Talk:Zombieland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Source for use

• CNN - Zombies to show up at Comic-Con --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

2000AD story "clown" inspired

Does any reference currently available that links Zombieland to CLOWN storyline from 2000ad britsh comic? by Igor Goldkind because there are some notable similarities.116.90.102.222 (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill Murray

Is there a reason why Bill Murray keeps getting removed from the cast list? Is the source wrong? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I can find numerous sources for this:[1] [2] [3] so it clearly meets WP:V. dissolve^talk 05:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for double-checking. I guess the edits are just minor vandalism. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

-Having Bill Murry in the cast list ruins the surprise cameo for anyone who, like myself, may come to this page just to find out when the movie opens. Thanks a lot, I was trying not to get spoiled.

Wikipedia does not have a Spoiler policy. Furthermore I got that info from an outside source and as Dissolve proved above that info is available on a lot of news sources. You could have easily seen that Bill Murray was making a cameo appearance in those places just as you could here. Next time I recommend going to IMDB or the Zombieland official site. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just saw it before the release, and I have to say that having watched the trailer /after/ seeing the movie, you can see Bill Murray's face quite a bunch of times in the background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.148.92 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 September 2009

Clerical Error

but gets trapped in a game booth surronded by most while down to two pistols while Columbus tries to save the girls.

We should fix that. Haven't seen the movie, I assume he is surrounded by most of the zombies and down to two pistols. Meanwhile Columbus tries to save the <insert name of girl> here.(74.183.38.88 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

• fixed Timmccloud (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

he doesn't get trapped, he purposely goes into the booth and stops the zombies from getting in while he shoots out at them.Charwinger21 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia not a blooper forum

There are some mistakes in the movies plot...

after arriving at thehouse of bill murrey when the girls steal the yellow hummer, how do talahasee and columbus aquire the black escalade again to chase down the girls at the park? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.178.43 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The black FUV is not the Escalade, it is Bill Murray's GMC Yukon. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• fixed Timmccloud (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Generally positive" reviews?

89% is a little bit more than generally positive, especially considering that a 70% or more seems to qualify, more or less, as strong.67.176.90.176 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What would you have it say? "Mostly positive"? In truth, "generally" covers the same thing, and that is how just about all film articles here with mostly positive reviews are done. "Mostly" is probably considered a WP:Weasel word in these cases. And "strongly positive" certainly does not sound right. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot of zombies

The screenshot that is supposedly from Zombieland is from the Dawn of the Dead remake and obviously has no place in this article. Especially not as a screenshot of Zombieland. Can-o-Mark (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That screenshot is credited as being from Zombieland. Do an image search. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

One example of it being credited as a Zombieland screenshot is by the Chicago Tribune in this link. They do not outright state it as one, but certainly imply it by having it there. Just like you, one guy in the comments section wonders if it is a screenshot from the Dawn of the Dead remake. Another guy says no. Additionally, this screenshot is credited as a Zombieland screenshot at some trailer sites and fansites, as seen in this link.

Either these sites are being too lazy to look for a Zombieland screenshot, there is not a good enough screenshot for them showing zombies and so they instead used one from the Dawn of the Dead remake, other site have confused them, or this actually is a Zombieland screenshot. Right now, I am confused on the matter. Do you have proof that it is a Dawn of the Dead screenshot? Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The zombies in the current screenshot in the article, look different from the zombies in Zombieland. I was a zombie extra in the movie at the theme park. The makeup used was simply blood markings on the face, hair and clothes (albeit sometimes a lot). The zombies in the screenshot have no blood that I see and their faces look distorted which makes it look like they have masks on. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Since I and it seems others are confused on this matter, I suppose I will go look for another image. In the meantime, if anyone else has any helpful information about this, it would be very much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, uploaded a different image, with a different summary (which is a blend of what Mjrmtg and the main special effects creator Tony Gardner stated). It is apparent that Can-o-Mark was/is right, as a simple Google image search also shows the previous image as a Dawn of the Dead remake screenshot, as seen in this link; and we all know which film came out first. Additionally, what Mjrmtg stated about the differences in zombie designs made sense to me once I started examining at the zombies in the Zombieland images before doing a Dawn of the Dead remake Google image search. I thank both of you guys for the help. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mispelling of Peter Amundson

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change Peter Amundsen to Peter Amundson.

The correct spelling is Peter Amundson, not Peter Amundsen (see imdb or the full production credits on the Sony Publicity site at http://www.sonypicturespublicity.com/article.php?movie=zombieland). John Dhabolt (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  303° 19' 15" NET   20:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Release date

There's no longer any info about when the film was released in various places! Fail wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.47.93 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an American wiki, not a foreign country wiki. It is concerned with release dates in America. No Fail, sorry. --Mjrmtg (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Release date listing arguments aside, Wikipedia is an international effort, and is not "an American wiki." - JeffJonez (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we even need release date info? Lots42 (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really Timmccloud (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to MOS:FILM. Details of a film's release (and that includes dates) are not trivial. And this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, PC78. This is why I not too long ago reverted ItsTheClimb17's October 16, 2009 removal of the release dates from the infobox, and also commented on his or her talk page; this user's edits to film articles have been a little "off" in more than one case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per what is stated here, it seems we were somewhat wrong about this topic of release dates. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Twinkie destruction

"Hearing a noise behind a door, Columbus instinctively shoots it." I thought they both shot at it?--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe they both shot it as well. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Rules:

Is it worthwhile to add the list of rules? They are a central part of the entire plot.

Rule #1: Cardio[4]
Rule #2: Double Tap[5]
Rule #3: Beware of bathrooms[6]
Rule #4: Fasten seatbelts[7]
Rule #6: Cast Iron Skillet[8]
Rule #12: Bounty[9]
Rule #14: Limber up
Rule #15: Bowling Ball [10]
Rule #17: Don't be a hero
Rule #29: Buddy System[11]
Rule #31: Check the backseat
Rule #32: Enjoy the little things
Rule #33: Swiss Army Knife[12]
Timmccloud (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Parenthetical notation converted to references:
In order to simplify the article and keep the rules just like they are on the screen, I keep moving the notes in parenthesis into references at the bottom of the page, where they should be. Although there is no spoiler rule, this does leave significant plot items away from the list, and it keeps the list as it appears in the movie without excessive explanations. Since the crux of the movie is all about explaining the list, most of the notational references come close to WP:OR anyway when they are without specific citations, so I think this is an acceptable compromise. Timmccloud (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we specify what double tap means to Columbus in text, not just in the references? Not everyone knows to check the References section to see what things mean or to see if things are true; of course, I am referring to people not exactly familiar with Wikipedia and who think anything can be added to it (when, really, it is mostly about reliable sourcing). I feel that it is the one rule that should be specified in the Columbus's rules section rather than just through its references. Everything else is pretty clear from name alone. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • IMHO, no. The rules are displayed on screen during the movie in clear text, and I think it is worthwhile just keeping the rules as they appear. Also a significant amount of screen time during the entire movie is about explaining them. Finally, many Wikipedia articles get into trouble trying to describe everything about everthing, and start running into WP:OR when trying to explain things. So I feel there are three good reasons not to use parenthetical explanations on the rules. I recognize your point as valid, even though I disagree with it, so let's see what others think in a !vote here, and change the article accordingly.Timmccloud (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree about not using a parenthetical explanation for double tap, Timmccloud, for the reasons I stated above. Another editor was even just recently confused about the matter before reverting back to before his or her edit. And not everyone who reads this article has seen the film. It is not original research (OR) in this case, seeing as we clearly know what Columbus means in his version of double tap and have references for it. If the explanations in the references were original research, then they would need to be removed as well. But I am not going to stress this; I will simply see what other editors think, as this is likely to come up again, especially once this article is unlocked. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Double Tap Discussion:

• Someone should remove the link in rule 4 "Double Tap" This is not the same as the double tap the movie is talking about. In the movie "double tap" just means you shoot the zombie one last time in the head to make sure it's dead. It doesn't have to do with rapidly firing shoots.--74.222.32.67 (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I politely disagree. This is an different interpretation of the term "double tap", but at it's very basic it relates to firing a firearm twice, and it's general purpose is undoubtedly to kill the target with multiple shots. It's his rules, his list, his interpretation, and I think the link is valid. Timmccloud (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "Head-shoot"?? Someone entered "Head-shoot" in the rule next to double tap. What kind of slang is that? "Head-shoot the zombie"? Please learn how to phrase things correctly and don't trake shortcuts or make your own slang. Check the article on double tap. It does not mean the same thing as the rule. --Mjrmtg (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I added "head shoot" as a compromise since the first example in film was where someone failed to shoot a zombie in the head, after it was felled by the first shot. Later, "double tap" was cited when they drove over the heads of zombies felled by shooting. Therefore double tap refers to the head being extinguished (either by shots or otherwise), not to multiple shots per se. But the link to "double tap" seem valid, since the phrase is obviously the inspiration for the name. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I converted the "head shoot" into something approaching a proper english sentence, and moved it down as a reference, since there was ALREADY a reference explaining this, which I combined it into.Timmccloud (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
          • A shame that your improvement left out the core concept that head has to specifically targetted. This has been pointed out several time, by several editors, what is your problem with this? Oh, BTW, the reference you claim ALREADY explained this did not.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
            • No place does it explain that it has to be the head, the screen shows "double tap" while Tallahassee runs over the bodies of the zombies with the SUV. The reference is to attempting to kill them twice, not twice to the head. Find a valid reference for your theory, and feel free to change the article. Thanks! Timmccloud (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
              • The head : [13]--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
                • Awesome! Well done :) Timmccloud (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out that "Double Tap" was also shown on the screen when Columbus hit the zombie from his first encounter with zombies on the head a second time with the toilet seat (therby killing it). Charwinger21 (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Other rules:

• Rule number 6 is up to interpretation, the Comedy Cental TV spot says Rule number 6 is "Stay inside the vehicle." They also have rule fifty something, which is "Employees must wash their hands." Myspace's artist-on-artist featuring the three older cast members also has rule 48: "Hygiene." 6,12,15,29, and 33 don't follow the movies format, so I don't like them personally.--173.2.184.167 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think only rules that were mentioned in the movie should be on the list--98.193.71.124 (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. The non canonical ones get a mention in the article, and the list is only the ones from the movie.Timmccloud (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Isn't rule #22 phrased "When in doubt, know your way out"? Time Burglar (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please provide a trusted citation or reference that we can link too to prove your point and the change will be made, thanks! Timmccloud (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Another rule was "don't get caught with your trousers/pants down". --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you got a citeable reference mike? This just sounds like an expansion of #3 beware of bathrooms. Timmccloud (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No ref, but just watched film last night. IIRC it was a different rule, but the example illustrated was of someone getting caught in a public rest/bathroom.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Don't get caught with your pants down was the explanation of Rule #3. I do remember When In Doubt, Know Your Way Out, but I don't remember a number on it. For those who can't recall it, when Wichita shows up in the grocery store and asks for help, Columbus puts a box in the door before following them.--24.45.221.216 (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Canonical, but not in movie:

• The 5 rules in the advertisements can coexist with the movie, and they are presented by Columbus's character. I decided that being part of the movie's canon, though not necessarily in the movie, they still deserved mentioning. Also, I am new at providing in-text sources, and citing rules 6, 12, 15, 29, and 33 with source #10 did not quite work the way I had planned. Copy and paste has failed me. I would appreciate if a more experienced editor could remedy this. I think I also screwed up the sourcing for the rest of the article. ZomB-man17 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistency with rules:

• You have all the rules available listed, ending with rule 33. In the paragraph above, pertaining to the rules, it states that there are thirty-two. Just noticed it, thought you might want to change it. 4:26 p.m. 21 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.43.169 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Iunno if you guys have noticed, but Rule 34 isn't from Zombieland. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule%2034 It's most commonly from 4chan and /b/, so might wanna get that out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.215.57 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Total number of Rules?

