Talk:Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Appropriateness of inclusion of religious extremism allegory?

A banned user: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive162#Community_ban_for_CltFn has put in some comments supposing that parts of the film are commentary on religious extremism and "zombie like" behavior on the part of Muslims. I don't see it, and I haven't seen any reliably sourced commentary on the topic either. Time for that to go? - Richfife 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes; it's a totally subjective comment, and the only reason it's still there is that CltFn kept putting it back after I and several other people removed it.--Geoduck 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I pulled it out. Romero and many others have said many times that this film is about mindless consumerism, not religious extremism. - Richfife 07:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Even though I obviously agree with the decision, I just gotta nitpick. :-) Romero had nothing to do with this version, so whatever vision is being put forth is mostly Zach Snyder's. And since Snyder made a much more literal and straight-forward blood-and-guts horror movie (which is of course neither automatically good nor bad) it's even more likely that he wasn't intending any deep significance in the scenes. Still, it'd be interesting to ask Snyder about it; it's even possible that CltFn managed to be right..

--Geoduck 19:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be rather surprising if Zack (with a "K") Snyder decided to add anti-religious commentary after he went to all the trouble of watering down the satire of the first film, but stranger things have happened. - Richfife 21:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

First shot in introductory credits of Dawn of the Dead(2004)

Introductory credit shot of a reporter in front of a mosque

Well since the topic has been brought up , yes I did insert those that comment and a couple of images from the intro shots of the film with a description of the mosque scene, then the shot of the reporter in the Islamic country , then the mob charging down a street which I figure is in Bangladesh (according to the film script). If you have the DVD, would you put it in your DVD player and watch the intro shots right after Sarah Polley crashes her car into the tree then explain why this would not be mentioned at the very least in the trivia section?. The intro shots have been commented on in various places such as [here] and here. The way I see it, the religious extremism "allegory" is a major metaphor that underlies the whole movie , particularly if you listen to the script that follows, and it should be part of the article because of it. Also in the director's cut of the film the intro montage has an additional shot which shows an embassy attack in Istanbul featuring a woman in a black chador. The actual film script labels the introductory scene as "footage of mayhem , tragedy and zombies on the move". So are we going to be able to discuss this in the article or not?--CltFn 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My take (and I'm pretty sure most people would agree) is that the opening shots are simply there to establish that the zombies are a worldwide, cross cultural problem that there is no geographic escape from. Your first link is an article that is mostly concerned with the christian allegorical angle, the second poo poos the notion ("they tell us nothing"). The only explicit reference to Islam is on screen for only a couple of seconds. The fact that other scenes are set in Islamic countries is meaningless. Are films set in Italy automatically Catholic?

Also, The Revealers raison d'etre (sp?) is digging up religious threads, real or imagined, wherever it can find them. The fact that they seem to be the only ones seeing this doesn't bode well. Anyway, the image is of people, at their church (mosque, synagogue, etc.) praying. How is it any more zombie like than, say, this? - Richfife 08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is how I interpreted the metaphor as presented in those early shots : religious fanaticism = virus => zombie mobs => violence => mayhem and destruction. Of course people might argue until the cows come home as to the meaning of these shots, so what I suggest that we simply mention it in the trivia section in a the most objective way and let the reader make up their own mind. The references I presented above were only a few of many that are out there that can be googled, but these early shots were noticed in a quite a few reviews and viewer comments.--CltFn 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, the world is ending and people are gathered at their house of worship praying to their god. I don't see why we're even having this conversation. The fact that people see pictures of Muslims praying in a mosque and assume that there must be some comment about terrorism says more about the observer than the movie, Muslims or anything else. - Richfife 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly , its OK , you interpret this differently and I get it, but those clips are a fact and should be mentioned probably something like this:

• The opening shots of the film credits begins with a shot of Muslims praying in a mosque followed by street mobs various shots in an Istanbul seemingly making a direct reference to religious fanaticism.

