# Talk:Army of the Dead

Army of the Dead is not a sequel to Dawn of the Dead (2004) and the script has been heavily rewritten since 2008.
https://variety.com/2019/film/news/dave-bautista-zack-snyder-army-of-the-dead-1203182227/
https://theplaylist.net/zack-snyder-netflix-zombie-film-20190130/
Darkknight2149 17:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact, it doesn't appear that it ever really was a sequel to Dawn of the Dead. Just misreports. Darkknight2149 10:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
If there was any further doubt that this was never a Dawn of the Dead sequel, here is an additional source:

The title of the movie obviously has “of the Dead” in it. Should the Romero or the zombie fans will see that, is that an homage?
Yeah. It has to be “of the Dead.” People have asked me, ”is that like, is this a sequel?” I'm like “no. It's a zombie movie.” And they're like “what what does that mean?” And I'm like, “it’s ‘of the dead.’ It’s ‘something of the dead.’ It just happens to be an army.”
Was it a sequel when it was first developed?

No, no. I Developed it right after Dawn, but not as a sequel. I wanted to do this other evolution in it of the zombies, so I need another trope, I needed another origin story in order to make this other thing work, so I was like, “okay, it can live in his own universe.” And now we're building this universe like nuts, so we'll see. It's kind of fun.
Darkknight2149 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Despite this, the filmmaker has called the film a "spiritual-sequel" here, and in their interview with him Esquire identifies the film as a "sequel" to which Snyder never states otherwise (viewable here). Furthermore, Army of the Dead references the events of Dawn of the Dead... for those of you who are not aware, look here. What this appears to confirm is that though Army of the Dead is not a direct-sequel, it is a standalone "spiritual-sequel" where the events of Dawn of the Dead also took place. For these reasons, the Army of the Dead article needs to note/mention this. I had added the statement with references several times, only for them to be reverted. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that your sources User:DK2149 are the majority from 2019, and 2007. Esquire's interview with Snyder is from May 24, 2021 (most recent). Furthermore, though the film may not be a direct sequel, the fact that he calls it a "spiritual-sequel" and the fact that it references Dawn of the Dead is telling.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@DisneyMetalhead: Nowhere in the Esquire interview is Snyder told that the film is a direct sequel to Dawn or does he ever imply it (the opening is always added after). He actually clarifies it in this interview: "I developed it right after Dawn, but not as a sequel." Also, a newspaper clipping seen for a second in the film should NOT be used to state in the lead that the films take place at the same time. As Snyder calls it a "spiritual sequel", it is also misleading to call the film a sequel. The lead should be definitive and some of his thoughts have already been mentioned in #Development and #Possible_sequel. There is no need to mislead readers with information that has not been confirmed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Similarly, Snyder explicitly says in the interview quoted above and multiple times in 2021 alone that Army of the Dead is not a sequel. No one attached to either iteration of the film has ever referred to it as such. A spiritual sequel is not the same thing as an actual sequel. Army of the Dead also has elements in it that contradict Dawn of the Dead (2004) and the "'04 Milwaukee Outbreak" thing is a hidden Easter Egg reference that only tells us that zombie outbreaks occurred in Milwaukee during 2004 in both universes. In Dawn of the Dead, it's also worth mentioning that the outbreak wasn't just in Milwaukee, it was a worldwide zombie pandemic and potential apocalypse. Darkknight2149 21:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
yes indeed even though " the dead " is in the title doesn't show any real factual evidence stating that army of the dead is a sequel to Dawn of the dead Sarah afton (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Users: SDFNC, DK2149, and SA; firstly, the fact that a reliable source such as "Esquire" calls the film a sequel in a lengthy interview with Snyder - we cannot assume this is merely a mistake. Furthermore the fact that it is called a "spiritual sequel" to Dawn of the Dead by the filmmaker is noteworthy. A "spiritual sequel" is still a classification of a sequel. If the hangup is calling it a sequel in the introductory paragraph, at least the mention that it takes place in the same world as Dawn of the Dead, is noteworthy. If Snyder didn't want the films connected at all, he would not have put the 2004 Milwaukee headline in the film. Furthermore your statement that it was a "pandemic" is an assumption. Calling it the "Milwaukee Outbreak" is similar to calling a disease: "the Spanish Flu", the "Wuhan Coronovirus", etc. Identifying where it came from does not restrict the outbreak to just Milwaukee. The reference is a nod, that Dawn of the Dead occurred within the Army of the Dead world/universe/franchise. Noting that it is a "spiritual sequel" in the lead paragraph, and having that link to a development section with more details about the references would be constructive. Lastly, SA, nowhere in anyone's statements have they claimed that the of the Dead title means that they are connected. There are various ...of the Dead films, none of which are related to this discussion. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@DisneyMetalhead: Again, Esquire said it was a sequel in the article's opening sentence and never brought it up during the interview. The fact that the film is a spiritual sequel has already been mentioned and its definition clearly states that it is inspired by someone's previous work but that it does not have to exist in the same universe as its predecessor. Both films had outbreaks occur in different locations and there is no proof or confirmation that it is a literal sequel. Calling it that in the lead would, once again, be misleading to readers. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
