Talk:28 Weeks Later/Archive 1

Synopsis

Someone needs to write a synopsis for the film now that it's been released for more than a week. I'd do it myself but I figure someone who's downloaded it (you know who you are) would be in a better position to check their facts than me. A simple summary of the background, followed by a spoiler warning and then a full plot summary is the way to go, as, believe it or not, some people like to read the plot before they see the film ("fraidy-cats" for one). A trivia section would be cool, since there's a bit of pop-culture and military detail that could be discussed. That's my two cents anyway. Oh and good flick, beats the crap out of every other "Zombie" (bad use of the term I know) title out there except the original. --Spoonman.au 03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

--

I've just updated and cleaned the plot synopis - it was too long before and containted too many small details. It's a shorter and more to the point synopis as Wiki intends. Tomius J., 22nd May

Thank God! -R. fiend 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but remember, it's ScarletT, with two Ts. And I found quite a few typos I corrected. Also the virus hasn't spread throughout the United Kingdom, that would suggest Northern Ireland was also infected which is impossible, since the infected would have to swim across. --Earisu 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good synopsis. I think it was good for someone to write a long synopsis which could then be cut down. And for the love of god people, the gun Scarlett uses in the Tube station is not a sniper rifle, it's an M4 Assault Rifle/Automatic Carbine that happens to have a scope, which most new rifles do. I must have corrected this 5 times now, the movie did a good job of accurately portraying US Military equipment, so let's do a good job of labelling it accurately. --Spoonman.au 01:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody keeps editing the plot synopis and making it too detailed and unneccesarily longer. Ugh! Tomius J., 26th May

I hate to be the nay-sayer but a few "creative license" issues should be noted: 1. The next day, the two children slip out of the safe zone The children would not have been permitted to get as far away as they did in real life. 2. Andy discovers Alice, disheveled but alive. Early in the movie we here the safe zone has electricity 24 hours a day, later we see a significant amount of light coming from the area. Given the children didn't travel very far from the safe zone to get to their home on is forced to ignore the fact that somehow Alice missed the bright lights, reconstruction, and cleaning activities.

3. A blood test reveals that she is infected with the Rage virus, but not displaying any symptoms, labeling her a carrier, as evidenced by her bloodshot eye. She would have been immediately sequestered thus negating the possibility of #4 below.

4. Don visits Alice in her isolation cell The military would have posted guards 24/7 and denied him access.

5. [Don] Now an Infected, he brutally kills her and goes on the prowl in District 1 He needed a pass to get through multiple doors to get to his wife to include her room. How in the world did he get out of the room after killing her?

6. The outbreak forces the area into lockdown, but not in time to prevent Don from forcing his way into the safe room, where he begins to kill and infect the confined civilians. If this zone were "heavily fortified" and the rooms "safe" how did our ravenous pal Don get into the safe area?

7. To aid their escape, Flynn uses his helicopter rotor blades to kill dozens of Infected before leaving, designating Wembley Stadium as the new rendezvous point. Helicopter blades are not designed to chop through flesh and bone Flynn would have crashed and died at this point either in fire or lived to become an infected.

8. The group breaks into an abandoned car to escape the infected and the clouds of poisonous gas being vented into the city. If the car were airtight they would not require shirts over their mouths and nose. Shirts will not protect one from poison gas. The vents of cars cannot be closed to deny gas entry. Our band of heroes were all dead and the movie over at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.93.181 (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that I really disagree with...but you got a source? :) Cburnett (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure which part of the post you want a source for, assuming you mean the chemical weapons affects I will use the film's content as the source. The chemical weapon drops the enraged very fast. In addition it rapidly eats the car paint. Given the soldier opens the door to get out an air exchange between the passenger compartment and contaminated air would have resulted. Depending on the agent used a few mg/m^3 would be enough to kill and the cloud here was quite thick therefore one can infer if it was enough to get the infected it would have also gotten the people. NBC protection systems are quite expensive one can infer that this type of device is not offered to the average consumer. Finally the military uses charcoal filters and gas masks to protect the eyes, nose, and throat from chemical weapons. Having been in the military and gone into a CS chamber I know a t-shirt will not prevent exposure to chemical agents.

Ok, but you could write all that stuff about ANY film, want to go through the whole of Wikipedia editing every film for every "creative licencing"? 77.96.121.206 (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do point out we have to buy into the creative license. I am only suggesting we examine the evidence and ask ourselves if a complete breakdown in the system is practical (meaning items 2 through 6) for a plot or should the people that developed the script put more effort into this somewhat critical component. To cite Cloverfield, one must only buy into the notion of a giant monster. As opposed to a whole host of improbable events falling into place such that order dissolves into total chaos.

To repond to your comments about the innacuracies:

1. True in all senses; it is even unlikely they would have slipped out the way they did.

2. It is much less likely that Alice would even be alive, along with what you said.

3. It is possible the facility, being in a deserted, dead cuontry, did not have the means to sequester her.

4. I seem to remember the guards being called away.

5. Passcode doors would not require a code on the inside; if one can get in, one can get out.

6. He was already in the "safe zone." The real problem is that soldiers would be posted at all entrances to the zone.

7. Helicopter rotors were desgined to keep an incredibly heavy object airborne, even to make it rise swiftly. Flesh and bone are not at all hard enough to stop a spinning rotor. Also, if Flynn was increasing speed, he would remain in forward motion, though he would normally lift upwards.

8. Theoretically, they got out of the gas cloud before there was a high enough concentration to kill them. Also, putting one's shirt over one's mouth does do something, though it is only temporary. However, as it is not known what gas was used, is is impossible to say wether the gas could simply permeate skin or eye sockets (such as mustard gas).

ITS A MOVIE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN NOT EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE. If it matters to you that much send an angry letter to the president. He'll care. Wikipedia is no place for useless nitpicking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.204.246 (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Immunity to the Virus

Andy's eye color should be noted in the text. During his initial medical examination, he tells Scarlett the coloring was inherited from his mother. After we learn his mother retains an immunity to the virus's effects, the viewer is able to infer that Andy does as well. The two traits would seem to be linked.

Not necessarily. The heterochromia element could have just been to reinforce the concept of genetic inheritance with the audience. There's no explicit evidence that heterochromia and immunity are linked. - 87.194.6.158 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. When Andy is infected, only his brown eye becomes bloodshot. This suggests that his alleles somehow prevent the rage virus' attachement to his cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.197.11 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the epilogue should explain that, while escaping the outbreak in Britain, Tam, Andy, and the pilot in fact brought the virus to France. Just as their mother remained a carrier for the virus and infected their father through a kiss, Andy most likely passed the virus to his sister in the helicopter. Tam, of course, knew that Andy was infected already. In the Underground, after her brother asked if he'd become one of them, she assured him he hadn't. She clearly recognized the red clouding his eye as a sign of infection.

— re the kids spreading the infection to continental Europe. That is the likeliest theory, but we don't know that for sure. Jmorrison230582 09:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Andy brings the virus to Europe; there's little doubt about that. However the assertion that Tammy knew her brother was infected seems a bit speculative. Tammy knew nothing about her mother's special condition, or that any such condition existed, so when Andy showed no signs of infection it would stand to reason that in spite of the attack by his father, she would assume he had managed to keep the virus out of his blood. For her to make the leap to assuming immunity based on a slight change in an eye would be pretty far out there. Unless I'm forgetting some other indication inthe film, here is really no reason to think she knew. -R. fiend 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you see the look on Tammy's face when she saw Andy's left eye turn bloodshot? She clearly knew that Andy was infected. 2.100.53.51 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we're forgetting the main point here: Britain is actually connected to France via the Channel tunnel, and at the end, just before the Eiffel Tower looms into view, the ninfected atre clearly seen runnign out of some tunnel, it's entirely possible that Andy's fine and so is the pilot and the sister (whatever her name was) although it does seem unlikely 86.128.184.207 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Yo

I doubt Tammy was infected in the helicopter - they never would have made it without crashing. But is pretty clear that Andy must bring it to France. Sylvain1972 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But the tunnel goes to from Dover to Calais, not from London to Paris, and it would have been sealed up, making it impossible for the infected to go through (the tunnel is in fact constructed this way to prevent disaster and the like). The infected at the end of the movie is in the tunnels of the metropolitain, the underground system in Paris. There is nothing in the movie implying that the infected came to France via the tunnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.186.23 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The passage of the virus had to have happened after they landed considering the helicopter had not crashed, and its nver indicated whether he passes it to his sister or whether something else happens

In 28 Days Selena say that "The day before the TV's and radio stopped boradcasting there were reports of infection in paris and NY" so doesn't that mean andy can't have been the first one to take it over to europe?

Note that 'reports of infection' are not the same thing as actual infection. Last year I was woken by a phone call in the middle of the night (Mrs. Badger's mother) because there was a report that New Zealand was about to be submerged by a tidal wave (it was on the BBC), but there was no tidal wave. If the whole of Great Britain was wiped out by a plague outbreak, I think you'd get a lot of reports of outbreaks around the world, even if there weren't any real outbreaks. TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the fact that the movie makes it quite clear that Andy and Tam caused the following outbreak in France. We know that Andy is a carrier, like his mother, and once his saliva or blood got into contact with someone else's system, the whole process repeated itself. I know Wikipedia is supposed to be factual only, but I will point out the possible infection of France in the plot section. If It is true that the original movie mentions that Paris and NY are infected around the same time as London, it would be great to have a citation so I can also mention it otherwise it's very speculative. This article is simply supposed to cover the scope of 28 Weeks Later, not the first movie anyway.

-Cody-7 01:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason my section "implied facts about the ending" discussing the fact that Andy most likey brought the Rage virus to France becasue he 's a carrier - was removed. I'm adding it back in as there's nothing mentioned here in the discussion or any explanation on the edit page as to why this was removed.

I think its pretty obvious that Tammy knew Andy was in some way affected. The doctor had mentioned that their mother was immune and that was why the two of them were important. It is not clear if she knew he was still contagious. But she clearly saw the eye color change and took steps to hide it from the pilot. ~~goodleh

Actually the infection was not outside of britain until then ending of 28 weeks later. Yes there were reports in the first movie but that was simply to dissuade people from attempting to leave Britain. And if the infection was in Europe already then the ending to 28 weeks later would have been redundant (and impossible since there could be no mass reinfection if it was already gone). Lets face it the ending is strongly implying that the same thing happened that happened in london with the mother.

Volterwd (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain,Not British Isles

It was the Island of Great Britain,Not the distributed term British Isles.If you listen to the Directors commentary of 28 days later he said it's only Great Britain.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikel-Fikel 82 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

i find it hard to imagvient he virus wouldnt have spread to Ireland and the coastal islands of BritainGashmak 12:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

why? i mean it isnt like the infected swim, or fly. i cant imagine a plane full of people with some infected guy, with blood running down his chin, calmly sitting in seat 31D, perhaps ordering from the in-flight menu....can you? Trottsky 19:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

lol. the last comment was rich!Scott Free 03:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Though of course "British Isles" is a term used in the United Kingdom to what we (in the other sovereign state in the area) would refer to as "Ireland and Britain". Then again, as your government uses the term "Britain" to refer to the state (viz. the UK) then the "quarantine of Britain" referred to in the article would need clarification. Is it the UK being quarantined or is it Great Britain? I suspect the latter as the UK has never stopped killers crossing over the border into the Republic. Just as well that the film was made before Scottish independence, Lord knows what kind of a terminological pickle there'd be.

194.46.248.151 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this. The term "British Isles" is a geographical termn, it includes England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Eire, Isle of Man, Isle Wight and god knows how many Islands elsewnere. The United Kingdom however is a politcial region encompassing England, Wales, Scotland and NI. Just to point out the difference. Douglasnicol (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But Scotalnd isnt indepedent-its governed in a devolved manner by a very much minoirty government-on a turnout of only 50 odd percent, the SNP only got rougthly 1/3 the votes cast-the unionist vote accounts for twice that, the only problem being that the unionist vote is split between 3 parties whereas th only serious nationalists contenders are the SNP

As for the Irish question-no one has the right to take an sanctimoneous attitude inr egards to Ireland, not after they have engaged in state sponsored terrorism against the British state for 30 years (funded qyuite legally fromt eh US..hang on, i thought the US was in a war on terror-looks like they might ave to invade themselves)

Not that this is relaventGashmak 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rage virus didn't reach Ireland or any of the other islands around Britain during the original outbreak; it was SPECIFICALLY said in the information on what has happened in the 28 weeks that "mainland Britain" was infected, and there was no evidence at all that the virus spread beyond mainland Britain during the original outbreak. 2.100.53.51 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC) == As against the state sponsored terrorism whih existed for 700 hundred years, propogated by the British government (dont make me laugh). Also, perhaps it isn't all that irrelevant when dealing with a rage virus, especially if you've had troops breaking down your door for no apparent reason other than your nationality. Geddit.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.4.253 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

==

Poster info

About the poster: "'The inspiration came from WWI and WWII propaganda posters,' explains Karen Crawford, senior VP of print advertising at Fox Atomic, who waves off any suggestion that the artwork nods to current military conflicts. 'We're not making a political statement.'"

"The 'retro but futuristic' image of a gas-masked soldier 'feels stark and iconographic,' says Crawford. The style is borrowed from street artists like U.K. graffiti prankster Banksy and 'Obey Giant' guru Shepard Fairey."

Information to include. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

28 weeks later official trailer song

• Shrinking Universe by Muse from 01:32 to 02:06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brown Shoes22 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

And...?

So what's happened to this movie? When is it coming out? ThePeg 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoiling much of the film?

This seems to spoil a great deal of the film.  Is this all revealed in the trailer, or leaked from production crews?

Why a sequel?

Should we put something like: "In the tradition of The Last Temptation of Toxie..."

Let me get this straight, you're asking why a film company decided to make easy money? Master Deusoma

A sequel is not necessarily bad news, it depends on whether or not they can do a sequel well. There's plenty of ground to cover, between the implication that the Rage Virus is now somehow behaving in a new way (Don didn't behave as mindlessly as the other infected, he was seen avoiding attacking people when someone like Doyle or Scarlett were in a position to fight him off, and he used Doyle's M4 as a weapon to bludgeon Scarlett, which is new to the infected) and there is the unanswered question of what was happening with Andy once he got the virus. There's also a plot to be explored that was opened by Aftermath, as to the intentions of the Military (Was it just the British Armed Forces that were interested in the virus, if so then have any of their senior leadership survived?). Then there's the obvious "Is it just Paris, all of Northen France, all of France or has the infection spread beyond Europe?" question. There's also "What happened to Stone and the others sealed in the Command Bunker?", and of course "What the hell happened to Jim, Selena and Hannah anyway?". So there's ground to cover. --Spoonman.au 04:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love a sequel to feature Jim again, he could be living in Europe, having nightmares of the infected, possibly seeing Selena infected in his dreams and worrying. Then he finds out the infection has spread again to where he is and he must repeat what happened. And I loved the original cast. --Earisu 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Anachronisms

Um, I have a question - if this movie is set in an alternate 2003, doesn't that make all of the anachronisms listed entirely acceptable and not anachronistic at all? Key word being ALTERNATE, naturally.--203.70.89.148 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is wrong

Who wrote this article? It's not the film I watched last night, it's very mis leading with many errors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.159.67.229 (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

well seeing as you seem to be in a position that not many others are in at the moment, having seen it, why dont you fix them? i very much doubt anyone else can. Trottsky 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Instead of complaining about it, why don't you fix it? You've seen the film yourself, so make the changes it needs and stop whining like a 4 year old who is losing at Candyland. Geez! White_Bishop 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Easy on the attitude, people... no need to be demeaning. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually when I've edietd anything on wiki before its been deleted, when I made suggestions and provided links etc they have been dismissed or not used. Oh and and I did ask around for anyone else who'd be willing to re-write the article but most people said no as it was pointless due to the poinst I mentioned also having happened to them in the past. So thanks for attacking me without even asking for the facts.

I have edited a number of points in the Plot as it differed greatly from the screening of the movie I saw last night. It probably needs tidying up as my writing style is fairly basic. I didn't write up the whole plot as I felt it would give away too much, before the general release of the movie. Bryn13 - 10:57 02 May 2007

Thanks for that, although feel free to go into more depth as you see fit, thats why there is the spoiler warnings. I would take a look at your writing style but i am trying not to read too much of this article lest i ruin the movie for myself. Trottsky 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, when I tried editing the article when I first saw the film, someone continually reverted it back to their wording and removed any edits anyone else contributed, it missed keypoints of the plot and was confusing. I even edited abit of 28 Days Later and the same thing happened, it was just removed. --Earisu 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Steven Horn (2007-05-02). "Set Visit: 28 Weeks Later (Part 1)". IGN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

IGN's set visit. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thomasina Gibson (2007-05-07). "London Baffled 28 Weeks Helmer". Sci Fi Wire. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

How the director approached London. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Steven Horn (2007-05-09). "Set Report: 28 Weeks Later (Part 2)". IGN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Second part of IGN's set visit. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Alain Bielik (2007-05-11). "28 Weeks Later: The Virus Continues for VFX". VFXWorld. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Visual effects in the film. Use http://www.bugmenot.com/ if you have trouble accessing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Debate on if this is a Zombie movie or not

Based on this interview: "There are fine lines between mummies or zombies, and just straight creatures but since we’re infected we’re more of a mixture of both the creature and the mummy or zombie movement. It was very precise, Juan Carlos knew exactly how he wanted it, which was good. Even though everyone understands what is needed, since they all come from different backgrounds everyone still brought their own personality. As movement, especially in the workshop, everyone was saying "oh, we get to be zombies”, and it is good to correct them because people have an image of zombies because they’ve seen them in so many films, the same is true with creatures. But when you say it’s not that, they get that picture out of their head and can get away from the idea that they’re going to be zombies." See? Not intended to be zombies. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Would that, then, make the Dawn of the Dead 2004 remake also not a zombie film? Similarly, in that movie, the zombies moved differently than in other films, and infection was rapid. Other similairties 28 Days/Weeks Later have with zombie movies include transmission primarily through bites but generally through blood, mindlessly throwing themselves at potential victims, and, in some zombie series, most notably the Return of the Living Dead series, people didn't have to die before becoming a zombie. --JMurphy 16:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you remember correctly, in Dawn of the Dead, you had to be bitten, die, and then you reanimated as a zombie, zombies are dead. 28 Days and 28 Weeks later do not have zombies in them. They are alive, they have a heartbeat, they breath, they need food to survive, they bleed when cut, they died due to lack of food and water. To become a zombie, you have to be dead. These people in this movie are ALIVE and infected with a disease which drives them to kill due to uncontrolable rage. Get the facts right, these are NOT zombies. White_Bishop 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what the director intended. Look below: The director for 28 Days Later said that the infected were not intended to be zombies. This isn't a topic to debate in general, talking about the zombies' or infected humans' mannerisms in the films. It's going to be a circuitous argument otherwise. I've provided citations that show that neither 28 Days Later or 28 Weeks Later intend to be zombie-themed, where the opposing argument is the pop culture stance. Can you provide any citation from the source (i.e., the director, producers, or cast members and not movie websites) about how they would define the film? I see that many sites talk about these two films as zombie films, but if we're going to categorize it as a zombie film in spite of the fact that was not the intention, then there should be substance in the article regarding the genre. That's how Wikipedia's supposed to work... isn't it? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As stated, there are tons more sources for it to be classified as a zombie movie than not. It conforms to all of the standards to be listed as such. If the director wants to say it is something else, that is his prerogative, but if I make a pirate movie and say that they aren't really pirates, but they just act a lot like pirates; it is still a pirate movie. (or any genre or sub-genre you can think of) If your standard is Wikipedia citations, there are many more sources saying it is a zombie flick, I can assure you. (Cardsplayer4life 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

I'll renege on the de-categorization of the film as a zombie film, but you're making it sound like his re-interpretation is meaningless. 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later must have valid reasoning to be redefined away from the classical genre of zombie films, so that reasoning should be explored. Just because something is widely accepted does not make it true. Fight Club was widely seen as a film to promote anarchy and violence, when it couldn't be further from the truth. I'm speaking from my perspective now, but there seems to be an obvious shift away from the zombie films, and there's going to be a point where we may not be able to categorize films like Doomsday as zombie films. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that one could make the case for saying that this is a new type of film not in the traditionally zombie category if you will concede that you can see how it might appear to be a zombie movie in its similarities to past zombie movies. (in that it could at least fit in the broad category) (Cardsplayer4life 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

I've been revising some future film articles (mostly coming out toward the end of 2007), but I hope I can find the time to establish content for this film. I definitely have a lot of resources via Google Alerts and miscellaneous links, so we'll see if we can get a better idea of the purpose of this film in relation to zombies in general. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This movie is the very definition of a zombie movie. (see List of zombie films) The people are "infected" and are for all intensive purposes dead. The surviving people have to avoid being infected too. LOTS of sources agree that it is a zombie movie [1] [2] [3] If 28 Days Later is a zombie movie (has been listed as such since the article's creation), then this one most definitely is. (Cardsplayer4life 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Dude, zombies are dead. They have no heartbeat, they do not breath, they are dead. These people are alive. We know they are alive because they are infected with a disease. And we also know that they are alive because they STARVED TO DEATH. Zombies DO NOT need food to live. If anything, this is a post-apocolyptic film. These are not zombies, anyone who can read between the lines can figure that out. These are SIMILAR to zombies, but they are not zombies themselves. White_Bishop 18:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, to say a movie is in the "zombie genre" doesn't necessarily mean it conforms to every singly zombie stereotype. If you have seen lots of zombie movies, then you know that there are always subtle differences between them, but the common theme of having "people" who are undead chasing those who are still living (or at the very least able to infect the still living and make them dead) is what classifies it in the genre. (Cardsplayer4life 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

True. Just look at Shaun of the Dead. María (habla conmigo) 16:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Then can I suggest, even if it's "categorized" as a zombie film, that the interview be included in this article to show that the infected's design is more than just zombie-based? I don't believe your argument is very valid, because you're speaking from so-called "general knowledge". This is Wikipedia; information must be attributed somewhere besides what's known on the street. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Another citation from 28 Days Later: "They're not zombies," groans director Danny Boyle. "That's the one thing I've been trying to get away from." Seriously, these films are different from the zombie films of the yesteryear... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and include the interview if you wish. (make sure all the quotes are accurate) Also, I was merely defining what classified a movie in the "zombie genre", and therefore feel as if I am correct in labeling this movie as such. I realize this is wikipedia, and that is why I provided links to multiple sources classifying it as such. (just google the term "28 Weeks Later zombie" and you can find lots of official sites listing it as such; I can provide lots more links if needed) In other words, I believe that there is much more information that attributes this movie in the zombie genre than information that expressly attributes as not being in the zombie genre.

Also, there are many new zombie movies (lots actually, Dawn of the Dead and Land of the Dead as well as the Resident Evil movies, and lots more less well known ones, as well as a couple coming out in 2007; see List of zombie films), they aren't all from "yesteryear". Just because the director wants to promote his movie as unique doesn't mean that he can redefine what a genre is. If I make a movie and say it isn't a "Slasher" movie, but it conforms to the genre, guess what? It is still a Slasher movie. (The same goes for post-apocalyptic, comedy, or any other genre you can think of; Just because I don't want my movie classified as something doesn't mean I get to redefine what a genre is) (Cardsplayer4life 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

Then I would suggest including mention that the film's infected are not supposed to be zombies, according to so-and-so from the project, then say that the film has still been categorized as one anyway. You can't just write off a redefinition of a film as nonsensical right here and now. I hope to revise this article before the film's release, and I'll keep an eye out for any talk about how this compares and contrasts to zombie films in general. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, make any edits you see necessary. I was just trying to clean up some of the zombie movie classifications on other pages and add the category down at the bottom of this page, not trying to start a debate over it. I had thought it was pretty well accepted that it was in this category. If you do not wish to put it is a zombie movie in the body of it, then by all means don't, but at the least it deserves to be in the category, so that people looking through the categories can see it listed in the appropriate one. (Cardsplayer4life 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

In some ways the infected are closest to Romero's The Crazies but if he thinks his film is that different from the films of yesteryear then he clearly hasn't seen Return of the Living Dead. So there isn't any clear division and it is a grey area but they fail the critical "are they dead?" test. (Emperor 12:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps true, but still a zombie movie in the genre classification sense. (Cardsplayer4life 06:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Its a zombie movie, even more so than the original, but people feel zombie movies are low class so like to rename it, just as with sci fi, battlestar Galactica is called military fiction by its PR because sci fi is low class. its a zombie movie it fits the genre and any argument against well surely be moronic. Sherzo 03:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To whoever said zombies have no heartbeat, no anything, etc. Zombies most definitely have a heartbeat; how else would they bleed? Also, one often kills zombies by shooting them in the head. Obviously, this implies that the brain is still the functioning director of the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.197.11 (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this movie just demonstrates the evolution of the zombie concept, resulting in the scientific zombie as people today recognize that phenomena have scientific explanations. We have already seen and acceptd this with vampires, once exclusively dead, mystic creatures now can be infected with a virus and still have biological needs such as sustenace. You could argue the vampires from Underworld aren't dead but alive, but they are still accepted as vampires. Rigid definitions of mythical creatures and literary devices are not very useful in debate and discussion of future works. thats my two cents at least. 98.28.114.217 (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The infected are NOT walking corpses, whoever it was that said that. I don't mean to call you stupid, but it seemed one of the most obvious things in film history to me that they're still alive, and it really gets on my nerves when people incorrectly refer to them as "living dead" or "flesh eaters". In both films, there are very obvious signs that they infected are living, breathing, starving people infected with a rage virus and not running, flesh-eating corpses. 2.100.53.51 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Infected / Zombie

I just want to make the difference between The Infected and Zombies clear. This quote makes a few good points.

Comparisons have been made between the common fictional Zombie and those infected with Rage. Although there are similarities, such as the moaning, decaying of flesh, and the insane will to attack and eat everyone surrounding the victim, the are several differences that distinguish them apart. First of all, Zombies are usually characterized as slow, stupid creatures, who have no more intelligence than a tortoise on a drug binge. Those infected with Rage do not lose their agility and awareness as the undead do, but, in some ways, it is amplified. It is not known if that is an direct symptom of the virus, or rather a complete abandonment of what one considers to be safe (such as not running top speed over fences and across streets as the infected do)

Also, could anyone say that this isn't true: A zombie is a reanimated dead body. The important word there being dead. The Infected are still alive. The virus infecting them doesn't bring them back from the dead, it drives them mad, hence the name Rage.

• FINALLY! Someone with a brain!!! Zombies are dead, these creatures are NOT dead. If you remember in the first movie, they had to wait until these people starved to death. These people are still alive, that's why they bleed when injured. Zombies are re-animated corpses. These things are not dead and they are NOT zombies. White_Bishop 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• • To me, whether or not you consider the infected zombies depends on what you feel a creature has to be to be classified as a zombie. If you think that a zombie just has to be some primal human that tries to bite other humans, then the infected can count. But if you think that a zombie has to be a reanimated corpse, then the infected don't count, 'cos like you and a lot of other people said, they are not running corpses: they're living breathing humans infected with a virus that makes them go into a murderous rage and attack people who aren't already infected. 2.100.53.51 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• The zombies in Dawn of the Dead (regarded as THE zombie film) bleed...

The Watchtower 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your general purpose behind this statement, i agree they are in no way zombies (although i think the movies should be included in the zombie genre). However, this quote where ever you got it from seems a bit off the mark, (where did you get it?). The infected do not have decaying flesh, and they certainly do not eat human flesh, they bite but do not devour and do not attack for the purpose of devouring, that is why they mostly starved to death. I have recently ordered through amazon 28 days later: the aftermath , and although i havent read it, according to the wikipedia article the infected are living breathing people infected with an altered form of the ebola virus that has the unintended side-effect of enhancing violent and aggresive behaviour and impulses. Trottsky 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

in the first movie its possible to make the argument there not technically zombie though from a narrative device standpoint they are and the director calls them as much on commentary though from a marketing persceptive its considered a mistake to call a film a zombie movie since it puts people off. however in the original an infected could be shot in the chest and would die just like a regularly person in this movie people are severed by helicopters and clearly still alive which no ammount of adrenline would make possible they are clearly zombies in this movie.

Mate, it was proven in the first film that the virus made them feel enough rage to ignore being on fire until they burnt to death, so I'm sure they can ignore missing arms and legs until they bleed to death. Plus, if the infected in 28 Weeks Later WERE zombies, then when Doyle shot some of them through the chest, it shouldn't have affected them, which it did. Also, since Days and Weeks both take place in the same universe, it doesn't make any sense for the infected to be undead in one film, and alive in the other. 2.100.53.51 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

---

-------deviation (sorry):-------

"YES!! My mark on the WikiWorld! Thank you very much for quoting that fom the Rage Article I worte... glad to see im having an impact..."Fultron89 05:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

---

the infected basically act like people who are speed balling meth and pcb times 10 but never come down.

I feel as though I should point out that in Voodoo zombies aren't always dead. They can be living people who have had their souls and free will removed. As such the whole "They aren't dead, so they can't be zombies" argument is worthless. At best you can say that they aren't Romero-style zombies.

Exactly! I wouldn't classify them as zombies (at least the ones in the first movie) but that whole argument is bollocks. Sion 03:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Rigor Mortis, bitches.

Rigor Mortis does not always set in in a corpse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.197.11 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just readed through several Rotten Tomatoes-linked reviews, and EVERY one had "zombies" (one even "zombiefest"). That's the movie critics. You know, guys, just shut up. --HanzoHattori 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And just what makes that site's word worth anything? It's just one big message board full of arm-chair directors and whining wannabe film critics and fan-boys. If you want to know what the definition of a zombie is, go watch the Romero Living Dead series or the Resident Evil series, those are zombies. White_Bishop 17:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you seriously hate them movie critics (real, not "wannabe", by the way). Are you by any chance Uwe Boll? If so, I didn't like your House of the Dead movie too. --HanzoHattori 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the infected in 28 Days/Weeks didn't have their souls/free will stolen, they had their Rage enhanced be a virus. What about Don in the film? He still has memories of his family and hesitates to attack them. Or the priest in 28 Days who tried hard to resist the virus taking him over, because he was a man of God and was trying to rid the evil virus from his body. He was still human, they were both still human. The Rage is a virus, like a cold virus, only it affects are different from a cold. It's very likely there is to be a cure for the Rage virus but is there a cure for being an undead zombie? --Earisu 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes a zombie

I'd have to say that while 28 Weeks Later (or its predecessor, 28 Days Later) may not be Zombie movies, the infected ARE ZOMBIES. The reason I say this is because the infected go through a transition which leaves them unable to reason or remember their former selves. You don't have to be dead to be a zombie (I'm at work right not, lol) but you gotta be mindless and lacking individual characteristics. If you look at the vast amount of zombie media you'll see that is the one thing that ties them altogether. Not all zombies eat people (infected). Not all zombies are dead (voodoo zombies). Not all zombies turn other folks into zombies (voodoo zombies again). But all zombies are practically if not entirely MINDLESS. If the infected could reason beyond picking out non-infected from infected (which they seem to do eerily well) I'd say they were something new altogether. Vampires, whom could be considered pretty close to the modern (undead) zombie, still retain individual characteristics (being suave, choosing one human to bite over another, killing other vampires). Zombies are what we could call a "horde culture". All of them act the same (In Dawn of the Dead they all eat people, in 28 Weeks Later they all attack people). THat's my 2 cents. Let me know what y'all think.Scott Free 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree! Have you seen this movie? The infected are anything but mindless, rather they have incredible awareness. The "father" in the film was able to break out of a secure military complex that he had to gain entry to *using a keycard*. Presumably, this means he was able to use tools to get out. Also, infected pursuing prey were able to reason exactly where they were going after losing sight of the prey. Zombies are mindless, DEAD and take significant time to re-animate. There were no zombies in this series. Bulbous 13:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess you never saw Night of the Living Dead where the "mindless" zombies used tools (particularly Karen stabbing her mother to death with the trowel), and the zombie at the beginning chased Barbra for a considerable distance and knew she was inside the house. - Kooshmeister —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.242.64 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• LOL!! I'm at work too and I feel like a zombie as well!!! But I have to disagree with you, zombies in almost all forms need to be dead. i.e.: no pulse, stopped breathing, no heartbeat, etc. In most credible zombie flicks, such as Romero flicks, (Let's face is, his movies are what all other zombie movies WISH they could be), the zombies are dead, and lumbering, the are attracted to the living to attack them. And yes it is true that not all zombies hunger for human flesh, can't think of any examples right at the moment, but they are indeed out there, mostly in books though. 28 Days/Weeks Later are infected with a disease that drives them to mindless acts of rage. However they do retain a certain amount of their basic intelligence, just an example: they are afraid of fire cuz they know it can hurt them. So they are indeed, Zombie-like in their behavior, but I don't see them as zombies. Oh, P.S. the whole running zombie thing, eh, what does it really matter? Running zombies are just as good as lumbering zombies. White_Bishop 18:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I have seen "zombie" movies before (especially the more recent one) where the zombies are infected with something, but not necessarily dead. The mark of a zombie movie (to me) is that people are being chased by other humans who are in a state that you yourself would not want to be in. They hunger for human flesh, and if infected with whatever they are infected with, you too become like them and start chasing others around. This movie fits that nicely. (Cardsplayer4life 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually, that's a pretty good definition, so according to what you have defined, and under that definition ONLY, then I would say yes, it is a zombie movie. Again based on your definition... Just don't tell anyone I said that ;-) White_Bishop 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep it under my hat. ;) (Cardsplayer4life 04:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

The traditional definition of a "zombie" is an undead creature who craves human flesh. They are typically brought back to life by dark powers or, more recently, by viral strains. Humans infected with something or who are in a state that others do not wish to be in aren't zombies, otherwise people with typhoid or smallpox would fit the criteria. Also, these people haven't lost their minds, they're are overwhelmed by rage so great it simply overrides all logic and reason. Anybody who has been incredibly pissed off at any point in their lives would know that rage can make you do things you wouldn't normally do, but that hardly makes you a zombie. The only difference here is that the virus sustains that level of psychosis, whereas normally a person's anger would eventually subside to a point where logic is the governing factor once more. Gamer Junkie 06:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the traditional definition of a "zombie" is a victim of Voodoo witch doctor who has lost his free will and became a slave. The undead cannibals were created "only" 40 years ago (wow, time flies fast Romero). Maybe play less videogames. The original poster's right when he brings the vampires. --HanzoHattori 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about zombies in pop culture, not voodoo practice. I do believe we are discussing zombies in film, not historical/religious/mythological nonsense. Gamer Junkie 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Zombies in Voodoo are part of pop culture too. The first zombie movies featured them and not the the Romero zombies. Glad everyone's talking about this. I love wiki.Scott Free 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think zombies have ever been associated with Voodoo in mainstream cinema. Granted, the first "zombie" movie was White Zombie, which was based on the undead being brought back to life by a sorceror using Voodoo dark magic. But I also said the same thing earlier; undead corpses brought back to life with black magic. Even amongst fans of this film, I find it hard to believe that the first thing they would associate with zombies is Voodoo and opposed to associating zombies with the undead. Therefore, I'd still say that "Voodoo zombies" have never really been a part of modern pop culture. Gamer Junkie 14:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong about zombies not being associated with voodoo in mainstream cinema. With all due respect, either you are VERY YOUNG or VERY UNINFORMED. The first zombie film was in 1932. There was not a single undead zombie on film until 1959 with Ed Wood's Plan 9 from outer space. After that film, the studios went promptly back to Voodoo or Hypnotist inspired zombies. You would have to wait until 1968 with Romero's Night of the Living Dead to see another undead zombie film. None of the zombies in the films prior to 1959 were undead. They simply seemed undead but were turned (often temporarily) into zombies by magic or hypnotism. Some were buried, but even in these films it was acknowledged that the people were not actually dead. So, unless "Modern Pop Culture" started in 1959, voodoo zombies are a definate part of the genre and culture. Our contemporary understanding of zombies is only about 50 years old at best and really about 40 years old if your start counting from Romero onwards. All that being said, the first thing WE asscociate with zombies TODAY is the undead. But it is juvenal to act as if we or the great George A. Romero discovered this genre. Scott Free 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Scott Free you cannot say Gamer Junkie is ill-informed when neither of you have given empirical evidence to this debate. And both of you are discussing zombies in pop-culture...What does that say to you? Hmm? It's based on the criteria you judge it by. In MODERN pop-culture, the idea of a zombie is most likely that which has lost all reasoning and craves human flesh. However, if you were to propose the same question back in the 40's, people would argue that a zombie is a person possessed, without the need for human flesh. Now if we expand this further and encapsulate the whole zombie idea, zombies are FUNDEMENTALLY people who have lost the ability to reason or govern themselves consciously and subject to basic motor/external driven influence. And on that criteria, 28 Weeks would be a zombie film.

Actually, I can say he is ill-informed. You don't have to site sources to be informed. You just have to know what the hell you're talking about. If you want evidence (I didn't pull these facts out of my butt) just go to the list of zombie movies page right here on wikipedia. It has the dates for the movies and the links give summaries of their plots. I read through all of them up til about 1980. The overwhelming majority were Voodoo style zombies. My point is that MODERN pop culture didn't start with Romero as Gamer Junkie has pretty much proclaimed. He said Voodoo zombies weren't a part of modern pop culture. I said he is wrong and the evidence (again check the wiki page) backs me up. I think it is best if we decide what constitutes MODERN pop culture. If you check out the wiki page here (which may not be the best source, but the most readily available at the time) MODERN POP CULTURE STARTS IN THE 50s. So to argue that the zombie movies made between 1950 and 1968 aren't part of pop culture is just ignorant. And btw, this particular part of the forum is about ZOMBIES so why is it strange for either of us to discuss it? Hmm? And your last two sentences pretty much state what i've said all along. The classic zombies are just mindless while our newer ("MODERN" if you will) zombies are mindless and eat people. Either way, they are both characterized by being mindless and that's why I think said factor is the defining element of a zombie and hence zombie movie. Can't wait to hear back from y'all. chow Scott Free 12:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So basically you just echoed my own words. And I never said it was strange to discuss zombies on this page...you must be looking in between the lines too hard.

In short

Romero zombies are ghoul-likes - the Dead characters actually call them "ghouls". "Zombie" is much broader term - and in 28-Later the characters call them "infected". --HanzoHattori 09:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Release date

How do you determine the release date? i was under the impression that it was the earliest date of screening. This article did sight 11th of May, however i know for sure that it is being released in Australia on the 10th of May, so wouldnt the 10th then be the release date unless it was being screened earlier somewhere else? Trottsky 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is being released in the US on May 11th. That is what all the commercials state.69.148.172.28 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

my understanding is that wikipedia doesnt work on american release dates, and the 28 days later article has british release dates. If i am wrong then please feel free to discuss it here with evidence, and i will be the first to admit it if i am wrong. but for now im going to change the dates back to the 10th. Trottsky 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Wikipedia does not mould to American desires (just this morning I had to revert an American who had a hissy fit because it hasn't yet been released in the USA). If it opened in Australis first then feel free to correct it :-). Matthew 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks! it definatley has, i saw it a couple of hours ago. If anyone knows of an earlier release date then please feel free to change it. Trottsky 14:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

28 Months Later?

There are rumours circulating that if this one is as successful as the first movie, there'll probably be a sequel entitled 28 Months Later. Can this be verified?

User: Calibanu 13.02, 11 May 2007

Lol. How far can they go? 28 Years Later? 28 Decades Later? 28 Centuries Later? (Cardsplayer4life 06:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

We'll have to wait and see! White_Bishop 13:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think 28 Weeks Later is suppose to act like a bridge from a country wide apocalypse (28 Days Later), to a world-wide apocalypse infecting from France to Spain to China to Africa to Australia to the United States etc. (28 Months/Years Later), there are several plotholes in this movie that may need to be filled out like how can some be "immune" to the infection while others can be infected easily? Or what happens to France or all of Europe? --Dark paladin x 22:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those were plotholes. It is probable that Tammy and Sam's mother had a recessive gene that confers personal immunity from the effects of the Rage virus, but does not kill the virus outright, so the subject is still infectious and a carrier. Sam inherited the gene from his mother, and is seemingly immune but perhaps still a carrier, judging from the final scene. If he survived the helicopter crash, that is.

[[User Calibanu, 10.20, 14 May 2007

You mean Andy, not Sam, right? --Earisu 23:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

definitely not a plot hole. From my days as a genetics major, most viral disease are not nearly as virulent as rage. Ebola (Rage's prototype so to speak) does have a natural immunity ratio. But Ebola is only 50%-90% fatal. A fair percentage are naturally immune to it because we are not a homogeneous race. Over all I think the biology is as good as I have seen in a mainstream film in a long time. The majority of the time I cringe when someone comes on screen as a "biologist" because they usually sound like a 12 year old pretending to be a doctor. For many historic pestilences and plagues there have been carriers that bring the disease to other places with no apparent symptoms, for instance typhoid Mary. In fact some speculate our innate xenophobia is derived from hard wired instincts to avoid strangers due to illness.

I think you're confusing virulence with mortality.

Virulence is, to quote the Wikipedia page, "the relative ability of a microbe to cause disease." The fact that ebola is 50-90% fatal has nothing to do with its virulence. The question is, how many of the people who are exposed to rage contract the symptoms? We don't actually know. In this movie, we get to see it spread rapidly through a crowd--and we see an awful lot of dead bodies left behind, shot by soldiers or torn apart by infected. While at least some of them presumably were infected but then killed before it could take hold, there's no reason to believe that 100% of them were. Immunity may be more common than one family per country, and transmission may not be 100% effective. I think it's reasonable to assume that rage is no more virulent than ebola.

As to primary mortality, while ebola has a 50-90% mortality rate, rage seems to be much lower. The infected clearly don't have typical ebola symptoms (to quote the CDC quote from the ebola article, "... They're in shock, muscular shock. They are not unconscious, but you would say 'obtunded', dull, quiet, very tired..."), so it seems unlikely that they'd have ebola-style deaths (usually massive organ failure brought on by systemic necrosis). We also don't see evidence of secondary opportunistic infections (as is common with, say, AIDS). There is, in fact, no evidence of anyone dying from rage--instead, the infected die from doing stupid things like climbing barbed wire fences or charging army installations unarmed, or from starvation caused by being (like David Lynch's Dog) too angry to even eat.

Overall, I think rage is no more virulent than, and far less deadly than, the famous Zaire ebola; more like one of the less-famous species. (It does, however, have a much faster incubation period, measured in seconds rather than days, and it appears to be contagious almost immediately, rather than only in the later stages.)

I do agree that Scarlett is a better-realized biologist, and especially a military biologist, than similar characters in most movies. But zombie movies tend to do this well--in fact, Scarlett reminded me quite a bit of Sarah in Day of the Dead. (Or maybe that's just because she ended the movie the same way that Sarah did?) --75.36.139.20 (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess We're Screwed

I really liked this movie. Can't help but think it's all gonna end pretty bad for the human race. If someone can travel from town to town not showing symptoms, a virus like the one in this film probably can't be stopped. Unless, I guess, they used the carrier's blood to vaccinate others. Still, how do u vaccinate a planet? We can't even get rid of polio.Scott Free 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons? 80.25.200.102 20:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Got rid of smallpox, so to speak. --24.74.254.215 (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently...

The new "cool thing" to do for movie entries on Wikipedia is to steal plot synopses from TheMovieSpoiler.com without so much as a credit.

Unfortunately, the post above (minus the attitude) is making a good point. It does appear that the starting text of the Wikipedia article was lifted originally from TheMovieSpoiler.com. Subsequent edits have made some changes, but substantial revision or wholesale rewriting is probably needed to avoid copyright infringement. Would anyone like to volunteer? I haven't seen the movie myself. Purkowitz 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed now. - 87.194.6.158 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Thanks! Purkowitz 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the attitude. Was having a bad day, and plagiarism is a pet peeve of mine.

Song info?

What's the name of the instrumental song that plays about four times through-out the film? Sounded a bit like Oceansize. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.106.221.53 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

It's called In The House - In A Heartbeat created by John Murphy for the original movie. It's on the 28 Days Later soundtrack as well. 24.22.220.230 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If it sounds like Oceansize, it isn't "In the House", it'll be the track by Muse. Can't remember the name at the moment though. 138.38.217.149 (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, the instrumental song is "In The House - In A Heartbeat" by John Murphy. The song by Muse wasn't used in the film, but in the trailer, and is called "Shrinking Universe". -Lindsey8417 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Channel Tunnel

Are we sure the Infected got to France through the Channel Tunnel? Firstly the Tunnel exits in Calais not Paris and besides wouldn't it be smart to seal the Tunnel. I mean its more likely that either Andy or Tammy were not immune and the virus just took time to work, seen as the helicopter was seen crashed, or shot down. I know this was brought up after the first movie said there was infected in Paris and New York, how can an Infected make it there, from an island. And i do know this is not a movie review site so don't point it out. this is relevent to the plot of the movie--Irishboi 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

— Andy and Tammy are immune. The potential problem is that they may have infected people who were not immune, as happened with Alice and Don. Jmorrison230582 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's possible that they weren't. Or at least that Andy was not, as he was shown to have the rather vicious blood-shot eye symptom. It may be the case that the virus has a longer incubation time within him, as he may not have every genetic trait from his mother that is needed to create a full immunity. Alternitively, the virus may have mutated within the different conditions of his body. As I pointed out eailer, Don was behaving in a more intelligent manner than the other infected, as he was shown sneaking around instead of mindlessly running headlong into danger and screaming all the time, and he was also smart enough to pick up the M4 Carbine and beat Scarlett to death with it, so there's a question there. If he hadn't used the Carbine, Scarlett probably would have been able to kill him with her M9 Pistol. The other point I guess is that in the first movie, Selena said that the radio had reported outbreaks in New York and Paris before it cut out. This raises more variables. Evidently the USA survived on some level, so maybe the New York report was innaccurate, while the Paris report was correct. That could explain why there were no troops from other NATO nations present in the film, as they may have been destoryed by the infection as well. Like I said, there's a lot to consider, the point of the ending is that we're not supposed to know until the next one comes out.--Spoonman.au 04:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy only had a single blood-shot eye, and it was the same as his Mother's, his mother had the same eye, and she was immune to it, thus Andy is immune. Though I don't think Tammy was. --Earisu 23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that Tammy was immune. Andy was the child most like the mother. Sion 03:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The movie implied pretty strongly that it was connected to the differently-colored eyes, so it seems likely that Tammy was susceptible to Rage. And Andy wasn't immune; he was just asymptommatic. It seems extremely likely that the France outbreak came from him directly. 72.208.25.18 20:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It never even occurred to me that there was any question about it. Andy was just like his mother, only no one was left alive who knew about this condition, so when they got to France they had no reason to put him through all the tests his mother underwent. Just like his mom, though he was unaffected by the rage, he was a carrier, and just as capable of transferring it as she was. It's only a matter of time before he kissed someone or spat in someone's eye or somehow transferred the disease, letting it loose on the continent. Not seeing this changes the whole dynamic of the film; rather than Tammy and Andy's rescue being beneficial (as we are rooting for them the whole time) it becomes the greatest tragedy since the initial outbreak, dooming millions of people. I don't think there's any other way of interpreting the conclusion. I sort of thought the final scene was unnecessary, and just seeing infected Andy leaving Britain was enough to see what was imminent, but I guess that was too subtle. -R. fiend 21:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy was covered in blood from the infected. Thats probably how it spread.MSauce 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that, unless someone was stupid enough to lick/kiss his face where the blood was, which I doubt they would. --Earisu 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

His sister might have. --Spoonman.au 03:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a possibility, but you'd think after what they went through, she'd be careful not to get any blood in her mouth. --Earisu 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The boy was a carrier of the virus. He got infected in the tunnel. Seemed pretty obvious. Turtlescrubber 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just all agree that it was put in there so they could have another squeal where the zombies are taking over the world or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.238.136 (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stone's Rank in the US Army

From the pictures i have seen, it appears Stone is a Brigadier General, not a full General. http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/fox_atomic/28_weeks_later/idris_elba/28weeks1.jpg Roguejackbauer

Can Can?

Is that stuff about the can-can for real?

I don't know but I'm regretting leaving the cinema during the credits now! - 87.194.6.158 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia needs to be fixed

Frank doesn't get infected by the crow's blood, he gets a drop of blood in his eye from the infected that the crow was pecking at. This section is protected though for some reason so I could not edit it.

hey i had a question i was wondering about, is don like a super infected, i mean to assume that he followed his son and daughter is giving alot of credit to this one infected, considering all of the others couldnt tell right from left, i mean i just cant understand how he would escape the fire and the poisoning to follow his kids all the way out of district one it doesnt make sense, can somebody give me some sort of response or explanation

I think in the graphic novel 28 Days Later: Aftermath they talk about the Infected having improved senses of smell. Maybe Don is attracted to the smell of his kids? Like, love turns to hate, or something? Purkowitz 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My belief is that Don retains his memories even through the Infection, as when his daughter shouts "Dad!" as he's attacking Andy we see a glimpse of Alice shouting "Don" from the beginning, thus showing he had linked his daughter to her Mother which we can conclude means he still retains his memories. --Earisu 09:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also remember that it is the "rage" virus and don is mad at his children for leaving and for accusing him of leaving their mother. the virus makes him super-mad at them.

Yeah, thats right...in the graphic novel it is explained that they use their sense of smell to hunt and that they are attracted particularly by soap, shampoo, perfume etc.Trottsky 15:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also mentioned that Wembley Stadium wasn't built during the first film, although the article regarding the first film only states that 28 Days Later takes place in the early 21st century. Should this be mentioned or corrected? Gamer Junkie 15:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

March 8, 2008?

I'm assuming it is suppose to be 2007? Lane5slacker 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? USS Noob Hunter (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

no, 28 weeks from the beginning of the infection. i dont know when the date of infection was, but most people say 2002-2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.45.208 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuity

Although I haven't seen the film yet (I'm 16), from what I've read of the ending theres a big continuity issue with the first film, when Selina says: "the day before the TV stopped broadcasting, the infection had been found to have spread to Paris and New York". If this is true why does the ending imply that the infection has just been spread to Europe. Sorry if this was explained in the film. TJ 22:14 GMT 17/05/07

Actually, the answer to that question lies in the first film. There are numerous indications within '28 Days' that the reports of international contamination are actually ploys intended to keep any survivors from migrating and thus reducing the possibility of global catastrophe. The air-traffic present in the first entry of the series suggests that outside of the Rage's realm of influence, life is flourishing and if any infection has permeated the British borders it has been contained. This theory is strengthed by the problems that would be intrinsic to the virus spreading through travelling carriers. If the infection was introduced to a contained form of transport like a boat or aeroplane, it would likely sink or crash respectively due to the infected's collective inability to maintain or direct the transport. In the first film, the 'renegade soldier' (I apologize that I am both too forgetful and too lazy to remember or search for his name) who in captivity with Jim alludes to the notion that Britain has been left to die with the isolation of a 'diseased island' allowing for such an end. He proposes that the world is continuing onwards, sacrificing the United Kingdom as a utilitarian solution. I hope that helps. --Jack of Blades 22:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense and would explain a lot, Thanks TJ

There is also a difference from a wholesale outbreak like in Britain and small outbreaks that may occur else where. Also anyone who has ever been a part of a news story will know that reporters tend to get things ass backwards and only the barest kernel of truth remain. A street fight breaks out over a girl among some Asian guys, "Asian gang related brawl". A bunch of affluent white coke dealers get popped at home in an affluent neighborhood, "senseless slaying of local college Students". Career criminal dies in gang related violence, "poor jimmy was just turning his life around". It may well be the media didn't know enough and was just reporting hear say.

Headline dump

If I dumped headlines here, would anyone be willing to incorporate them into the article? I have accumulated news headlines of 28 Weeks Later using Google Alerts. The dump would be similar to what I did at Talk:Sunshine (2007 film)#Potentially usable headlines. It would help bypass the multitude of film reviews that probably clog search engine results at this point. It just takes some time, though, so I'd like to do it if there are editors who are willing to use the information. I'm seeing the film this weekend, so I'll see if I want to help contribute to this film article. Got too much on my plate to really help out with films that I may not like -- learned that lesson with Ghost Rider, all of its Production section being provided by me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate, the offer still stands. I would be more than happy to provide relevant headlines about the film's background. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes i wouldn't mind actually expanding the production section of the article. Although it might take time, i plan to achieve the goal. Empty2005 06:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the social commentary.

There is no evidence that this is a part of the Iraq war.

Totally agree if you mean the social commentary in the film relates to the Iraq war. There may be some similarities between the situation in Iraq and the repopulation of London but I doubt very much this is social commentary on Iraq. It has been removed by someone else while I was writing this, how efficient ZeroRPM 11:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? White_Bishop 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, the Iraq War commentary is nonsense, the only similarity is that the US Armed Forces are involved in both. --Spoonman.au 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are several arguments for the film's being commentary on both the War on Terror and/or the war in Iraq: the US military presence and Britain's perceived subordination; the supposedly secure area called "the green zone"--when in fact the area is permeable and eventually violent; the poster in Tammy's room (I believe there is a pun on "War on Terror" or "Terrorism" using the word "error"); the vulnerability of tube stations; and the erroneous pronouncements by those in charge that the mission has been accomplished despite objections by expert advisers. Further, the emphasis on eyes and surveillance (not simply the eye color references but the multiple instances in which the audience is given a closed circuit-, sniper's-, and night vision-eye view) parallel the City of London's anti-terror "ring of steel." MJFiorello 17:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

closest thing to a social commentary that I saw was the US militaries amazing ability to go "hmmm this could be a threat....bomb it" 86.133.108.121 13:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get into general discussion about the film; per talk page guidelines, that's not what this place is for. If you want to discuss social commentary in the film, there's always IMDb. Here, though, let's be focused on what can be improved with the film's article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to discuss it in order to come to consensus over how to write the article. It shouldn't descend into idle chatter and original research however (which is what 75% of this talk page seems to consist of). Anyway, many reviews and articles have mentioned a connection between the film and the Iraq War, so whether or not we as editors think it's nonsense or not is irrelevant. --81.179.92.14 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

looks like somebody has added political commentary, why is it here now? Roguejackbauer 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I added it for the reasons I mentioned above. It's definitely inclusion worthy, and as you can see there are numerous good quality sources. --81.179.92.14 14:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

When Scarlett is discussing with the commanders about children being brought in, doesn't one of them say the virus did not go from species to species? But the virus started by being spread from chimps to humans.

Can anyone clear this up for me please? --86.41.172.102 13:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was perplexed by this but apparently, the virus can only infect primates (chimps, humans etc.) so I think that the intention of the statement was to indicate that it hasn't spread past simians. --Jack of Blades 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct term would be that the infection couldn't go order to order, but I don't think the average moviegoer would understand what that means.MSauce 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think that the soldiers know how the outbreak started? They may have no idea that the original outbreak came from chimps. TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think you also need to remember that Stone is probably not a Medical Officer, he'd more likely be from an MP/Security Forces background if he was picked for that mission. If so, it was probably a slip of the tongue from someone who isn't a Medical Expert. --Spoonman.au 04:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In the first one they talked about some of the horses being infection-free. If it's worth mentioning a horse is infection-free, then it stands to reason that is not true of all horses. So it is inter-species contagious 216.106.110.52 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor assumption. As I recall, the group sees a bunch of horses in a field, undoubtedly the first horses they've seen since the infection began. Not knowing if the disease has spread to other species, they wonder if the horses are infected, but based on the lack of any rage-like symptoms, they assume they are not. To draw any conclusions about infection of other horses is pure presumption. All we can say for sure is that chimps can be infected (as the disease began with them), but most likely rats and dogs cannot, else the enormous infestation of rats they refer to in the film would have been overcome with the virus, leaving England still too dangerous to resettle. -R. fiend 16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Only primates like humans and monkeys can get infected; Danny Boyle himself CONFIRMED this in an interview.

At the time the statement was made, it was unknown that the virus was originally carrier by a chimp then transfered to humans. At that time 100% of the known infections were human with plenty of oportunities for it to have spread to other animals if it could (i.e. rats, birds, horses, etc.). Its possible that this is only because the infected had no desire to eat them.But either way the statement was mad to convey the information that there is not a resivoir of the virus living in animals that could later infect the population of rebuilt England. 98.28.114.217 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mountain Dew

Did anyone else notice that the lisence plate on the car they escape the gas in reads 'mountain dew'? me an my friend both noticed. maybe that should be in notes somewhere?

No. But Thanks.

The number plate is "S604 DEW". I can't see how "S604" looks like "Mountain"? Minpolik 13:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Got me a little paddle boat, gonna do me some paddling

I remember something of Doyle and the other rooftop snipers being referred to on more then one occasion as being Delta Force (would explain his partically high level of skill, and independent streak), anybody else able to verify this? If so i'll make changes to the article. User:Six-forty 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

DVD release date

According to videodetective.com the DVD release date is 10/1/2007 (Oct. 1st 2007): http://www.videodetective.com/titledetails.aspx?MasterID=307474 (under "Video Details") also seen in the "Release Calender": http://www.videodetective.com/dvdcalendar.aspx?Year=2007&Month=10&Release=HV

Biohazard warning ad

It would be nice to post a picture (or even just a "warning" poster with a soldier in a gas mask). --HanzoHattori 11:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you referring to that promotional poster? If it's something else that's not even from the film...well, it's not nice.Eaglestorm 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz' name check thing

I just wanted to point out when the producers of 28 weeks later name check 'Sandford', the main location in Hot Fuzz, it's because at the end of Shaun of the Dead, the t.v announcer *Edgar Wright, the director* can be heard talking about a theory that infected monkeys had caused the zombie outbreak had been dismissed as rubbish. I was just wondering what it meant by;

     who also tipped their hat to 28 Days Later for not mentioning the Zombies.

Alternative Ending?

I think there is one. When I was on Bloody-disgusting.com I saw a photo showing an infected Andy!.User:Emiliano s

Go to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/698 and check photo number 15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiliano s (talk • contribs) 16:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's from the beginning when they're looking out of the boarded up windows. Flamesplash (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2008 (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)

As a film, it coheres to all of the typical tropes and styslistic, thematic and narrative elements of a zombie movie, therefore it is a zombie movie. Quid pro quo. --Jayunderscorezero 04:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, calm down. Geoff B 04:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Danny Boyle and Alex Garland say they're zombie movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.103.33 (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's stylistically a zombie movie. But there are no zombies in it. Bulbous (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hahahah! It's a zombie flick; deal with it! TechnoFaye Kane 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What is there reasoning behing the virus being dead?

The reasoning behind Britian being safe to resettle is that the virus kills the infected in 28 days, but couldnt the infected infect someone new on the 27th day? And like in the first film, couldnt someone get infected from coming into contact with a dead body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.71.111 (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite the reasoning: it's stated in the film that the last infected starved out six months previously (everyone being unaware of the existence [or even possibility] of a carrier still alive and well). Plus the virus killing infected in 28 days is never confirmed anywhere. The starvation of the infected was the thing. As far as contact with a dead body, or any other question or possibility of some other danger of infection, that was the whole point of having a restricted zone for civilians, presumably an area already well cleared out and cleaned up, free of disease, with a requisite, extremely thorough screening process for people entering in.

Infected Don using his keycard? Doubt it.

Just watched the film, and having also watched the first many times, just wanted to point out that an infected has never been shown to be capable of using any tool of sophistication previously, merely the occasional blunt weapon used to inflict harm, and that rarely. Granted there's the theory of Don being somehow 'advanced' for an infected (one I don't buy), but there's never an establishing shot of him using his keycard once he's infected. The scene perhaps to blame for the silly keycard idea in particular might be when he breaks into the area where civilians are initially confined during the outbreak- except even then, he literally slams his physical mass against the door in a rage, before finally bursting through the door. It doesn't look like a keycard's involved. Why assume one is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.125.118 (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

because a door requiring a AAA card was open and blood at the keyslot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.43.205 (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

would every1 agree that all the original infected are killed? the civilians/ some infected were killed in the fire building and the rest of the civilians and infected + some military were killed in the gas. Don wouldve been the last infected right?

Because a keycard door is one way, you need a card to get in but not to get out. (this is because in the event of a emergency you need to be able to escape.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.43.205 (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Intentional infection of Don.

In the scene when Don and Alice kiss, Alice clearly spits into his mouth infecting him on purpose. The look of baleful hatred on her face as he succumbs to the Rage is additional proof. The fact that Alice maliciously infects Don in a fit of anger should be added to the wiki entry proper.

I would tend to agree. How would you word this amendment? Bulbous (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What a total bitch slap that vengeance turned out to be cause he turned then brutally kills her after--Rashkae (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

hmm, I did not think that she intentionally infected him when I saw the movie, but you may be correct. However, considering his previous behavior, he also clearly deserved it. Too bad it backfired on her after. Hervegirod (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulbous, you only have to see Alice in the film for a few minutes to be able to tell that she is NOT the murderously vengeful type. The look on her face when she infected Don was clearly one of shock and horror. No offence, but you are clearly not very good at all at telling different expressions for different emotions apart, or at being able to recognize a character's basic personality. 2.100.53.51 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait...excuse me? Deserved it? He didnt want to leave her, but knowing that through her idiocy she was getting herself and that boy (who himself brought the infected to their house and got Alice killed) killed and that he wouldnt in any way be able to save her, and that he had kids still alive, it was safe to say he didnt act like the moron his wife was and ran.

This wasnt a case of cowardess, he killed the infected before he ran in an attempt to save them. He was quite brave in attempting to save his loved ones. And this wasnt a case of not at least attempting to save her when she had a chance to live, even if he died, had he tried. It was a clear cut shes going to die, the boys going to die and he will die no matter what he attempts. Even taking into account that you would be irrational at not realise that, the situation was obvious, even to him.

That he dared to save himself rather than let his wife get him killed is a glaring display of her stupidity. Even worse, she intentionally (and at no fault to Don, as he rightfully assumed she got out and wasnt infected) infected her husband to get revenge for her own stupidity. Knowing her kids were safe and he was taking care of them. She could have told him she was infected, she could have no intentionally infected him...so she was entirely to blame. Don was entirely the good guy.

Shes a bitch, she deserved his revenge. End of story. - Jimmy The Last Infected One.

i didnt see any intentional passing of infection, it was just a kiss. as for her facial expression when don was getting infected, she was traumatized by her time in quarantined Britain and it was her near-insanity (as witnessed in her house right before she was rescued) that was relapsing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.45.208 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"After they kiss, the rage virus in her saliva infects him."

Did she bite him on the lip, supposedly because she was angry that he abandoned her? Ufwuct 01:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

nah, the virus can be transmited through saliva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.182.221 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I don't get it

Who came up with the idea of giving a civilian, a keycard that can access all areas including restricted military and medical bays? Shouldn't only military personel, and properly trained medical personel be allowed in those areas?66.91.120.70 (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He was the caretaker of the safe zone. 2.100.53.51 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to put your curiosity in check, but this is not the place to ask such questions. Please take it someplace else, like IMDB. Thank you. Eaglestorm (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor error 'Heavily reenforced cottage'

I strongly disagree to this... the place was only shuttered in essentially, with wood planks and such. If it was 'heavily reenforced' they wouldnt have went through it like it was paper mache. The whole purpose was so that the infected couldn't see in and thus would have no reason to barge in.

If no one objects i'll make this correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volterwd (talk • contribs) 04:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)