Talk:Daybreakers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations for use[edit]

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, sombody post the plot already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.33.41 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis needs a re-write[edit]

Please, someone re-write the plot. Hopefully, on the second go-around, it will be written by an individual who passed grammar school. 174.0.56.57 (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seriously i'm glad someone else has addressed this already. the synopsis is a mess. the fact that Frankie is Edward's brother should be mentioned at the beginning, not the end, and what a sub-sider happens to be is never addressed. Secretstars (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional source[edit]

This is an interesting source with a rather unique take, for the "critical reception" section, if anyone wants to work it in.

Rd232 talk 14:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section overly detailed or too long?[edit]

I don't agree with this observation. The written plot synopsis is informative and clear, why make it too basic? I propose removing the template.--TheBearPaw (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have guidelines, please see the section linked on the template. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is following the guidelines far better then most plot outlines. At least it goes from start to finish instead of avoiding spoilers like an advertisement.
Guidelines are guidelines; nothing more. They aren't laws, they aren't rules, they're there to guide us, not tell us what we can and cannot do. That being said, I have re-written the entire plot and added much more detailed information. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia meant to inform and educate it's users. Not adding needed information would be doing a great disservice to our community and users alike. Fruit.Smoothie (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plot section is too long, and please remain civil. Calling people anmes will only get you in trouble. Geoff B (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the lengthy plot section contains horrendous grammar. When a plot section requires nine paragraphs, it's too long. Avatar (a.k.a the highest-grossing film of all time) has a long plot section because the film is almost three hours long and doesn't even compare to the rest of article. This article is very small and a gigantic plot section looks awkward. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 07:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Plot" section is definitely too long. WP:PLOT (which is policy) says, "A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage [of real-world context]." As the article stands, the "Plot" section is larger than the rest of the article body, which is inappropriate. WikiProject Films says that a plot summary should be between 400 and 700 words, and for a run-of-the-mill film like this, there is no reason to make an exception. I advocate trimming it and instead focusing on improving the rest of the article. It is "easy" to write the plot summary -- it is harder to pull together various references to write real-world context that tells the story behind a film. Erik (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with what is easy. It should be useful. The plot is far more useful to most wiki users then any of the "real world information. Its easy to find the box office information. its difficult to find a good plot outline. Wikipedia exists for the readers, not the writers. And he was being civil. Just truthful. -Lollipopfop.

If nobody minds if it takes me over the course of the next week or so, I'd be willing to take a crack at slimming the plot section down; it seems like good practice for a paid writing gig I'm hoping to get. I'm just about to re-watch the movie so I can make the notes for a short outline and go from there. But I'd feel more comfortable doing it in chunks. To that end, would it be appropriate/acceptable for me to post my "as you go" work on my own page and have others vote on it, or the talk page here, or just go for it? I've mostly only done minor edits on wiki and similar platforms so for something bigger like this, I could use some guidance on best method. Millahnna (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well do it directly to this page if you're planning on having the entire thing finished right away, use your user space if you planning on not having it done with in like an hour of starting it. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Groovy can do. I've got some to-do list type notes on my user page (talk I think) just to keep myself organized. I'll post here if it looks like I'm going with the user page for the actual writing as well. And for the record, I'm not the person who did the massive cuts that were reverted earlier. I did do the minor grammatical cleanup on what's already there, though. Millahnna (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken two "clean up" passes at it now (and probably borked something) and cut it down to 584 words (was originally 700-ish). But I still think it needs a complete re-write only keeping minimal text from its current version. Some critical plot elements, in my mind anyway, have been left out while unimportant details are included and the timeline of the movie is all out of whack in a way that actually made the cleanup really challenging. Real life permitting, and if no one beats me to it, I should be able to jump on it by Friday. Suggestions welcome. Millahnna (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can decimate this anymore. It's down to 470 words and has a better flow now. I added some wikilinks that seemed logical enough and I think it does a better job of summarizing the main events. There's one or two details in there I'm not sure are strictly necessary. But again, 470 words. So I'm not sure cutting them matters. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very fine now - concise and fluent. Excellent work indeed. - Artoasis (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Corporate message[edit]

Is it possible that the film was more anti corporate activism symbolically told through vampires, more than it was a horror movie? The film, did rail against corporations quite a bit, specifically speaking the fictional worldwide corporation Bromley Marks. Australia has always been a hot spot for anti corporate activism, reason being because, far as the anglo sphere is concerned they always get the short end of the stick. Australia is by no means a dirt poor country, economically, its actually quite prosperous, however, the country has suffered a lot from corporate scandals, hence the reason so much anti corporate media comes out of the country, at least that's my guess I could be mistaken.