No primary source has ever referred to it as a sequel. Rather, that has been directly debunked in 2007 (by Joby Harold) and by Zack Snyder multiple times between 2020 and 2021. Third party sources can make mistakes. The opening paragraph of Esquire made an erroneous assumption and the early articles reporting it as a sequel in 2007 were also just assuming, based on it being developed so soon after Dawn. For every secondary source that claims it's a sequel, there are others that say it's not. And everyone who has ever been involved with the film explicitly says that they are not in the same continuity.
The term "spiritual sequel" actually means the opposite: that it's not in the same universe, but it's a sequel in spirit or themes only. Forbidden Siren is a spiritual successor to Silent Hill and Dino Crisis was a spiritual successor to Resident Evil, but none of them share the same continuity.
Why do you think that "2004 Milwaukee Outbreak" must mean that they are in the same universe? It's an Easter Egg wink to Dawn of the Dead, there's no doubt about that. But frankly, Dawn of the Dead didn't have a "2004 Milwaukee Outbreak". It had a "2004 Worldwide Apocalypse" with totally different zombies. At best, you could cheese it by saying that the 2004 zombie pandemic was caused by a space-born virus and civilisation eventually returned to normal, with the government experimenting with the virus to create Zeus. However, that would be complete and total unverifiable speculation that will probably be debunked by Army of the Dead: Lost Vegas anyway. At the end of the day, all claims made by Wikipedia must be unbiased and verifiable. Darkknight2149 20:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
yea I agree that sometimes the claims made by wikipedia are unbiased and verifiable by the end of the day but this still does not prove that army of the dead is a sequel in any way to Dawn of the dead Sarah afton (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
so inconclusive to what I said there is still no evidence of army of the dead being a sequel to Dawn of the dead Sarah afton (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Darkknight2149 Sarah afton (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Darkknight2149 I am not suggesting making a fan-fiction background for how/why they're connected. What I'm stating is that by having the reference to the Milwaukee incident, it confirms that Dawn of the Dead events took place in Army of the Dead. What I'm suggesting is a mention of that somewhere in the article... possibly development? What I also still believe is that a statement that it is a "spiritual"-sequel to Dawn of the Dead is constructive. Regardless of how you interpret "spiritual-sequel" (an I don't necessarily think that video game examples are the defining source like you mentioned), the movie is indeed a spiritual sequel. Whether it ends up being more connected than the reference or not, remains to be seen. But stating the fact that it is a spiritual sequel and refers to Dawn of the Dead, is not speculatory but fact given the references. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Sarah afton - what are you saying? DK is supporting your suggestions, though it seems like you're disagreeing with them now. Your sentences aren't very clear.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
There seem to be several sources where the director states the film is not a sequel, and even many of the sources that contain the phrase "spiritual sequel" seem to hedge their language and avoid directly calling the film that in their own voice. Without something more concrete, I think using that type of language in the lead would be inappropriate given the director's comments, and I'm not sure what additional context could be provided in the development section, which already describes the film as a "spiritual successor". I don't think it's appropriate to make connections between films based on our own interpretations of scenes that are not supported by independent reliable sources as that would be original research. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Again, the term spiritual sequel literally means "sequel in spirit only". It doesn't say anything about continuity. As for your other points, I should re-ask: why do you believe a blink-and-you-miss-it "2004 Milwaukee Outbreak" Easter Egg absolutely has to mean that they are the same universe? Dawn of the Dead wasn't a "2004 Milwaukee Outbreak", it was a "2004 Worldwide Apocalypse" that just happened to be set in Milwaukee. The zombies in Dawn of the Dead are also not the same zombies in Army of the Dead. According to Snyder, one of the reasons that Army isn't a Dawn sequel is because he needed a different origin story for his new rendition of zombies (see the interview in the article). No one's suggesting that this isn't a wink at Dawn of the Dead, but occam's razor seems clear. More important is our verifiability policies. Darkknight2149 20:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I should also add that the film being a spiritual sequel is already covered in the article. Darkknight2149 22:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
no I said that it was never proven to be a sequel Sarah afton (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
My copy of Making of Army of the Dead came in the mail and literally one of the first pages says it's a different universe:
https://i.imgur.com/sOkGOGZ.jpg
Darkknight2149 01:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


