This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
28 Weeks Later article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
28 Days Later#Production covers how they made scenes look deserted and desolate. I think this article needs the same but I don't know any details, especially since the scenes are more grand. :) Cburnett ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
File:Kill'em.jpgSo where do i put this new image? cause i made this image for the 28 Day Later wikia. Demon Hunter Rules( —) 01:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)recycle bin
Does anyone know the explanation as to why the 'infected' in 28 Weeks Later suddenly have no aversion to light? In 28 Days Later the infected would not chase anyone into the daylight nor come out of hiding from darkness. For example, in 28 Days Later the infected would not chase the car outside the tunnel. Likewise the infected would not come out until after darkness thus allowing for the bizarre post apocalyptic empty streets part of the first film to work plot-wise. A huge part of the reason the characters were able to travel around in 28 Days Later was due to the aversion of light by the infected. The only cases where the infected were in daylight was because they got infected while still in daylight or they were chained up outside in broad daylight or during the end of the movie flight overhead with an infected unable to walk, stuck in the middle of a road somewhere.
Suddenly is 28 Weeks Later the boy arriving at the cottage is being chased in full daylight at the start of the film and no further mention or respect of the daylight aversion is ever mentioned or respected anywhere in the sequel.
What explanation is given for this sudden important shift from 28 Days Later to 28 Weeks Later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.45.233 ( talk) 22:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that since this movie is geared by the producers toward an audience that expects thrills to generate revenue, the producers do not care about any of this attention to detail. if you asked them, they would probably respond with "is it that important to you?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.45.208 ( talk) 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the two films take place at different points in time, and that the infection has had time to change, and that the infected deen in the street was starving. Also, that the infected don't show any adversion to the well-lit army base, or in the beginning of the first film where they are set on fire, which obviously gives off light. The infected in the car scene probably just gave up trying to chase the car since it is too fast, and not because of some kind of photophobia, or heliophobia. Further, the new outbreak was caused my someone who was immune, meaning that since she reacted differently, she could also pass along the infection differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.140.62 ( talk) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
That's plausible-that the virus mutated- but they were very explicit in the first film about only traveling during the day and the dangers the infected pose at night. It is true in the first film the infected had no aversion to light but they definitely had an aversion to the sun itself. So I will accept your mutation theory... Interesting that the film Legend also had a sun aversion for their infected but not to regular light either. I believe this is the same aversion shown in vampire movies where sunlight kills the vamps but regular light does nothing. UV seems to kill the undead!
We were warned in the first film that you shouldn't go out at night unless you had to, but it was never mentioned that it was because you'd be safer from the photophobic infected during the day, it was just implied that you'd be safer, which I assumed was because during the night you'd either have to have a torch, which would attract their atention in a city where there's no electricity, or walk around blind, less able to see any infected person you're walking towards/towards you. Simmilarly you'd be more vunerable if you went out by yourself. As for the cases you mentioned above, they stopped because of the greater speed of the taxi, and the streets were empty because there were fewer uninfected people left to find so the infected begun to slowly die, like inside the church, disregarding their hunger and just collapsing. The streets would've been just as empty at night, but it wouldn't have looked as impressive, simmilarly it makes it jusst that bit scarier being chased by an infected zombie like person at night then on a sunny afternoon. As said above I think you're just reading too deep into it 78.148.72.33 ( talk) 22:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh can you actually inherit heterochromia, as shown in this movie or is that something that they didn't bother researching? 144.135.180.109 ( talk) 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I assume any sequels/prequels will follow the same pattern: 28 Seconds Later 28 Minutes Later 28 Hours Later 28 Years Later 28 Decades Later 28 Centuries Later 28 Millenia Later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.73.15 ( talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the word 'reboot' from the opening sentence: "28 Weeks Later is a 2007 British post-apocalyptic horror film, and reboot sequel to the 2002 film 28 Days Later."
I don't know why this would be considered a reboot; it is set at a different time and features entirely different characters, but it doesn't redefine or retcon any aspect of the basic premise from the previous film, nor does it retell any of the events of that film, since it (obviously) takes place several months later.
Here's the definition from the page Reboot (fiction):
Reboot, in serial fiction, means a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew.