In any case it would be good hear what others who have also watched the intro piece have to say.--CltFn 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, who here besides CltFn sees the shots at the beginning of the film as a reference to religious extremism? - Richfife 05:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We have all seen the movie and those scenes. Of course they exist. But there is absolutely no "should" or "must" when it comes to including every last minor theme and detail from the movie in the article. Just the opposite in fact; we are attempting to write an encyclopedia article here, not a multi-volume disertation, and Islam is an exceedingly minor theme in Dawn of the Dead. Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter whether you are right about the movie's intent with those snippets or if we agree with you: unless you can offer a verifiable quote from the director or one of the screenwriters backing up your assertion, you are attempting to insert a subjective analysis of DotD into the article. It doesn't matter how strongly you (or I or anyone) feels about Islam, or how important the issue is elsewhere in human existence. For again, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and does not exist to be a platform for film analysis or for religious debates. (Which is why I posted my previous speculations here in the Talk section, not out in the article.) If you are genuinely in need of such things, and are not simply trolling to provoke responses, I suggest you go seek them out.--Geoduck 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Then the sentence should say :

• The opening shots of the film credits begins with a shot of Muslims praying in a mosque followed by a reporter speaking from an Islamic country and a street mob in Bangladesh. The official film script labels this section "footage of mayhem , tragedy and zombies on the move". [1]

As you see I have taken out the "subjective interpretation and sourced the interpretation to the screen writers.--CltFn 12:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many things in the opening montage that you show no interest in that are not mentioned in the article that are arguably much more important to the plot of the movie than the location of the riots. The president's speech, for instance. So, before we proceed here, can I get you to state clearly, with no pronouns or references to context, why the fact that the predominant religion of the country chosen to film those scenes is Islam (as opposed to Hindu or Taoist or Buddhist or Christian or Animist or Jainist) is relevant to the article. Thanks! - Richfife 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironically another part of the ending montage which I had added, the mention of the shots of the kissing girls, seems to have been deleted. As far as why the choice of the religion being depicted is relevant it is simply because it is in the introductory montage and should be mentioned as such. As we have already discussed, the meaning and the interpretation as to the message or lack thereof has been left to the viewer. Perhaps we should create a section on the introductory montage since it is a point of controversy that should be mentioned in the article. What do you think?--CltFn 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing ironic about it. I pulled it because it was way too trivial to merit inclusion. I think the Islamic angle is also too trivial to merit inclusion, and, given your history of anti-Islamic edits like this one: [2] unless someone else not recruited by you for the purpose steps up to support the edit, the issue should be dropped completely. Enough. - Richfife 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually , what we ought to do is let other editors weigh in on the matter , don't you think? And after all we want consensus do we not? Now about that link, with all due respect perhaps you might specify what exactly you mean because there is no such edit there. Perhaps though it might be better if we keep the discussion to the article at hand because I do not see that it would be very productive to digress onto other topics. Please do not misread this , we are simply trying to include into the article an aspect of the film which is there and is factual. Watch the opening montage and read the script. I did not make this up. Surely you are not suggesting that we censor this information?--CltFn 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider leaving out an unsubstantiated claim censorship. There are plenty of fan sites where this sort of thing would be better suited and could be debated over or whatever. The fact of the matter is, there isn't enough evidence supporting your theory to warrant inclusion in the article. As previously mentioned, this page is meant to be a 101 course on the movie, not the end all and be all of DotD.

As for the deletion of the end montage "trivia", it's not a conspiracy against you, as you seem to be implying- it really is too minor to be mentioned. Honestly, anyone watching the movie can see the clip and it is unrelated to any of the film's plots.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckieRotten (talk • contribs)

Section for music?

I'm going to go ahead and ask this even though my vote is no. Do you think there should be a section pointing out the name of the music that plays at particular parts of the film? The use of music in the film seems to attract a fair amount of attention, but not as much as, say, "High Fidelity" does. Things keep popping up in the trivia section. - Richfife 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Something about Romero saying it was "better then he anticipated"?

First off, this statement has no source.

