Talk:28 Days Later

East Hastings, are we sure?

Yes, I know there's a link to Danny Boyle saying that it's East Hastings but, frankly, it sounds more like GY!BE's second track from Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antenna to Heaven as in it sounds a LOT like it and NOT AT ALL like East Hastings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.199.187 (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is East Hastings, the section begins about 6 minutes in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.101.247 (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It most definitely is East Hastings, it's the Sad Mafioso movement. Vicissitudo (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

In the first scene where the Activists are covering the camera's, it says at the top of the screen "Cambridge Research Facility" or something to that effect. I cannot remember the words exactly. But it most definately says Cambridge, and Cambridge is most definitely a university. Referenced. - Suzie-too 24 Jan 08 16:40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

It is set in England, ie. It only deals with England, and it's landscapes. But it is safe to say that the infection had spread to the rest of Great Britain. (Scotland and Wales). So essentially you could say that it is set in England, and is about a virus that affected Great Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The film and its sequel and all the promotional material show the country of the United Kingdom being evacuated, and on a technical note England Ireland Scotland and Wales are called the Home nations, and Wales was only ever a principality. also given the high level of traffic between Britain and Ireland, the Irish sea is the busiest in the world, it could of been infected, but given the low incubation period i would say that was unlikely, only a distance the zombies could travel themselves would be infected, but then this depends on how early it was indentified, but on the other hand if new york and paris had outbreaks then Ireland certainly would have, and would of lacked the capability to contain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.89.245 (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2008 (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)

Totally agree. The Chunnel has partitions that are in place in an event of fire, to prevent it from spreading. If there were Infected on board a train, they would have a) not let the train even begin travelling and b) If they only realised later (unlikely) that an infected person was on board, they would have partitioned off that train and done some exterminating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (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.

twenty(1) eight(2) days(3) late(4) er(5). I count five. But it's irrelavent. I think that it is a better way than saying one month later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

twen(1) ty(2) eight(3) days(4) lat(5) er(6). --Mr. Corgi (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Well, I've been under the impression from various survival classes that, on average, a human body can survive in threes: three minutes without air, three days without water, and three weeks without food.Fultron89 23:27, 3 December 2007 (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)

isn't 28 days the average amount of time between a females ovulation? chicks bleed on their periods and theres alot of blood in the movie, maybe it was an inside joke or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.185.174 (talk) 03:44, 17 October 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)

shaun of the dead referenced 28 days with the line about the infection being caused by monkeys being false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.185.174 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 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)

The whole plan was to wait the infection out. There was a flaw in the plan though... they wait for the infected to die, but (seen from the soldiers perspective that the human race has been wiped out) the human race would follow shortly afterwards. So, in desperation West promised the men women. He does say to Jim, before he gives him the grand tour, that the answer to infection "isn't quite what you would think". Meaning they were planning on raping the women, not for recreation, but for procreation. -- Bug 11:20cat, 25 Jan 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2008 (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).

Yes, it is called "In the House - In a Heartbeat", a fact easily fond here.Fultron89 23:22, 3 December 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)

resident evil the movie had fast zombies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.185.174 (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a Zombie Movie

if it's not a zombie movie why would the director, writer and film company allow for a critics comment about it being a zombie to be put on the cover. obviously the people involved with the film consider it such therefore it is a zombie movie. maybe your opinion i sthat it's not, but you're wrong. also some old black and white zombie films feature zombies that are living people who had some voodoo crap done to them that makes them mindless killers and the titles of such films included the word zombie. infact i believe night of the living dead was the first zombie movie to feature reanimated corpses but it definately wasn't the first zombie movie. it set the standard but didn't make the rules. reanimated corpses are just one take on zombies. king of the zombies (1941) is one example. i'd also liek to add that batman is considered a super hero even though he doesn't have any "super" powers. he's just a rich guy in tights, but because he portrays the majority of the traits involved with being a super hero he is considered one. hence super hero=hero with super powers but obviously there are exceptions. is an unlicensed game like bible adventures still considered a nintendo entertainment system game even though it's not endorsed by nintendo and looks nothing like an nes game? i think so. are you dumb and wrong all the time for thinking this film is not a zombie movie? no, this is just an exception to you being right. john24.3.185.174 04:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.232.25 (talk) 03:54:20, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

we are supposed to stiuck to hard definitons here in Wikipedia precisely because of the fact that we serve as an encyclopedia. It is our job to be are precise as posible, as often as possible.

As stated in previous repsonses, we don't get to classify films about serial killers with a blood-drinking fetish, and who believe themselves to vampires, as "vampire movies."

"The Terminator" doesn't get to be classified as a love story because that simply isn't the main thrust of that movie. "Dragonheart" isn't properly classified as a romantic comedy just because it had some kisses and some yuk-yuks thrown in.

And in this case, a movie about a mind-altering government biohazard that doesn't kill and them re-animate its victims, doesn't give them a craving for human flesh and blood, and doesn't have a trace of the supernatural, simply cannot be clasified as a zombie movie. There may be actual non-supernatural movies out there for which the point MIGHT be convincingly argued for or against (perhaps "Night of the Comet" and the "Re-animator" films might fall into this category; definitely the "resident Evil" movies do)...but the "28" series of movies simply isn't one of them.

It's not our job here at Wiki to call "FillInThaBlanks" a movie of genre X if it isn't. As far as this film is concerned it is our job here to say statements like, "...while many observers categorize '28 Days later' as a zombie film...." or "...while the infected huamns in these movies display some similarities to zombies..."

...that is, it is our job to be precise. Whatever genre or sub-genre or possibly even new genre might have to be created for the "28" series of films, definitions like "zombie movie" just doesn't cut it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thanos777 (talk • contribs) 09:15:49, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

By this understandable but over-thought argument that you are all taking part in, that they are not technically zombies because they are not undead (which i *do* agree with, but I'm still calling this a zombie movie) You would have to beat-down and re-classify many modern horror movies. The simple idea that "zombies" are undead flesh-eating monsters, has changed over the past decade, no? The simple fact that more and more they are moving towards scientific reasons why people become "zombified" has shifted from the mearly "undead" or "risen" to anything that is a mindless cannibal, no? Hey, look at Dead Rising, a legitimate zombie story, they are created by a virus spread by a wasp, and certain zombies even become hosts to the queens. I'm going to cut this short, but i will sum up my main point: By the thread of logic your main defender here is using, we would have to stop calling Blade a vampire movie, because they have reflections and are viral, not simply transformed by Satan or Big Evil in general. It should be adjusted to make a point they are not traditinal zombies, but this is widely viewed as a zombie movie. (You know, because of the mindless people eating and/or attacking other people and making them mindless too? And the customary groups of survivors/survivalists dealing with internal conflict, holing up, trying to stay alive and make sure nobody within 100 miles of themselves become infected? And the gore, and shotguns, and various mung-bits strewn about, because really the only way to stop the "rage" is to kill the person, because apparently they dont feel pain and loss of limbs doesnt worry them much? And they dont eat anyone they have already infected... and so on and so forth.) These are not zombies, no, i will grant you that much. But sure as hell this is a zombie movie... just with a sci-fi/spec-fic twist, instead of pureley horror/fantasy. That is all for my late night ramble... i'll go back to watching 28 Weeks now. Pardon the varrious spelling errors, and wall-of-textedness.Soylent.Hero 09:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the zombie category -- you're doing original research!

Thanos777, please stop deleting the zombie movies category. Your insistence on pushing your personal perspective about 28 Days Later over verifiable sources constitutes original research.

We don't deal in facts here (or your "facts"); we deal in verifiability, and here's but a small sample of the many sources that label it a zombie film that I turned up within a few minutes of research:

• Metacritic's 28 Days Later page: scan the page and see how many critics label it a "zombie" film.
• IMDb keywords for 28 Days Later: one keyword is "Zombie".
• Amazon page... includes this quote (among others): "Hailed as the most frightening film since The Exorcist, acclaimed Director Danny Boyle's visionary take on zombie horror 'isn't just scary…it's absolutely terrifying' (Access Hollywood)."

You can't simply ignore this here because you disagree with it. If you want to write up a section about how some published sources consider it a zombie movie and others don't, then that's one thing. If you want to point out the differences between classic zombie movies and this one, and you can provide sources for, that also might work. But pushing your own POV in terms of how this article is classified is not kosher. --Melty girl 01:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

It was Farrells favorite joke from the Simpsons. Where Smithers says to Mr. Burns women and semen don't mix and Mr. Burns replies "we all know what you think, Smithers!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I can't tell you the name of the jet, but the road up the mountain it flew along, with the weak zombies on the bridge, is Kirkstone Pass in the Lake District.PiP 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Make that Honister Pass. PiP (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2008 (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)

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 Wikipedia 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.Thanos777 01:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever kissed a girl son? Thekoyaanisqatsi 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 Wikipedia (see WP:NPOV). The wider pop culture press says that this is a zombie film, and that's whose say matters here (see WP:V). Please re-read the above sub-section on why recategorizing this film constitutes doing original research. Your comments indicate that you are very confused about how Wikipedia 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. --Melty girl 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. Bulbous 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

About the Finnish jet and request for helicopter

The following was copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films:

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 28 Days Later, 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 Once. Thanks, Melty girl 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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? --Melty girl 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finland 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. Cop 663 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 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. Cop 663 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 Once -- 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. --Melty girl 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. Knife in the Water'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 Lost in Translation, 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 <ref></ref> 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. Doctor Sunshine talk 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict, I think I'm basically agreeing with the good Dr but anyway...] 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 Wikipedia 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. Cop 663 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 Wikipedia. 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. --Melty girl 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. Cop 663 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. - Bobet 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? --Melty girl 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 Wikipedia 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". - Bobet 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 Echelon-like sharing program. However, that would have tobe something that was built, as it is not something already in place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 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. --Melty girl 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. Girolamo Savonarola 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. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 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. Doctor Sunshine talk 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. --Melty girl 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiously, isn't most unsubtitled speech not important at all, and just for the background? TheBlazikenMaster 22:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in the example from Once, described above. Cop 663 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 forces82.130.22.174 (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but you're not a published reliable source. --Melty girl (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

More on this topic for User:Kizor. A quote from WP:PSTS: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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. --Melty girl 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Parody Correction

Hi, all. I added Edgar Wright'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.) Fultron89 (talk) 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. 122.107.56.47 (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)