User talk:Thejadefalcon/Rage (fictional virus)

More references to 28 Days Later: The Aftermath

In my opinion, there need to be more references to the graphical novel to the 28-series. After all, the obvious main-idea of this novel was to fill many plot- and logic-holes of the story and the rage-virus. Take the smelling-thing, for example.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanFox (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that this article should be deleted, or combined with the 28 Days Later thread. --Dark paladin x 02:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be deleted? it seems if people would like to know what the film is about, they would want to know what the disease is that has caused these events to transpire. A link from the 28dl page will do nicely.Fultron89 05:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted, but probably won't be. It's poorly written, unreferenced, contains a lot of OR and is blatantly POV. Geoff B 06:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is terribly written. It' needs a major overhaul. This should all be folded into the 28 Days Later page.--71.204.233.194 05:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article could stay but only if it was subjected to a major rewrite, the worst part about it in the current form is the original research and the fact it writes about fiction as if it was real life.Cadmium

Deletion?

I have gone ahead and made some changes to this article and tried to clean it up, however i have to agree that it should be deleted. Although there are some parts of it that i feel could be added to the 28 days/weeks later articles. Perhaps we could shorten it and add it to these articles titled seperatley?Trottsky 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize there are a lot of un-sourced statements, but my goal was to simply expand upon the topic of the Rage Virus. As for it being poorly written, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? If you don't like it, change it. If you can find a more accurate source, by all means do so. But don't just recommend articles for deletion until you can completely prove that the information it contains is either against the rules or nonsensical. Fultron89 01:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has recommended this article for deletion. And I have improved the article, having corrected sentence structure, spelling and grammar errors, and removing OR. The problem is that I can see people continually re-adding it. Geoff B 10:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote against deletion. This is one of the best references on a fictional disease on the entire internet. I was delighted to find it and have linked to it in my review of 28 Weeks Later. 80.126.64.97 02:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I guess citations are lacking here possibly because this is a MOVIE. But um... there are some inaccuracies It is not 100 percent contanible beacuse in the end of 28 weeks later it is ok that i think i might have been able to possibly find that one of the characters has immunity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.155.101 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

What does that have to do with the lack of citations? There are plenty of film and film-related articles that are well-cited. There's no reason for this one to be any different. Geoff B 09:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"But um... there are some inaccuracies It is not 100 percent contanible beacuse in the end of 28 weeks later it is found that one of the characters has immunity"

Well, how exactly would we know that if the movie came out only 20 hours ago? Fultron89 02:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaked info? Previews? Someone went to see it the minute it came out? The Lilac Pilgrim

Contanible? Is that meant to mean 'containable' or 'communicable'? The latter, I assume? Geoff B 13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

By the Way, can anyone find a picture of an infected? I can't seem to find a usable one (copyright)Fultron89 02:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to find one, but most viewers already know what the infected looks like. Apart from the blood stains on clothes and face, the only way to tell the difference is on close up. Their eyes seems to be highly wide and their pupils are blood red or red-orange. There is no need for a picture. --Dark paladin x 02:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The pupils are not blood red, the iris is, the pupils stay small and black.--Earisu 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

here's a citation for the symptoms section concerning sense of smell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Days_Later:_The_Aftermath#Stage_3:_Decimation

"The Infected" Article

Okay, it has come to my attention that the article I made about the infected, from the 28 series, is either missing or has been deleted.

The part that upsets me is how I searched everywhere to find the images from 28 Weeks Later, only to see the article go down. The purpose of adding those images of Alice and Don were for referencial purposes, even though I threw in a spoiler warning before-hand.

I know it was crazy of me to make an article solely about an element from a movie franchise, but my purpose was simply to expand upon the database of that franchise.

Yes, I am fully aware that my writing isn't as grade-A as a professional writer, but I thought Wikipedia allowed others to add to my article. Even if I made the article, they are welcome to make necessary updates, especially in regards to the comic series which is unavailable where I live. Dave gross 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... The chain of events seems to be: I added a template to suggest "The Infected" and "Rage" be merged into a single article. SGCommand steps up to the plate and does it. King Zeal removes almost all of the info transferred from the Infected article from the resulting concatenated article with a comment "not necessary". The concatenated article that SGCommand created is here: [1]. Perhaps we need to use a finer tool than King Zeal used. There is good new info coming from "The Infected" (and a lot of duplication) that probably rates retention - Richfife 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, darn, I just read it last night and when I went to find the images on the page, well, it was gone. I don't see why the page was deleted, at least move the images over if it's to be merged. -DetectiveP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.180.237.243 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Another case of stupid arrogant wikipedia admins thinking they know better while they rarely do (as per usual). 80.126.64.97 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Infected Aren't Zombies

I know most people split hairs as to whether these are zombie movies or not, (they aren't) but the fact is, as a plot device, the rage virus is used almost identically to the zombie epidmeics in a Romero movie (i.e. mindless infectious killers who ignore each other and only attack 'normals') so it should probably be in there. Also Added some out of universe info r.e. use in terms of storylines and the Typhoid Mary connection. Daigo 10:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes this movie so great is that it is not a zombie movie. This movie is about a virus that decimates a population and the effects of same on the world at large. People seem to think that this is a zombie movie because there's nothing better to call them. I think when Alex Garland wrote this, he inserted the term "Infected" in the script as a means to deter the common audience member from thinking this was another zombie movie. It's the quote that reads "Danny Boyle has reinvented the zombie movie... scarry as hell." This is wrong! The reason why they run is because they are still alive! I don't know why the dead in Dawn of the Dead (2004) run like they do, other than the filmmakers are just terrifyingly unoriginal.

This article should be a standalone within Wikipedia. There is room to explore this disease, as we all know there will be more of these movies. There is evidence all around about this plague and there will be more coming. I think we should leave this one where it is and be somewhat more philosophical about it.

Just dumping this info into the main article about the movies won't do. This is a very important thing in the films. I make sure to say films becuase if this was something to do with the Star Wars series, no one would have a problem with a full article of its own. JustinLillich 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an argument that comes up a lot. My take on it is that even though the infected are not actually undead in the traditional sense, their behavior is so much like that of trad zombies that the "they're not really dead" distinction is overwhelmed. Other than the fact that they're easier to put down and they expire after 5 weeks (instead of 5 years, they're basically the same as the zombies in the Dawn of the Dead remake. So, !vote here for maintaining the zombie reference. - Richfife 15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree there, the 2004 remake of the Dawn of the Dead essentially ripped off the premise of 28 Days Later, but Dawn was originally George Romero's creation so Snyder had the excuse in place. Shadowrun 03:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with JustinLillich here, the virus is a major part of the series and deserves and article of it's own just as much as any other major theme in a movie. The infected play an important role, and of course we have enough research or whatnot to maintain the article, especially with the upcoming of the third movie, more than likely to expand on the workings of the infected and Rage. They seems far enough from the traditional zombie to be considered something else than a zombie film.-Detective P