Talk:28 Days Later/Archive 1

Plot Summary
And then what happens? Is there supposed to be more after the text cuts off? - Puffy jacket 18:52, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Watch the film! That is supposed to be more, it's just not finished yet. Add a note explaining that if you think it's warranted! --Sam

This is ridiculous. I bet this plot synopsis is longer than the treatment. One short paragraph is enough for just about any film. Can someone trim this? -R. fiend 03:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Why? Yes it's longer than most other movie articles, but why does that bother you? It is very well-written and I find that its length detracts nothing from the article and in fact adds to it. I think its fine the length it is. -CunningLinguist 10:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with long articles - Omegatron 18:40, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And having not seen the film yet, I can tell you that it gives a very good, in-depth description that is easy for anyone to follow even if they haven't seen it. Runa27 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I must agree. The in-depth synopsis IS well written and beneficial, and I am often dissapointed when I find one paragraph long summaries on other pages. Trigunmaxed 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant, I'm afraid. The overly detailed plot summary at present violates Wikipedia's rules and may constitute copyright infraction. It can be longer than one paragraph but must not be overly long. I have edited the first paragraph but do not have time to continue just now - can someone else take over? N.B. I can find no evidence that the lab is at a university - please ensure plot notes, such as these, are accurate and/or referenced. Singhyuk 03:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Party pooper. 140.247.236.240


 * In the first scene where the Activists are covering the camera's, it says at the top of the screen "Cambridge Research Facility" or something to that effect. I cannot remember the words exactly. But it most definately says Cambridge, and Cambridge is most definitely a university. Referenced. - Suzie-too 24 Jan 08 16:40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Filming
The window of opportunuity for filming just after dawn was small? It was reported that the normal activity had been removed by computers.
 * Perhaps some was (though I'd not heard that) but it was definately filmed after dawn and before London got massively busy. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the police were very helpful in closing streets for 5 mins at a time, and because they were filming digitally, they could set up and pack up quick enough for them to make this work. The police also slowed traffic on the M1 for them at the right moments to film those cool M1 shots. I expect if anything was edited out by computer, it would have been stuff in the background. --Nathan 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Section on the infected
We should have a section about the infected people in the movie and their differences from normal Hollywood zombies.

"England"?
Ok let's get this straight. There is a country, called England. There is another country, called Wales, and another called Scotland. There is also another country, Ireland, and also there is Northern Ireland. The total land occupied by England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is called The United Kingdom, or to use its full title, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This spans one large island, part of a smaller island, and lord knows how many other tiny islands. There is something called Great Britain. Great Britain comprises the mainland of England, Wales and Scotland. It does not have anything to do with Northern Ireland. There is also something called the British Isles, this comprises everything on all the islands, regardless of country.

So let's be clear. 28 Days Later stongly implies that the virus has not spread overseas. This would restrict it to the mainland. It would definitely have spread outside England. It almost certainly would not have reached Ireland/Northern Ireland. Therefore, I would argue that the virus was essentially restricted to Great Britain. I have changed the article to match this. User:Ray_gillespie

if you listen to the director's commentary it was originally global hence selena early line about outbreaks in new york and paris but they later decided to change it to solely a british thing and that the british government effectively quarantine itself. however they never really clarify if this is solely Britain or the british isle i guess they live that up to the view to decide. 82.26.102.51 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

-

I think it's more appropriate to describe the film as being set in 'Great Britain', as the situation would have been the same across the whole of the island. Changed. 82.36.124.236 20:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) -
 * Eh, that's me above. pomegranate 20:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

i think that the point of changing it to great britain is irrelivent, even if the situation is the same in the rest of the UK or whatever, does the film take place in any other county/nation except england.......? saying that it takes place in englind is perfectly fine and abouve all FACT, by actual fact it takes place in england, you cant really argue with that.

- By the way, there is no such thing as the England island. Please check up on your geography. This is what drove me to make the above changes. Referring to Great Britian (the island) or the United Kingdom, as 'England', is very irritating, especially to Scottish and Welsh people. pomegranate 21:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) - Though speaking as an Anonymous... I have to echo Pomegranate saying that "Set in England" is pretty damn annoying to those who aren't English (like myself) -Anonymous

--- But it's not SET anywhere outside England so surely set in England is correct, sure the same thing would likely occur across mainland UK but no action in the film take place outside England Mbthegreat 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

--- Yes England is fine by me, the only place I think would be wrong is 'The United Kingdom', which as discussed isn't totally infected, whereas England and also Great Britain both are. We don't see anywhere outside England, so to say set in England is fine. Great Britain would be my choice (as Scotland and Wales are both presumably infected) but I don't mind either way.

