Jump to content

Talk:28 Weeks Later: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
remove link going to different person of the same name
Re-assessment
Line 22: Line 22:
{{Science Fiction Project|class=B|importance=low|type=Article}}
{{Science Fiction Project|class=B|importance=low|type=Article}}
{{WikiProject London|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject London|class=B|importance=low}}
{{comicsproj|class=C|importance=bottom}}
{{comicsproj|class=C|importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{Archive box|<center>[[/Archive 1|1]]}}
{{Archive box|<center>[[/Archive 1|1]]}}

Revision as of 16:25, 16 September 2011

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • 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.

For the record: 28 Weeks Later on-screen credits

OPENING CREDITS:

END CREDITS:
[Note: total length of on-screen end credits scroll is 7 minutes; detailed below are the initial 2 minutes, 30 seconds]

Andy actually infected

Showing the bloody helicopter in Paris kind of points out that Andy really was infected and he killed Flynn and his Sister. The scene before even focuses on him clenching his fists. Should we even assume that these "immunes" like Andy and his mother are actually nothing more than intelligent infected? They turn evil but they still maintain their intelligence.--86.121.71.224 (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO! Andy was a carrier and covered in infected blood. There is never any indication that his sister is immune, especially since her eyes are the same color. Clearly, that goes with immunity. We see her hug him through blood on the glass. She hugs him, becomes "raged", and kills the pilot, thus the crashed copter. People pulling bloody bodies out would become infected too, and so goes Europe. Personally, I would have preferred that the crashed copter scene not be there, and it is just implied that once the virus crosses the channel, that somehow, it spreads. But I think the film clearly shows that the chopper crashed, implying the pilot was attacked, and since the kid was asymptomatic, that means the girl caught it from the blood-soaked kid.
One more thing: kudos to whoever pointed out that the wife deliberately infected the husband since he left her to die. I hadn't noticed that, but have the DVD and will look for that now. TechnoFaye Kane 07:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... I know that Andy was infected but did he get taken over by the virus? 70.90.174.173 (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that considering the chopper was soaked in blood when Flynn used the the chopper's blades to slice and dice the infected in the field and i dont know about you but when your dealing with a full-fledged epidemic, washing your chopper is just not a priority plus when the sister hugs him she would feel it in seconds--Rashkae (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be the infected just ran down the Chunnel. It's a marathon's length, and they had 28 days to do it. WCityMike (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be speculation, as is my counter-argument to that. However, if France didn't have half the Army there choking off their side of the Channel Tunnel while they filled it in with six yards of concrete, then France would have been overrun long before 28 Weeks Later. They might even have had the Navy try to crack and flood the Tunnel. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I'm not arguing to put my speculation in the article. And I know talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Et cetera. WCityMike (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deserted production

28 Days Later#Production covers how they made scenes look deserted and desolate. I think this article needs the same but I don't know any details, especially since the scenes are more grand.  :) Cburnett (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How they did it this time needs sources, but I don't think it needs to be posted here IMO. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? This is an encyclopedia and such productions details of making the 16th world's largest city appear deserted is nothing trivial. Cburnett (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do i put this new image?

File:Kill'em.jpgSo where do i put this new image? cause i made this image for the 28 Day Later wikia. Demon Hunter Rules(—) 01:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)recycle bin[reply]

Inconsistencies with 28 Days Later

Does anyone know the explanation as to why the 'infected' in 28 Weeks Later suddenly have no aversion to light? In 28 Days Later the infected would not chase anyone into the daylight nor come out of hiding from darkness. For example, in 28 Days Later the infected would not chase the car outside the tunnel. Likewise the infected would not come out until after darkness thus allowing for the bizarre post apocalyptic empty streets part of the first film to work plot-wise. A huge part of the reason the characters were able to travel around in 28 Days Later was due to the aversion of light by the infected. The only cases where the infected were in daylight was because they got infected while still in daylight or they were chained up outside in broad daylight or during the end of the movie flight overhead with an infected unable to walk, stuck in the middle of a road somewhere.

Suddenly is 28 Weeks Later the boy arriving at the cottage is being chased in full daylight at the start of the film and no further mention or respect of the daylight aversion is ever mentioned or respected anywhere in the sequel.