Certainly not the case here. Rodeosmurf ( talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is 28 Months Later redirecting to 28 Weeks Later? By that logic, 28 Weeks Later should be edited to redirect to 28 Days Later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.74.185 ( talk) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There isn't enough information about 28 Months Later to give it a separate article. There is no planned release date. There hasn't been any advertising for the film. There isn't even a trailer. For all we know, the film could be nothing more than an idea still floating in the back of Danny Boyle's head. -- Mr. Corgi ( talk) 06:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
True, but imbd has a release date set for 2011...it could be more than just an idea. I agree, we should have a 28 months later article. Even if it is a very short article, it would be less confusing to be redirected to 28 weeks later. On a partially related note, if anyone has imbd pro, they can look up more details about the film (28 months later) by clicking more information. This information could also bring forth enough for an article. Donatrip ( talk) 22:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In October 2008, Boyle discussed with Karmalooptv the high possibility of a 28 Months Later. No previous mention of Karmalooptv. Koro Neil ( talk) 10:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
How can you consider the type of rifle and model of helicopter relevant pieces of plot information, while not considering the way a main character dies, and the helicopter battle, relevant plot moments? ( Crake333 ( talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
I have not introduced factual inaccuracies: the character wielding the gun in question is a sniper. Therefore, his gun is a sniper rifle, or at least a "sniper's rifle." If the word sniper is such an issue, remove it. If I receive a warning for edit warring, why wouldn't thejadefalcon? He reverted the page more than three times as well. Just because I'm not established like he is doesn't mean the rules don't apply in the same way. To address your request to discuss the changes I want to make here, what does it appear I am trying to do by having started this topic? A plot is defined by Webster's dictionary as "the main story." How could the type of gun or type of helicopter be considered part of the main story? The plot details I have added are certainly relevant to the main story: the way a main character dies, and the helicopter battle. ( Crake333 ( talk) 01:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
- I am never going to seek permission to make edits to "The Free Encyclopedia," as the whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a website where "Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to...articles."
Sorry, but 28 Weeks Later is not a zombie film - there aren't any zombies in it, just people infected with the rage virus, and they aren't the same thing. It's no good to restore the zombie films category with a comment like, "sources state it is", when no such sources have been provided, and the main body of the article doesn't even use the word "zombie." Maybe sources exist that call 28 Days Later a zombie movie, but this is a different article. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 21:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe the word 'authorized' is spelled as 'authorised' in the Plot paragraph 68.49.125.93 ( talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
...and that's just plain English, not "British" English. There is a variety of English called American, but English is English for goodness' sake!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.0.19 ( talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The plot synopsis on the main page states that
"Alice is tested and found to be infected with the rage virus, but displaying few symptoms, which categorises her as a rare asymptomatic carrier"
Clicking on the words "asymptomatic carrier" brings you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptomatic_carrier which clearly states "An asymptomatic carrier (healthy carrier or just carrier) is a person or other organism that has contracted an infectious disease, but who displays no symptoms." I have limited knowledge of virology but I believe this is the scientifically correct definition. Asymptomatic means displaying no symptoms which means that although the movie may call her an asymptomatic carrier, this is incorrect (I have not yet watched the movie I wanted to read the Wiki page first).
I will try to edit the article to say
"Alice is tested and found to be infected with the rage virus, but displaying few symptoms, she is categorized as a rare asymptomatic carrier in the film, though is is not the true meaning of the term."
I feel that the film is bastardizing science, which isn't the issue. the issue for me is when that bastardization gets carried over to content that is supposed to be factual. I think that people might just read the plot synopsis and gain a misunderstanding of what an asymptomatic carrier is if they don't visit the "asymptomatic carrier page". Okay I've explained my motives changing it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.18.151 ( talk) 20:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
OPENING CREDITS:
END CREDITS:
[Note: total length of on-screen end credits scroll is 7 minutes; detailed below are the initial 2 minutes, 30 seconds]
Made in association with Dune Entertainment LLC
Visual effects supervisor
Sean Mathiesen
Visual effects producer
Tim Field (visual effects)
Supervising sound editor
Glenn Freemantle
Production manager
Kate Penlington
First assistant director
Toby Ford
Second assistant director
Simon Morris (director)
Supervising location manager
Jonah Coombes
Supervising art director
Patrick Rolfe
Set decorator
Michelle Day (set decorator)
Property master
Nick Thomas (film property master)
Production sound mixer
Simon Hayes (sound engineer)
A.M.P.S.
Supervising dialogue editor
Gillian Dodders
2nd unit director of photography
Peter Talbot (cinematographer)
Gaffer
Alex Scott (gaffer)
Special effects supervisor
Richard Conway (special effects artist)
Make-up effects designer
Cliff Wallace
Stunt coordinator
Julian Spencer
Production accountant
Wendy Ellerker
Production coordinator
Janine Abery
Script supervisor
Marinella Setti
Post production supervisors
Clare St. John •
Tim Grover (post production supervisor)
Unit publicist
Sarah Clark (unit publicist)
CAST IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE
Alice
Catherine McCormack
Don
Robert Carlyle
Sally
Amanda Walker
Jacob
Shahid Ahmed (actor)
Geoff
Garfield Morgan
Karen
Emily Beecham
Boy in cottage
Beans Balawi
Doyle
Jeremy Renner
Flynn
Harold Perrineau
Scarlet
Rose Byrne
Tammy
Imogen Poots
Andy
Mackintosh Muggleton
DLR soldier
Meghan Popiel
Stone
Idris Elba
Military officer
Stewart Alexander (actor)
Senior medical officer
Philip Bulcock
Rooftop sniper
Chris Ryman
Soldier
Tristan Tait
Medical officer
William Meredith (actor)
Bunker soldier
Matt Reeves (actor)
Bunker major
Thomas Garvey (actor)
Medical centre lobby soldier
Tom Bodell
Carpark soldier
Andrew Byron
Carpark civilians
Sarah Finigan
Roderic Culver
Maeve Ryan (actress)
Ed Coleman (actor)
Karen Meagher
Amanda Lawrence
Simon Delaney (actor)
Drew Rhys-Williams
Sam
Raymond Waring
Depot man
Kish Sharma
Depot woman
Jane Thorne (actress)
Stunt players
Lucy Allen (stunt player) •
David Anders (stunt player) •
Andrew Bradshaw •
Michael Byrch •
Stephanie Carey •
Tony Christian •
Abbi Collins •
Claire Hayhurst •
Paul Herbert (stunt player) •
Jason Hunjan •
Rob Hunt (stunt player) •
Eunice Huthart •
Jo McLaren •
Dominic Preece •
John Street (stunt player) •
Arran Topham
Art director
Denis Schnegg
Standby art director
Christopher Wyatt (art director)
Assistant art directors
Gareth Cousins (art director) •
Katrina Dunn (art director)
Production buyer
Kathryn Pyle
Art department assistant
Guy Bevitt
Graphic artist
Kathy Heaser
Storyboard artist
Kote Camacho
Art department runner
Nadine Herrmann
Art trainees
Anna Thomas (storyboard artist) •
Bethan Jones
Camera operator
Tony Jackson (camera operator)
Camera operator/steadicam
Julian Morson
Focus pullers
Clive Prior •
Nathan Mann •
Graeme Campbell (film technician)
Clapper loaders
Phil Humphries •
Woody Gregson •
John Evans (film technician)
Grip
Sam Phillips (film crew)
Additional grip
Malcolm McGilchrist
Trainee grip
Patrick Quarshic
Film trainee
Sally Wright
Video assist
Lizzie Kelly (video technician)
Video & computer playback
Richard Shean
Visual effects editor
Emanuele Giraldo
1st assistant editor
Tina Richardson (film editor)
Current wrong names: Leslie Mann as Alice Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Don Katherine Heigl as Sally Tom Cruise as Geoff Amanda Bynes as Karen Kodi Smit-McPhee as Boy in cottage Hugo Weaving as Doyle Jonathan Andrew Hume as Flynn Emma Thompson as Scarlet Dakota Fanning as Tammy Kodi Smit-McPhee as Andy Ving Rhames as Stone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjrudell ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
28 Weeks Later. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on 28 Weeks Later. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on 28 Weeks Later. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Wrath X: Per WP:BRD, you were supposed to initiate a discussion in the talk page before reverting, but I digress. If you're in favor of removing the sources from the infobox, then why leave the production companies and the distributors with inline citations? Aren't these part of the credit billing? It doesn't make sense, really. Slightlymad ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
17 149.132.176.66 ( talk) 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
98 149.132.176.66 ( talk) 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
28 Weeks Later article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
28 Days Later#Production covers how they made scenes look deserted and desolate. I think this article needs the same but I don't know any details, especially since the scenes are more grand. :) Cburnett ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
File:Kill'em.jpgSo where do i put this new image? cause i made this image for the 28 Day Later wikia. Demon Hunter Rules( —) 01:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)recycle bin
Does anyone know the explanation as to why the 'infected' in 28 Weeks Later suddenly have no aversion to light? In 28 Days Later the infected would not chase anyone into the daylight nor come out of hiding from darkness. For example, in 28 Days Later the infected would not chase the car outside the tunnel. Likewise the infected would not come out until after darkness thus allowing for the bizarre post apocalyptic empty streets part of the first film to work plot-wise. A huge part of the reason the characters were able to travel around in 28 Days Later was due to the aversion of light by the infected. The only cases where the infected were in daylight was because they got infected while still in daylight or they were chained up outside in broad daylight or during the end of the movie flight overhead with an infected unable to walk, stuck in the middle of a road somewhere.
Suddenly is 28 Weeks Later the boy arriving at the cottage is being chased in full daylight at the start of the film and no further mention or respect of the daylight aversion is ever mentioned or respected anywhere in the sequel.
What explanation is given for this sudden important shift from 28 Days Later to 28 Weeks Later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.45.233 ( talk) 22:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that since this movie is geared by the producers toward an audience that expects thrills to generate revenue, the producers do not care about any of this attention to detail. if you asked them, they would probably respond with "is it that important to you?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.45.208 ( talk) 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the two films take place at different points in time, and that the infection has had time to change, and that the infected deen in the street was starving. Also, that the infected don't show any adversion to the well-lit army base, or in the beginning of the first film where they are set on fire, which obviously gives off light. The infected in the car scene probably just gave up trying to chase the car since it is too fast, and not because of some kind of photophobia, or heliophobia. Further, the new outbreak was caused my someone who was immune, meaning that since she reacted differently, she could also pass along the infection differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.140.62 ( talk) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
That's plausible-that the virus mutated- but they were very explicit in the first film about only traveling during the day and the dangers the infected pose at night. It is true in the first film the infected had no aversion to light but they definitely had an aversion to the sun itself. So I will accept your mutation theory... Interesting that the film Legend also had a sun aversion for their infected but not to regular light either. I believe this is the same aversion shown in vampire movies where sunlight kills the vamps but regular light does nothing. UV seems to kill the undead!
We were warned in the first film that you shouldn't go out at night unless you had to, but it was never mentioned that it was because you'd be safer from the photophobic infected during the day, it was just implied that you'd be safer, which I assumed was because during the night you'd either have to have a torch, which would attract their atention in a city where there's no electricity, or walk around blind, less able to see any infected person you're walking towards/towards you. Simmilarly you'd be more vunerable if you went out by yourself. As for the cases you mentioned above, they stopped because of the greater speed of the taxi, and the streets were empty because there were fewer uninfected people left to find so the infected begun to slowly die, like inside the church, disregarding their hunger and just collapsing. The streets would've been just as empty at night, but it wouldn't have looked as impressive, simmilarly it makes it jusst that bit scarier being chased by an infected zombie like person at night then on a sunny afternoon. As said above I think you're just reading too deep into it 78.148.72.33 ( talk) 22:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh can you actually inherit heterochromia, as shown in this movie or is that something that they didn't bother researching? 144.135.180.109 ( talk) 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I assume any sequels/prequels will follow the same pattern: 28 Seconds Later 28 Minutes Later 28 Hours Later 28 Years Later 28 Decades Later 28 Centuries Later 28 Millenia Later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.73.15 ( talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the word 'reboot' from the opening sentence: "28 Weeks Later is a 2007 British post-apocalyptic horror film, and reboot sequel to the 2002 film 28 Days Later."
I don't know why this would be considered a reboot; it is set at a different time and features entirely different characters, but it doesn't redefine or retcon any aspect of the basic premise from the previous film, nor does it retell any of the events of that film, since it (obviously) takes place several months later.
Here's the definition from the page Reboot (fiction):
Reboot, in serial fiction, means a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew.