Furthermore, I've heard that Romero said he hated it. Can someone please clear this up? I'll do my own research, but please, can other people look for some more sources on this? I don't want people getting the wrong idea about Romero's reaction to the movie that basically tore apart (no pun intended) the original Dawn of the Dead. Stop the War in Uganda! 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I hunted around and found an English interview with Romero (http://www.timeout.com/film/news/631.html) where he says: It was better than I expected. I thought it was a good action film. The first 15, 20 minutes were terrific, but it sort of lost its reason for being. It was more of a video game. I'm not terrified of things running at me; it's like Space Invaders. There was nothing going on underneath. I added a link to the interview over on the main page.--Geoduck 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Okay, thank you. I guess I read something wrong. Although he does say that it didn't have filling, basically. Maybe I misinterpreted? Ha... Again, thank you. Stop the War in Uganda! 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dawn of the Dead (Widescreen Director's Cut) ?

Info on the "Dawn of the Dead (Widescreen Director's Cut)"?--Brown Shoes22 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

End of the Film

SPOILERS follow:

Since one or persons out there want to argue this point, I went back and watched the end of the film again, and you cannot "see the survivors getting back on the boat". The heroes step off the boat onto the dock at the island, Chips the dog runs off, the zombie swarm appears out of the foliage, the heroes start shooting, the camera falls to the dock, and then the corpses of a couple dispatched zombie splat into view. End of scene. Apart from the infamous "lesbian porn" blip, the rest of the flashes between the credits are close-ups of snarling zombie faces.

end of SPOILERS --Geoduck 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth's brother?

Kenneth was traveling to Fort Pastor to meet his brother, who was stationed there. Should this be included in the article, since it is the main reason Kenneth was motivated to go there? 24.145.4.58 (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fate of the survivors.

The Music section states that "the original version (of "Down With the Sickness" by Disturbed) was played when the survivors met their morbid fate at the island."

Should this be changed, since we don't know if they met a "morbid fate" on the island? The film deliberately leaves it vague. 24.145.4.58 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly vague, its delibrately shown they are out of fuel, water and food, they barely make it to shore and are set upon by a horde of zombies with next to no time to react. Oh yes, Zack makes mention that they die in the directors commentary of another film he made.

What film would this be so someone can verify and then the discussion on the ending can be closed? Dark verdant (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive tried and tried to find it but just cant now.. its in the directors comentary of another film and the line is "its the first time ive killed off all my characters" --Dirty great green murloc (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Snyder only has two films out on DVD: This one and 300. Since DotD was the first film he directed, it seems odd he would use verbiage like "It's the first time I've killed off all my characters". - Richfife (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, just looked at the Zack Snyder wiki page and his first film being dawn of the dead makes it unlikely that it was zack saying this, unless he was referring to his work in commericals as well. Maybe the person who mentioned it first was thinking of a different film/director? Dark verdant (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Misleading intro

The introduction says that this film is a "horror remake", implying that the original film wasn't a horror film (which, of course, it was). So, the intro needs to be reworded. Fuzzform (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It could just as easily imply that it's a remake of a horror film.....but I agree, it should be reworded. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 13:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Horror remake" doesnt imply the original film was a horror film?! WTF?! Of course with a title like DAWN OF THE DEAD nobody could expect that the 1978 original was a horror film! Sounds very stupid and zombie like in my ears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you 91.150.21.45 Sarah afton (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Fate unknown?! Ending