--Citizen Ray 08:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is set in England, ie. It only deals with England, and it's landscapes. But it is safe to say that the infection had spread to the rest of Great Britain. (Scotland and Wales). So essentially you could say that it is set in England, and is about a virus that affected Great Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The film and its sequel and all the promotional material show the country of the United Kingdom being evacuated, and on a technical note England Ireland Scotland and Wales are called the Home nations, and Wales was only ever a principality. also given the high level of traffic between Britain and Ireland, the Irish sea is the busiest in the world, it could of been infected, but given the low incubation period i would say that was unlikely, only a distance the zombies could travel themselves would be infected, but then this depends on how early it was indentified, but on the other hand if new york and paris had outbreaks then Ireland certainly would have, and would of lacked the capability to contain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.89.245 (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that people of celtic origin would be immune to the virus.


 * In 28 Weeks Later, it said at the start that MAINLAND Britain was destroyed by the Rage virus. This, along with the fact that the Rage virus can't really spread overseas (as it's bloodborne and infected aren't exactly great swimmers according to the comics) proves that the virus was confined to mainland Britain before it appeared on the Shetland Islands in the comic, and therefore that apart from Shetland and mainland Britain, the rest of the British Isles including North and South Ireland would have presumably never had the Rage virus reach them. 2.100.56.180 (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

--- What a bizarre discussion. The film is set in England, nowhere else; not Scotland, Wales or Ireland (North or Republic). If you have a film based in Argentina, you don't have a bunch of people from Brazil running around saying they're offended that the film is being described as being in Argentina as opposed to South America. The film never leaves England - therefore it is set in England. It is set in Britain insofar as England is part of Britain, but by that rationale, it's also set in Europe since Britain is part of Europe. The film is set in England insofar as the action never leaves England. End of discussion. Bertaut (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comic released a month before the film?
Where can one view this comic?

Spread Beyond the UK?
I should think the disease would have spread beyond England throughout the entirety of the land-linked continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. The problem is the English Channel Tunnel; the Infected could have crossed from there onto the continental mainland. From there, they would have spread througout the entire world, with only the Americas, Australia and the various islands of the world being beyond their reach. Ergo, the section limiting the plague to UK should be deleted, unless of course it was so limited in the film? Tom S.


 * I think that the Rage virus' unrealistically short incubation period is a plus. In your typical plague story like the Stand, the incubation period is long enough that people could travel quite far before showing obvious signs of infection. With Rage, not only does the person show signs of infection within a minute, they become psychotically violent and will infect everyone on the vehicle, be it a ship or aircraft. No airliner with infected passengers would even be able to make it off the ground. The Chunnel would count as a land link to Europe but I think even the French could manage to shut the entrance on their side. As for spreading on land, it's a question of how migratory the infected are. Do they wander and roam or do they tend to nest unless they notice food walking nearby?


 * I personally liked the idea of 28 Days Later because it was an alternative take on the zombie movie. In most films, the world is lost and the survivors are just trying to hold off extinction for another day. In this one, there's certainly hope. The infected will die off. The whole world wasn't destroyed. But there's still the danger that the infected could make a return so there's still need for paranoia since it could all happen again. Gmuir 13:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's never made clear in the film how far it's spread. They say at the beginning that the infection reached Paris and New York, but of course Jim sees the plane going overhead, the army guy espouses his quarantine theory, and the Finnish air force arrive at the end.  We can speculate, as viewers, but here in the article we've got to stick to the facts - the article notes that it's ambiguous as to how far the virus spread but that the general suggestion is it was limited to the UK, and I think that covers the situation pretty well. Worldtraveller 21:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the French would have quarantined the Chunnel pretty early, and then filled it in later on. Battle Ape 05:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't very feasible that the virus spread beyond the UK. As noted in the main article, the virus is triggered much too fast for an infected person to take a long trans-Atlantic flight and successfully land. Even if in some bizzare folly they made it to France (by Chunnel) or to New York, it would be fairly easy to contain them (shoot them, etc) by local police.

The main reason England is desoalte isn't because "everyone is dead", as is the common theme in "Dawn of the Dead" films, its because the majority of the population has been evacuated off the island.

The main article also makes a great point that a human could not run around with reckless abandon, let alone live, without water for weeks and weeks.

A question I would have, is if the infected are so filled with rage they attack anyone they see, why don't they attack each other?

