Misplaced Pages

Talk:28 Days Later: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:07, 5 May 2006 editDmoon1 (talk | contribs)6,402 editsm {{HorrorWikiProject}}← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:54, 4 April 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,879,760 editsm Remove unknown param from WP Science Fiction: typeTag: AWB 
(286 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{FilmsWikiProject}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{HorrorWikiProject}}
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes|British-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Horror|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject London|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{To do}}
{{Annual readership}}


{{Refideas|https://www.nme.com/features/film-interviews/28-days-later-interview-anniversary-cillian-murphy-danny-boyle-3340282}}
And then what happens? Is there supposed to be more after the text cuts off? - ] 18:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
{{archives}}
:Watch the film! That is supposed to be more, it's just not finished yet. Add a note explaining that if you think it's warranted! --]


== Infection Film Category needed ==
This is ridiculous. I bet this plot synopsis is longer than the treatment. One short paragraph is enough for just about any film. Can someone trim this? -] 03:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


A new category of film is needed because non zombie films are being lumped together with zombie ones. 28 Days Later (28DL from now on) is about people infected with a virus, and do not fall into the two definitions of a zombie: a voodoo controlled slave or a cannibalistic reanimated corpse.
*Why? Yes it's longer than most other movie articles, but why does that bother you? It is very well-written and I find that its length detracts nothing from the article and in fact adds to it. I think its fine the length it is. -] 10:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The confusion comes from the the film's plot- a potentially apocalyptic event where people attack each other/infect each other. However, the plot of the movie does define what something is, it merely defines a sequence of events told in the story. You could replace zombie with "infected" or "mutant" or "cursed" and you have the same type of film, but none of those films are zombie films.
:Nothing wrong with long articles - ] 18:40, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


If the subjects in a film do not follow the definitions of what they are, then you can't classify it as a zombie film. 28DL needs to be moved to an infection category and out of the zombie category. ] (]) 22:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
----
:The article contains several references that classify this film as a zombie film. Also, this article is already part of the ]. Your comments may be better suited for the ] talk page. ] (]) 23:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
::And I have posted several links that refute the claim it's a zombie film. Again, everyone seems to be avoiding the point that this movie's virus victims do not follow Misplaced Pages's own definition of zombie, and have been avoiding it in their arguments for (literally) years. I admit I'm frustrated at this point, so we will see what can be done on the ] page.] (]) 04:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
The window of opportunuity for filming just after dawn was small? It was reported that the normal activity had been removed by computers.
:Perhaps some was (though I'd not heard that) but it was definately filmed after dawn and before London got massively busy. ] ] 16:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Apparently, the police were very helpful in closing streets for 5 mins at a time, and because they were filming digitally, they could set up and pack up quick enough for them to make this work. The police also slowed traffic on the M1 for them at the right moments to film those cool M1 shots. I expect if anything was edited out by computer, it would have been stuff in the background. --] 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Criticism/Public Reaction ==


I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Why is there no section on criticism or public reaction?
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0%2C%2C2073292%2C00.html
*I presume because nobody has felt fit to add one yet, feel free but be careful about ]! :-) -- ] 16:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030070540/http://www.bravotv.com/The_100_Scariest_Movie_Moments/index.shtml to http://www.bravotv.com/The_100_Scariest_Movie_Moments/index.shtml
:*There is one now :) ] 16:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/18425
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0%2C6903%2C836839%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831234938/http://www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=2322 to http://www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=2322


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== "England"? ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
I think it's more appropriate to describe the film as being set in 'Great Britain', as the situation would have been the same across the whole of the island. Changed. ] 20:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
##Eh, that's me above. ] 20:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 12:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, there is no such thing as the England island. Please check up on your geography. This is what drove me to make the above changes. Referring to Great Britian (the island) or the United Kingdom, as 'England', is very irritating, especially to Scottish and Welsh people. ] 21:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