So if you are attacked by hundreds of zombies and with NO place to escape. Just because you dont see the zombies kill em all we have to leave it as fate unknown?! Ill change it to dead unless some idiot object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The fate is unknown. Sure, we know what probably happened, but it didn't happen on screen. As there have been no producer comments to say whether they were intended to have died or not, the characters' fates are unknown. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The only thing you really know is that the camera was sitting on the jetty while a herd of zombies stomped past. - Richfife (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys! This is a bit ridiculous! I mean: Are you that blood thirsty that you must have it on screen before you believe it happened or whats going on here? When Kenneth killed Frank it was also off screen shouldnt Franks status be changed to fate unknown aswell? They had NO gas left in the boat, they had hardly any ammo left, these zombies could NOT be run away from, Terry who filmed in the ending was walking and filming last in the group and we see him being over run by the zombies. I think we should change the ending to "most likely they all died." or something similar. If they jumped in the water what good had that done? I will not change anything yet but i would like hear from you how they could have survived in a realistic manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And Jason is clearly, absolutely positively dead at the end of Friday the 13th parts 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as well. You don't see what happened, you don't know what they did. This is a horror movie, set in a horror universe. Suddenly deciding to apply standards of realism at one point in the film doesn't fly. - Richfife (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to think that a team of 500 Army Rangers followed them in helicopters the entire way, and at the last moment dropped down and saved them. I say we put that. But seriously, what is the problem with saying the fate is unknown? Anything could have happened, and speculation, no matter the probability, should not be put. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The army didnt give a damn about them earlier in the film when our friends had big SOS, HELP US signs outside the mall the army helicopter just did a fly by, so i find it completely unrealistic that the army would help them out in the end, but if you want it to stay this way, we MUST change Franks fate to unknown since we cant be sure that Kenneth really blew his head off, it was off screen. Shouldnt same rules apply to Frank? And dont compare this brilliant film with Friday the 13th films, because Jason is a super natural killer. This one actually tries to be as realistic as possible where zombies stays dead for good after a bullet in the head (Jason can lose his head and still be back) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa...someone's taking this a bit too seriously. It's a fictional film, and I was making a joke. As to Frank, we definitely know that he was infected, and through character dialogue, it is confirmed that Kenneth killed him. Your comparison makes no valid sense whatsoever. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comparison makes no valid sense whatsoever since we didnt see Kenneth blow Franks brains out, remember it must be on screen and as many lies various characters told through out the film i wouldnt trust them very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

<-- I think you meant to mock my reasoning, not my comparison. Either way, the fate is unknown, and it's going to stay that way. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The group attempts to flee back to the boat? Ehum no, there were no such scenes in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncut ending on metacafe, now lets vote what happened to shotgun Rhames and *Nurse* Sarah Polley in the end. And please let logical thinking instead for an enormous blood thirst prevail. My english is not the best so you can fix that part if you know better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many times you have to be told- you CANNOT put speculation in. Did we see them die? No. Did anyone mention them dying? No, it was the end of the movie. Now, as for Frank and the zombie baby, did we see them die? No. Did anyone mention them dying? Yes. Frank and the baby were dead, but it is unknown what happened to the group at the end. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 12:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Im not talking about speculations here, i am talking about LOGICAL THINKING (Dont tell me there is a WP rule about that one too) Terry who video taped the ending and walked after the other survivors is rushed by the zombies as we see it from his point of view through the camera, he drops the camera when attacked by the zombies while we hear him go AAAAAARRRRGHHHHHH! While their deaths are not on camera in brutal bloodthirsty details because the producers perhaps didnt want to insult our intelligence? Great movie, great remake just a shame people cant dig the fact they all died. And dont be a hypocrite now!: SAME rules applies to Frank and zombie baby, we didnt see them die, it doesnt matter what the characters said because we still didnt see them die onscreen in brutal detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is against your opinion. Please stop reverting and repeating yourself. Please sign your posts with a ~~~~. - Richfife (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not mention LOGICAL THINKING and with sequel plans scratched and all, full ending on metacafe, rushed by zombies.... so please STOP your blood thirst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please follow current consensus. Also, I don't get this "blood thirst". Wouldn't you be the bloodthirsty one, since it's you who is fighting to prove that they met their demise? Mastrchf (^t/_c) 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So by saying that sequel plans were "scratched", they existed at one point, right? The fact that the existed at all at any time indicates that the ending was intentionally left vague. Also, we're using logical thinking to arrive at a conclusion you do not agree with. Please accept that people can be perfectly reasonable (and even right) without having the same opinions as you. - Richfife (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mall not defunct

The article refers to the shooting location, Thornhill Square S.C., as being defunct. I dispute the accuracy of that statement. Check out the place on Google Maps/Streetview or on Google itself and you'll find the mall is still very much in business. It even looks more or less the way it does in the film if you check it out on Streetview. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that might have been taken from the DVD commentary. I can't recall the specifics but they (producer and director I think, I forget) say that they built a mall set over the surface of a mall about to be torn down. I believe it was being demolished to build another mall (it was something equally amusing) but don't quote me on that last bit. If that is the case, however, that would account for what you detail from Google maps.

