Jump to content

Talk:28 Days Later/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Froula, Anna (2010). "Prolepsis and the 'War on Terror': Zombie Pathology and the Culture of Fear in 28 Days Later...". In Birkenstein, Jeff; Froula, Anna; Randell, Karen (eds.). Reframing 9/11: Film, Popular Culture, and the "War on Terror". Continuum. pp. 195–208. ISBN 1441119051.
  • Murray, Robin L.; Heumann, Joseph K. (2009). "Apocalypse as 'A Return to Normality' in 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later". Ecology and Popular Film: Cinema on the Edge. Horizons of Cinema. State University of New York Press. pp. 181–194. ISBN 0791476774.

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)
Melty girl who is deleting paragraphs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.113.116 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2012 (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[citation needed]. 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)
Given that the original zombies were made by voodoo sorcerors - they are living humans who have been made mindless by poisonous chemicals - this film does indeed have zombies in it. Too funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.194.48 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Director commentary of the DVD has both Garland and Boyle referring to it as a zombie film, and that numerous scenes were homages to george romero's zombie movies, like the scene in the supermarket is a reference to Dawn of the Dead and the zombie soldier at mansion was a reference to Bub from Day of the dead, also why does it bother you that its a zombie movie, since it does obviously follow the conventions of a zombie movie? simply being part of a genre or sub genre doesnt make a film bad

Should there be a mention that this has invented / influenced a new type of zombie films? OK murderous insane people, whatever, but the fact is that the undead were always shuffling and moany before this film came along. Resident Evil 4, the new Dawn Of The Dead, Dead Set - they've picked these fast vicious people as the de facto new zombie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaffaCakeLover (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are zombies. Will all the ignorant fools please get over it and accept that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow..There are certainly a LOT of brainless idiots on this site. First off to Melty Girl: It's people like you that fascist dictators like Hitler LOVED. "Hey, the masses say it's a zombie movie, so it is." That's your entire argument. You truly are the sort of person that showed up in Jonestown face-down in a puddle of Kool-Aid..

And to the idiot above me, Lemming.. You're calling other people "ignorant fools"?? Are you kidding me? A "zombie" is an animated corpse. The people in this movie are fully alive. That would make them EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of a zombie. If you can't even grasp that simple premise, it's really a mystery to me how you even manage to sign on to the Internet. Do you have a ghost writer type your comments here?

This is NOT a zombie movie. Period. End of story. 68.239.21.129 (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone has their undies in a bundle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.110 (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He seriously invoked Hitler in a debate about a zombie film. Wow. Prove's Godwin's law though. Also that he probably needs a hobby, or to lose his virginity. 74.64.22.193 (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a zombie film. Marketing couldn't figure out how to market this horror film so they stole the zombie label and misused it. Mislabeling a product does not make it true, no matter how many times the people that mislabel it stay it's true. As per the zombie definition on Wikipedia, zombies are either reanimated corpses or people in trances controlled by a wizard. 28 Days later are neither- they are living crazed virus victims. The label "zombie" needs to be removed from this film. Larylich (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't it stated by one of the characters in one of the films that the Rage Infected could be killed just like any unifected person. Also didn't someome say (can't remember if its the same character or someone else) that because the Infected didn't eat or drink, they would slowly die off. Or something like that anyway. 194.74.238.137 (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The rigidity in the definition of "zombie" put forth by the original user is absurd. As you emphatically insist that zombies are reanimated corpses, you're completely (and perhaps conveniently) ignoring what "zombie" as a term originally referred to. Another user pointed it out; zombies were originally LIVING PEOPLE under mind control by a voodoo practitioner. Early zombie films such as White Zombie and Revolt of the Zombies reflected this use of the term, and a few modern ones have taken a stab at it as well, such as The Serpent and the Rainbow.

Romero is pretty much responsible for our notion of the "undead zombie." You're basing ALL of your definition on a film that redefined the zombie and then insisting that another film cannot do the same. If you knew anything about where the term came from or the history behind it, you'd know that these reanimated corpses are more similar to descriptions of vampires pre-Stoker and have little to do with our modern concept of either vampires or zombies. The parallel of eating flesh to drinking blood should be clear enough on it's own. Debonair shapeshifters came much later in the history of the vampire, and many old stories describe them aimlessly wandering, unable to speak or communicate, in search of food, much like Romero designed his zombies.

