Talk:Day of the Dead (2008 film)

message: :Image:DayOfTheDead2007Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DayOfTheDead2007Poster.jpg

message: I was the one that posted that. Somehow i screwed up my page citation... I was unable to find another way to cite this. I do think this should be put into the article however. If memory serves, a similar thing happened before the release of the Halloween remake and it made the Wiki article. I think the film being leaked so early before release is definitely noteworthy. 
The film really wasn't worth downloading. It was terrible. I just hope I can do a public service and stop people before they end up renting this thinking they're going to see a remake of the classic film Day Of The Dead. It's not a remake, much like person above me said, it has little in common with the original at all. The use of the name was a simple cash grab to sucker in us die hard horror fans. Plain and simple.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwaal (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting information about the leaked screener is probably fine. It's just not really a good idea to post a link to  a digg.com posting that just links to a registration required piracy related website. There is just no real source information there. A better choice would be a news source like MSN, Yahoo news, Google news or a decent blog posting about the matter. Did the MPAA, the studio, or the director of the film use the leak as an example of piracy hurting the movie industry? Was it just a stunt to help promote the movie? Something like that. I wouldn't put it under "Pre-production" either. Createing a new section might be better. Check other Wikipedia pages with known screener leaks and use those as an example for creating the entry. Generalleoff (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaked Screener Copy 

message: This film could hardly be called a remake. It has nothing in common with the 1985 film outside of the title and some very trivial settings and concepts. It has zombies, soldiers, scientists, part of the plot takes place in a military bunker and a few odds and ends but thats it. The function of these groups is completely different. Not even remotely similar. The origin of the zombies is also revealed to the viewer instead of left open to speculation as in all the originals and other remakes in the series. Any social commentary is totally absent. I hate for this to sound like a review of the movie (though I found the movie actually half decent and zombie movie fans should watch it) because that's not what Wikipedia is for but my point is that calling this film a remake is a major stretch. They could have put any original title on it (I vote for "28 days later meets Resident Evil") and it would have made no difference. Actually the movie would probably have reviewed higher and maybe have even stood a chance of a theatrical release as there would have been no comparison to the far superior "original" film. Generalleoff (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake? What a joke... 

message: * When the main characters leave the radio station, a sign can be partially seen that identifies the radio station's frequency as "84,6 FM".  American radio dials do not go below 87.8, and would have used a decimal instead of a comma.  The comma is probably a mistake by the Bulgarian film crews, but the illegal frequency might be intentional (similar to the 555 exchange in phone numbers?) -- only in Japan is that frequency valid. See FM broadcasting.
* A Colorado license plate is shown with registration stickers on the front plates.  Registration stickers are only placed on the rear license plates.
* The movie suggests that one can get from Leadville, Colorado to Boulder, Colorado via a single back road.  In reality, the cities are not close.
* The last lines of the movie are a radio news announcement that refers to "Colorado County".  There is no Colorado County in Colorado.  Leadville is found in Lake County.
--Mdwyer (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goofs 

message: The plot summary indicates "The movie ends with a surviving zombie jumping in front of the camera in screamer fashion.". I think we could ad a bit more : "The movie ends with a surviving zombie jumping in front of the camera in screamer fashion, while the radio says the infection is over."
Just a point of view, but I think that'll be a nice call to Romero's "Diary of the Dead", and the manipulation of medias during an infection outbreak.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.13.152.145 (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: WP:FILMPLOT tells us to keep plots under 700 words.  When I streamlined the plot, I brought it down to around 650 words, which I think is the appropriate amount of detail.  The plot has now been expanded to 900 words, which is too long.  I think we should return to the streamlined plot – this is not a complicated film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is nothing about this film that justifies breaking the limit. Betty Logan (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Also concur with keeping the plot short. Per WP:PLOT, a concise plot summary is appropriate. This film is 86 minutes long and does not have a complicated plot that might warrant a longer summary for other films (e.g., Pulp Fiction). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

text: If I was watching this article I would have already chopped the plot down one way or another. Editors who feel the summary should violate WP:FILMPLOT would be well-advised to make their case here. DonIago (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm ... I'm turning into a plot zombie. Must consume excess verbiage. Bite! Gnaw! Chew! Seriously, even the slimmed-down version (currently 617 words) is too long and detailed. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, direct-to-video zombie films aren't exactly known for their complex and challenging plots.  Still, as long as it's comfortably readable, I think that's the important thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long plot