Still, even assuming my memory on that is half right it does bring up a question that I've had come up on other articles. I know we can use primary sources for plot summary but are the DVD commentaries (which I assume are considered primary sources) acceptable for a factoid outside of the plot like this? For any WP:FILM editors who would like to know why I ask, check out the edit history/talk page for Death Race (most recent one). Millahnna (mouse)talk 10:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I know the place - it was partially demolished. The mall area used in the film was removed, leaving a small office tower with a few shops in its ground level and a grocery store on the north side. The eastern part of the property was redeveloped with new shops in a couple of separated buildings and a townhouse complex. PKT(alk) 00:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well considering that they are probably making a sequal to the movie and trying to get the 4 survivors back so they can make it they probably lived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.178.140 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sequel

Maybe add this to the article:

Dawn of the Dead 2 in the Works, Zombie Zone News, (January 12, 2010).

Still rumored though. Adamtheclown (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Current status of Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead sequel and Army of the Dead

Is there any way we can get a current 2012 going on 2013 update of Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead Sequel and Army of the Dead. With The Walking Dead being AMC's most watched T.V. series, it would be a great time for an update. There needs to have a current status seeing that his Dawn of the Dead is almost s decsde old.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dawn of the Dead (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081029040534/http://www.comingsoon.net:80/news/topnews.php?id=7973 to http://comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=7973

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Perused / Pursued

This article repeatedly confuses the word perused with, presumably, the word pursued which I find mildly amusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.239.250 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I found them all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dawn of the Dead (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/awshives/ficheFilm/id/4199281/year/2004.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217113705/http://www.timeout.com:80/film/news/631.html to http://www.timeout.com/film/news/631.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208123512/http://www.pajiba.com:80/dawn-of-the-dead.htm to http://www.pajiba.com/dawn-of-the-dead.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603222919/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com:80/news/12494 to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/12494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Cast section

@Bluerules: Since you refuse to discuss your reverted edits here (as per WP:BRD), I've decided to just initiate the discussion myself. Firstly, there's no definitive format as to how the Cast section should be presented since those will vary from article to article. As per WP:FILMCAST, The structure of the article may also influence form. [...] When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. The format that you insist on putting in the article is exactly why I prefer the previous one better: as it stands, the Cast section looks very uneven, in that a handful actors have their own contexts while everyone else doesn't have one. Since I couldn't find reliable sources on every names, I decided to just drop the Template:Cast listing format (as much as I prefer this over any other) in favor of a practical one; that is, retain the basic Cast list format devoid of descriptions and write paragraphs discussing those that I can support with reliable sources at the bottom of the list. Secondly, could you explain what makes the Snyder cameo, the dog, the CDC reporter, and the bloated woman (a stuntman) worth identifying in this section? Because WP:FILMCAST also states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film, meaning that we should only identify those that are worth identifying, reliably sourced that is. And the cameos of the actors from the original are actually already written in the development section, where it's appropriate since they were cast as the filmmakers' way of paying tribute to the original film; listing them in Cast would be duplicate information. Nincompoopian (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There may technically not be a "definitive format", but there is a better format. You are unnecessarily proposing that connected, relevant information be separated. How it "looks" is irrelevant to how it reads. Information about Polley belongs where the focus is on Polley - e.g. her name in the cast section. That way, all of the information about Polley is in one, clear area of the cast section, giving readers a clear area to learn about Polley in the film and preventing repetition. What you are proposing results in the cast section jumping back and forth between information, creating convolution. Information about the same subject belongs together because it is most readable in such a format.