Of course the Infected of 28 Days Later don't fit the Romero model to a tee, but the changes are superficial at best. Look at what's terrifying and inhuman about these creatures rather than focusing on supernatural or biological elements that have little to do with reality and there's no other conclusion but that they are indeed zombies. What's scary about zombies doesn't inherently have anything to do with their reanimation. The terror and horror comes from seeing a familiar form (a human) behave so obviously inhuman. It's seeing your neighbors and friends feast on each other, it's watching how quickly the plague spreads, how indiscriminate zombies are with their victims. The core of zombie horror stems from the cannibalism, vast numbers, and animalistic nature. Whether they rise from the grave or contract the flu, the end result is the same. The details of what creates the zombie are the same. If the victims in 28 Days Later technically underwent death, however briefly, before their transformation, would you have any trouble calling it a zombie then? Of course not. It's a ridiculous detail to get hung up on. The Infected do what zombies do, I believe that the filmmakers simply wanted to remove the mysterious supernatural element from it.

If the term "zombie" was some sort of medical term then your argument might make sense, but the truth is that "zombie" has evolved over time just like vampires, werewolves, and other creatures with far flung origins that have been appropriated into pop culture. Do you have any idea how silly it sounds to say, "well, it does what zombies do, but it didn't get there 'the right way' so technically it's not a zombie." It's all made up, 100% of it, even the undead notion of zombies that you so desperately cling to. Back in '68 there was probably someone just like you who saw Night of the Living Dead and had this same discussion somehow or another, "hey those things aren't really zombie because zombies ARE NOT already dead!"

So relax. Taking such fictional constructs so seriously isn't worth your time, especially since no one can ever really be right or wrong since THE DAMN THINGS DON'T EXIST!

And brushing up a little on what you so staunchly defend is always a good idea before going a crusade like this - why don't you head over to the article for Lugosi's White Zombie and insist that they're not zombies since they aren't undead, ignoring the 3 decade gap before anyone even though of zombies as undead. Patrick of J (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (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)

I don't know what version you all saw, but I saw the English version, and the first time I saw it I didn't think he said anything, but after seeing this discussion I saw it again, and he definitely says IN ENGLISH 'Lads, get a helicopter in.' I haven't seen the Finnish version, nor do I speak Finnish so I can't compare. There seem to be a lot of people who watched this film in Finnish for some bizarre reason. In any case I don't think it's particularly important to the plot. VenomousConcept (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked the UK DVD of this film. First, I agree it does sound a bit like "Lads, get a helicopter in" but it also sounds very like "Lähetättekö helikopterin", and the accent on the syllables "helicopter"/"helikopter" is not English. Second, when the English subtitles are switched on, this line is not subtitled, backing up the supposition that it is not English (i.e. not meant to be understood by the audience - as someone else mentioned above, the point is that the survivors now know they are not alone - tho I suspect there is also an intention to create a bit of uncertainty on the viewer's part, as to whether they're going to be rescued or bombed!). Third, and here we have our source, in the scene-by-scene commentary from Alex Garland and Danny Boyle they explicitly say it was supposed to be a Finnish jet. Barnabypage (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Resetting indent. Here's a translation for the most important finnish line. Can that be considered a viable source? Earlier lines by the jet pilot also imply that he's searching for survivors. I was disappointed this wasn't mentioned in the article itself. I believe there is a place for all information in Wikipedia. -91.153.24.112 (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to confuse things more, but I believe there is a factual error on the current page. I'm fairly certain the plane at the end of the film is not a Hawker Harrier [1], but rather a Hawker Hunter [2]. The shape is different from the Harrier, notably the triangular inlets where the fuselage meets the wings. The Harrier, on the other hand, has large half-moon inlets on either side of the fuselage, just aft of the cockpit. I did a quick frame-by-frame, referencing Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide [3], and I'm pretty sure of my identification. This would also almost certainly make it not an aircraft of the Finnish Air Force, as they never operated the Hunter. As per user Khilon, I also agree that the plane uses the markings of the RAF. I was going to go ahead and edit the page, but I figured discussing it here first would be a better idea. Having noticed that no one has commented here in nearly 3 years, I wonder if my comment will fall on deaf ears. Cheers! Chrismelito (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It probably did. I can't believe how eager people are putting incorrect information to Wikipedia. I removed the claim about Finnish marking again. Now, what makes this really absurd is that for the plot it makes no difference whatsoever what type of a fighter it is, what markings it has or even what language the pilot is speaking. It would be better to ignore these details. But, apparently, if you do that, then someone will add it anyway and probably incorrectly. Khilon (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The last words by the pilot "Lähetätkö helikopterin?" means exactly "Could you send a helicopter" and yes, im finnish. so please STFU now IT REALLY IS FINNISH!!!! WOHOO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.206.60 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am Finnish and I speak English fluently. First thing the pilot says is "Toistan: viski 000809,0" which means "I repeat: whiskey 000809,0". When the pilot sees the three main characters he says something like "Ihan kuin siellä olis valkoisen päällä sellaista... joo, jotain" which translates to something like "On top of a white thing it looks like there's some kind of... yes, something." Then the pilot mumbles something that cannot be heard, and finally the last sentence is "Lähetätkö helikopterin" like the others mentioned already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.105.128 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter
  3. ^ http://www.amazon.ca/Janes-Aircraft-Recognition-Guide-Rendall/dp/0004709802/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358059032&sr=1-5