== storyboards == == External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I've replaced the word 'pictures' with 'storyboards', because in every case I've ever seen, that's what really was used when filling in unfilmed holes in stories on DVD extras. If this case is an exception then feel free to change it back. Also included a link to ] ] 15:19, 2005 May 27 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
== Spread Beyond the UK? ==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012031055/http://www.moviehole.net/news/20070328_28_months_later.html to http://www.moviehole.net/news/20070328_28_months_later.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I should think the disease would have spread beyond England throughout the entirety of the land-linked continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. The problem is the English Channel Tunnel; the Infected could have crossed from there onto the continental mainland. From there, they would have spread througout the entire world, with only the Americas, Australia and the various islands of the world being beyond their reach. Ergo, the section limiting the plague to UK should be deleted, unless of course it was so limited in the film? Tom S.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:It's never made clear in the film how far it's spread. They say at the beginning that the infection reached Paris and New York, but of course Jim sees the plane going overhead, the army guy espouses his quarantine theory, and the Finnish air force arrive at the end. We can speculate, as viewers, but here in the article we've got to stick to the facts - the article notes that it's ambiguous as to how far the virus spread but that the general suggestion is it was limited to the UK, and I think that covers the situation pretty well. ] 21:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
::I'm pretty sure the French would have quarantined the Chunnel pretty early, and then filled it in later on. ] 05:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: English 465 Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction=={{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/San_Francisco_State_University/English_465_Post-Apocalyptic_Science_Fiction_(Spring_2022) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ], ], ] | start_date = 2022-01-22 | end_date = 2022-05-13 }}
==Other Comments==


== Alternate Endings ==


Currently, this section states, "The DVD extras include three alternative endings, '''''all of which conclude with Jim dying'''''. One of these was filmed, which involved Jim dying of his gunshot wounds. In another, the outbreak is revealed to be a dream. The third, a more radical departure, was presented only in storyboards; instead of Frank being killed by soldiers after being infected, the other survivors tie him up and discover a research laboratory at the blockade, where Jim undergoes a blood transfusion in order to save Frank."
It isn't very feasible that the virus spread beyond the UK. As noted in the main article, the virus is triggered much too fast for an infected person to take a long trans-Atlantic flight and successfully land. Even if in some bizzare folly they made it to France (by Chunnel) or to New York, it would be fairly easy to contain them (shoot them, etc) by local police.


It says all three endings include Jim dying.
The main reason England is desoalte isn't because "everyone is dead", as is the common theme in "Dawn of the Dead" films, its because the majority of the population has been evacuated off the island.
Then it lists three, only one of which (the first) mentions Jim dying.
1. Jim dies of gunshot.
2. Outbreak is a dream. (how does that result in Jim's death?)
3. Jim's blood is used to save Frank (does Jim die from that medical procedure?)


Suggesting that, if pointing out that all 3 have Jim dying is an important fact, then the subsequent descriptions of all 3 alternate endings should support that fact and indicate how Jim died in each. Or, if that's not an important fact related to the alt endings, then simply say there are three alt endings (followed by the three summaries). ] (]) 14:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
The main article also makes a great point that a human could not run around with reckless abandon, let alone live, without water for weeks and weeks.

A question I would have, is if the infected are so filled with rage they attack anyone they see, why don't they attack each other?

However you can't pick apart the plot too much. This was a very good film with good acting and I think it was a direct inspiration for the "running zombies" in "]" (2004).
This trait of fast moving zombies really gave the whole "zombie films" a refreshing twist. Recently I saw "]" and when compared with 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead (2004) the slow moving undead seem boring and less than threatening.

-- There is no explanation given *why* the infected only attack the uninfected, but one can easily assume that the virus causes them to attack only those who are not behaving the same way they do or who don't smell or look like them.

