Talk:28 Days Later

Plot Summary

And then what happens? Is there supposed to be more after the text cuts off? - Puffy jacket 18:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Watch the film! That is supposed to be more, it's just not finished yet. Add a note explaining that if you think it's warranted! --Sam

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

• Why? Yes it's longer than most other movie articles, but why does that bother you? It is very well-written and I find that its length detracts nothing from the article and in fact adds to it. I think its fine the length it is. -CunningLinguist 10:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with long articles - Omegatron 18:40, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And having not seen the film yet, I can tell you that it gives a very good, in-depth description that is easy for anyone to follow even if they haven't seen it. Runa27 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I must agree. The in-depth synopsis IS well written and beneficial, and I am often dissapointed when I find one paragraph long summaries on other pages. Trigunmaxed 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant, I'm afraid. The overly detailed plot summary at present violates Wikipedia's rules and may constitute copyright infraction. It can be longer than one paragraph but must not be overly long. I have edited the first paragraph but do not have time to continue just now - can someone else take over? N.B. I can find no evidence that the lab is at a university - please ensure plot notes, such as these, are accurate and/or referenced. Singhyuk 03:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Party pooper. 140.247.236.240

Filming

The window of opportunuity for filming just after dawn was small? It was reported that the normal activity had been removed by computers.

Perhaps some was (though I'd not heard that) but it was definately filmed after dawn and before London got massively busy. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, the police were very helpful in closing streets for 5 mins at a time, and because they were filming digitally, they could set up and pack up quick enough for them to make this work. The police also slowed traffic on the M1 for them at the right moments to film those cool M1 shots. I expect if anything was edited out by computer, it would have been stuff in the background. --Nathan 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Section on the infected

We should have a section about the infected people in the movie and their differences from normal Hollywood zombies.

"England"?

Ok let's get this straight. There is a country, called England. There is another country, called Wales, and another called Scotland. There is also another country, Ireland, and also there is Northern Ireland. The total land occupied by England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is called The United Kingdom, or to use its full title, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This spans one large island, part of a smaller island, and lord knows how many other tiny islands. There is something called Great Britain. Great Britain comprises the mainland of England, Wales and Scotland. It does not have anything to do with Northern Ireland. There is also something called the British Isles, this comprises everything on all the islands, regardless of country.

So let's be clear. 28 Days Later stongly implies that the virus has not spread overseas. This would restrict it to the mainland. It would definitely have spread outside England. It almost certainly would not have reached Ireland/Northern Ireland. Therefore, I would argue that the virus was essentially restricted to Great Britain. I have changed the article to match this. User:Ray_gillespie

if you listen to the director's commentary it was originally global hence selena early line about outbreaks in new york and paris but they later decided to change it to solely a british thing and that the british government effectively quarantine itself. however they never really clarify if this is solely Britain or the british isle i guess they live that up to the view to decide. 82.26.102.51 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I think it's more appropriate to describe the film as being set in 'Great Britain', as the situation would have been the same across the whole of the island. Changed. 82.36.124.236 20:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. Eh, that's me above. pomegranate 20:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

---

i think that the point of changing it to great britain is irrelivent, even if the situation is the same in the rest of the UK or whatever, does the film take place in any other county/nation except england.......? saying that it takes place in englind is perfectly fine and abouve all FACT, by actual fact it takes place in england, you cant really argue with that.

---

By the way, there is no such thing as the England island. Please check up on your geography. This is what drove me to make the above changes. Referring to Great Britian (the island) or the United Kingdom, as 'England', is very irritating, especially to Scottish and Welsh people. pomegranate 21:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

---

Though speaking as an Anonymous... I have to echo Pomegranate saying that "Set in England" is pretty damn annoying to those who aren't English (like myself) -Anonymous

---

But it's not SET anywhere outside England so surely set in England is correct, sure the same thing would likely occur across mainland UK but no action in the film take place outside England Mbthegreat 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes England is fine by me, the only place I think would be wrong is 'The United Kingdom', which as discussed isn't totally infected, whereas England and also Great Britain both are. We don't see anywhere outside England, so to say set in England is fine. Great Britain would be my choice (as Scotland and Wales are both presumably infected) but I don't mind either way.

--Citizen Ray 08:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comic released a month before the film?

Where can one view this comic?

Spread Beyond the UK?

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

I think that the Rage virus' unrealistically short incubation period is a plus. In your typical plague story like the Stand, the incubation period is long enough that people could travel quite far before showing obvious signs of infection. With Rage, not only does the person show signs of infection within a minute, they become psychotically violent and will infect everyone on the vehicle, be it a ship or aircraft. No airliner with infected passengers would even be able to make it off the ground. The Chunnel would count as a land link to Europe but I think even the French could manage to shut the entrance on their side. As for spreading on land, it's a question of how migratory the infected are. Do they wander and roam or do they tend to nest unless they notice food walking nearby?

I personally liked the idea of 28 Days Later because it was an alternative take on the zombie movie. In most films, the world is lost and the survivors are just trying to hold off extinction for another day. In this one, there's certainly hope. The infected will die off. The whole world wasn't destroyed. But there's still the danger that the infected could make a return so there's still need for paranoia since it could all happen again. Gmuir 13:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm pretty sure the French would have quarantined the Chunnel pretty early, and then filled it in later on. Battle Ape 05:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't very feasible that the virus spread beyond the UK. As noted in the main article, the virus is triggered much too fast for an infected person to take a long trans-Atlantic flight and successfully land. Even if in some bizzare folly they made it to France (by Chunnel) or to New York, it would be fairly easy to contain them (shoot them, etc) by local police.

The main reason England is desoalte isn't because "everyone is dead", as is the common theme in "Dawn of the Dead" films, its because the majority of the population has been evacuated off the island.

The main article also makes a great point that a human could not run around with reckless abandon, let alone live, without water for weeks and weeks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The outbreak doesn't begin in the "suburb of a northern city", it begins at the University of Cambridge. I doubt very much that there were "refugee columns" - this isn;t the Black Death in medieval England, it's a modern disease in a modern city. Everyone in the UK is within a few hours of an airport, so why would they need to form refugee columns when they could just get on a plane? There's a lot of things about the film which don;t make sense: the survivors can't pick up any radio signals even though the world is still alive and well, the outside world makes no effort to contact any survivors (at least until the very end), Selena says the disease spread through rural areas even though it started in a city, there's no way the British Army could cordon off even half of London, let alone every town and city in the country, Jim just glances at the newspaper he finds whereas any normal person would read it from cover to cover, etc etc. There's a lot of plot holes, but if you analyse them too much you stop appreciating the film for what it is - a very good piece of storytelling! Rusty2005 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

i did find it odd that it could infect new york because a plane or ship is easily quarantine and rage victims are quite easy to spot, then again at what point would you go hey this some kind of zombie disease? if it could pass as rioting then it could pass as air rage. france is another matter entirely by the time you realise the problem and close the tunnel its probably too late. on a more technical note the director commentary states it was originally global but was latter changed during filming to just the UK/British Isles. on the northern city point originally the blockade was supposed to be guarding the facility. 82.26.102.51 06:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Significance of 28 Days

Is there any significance to the period of time 28 days? I have seen it used in different places, incuding the Australian punk band, 28 days.--Beano311 01:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

28 days is exactly four weeks, which is also the length of February, the shortest month. Battle Ape 05:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

except for during leap years (re:February).

Some believe that 28 days is the average amount of time it takes for one's body to completely starve to death. This idea is very inestimable due to the underlying fact that the amount of time it would take to starve to death depends on how much fat an individual's body comprises of. Audience Of Cycles 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's three syllables long in English. :P That, and somebody above mentioned something about 28-day "observation periods" to insure that there weren't versions of it that took longer to infect a person.Runa27 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

false, it's 4 syllables.

This is merely quibbling, but 60 days without food is the "rule of thumb" [1]. Still, even with scientific research telling me that's the case I cannot imagine such a long time without! Ranieldule 13:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And so we are asked to believe the Infected were taking the time to drink water, while avoiding food. Pendragon39 05:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Shaun of the Dead

Surely Shaun of the Dead was mainly inpspired by Dawn of the Dead (the remake of which came out a few months before Shaun...). Yes you can draw paralells between Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later, but you probably can with any zombie movie. I put forward a motion to have that bit taken out. --Nathan 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say leave it in, Shaun of the Dead makes direct reference to 28 Days Later and I'd dare say it inspired Shaun in the sense that the success of 28 Days Later helped them get their UK zombie movie made and released as well... Also I wouldn't say that Shaun is mainly inspired by George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead in particular (aside from the title of course) but then that's a question for the Shaun page...

You haven't convinced me, but unless anyone else says it should be taken out, I won't change it. --Nathan 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be taken out. I haven't seen any interviews with the "Shaun" filmmakers to indicate they were at all inspired by "28 Days Later" but they have acknowledged a debt to Romero. (They were invited to be zombies in "Land of the Dead", and there's a special feature on the DVD that's basically a home movie of their experience on the shoot. It's quite clear that they were thrilled to meet George Romero, let alone work with him.)Skyraider 00:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A reference to Shaun of the dead should be OK since it is clear from SOTD that Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright were making a reference to 28 days later (Newsreader refers to "Rage infected monkeys..." etc). The makers of SOTD are enthusiasts (possibly even experts) on the Zombie genre. There is debate about whether 28 days later is a 'Zombie film' - Shaun of the Dead's makers knew this too - and I believe also recognised that the question is somewhat spurious. There is a grey area, and it doesn't really matter whether the enemy are truly undead. The key aspect is that they are an unreasoning, implacable foe that will attack relentlessly and convert their victims into more of their own.217.42.63.218 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Satallite Communication

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

If the rest of the world has been spared, the soldiers could of established satallite communication. Or Jim could have just tuned in to CNN on Sky.

Except for CNN on Sky being uplinked from the UK, which has no power ;) --Kiand 19:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The soliders had power so why could they not use satallites? If they did not have a satallite dish, they could just commender one froma house. 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

They'd need a dish, box, television, and the know-how on how to align it. Although based on the purloined consumer electronics in the house I'm sure they had at least on decoder... The only channels on 28E, the normal UK satellite position, that are uplinked from outside the UK are RTÉ 1, RTÉ 2, TV3, TG4, Deutsche Welle, TV5 Monde and the Irish government-ownedf radio channels.... anyway, its a movie, its fictional, stuff doesn't have to be realistic. --Kiand 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The soldiers seemed quite firm in their belief, other than the one soldier (Corporal?), that the rest of the world was annhialated. That is what caused the despair that lead to their mentioned suicidal tendencies and the officer's plan to offer them women as a hope for rebuilding society. The soldiers did not 'want' to try to contact anyone outside because they believed they were the only ones left.

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

its because it was changed during filming otherwise you'd assume the UK government in exile or the UN would be broadcast survival information. 82.26.102.51 06:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'answer' to infection

Whoever wrote the synopsis screwed up on one major plot point: the 'answer' the soliders' message spoke of was not rape but waiting (i.e. waiting until the infected starved themselves to death).

This was quite clear in the movie and I fail to understand how anyone could make such a mistake.

Yes, you're entirely accurate; and the synopsis isn't. Although acquiring women was part of the equation; waiting for the infected to die was far more needed. Corrected, ish - its been a while since I've seen the movie and I'm not digging the DVD out to check exactly what Major West says. --Kiand 13:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Although the waiting part certainly is important, it seems that more is made in the movie of the soldiers' desire to 'rebuild the species' (West says something along the lines of "We wait for the Infected to die; what's left for seven men to do except wait to die themselves?"). It certainly seems to have been the prompt for West to send out the message, in order to summon survivors (specificially women) to the mansion; whilst the specific 'answer' to infection seems to be just waiting to die, the soldiers intent (to sexually enslave any women who arrive) seems more significant plot-wise, and a more important part of the equation for them. Having said that, I fully agree with the edits that have been made, as they incorporate both points and as such are much more accurate.--Joseph Q Publique 09:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

More info in the DVD section please

Who released the DVD, and in what regions? Were there any closed captions, subtitles or alternate language audio tracks? These should also be mention, especially who released it and where. Runa27 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe these questions should never be addressed in this article. In fact, I deleted the DVD section entirely. These types of items are not pertinent and border on irrelevant. There will always be various versions of retail releases. Anyone seeking this type of information can find it on the IMDB link, which would always be more current and accurate than Wikipedia. Abisai 00:15, 30 June 2006

The jet pilot

The article states that the pilot of the jet near the end of the movie speaks Finnish and requests a helicopter be sent in. However, it appears to me that the pilot is speaking English, with the appropriate accent, and says "Lads, let's get a helicopter in." The subtitles on the movie confirm this.

I thought this too, but if you listen to it a few times you can tell that the pilot's words don't match up exactly with any sort of English. It takes a minute to tell the difference, bit the lähetätkö doesn't match up with "Lad's, let's get a"--70.174.168.209 22:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clear Finnish (my native) when the pilot asks somebody to send a helicopter "lähetätkö helikopterin". :-)Pekkaroponen 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

its finnish its confirmed on the director commentary. 82.26.102.51 06:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

...Which really does mean the infection hasn't been spread overseas.

Sequel

While I beleive that 28 Days Later needs a sequel to answer alot of questions, it should be in the form of a number of short stories, like the Anamatrix. Alot could be explained this way, like how the soldiers got to where they were, or how Selena and Mark got to where they were. You could also throw in a heap of other stories about some survivors as well.

The infected

I changed a little bit in the infected section. Someone had written that they attack any living creature but if that were so I think the horses would have been attacked. Other than their speed they have no real means of self defense and since they are domesticated then they'll probably not fear humans enough to avoid all the infected they come across. I then added a note on intelligence which is all backed up by events in the movie. If anyone wants to reword it to sound better, feel free but if you want to question it please discuss it here first. Thanks!--DannyBoy7783 23:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

animals can sense aggression, they infected would probably stink of blood and adrenline, and trust me horse can defend themselves pretty well a kick can kill a man. also you only see on family of horse which is a parallel for the group so just as some humans survived some horses could. 82.26.102.51 06:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Loathing,28 Days later

There was a large event in Kingdom of Loathing a browser based RPG that was based around this film.I think there should be a referance to it.

As a KoL player myself I don't see the need for it. The game really isn't THAT popular yet. --Crazysunshine 03:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Blockade

When the CO goes out the blockade, he only brings one soldier, the one with the funny hair that is shaved in random places. Jim kills only him, not two as the synopsis claims. I changed it accordingly, and edited out the bit that read "(understandably, as he was covered in blood)". That's opinion, and has nothing to do with the plot. Chewbacca1010 03:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OR and the need for refs

I placed {{OR}} and {{More sources}} tags on the article because it seems all of "Style and inspiration", "Plot", "Alternate endings", "Miscellaneous" and "The infected" are original research and the article as a whole desperately needs some more references. Mikker ^(...) 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I made slight edits to the alternate ending section. There are three alternate endings on the DVD, not two as stated before: an rough cut of a scene only slightly different from the original end, a completely different post-produced ending that airs on television sometimes, and a story-boarded ending. The article had collapsed the first two together as though they were one. Not sure what reference for these would be wanted; it's on any DVD release of the film. 71.197.121.239 06:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)MOB

Our Thoughts

I found the movie interesting at the start but very rushed and convenient and not well organised at the end.

I also found it a bit confusing throughout. I consider myself a fairly smart movie go-er and I enjoy when now and then I, as a viewer, have to connect the dots to find out what went out between point A and B.

However, I found this show more akin to jumping from point A to point D and then back to C and on to J. I can easily make up what went on in between but that's not what a story is all about eh?

It would also have been great if they covered what was happening in the world if only on the "news".

...and I still don't know who the lead actor was and why he(and only he) was left for dead.

BlueStream 10:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do the "infected" not attack each other? They always ganged up on the survivors, but somehow this mind-scrambling virus causes the infected to cooperate with each other. That particular characteristic seems unrealistic to me (though i'm not a neurologist or psychologist) yet I suppose it would be harder to make the movie scary if they only had to face one carrier at a time. Just a thought. Now don't get me started on the unrealistic infection time. :)

Ewthmatth 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's easy: if the infected attacked each other, then the total zombie population of the UK would be down to a handful that are far enough apart not to be detected. It's the same reason why Romero zombies don't eat each other, it would make for a less terrifying zombie movie. Then again, it might be a nice touch for the zombies to eat fresh humans when possible but turn on themselves when they get too hungry. Once they eat enough of their own, they go back to waiting for yummy humans to walk by.

Gmuir 13:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Very few zombie movies have ever discussed why zombies do not attack each other but relating it to the animal world: Ant emit a pheramoan that identifies them as members of a mound. When they die ants emit another pheramoan that other ants identify and carry the body out the mound. People can take this death pheramoan and place it on live ants who will then be carried out of the mound. --mitrebox 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All a virus wants to do is spread. Hence, infected not trying to spread to other infected, hence further, no violence toward the already infected.

thou i can understand that from a more traditional zombie deus ex, the infected are fueled by pure rage all they want is commit violence and just as humans kill humans regardless they should attack anyone and everyone 82.26.102.51 06:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Like An Essay Tag

I have tagged one of the sections in this artcile with the essay-entry tag because the style to me does not seem appropiate for that of an encylopedia and as has already been mentioned, there are a vast number of seemingly factual statements made without any corresponding sources being given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.9.148 (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Major trim needed in plot section, others

This article is in dire need of a major trim. Wiki standards ask that summaries be kept short and do not recite the entire plot as this one does. There also seems to be large amounts of Original Research (OR) in some sections, like "The Infected."

Also, this page needs to be archieved at least, especially that essay above "Spread Above England"). This page is to discuss the article, NOT the film. For that sort of thing, better to go to IMDB or the like. Wikipedia is not a bulletine board. RoyBatty42 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I added an appropriate tag. --Beanssnaeb 06:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Theme Song?

Does anyone know what the theme song is for the movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.73.13.54 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

"Zombie First"

Isn't this the first "Zombie" movie (yes I know these maniacs were not exactly zombies) to use the "Mtv Zombies" in other words zombies that run and are extremely aggressive in contrast to the classic zombies (stumbling about and what not). I can't remember a zombie film that had done this before. If I'm not wrong, this revolution in the genre should definately be mentioned in the main article. Scott Free 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My memory's not what it used to be, but I think there were one or two other films with running zombies well before 28DL. Geoff B 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Return of the Living Dead movies featured zombies that could run. The first three of which came out long before 28 Days. Will dwane 22:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a Zombie Movie

Neither 28 Days Later nor 28 Weeks Later is a zombie movie. To be a zombie, it has to be a reanimated corpse. The person has to die first, then reurn from the dead to be a zombie. "Zombies" in these films do not fit the definition of a zombie as they are just infected with some weird virus that does not kill them.

Perhaps neither film should be categorized as a zombie film. Will dwane 22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither film should be classified as a zombie film but they have been put into the zombie genre by popular culture, I think. And there is more than one definition of a zombie, and I recall reading the thoughts of several reviewers who thought the infected similar enough to justify the label. It seems that people know it isn't really, but the term suffices. Geoff B 00:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone can be bitten and survive the bite. However, they too will become a zombie. 28 Days Later is a very "alternative" take on the zombie subgenre, and I know Danny Boyle disagrees with the "zombie" title. Romero's zombies aren't "true zombies" themselves but cannabalistic and decaying individuals who can spread whatever disease they contain. Same goes for Boyle's. Mindless and driven on instinct to murder and spread the virus.

boyle calls them zombies repeatly on the director's commentary. but even films like assault on precinct 13 could be classed as a zombie film to some degree. this is as a narrative device zombies they are a mass mindless killers and you can become one these really are the only two critera for a zombie film. the only reason they distanted themselves from the tag at the beginning is because it was seen as limiting its appeal basically calling a zombie movie would make people not bother seeing it. anyone who says this isn't a zombie film should listen to the writer Garland and Director Boyle on the commentary. 82.26.102.51 06:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank about the whole affair, who CARES what Boyle says they are??

This is Wikipedia, not "Whatever-I-want-to-call-it-pedia," and the term "Zombie" simply doesn't fitb them. You don't get to automatically call something by any label you see fit -at least not in Wikipedia, or at least that's the ideal.

Are we gonna call Werewolves zombies now when they are in their animalistic, mindless, wolfen state, especially since they are also mindless at least part of the time, also (usually) crave human flesh, and also transmit their condition to others via biting?? What about those mindwiped savages in Stephen King's "Cell??" Or those emotionless people in the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers' movie and remakes??

At the very instant that the word "Zombie" officially comes to mean "anyone or anything that is mindless and can transmit their condition to others through biting or other means of blood-to-blood transmission," as opposed to "classic undead, soulless, flesh-craving monster in contemporary fictional literature," then we'll categorize the 28 films as part of the "zombie" genre.

Until then, let the outside world call 'em what they will; we, however, deal in "facts" here.Thanos777 02:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we do not deal in 'facts'. Verifiability, not truth. And there are many reliable sources that classify 28DL as a zombie film. Geoff B 03:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but "reliable sources" is anything that anybody SAYS that they are; that in and of itself does not make them "relaible sources."

There may very well be "reliable sources" in the world who say that the Earth is flat -or that it is only 6,000 years old, for that matter -or that the vampires of myth are actually the descendants of Judas Iscariot, or that Satan was responsible for putting dinosaur fossils into the ground at just the right strata levels so that man would be led away from religion.

So, go ahead and find any number of people who SAY that the Infected classify as Zombies; the undeniable fact of the matter is that they simply do not, neither according to ESTABLISHED classical folklore, nor to the real-world occurrences (the alleged drugging of captured individuals who were then forced into labor) that may have inspired the legends.

The very instant that you get sources to the effect that can verifiably prove The Infected of the "28" movies to be actual zombies, then submit literature and/or links to that effect -not just opinion pieces from folks who would like to capriciously add the Infected to the "zombie" group.

This movie is in the zombie movie tradition. It explicitly pays homage to them and is often discussed as a movie that moved the genre forward. You're getting all stuck in technicalities, and this is ART. Yes, the infected aren't zombies/undead. But is 28 Days Later widely considered to be part of the zombie movie school? You betcha. Sorry, but you're in denial. --Melty girl 06:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Denial" has nothing to do with it; only the facts of what is actually put before us, nothing more.

The Directors and the Producers and everybody else and his uncle can SAY "it's a Zombie Movie," but that simply isn't true no matter how many times they say it. The unassailable, rcok-bottom, undeniable fact of the matter is that while this movie is about infected persons who PARTIALLY bring to mind zombies in some of their behaviours, they simply are NOT.

The Infected are no more Zombies, and the films themselves no more properly associated with the Zombie Movie genre, than a dramatization about Richard Chase or others of his ilk would be properly be classified as a Vampire Movie....no matter what the cast and crew might say otherwise.

If, however, you REALLY believe that all that one has to do to be classified as a zombie is to be subject to a mind-altering, transmissible disease, then I'd like you to go over to the Cujo book and film and alter the film to be that of a zombie dog, and alter the Rabies articles in Wikipedia, changing them to reflect your views that mind-altering pathogens=zombification.

Oh, yeah, you'd better also do that with the Wiki article on "The Puppet Masters" movie.

And the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" movies.

And "The Stepford Wives."

And the tsetse fly......

(we can go on with this ridiculous premise all the day long, but I think that I've more than amply proven my arguments. Your turn to do the same.)

Ignoring your false assumptions about the way the pro-zombie people define the word, clinging so tightly to a hard definition of the word "zombie", which defines a fictional creature, and declaring this "not a zombie movie", doesn't make as much sense as simply expanding the definition to include the type of creatures depicted in the film. This was a zombie movie, with the twist that the zombies are still alive and were created by a viral infection, probably made this way to avoid references to the supernatural.

Return to hospital

Why is this in alternate endings? Based on what was just shown on TV, it is the post credits section rather than an alternate. - Quolnok 17:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Tweeked the section. -Quolnok 01:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack

I created an article about the soundtrack CD released in 2003 (Here) - it needs an image though (and I'm a pansy when it comes to copyright stuff!) and some extra details etc. Cheers. (7+1 03:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Character Death

I added Mark's death in, because the plot just seemed to go from Jim talking to Selena and Mark, to them finding Frank and Hannah, and then it never mentions Mark again or what happens. I just added a small paragraph about what happens. Feel free to shorten it if needed but don't completely remove it like someone did when I put it in before (though it was rather lengthy before, hence the shorter version) because I think it is needed. --Earisu 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons

There is one bit of trivia no one has realised which I think is very un wiki, and that is the name of The Simpsons episode the sergeant referres to as his favourite ever episode.

What type of Jet??

A good addition to the trivia would be the type of jet flown in the closing sequence. Does anyone know what it was? I suspect it may have been a MiG 15? Bianchi Aviation Film Services is credited as providing the jet.

It's Hawker Hunter (and bears no similarity with MiG-15 whatsoever). Khilon 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicken

"Jim is not present and has effectively been replaced by a chicken" - this reads like vandalism, but if it isn't (which I suspect may be the case given the obviously frequent maintenance of this page), I think it needs some explanation! I haven't seen this ending so can't provide it myself... Barnabypage 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true -- a chicken does stand in for Jim in an alternate ending in which Jim was killed. I just tried to clarify this a bit. --Melty girl 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --Melty girl 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? Geoff B 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.--Melty girl 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Geoff B 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. --Melty girl 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)