For the cast additions, Ermes Blarasin and Blu are relevant because their characters were deemed relevant by the plot section. If their characters are relevant, then they are relevant. The fact that the former is a stuntman makes his inclusion more noteworthy because he portrayed a female character and this allows readers to learn the bloated woman was played by a man. Natalie Brown is relevant because she has her own article. In fact, her article mentions her role in the film. And Zack Snyder himself is relevant because he's the film's own director making an appearance. Obviously, simply appearing in the film doesn't warrant mention. To summarize, what makes these four relevant is two have their characters already mentioned in the plot section, one already has her own article, and one is the director himself.

As for the actors from the original, they are actually cast members and it is most appropriate to provide information on them in the cast section. The cast section provides information about the cast, the most important information about these three is they are actors from the original film making cameos as these characters. You cannot assume that readers read every section - if readers simply jumped to the cast section under your proposed edits, they would miss the necessary information about the three being in the original film where again, this information is most appropriate. And as cameos, they should not be included in the bulleted list. They belong in the paragraph underneath the list where it can also be made clear these are cameo appearances. Bluerules (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've tweaked and expanded the prose a little more and supported them with refs. Nincompoopian (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

is there a sequel

I personally don't think so but need to know if there is Sarah afton (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviews rating table

Someone recently added {{Film and game ratings}} to this article. I removed it but an editor added it back against my advice.

I did not say Ratings tables were prohibited, I said they were not recommended. But they are really not a good idea.

There's a reason you don't see them in Film articles. There were discussions at Project Film and they actively discouraged using them. (IIRC Project Games isn't so enthusiastic about them anymore either.) But I'm having difficulty finding the old archived discussions, because I can't guess exactly the right search keywords. Unfortunately MOSFILM doesn't document their all advice very well, you have to also look at what {{Good article}}s and {{Featured article}}s do and more importantly what they don't do. It seems to come back to the principle of WP:PROSE.

That's why there are almost no film articles are using them. (Except this one The Tracey Fragments (film) and maybe some recent articles.)

The Raid was one of the last few film articles using the table but here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Raid_(2011_film)&diff=961243311&oldid=959157800 where User:Bovineboy2008 removed it.

If you don't believe me you should go to WT:MOSFILM and start a discussion, ask them if you should add review ratings tables to film articles.

Please remove the film review ratings table. -- 109.78.194.208 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There was a long standing consensus against using these tables in Film articles but it was not formally noted in the main guidelines and those old discussion are difficult to find.

A new discussion was started at Project Film asking if Ratings tables at at Project film. That discussion has just started, it could be a while before there is any consensus.

Anyone evaluating this article on the article quality scale should check to see how that discussion went. -- 109.78.194.208 (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason I added it is because some readers would be interested to know what scores or star ratings movie critics gave the film since I didn't wanna write dull sentences such as those provided at WP:RECEPTION, an essay on how to better write this section; a quick glance at that table will supply that information to them. If a consensus is yet to be reached regarding its inclusion in movie articles, then the table should stay there for the time being. Nincompoopian (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Rating_table

There was an existing consensus not to use them. You need to add to the discussion if you think there should be a new consensus, there does not seem to be support for it.

Wikipedia is not necessarily what users might like, it is WP:NOTTVGUIDE, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it is supposed to be WP:PROSE. -- 109.76.142.42 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It is unfortunate and misleading that this template exists even though there is a general consensus against actually using it. Thank you for cleaning up the article. -- 109.79.175.162 (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN?

Having skimmed through the article, I realize it has the potential to be a Good Article. I would ask the major contributor for their consent to nominate the article (pursuant to GAN rules), however, I scrolled through the edit history and found that they have been blocked as a sock puppet last year. I would still like to pursue a GAN with this article, anyway. Any objections? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi protect this page to only logged in users

A group of Zack Snyder fans have put it up on themselves to consistently remove James Gunn's name from the page even though he is the credited writer of the film due to their pettiness. Can we please lock this page or semi-lock this page till it settles down? Hello, I'm a Wikipedian! (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The remaining characters' fate

James Gunn just admitted yesterday that the remaining characters die in the end [3]. Can we now leave out the part in the plot summary where it says the ending is "unknown"? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)