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 15:12, 21 November 2013 editTheOldJacobite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users95,152 edits →Plot length: new section← 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 
(32 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes|British-task-force=yes}}
|1=
{{WikiProject Horror|importance=High}}
{{Film|class=C|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|American-task-force=yes|British-task-force=yes}}
{{Horror|class=C|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject London|importance=low}}
{{Science Fiction Project|class=C|type=Article }} {{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject London|class=C|importance=low}}
}} }}
{{todo}} {{To do}}
{{Annual readership}}

{{Refideas|https://www.nme.com/features/film-interviews/28-days-later-interview-anniversary-cillian-murphy-danny-boyle-3340282}}
{{archives}} {{archives}}
==References to use==
:''Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.''
*{{cite book | last=Froula | first=Anna | year=2010 | chapter=Prolepsis and the 'War on Terror': Zombie Pathology and the Culture of Fear in ''28 Days Later...'' | editor1-last=Birkenstein | editor1-first=Jeff | editor2-last=Froula | editor2-first=Anna | editor3-last=Randell | editor3-first=Karen | title=Reframing 9/11: Film, Popular Culture, and the "War on Terror" | publisher=Continuum | pages=195–208 | isbn=1441119051 }}
*{{cite book | last1=Murray | first1=Robin L. | last2=Heumann | first2=Joseph K. | year=2009 | chapter=Apocalypse as 'A Return to Normality' in ''28 Days Later'' and ''28 Weeks Later'' | title=Ecology and Popular Film: Cinema on the Edge | series=Horizons of Cinema | publisher=] | pages=181–194 | isbn=0791476774 }}

==Many citations needed==
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. --] 19:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
::The style and inspiration section (the title itself, I think) is a bit troublesome. People keep adding things which ''could'' have been a source of inspiration (Romero's The Crazies, the Survivors BBC series, etc) but without citations. While it's quite possible that they were inpirational, we can't keep adding them or it's just going to be a huge list of works with some parallels to 28DL, and no sources. Perhaps just delete the 'style and inspiration' heading and fold the sourced info there into the production section? ] 00:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I think your point is on the mark. But as a second, wider issue, I think the problem is bigger. There are unsourced statements throughout the article. It seems as if one would be justified in deleting many paragraphs throughout.--] 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Melty girl who is deleting paragraphs? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I think a lot of this info is from the DVD. I'd verify it but my brother is currently using my copy as a coaster. ] 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::Heh heh. And a friend has my copy and has been too nervous to watch it yet! I think you're right about it being in the DVD commentary. I think that's fine where it's indicated in the text, but in many places, it's not made clear. --] 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

== Being made insane/murderous DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE YOU A ZOMBIE!! ==

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 Misplaced Pages'' 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.] 01:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

:Have you ever kissed a girl son? ] 08:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::It is obvious that this issue really bothers you, but your point of view (POV) is not relevant to Misplaced Pages (see ]). The wider pop culture press says that this is a zombie film, and that's whose say matters here (see ]). Please re-read the above sub-section on why recategorizing this film constitutes doing ]. Your comments indicate that you are very confused about how Misplaced Pages works. You can ask all the questions you want and the fact remains that even if you're right and the press is wrong, your POV on what constitutes a zombie film doesn't belong here. --] 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

:::28 Days Later could be the first zombie movie with NO ZOMBIES. I can accept that is a zombie film due to director, producer, industry and popular perception. Also, it *plays* like a zombie movie (perhaps a little like Land of the Dead). '''But this movie does NOT contain any zombies''' and you have the director saying THAT on record{{fact}}. ] 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

::::I am pretty sure that I heard a statement on the special features of the DVD that it is not a Zombie film, BUT there were no other categories existing that could describe the genre better than the zombie one. So it is safe to say it is a Zombie film, because of classification, however there are no actual Zombies in the film. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::Given that the original zombies were made by voodoo sorcerors - they are living humans who have been made mindless by poisonous chemicals - '''this film does indeed have zombies in it'''. Too funny. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

:Should there be a mention that this has invented / influenced a new type of zombie films? OK murderous insane people, whatever, but the fact is that the undead were always shuffling and moany before this film came along. Resident Evil 4, the new Dawn Of The Dead, Dead Set - they've picked these fast vicious people as the de facto new zombie! <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Yes, they are zombies. Will all the ignorant fools please get over it and accept that fact. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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. ] (]) 06:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone has their undies in a bundle. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

He seriously invoked Hitler in a debate about a zombie film. Wow. Prove's ] though. Also that he probably needs a hobby, or to lose his virginity. ] (]) 06:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

:This is not a zombie film. Marketing couldn't figure out how to market this horror film so they stole the zombie label and misused it. Mislabeling a product does not make it true, no matter how many times the people that mislabel it stay it's true. As per the zombie definition on Misplaced Pages, zombies are either reanimated corpses or people in trances controlled by a wizard. 28 Days later are neither- they are living crazed virus victims. The label "zombie" needs to be removed from this film. ] (]) 07:04, 17 March 2011 (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. ] (]) 10:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

==About the Finnish jet and request for helicopter==

'''''The following was copied from ]:'''''

'''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 ], 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 '']''. Thanks, ] 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:The company that released the film translated the film, and although they probably screw up a few words--watch a film in dubbed mode, and in subtitle mode, and you'll find differences in words--the events of the plot are still the same. A plot section shouldn't be quoting characters all that often to begin with. If a subtitle says Finish, or French, or Australian, you can probably assume ''that'' isn't incorrect. The things that are generally incorrect in subtitles are usually words that have many meanings in different cultures. ] ] 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not sure how this speaks to what I'm asking, because the films in question do NOT have subtitles. These are two English-language films where one, very quick, non-English sentence occurs and it's not translated for the audience (one film's sentence is supposedly in Finnish, the other definitely in Czech). There were no subtitles for either of these snippets of dialogue -- Wiki editors have done the translations themselves. I think that the presence of the translations in Wiki could be seen as altering the meaning the plot for most English-speakers, but at the very least, I'm not sure the translations are verifiable. Therefore, I've asked if each translation requires a citation. And if it was explained on the DVD extras, should the DVD be cited as the source, or in that case, is no citation required? Alternately, does the translation even belong in the Plot section at all, since there was no subtitle in the first place? --] 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::Hmm, tricky. I think it is worth mentioning in the synopsis, as long as you stress that it is not subtitled, and hence the non-Finnish viewer (i.e. 99% of the film's audience) will interpret the film differently (perhaps it belongs in a subsection of the synopsis at the end?). My two cents. As to citations, if it is mentioned in the DVD extras, cite them, because the reader is not psychic. If not, the simplest thing would be to go to ] and ask someone there to verify that it is Finnish and to suggest a translation. Trouble is, any translation would be original research. Still, the pilot is probably saying something quite simple, so perhaps the best thing is to provide a transcript of the pilot's words in Finnish, followed by an English translation, so that other users can evaluate the translation to ensure its accuracy. ] 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Did the radio dialogue impact the overall plot itself? Do we know what was actually spoken? If not on both accounts, then it probably isn't important enough to recount in the plot. ] ] 18:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:::: Well, the last word spoken by the characters as the jet flies over is "Do you think he saw us?" Then the pilot says over his radio (in Finnish) "Send a helicopter". So the ending is a happy one if you speak Finnish but for everyone else it's ambiguous whether they will be rescued or not. I think this is interesting enough to be mentioned, although perhaps in a separate section, not in the synopsis itself. ] 18:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::::: Much agreement with your observations, Cop 663. I don't really think it should go in the Plot section, but then the question is, where to put it? And if it's not explained on the DVD, can it really translated at all without being original research? Second, about '']'' -- the translation there also alters the ambiguity of the plot, and perhaps more radically. One character supposedly tells the other that she loves him, but since she's speaking in Czech, neither he nor 99% of the English-speaking audience knows what she says (she refuses to translate and there are no subtitles). So the all same questions apply -- and in that case, the DVD isn't out yet. --] 18:39, 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. '']'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 '']'', 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 <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> 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. ]&nbsp;] 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Regarding ''28 Days Later'': if the Finnish phrase was a whole paragraph, I'd be wary of original research, but it's only two words, "Lähetättekö helikopterin?", and I'm pretty sure I know what the latter word means! In this case, I think an English-Finnish dictionary would be an acceptable source for what "Lähetättekö" means. Again, the Finland WikiProject people would probably be glad to help. As to where to put it, perhaps in the section on alternative endings, under a subheader 'ambiguity of the original ending'?:
::: Regarding ''Once'', I'm hesitant to comment on a film I haven't seen, but it seems like the audience is meant to leave asking the question "what did she say?", and since there's nothing to stop them hunting down a Czech person to reveal the answer, there's also no reason for Misplaced Pages to censor the information, as long as it's stressed that the line is untranslated. Again, it's just two words, "Miluju tebe", so you'd think a Czech-English dictionary would be a good enough verification. ] 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Doctor Sunshine, I think in both cases, it's intended to be ambiguous, and therefore, I think it should be probably be deleted or moved to the Production section. ''Once'' is not a typical intimate "I-love-you" moment -- it isn't obvious like you suggest it might be, because the character's intention is that the other character not know what she's said. He asks her if she's still in love with her husband; she smiles enigmatically and answers in Czech. He keeps asking her to translate her answer, and she won't say and changes the subject. A Czech-speaking editor dropped by the ''Once'' page and wrote that what she says is, "It is you who I love." But an audience could not guess that that was how she answered the question about her husband. The reason I think translation qualifies as original research is because it's not verifiable -- after all, how do we know if that Czech translation is accurate? On what basis do we trust one editor's original translation?
::::Cop663, I think I disagree with you this time. In both cases, the non-Finnish-speaking and non-Czech-speaking audience could probably not reliably take in what the words in question were and walk away to ask. The Finnish and Czech speaking-editors say what they think the sentences were, but that's not really verifiable for the English-speaking audience or the English-speaking Misplaced Pages. Perhaps after the ''Once'' DVD comes out we could try to figure out what she says (or perhaps they will reveal it on the extras), but for now, how can we be absolutely sure that she does say "Miluju tebe"? Doesn't seem verifiable. And it seems like it was primarily intended to be ambiguous. So I think it shouldn't really be presented in the Plot section, since 99% of the audience wouldn't have any idea what she said. --] 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::::: Well, that's a fair point. And I can't find "Lähetättekö" in any online Finnish dictionaries, so things may be more complex than they seem. ] 20:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Lähetättekö helikopterin? = Will you send a helicopter? Lähettää is the basic form, -tkö adds the question here and -te tells that the question is addressed to multiple people. It's hard to find Finnish words in dictionaries since there are so many possible inflections for everything. Just FYI since I'm not really a reliable source for an article. - ] 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Wow. Would you be able to find a reliable online dictionary to footnote a translation? I would need to get the ''28 Days Later'' DVD back from a friend and see how clearly it comes across in the film (to my non-Finnish-speaking ears) -- or do you have access to a copy? --] 07:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I've never seen the film so I've no idea if there's any reason to include the line. Citing a dictionary is generally pointless, someone with some knowledge of the language would know what the base word was and could verify it by himself, someone who doesn't wouldn't be helped by linking to words that don't match the inflected form. The German and Finnish Misplaced Pages articles do mention the line, so you could just follow their lead and pretend that the interwikilinks in the article are sources. And the actual sentence in the film seems to be "lähetätkö helikopterin" (instead of lähetättekö), which still translates to "will you send a helicopter", it's just addressed to the singular "you". - ] 12:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

::Those crazy Finns, always complicating matters... ;)
::I think the matter comes down to one of Original research. If the director had intended us to know what the pilot was saying, then there would have been subtitling, either in the actual film or in the closed captioning. there isn't. that one editor knows Finnish means that he is applying his primary knowledge to the film, and that's not what we are supposed to do. If that's all we are going on here, it doesn't matter if it changes the ending of the film (which, imo it doesn't ; the characters though they were alonein not being zombified, and then a jet passes overhead, letting them know they aren't), any application of your knowledge is primary knowledge, and it cannot be used.
::That being said, I am not sure how we jump if the Finnish wiki (didn't even know there was one) says, 'yarg, it be troo dat deh pilot, he be saying such a theeng about the helio-copter' (wait, don't all Finns sound like pirates?), as it is plot observance to ''them'' and the rest of the film is subtitled or dubbed for them. I suspect it would be akin to an ]-like sharing program. However, that would have tobe something that was built, as it is not something already in place. - ] ] 20:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:::BTW, the change in the 28DL ending is not a question of whether they know they're lone surivivors or not. By the ending, they already know they're not, because they've already seen multiple jets. The issue is that supposedly the Finnish pilot's radio communication lets the audience know that he's calling for a helicopter, meaning that the protagonists will be rescued. Without that information, it is unclear whether the characters will be rescued or left where they are, since they've signaled for help previously. --] 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:I have to agree that if it isn't within the film's translated content itself, then it is no different than any other form of interpretive analysis, which alone would be original research. ''However'', if a translation can be reliably sourced, it would be just as acceptable as any other NPOV-described sourced analysis. I wouldn't, however, put it in the plot section. ] 21:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::I think thats the crux of the problem here. there doesn't appear to be one, except for one contributor who input what the pilot was saying. - ] ] 21:11, 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. ]&nbsp;] 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the insight on where to put it if sourcing turns up. For now, I've deleted both. --] 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::Just out of curiously, isn't most unsubtitled speech not important at all, and just for the background? ] 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Not in the example from ''Once'', described above. ] 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::: Ehh I'm Finnish and I can guarantee 100 % that the pilot says either ''Lähetätkö helikopterin'' or ''lähetättekö helikopterin'', both those translate to ''will you send a helicopter'' anyway (singular / plural). I don't have the DVD so I cannot check which one is the truth...but also the blue / white circle on the side of the plane is also the symbol of the Finnish air forces] (]) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::::That's nice, but you're not a published ]. --] (]) 01:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

::::You are also wrong about the insignia. It is not Finnish Air Force insignia but the ] insignia (which is blue/white/red). Clearly visible when you pause the dvd. ] (]) 14:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

'''More on this topic for ].''' A quote from ]: ''"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --<font color="#7E2217">]</font> <font color="#C35817">]</font> 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.
] (]) 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::Okay, I just checked the UK DVD of this film. First, I agree it does sound a bit like "Lads, get a helicopter in" but it also sounds very like "Lähetättekö helikopterin", and the accent on the syllables "helicopter"/"helikopter" is not English. Second, when the English subtitles are switched on, this line is ''not'' subtitled, backing up the supposition that it is not English (i.e. not meant to be understood by the audience - as someone else mentioned above, the point is that the survivors now know they are not alone - tho I suspect there is also an intention to create a bit of uncertainty on the viewer's part, as to whether they're going to be rescued or bombed!). Third, and here we have our source, in the scene-by-scene commentary from ] and ] they explicitly say it was supposed to be a Finnish jet. ] (]) 16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Resetting indent. . 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 Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 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 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier</ref>, but rather a Hawker Hunter <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/Hawker_Hunter</ref>. 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 <ref>http://www.amazon.ca/Janes-Aircraft-Recognition-Guide-Rendall/dp/0004709802/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358059032&sr=1-5</ref>, 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! ] (]) 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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Parody Correction==
Hi, all. I added ]'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.)
] (]) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

==Little Talking Kid==

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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:With the exception of the kid at the gas station, the ''only'' people Jim kills are the uninfected soliders at the compound in Manchester. If we can believe what Major West tells the survivors when he shows them Mailer, the Infected can't speak coherently. This implied to me that the little boy at the gas station ''wasn't'' infected after all - that he was some kind of desperate holdout who had managed to survive there and attacked Jim out of paranoia or fear, forcing Jim to defend himself in such a brutally lethal fashion.

::Sorry for being so rude, but are you blind?! The infected boy's eyes were big and red, and there was blood around his nose and mouth, so he was obviously infected. Now, to the topic about the infected kid talking thing. As the infected boy talking was due to the people-shouting-thing being too loud, AND in the 28 Days Later comics Gordon and Sergeant Luis Rodriguez told survivors from infected by seeing whether or not they spoke, I'd assume that the infected do not speak, and therefore that the boy speaking doesn't count as an infected talking. ] (]) 19:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:To me, thinking about it ''that'' way casts a deeper shadow over our human nature. The gravest danger isn't the crazed Infected, who have no reason left and single-mindedly want to bash your head in. At least they're unambiguously up-front about it! No, the ''real'' threat is your fellow man, who might entreat to you with offers of friendship and protection, but then puts his own interests ahead of yours - stabbing you in the back the first moment you take your eyes off him!

:I guess I need to watch this movie again with the commentary ''on''.] (]) 18:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

==Possible Location Correction==
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? --] (]) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

== Left 4 Dead ==

Should ]'s similarities with 28 Days Later be noted? ] (]) 01:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are other video games with similarities to ''28 Days Later'', like ] and ], 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''. --] (]) 00:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

:'']'' being a more obvious and pop culturally significant example--and which was written in 1954 and a more obvious influence than ''The Day of the Triffids'' would be... &mdash;] <small><sup>(])</sup></small> 23:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

==An image on this page may be deleted==
This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image ], found on ], has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Misplaced Pages 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. <!--bot warning File:28dayslater poster.jpg--> ] (]) 18:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

== Cillian Murphy's Accent ==

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. ] (]) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

== Science Fiction Film? ==

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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Agreed, the primary genre is "horror", not SF, even if there are small unexplored SF elements to this movie. It's even mentioned in the ] article. Accordingly, I've changed to genre to "horror". ] (]) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

== Source for this line? ==

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. --] (]) 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
:Tagged it as citation needed. --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 04:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

==42?==
Anyone have a clue if the numbering of the blockade was intentional, Douglas Adams and all the rest?--] (]) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

== Zombies ==

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? ] (]) 21:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
:http://nymag.com/nymetro/movies/reviews/n_8826/, http://www.slate.com/id/2084944/, http://web.archive.org/web/20030707194401/http://www.sunspot.net/entertainment/movies/bal-to.days27jun27,0,1370816.story?coll=bal-artslife-movies, http://www.laweekly.com/2003-07-03/film-tv/undead-do-dance/, and so on. It's not one source, it's not a minority view. 28DL and 28WL fit very comfortably into the zombie genre. ] (]) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


== Infection Film Category needed ==
::This does bring up an interesting point though; the debate on whether this is a zombie film or not has been going on since the first film came out. Are there any sources we could use that address the debate specifically? It might make an interesting little sub-section for reception (could be moved to a franchise article if that third movie ever gets around to getting made). ] (]) 22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I've never seen an article about it, but you'd think there'd be one or two given the various opinions on the subject. There are even reviews that state plainly that it's not a zombie film, but fits into the genre ( for instance).


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.
:::A quick Google reveals a few.


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.
*http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/93153/zombies_can_run_why_28_days_later_is_a_zombie_movie_after_all.html
*http://www.filmcritic.com/features/2010/01/not-quite-zombies-horror-movies/
*http://www.aboutfilm.com/movies/t/28dayslater.htm
*http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/04/television-simon-pegg-dead-set - not about 28DL, but touches on it.


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)
] (]) 12:57, 2 November 2010 (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 ==
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. ] (]) 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
: Here is a list of 10 websites stating that these aren't zombies at all, to support my claims:


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
*http://zombielore.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71&Itemid=1
*http://www.best-horror-movies.com/28-days-later.html
*http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Danny_Boyle%27s_1928_Days_Later%27_is_usually_described_as_a_zombie_movie_but_why_do_strict_zombie-philes_insist_it_is_not
*http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=3148 (Comes to the conclusion that 28 Days later is NOT a zombie film but still chose to call it one anyways because of the plot. Plot does not define a subject.).
*http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/02/26/the-crazies-is-not-a-zombie-movie-and-neither-are-these-five-thrillers/
*http://alanbobet.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-recthe-crazies-and-28-days-later.html
*http://www.cracked.com/funny-2791-28-days-later/
*http://www.bullshish.com/blog/?p=71
*http://www.kpbs.org/news/2008/oct/29/zombie_genre/


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:
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! ] (]) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0%2C%2C2073292%2C00.html
*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
*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.
:Following up to see how things are shaping up with this? Thank you. ] (]) 06:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
The includes ] 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...--] (]) 08:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 12:06, 22 June 2017 (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. ] (]) 10:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


== Dead link == == External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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!


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:
* http://www.bravotv.com/The_100_Scariest_Movie_Moments/index.shtml
*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
** In ] on 2011-03-19 12:40:20, 404 Not Found
** In ] on 2011-03-19 14:43:48, 404 Not Found
** In ] on 2011-03-22 19:38:26, 404 Not Found
** In ] on 2011-04-16 04:13:28, 404 Not Found
** In ] on 2011-04-17 19:26:25, 404 Not Found
** In ] on 2011-05-04 01:14:23, 404 Not Found
** In ] on 2011-06-19 05:54:57, 404 Not Found


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
--] (]) 05:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
==File:In The House - In A Heartbeat.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion==
<!--TSTAMP:{{{4}}}-->
{|
|-
| ]
| <!--IMAGES-->
An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: ''Misplaced Pages files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011''
<!--/IMAGES-->
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review ] before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is ] then you may need to provide a ]
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try ]


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 08:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
|}


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
== Rage Virus Article ==


==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 }}
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 ]. --<font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


== Re-write == == 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."
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!] (]) 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


It says all three endings include Jim dying.
== Plot length ==
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 plot summary is absurdly long, currently 1,095 words, and must be reduced. ] 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. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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: