This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Daybreakers 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Come on, sombody post the plot already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.33.41 ( talk) 20:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, someone re-write the plot. Hopefully, on the second go-around, it will be written by an individual who passed grammar school. 174.0.56.57 ( talk) 04:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
seriously i'm glad someone else has addressed this already. the synopsis is a mess. the fact that Frankie is Edward's brother should be mentioned at the beginning, not the end, and what a sub-sider happens to be is never addressed. Secretstars ( talk) 04:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting source with a rather unique take, for the "critical reception" section, if anyone wants to work it in.
Rd232 talk 14:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with this observation. The written plot synopsis is informative and clear, why make it too basic? I propose removing the template.-- TheBearPaw ( talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If nobody minds if it takes me over the course of the next week or so, I'd be willing to take a crack at slimming the plot section down; it seems like good practice for a paid writing gig I'm hoping to get. I'm just about to re-watch the movie so I can make the notes for a short outline and go from there. But I'd feel more comfortable doing it in chunks. To that end, would it be appropriate/acceptable for me to post my "as you go" work on my own page and have others vote on it, or the talk page here, or just go for it? I've mostly only done minor edits on wiki and similar platforms so for something bigger like this, I could use some guidance on best method. Millahnna ( talk) 05:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've taken two "clean up" passes at it now (and probably borked something) and cut it down to 584 words (was originally 700-ish). But I still think it needs a complete re-write only keeping minimal text from its current version. Some critical plot elements, in my mind anyway, have been left out while unimportant details are included and the timeline of the movie is all out of whack in a way that actually made the cleanup really challenging. Real life permitting, and if no one beats me to it, I should be able to jump on it by Friday. Suggestions welcome. Millahnna ( talk) 11:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I can decimate this anymore. It's down to 470 words and has a better flow now. I added some wikilinks that seemed logical enough and I think it does a better job of summarizing the main events. There's one or two details in there I'm not sure are strictly necessary. But again, 470 words. So I'm not sure cutting them matters. Millahnna (mouse) talk 04:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that the film was more anti corporate activism symbolically told through vampires, more than it was a horror movie? The film, did rail against corporations quite a bit, specifically speaking the fictional worldwide corporation Bromley Marks. Australia has always been a hot spot for anti corporate activism, reason being because, far as the anglo sphere is concerned they always get the short end of the stick. Australia is by no means a dirt poor country, economically, its actually quite prosperous, however, the country has suffered a lot from corporate scandals, hence the reason so much anti corporate media comes out of the country, at least that's my guess I could be mistaken.
Personally, although that's just me, I can't think of a better creature to use to criticize corporate culture, than vampires. With "blood" representing everything from money, to stocks, and what happens to executives, when they don't get enough of it. Sorry for typing as if though this were a forum, however I am just pointing out how saturated the movie is with anti-corporate sentiment. I mean, have industrialized countries, become "vampire societies" where you MUST be a "vampire" in order to survive? In the end though I could be mistaken; perhaps the writers just chose a corporate theme to "strike close to home," the majority of people the world over who are employed, who work in some sort of office job, work for a corporation, hence to make the movie creepier, they chose that theme it may have never been their intention to deliberately criticize corporations. Are there any links to actual interviews, or reliable internet articles that talk about what the film's writer's intentions were?
Again, to conclude this bit of discussion, the film is saturated, and I mean saturated, with a decided hostility towards the corporate world, the only thing more prevalent in the movie besides blood and gore, is the hostility towards the corporate world. My thanks to Wikipedia Corporation for letting me type this, the Microsoft Corporation which is using a form of windows which lets me interface with this computer, and the Dell corporation for letting me connect to the internet! Is Wikipedia a corporation?
67.148.120.105 ( talk) 09:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)stardingo747
It is true that the movie has an anti-corporate message, but I would say that is nothing special but normal. In my experience nearly every science-fiction movie (especially with a dystopic setting) has a large company in the role of the villian or the main villian represents or is supported by this company. To name a few: Avatar, RoboCop, Blade Runner, I Robot, Rollerball, Outland, Running Man, WALL E etc. And if it is not a huge corporation, it is a undemocratic government. So in my opinion this point is nothing that needs to be emphazised. -- Dodothegoof ( talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In the first scene of the film you can see the April 2019 calendar, it says that 1st april will be on tuesday but actually 01-april-2019 will be monday. Maybe this was done on purpose by the director, maybe it was only an error... I don't know... I don't want to put that information on the main page because someone can think its not appropriate so I write here and if someone with more experience think it is worth mentioning on the main page he or she can move this information there. Hope you found this interesting Lessio ( talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not change the release of this film. The film's release designates what year the film should be placed in, not it's wide-release. This film was first shown in 2009 and therefore, a 2009 film. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 00:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
( ←) I don't really have a problem with the removal but I miss the point of it, the article still needs to categorized in either year. This seems to be just evading the issue at hand. Xeworlebi ( talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
( ←) True, but the point remains. What you want to do would be silly on other articles and counter uniformity. Xeworlebi ( talk) 15:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Daybreakers 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Come on, sombody post the plot already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.33.41 ( talk) 20:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, someone re-write the plot. Hopefully, on the second go-around, it will be written by an individual who passed grammar school. 174.0.56.57 ( talk) 04:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
seriously i'm glad someone else has addressed this already. the synopsis is a mess. the fact that Frankie is Edward's brother should be mentioned at the beginning, not the end, and what a sub-sider happens to be is never addressed. Secretstars ( talk) 04:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting source with a rather unique take, for the "critical reception" section, if anyone wants to work it in.