In the international trailer Columbus says he has 47 rules for surviving zombieland. I was considering adding it to the article but thought it wise to check first. The film only shows 34 rules, does it or other sources contradict this earlier claim of there being a total of 47? -- Horkana (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Character names

I saw the movie last night and I recall Columbus mentioning both his own as well as the neighbor girl's name at some point in the movie. Also, Wichita's name was heard as she whispered it to Columbus. The section saying the names were not mentioned at all should be corrected to add these names (unfortunately I didn't make a note of them myself at the time). LovelyLillith (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Columbus calls his neighbor 406, and he never says his name. Wichita's name has been added. 76.178.228.63 (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reiterating here what I wrote in the source. The real name of Wichita has been added to the article and the name could potentially be spelled different ways. Any change should be careful to change all instances of the name, I reverted several changes to the name which failed on that count. I'm thinking now the name is most likely to be spelled with a 'K' and 'I' as that seems to be the most common spelling of the name and incidentally how the mother of Emma Stone spells it. Most editors know IMDB is not a suitable source, nor is wikipedia or any of the sites like Answers.com that reuse content from Wikipedia. Hopefully a transcript will come up or someone can tell us what the subtitles say but the only fair course of action for now is to leave the spelling as 'K' and 'Y' as that is what was there first. -- Horkana (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mila Kunis

MTV claims Mila Kunis (Extract (film)) appears in Zombieland which is entirely unsupported. The reporting in various places seems to come from [justjared.buzznet.com /2009/01/15/mila-kunis-is-a-zombie/ zombie photographs] taken in Irwindale, California, January 2009. Some filming for Zombieland occured in California but the locations makes no mention of Irwindale]. She does appear in The Book of Eli a post apocolyptic story of some sort. There have been no reports of Kunis making a cameo in Zombieland, it should all become clearer when The Book of Eli is released but I wanted to make sure no one was misled by MTV. -- Horkana (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Shorter Plot Section

A user tagged the Plot requesting it be made shorter but without making any edits himself to shorten it. The plot could easily be made shorter by deleting the subplot about his neighbour turning into a zombie, shorter is not better. Some of the information about the rules could possibly be moved out of the plot section and maybe the explanation of the character names could be dropped from the plot summary. The article could probably be shortened in other ways but I don't think anything more than very light trimming and minor copy editing being what is needed to improve the article. The current level of detail gives people who have not seen the film a full picture of the film without going into every scene blow by blow. I don't think shortening the plot is a good idea. It only takes one editor to add the request for the plot to be shorter but unfortunately it takes a consensus to remove it. -- Horkana (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I tagged it, I just needed time to trim it. Plots don't need sources, so I have removed them. The Twinkie hunt, the fear of clowns, the 406 incident, the number 3, firing bullets, the recreation of Ghostbusters et al. are all joke points, not plot points. Of writing the plot is 436 words, which is well within the 400-700 recommended limit, for a film that is barely over 80min this is long enough. All character points can be covered in the cast, and the rules have their own section already. And for future reference if the plot summary is below 700 words then a plot tag can be removed. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is much shorter now and a lot less fun to read. (Those dreadcentral links in the plot section did seem to be entirely spurious though, references inside the plot section are unusual.) The number #3 seems like it needs to be mentioned as a cultural reference, or in some way or another. The critical response section does cover a lot of the references but Tallahasee's Twinkie obsession would probably fit well enough in his character description, or maybe we could file it under product placement but marketing related links are so much harder to find than straight reviews. There doesn't seem to be much scope to mention the 406 subplot anywhere else unfortunately. It really is a "no frills" plot summary now. -- Horkana (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having references in a plot section. Ideally they should all have references. That said, I think the plot section is a lot better now: cheers folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Plots don't need references, unless there is something disputed in them, there is nothing disputed left in this plot. And thanks for the compliment. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just "disputed" material which needs to be referenced: I don't know where this idea came from that because people can watch a film for themselves that plot sections become so axiomatic that they don't need references, but it certainly didn't come from any guideline I've read recently. But again, not really important to this conversation right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, until films come on to DVD there are sometimes disputed plot points, and then a reference can be used to sort out any disputes. Not a guideline but usually ad hoc problem solving. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Critical response" section

I've been asked to justify the {{quotefarm}} tag on this section. The basic problem is that we should be interpreting, rather than just repeating these reviews. We should identify the key themes highlighted in the reviews, paraphrase them, and show which reviewers agreed with which. This also needs to be split up by theme and not just by whether the review was positive or negative: the second paragraph is currently absurdly long and difficult to read. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't so much justification as I saw the tag and didn't know if you intended to work on it yourself. I wanted to know how you thought the section needed to be improved so that i might be able to work on it too. As it stands the section is just a big block of positive comments and a small sampling of negative ones. Some grouping, some line breaks and maybe even some shortening will be good. I would encourage you to try and preserve the links to other films like Shaun of the Dead as you rework the section, simple comparisons like that seems to me such a natural shorthand for talking about, even if it can be overly simplistic at times. I'll try to help out if I've time. -- Horkana (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reception sections are not usually split up by themes, not from what I have seen of most Wikipedia film articles (including good and great ones). They are usually split up in postive and negative. But splitting it up in themes seems like a good idea. My reasoning for having done the Reception section the way I did? As I stated on Chris Cunningham's talk page, "It is a Reception section, which is always full of quotes. The quotes are mostly partial quotes, anyway, just like many other Reception sections of film articles on Wikipedia. When I created that section, after adding the ratings/scores, as is typically done, I went about adding the positive reviews first. To me, the positive should go first when it is for something that was mostly positively reviewed or received mixed reviews, preferably in one paragraph. And then the negative after that, preferably in one paragraph. But if you feel that you can make it better, go for it (of course).

Before coming to your talk page, I removed the quotefarm tag and cut a little bit of the quoting down near the top, with the "promise" of doing more later. But if you would rather give it a shot first, I am not against that." Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Night of the Living Dead#Reviews for an idea of what we're going for here. I'm not saying that there should be no distinction between positive and negative, but that we should be looking to make statements about the reception and back them up with quotes rather than just presenting a big list of quotes. We've got enough material to work with: it just needs to be reorganised. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, at least for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the change. I will now have to tweak my user page as to not take all or most of the credit for the Reception section, LOL. Wait, never mind about that; I simply mention that I expanded the Reception section, not that I pratically created the whole thing. But, yeah, I am really liking your change. It is clean, easy to read, and flows really well. Just great editing. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got to say I was skeptical you were just another person looking to cut the article to shreds but you've really added to the article in how you've presented the Critical response. Since some editors seem to hate having overt Cultural references section the Critical response section can at times devolve into that. It is great now for example, that the article now in effect has a description of the cinematography.

Don't know if you're finished of you have ideas to tweak it further but one review mentions the film being "road movie/horror flick/dark comedy/earnest romance/action film hybrid". The review in the Slate by Josh Levin also makes comments about the genre overlap, so perhaps those two paragraphs could be made to run together.

Again, nice work. -- Horkana (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I often find myself accused of tagging things for the sake of it, but I use these tags to help guide by editing and the end result here seems to be okay. Still quite a bit of work left: Ideally even more of the less substansive quotes should be trimmed down, and I agree that the "hybrid" comment probably belongs somewhere (but note that it doesn't have to be stuck in the Reception section: critical commentary can and should be integrated with the article as a whole, much like criticism). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)