### Arbitrary break
Users: Darkknight2149, Sarah afton, and wallyfromdilbert -- My point in this discussion is that the film is a "spiritual sequel". That is confirmed and factual. The fact that there's a reference confirms this as well. This overt reference/"Easter egg" or whatever you want to call it, directly references the events of Dawn of the Dead. Whether you interpret "spiritual sequel" as meaning "the opposite of sequel" or not, having the article reference that fact is constructive. Furthermore, I don't know why you keep calling it the "2004 worldwide apocalypse" as that is not stated in either movie. Referencing the "2004 Milwaukee outbreak" is simply putting a name to the outbreak that happened before. Lastly, given your "making of" book states it is a different cinematic universe this seems to confirm that Dawn of the Dead is separate continuity. However, it still doesn't negate the fact that the Army of the Dead franchise as a whole is a "spiritual sequel to Dawn of the Dead. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: What do you want? The article already acknowledges that it's a spiritual successor and the Easter Eggs you mentioned are too trivial to include. Also: no events from Dawn of the Dead are directly referenced in Army of the Dead. Only the location and year are mentioned. In fact, the opposite of what you are saying is true. In Army of the Dead, there was no zombie apocalypse and there are no fast shamblers. Aside from the super-powered Alphas, the zombies in Army of the Dead are sloooooooooooooooooow. Romero's slow-walker zombies are unsarcastically faster.
"However, it still doesn't negate the fact that the Army of the Dead franchise as a whole is a spiritual sequel to Dawn of the Dead" Again, the article already says this. So does Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)#Spiritual successor. What are you asking for? Darkknight2149 00:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that, in this interview, Dawn writer James Gunn said that the zombies were supernatural and compared it to a vampire bite. Take that as you will. Darkknight2149 01:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: what I'm stating is that acknowledging the fact that Army of the Dead is a "spiritual sequel/spiritual successor" to Dawn of the Dead in the lead couple of paragraphs would be constructive. It's factual as that is what we've been told. Additionally, stating such in the development section is needed. I understand that this has been done. Adding a section like has been on the Dawn of the Dead page is a good start. Whether you feel like they share continuity or not, Army is a spiritual sequel to Dawn... whatever that exactly means. I conceded that until Snyder comments on the "Milwaukee outbreak", you and I and anyone else can only speculate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This quote is useful for good measure:

