Talk:World War Z (film)

Agree before spamming the article
There are lots of grammar and punctuation issues with this article, but these are difficult to correct when a couple of people keep changing/reverting almost daily, due to some stupid argument. Revert the article back to before this argument started, and let us correct the article for grammar and punctuation while you come to complete agreement on the actual content changes BEFORE you update the article. Or... leave it how it was originally, and let someone else update it. Richard BF (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Nationality discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film
I know this has come up before, but a situation needs to be addressed. The production companies for World War Z (film) are Skydance Productions, Hemisphere Media Capital, GK Films, and Plan B Entertainment, as well as Paramount Pictures. They're all American. Yet the article says the film is British-American. A closed discussion on the film's Talk page reveals this is because one of the film's executive producers, Graham King, is British. That's right, this film is being listed as a 2013 British-American disaster horror film because one of its many executive producers is British. RS do not list it as British. His production company GK Films' own website http://www.gk-films.com/legal/index.html lists its address in Santa Monica, California. It's an American company with American staff and American lawyers set up by a British producer. Can we agree it's the nationality of the company that counts? - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the nationality of a single producer should not affect the nationality of the entire film. It should be listed as solely American. STATic message me!   20:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. RoboCop (2014 film) will never be considered a Brazilian film even the director, one of the editors, the composer and the cinematographer are Brazilians. Nuff said. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree that where the production company does most of its business would tend to determine the film's nation of origin. Do we know for a fact that none of the companies are run in Britain? The back-and-forth on the talk page isn't terribly clear on this, specifically about GK Films. And more importantly, can we find any reliable sources that call the film either America or British or both? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * According to BFI, the film was produced in Malta and the United States. I feel like the British Film Institute would probably include in a film was co-produced in the UK. I'd dock the UK completely, and look for other sources to try and clear up what Malta's involvement is. If there are other places that don't note it, then it's simply American and we leave it there.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added note: AFI lists it as American only, though they do that a good bit for films that are listed as multi-national in other places. Worth mentioning, though.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The European Audiovisual Observatory has it down as just American too. None of these major catalogs acknowledge the UK so it should be ommitted. The BFI's Malta nod seems slightly spurious too, so that should arguably remain out unless it can be substantiated. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems like it's entirely filming based, which isn't what we'd use the country parameter for. Going ahead and changing the nationality using the EAO and AFI sources. Also, this discussion should probably be transposed to the film's talk page.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  16:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And yes, this needs to be put on the film's talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible reference
Is it possible that the fact that Peter Capaldi was credited as W.H.O. Doctor was a subtle hint to his future role in the show whose name is an anagram for W.H.O. Doctor? 89.98.27.146 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Does Patient Zero (film) has anything to do with this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.163.215 (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Fox & David Fincher do not matter in this film.
Lately a certain user is trying to put a special emphasis on an actor who had more of a role in a previous filmed that was reduced. Said user is putting up pictures of him and a director who had nothing to do with the film in the Article. He has taken down pictures of Brad Pitt who starred in the movie, and Marc Forster who actually directed the film.

Even the opening credits of the film do not list Matthew Fox at all but this user has put him in the same category as the rest of the people who actually starred in it.

Wikipedia is not a place of misinformation, if anyone who hasn't seen the film read this article now they would be expecting Matthew Fox to have a more prominent role in the film when in fact he only says 6 words in the film. Once upon a time he did have a role in the first filmed version, but it was more of an antagonist role. The User in question is explaining this old abandoned story line as if he was some kind of hero watching over his family when in the first draft he was practically watching his family in exchange for raping his wife.

He has told me that this fact "doesn't matter" when in fact this whole emphasis he has put on him in the first place doesn't matter.

I know I'm not a seasoned user nor experienced like some others but I DO NOT condone misinformation or favoritism. This man has put emphasis on a bit role as if it was a starring role so passionately as if it was Matthew Fox himself trying to give himself undue credit for a lost opportunity.