Rd232 talk 14:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with this observation. The written plot synopsis is informative and clear, why make it too basic? I propose removing the template.-- TheBearPaw ( talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If nobody minds if it takes me over the course of the next week or so, I'd be willing to take a crack at slimming the plot section down; it seems like good practice for a paid writing gig I'm hoping to get. I'm just about to re-watch the movie so I can make the notes for a short outline and go from there. But I'd feel more comfortable doing it in chunks. To that end, would it be appropriate/acceptable for me to post my "as you go" work on my own page and have others vote on it, or the talk page here, or just go for it? I've mostly only done minor edits on wiki and similar platforms so for something bigger like this, I could use some guidance on best method. Millahnna ( talk) 05:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I've taken two "clean up" passes at it now (and probably borked something) and cut it down to 584 words (was originally 700-ish). But I still think it needs a complete re-write only keeping minimal text from its current version. Some critical plot elements, in my mind anyway, have been left out while unimportant details are included and the timeline of the movie is all out of whack in a way that actually made the cleanup really challenging. Real life permitting, and if no one beats me to it, I should be able to jump on it by Friday. Suggestions welcome. Millahnna ( talk) 11:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I can decimate this anymore. It's down to 470 words and has a better flow now. I added some wikilinks that seemed logical enough and I think it does a better job of summarizing the main events. There's one or two details in there I'm not sure are strictly necessary. But again, 470 words. So I'm not sure cutting them matters. Millahnna (mouse) talk 04:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that the film was more anti corporate activism symbolically told through vampires, more than it was a horror movie? The film, did rail against corporations quite a bit, specifically speaking the fictional worldwide corporation Bromley Marks. Australia has always been a hot spot for anti corporate activism, reason being because, far as the anglo sphere is concerned they always get the short end of the stick. Australia is by no means a dirt poor country, economically, its actually quite prosperous, however, the country has suffered a lot from corporate scandals, hence the reason so much anti corporate media comes out of the country, at least that's my guess I could be mistaken.
Personally, although that's just me, I can't think of a better creature to use to criticize corporate culture, than vampires. With "blood" representing everything from money, to stocks, and what happens to executives, when they don't get enough of it. Sorry for typing as if though this were a forum, however I am just pointing out how saturated the movie is with anti-corporate sentiment. I mean, have industrialized countries, become "vampire societies" where you MUST be a "vampire" in order to survive? In the end though I could be mistaken; perhaps the writers just chose a corporate theme to "strike close to home," the majority of people the world over who are employed, who work in some sort of office job, work for a corporation, hence to make the movie creepier, they chose that theme it may have never been their intention to deliberately criticize corporations. Are there any links to actual interviews, or reliable internet articles that talk about what the film's writer's intentions were?
Again, to conclude this bit of discussion, the film is saturated, and I mean saturated, with a decided hostility towards the corporate world, the only thing more prevalent in the movie besides blood and gore, is the hostility towards the corporate world. My thanks to Wikipedia Corporation for letting me type this, the Microsoft Corporation which is using a form of windows which lets me interface with this computer, and the Dell corporation for letting me connect to the internet! Is Wikipedia a corporation?
67.148.120.105 ( talk) 09:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)stardingo747
It is true that the movie has an anti-corporate message, but I would say that is nothing special but normal. In my experience nearly every science-fiction movie (especially with a dystopic setting) has a large company in the role of the villian or the main villian represents or is supported by this company. To name a few: Avatar, RoboCop, Blade Runner, I Robot, Rollerball, Outland, Running Man, WALL E etc. And if it is not a huge corporation, it is a undemocratic government. So in my opinion this point is nothing that needs to be emphazised. -- Dodothegoof ( talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In the first scene of the film you can see the April 2019 calendar, it says that 1st april will be on tuesday but actually 01-april-2019 will be monday. Maybe this was done on purpose by the director, maybe it was only an error... I don't know... I don't want to put that information on the main page because someone can think its not appropriate so I write here and if someone with more experience think it is worth mentioning on the main page he or she can move this information there. Hope you found this interesting Lessio ( talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not change the release of this film. The film's release designates what year the film should be placed in, not it's wide-release. This film was first shown in 2009 and therefore, a 2009 film. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 00:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
( ←) I don't really have a problem with the removal but I miss the point of it, the article still needs to categorized in either year. This seems to be just evading the issue at hand. Xeworlebi ( talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
( ←) True, but the point remains. What you want to do would be silly on other articles and counter uniformity. Xeworlebi ( talk) 15:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)