"No, it was always intended to be set in its own world. I thin if I was ever going to have done a sequel to 'Dawn', it would have been a 'Day of the Dead' remake, something that sort of stayed more in that George Romero world."
Darkknight2149 09:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
why did you want me I supported your claim that it wasn't a sequel to Dawn of the dead Sarah afton (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Asking if we should add "(2021 film)" to the page title as there is another film with the same title. Iamnoahflores (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary with how barely notable the 2008 film is. It doesn't even have any reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, where this is a film by Zack Snyder and is absolutely likely to get much more coverage. It seems appropriate to treat this 2021 film as the primary topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
As long as readers know it's not about Deadheads I think we're good. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that is really necessary either since readers would already know that it was made this year Sarah afton (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Somebody deleted a big section from the article because he said he objected to fan theories and speculation.  The section didn't contain any fan theories or speculation.  It included information from the movie's producers, with citations.  Here's the information, FYI:
As the convoy starts their journey at the beginning of the film, there are two bright lights that hover in the sky, then move away quickly.  The movie's producer has suggested the zombie leader might be part alien or genetically engineered. The zombies that kill Guzman in the lobby include some robot zombies. The producers plan to elaborate on these ideas in the sequels. 2603:9000:E408:4800:D8DF:FFAB:B03D:9926 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@2603:9000:E408:4800:D8DF:FFAB:B03D:9926: I added the content to #Future. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I re-added details to the plot explaining that Zeus the alpha zombie (patient zero), was/is a government experiment weapon that was bioengineered using alien DNA. This is important to a reader who hasn't seen the film, as it explains the concept of the alpha zombies. It allows the reader to understand how this "zombie" and all alphas are different. It also explains how/why they can conceive and have a child.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
While Snyder has rumored it, the alien technology has not been confirmed so do NOT add it. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
yes you shouldn't add things that are just rumors unless proven real Sarah afton (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, for all we know, we could get a completely different explanation for Zeus in Army of the Dead: Lost Vegas. Deborah Snyder only suggested the "bioengineered using alien DNA" thing as a possibility. If she said it as fact, that would be different. Be careful not to jump to conclusions not explicitly stated by the sources based on limited information given by the sources, as that is a form of WP:OR and violates the spirit of WP:SYN. Darkknight2149 00:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Users: DK2149, SDFNC, and SA; once again noone is assuming anything by taking a direct quote from the producers which states that the alpha (Zeus) is a biochemically created top-secret weapon. Zack Snyder also confirmed this when he stated in his interview with "Porygon" that Zeus was being shipped to Iran (which can be read [1]). Stating that the alpha was experimented upon with alien DNA furthermore is accurate when you note that both Snyders have stated its origin is Area 51. Zack states here in various places, that Zeus was a man who volunteered for a "mission" and comes out of it as "this thing". Additionally, he repeatedly states in various interviews that "zombies come from Area 51". What is Area 51 associated with conspiracy-wise? Aliens. We'll obviously get to learn more about the specifics of what happened. But referencing/stating the fact that Zeus is a biochemically engineered top secret weapon from Area 51 created through DNA experimentation is accurate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@DisneyMetalhead: "the alpha was experimented upon with alien DNA is accurate when you note that both Snyders have stated its origin is Area 51" - what in the world? That is a literal assumption. Also want to point that in the Polygon interview, Snyder quickly follows up on his statement by asking the interviewer, "Like, is he some sort of covert bioweapon?" Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with just waiting (WP:NORUSH) before expanding these claims. The Los Vegas series is supposed to explore its origin so I would suggest waiting for that to release. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Disney, the produces said that Zeus could (COULD!) be a bio-engineered superweapon. Not that he is. The rest of your paragraph is literal synthesis. Darkknight2149 20:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
it was never truly confirmed by snyder so therefore it it a rumor so unless its proven right don't put it down Sarah afton (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I just removed a reference about the zombies being "created with alien technology" from the "sequel" section [2] as it was not supported by the cited source, which merely states "Snyder has indicated aliens being connected to Zeus' origins in some way" [3]. That is not the same as Snyder confirming some type of "alien" connection, and that type of speculation should wait until better sourcing exists. If Snyder has "indicated" a connection, then we should be citing the source that provides the context for what that statement means. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Army of the Dead/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and the nominator, Some Dude From North Carolina, has both written some great GAs and excellent GA reviews. I'll start my review shortly.  simongraham (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


### Review
The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 96.1% of authorship is one user, Some Dude From North Carolina. It is currently ranked a C class article, assessed on 25 March July 2021 by Some Dude From North Carolina. It was also nominated as a GA at the same time but that was withdrawn on 29 May due to "high levels of vandalism". There has been minor editing since then.

Images are tagged with appropriate licenses under Creative Commons apart from the poster, which is Fair Use.
The page has been checked with Writix, which confirms content is free of plagiarism.
There are a few newspapers listed. Please confirm that they meet WP:NMEDIA.
 Done They do. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There are a few websites lised, incljuding CinemaBlend, GamesRadar+ and Polygon. Please confirm that they meet WP:RELIABLE.
 Done via WP:RSP discussions. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a citation in the Infobox. Consider removing these in line with WP:INFOBOXREF and adding a referenced mention in the main body.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
In the Infobox, the budget is listed as $70–90 million but in the text $70 million. Please reconcile these.
 Already done #Development says "it was announced that Netflix had given the film a $90 million production budget" and in #Casting it says "the production budget [was] now reported at $70 million." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The document does seem to have been quite volatile, particularly with regard to reversions. Please confirm it is stable.
 Done It is. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Great work. Please ping me when you would like me to complete the assessment.  simongraham (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Simongraham: ready. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


### Assessment
The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct 
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
it contains no original research;
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It has a neutral point of view
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 
images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

 Pass  simongraham (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)