I beg someone to back me up on this. You don't put George Lucas picture on the space balls article just because it was Inspired by Star Wars, and you don't put Gene Roddenberry's Picture on Galaxy Quest just because it makes a Parody of Star Trek so why are we allowing this uninformative Edit that gives credit to an actor who in the end didn't get into much of the film in the final cut, and a Director who was only supposed to work on a cancelled sequel and didn't have anything to do with the article in question?

We are here for truth not because someone wants to win some kind of award for making a "Good Article" when the article seems to be becoming biased because someone thinks nobody is watching.

Sorry somebody IS watching.

Maxcardun (talk) 07/07/2020
 * What the hell are you going on about? You're still delivering intensely bad faithed remarks about me. I've explained why these images were instituted. An image should typically have information of worth if possible. The reduction of Fox's role was of note when people discussed the film when it released. Fincher helming the sequel until it's eventual cancellation was of note. The images you noted as removed were too big for the section they were included in. The detail of *what* specifically his character does isn't important, just that it would be about him overseeing the main character's family's wellbeing. That's all needing to be said. Your comparison of George Lucas is bunk as there wasn't an instance of him having a role heavily reduced, or being attached to direct a cancelled sequel. I don't get why this makes you so angry, and needing to assume my motives in such negative ways. Is editing an article to achieve GA status now a bad thing? I don't understand. And this whole "the article seems to be becoming biased because someone thinks nobody is watching. Sorry somebody IS watching." nonsense is just sad. Rusted AutoParts  05:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all he was NOT looking after the family's well being. Second your photographs are promoting a misleading message that he is in fact "starring" in the film. In only this article do I see anyone's picture in a paragraph that talks about a cancelled sequel. Your sugar coating of Matthew Fox role tells me that somehow you are biased toward his career for some unknown reason. And as the remarks about "You" I did not mention your name once, you did. So thank you for exposing yourself.

Maxcardun (talk) 07/07/2020 —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If we want to be pedantic, Fox DOES in fact star in the film. In fact he has billing block status. A picture doesn’t mislead anyone in the slightest, I have no idea what you’re talking about, considering the images description specifically talks about his role being heavily reduced. I have absolutely no bias towards Matthew Fox and the invention of such a concept on your end seems like very obvious scapegoatism. You didn’t have to mention my name because your remarks were very much in reference to the discussion we had on your talk page, so if I exposed anything it’s that we previously talked about this. As for the Fincher image I still don’t get why so you’re vehemently worked up about this one. It’s placement is very specifically in the section ABOUT the cancelled sequel, talking ABOUT the cancelled sequel. What’s the actual issue? Is this just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Rusted AutoParts  15:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Its called undue credit, I'm sure you are very familiar with it. Your Misleading comment about Matthew Fox paints him as someone who was trying to genuinely help and not be an antagonist that is misleading. Since Matthew Fox role was reduced and that whole Russia plot line was deleted for a reason it's not necessary to sing his praises. And if whoever else is reading this doesn't believe me then they should take a look at the following reference carefully. No amount of undue praise for this actor and this director who did not work on the film in this article is going to bring about the sequel to this film anymore just because certain people are trying to use Wikipedia as some kind of free advertising provider. Wikipedia gets donations from people to avoid getting adverts into their system, and as for being a scapegoat I'm not the one who is providing weak reasons to give this kind of credit to these people. You're the one making the mistake. Maxcardun (talk) 7 July 2020 12:30 PM


