Talk:28 Days Later/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

When Major West told Jim that the "answer to infection" was probably not what he would expect, what he meant was that Jim would have most likely been expecting a cure for the Rage virus rather than to fight the infected off until they starve to death. 2.100.56.180 (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2012 (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)

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)

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))

I have the OST on origional CD. It comes with an exclusive comic strip panel (nothing to do with the comic book series) and some exclusive out take footage. If you want any info from it, gimme a shout. Iowaseven (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (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)