However you can't pick apart the plot too much. This was a very good film with good acting and I think it was a direct inspiration for the "running zombies" in "Dawn of the Dead" (2004). This trait of fast moving zombies really gave the whole "zombie films" a refreshing twist. Recently I saw "Land of the Dead" and when compared with 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead (2004) the slow moving undead seem boring and less than threatening.

-- There is no explanation given *why* the infected only attack the uninfected, but one can easily assume that the virus causes them to attack only those who are not behaving the same way they do or who don't smell or look like them.


 * On balance, I would suspect that the virus remains in the UK mainland and perhaps has not travelled to all corners of the UK. Assuming that no mutated versions of the virus exist (e.g., a longer latent gestation period or a trans-species infection of birds or mammals), here's my rationale:

1)spread beyond the mainland UK by air travel is extremely unlikely. Armoured cockpit doors means it is theoretically possible to fly an aircraft long distances even if all inhabitants of the passenger areas were infected. However, if even one infected were on an aircraft, it would not take off. If an infected stowed away in a wheel arch, which is completely atypical behaviour for infected humans, then they would feeze to death as other stowaways do.  There are only two feasible, if unlikely possibilities for air-based spread of infected beyond the mainland UK; (1) a specimen removed from the mainland UK for study breaks lose or infected others(seems highly unlikely, adn thus a very likely film plot); (2) an infected clings to the exterior of a hastily departing helicopter that he was chasing - he hangs on as long as it takes to get, say, from a collapsing pocket of non-infected humans in southeast England to France. Assuming the French don't shoot the chopper down or it crashes for obvious reasons.

2) spread beyond the mainland UK by sea transport is still unlikely but slightly more feasible. Once again though, ships theoretically wouldn’t leave harbour with infected aboard and there would be limited chance that infected would get aboard unnoticed.  As in the above helicopter scenario, they might have leapt towards a ship or boat that is hastily pulling away as the dock is overrun by infected who are ostensibly in pursuit of the humans boarding it.  The bridge of a ship or boat would be much harder to keep secure against the infected, and thus there might be little ability to control the ship’s destination.  It might never get out of harbour, it might wreck, but there is a small chance it might drift across the France and be impossible to contain where it beaches.  Or perhaps the boat could carry a specimen, as mentioned in the air travel section above.  On balance, however, any of the above spread scenarios are low probability. And I think we can assume that the infected can’t swim, and would not be capable of the abstract thought required to attempt to swim the English Channel or the Irish Sea.

3) spread beyond the mainland UK by the Channel Tunnel.  This could theoretically be aboard a train – a Eurostar – in which an infected once again clings onto a hastily departing or passing train (pursuing non-infected humans) and the infection spreads through the carriages.  The train driver could theoretically be safe against attack but would surely know that the train was compromised.  And assuming even a modicum of military and government authority remains, the train would be identified as compromised by the government and train operators (assuming power and other infrastructural breakdowns have not already killed off the service).  Would we stop the train, would the French have automatically closed the tunnel (yes!) and suspended the service days before the virus got to London (yes!)?  Same with air and sea travel probably.

Now, what about infected moving by foot through the tunnel? The first issue is motivation – why would the infected run down a 30 mile tunnel that is somewhat out of the way and hardly crying out for their attention? The only reason – a recurring theme in my scenarios – is because the infected are themselves “spreading through” a chain of refugees like a forest fire. If such a chain were leading from an imploding population center or survivor enclave to the Channel Tunnel, then maybe the infected would follow too and would spread through the queues of refugees tramping through the tunnel. But let’s do a reality check; would the French, or even the British for that matter, be allowing anyone to leave the UK? No-one would know whether some strand of the disease had a latent period, and hence NO-ONE would be allowed out until long after a 28 day observation period.

My model so far assumes that the main mechanism spreading the virus throughout the UK are refugee columns. The outbreak begins in the suburb of a northern city. It eats up the city and spreads through networks of semi-urban communities. But it would probably burn out as it hit sparsely populated areas or at least be contained in the north. As densely populated as Britain is, there is no continuous urban sprawl all the way to London, and the infected do not seem to aimlessly search for uninfected humans, they must be drawn to them by sight, sound, or smell. The only likely cause for the infected moving through depopulated areas is uncontrolled refugee columns. There are probably many areas of the UK that have never been visited by refugee columns and are outside the “stagger range” or the “sight/sound/smell interest zone” of the infected. Of course the dynamic of refugee columns is that they will aim for wherever is not infected, and thus increase the chance that it will become infected, but nonetheless there will be corners of Britain no-one thought to trek towards in huge numbers. And then there is N Ireland and the offshore islands, plus Royal Navy ships, which I’m guessing is where continuity of government is.