 * What exactly about the image caption sings Fox’s praises? It’s describing exactly what he said when describing his involvement as per the source provided. It seems you’re just using the word “praise” to belittle the placement of the images. All they’re doing is describing elements of the production that saw some coverage in the news and could provide visual description. If you’re going to continue being so aggressively antagonistic in your comments by accusing me of being biased or playing favouritism or whatever, then this discussion is over. Rusted AutoParts  17:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This discussion wasn't started for you so for you it's over. Maxcardun (talk) 7 July 2020 2:34 PM —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What was it for then? To vent to the wind? You’re complaining about additions I made, the discussion clearly was started to challenge me about it. And it’s one I hold no interest in continuing due to the needless hostility on your end. Rusted AutoParts  19:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a very strange choice to include a photograph of Fincher. It is a little strange to put such emphasis on things that didn't happen (WP:UNDUE, WP:CRYSTAL), the whole sequel section seems a bit dubious and not particularly encyclopedic to me. I removed the photograph of Fincher from the Sequel section, I don't think reason for it being included has been adequately explained. It might be a good idea for the article to include a photo of Marc Foster who did direct World War Z. Including a photograph of an actor who only appeared in a single scene is also an odd choice, but at least that actually happened, the sequel didn't. The picture of Fox would feel a bit less incongruous if the article included pictures of other cast members, particulary Pitt (besides his back in the poster), one of the pictures of Pitt in Korea might be suitable. Maxcardun might want to take a deep breath and turn it down a few levels but despite the way he went about it I think he was correct that the image of Fincher is of low relevance. -- 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.86.10 (talk)
 * An inclusion of an image to me should bare a semblance of offering more detail or visual commentary if at all possible. As I’ve said, there was a fair bit of discussion in the media over the reduction of the Fox role. That is why I felt a picture with a caption explaining the situation under it could be of benefit. A picture of Fincher in a section about a cancelled sequel (which on that note is of encyclopedic worth) of which he was due to direct I felt could be of benefit. If more editors chiming in disagree fair enough it can go. Only seeking to spruce the page up and was looking for some images to use that can say something about the article. As for those Pitt in Korra pics, they’re for the 12 Years a Slave premiere, not the World War Z premiere so it wouldn’t work in this article. Rusted AutoParts  15:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (my comment written before, edit conflict) I think maybe the Matthew Fox picture would be better if it was placed elsewhere, not in the cast section. If it was in the Production section, maybe as part of Writing/Development/Casting with article text to explain more about the role as it was originally written or existed when he signed up for the part. Alternatively it might be included as part of the Post production reshoots section as a prime example of what was cut. Either way I'd would expand the article text and shorten the image caption, so the image would be integrated and enhancing relevant text in the article, not trying to have it stand alone.
 * (further comment after reading above comment) If you can point to more sources about Fox that would help, I will try to find time to look into it further.
 * The pictures of Pitt in Korea don't seem to mention 12 Years a Slave, and even if they did I wouldn't rush to exclude any good photo from that same year 2013 so long as Pitt didn't look too different from how he appears in World War Z. Pictures of Pitt even ones not directly related to WWZ would still be more relevant to this article than pictures of just about anyone else. In any case, one of the pictures of Marc Forster in Korea is with Brad Pitt, not the best angle but it does seem to suggest the other Brad Pitt in Korea pictures were WWZ related. -- 109.79.86.10 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * My edit replacing the picture of Brad Pitt with fans, with a picture of just Brad Pitt was reverted, (Pitt photo) but I'm not clear why the whole edit was reverted. Maybe the minor changes I made besides the image change weren't noticed. I understand you prefer the image you chose, but I don't understand from the edit summary why my edit was reverted completely rather than just changing the one image back. The edit summary was "the image is just too big for the section it's in. It's why I selected this one. Smaller and fits".
 * Firstly I was concerned about the content of the image, my main concern was that I think it is better to use an image without fans it in, and image that shows Pitt clearly, rather than in side view. Secondly I didn't change that image because of the size, but I do think the images in the article would look better if they were sized consistently, which is why I set the images of Fox and Forster to the same size, and then also set the image of Pitt the same size for consistency. Please set the images to a consistent size, or explain.
 * I do still think it is strange to have that image of Fox in the cast section, and I would move it to another section, and it would be better to pictures of cast members who had more than one scene in the Cast section (I'm okay with including Fox somewhere, but in the cast section seems like too much). It is one thing to include a picture of Fox who is barely in this film, but another to include a picture of Fincher the director of a sequel that never happened. I still think it is a bad idea to include the picture of Fincher in this article at all, but even so if we aren't ready to remove it yet I also think the image caption is too verbose (and irrelevant) and any details are best left to the accompanying text (if it is worth mentioning that Pitt worked with Fincher on Seven, Fight Club, or Ben Button, then mention it in the article text). So if you particularly object to my shortening of the image caption accompanying the Fincher image please explain that too. -- 109.78.220.223 (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a prevalent infection of information on this screen thanks to user RustedAutoParts. He has not edited this article with neutrality, in fact one could say that he is biased toward the actor Matthew Fox as he keeps on putting him in the starring role because of an old poster that was made in pre-production that gave him a billing block status that current posters on DVD's do not have anymore. Just because the media talks about Fox's Role being reduced does not constitute a mention in the article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper. That rule states: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project.