==Other Comments on the spread of the virus ==

On balance, I would suspect that the virus remains in the UK mainland and perhaps has not travelled to all corners of the UK. Assuming that no mutated versions of the virus exist (e.g., a longer latent gestation period or a trans-species infection of birds or mammals), here's my rationale:

1)spread beyond the mainland UK by air travel is extremely unlikely. Armoured cockpit doors means it is theoretically possible to fly an aircraft long distances even if all inhabitants of the passenger areas were infected. However, if even one infected were on an aircraft, it would not take off. If an infected stowed away in a wheel arch, which is completely atypical behaviour for infected humans, then they would feeze to death as other stowaways do. There are only two feasible, if unlikely possibilities for air-based spread of infected beyond the mainland UK; (1) a specimen removed from the mainland UK for study breaks lose or infected others(seems highly unlikely, adn thus a very likely film plot); (2) an infected clings to the exterior of a hastily departing helicopter that he was chasing - he hangs on as long as it takes to get, say, from a collapsing pocket of non-infected humans in southeast England to France. Assuming the French don't shoot the chopper down or it crashes for obvious reasons.

2) spread beyond the mainland UK by sea transport is still unlikely but slightly more feasible. Once again though, ships theoretically wouldn’t leave harbour with infected aboard and there would be limited chance that infected would get aboard unnoticed. As in the above helicopter scenario, they might have leapt towards a ship or boat that is hastily pulling away as the dock is overrun by infected who are ostensibly in pursuit of the humans boarding it. The bridge of a ship or boat would be much harder to keep secure against the infected, and thus there might be little ability to control the ship’s destination. It might never get out of harbour, it might wreck, but there is a small chance it might drift across the France and be impossible to contain where it beaches. Or perhaps the boat could carry a specimen, as mentioned in the air travel section above. On balance, however, any of the above spread scenarios are low probability. And I think we can assume that the infected can’t swim, and would not be capable of the abstract thought required to attempt to swim the English Channel or the Irish Sea.

3) spread beyond the mainland UK by the Channel Tunnel. This could theoretically be aboard a train – a Eurostar – in which an infected once again clings onto a hastily departing or passing train (pursuing non-infected humans) and the infection spreads through the carriages. The train driver could theoretically be safe against attack but would surely know that the train was compromised. And assuming even a modicum of military and government authority remains, the train would be identified as compromised by the government and train operators (assuming power and other infrastructural breakdowns have not already killed off the service). Would we stop the train, would the French have automatically closed the tunnel (yes!) and suspended the service days before the virus got to London (yes!)? Same with air and sea travel probably.

Now, what about infected moving by foot through the tunnel? The first issue is motivation – why would the infected run down a 30 mile tunnel that is somewhat out of the way and hardly crying out for their attention? The only reason – a recurring theme in my scenarios – is because the infected are themselves “spreading through” a chain of refugees like a forest fire. If such a chain were leading from an imploding population center or survivor enclave to the Channel Tunnel, then maybe the infected would follow too and would spread through the queues of refugees tramping through the tunnel. But let’s do a reality check; would the French, or even the British for that matter, be allowing anyone to leave the UK? No-one would know whether some strand of the disease had a latent period, and hence NO-ONE would be allowed out until long after a 28 day observation period.

My model so far assumes that the main mechanism spreading the virus throughout the UK are refugee columns. The outbreak begins in the suburb of a northern city. It eats up the city and spreads through networks of semi-urban communities. But it would probably burn out as it hit sparsely populated areas or at least be contained in the north. As densely populated as Britain is, there is no continuous urban sprawl all the way to London, and the infected do not seem to aimlessly search for uninfected humans, they must be drawn to them by sight, sound, or smell. The only likely cause for the infected moving through depopulated areas is uncontrolled refugee columns. There are probably many areas of the UK that have never been visited by refugee columns and are outside the “stagger range” or the “sight/sound/smell interest zone” of the infected. Of course the dynamic of refugee columns is that they will aim for wherever is not infected, and thus increase the chance that it will become infected, but nonetheless there will be corners of Britain no-one thought to trek towards in huge numbers. And then there is N Ireland and the offshore islands, plus Royal Navy ships, which I’m guessing is where continuity of government is.

