Talk:The Crazies (2010 film)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at the cast listing - somebody's seriously messed with the listed cast. I seriously doubt that Julia Roberts is playing a man, or that Bobcat Goldthwaite is in this or any movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.104.230 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The cast list remains messed up; it has two of the actors in the film playing character names of "Jerry Lee Lewis" and "Bobcat Goldthwait." Not the actual celebrities themselves, but characters by those names. According to the IMDB, Brett Rickaby is playing "Bill Farnum" while Frank Hoyt Taylor is playing "Mortician Charles Finley", and not Goldthwait and Lewis, respectively —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.245.127 (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch for spam links from dreadcentral.com

I just removed a number of references from this page that link to dreadcentral.com. Many of them had no relation to the content that they were supposed to be supporting; they may have been inserted simply to drive traffic to dreadcentral.com . Here are examples of what seemed like irrelevant links:

"Much of the film was shot in Middle Georgia, and Lenox, Iowa, REF was to: http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/33822/the-crazies-trailer-debuts The Crazies Trailer Debuts

The film is being produced and will be distributed by Overture Films REF was to: http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/33369/exclusive-rob-hall-talks-effects-remake-the-crazies Exclusive: Rob Hall Talks Effects on Remake of The CraziesXsmasher (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to remove these references twice, but have been reverted - are they really appropriate to the content they're supposed to be supporting? I can not see the connection Xsmasher (talk)

As you have already been told, they are not "spam" links. What your issue is with those two sites, I do not know, but your ongoing campaign to call them spam is getting tired fast. Both are clearly relevant links to the film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the references that were removed, and they do not need to belong in the infobox unless the details are challenged. I do not have issue with the website in question, but the use of references from the website should be reviewed without bias. Xsmasher, you have exhibited a bias toward the website, which is why your edits are being contested. So tread lightly, I suggest. Erik (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are the credits of cast and crew for this film really being challenged this late in the game? WP:V says to use inline citations for material "that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Names in the infobox are easily checked and rarely use citations unless it is very early in production when much is not known or when the credited person is debatable. Erik (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A few changes

Change all "trys" to "tries." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.28.176 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Change "large lawn mower" to "farming combine."

Change oil canister and oil to gasoline canister and gasoline.

Change "They go to they begin to drive into a pit stop but a helicopter passes by them, they hide out in a car wash" to "They begin to drive into a pit stop but a helicopter passes them, so they hide in a car wash."

Change "initiate contamination process" to "initiate contamination protocol."

Don't you mean "initiate containment protocol"?Frank Scipio (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Change "the enormous, poorly written paragraph" to "a consise, grammatically correct plot summary." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.138.234 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Welcome and thanks. I corrected the grammar in the helicopter sentence as requested. The other changes are factual and require a source. Celestra (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the single paragraph plot summary should probably be banned from Wikipedia and society in general. "Heli-copter"? What is that? Additionally, it isn't even an accurate summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Scipio (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The family who hide in the closet from the knife wielding dad do NOT lock themselves in the closet. The mother grips the handle and fights against letting him in. He does'nt try very hard and then locks the door, walks away and spreads the gas and starts the fire. This is the reason they were unable to get out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msdking (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that the two main characters think the military killed the uninfected at the truck stop, but then realize a group of Crazies killed the military and the uninfected. They then get ambushed by the same Crazies.Frank Scipio (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)javascript:insertTags('Frank Scipio (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)',,)

The critical element is that they figured out the military was killing the uninfected as well (and kudos to the IP editor who added that back in). The specifics of the scenes leading to that information aren't really important. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Has been added to my plot to-do list and is taking first priority. I'm going to do one quick pass just to give what is there some paragraph breaks and trim some of the sentences. I'll be back in about 2-3 hours with a summary reworked for length, readability and style. Right now it reads like stage directions on a page and that is where the bulk of the length is coming from (that and all of the trivial details). So to sum up; slightly trimmed text with paragraph breaks coming in five minutes, complete overhaul in a few hours. Get your keyboards ready copy editors. Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I cut it from 1300 words to just over 300. I cut out all of the B story stuff; plenty of room to add some back in if you really want to but Becca was so non-critical I don't see the point. Will be fine tuning over the next day or so. Please do help me clarify anything I was too fuzzy about. Happy editing, all. Millahnna (mouse)talk 12:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so you pretty much saw every new release out there. I'm impressed, :) and great job as always. --Artoasis (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice job with the summary! Erik (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The explosion that destroyed the town

There seems to be some editing debate as to whether the explosion was Napalm or a nuclear blast. I chose to leave it at "large explosion" in the plot summary as it wasn't specified in the movie. Also I doubt it was a nuclear blast because of the opening of the film which shows the town burning but largely intact (a direct impact from a nuke would have disintegrated it). Can anyone confirm what type of bomb was used? Or is it better to leave it vague as I did? I recall reading some guideline (I think in film plot at WP:Films) that said if something like that can be debated leave it out. The example used in the guideline I read was a gun. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a napalm bomb could have covered that wide of an area. Moreover, the flash and the mushrooming cloud was indicative of a nuclear explosion. If I was directing a film and wanted people to think a nuke destroyed the town, I'd put in those two elements so people knew what kind of bomb it was. By the way, in the '73 film they were discussing nuking the town, and they stayed pretty faithful to the original in this film, such as the abusiveness of the military. Frank Scipio (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a nuke myself, until someone came along and edited it to napalm and I thought about how much infrastructure in the town was still there. In all honesty, it probably was intended to be a nuke and they just borked it by showing so much stuff intact but burning. But I figure it's better to just leave it at explosion and let the readers/movie watchers sort it out, unless I can find an actual source that covers it specifically. Really, for a plot summary, the type of explosion is kind of an irrelevant detail. Town goes bye-bye in great big boom is what's important. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.Frank Scipio (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Its most defiantly a nuke, the scene from the beginning shows the town 2 days after the initial siting. Day 1- baseball park incident Night-1 Burning of Family Day-2 killer in prison, attempt on sheriffs life Night-2 Military begins operations and they make their way into the town. The explosion is clearly a mushroom blast. Napalm also wouldn't create a shock wave 20-miles out of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.127.138 (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize the timeline on the first scene; that's why I think the film's makers intended a nuke and borked it. There shouldn't be that much stuff left after a direct hit and I think that's why a couple of editors have tried changing it to something else. I agree with you on mushroom cloud and napalm as well; standard hollywood stock and trade for these kinds of things is to use a nuke. However, it's all irrelevant. Town goes boom is is the thing. So unspecified explosion it is, for now. If I see it crop up in a reliable source I'll switch it out. Millahnna (mouse)talk 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it's bad form to introduce 'real' physics into a discussion of movie plots but mushroom clouds are not specific to nuclear explosions, they are simply the result of 'huge' explosions and if you are the government attempting to cover up the destruction of a city, a nuclear weapon would be counterproductive, after all now you have to explain away why a chemical plant explosion left radioactive fallout in the area. Not saying "Hollywood" would have thought that far ahead but if you are guessing purely on logic a conventional weapon would be indicated.TheMerricat (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point and thanks for reminding me of it. So I guess that cements it unless someone can provide sources; saying the town was destroyed will have to be sufficient (how it was destroyed is sort of moot to giving a plot summary anyway). Any point of contention? Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Does there need to be links to irrelevant things like high school and baseball? Their not at all important to the movie's plot, plus I think people know what high school and baseball is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.25.35 (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

High school and basebeall?

Does there need to be links to irrelevant things like high school and baseball? Their not at all important to the movie's plot, plus I think people know what high school and baseball is.

98.124.25.35 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)