He has said that people should give "reasons" for removing photos on Wikipedia when he himself gave his own "because I said so" reasons. When last I checked you also need permission to put the photo's up on an article something that he himself probably has no proof that he found. Just because you are decorated with a lot of Thank You notes and awards from people doesn't make you some kind of Wikipedia Administrator, especially when you try to give your own self a pat on the back by nominating an article to be a "good article" just because you edit it.

Concerning his role in the film you have put on the photo that his role was more Integral to the film as he was watching after Lane's Family while he was away. That's a half truth, the role was more Antagonist to the film as he stole Lane's wife while Lane was trapped in Russia. That's not looking after the family's well being. "DON'T LIE".

He put those pictures up as an argument that it looks more like an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.

His ex-role as an Antagnonist does not constitute giving him attention with a picture. There is a long list of people mentioned in the credits who said more than the 6 words Matthew Fox said in the picture: That's our target put us down.

No one on Wikipedia it seems puts a picture of anything in a subheading about sequels in progress cancelled or made to the full. By that logic you should start a fad on Wikipedia by.

Puting Chris Hemsworth's Picture on the Sequel Subheading of Star Trek Beyond and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2

Puting Tom Hardy's Face on the Main Cast of Star Wars The Last Jedi, for the fact that he filmed a cameo as a stormtrooper but it didn't make it into the final cut.

Put Grant Morrison's Picture on the Sequel and Other Media Subheading of the Lawnmower Man Film Sequel Development That he was dismissed from.

Any other attention could go to a long line of people who were also actually in the film, but that would be too much. You are not doing David Fincher any favors for putting his photo anywhere on the page since he was not involved with the theme of the main article, his link is enough. Matthew Fox's currently finished career in acting is not going to get attention for a role that got reduced since the producers didn't like the direction of that particular plot, and or the Russian government didn't want people shipping in guns from other countries. As much as the fans want a sequel it is not happening with this particular iteration of World War Z.

If there is a problem with that, then information of that nature should be put into a Wiki Project where World War Z is the prime theme.

And just because someone was in agreement with me about this and made a mistake in the editing of the page does not make it "flagrant vandalism".