Taking what we see in the film as canon, how do we explain the lack of radio signals from elsewhere in the UK or the outer world? That’s tricky. I’d say there’s a couple of possibilities that can be used to support a “UK mainland only” theory. First, the UK government may wish to keep local communities locked-down and not forming new refugee columns to come towards the remaining survivor enclaves. This is problematic and hokey, but might be a reason for the lack of UK government signals. Second, the UK government may be paralysed or believe all are dead after almost all radio signals died out within 28 days. Again hokey but possible. Third, there may be great fear and uncertainty that the infected retain certain motor functions or are even fully intelligent. Yeah, super-hokey, I know, but worth a thought at least. Or maybe the two characters we see using radios – the taxi driver and the military guys – simply missed signals or ignored scattered ones? Would appreciate any thoughts out there. On why the world would be silent; God knows. I can only point to the above three ideas writ large.

On random thoughts, I would say the infected “know each other” in the way that primates know members of their own species. The cue to attack must have a visual element because the infected failed to find the girl hiding behind the mirror just a foot away. But it might be that they acquire a new target or curious activity visually or by sound, and aggressively move to investigate. On approaching they have some way of recognizing other infected – a strong pheromone, an instinctive psychic or psycho-electrical aura? I suspect they are drawn to another infected who is in a killer frenzy - like sharks drawn to a feeding frenzy. I also suspect that they have some sensitivity to strong daylight and prefer to huddle together when they are not pursuing prey.

On “28 weeks later” I have been thinking about roleplaying game scenarios for just this type of story. My frontrunners are based around UK or US special forces returning to the UK to bag two live specimens – male and female – and to check for any mutation in the virus. Reckon they’d take these prizes to Gruinard Island (our old anthrax testing ground) to a test facility. A key question one would need to know if whether the virus can mutate, and whether the infected are capable of abstract thought or self-care or, worse yet, of breeding ...

::The outbreak doesn't begin in the "suburb of a northern city", it begins at the University of Cambridge. I doubt very much that there were "refugee columns" - this isn;t the Black Death in medieval England, it's a modern disease in a modern city. Everyone in the UK is within a few hours of an airport, so why would they need to form refugee columns when they could just get on a plane? There's a lot of things about the film which don;t make sense: the survivors can't pick up any radio signals even though the world is still alive and well, the outside world makes no effort to contact any survivors (at least until the very end), Selena says the disease spread through rural areas even though it started in a city, there's no way the British Army could cordon off even half of London, let alone every town and city in the country, Jim just glances at the newspaper he finds whereas any normal person would read it from cover to cover, etc etc. There's a lot of plot holes, but if you analyse them too much you stop appreciating the film for what it is - a very good piece of storytelling! ] 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

== Significance of 28 Days ==

Is there any significance to the period of time 28 days? I have seen it used in different places, incuding the Australian punk band, 28 days.--] 01:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:28 days is exactly four weeks, which is also the length of February, the shortest month. ] 05:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
::except for during ]s (re:]).
== Shaun of the Dead ==

Surely ] was mainly inpspired by ] (the remake of which came out a few months before Shaun...). Yes you can draw paralells between Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later, but you probably can with any zombie movie. I put forward a motion to have that bit taken out. --] 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
:I would say leave it in, Shaun of the Dead makes direct reference to 28 Days Later and I'd dare say it inspired Shaun in the sense that the success of 28 Days Later helped them get their UK zombie movie made and released as well... Also I wouldn't say that Shaun is mainly inspired by ]'s ] in particular (aside from the title of course) but then that's a question for the Shaun page...
::You haven't convinced me, but unless anyone else says it should be taken out, I won't change it. --] 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:::It should be taken out. I haven't seen any interviews with the "Shaun" filmmakers to indicate they were at all inspired by "28 Days Later" but they have acknowledged a debt to Romero. (They were invited to be zombies in "Land of the Dead", and there's a special feature on the DVD that's basically a home movie of their experience on the shoot. It's quite clear that they were thrilled to meet George Romero, let alone work with him.)] 00:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

== Satallite Communication ==

"Taking what we see in the film as canon, how do we explain the lack of radio signals from elsewhere in the UK or the outer world?"

If the rest of the world has been spared, the soldiers could of established satallite communication. Or Jim could have just tuned in to CNN on Sky.
:Except for CNN on Sky being uplinked from the UK, which has no power ;) --] 19:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
:The soliders had power so why could they not use satallites? If they did not have a satallite dish, they could just commender one froma house. 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
::They'd need a dish, box, television, and the know-how on how to align it. Although based on the purloined consumer electronics in the house I'm sure they had at least on decoder... The only channels on 28E, the normal UK satellite position, that are uplinked from outside the UK are ], ], ], ], ], ] and the Irish government-ownedf radio channels.... anyway, its a movie, its fictional, stuff doesn't have to be realistic. --] 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
:The soldiers seemed quite firm in their belief, other than the one soldier (Corporal?), that the rest of the world was annhialated. That is what caused the despair that lead to their mentioned suicidal tendencies and the officer's plan to offer them women as a hope for rebuilding society. The soldiers did not 'want' to try to contact anyone outside because they believed they were the only ones left.

:: Ever consider that the soldiers were happier pretending to be the last survivors of the human race? If they simply pretended to their "rescued" civilians that they were the last protective group in the world, they could (and apparently did) get up to whatever they wanted. They almost certainly know the world outside of Britain is alive, but pretend it's not so they can act in whatever way they want

Latest revision as of 17:54, 4 April 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 28 Days 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, 2, 3
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFilm: British / American
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconHorror High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLondon Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconScience Fiction Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for 28 Days Later: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-01-25

  • Plot: Creation
  • Filming Details: Change to Production, redo, merge technical aspects.
  • References, References, References.


The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Infection Film Category needed

A new category of film is needed because non zombie films are being lumped together with zombie ones. 28 Days Later (28DL from now on) is about people infected with a virus, and do not fall into the two definitions of a zombie: a voodoo controlled slave or a cannibalistic reanimated corpse.

The confusion comes from the the film's plot- a potentially apocalyptic event where people attack each other/infect each other. However, the plot of the movie does define what something is, it merely defines a sequence of events told in the story. You could replace zombie with "infected" or "mutant" or "cursed" and you have the same type of film, but none of those films are zombie films.

If the subjects in a film do not follow the definitions of what they are, then you can't classify it as a zombie film. 28DL needs to be moved to an infection category and out of the zombie category. Larylich (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The article contains several references that classify this film as a zombie film. Also, this article is already part of the Films about viral outbreaks category. Your comments may be better suited for the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film talk page. AldezD (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
And I have posted several links that refute the claim it's a zombie film. Again, everyone seems to be avoiding the point that this movie's virus victims do not follow Misplaced Pages's own definition of zombie, and have been avoiding it in their arguments for (literally) years. I admit I'm frustrated at this point, so we will see what can be done on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film page.Larylich (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 28 Days 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 28 Days 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

==Wiki Education assignment: English 465 Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NRobinson22 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Andreanicolecruz, Kgroft, Frankiefoyjames.

Alternate Endings

Currently, this section states, "The DVD extras include three alternative endings, all of which conclude with Jim dying. One of these was filmed, which involved Jim dying of his gunshot wounds. In another, the outbreak is revealed to be a dream. The third, a more radical departure, was presented only in storyboards; instead of Frank being killed by soldiers after being infected, the other survivors tie him up and discover a research laboratory at the blockade, where Jim undergoes a blood transfusion in order to save Frank."

It says all three endings include Jim dying. Then it lists three, only one of which (the first) mentions Jim dying. 1. Jim dies of gunshot. 2. Outbreak is a dream. (how does that result in Jim's death?) 3. Jim's blood is used to save Frank (does Jim die from that medical procedure?)

Suggesting that, if pointing out that all 3 have Jim dying is an important fact, then the subsequent descriptions of all 3 alternate endings should support that fact and indicate how Jim died in each. Or, if that's not an important fact related to the alt endings, then simply say there are three alt endings (followed by the three summaries). 140.32.12.101 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories: