Talk:The Crazies (2010 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Horror (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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 Wikipedia. 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at the cast listing - somebody's seriously messed with the listed cast. I seriously doubt that Julia Roberts is playing a man, or that Bobcat Goldthwaite is in this or any movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.104.230 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The cast list remains messed up; it has two of the actors in the film playing character names of "Jerry Lee Lewis" and "Bobcat Goldthwait." Not the actual celebrities themselves, but characters by those names. According to the IMDB, Brett Rickaby is playing "Bill Farnum" while Frank Hoyt Taylor is playing "Mortician Charles Finley", and not Goldthwait and Lewis, respectively —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.245.127 (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch for spam links from dreadcentral.com[edit]

I just removed a number of references from this page that link to dreadcentral.com. Many of them had no relation to the content that they were supposed to be supporting; they may have been inserted simply to drive traffic to dreadcentral.com . Here are examples of what seemed like irrelevant links:

"Much of the film was shot in Middle Georgia, and Lenox, Iowa, REF was to: http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/33822/the-crazies-trailer-debuts The Crazies Trailer Debuts

The film is being produced and will be distributed by Overture Films REF was to: http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/33369/exclusive-rob-hall-talks-effects-remake-the-crazies Exclusive: Rob Hall Talks Effects on Remake of The CraziesXsmasher (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to remove these references twice, but have been reverted - are they really appropriate to the content they're supposed to be supporting? I can not see the connection Xsmasher (talk)

As you have already been told, they are not "spam" links. What your issue is with those two sites, I do not know, but your ongoing campaign to call them spam is getting tired fast. Both are clearly relevant links to the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed the references that were removed, and they do not need to belong in the infobox unless the details are challenged. I do not have issue with the website in question, but the use of references from the website should be reviewed without bias. Xsmasher, you have exhibited a bias toward the website, which is why your edits are being contested. So tread lightly, I suggest. Erik (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Are the credits of cast and crew for this film really being challenged this late in the game? WP:V says to use inline citations for material "that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Names in the infobox are easily checked and rarely use citations unless it is very early in production when much is not known or when the credited person is debatable. Erik (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A few changes[edit]

Change all "trys" to "tries." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.28.176 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Change "large lawn mower" to "farming combine."

Change oil canister and oil to gasoline canister and gasoline.

Change "They go to they begin to drive into a pit stop but a helicopter passes by them, they hide out in a car wash" to "They begin to drive into a pit stop but a helicopter passes them, so they hide in a car wash."

Change "initiate contamination process" to "initiate contamination protocol."

Don't you mean "initiate containment protocol"?Frank Scipio (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Change "the enormous, poorly written paragraph" to "a consise, grammatically correct plot summary." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.138.234 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks. I corrected the grammar in the helicopter sentence as requested. The other changes are factual and require a source. Celestra (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the single paragraph plot summary should probably be banned from Wikipedia and society in general. "Heli-copter"? What is that? Additionally, it isn't even an accurate summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Scipio (talkcontribs) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The family who hide in the closet from the knife wielding dad do NOT lock themselves in the closet. The mother grips the handle and fights against letting him in. He does'nt try very hard and then locks the door, walks away and spreads the gas and starts the fire. This is the reason they were unable to get out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msdking (talkcontribs) 02:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that the two main characters think the military killed the uninfected at the truck stop, but then realize a group of Crazies killed the military and the uninfected. They then get ambushed by the same Crazies.Frank Scipio (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)javascript:insertTags('Frank Scipio (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)',,)

The critical element is that they figured out the military was killing the uninfected as well (and kudos to the IP editor who added that back in). The specifics of the scenes leading to that information aren't really important. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought as well that the Crazies killed the uninfected, not the soldiers. --68.39.181.248 (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I swear that it was the one soldier who told them that they were going to kill the uninfected as well. I'm planning to rewatch this weekend so I'll double check. Now you've got me wondering. Millahnna (mouse)talk 07:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary[edit]

Has been added to my plot to-do list and is taking first priority. I'm going to do one quick pass just to give what is there some paragraph breaks and trim some of the sentences. I'll be back in about 2-3 hours with a summary reworked for length, readability and style. Right now it reads like stage directions on a page and that is where the bulk of the length is coming from (that and all of the trivial details). So to sum up; slightly trimmed text with paragraph breaks coming in five minutes, complete overhaul in a few hours. Get your keyboards ready copy editors. Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I cut it from 1300 words to just over 300. I cut out all of the B story stuff; plenty of room to add some back in if you really want to but Becca was so non-critical I don't see the point. Will be fine tuning over the next day or so. Please do help me clarify anything I was too fuzzy about. Happy editing, all. Millahnna (mouse)talk 12:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, so you pretty much saw every new release out there. I'm impressed, :) and great job as always. --Artoasis (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice job with the summary! Erik (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Russell was infected. He had just snapped under the stress of having to survive. He showed no symptoms of the disease ( nonresponsive, random killing, repetitive speech ) and in the end he was self aware of his actions and then he acted with nobility. --Gandrayda 6 June 2011 23:53 CST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandrayda (talkcontribs) 05:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The explosion that destroyed the town[edit]

There seems to be some editing debate as to whether the explosion was Napalm or a nuclear blast. I chose to leave it at "large explosion" in the plot summary as it wasn't specified in the movie. Also I doubt it was a nuclear blast because of the opening of the film which shows the town burning but largely intact (a direct impact from a nuke would have disintegrated it). Can anyone confirm what type of bomb was used? Or is it better to leave it vague as I did? I recall reading some guideline (I think in film plot at WP:Films) that said if something like that can be debated leave it out. The example used in the guideline I read was a gun. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a napalm bomb could have covered that wide of an area. Moreover, the flash and the mushrooming cloud was indicative of a nuclear explosion. If I was directing a film and wanted people to think a nuke destroyed the town, I'd put in those two elements so people knew what kind of bomb it was. By the way, in the '73 film they were discussing nuking the town, and they stayed pretty faithful to the original in this film, such as the abusiveness of the military. Frank Scipio (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a nuke myself, until someone came along and edited it to napalm and I thought about how much infrastructure in the town was still there. In all honesty, it probably was intended to be a nuke and they just borked it by showing so much stuff intact but burning. But I figure it's better to just leave it at explosion and let the readers/movie watchers sort it out, unless I can find an actual source that covers it specifically. Really, for a plot summary, the type of explosion is kind of an irrelevant detail. Town goes bye-bye in great big boom is what's important. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.Frank Scipio (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Its most defiantly a nuke, the scene from the beginning shows the town 2 days after the initial siting. Day 1- baseball park incident Night-1 Burning of Family Day-2 killer in prison, attempt on sheriffs life Night-2 Military begins operations and they make their way into the town. The explosion is clearly a mushroom blast. Napalm also wouldn't create a shock wave 20-miles out of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.127.138 (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize the timeline on the first scene; that's why I think the film's makers intended a nuke and borked it. There shouldn't be that much stuff left after a direct hit and I think that's why a couple of editors have tried changing it to something else. I agree with you on mushroom cloud and napalm as well; standard hollywood stock and trade for these kinds of things is to use a nuke. However, it's all irrelevant. Town goes boom is is the thing. So unspecified explosion it is, for now. If I see it crop up in a reliable source I'll switch it out. Millahnna (mouse)talk 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it's bad form to introduce 'real' physics into a discussion of movie plots but mushroom clouds are not specific to nuclear explosions, they are simply the result of 'huge' explosions and if you are the government attempting to cover up the destruction of a city, a nuclear weapon would be counterproductive, after all now you have to explain away why a chemical plant explosion left radioactive fallout in the area. Not saying "Hollywood" would have thought that far ahead but if you are guessing purely on logic a conventional weapon would be indicated.TheMerricat (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point and thanks for reminding me of it. So I guess that cements it unless someone can provide sources; saying the town was destroyed will have to be sufficient (how it was destroyed is sort of moot to giving a plot summary anyway). Any point of contention? Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Does there need to be links to irrelevant things like high school and baseball? Their not at all important to the movie's plot, plus I think people know what high school and baseball is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.25.35 (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thought of a nuclear explosion at first as well - however, there's no heat wave following after the shock wave (that would clearly have killed them). Also, there's quite a delay between the ignition counted down to and the explosion flash. All this might indicate an aerosol bomb, approaching the power of small nuclear devices. -- Zac67 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guys. Just wanted to add my two cents-- As a user above mentioned, the Mushroom clouds aren't unique to thermonuclear detonations--They can also be caused by large scale thermobaric weapons, such as 'Fuel-Air bombs' and the like. I think that the bomb was just mishmashed at the end there. Depending on what yield 'Nuke was used, the shockwave probably would not have travelled for 20 miles out. Had it, as other users pointed out, the town would've been vaporized. I think in this case the most likely culprit was a large scale thermobaric detonation, which may explain why someone thought of Napalm, as Thermobarics and Napalm have traditionally been used to eradicate any sort of biological contaminants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.254.226 (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted a shockwave 20 miles out capable of throwing a semi-truck through the air, you're talking a detonation in excess of 20 megatons at 3.5 miles up. And if our protagonists were within range of a 20+ megaton nuclear weapon, being tossed off the road would have been the least of their worries: the flash from a weapon of that magnitude could cause 3rd degree burns more than 23 miles from the hypocenter, and they might have been within the range of the ensuing firestorm nuclear weapons tend to cause. Naturally, everything within four miles of a 20 megaton weapon's hypocenter would be matchsticks (that are also on fire), and the town was shown as relatively intact. Also, unless George Romero thinks the American public is completely ignorant (I'm not going to weigh in on that) no one is going to believe that the use of such a powerful nuclear weapon was some kind of chemical plant explosion -- it's a painfully thin coverup as is. In all likelihood, the weapon being portrayed was a large scale thermobaric device, possibly multiple GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bombs being deployed at once. Given that it's a movie about an incredibly irresponsible government exposing civilians to super-rabies and then murdering civilians to contain their mistake days after the outbreak began -- rather than try and contain it when their cargo plane crash-landed in the first place -- it's likely Romero doesn't know anything about thermobaric bombs (even the Mother of All Bombs doesn't generate a 20 mile shockwave!) or nuclear weapons, either, but even in a movie about The Big Bad Government doing dumb things with biological weapons you can assume that they wouldn't conclude that using an incredibly potent nuclear weapon on American soil is preferable to letting super-rabies run amok. Atypicaloracle (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, and it seems to have been decided well enough, but for the record, the film pretty clearly establishes it is a nuke. 1. Size of explosion means it is unlikely to be anything else. 2. Explosion has a number of characteristics audiences have come to expect from cinematic nukes: blinding flash of light, ominous countdown, and a mushroom cloud (which I know is not particular to nukes in real life, but audiences think of them that way, so if I director wants an audience to think nuke: he puts in a mushroom cloud). 3. There is clearly fallout after the explosion. 4. The original spelled out nuking the town as a last ditch effort (and it is a go to plot element in movies of this kind). . . . and the ONLY argument against is that too much of the town was intact afterwards? For the record, nukes don't disintegrate everything, much can still be standing away from ground zero (and this town would have geographically large with all the farms), and in any case, it seems far more likely that the director either made a mistake movie-physics-wise, or simply wanted the image of a burning town, not a flattened town (it's far more poetic, don't you think?) Anyway, I personally think it is silly to call it anything but a nuke. That is clearly what the film-makers were going for, even if they didn't spell it out. But it is a small point sooooo . . . whatever I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.180.211 (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a third option that no one has clearly addressed. It most likely was a Fuel/Air Explosive. Now this may be a moot point in the plot of the film, but it should be addressed. The government would not use a nuke/atomic bomb on its own soil. The reality is that there is no way to cover this with a "plant explosion" as stated in the film due to the residual radiation that any university down wind from ground zero would easily detect, let alone the problem of other nations detecting a nuclear/atomic explosion, thus violating the Nuclear Test Ban treaty. It is also clearly not a Napalm explosion because they do not produce high enough blast pressures to toss a semi truck as depicted in the film. The most likely option knowing the government and its constraints would be a Fuel/Air Explosive. This would produce a extremely high blast pressure, perhaps as strong as shown in the film. When coupled with a large explosive delivery devise such as a MOAB(mother of all bombs)delivery system you would have the result of a nuclear type explosion, leaving much of the town intact, enough heat and blast to effectively destroy any organism that would cause the sickness (trixy) and the ability to cover the explosion with a story such as a plant explosion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitdog1976 (talkcontribs) 18:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

High school and basebeall?[edit]

Does there need to be links to irrelevant things like high school and baseball? Their not at all important to the movie's plot, plus I think people know what high school and baseball is.

98.124.25.35 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I included those links in case English speakers from countries outside the U.S. were unfamiliar with them. If people think they aren't necessary, I won't really care if they are removed. But as an example, in Australia they call it high school but it is grades 7-12. In the U.K. a few areas use the phrase "high school" but in a multitude of ways that don't match up with American usage at all in most cases (in one area it is a term for a specific kind of grammar school). Actually check the high school wikilink for usage in England on that one; there's quite a multitude there. It occurs to me, though, that baseball might be familiar enough to folks outside the U.S. I'm not really sure but I do know of other countries where it is fairly popular or at leas recognizable so perhaps that one is definitely not needed. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Character names[edit]

Recently, someone edited the cast list at IMDB to spell the last name Dutton as Dutten, contrary to what is posted in the film's credits both onscreen and at the official site. Consequently, people keep attempting to change the names to the incorrect spelling here. I've submitted the correction to IMDB and anyone who thinks that Dutton is incorrect can check the official cast and credits at the film's official site. Just a heads up for other editors to expect people to keep attempting the change until it's fixed at IMDB. Millahnna (mouse)talk 11:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's more likely that the official site for the film contains an incorrect spelling of the surname of the two protagonists. At 00:02:02 in the film, the interior shot of Judy's office displays her title on the door as "Dr. Judy Dutten". Also, at 00:08:42 in the film, David is sitting at his desk with a name placard declaring "Sheriff Dutten". Furthermore, the film's credits do not include last names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.144.106 (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Check your screen again. I see an "o" not an "e". In any case, it's the official site. We go by what they have when available. Movie's credits, official site, and all reliable sources that refer to the character's names say Dutton. Millahnna (mouse)talk 05:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Since this is coming up again, I just double checked the film. The above IP is correct that Judy's office nameplate shows "Dutten" and not "Dutton". Meanwhile the official site still spells it with an "o". And the closing credits of the film don't include last names at all. So to avoid more of the slow burn edit war (it's been mellow recently, but this will likely come up again), I was thinking we could remove the last names from the cast list, so as to match the closing credits, and reword the relevant sentences in the plot summary so that last names aren't included. Thoughts? Millahnna (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Commonsensical. Can't see how anyone could have a problem with it. Geoff B (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Also made the cast list match the order of the closing credits (though I only list the first 15 credits included). I think it made the phrasing a little awkward in the opening paragraph but it's not too bad. Millahnna (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The viral marketing site (http://www.ogdenmarshsheriff.com/) repeatedly lists it as 'Dutten,' and even goes so far as to make you enter it as login information (user: ddutten / pass: judy). 98.89.5.136 (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)



The Crazies (2010 film)The Crazies – (see talk page) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This film is a remake of The Crazies (1973 film). When the 2010 film's article was first created, I created a disambiguation page that listed these two topics. This was done because the original film was not famous enough to have much article traffic. I noted on Talk:The Crazies that we could reevaluate these topics later. Today, comparing the article traffic of both film articles after the releases in theaters and on home media, and after all the news coverage, the 2010 film basically has 6.4 times as much traffic as the 1973 film, looking at either the last 30 days or the last 90 days. I recommend moving the 2010 film article to The Crazies with a hatnote pointing to The Crazies (1973 film). Looking at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we know that the 2010 film is far more sought-for than the 1973 film, and that the 1973 film does not have much long-term significance. For example, this says, "The Crazies remains relatively neglected in terms of critical examination despite its theatrical re-release..." In contrast, it is fair to say that Dawn of the Dead (2004 film) will not replace Dawn of the Dead (Romero's iconic 1978 film). Two examples of the adaptation being primary over the source material: the film Fight Club over Fight Club (novel), and the film Road to Perdition over Road to Perdition (comics). Erik (talk | contribs) 19:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Pure WP:RECENTISM. The 1973 film is still very well-known, whatever its merits (and I personally think the 2010 film is better, but that's by the by). No clear primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    The primary topic guidelines mention two criteria: primary with respect to usage, and primary with respect to long-term significance. The essay on recentism does not apply here; it applies to content, not structure. In general, what you say is applicable to a case like avatar and Avatar (2009 film) (when there was actually a push for the film to be the primary topic). Here, though, neither topic has any long-term significance. The claim "very well-known" is unsubstantiated, and I've already highlighted that the film lacks long-term significance since it has not been critically examined much. That means the focus ought to be on what is primary with respect to usage. The remake came out 2 years and 8 months ago. Here is a table showing the decline in article traffic, or page views (Feb. 2010 is when the remake came out):
Period 1973 film 2010 film
February 2010 179,855 390,307
February 2011 10,462 77,463
February 2012 6,343 35,491
September 2012 6,258 40,211
  • We can see that for this year, the article traffic for both films has roughly leveled out. The 2010 film is still of much more interest to readers than the 1973 film, which lacks long-term significance. The goal of the requested move is to get the vast majority of readers where they want to go. For all we know, a portion of the minority visit the other film article out of stark curiosity. It seems reasonable to structure this to reduce page-hopping. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Neither is the primary, have the disambig point to both. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You have 2 films with identical titles. Disambiguate by year. Simple. The pageview argument is a common one that rarely holds much water due to the phenomenon of recentism (articles on new or upcoming films tend to have higher traffic and more edit activity than articles on old films; chalk it up to this being teh internetz). PRIMARYTOPIC is meant for clear root topics like shark or Batman. When you're getting down to disambiguating individual work titles from one another, it's generally best not to treat either as the primary topic. This is especially true in the case of remakes, where treating the remake as the primary topic makes almost no logical sense, since it could not exist without the original having come before it. The trend with horror remakes like this has been to treat both films (original and remake) as equally valid search terms and disambiguate accordingly. For example, Halloween (1978 film) and Halloween (2007 film), Friday the 13th (1980 film) and Friday the 13th (2009 film), The Hills Have Eyes (1977 film) and The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film), etc. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    The Halloween films do not apply here because when we search for Halloween, we will get the holiday article. Similar case for Friday the 13th. I think The Hills Have Eyes could be reassessed depending on the original film's significance. Primary topics are not limited to "root" topics. We are dealing with a set of two topics, both of which are films. Disambiguation is an option, and that was the approach taken with these two films before. The argument now is if the remake can serve as the primary topic. To use a hypothetical example, if someone remade Citizen Kane to come out next year, we would have Citizen Kane (2013 film) and Citizen Kane. The original work, as seminal as it is, will not be moved. We will not just move that article to Citizen Kane (1941 film) because of the remake's existence. Here, we are not dealing with any long-term significance, so what's left is popularity--what readers are looking for. Also, it is possible for an adaptation to come "after" the source material, such as the film Fight Club vs. Fight Club (novel). That setup involved plenty of discussion. Hope you see what I mean. Here, the 1973 film is not infused with academic or popular significance, so the 2010 film, having popular significance, can be at the forefront. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    The case may be more obvious in situations where films are based on obscure books. For example, Killing Them Softly was originally titled Cogan's Trade, and there was no article about the book on which it was based. If the film did not change its title, then we would have had the film as the primary topic. Sometime after the film was renamed, I went ahead and created the book article Cogan's Trade, which by no means has academic or popular significance. In short, it would have been possible to have the film Cogan's Trade at "Cogan's Trade" and the book Cogan's Trade at "Cogan's Trade (novel)". Erik (talk | contribs) 18:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    That opinion is perfectly valid, but I don't find pageviews or "popularity" a convincing argument. In nearly all cases you will find that the newer (more recent) topic is more "popular" from a pageview standpoint, but that is a function of these being pop culture topics and this being the internet. I tend to treat disambiguation with dispassion, ie. I do not particularly care which article receives more internet clicks. Coming from a background in history, it makes little sense to me to treat the newest version of something as the primary topics merely because it gets more traffic on the internet. In most cases the remake would not, indeed could not, exist without the original, so the original is the "primary" topic (from a historical perspective) and just as important. I acknowledge that more readers are likely searching for the remake (because it's more recent), but I don't find that a strong argument either given the many improvements to Wikpiedia over the years in helping readers find the article they're looking for (if I type "the crazies" in the search box, I am presented with "The Crazies", "The Crazies (1973 film)", and "The Crazies (2010 film)" as the 3 most likely hits. I really don't need my hand held any further than that to find the article I'm looking for, and I doubt any Wikipedia reader with an average level of internet experience does either. With the enormous amount of horror film remakes in the last decade, it seems silly to treat a new version as primary just because the original was obscure and thus not as popular on the web. I don't see the point of your bit about Coogan's Trade, since that's not a parallel example to what we're dealing with here (2 films, one a remake of the other, with identical titles). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    I mention Cogan's Trade because it does not matter what is in the disambiguation. It is a matter of a pair of topics that have the same title. It also demonstrates that adaptations and remakes can be based on obscure works, which strongly indicates the newer topic's primacy. I think it is very common that the original topic will have primacy; adaptations and remakes are usually based on previous popularity. Here, The Crazies pairing is nothing like the Dawn of the Dead pairing. The request to move is to eliminate the waste of having a disambiguation page for just two topics; the 2010 film has primacy in regard to usage, and long-term significance does not apply here. A disambiguation page existed before because recentism was in full swing. Now that we've settled down, people continue to look for the 2010 film articles when they search for "The Crazies". The 1973 film can be a hatnote. It is a more appropriate setup because the recentism argument has expired and the original-adaptation argument will have varying degrees of significance. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    Waitaminnut, I didn't realize there are only 2 articles in play here (no other articles about works titled "The Crazies"). Just leave both titles dab'd (The Crazies (1973 film) & The Crazies (2010 film), hatnote both, & have The Crazies redirect to whichever you determine is the primary topic (I'd still prefer that be the original, but whatever). You don't need a page move to solve this issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In a normal film discussion the 2010 film would be referred to as "the remake of The Crazies", and the 1973 film probably as "the original The Crazies". Disambiguation for both is a good solution. Smetanahue (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.