Talk:Right at Your Door

Ending

The user 'Shannonjmurphy' keeps removing the section detailing the "twist" ending. Is this appropriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.175.5 (talk) 04:40, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Not really, unfortunately Wiki is not on "spoiler" alert and so "spoilers" are allowed. If you are going to watch a film, don't check it out on a website first :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Plot

I have cut the plot down but it really needs a little more trimming, unless consensus is that this is the mnimum?

Unfortunately most of the material left deals with pertinent points of the plot, the mothers anguish v. not reporting true events, the sealing inside and infection by the phone, the opening and ending etc. Cannot see exactly which should be cut out right now so will return to it in a week or so. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Feasibility of the plot

I know that's not the point of the film, but still. So is this at all feasible? Viruses are supposed to multiply inside their host's (here, human) body. Viruses lack reproduction system, that's the whole point of something being a virus. Anthrax is a viable organism on itself which reproduces through spores; inhaling those spores gets them into lungs where they multiply and cause decease. But the weaponized anthrax dust is all spores, so inhaling those while outside seems to deliver them in much larger quantities into the human system - they were all covered in it, outside - and lethality is in direct correspondence with the amount of spores inhaled. There is a contradiction here. If God forbid something like this happens, and the people who watched this film will conclude it's best to leave their houses and will die because of it, well... And certainly if the bombs are dirty which in English means such that spread radiological material, not biological, then the ONLY hope for survival is to seal oneself inside. If that dust was full of alpha-radioactive particles, taking one breath of that would kill you. Whether outside or inside a house (and that's totally consistent with vomiting btw). So this film may end up making a huge disservice. Hoping of course it never comes to that, but still, spreading misinformation in order to make a buck (even if artistically) is immoral. So are there any sources out there that discuss this kind of thing? WillNess (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the virus could use non human cells to multiply, say some bacterias. But since the virus is clearly targeted at humans it would indeed proliferate within the human cells rather than in third party hosts. Also, the guy should get sick well below "deadly level of virus", whatever that means. For the stuff bout the dirty bomb, it all depends on how far you're away. if you're close you'll get fried by radiation so contamination through dust isn't really an issue. if you're in the smoke cloud you'd indeed want seal yourself of the world till it has rained. if you're under a passing nuclear cloud, like most of Central and eastern Europe after Chernobyl, you'll just want to stay inside... and be very careful with what you eat for the next few days/months/years.MaenINoldo (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)