGLISH 'Lads, get a helicopter in.' I haven't seen the Finnish version, nor do I speak Finnish so I can't compare. There seem to be a lot of people who watched this film in Finnish for some bizarre reason. In any case I don't think it's particularly important to the plot. VenomousConcept ( talk) 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Resetting indent. Here's a translation for the most important finnish line. Can that be considered a viable source? Earlier lines by the jet pilot also imply that he's searching for survivors. I was disappointed this wasn't mentioned in the article itself. I believe there is a place for all information in Wikipedia. - 91.153.24.112 ( talk) 07:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to confuse things more, but I believe there is a factual error on the current page. I'm fairly certain the plane at the end of the film is not a Hawker Harrier [1], but rather a Hawker Hunter [2]. The shape is different from the Harrier, notably the triangular inlets where the fuselage meets the wings. The Harrier, on the other hand, has large half-moon inlets on either side of the fuselage, just aft of the cockpit. I did a quick frame-by-frame, referencing Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide [3], and I'm pretty sure of my identification. This would also almost certainly make it not an aircraft of the Finnish Air Force, as they never operated the Hunter. As per user Khilon, I also agree that the plane uses the markings of the RAF. I was going to go ahead and edit the page, but I figured discussing it here first would be a better idea. Having noticed that no one has commented here in nearly 3 years, I wonder if my comment will fall on deaf ears. Cheers! Chrismelito ( talk) 06:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The last words by the pilot "Lähetätkö helikopterin?" means exactly "Could you send a helicopter" and yes, im finnish. so please STFU now IT REALLY IS FINNISH!!!! WOHOO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.206.60 ( talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I am Finnish and I speak English fluently. First thing the pilot says is "Toistan: viski 000809,0" which means "I repeat: whiskey 000809,0". When the pilot sees the three main characters he says something like "Ihan kuin siellä olis valkoisen päällä sellaista... joo, jotain" which translates to something like "On top of a white thing it looks like there's some kind of... yes, something." Then the pilot mumbles something that cannot be heard, and finally the last sentence is "Lähetätkö helikopterin" like the others mentioned already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.105.128 ( talk) 20:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
References
Hi, all. I added Edgar Wright's name to the blurb about shaun of the dead, and removed shit from bullshit, not because it's vulgar, but because it's not heard in the film. (It's cut off as Shaun turns off the TV.) Fultron89 ( talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, what's the go with that? 49 minutes in, "I hate you," we all saw it, we all face palmed at the break in consistancy, we all noticed it was added post production as the kids mouth is wide open with tongue in plain view .. unless he's a ventriloquist. Do we know WHY Boyle ruined the continuancy of the theme in the movie by adding that snippet in? It's notable, only zed to speak in the flick. Go figure. 122.107.56.47 ( talk) 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC) If you watch the director's commentary, he mentions how it can be heard, so it aint our imagination. He says that a lot of the sound from the infected was from people yelling angry things, and you can still hear what the kid is saying. Weird that he didn't change it. Iowaseven ( talk) 02:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's supposed to be subliminal, they made the infected noises from people shouting angry things, all the infected sounds are like that, they messed up on that one and you can make out the words. Asking why they didn't change it is as stupid as why didn't they change the guy taking out the rubbish in on of the abandoned london scenes. It's a goof, they didn't notice untill later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.240.157 ( talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Not trying to be picky, but the interior for the mansion may be Trafalgar Park near Salisbury. However, the exterior and the lawn that was covered in barbed wire etc was actually Beamish Hall Hotel in County Durham. I know this because whilst visiting fairly recently, the hotel still has photos of the cast on location but i cannot cite a reference. Any ideas how this should be corrected? -- Shkermaker ( talk) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Should Left 4 Dead's similarities with 28 Days Later be noted? 69.12.204.112 ( talk) 01:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. There are other video games with similarities to 28 Days Later, like Resident Evil 4 and 5, just to name a few others. Basically, any media featuring zombies who are really living people that have lost their minds and want to kill everything that moves due to an evil or experimental virus, infection, or parasite has a similarity to 28 Days Later. -- Greatrobo76 ( talk) 00:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:28dayslater poster.jpg, found on 28 Days Later, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this line:
"The character Jim was English in the original script, and several scenes were actually shot with Cillian Murphy using an English accent. Due to Murphy's request, he continued the shoot using his own Irish accent, dubbing over his English-accented lines in post-production."