I went on my own path to research why I am doing this and he followed me around, without me mentioning him by name, embarrassed the both of us, and threatened me with some sort of Harassment complaint. At this point in time I would like to see what would happen if you did that so that the real Administrator can see what you also did! Maxcardun (talk) 4:15pm, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're still intent on acting in bad faith and using conjecture and whataboutism to try and make a case for yourself. Your ridiculous (and childish) insistance that I'm biased towards Fox simply for including a picture of him to explain how he initially had a larger role in the film is asinine and has been previously addressed. You won't stop bringing it up so you're in essence keeping this conversation stalled to just petty whining. It is flagrant vandalism to remove Fox from the infobox due to his shortened film appearance because he is in the billing block, the image which got removed was cited as being unsourced when there's clearly a source in it, and to move him further down the cast list, ignoring the hidden note as well as how the names in the billing block are listed. Fox is the fourth and last name in the block, so he will be placed fourth. Fox's diminished role had significant media coverage. It's not just being randomly propped up for no reason. "Concerning his role in the film you have put on the photo that his role was more Integral to the film as he was watching after Lane's Family while he was away. That's a half truth, the role was more Antagonist to the film as he stole Lane's wife while Lane was trapped in Russia.  That's not looking after the family's well being.  "DON'T LIE"." Not every aspect of the character bio is needed, just a succinct line explaining what he was to do in the film. it's not "lying" as you so passionately exclaim. And I'm not apologizing for "following you around" when, during the initial "discussion" (I'll put it in brackets because it was really just you having a tantrum) you go to the Wikipedia Help Desk accusing me of having a "conflict of interest". You are making unfounded accusations in that regard, and a more frustrated part of me could consider slander. But I won't, because this whole thing is too ridiculous and your actions are just..too pathetic to get that worked up over. Using my nominating of good articles to try and say I d that to pat myself on the back. Calling the addition of pictures a "prevalent infection of information". It's so hilariously hyperbolic and ridiculously evident of taking so personally a disagreement of content. I'll end by again stating: Stop acting in bad faith (feel like i've told you this countless times now). You have now absolutely lost the potential of me seeing your point of view about the images because of your malicious personal attacks.  Rusted AutoParts  20:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It is true that the billing block was changed for the DVD, as seen here, and Matthew Fox was removed. We still have to decide which billing block takes precedence, if the one on the theatrical release posters or the one on the DVD. Regarding both images, I do consider them unnecessary at best. It's not common practice to include a picture of the director of the sequel to the article's subject, and that section isn't prominent enough in this article to warrant an image to accompany it. The information on Matthew Fox and the removal of most of his role should be in prose either at the Cast or the Production section, not as a caption of an image. Having the face of an actor that's barely in a film as the sole picture in the Cast section is giving that actor WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The section's image should be either the main cast or just Pitt. El Millo (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I really think the poster billing block should take precedence, since it is the one we're using in the infobox. And even the one used for the IMDB poster. It's the more commonly used poster, and Fox is named on it. Pictures I was always take it or leave it on, just got really sick of Max's crap. Rusted AutoParts  23:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Well then if we are so confused about the billing block status about a poster that was released before the 3rd act was rewritten. Ask yourself this simple question. Is the movie called "Revenge of the Jedi" or is it "Return of the Jedi"? For all any of us know a second theatrical poster may have been released without Fox name in it. In which case IMDB should re-update their own information as well. BTW when last I checked anyone could edit IMDB as well. Since the movie on the article is talking about the film that is officially released, then all this attention toward the Billing Block Status that is no longer relevant to the article is unneccessary. But look on the bright side, maybe one miraculous day they'll release "World War Z, The Matthew Fox Edition" and we can see Gerry getting Drafted into Russia's Millitary working with Segen and a character portrayed by David Morse. But even still that will be a whole other movie and get it's own subheading. Maxcardun (talk) 7:22pm, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A second theatrical poster was released: with the same billing block as the first one. This film had its wide theatrical release on June 21, and its premiere was held on June 2. According to IMPAwards, the poster used in this article was released on May 23, and the second one was released on May 27. Are you seriously suggesting that the third act was rewritten less than a week before the premiere? Taking into account that after being rewritten it should be shot and edited. El Millo (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "BTW when last I checked anyone could edit IMDB as well." So you're suggesting someone went to IMDB's WWZ page and edited Fox into their copy of the poster? Rusted AutoParts  17:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm stating it's like having a "Revenge Of The Jedi" Poster as the updated information instead of putting a "Return of the Jedi" Poster. Having him on the theatrical poster after the re-shoot must have been some sort of oversight on whoever was in charge of the billing block. Took them till the DVD Release to get it fixed. Just like the two trailers they had for this movie, the first one had the line: Russia is a Black Hole, and the later trailer and the film itself has the line  "India Is a Black Hole". Boy did that first trailer have lines that weren't used in the movie. We could go over all of that stuff in this article but it wouldn't be straight to the facts. Maxcardun (talk) 10:38pm, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, and the facts are that Fox is on both official poster releases. Whether they took him off for the DVD isn't really the point. He was and is on the posters. At the very least a note could be added to his name in the infobox stating "was credited in billing on theatrical release posters but not on home media releases". Rusted AutoParts  21:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is a minor issue. It is barely relevant. Though the whole situation could be in the body of the article, having a note in the infobox is too much. El Millo (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What about a hidden message? Rusted AutoParts  00:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't know. Not many people go around changing billing blocks on posters for billing blocks on DVD covers. Hidden notes are for things that many editors would think of changing if the note weren't there. El Millo (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Well since Revenge of the Jedi Posters are mentioned on the Return of the Jedi Page the knowledge about the Billing Block, which started this confusion in the first place in a film where production was also confused may actually be worth mentioning, at least for the nostalgia. Who knows the posters with Fox's name on it could be a gold mine for someone someday. Done and done. Maxcardun (talk) 11:19pm, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. This is starting to sound like trolling. El Millo (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A Troll is someone who will indiscriminately make wild insults about an individuals race, sex, parents, and likes. I was serious in my previous comment. At least I am not making cheap shots on this article just because I don't like someone like Rusty did when he removed my Edit about something in the plot that was so speculative you could go in circles for hours talking about it. But just because we have two individuals who cannot agree on a subject matter does not make either of them trolls, Rusted Auto Parts included. "Griefer" or "Hater" would be more on point but not entirely neccessary. Either way you don't insult the people you are trying to mediate for. (talk) 8:04am, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying, you bringing up this nostalgia thing, plus your additions of "the production being confused" to the article. This is a lot of original research. Either you don't realize it or you're doing it on purpose. Either way, both situations aren't comparable. Star Wars is one of the most influential film series of the 20th century, and its third film changed titles (from Revenge... to Return...), whereas World War Z just removed someone from the billing block in the home media release. The billing block, where every word is barely distinguishable from the other unless you stop to read it. Saying a poster will become a nostalgia factor because its billing block isn't the same as the one on the DVD is not a serious argument. El Millo (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Truly sorry, I suppose in that instance I got carried away. Maxcardun (talk) 2:58pm, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, whoever is editing, hiding their ip and/or failing to sign in, and improperly indenting, please correct this. And if this is Maxcardon, the best apology is to take afew das off. This a ridiculously long discussion already—it's getting contentious. Very few editors are going to join this wall of text. Time to cool off with an RFC or hat this topic. — Neonorange (Phil) 22:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, I did just forget to sign in. Shows what frustration and rushing can do. — Neonorange (Phil) 22:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

TL;DR: Old versions of the article(August 2020) included two prominent photos: 1 a photo of Mathew Fox in the Cast section with a caption explain that his role was cut to just one scene; 2 a photo of David Fincher in the Sequel section as he had started to work on the sequel before development was halted. There was some disagreement about the relevance and weight of these photographs.

I can't even be sure there was agreement to remove those photos but they aren't in the article anymore. -- 109.78.198.70 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Uh, does anyone know how to close this conversation or archive it before some other greifer tries to open an old can of worms again?

Maxcardun (talk) 12:35pm, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Based on the Max Brooks novel?
Don't think so. About the only thing in common is the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:1008:2C3:E2CB:4EFF:FE88:1A2C (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The theatrical poster and the closing credits say the film is based on the book.  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't get into what percentage of the book actually made it to the final film, it does not matter how faithfully or how loosely it was adapted. As an epistolary novel a film adaptation was always likely to be distinctly different from the book. (See Blade Runner for a film that very loosely adapts it's two sources.) Even if a film only has a title in common reliable source say it was based on the book so that's what the encyclopedia article says. -- 109.76.197.11 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)