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) If you watch the director's commentary, he mentions how it can be heard, so it aint our imagination. He says that a lot of the sound from the infected was from people yelling angry things, and you can still hear what the kid is saying. Weird that he didn't change it. Iowaseven (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be subliminal, they made the infected noises from people shouting angry things, all the infected sounds are like that, they messed up on that one and you can make out the words. Asking why they didn't change it is as stupid as why didn't they change the guy taking out the rubbish in on of the abandoned london scenes. It's a goof, they didn't notice untill later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.240.157 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the kid at the gas station, the only people Jim kills are the uninfected soliders at the compound in Manchester. If we can believe what Major West tells the survivors when he shows them Mailer, the Infected can't speak coherently. This implied to me that the little boy at the gas station wasn't infected after all - that he was some kind of desperate holdout who had managed to survive there and attacked Jim out of paranoia or fear, forcing Jim to defend himself in such a brutally lethal fashion.
Sorry for being so rude, but are you blind?! The infected boy's eyes were big and red, and there was blood around his nose and mouth, so he was obviously infected. Now, to the topic about the infected kid talking thing. As the infected boy talking was due to the people-shouting-thing being too loud, AND in the 28 Days Later comics Gordon and Sergeant Luis Rodriguez told survivors from infected by seeing whether or not they spoke, I'd assume that the infected do not speak, and therefore that the boy speaking doesn't count as an infected talking. 2.100.56.180 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
At face value it's inconsistent with other scenes throughout the movie. When you look at the story a layer deeper, this scene is truly consistent in a way. Perhaps this is another sign that Jim struggles to maintain his faith in humanity and sanity. From the dreams, to the boy, and the end of the movie. I believe in this Jim hears the boy say "I hate you". This form of psychosis is a foreshadow of what is to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jszivos (talk • contribs) 23:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
To me, thinking about it that way casts a deeper shadow over our human nature. The gravest danger isn't the crazed Infected, who have no reason left and single-mindedly want to bash your head in. At least they're unambiguously up-front about it! No, the real threat is your fellow man, who might entreat to you with offers of friendship and protection, but then puts his own interests ahead of yours - stabbing you in the back the first moment you take your eyes off him!
I guess I need to watch this movie again with the commentary on.Lithonius (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible Location Correction

Not trying to be picky, but the interior for the mansion may be Trafalgar Park near Salisbury. However, the exterior and the lawn that was covered in barbed wire etc was actually Beamish Hall Hotel in County Durham. I know this because whilst visiting fairly recently, the hotel still has photos of the cast on location but i cannot cite a reference. Any ideas how this should be corrected? --Shkermaker (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead

Should Left 4 Dead's similarities with 28 Days Later be noted? 69.12.204.112 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are other video games with similarities to 28 Days Later, like Resident Evil 4 and 5, just to name a few others. Basically, any media featuring zombies who are really living people that have lost their minds and want to kill everything that moves due to an evil or experimental virus, infection, or parasite has a similarity to 28 Days Later. --Greatrobo76 (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I Am Legend being a more obvious and pop culturally significant example--and which was written in 1954 and a more obvious influence than The Day of the Triffids would be... —Eekerz (t) 23:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no clue where I read it, but I seem to remember reading that the story was loosely based on the old Heston film The Omega Man, which was itself a remake of sorts of Price's The Last Man on Earth, which I'm pretty sure came about as the direct result of adapting I Am Legend to film. - Patrick of J (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:28dayslater poster.jpg, found on 28 Days Later, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy's Accent

I've removed this line:

"The character Jim was English in the original script, and several scenes were actually shot with Cillian Murphy using an English accent. Due to Murphy's request, he continued the shoot using his own Irish accent, dubbing over his English-accented lines in post-production."

In searching through 8 years of interviews with Murphy, including several where the topic of accents even came up, he made no mention of this supposed facet. Nor was I able to find any mention of this in any interview with Danny Boyle or the film's Production Notes. Every single mention of claim I was able to locate used this wiki article as a the source. Unless someone has some information that confirms it that they want to produce, I'd say this is bad info. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction Film?