Certainly not the case here. Rodeosmurf ( talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is 28 Months Later redirecting to 28 Weeks Later? By that logic, 28 Weeks Later should be edited to redirect to 28 Days Later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.74.185 ( talk) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There isn't enough information about 28 Months Later to give it a separate article. There is no planned release date. There hasn't been any advertising for the film. There isn't even a trailer. For all we know, the film could be nothing more than an idea still floating in the back of Danny Boyle's head. -- Mr. Corgi ( talk) 06:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
True, but imbd has a release date set for 2011...it could be more than just an idea. I agree, we should have a 28 months later article. Even if it is a very short article, it would be less confusing to be redirected to 28 weeks later. On a partially related note, if anyone has imbd pro, they can look up more details about the film (28 months later) by clicking more information. This information could also bring forth enough for an article. Donatrip ( talk) 22:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In October 2008, Boyle discussed with Karmalooptv the high possibility of a 28 Months Later. No previous mention of Karmalooptv. Koro Neil ( talk) 10:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
How can you consider the type of rifle and model of helicopter relevant pieces of plot information, while not considering the way a main character dies, and the helicopter battle, relevant plot moments? ( Crake333 ( talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
I have not introduced factual inaccuracies: the character wielding the gun in question is a sniper. Therefore, his gun is a sniper rifle, or at least a "sniper's rifle." If the word sniper is such an issue, remove it. If I receive a warning for edit warring, why wouldn't thejadefalcon? He reverted the page more than three times as well. Just because I'm not established like he is doesn't mean the rules don't apply in the same way. To address your request to discuss the changes I want to make here, what does it appear I am trying to do by having started this topic? A plot is defined by Webster's dictionary as "the main story." How could the type of gun or type of helicopter be considered part of the main story? The plot details I have added are certainly relevant to the main story: the way a main character dies, and the helicopter battle. ( Crake333 ( talk) 01:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
- I am never going to seek permission to make edits to "The Free Encyclopedia," as the whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a website where "Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to...articles."
Sorry, but 28 Weeks Later is not a zombie film - there aren't any zombies in it, just people infected with the rage virus, and they aren't the same thing. It's no good to restore the zombie films category with a comment like, "sources state it is", when no such sources have been provided, and the main body of the article doesn't even use the word "zombie." Maybe sources exist that call 28 Days Later a zombie movie, but this is a different article. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 21:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe the word 'authorized' is spelled as 'authorised' in the Plot paragraph 68.49.125.93 ( talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
...and that's just plain English, not "British" English. There is a variety of English called American, but English is English for goodness' sake!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.0.19 ( talk) 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The plot synopsis on the main page states that
"Alice is tested and found to be infected with the rage virus, but displaying few symptoms, which categorises her as a rare asymptomatic carrier"
Clicking on the words "asymptomatic carrier" brings you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptomatic_carrier which clearly states "An asymptomatic carrier (healthy carrier or just carrier) is a person or other organism that has contracted an infectious disease, but who displays no symptoms." I have limited knowledge of virology but I believe this is the scientifically correct definition. Asymptomatic means displaying no symptoms which means that although the movie may call her an asymptomatic carrier, this is incorrect (I have not yet watched the movie I wanted to read the Wiki page first).
I will try to edit the article to say
"Alice is tested and found to be infected with the rage virus, but displaying few symptoms, she is categorized as a rare asymptomatic carrier in the film, though is is not the true meaning of the term."
I feel that the film is bastardizing science, which isn't the issue. the issue for me is when that bastardization gets carried over to content that is supposed to be factual. I think that people might just read the plot synopsis and gain a misunderstanding of what an asymptomatic carrier is if they don't visit the "asymptomatic carrier page". Okay I've explained my motives changing it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.18.151 ( talk) 20:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
OPENING CREDITS:
END CREDITS:
[Note: total length of on-screen end credits scroll is 7 minutes; detailed below are the initial 2 minutes, 30 seconds]
Made in association with Dune Entertainment LLC
Visual effects supervisor
Sean Mathiesen
Visual effects producer
Tim Field (visual effects)
Supervising sound editor
Glenn Freemantle
Production manager
Kate Penlington
First assistant director
Toby Ford
Second assistant director
Simon Morris (director)
Supervising location manager
Jonah Coombes
Supervising art director
Patrick Rolfe
Set decorator
Michelle Day (set decorator)
Property master
Nick Thomas (film property master)
Production sound mixer
Simon Hayes (sound engineer)
A.M.P.S.