Taking what we see in the film as canon, how do we explain the lack of radio signals from elsewhere in the UK or the outer world? That’s tricky. I’d say there’s a couple of possibilities that can be used to support a “UK mainland only” theory. First, the UK government may wish to keep local communities locked-down and not forming new refugee columns to come towards the remaining survivor enclaves. This is problematic and hokey, but might be a reason for the lack of UK government signals. Second, the UK government may be paralysed or believe all are dead after almost all radio signals died out within 28 days. Again hokey but possible. Third, there may be great fear and uncertainty that the infected retain certain motor functions or are even fully intelligent. Yeah, super-hokey, I know, but worth a thought at least. Or maybe the two characters we see using radios – the taxi driver and the military guys – simply missed signals or ignored scattered ones? Would appreciate any thoughts out there. On why the world would be silent; God knows. I can only point to the above three ideas writ large.

On random thoughts, I would say the infected “know each other” in the way that primates know members of their own species. The cue to attack must have a visual element because the infected failed to find the girl hiding behind the mirror just a foot away. But it might be that they acquire a new target or curious activity visually or by sound, and aggressively move to investigate. On approaching they have some way of recognizing other infected – a strong pheromone, an instinctive psychic or psycho-electrical aura? I suspect they are drawn to another infected who is in a killer frenzy - like sharks drawn to a feeding frenzy. I also suspect that they have some sensitivity to strong daylight and prefer to huddle together when they are not pursuing prey.

On “28 weeks later” I have been thinking about roleplaying game scenarios for just this type of story. My frontrunners are based around UK or US special forces returning to the UK to bag two live specimens – male and female – and to check for any mutation in the virus. Reckon they’d take these prizes to Gruinard Island (our old anthrax testing ground) to a test facility. A key question one would need to know if whether the virus can mutate, and whether the infected are capable of abstract thought or self-care or, worse yet, of breeding ...


 * The outbreak doesn't begin in the "suburb of a northern city", it begins at the University of Cambridge. I doubt very much that there were "refugee columns" - this isn;t the Black Death in medieval England, it's a modern disease in a modern city. Everyone in the UK is within a few hours of an airport, so why would they need to form refugee columns when they could just get on a plane? There's a lot of things about the film which don;t make sense: the survivors can't pick up any radio signals even though the world is still alive and well, the outside world makes no effort to contact any survivors (at least until the very end), Selena says the disease spread through rural areas even though it started in a city, there's no way the British Army could cordon off even half of London, let alone every town and city in the country, Jim just glances at the newspaper he finds whereas any normal person would read it from cover to cover, etc etc. There's a lot of plot holes, but if you analyse them too much you stop appreciating the film for what it is - a very good piece of storytelling! Rusty2005 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

i did find it odd that it could infect new york because a plane or ship is easily quarantine and rage victims are quite easy to spot, then again at what point would you go hey this some kind of zombie disease? if it could pass as rioting then it could pass as air rage. france is another matter entirely by the time you realise the problem and close the tunnel its probably too late. on a more technical note the director commentary states it was originally global but was latter changed during filming to just the UK/British Isles. on the northern city point originally the blockade was supposed to be guarding the facility. 82.26.102.51 06:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. The Chunnel has partitions that are in place in an event of fire, to prevent it from spreading. If there were Infected on board a train, they would have a) not let the train even begin travelling and b) If they only realised later (unlikely) that an infected person was on board, they would have partitioned off that train and done some exterminating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for putting this rudely, but hasn't anyone here seen or read any other 28 Days Later films or comics at all? 28 Weeks Later and the 28 Days Later comics confirm that the Rage virus was confined to mainland Britain before it spread to Shetland in the comics, and mainland Europe in the second film. 2.100.56.180 (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Significance of 28 Days
Is there any significance to the period of time 28 days? I have seen it used in different places, incuding the Australian punk band, 28 days.--Beano311 01:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 28 days is exactly four weeks, which is also the length of February, the shortest month. Battle Ape 05:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * except for during leap years (re:February).
 * Some believe that 28 days is the average amount of time it takes for one's body to completely starve to death. This idea is very inestimable due to the underlying fact that the amount of time it would take to starve to death depends on how much fat an individual's body comprises of. Audience Of Cycles 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, it's three syllables long in English. :P That, and somebody above mentioned something about 28-day "observation periods" to insure that there weren't versions of it that took longer to infect a person.Runa27 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * false, it's 4 syllables.


 * twenty(1) eight(2) days(3) late(4) er(5). I count five. But it's irrelavent. I think that it is a better way than saying one month later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.206.22 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * twen(1) ty(2) eight(3) days(4) lat(5) er(6). --Mr. Corgi (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is merely quibbling, but 60 days without food is the "rule of thumb" . Still, even with scientific research telling me that's the case I cannot imagine such a long time without! Ranieldule 13:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been under the impression from various survival classes that, on average, a human body can survive in threes: three minutes without air, three days without water, and three weeks without food.Fultron89 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And so we are asked to believe the Infected were taking the time to drink water, while avoiding food. Pendragon39 05:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * isn't 28 days the average amount of time between a females ovulation? chicks bleed on their periods and theres alot of blood in the movie, maybe it was an inside joke or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.185.174 (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The period of time it takes for starvation is irrelevant. That is for regular humans who perform regular activities, albeit the ones regularly performed while starving. That is, the person is mostly walking and not eating. Thus, that time would be significantly shorter for an "infected" person, seeing as their body would be fighting a disease, attempting to sprint at all times (as is shown in the film), not eating, and they are--supposedly--intensely angry (though it is debatable, extreme emotion tires the body). It is therefore impossible for any infected person to survive 28 days, as they are rarely eating, and what they do eat is raw, which may infect them with disease (this is not adressed in the film). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.197.11 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Shaun of the Dead
Surely Shaun of the Dead was mainly inpspired by Dawn of the Dead (the remake of which came out a few months before Shaun...). Yes you can draw paralells between Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later, but you probably can with any zombie movie. I put forward a motion to have that bit taken out. --Nathan 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say leave it in, Shaun of the Dead makes direct reference to 28 Days Later and I'd dare say it inspired Shaun in the sense that the success of 28 Days Later helped them get their UK zombie movie made and released as well... Also I wouldn't say that Shaun is mainly inspired by George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead in particular (aside from the title of course) but then that's a question for the Shaun page...
 * You haven't convinced me, but unless anyone else says it should be taken out, I won't change it. --Nathan 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be taken out. I haven't seen any interviews with the "Shaun" filmmakers to indicate they were at all inspired by "28 Days Later" but they have acknowledged a debt to Romero.  (They were invited to be zombies in "Land of the Dead", and there's a special feature on the DVD that's basically a home movie of their experience on the shoot.  It's quite clear that they were thrilled to meet George Romero, let alone work with him.)Skyraider 00:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A reference to Shaun of the dead should be OK since it is clear from SOTD that Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright were making a reference to 28 days later (Newsreader refers to "Rage infected monkeys..." etc). The makers of SOTD are enthusiasts (possibly even experts) on the Zombie genre. There is debate about whether 28 days later is a 'Zombie film' - Shaun of the Dead's makers knew this too - and I believe also recognised that the question is somewhat spurious. There is a grey area, and it doesn't really matter whether the enemy are truly undead. The key aspect is that they are an unreasoning, implacable foe that will attack relentlessly and convert their victims into more of their own.217.42.63.218 21:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC) shaun of the dead referenced 28 days with the line about the infection being caused by monkeys being false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.185.174 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Satallite Communication
"Taking what we see in the film as canon, how do we explain the lack of radio signals from elsewhere in the UK or the outer world?"

If the rest of the world has been spared, the soldiers could of established satallite communication. Or Jim could have just tuned in to CNN on Sky.
 * Except for CNN on Sky being uplinked from the UK, which has no power ;) --Kiand 19:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The soliders had power so why could they not use satallites? If they did not have a satallite dish, they could just commender one froma house. 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They'd need a dish, box, television, and the know-how on how to align it. Although based on the purloined consumer electronics in the house I'm sure they had at least on decoder... The only channels on 28E, the normal UK satellite position, that are uplinked from outside the UK are RTÉ 1, RTÉ 2, TV3, TG4, Deutsche Welle, TV5 Monde and the Irish government-ownedf radio channels.... anyway, its a movie, its fictional, stuff doesn't have to be realistic. --Kiand 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The soldiers seemed quite firm in their belief, other than the one soldier (Corporal?), that the rest of the world was annhialated. That is what caused the despair that lead to their mentioned suicidal tendencies and the officer's plan to offer them women as a hope for rebuilding society. The soldiers did not 'want' to try to contact anyone outside because they believed they were the only ones left.


 * Ever consider that the soldiers were happier pretending to be the last survivors of the human race? If they simply pretended to their "rescued" civilians that they were the last protective group in the world, they could (and apparently did) get up to whatever they wanted. They almost certainly know the world outside of Britain is alive, but pretend it's not so they can act in whatever way they want

its because it was changed during filming otherwise you'd assume the UK government in exile or the UN would be broadcast survival information. 82.26.102.51 06:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)