How exactly is this a Sci-Fi movie? It's a horror movie, possibly a Thriller/Suspense, but it's in no way a Sci-Fi movie.

Someone should change the introductory line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.97.110 (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the primary genre is "horror", not SF, even if there are small unexplored SF elements to this movie. It's even mentioned in the Horror film article. Accordingly, I've changed to genre to "horror". 201.216.245.25 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Source for this line?

I'm trying to find either a source for this line or an actual copy of the alleged promotion: "One month before the film was released in cinemas, various newspapers included a short panel comic book style promotion for the film, in which various scenes showed a chaotic London during those 27 days with people trying to escape the city en masse."

Does anyone have a copy? I've tried searching for it, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of its existence. --Mr. Corgi (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagged it as citation needed. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

42?

Anyone have a clue if the numbering of the blockade was intentional, Douglas Adams and all the rest?--217.225.159.123 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Zombies

OK, first of all, it's not clear that "many sources explicitly state it is a zombie film" - there is actually only one such source used in the article to support the "zombie film" statement. Second, the source is wrong. 28 Days Later isn't a zombie film, as there aren't any zombies in it. Do we really need to categorize the article wrongly just because one source states something incorrect? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

http://nymag.com/nymetro/movies/reviews/n_8826/, http://www.slate.com/id/2084944/, http://web.archive.org/web/20030707194401/http://www.sunspot.net/entertainment/movies/bal-to.days27jun27,0,1370816.story?coll=bal-artslife-movies, http://www.laweekly.com/2003-07-03/film-tv/undead-do-dance/, and so on. It's not one source, it's not a minority view. 28DL and 28WL fit very comfortably into the zombie genre. Geoff B (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This does bring up an interesting point though; the debate on whether this is a zombie film or not has been going on since the first film came out. Are there any sources we could use that address the debate specifically? It might make an interesting little sub-section for reception (could be moved to a franchise article if that third movie ever gets around to getting made). Millahnna (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I've never seen an article about it, but you'd think there'd be one or two given the various opinions on the subject. There are even reviews that state plainly that it's not a zombie film, but fits into the genre (here for instance).
A quick Google reveals a few.

Geoff B (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Several of those sources are simply opinion. The Denogeek is particularly bad because it boils down to "I don't care about cannon" and "I can make up what I want." If I used the same logic I could call my Ford Focus as Ferrari because they're both cars. Simply put, the film's marketers misused the zombie label then repeated it to the point where people believed it. This website's definition of zombie is: undead corpse or a person in a trance controlled by a wizard. 28 Days is neither, so the label should be removed. Larylich (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a list of 10 websites stating that these aren't zombies at all, to support my claims:

In articles or newsgroups that allows for discussions or comments, you will find people challenging the notion that this film is a zombie film everytime the topic comes up. I can provide a sample list of those websites if you you wish. Thank you! Larylich (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Following up to see how things are shaping up with this? Thank you. Larylich (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The category "zombie films" includes 28 Weeks Later in its list... should it be deleted? (Just as a personal opinion, I know those aren't cannon zombies, but I do think it should be considered a zombie film. It's merely an update, a reimagining, or a modern take on zombies. But I do realize it broadens the definition dangerously to the point that Frankenstein could be included as well...--Munin75 (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't it stated by one of the characters in one of the films that the Rage Infected could be killed just like any unifected person. Also didn't someome say (can't remember if its the same character or someone else) that because the Infected didn't eat or drink, they would slowly die off. Or something like that anyway. 194.74.238.137 (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:In The House - In A Heartbeat.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:In The House - In A Heartbeat.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rage Virus Article

I never got around to dealing with it, but there was once an article about the Rage virus. I planned to try to improve it to be its own article or at least slip into this one, but never found the time or the energy. I don't want to just outright delete it, so if anyone wants to give it a go, I saved it here. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re-write

Much of the plot summary is very poorly written. For instance what does this mean? - "After 5 days of the infection, a state of emergency is brought. After 10 days, the evacuation of the surviving residents is ordered. After 20 days, it is presumed as devastation, as the most of the Britain mainland is infected, and the survivors seek refuge" States of emergency are declared, not brought (and it seems odd that the authorities waited 5 days!); devastation had occured, it is not "presumed"; if residents are being evacuated after 10 days, why do they wait 20 days to seek refuge!203.184.41.226 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot length

The plot summary is absurdly long, currently 1,095 words, and must be reduced. WP:FILMPLOT says summaries should be 700 words long at maximum, making this about 500 words too long. This film is neither so long nor so complex to justify this excessive summary, it needs to be edited. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:28_Days_Later/Archive_3&oldid=1136477718"