In searching through 8 years of interviews with Murphy, including several where the topic of accents even came up, he made no mention of this supposed facet. Nor was I able to find any mention of this in any interview with Danny Boyle or the film's Production Notes. Every single mention of claim I was able to locate used this wiki article as a the source. Unless someone has some information that confirms it that they want to produce, I'd say this is bad info. On Thermonuclear War ( talk) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
How exactly is this a Sci-Fi movie? It's a horror movie, possibly a Thriller/Suspense, but it's in no way a Sci-Fi movie.
Someone should change the introductory line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.110 ( talk) 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to find either a source for this line or an actual copy of the alleged promotion: "One month before the film was released in cinemas, various newspapers included a short panel comic book style promotion for the film, in which various scenes showed a chaotic London during those 27 days with people trying to escape the city en masse."
Does anyone have a copy? I've tried searching for it, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of its existence. -- Mr. Corgi ( talk) 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyone have a clue if the numbering of the blockade was intentional, Douglas Adams and all the rest?-- 217.225.159.123 ( talk) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, first of all, it's not clear that "many sources explicitly state it is a zombie film" - there is actually only one such source used in the article to support the "zombie film" statement. Second, the source is wrong. 28 Days Later isn't a zombie film, as there aren't any zombies in it. Do we really need to categorize the article wrongly just because one source states something incorrect? Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 21:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Geoff B ( talk) 12:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Several of those sources are simply opinion. The Denogeek is particularly bad because it boils down to "I don't care about cannon" and "I can make up what I want." If I used the same logic I could call my Ford Focus as Ferrari because they're both cars. Simply put, the film's marketers misused the zombie label then repeated it to the point where people believed it. This website's definition of zombie is: undead corpse or a person in a trance controlled by a wizard. 28 Days is neither, so the label should be removed. Larylich ( talk) 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In articles or newsgroups that allows for discussions or comments, you will find people challenging the notion that this film is a zombie film everytime the topic comes up. I can provide a sample list of those websites if you you wish. Thank you! Larylich ( talk) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The category "zombie films" includes 28 Weeks Later in its list... should it be deleted? (Just as a personal opinion, I know those aren't cannon zombies, but I do think it should be considered a zombie film. It's merely an update, a reimagining, or a modern take on zombies. But I do realize it broadens the definition dangerously to the point that Frankenstein could be included as well...-- Munin75 ( talk) 08:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't it stated by one of the characters in one of the films that the Rage Infected could be killed just like any unifected person. Also didn't someome say (can't remember if its the same character or someone else) that because the Infected didn't eat or drink, they would slowly die off. Or something like that anyway. 194.74.238.137 ( talk) 10:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:In The House - In A Heartbeat.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
I never got around to dealing with it, but there was once an article about the Rage virus. I planned to try to improve it to be its own article or at least slip into this one, but never found the time or the energy. I don't want to just outright delete it, so if anyone wants to give it a go, I saved it here. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Much of the plot summary is very poorly written. For instance what does this mean? - "After 5 days of the infection, a state of emergency is brought. After 10 days, the evacuation of the surviving residents is ordered. After 20 days, it is presumed as devastation, as the most of the Britain mainland is infected, and the survivors seek refuge" States of emergency are declared, not brought (and it seems odd that the authorities waited 5 days!); devastation had occured, it is not "presumed"; if residents are being evacuated after 10 days, why do they wait 20 days to seek refuge! 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The plot summary is absurdly long, currently 1,095 words, and must be reduced. WP:FILMPLOT says summaries should be 700 words long at maximum, making this about 500 words too long. This film is neither so long nor so complex to justify this excessive summary, it needs to be edited. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)