Supervising dialogue editor
Gillian Dodders
2nd unit director of photography
Peter Talbot (cinematographer)
Gaffer
Alex Scott (gaffer)
Special effects supervisor
Richard Conway (special effects artist)
Make-up effects designer
Cliff Wallace
Stunt coordinator
Julian Spencer
Production accountant
Wendy Ellerker
Production coordinator
Janine Abery
Script supervisor
Marinella Setti
Post production supervisors
Clare St. John •
Tim Grover (post production supervisor)
Unit publicist
Sarah Clark (unit publicist)
CAST IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE
Alice
Catherine McCormack
Don
Robert Carlyle
Sally
Amanda Walker
Jacob
Shahid Ahmed (actor)
Geoff
Garfield Morgan
Karen
Emily Beecham
Boy in cottage
Beans Balawi
Doyle
Jeremy Renner
Flynn
Harold Perrineau
Scarlet
Rose Byrne
Tammy
Imogen Poots
Andy
Mackintosh Muggleton
DLR soldier
Meghan Popiel
Stone
Idris Elba
Military officer
Stewart Alexander (actor)
Senior medical officer
Philip Bulcock
Rooftop sniper
Chris Ryman
Soldier
Tristan Tait
Medical officer
William Meredith (actor)
Bunker soldier
Matt Reeves (actor)
Bunker major
Thomas Garvey (actor)
Medical centre lobby soldier
Tom Bodell
Carpark soldier
Andrew Byron
Carpark civilians
Sarah Finigan
Roderic Culver
Maeve Ryan (actress)
Ed Coleman (actor)
Karen Meagher
Amanda Lawrence
Simon Delaney (actor)
Drew Rhys-Williams
Sam
Raymond Waring
Depot man
Kish Sharma
Depot woman
Jane Thorne (actress)
Stunt players
Lucy Allen (stunt player) •
David Anders (stunt player) •
Andrew Bradshaw •
Michael Byrch •
Stephanie Carey •
Tony Christian •
Abbi Collins •
Claire Hayhurst •
Paul Herbert (stunt player) •
Jason Hunjan •
Rob Hunt (stunt player) •
Eunice Huthart •
Jo McLaren •
Dominic Preece •
John Street (stunt player) •
Arran Topham
Art director
Denis Schnegg
Standby art director
Christopher Wyatt (art director)
Assistant art directors
Gareth Cousins (art director) •
Katrina Dunn (art director)
Production buyer
Kathryn Pyle
Art department assistant
Guy Bevitt
Graphic artist
Kathy Heaser
Storyboard artist
Kote Camacho
Art department runner
Nadine Herrmann
Art trainees
Anna Thomas (storyboard artist) •
Bethan Jones
Camera operator
Tony Jackson (camera operator)
Camera operator/steadicam
Julian Morson
Focus pullers
Clive Prior •
Nathan Mann •
Graeme Campbell (film technician)
Clapper loaders
Phil Humphries •
Woody Gregson •
John Evans (film technician)
Grip
Sam Phillips (film crew)
Additional grip
Malcolm McGilchrist
Trainee grip
Patrick Quarshic
Film trainee
Sally Wright
Video assist
Lizzie Kelly (video technician)
Video & computer playback
Richard Shean
Visual effects editor
Emanuele Giraldo
1st assistant editor
Tina Richardson (film editor)
Current wrong names: Leslie Mann as Alice Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Don Katherine Heigl as Sally Tom Cruise as Geoff Amanda Bynes as Karen Kodi Smit-McPhee as Boy in cottage Hugo Weaving as Doyle Jonathan Andrew Hume as Flynn Emma Thompson as Scarlet Dakota Fanning as Tammy Kodi Smit-McPhee as Andy Ving Rhames as Stone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjrudell ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
28 Weeks Later. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on 28 Weeks Later. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on 28 Weeks Later. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Wrath X: Per WP:BRD, you were supposed to initiate a discussion in the talk page before reverting, but I digress. If you're in favor of removing the sources from the infobox, then why leave the production companies and the distributors with inline citations? Aren't these part of the credit billing? It doesn't make sense, really. Slightlymad ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
17 149.132.176.66 ( talk) 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
98 149.132.176.66 ( talk) 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)