What explanation is given for this sudden important shift from 28 Days Later to 28 Weeks Later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.45.233 (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that since this movie is geared by the producers toward an audience that expects thrills to generate revenue, the producers do not care about any of this attention to detail. if you asked them, they would probably respond with "is it that important to you?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.45.208 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the two films take place at different points in time, and that the infection has had time to change, and that the infected deen in the street was starving. Also, that the infected don't show any adversion to the well-lit army base, or in the beginning of the first film where they are set on fire, which obviously gives off light. The infected in the car scene probably just gave up trying to chase the car since it is too fast, and not because of some kind of photophobia, or heliophobia. Further, the new outbreak was caused my someone who was immune, meaning that since she reacted differently, she could also pass along the infection differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.140.62 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's plausible-that the virus mutated- but they were very explicit in the first film about only traveling during the day and the dangers the infected pose at night. It is true in the first film the infected had no aversion to light but they definitely had an aversion to the sun itself. So I will accept your mutation theory... Interesting that the film Legend also had a sun aversion for their infected but not to regular light either. I believe this is the same aversion shown in vampire movies where sunlight kills the vamps but regular light does nothing. UV seems to kill the undead!

We were warned in the first film that you shouldn't go out at night unless you had to, but it was never mentioned that it was because you'd be safer from the photophobic infected during the day, it was just implied that you'd be safer, which I assumed was because during the night you'd either have to have a torch, which would attract their atention in a city where there's no electricity, or walk around blind, less able to see any infected person you're walking towards/towards you. Simmilarly you'd be more vunerable if you went out by yourself. As for the cases you mentioned above, they stopped because of the greater speed of the taxi, and the streets were empty because there were fewer uninfected people left to find so the infected begun to slowly die, like inside the church, disregarding their hunger and just collapsing. The streets would've been just as empty at night, but it wouldn't have looked as impressive, simmilarly it makes it jusst that bit scarier being chased by an infected zombie like person at night then on a sunny afternoon. As said above I think you're just reading too deep into it 78.148.72.33 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritable heterochromia?

Uh can you actually inherit heterochromia, as shown in this movie or is that something that they didn't bother researching?144.135.180.109 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can inherit it, or it can be acquired through disease or injury. I don't know what the chances of inheriting it are though. My mum has one eye blue and one brown, but no one else in the family has it. 79.69.52.184 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Names

I assume any sequels/prequels will follow the same pattern: 28 Seconds Later 28 Minutes Later 28 Hours Later 28 Years Later 28 Decades Later 28 Centuries Later 28 Millenia Later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.73.15 (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot?

I've removed the word 'reboot' from the opening sentence: "28 Weeks Later is a 2007 British post-apocalyptic horror film, and reboot sequel to the 2002 film 28 Days Later."

I don't know why this would be considered a reboot; it is set at a different time and features entirely different characters, but it doesn't redefine or retcon any aspect of the basic premise from the previous film, nor does it retell any of the events of that film, since it (obviously) takes place several months later.

Here's the definition from the page Reboot (fiction):

Reboot, in serial fiction, means a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew.

Certainly not the case here. Rodeosmurf (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28 months later

Why is 28 Months Later redirecting to 28 Weeks Later? By that logic, 28 Weeks Later should be edited to redirect to 28 Days Later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.74.185 (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough information about 28 Months Later to give it a separate article. There is no planned release date. There hasn't been any advertising for the film. There isn't even a trailer. For all we know, the film could be nothing more than an idea still floating in the back of Danny Boyle's head. --Mr. Corgi (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but imbd has a release date set for 2011...it could be more than just an idea. I agree, we should have a 28 months later article. Even if it is a very short article, it would be less confusing to be redirected to 28 weeks later. On a partially related note, if anyone has imbd pro, they can look up more details about the film (28 months later) by clicking more information. This information could also bring forth enough for an article. Donatrip (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the redirect. It's now actually right. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who?

In October 2008, Boyle discussed with Karmalooptv the high possibility of a 28 Months Later. No previous mention of Karmalooptv. Koro Neil (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How can you consider the type of rifle and model of helicopter relevant pieces of plot information, while not considering the way a main character dies, and the helicopter battle, relevant plot moments? (Crake333 (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You've introduced factual inaccuracies. To point out one issue: you changed it to say 'sniper rifle' when it is not a sniper rifle. However, the changes aren't really the issue here. The issue is, you're only supposed to revert a page three times at most in any 24 hour period. You're now up to seven. I'd appreciate it if you could stop reverting the page and discuss the changes you want to make here. Geoff B (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not introduced factual inaccuracies: the character wielding the gun in question is a sniper. Therefore, his gun is a sniper rifle, or at least a "sniper's rifle." If the word sniper is such an issue, remove it. If I receive a warning for edit warring, why wouldn't thejadefalcon? He reverted the page more than three times as well. Just because I'm not established like he is doesn't mean the rules don't apply in the same way. To address your request to discuss the changes I want to make here, what does it appear I am trying to do by having started this topic? A plot is defined by Webster's dictionary as "the main story." How could the type of gun or type of helicopter be considered part of the main story? The plot details I have added are certainly relevant to the main story: the way a main character dies, and the helicopter battle. (Crake333 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. A sniper rifle is a particular type of weapon. Sticking a telescopic sight on a carbine does not make it a sniper rifle, nor does a sniper using a rifle automatically make it a sniper rifle.
I think thejadefalcon was entirely correct to revert you. Your first few edits contained original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. So, not counting those, tjf reverted you twice.
Neither are the real issue at hand. You are only discussing the changes after you have made them. tjf and I obviously do not feel that your edits, as a whole, improve the page, so before making those changes again, please discuss them here. I'm trying not to bite the newcomer here, but if you keep reverting you'll end up blocked and unable to edit Wikipedia.
You may find the film article style guidelines helpful. Geoff B (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to what I am writing, and not from whatever need for superiority you have. I stated that it is at least a "sniper's rifle," and also stated that if it were truly an issue, that it can simply be removed. Futhermore, I have removed the "original research." The fact that I am discussing changes "after" I have made them is a ridiculous statement. This is Wikipedia. I am never going to seek permission to make edits to "The Free Encyclopedia," as the whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a website where "Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to...articles." How can more detail about the plot not improve a plot summary? The omission of an important scene in the summary (the helicopter battle) and the fact that an infected individual uses a weapon, albeit incorrectly, to kill, seems very much relevant to the plot of the film. Additionally, you may find a careful reading and actual response to my posts helpful. (Crake333 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
According to the page, "...all of the film's important events should be outlined." Wouldn't the helicopter battle and a main character's death count as "important events?" (Crake333 (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
If you look at the Plot section, it mentions that plots should be 400 to 700 words. This means a lot of detail is unneccessary, specifically The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail. A large amount of detail is not always needed. If the plot section goes over 700 (as 28WL's already is, IIRC), then it needs to be trimmed down, not added to.
Additionally, you may edit any article freely, but if an editor expresses concern and reverts you, you should discuss it with them as your first option. Not revert and then discuss. Geoff B (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at that section: that is where my original quote was from. I saw all of what you quoted, but you opted to leave out an important piece, "...unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." The key moments I added should be part of the summary, due to their centrality to the story. Why should my edits be conditional on anyone else accepting them? This is Wikipedia, it is for "anyone" to edit. Just because you and tjf have been editors longer shouldn't grant your voice more credence. Crake333 (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28WL's plot is certainly not too complicated to summarise in 400-700 words. Much more complex films than this rather straightforward film have been summarised within that limit, so there's no reason for an exception here. All editors on Wikipedia are equal, but just as my/tjf's opinion does not outweigh yours, your does not outweigh mine or tjf's. That is why compromise is a central tenet of Wikipedia, unless there are other concerns (such as, in this case, plot length). The plot, as it is, needs to be shortened, not lengthened. Geoff B (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this took me so long. Had to take a short break from the site. So far, I agree with everything Geoff B has said. However, I'd like to point out this line of yours, Crake333:
I am never going to seek permission to make edits to "The Free Encyclopedia," as the whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a website where "Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to...articles."
That comment smacks of arrogance, stubbornness and a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia stands for. If that is true for you, then let us allow the vandals to add pictures from... this article to, say, this article. Would that be fun? We allow non-controversial edits to be made without discussion. However, as two editors have disagreed with you, this requires discussion, compromise and no edits regarding the matter until their is consensus or someone (preferably uninvolved) swoops in to rewrite it to fit all parties. Secondly, if you want to get really technical, you commited sockpuppetry. Three edits with an IP address and then for with a registered account doing exactly the same thing at exactly the same time and from an account that only existed from 23:38 on the 16th, which covers one of the IP edits? Officially, that's socking. I'll forgive you if you can listen and understand what we're saying. Okay? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 03:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your conceited arrogance is astounding to me. You show no ability to process information or think critically in the least. When I saw this was becoming a problem, I joined Wikipedia so that I could be something other than an anonymous IP address. I wasn't committing your bullshit sockpuppetry, trying to appear to be more than one person, I simply wasn't registered when I made the first edits. Looks to me like you and Geoff B committed meatpuppetry, seeing as he just came out of nowhere and intervened on your side. Furthermore, equating the edits I made with putting a picture of a guy sucking his own dick onto a children's movie article shows your immaturity and idiocy. Don't talk to me like a child, you ignorant, aloof twit. I don't need your forgiveness, okay, your highness? Let's try this, once I get some spare time, I'll write a more concise summary to satisfy you and Geoff B, but I'll include the plot details I find important and leave out the model names of the weapons and vehicles, which are completely unrelated, in any way, shape, or form to the plot of the film. I hope this holy war against me over a movie plot article was worth it to you. Crake333 (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm locking this thread down. It seems Crake refuses to consider TJF and Geoff B's arguments on the plot section, even resorting to various epithets just to get them off his case. We will not tolerate such insensitivity here, and since you're a new user Crake333, you ought to read WP:MOSFILM on how to properly edit film articles. Until then, it would be advisable for you not to edit this article any further. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zombies

Sorry, but 28 Weeks Later is not a zombie film - there aren't any zombies in it, just people infected with the rage virus, and they aren't the same thing. It's no good to restore the zombie films category with a comment like, "sources state it is", when no such sources have been provided, and the main body of the article doesn't even use the word "zombie." Maybe sources exist that call 28 Days Later a zombie movie, but this is a different article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/movies/11late.html Geoff B (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may qualify as a reliable source per wiki policy, but it's a sloppy piece of journalism nonetheless. There is no point to readding the zombie films category without mentioning in the article that critics have called it a zombie film (which I'm not opposed to, even though the critics have it wrong). So why not do that? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you stop pushing your own POV? Try presenting some reliable sources that say it isn't a zombie film, perhaps. You asked for a source for it being a zombie film, I gave you one. Now you move the goalposts, because you didn't check the sources in the article properly? It's sloppy journalism because you disagree with the author about what genre the film is in. It's not just mainstream journalists, either. Horror sites, who are better-acquainted with the genre, call 28DL and 28WL zombie films as well, see here. Geoff B (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[1] refers to asking one of the actors. Zombies are either vodoo mind controlled people or beings brought back from the dead by any available medium (magic (necromancy), viral etc). [2] refers it to being a apocalyptic horror. Understand that the virus drove people mad and eventually they died of starvation, hence the clearance of the UK. Zombies eat because of basic instinctive need to, or how ever you feel why, it is not for sustenance. This quite easily could turn into a war over how many URL's we can find that refer to it as zombie or not zombie movie. The original strain came from animals that were being tested in a animal lab, not dead primates being brought back from the dead by a virus. Yes zombies are generally infected, generally by a virus or something similar. But in some cases there are no explanations for their rise from the dead. Offworldnet (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling

I believe the word 'authorized' is spelled as 'authorised' in the Plot paragraph

68.49.125.93 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a misspelling but a British English spelling. Geoff B (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and that's just plain English, not "British" English. There is a variety of English called American, but English is English for goodness' sake!

Alices Classification as an asymptomatic carrier is incorrect, Wikipedia contradicts itself on this matter.

The plot synopsis on the main page states that

"Alice is tested and found to be infected with the rage virus, but displaying few symptoms, which categorises her as a rare asymptomatic carrier"

Clicking on the words "asymptomatic carrier" brings you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptomatic_carrier which clearly states "An asymptomatic carrier (healthy carrier or just carrier) is a person or other organism that has contracted an infectious disease, but who displays no symptoms." I have limited knowledge of virology but I believe this is the scientifically correct definition. Asymptomatic means displaying no symptoms which means that although the movie may call her an asymptomatic carrier, this is incorrect (I have not yet watched the movie I wanted to read the Wiki page first).

I will try to edit the article to say

"Alice is tested and found to be infected with the rage virus, but displaying few symptoms, she is categorized as a rare asymptomatic carrier in the film, though is is not the true meaning of the term."

I feel that the film is bastardizing science, which isn't the issue. the issue for me is when that bastardization gets carried over to content that is supposed to be factual. I think that people might just read the plot synopsis and gain a misunderstanding of what an asymptomatic carrier is if they don't visit the "asymptomatic carrier page". Okay I've explained my motives changing it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.18.151 (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your confusion. She is tested, she carries the virus but has no symptoms (techincallly we should change that line to "no" instead of "few"), exactly like the definition of the term states. What am I missing? Millahnna (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:28_Weeks_Later&oldid=450829112"