Personally, although that's just me, I can't think of a better creature to use to criticize corporate culture, than vampires. With "blood" representing everything from money, to stocks, and what happens to executives, when they don't get enough of it. Sorry for typing as if though this were a forum, however I am just pointing out how saturated the movie is with anti-corporate sentiment. I mean, have industrialized countries, become "vampire societies" where you MUST be a "vampire" in order to survive? In the end though I could be mistaken; perhaps the writers just chose a corporate theme to "strike close to home," the majority of people the world over who are employed, who work in some sort of office job, work for a corporation, hence to make the movie creepier, they chose that theme it may have never been their intention to deliberately criticize corporations. Are there any links to actual interviews, or reliable internet articles that talk about what the film's writer's intentions were?

Again, to conclude this bit of discussion, the film is saturated, and I mean saturated, with a decided hostility towards the corporate world, the only thing more prevalent in the movie besides blood and gore, is the hostility towards the corporate world. My thanks to Wikipedia Corporation for letting me type this, the Microsoft Corporation which is using a form of windows which lets me interface with this computer, and the Dell corporation for letting me connect to the internet! Is Wikipedia a corporation?

67.148.120.105 (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)stardingo747[reply]

And? This is not a forum. Are you insinuating you'd like this to be added to the article? Because this is original research and opinion. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 12:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the movie has an anti-corporate message, but I would say that is nothing special but normal. In my experience nearly every science-fiction movie (especially with a dystopic setting) has a large company in the role of the villian or the main villian represents or is supported by this company. To name a few: Avatar, RoboCop, Blade Runner, I Robot, Rollerball, Outland, Running Man, WALL E etc. And if it is not a huge corporation, it is a undemocratic government. So in my opinion this point is nothing that needs to be emphazised. --Dodothegoof (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the pretense of the entire film is about corporate control of food supplies - it is a direct attack on GM food manufacturers and both third world and domestic poverty through the control of food production. If this is not emphasised then it misses the entire plot of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.167.233 (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia - 2019 wrong calendar[edit]

In the first scene of the film you can see the April 2019 calendar, it says that 1st april will be on tuesday but actually 01-april-2019 will be monday. Maybe this was done on purpose by the director, maybe it was only an error... I don't know... I don't want to put that information on the main page because someone can think its not appropriate so I write here and if someone with more experience think it is worth mentioning on the main page he or she can move this information there. Hope you found this interesting Lessio (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goofs appear on some wikipedia movie articles, but they're basically unencyclopedic. You'd also run into issues with needing citations. You'd be better off trying to imdb, which has a section for that sort of thing. 203.35.82.136 (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 film[edit]

Please do not change the release of this film. The film's release designates what year the film should be placed in, not it's wide-release. This film was first shown in 2009 and therefore, a 2009 film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As brought up before, the WP:NCF film year is only for disambiguation, not it's actual year. The film's premiere is the year the film is related too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WikiProject Films March 2009 discussion, WikiProject Films August 2009 discussion and the recent discussion about disambiguation by year. And I'm sure there have been other discussions about this. All indicate to use the public release, not festivals to identify movies by year. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the latest discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Release_date, it has been suggested to drop the year from the intro to avoid confusion and edit wars in these cases. I'm inclined to agree with this. Opinions? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a very minor change! Geoff B (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's a controversial one. It's like changing the date of your birth practically! It would also change other articles (List of american films, list of horror films, list of science fiction films, etc.). We do not want them to not make sense with each other, so consensus is important. I'd suggest taking the route of The Hurt Locker and removing the film's release date from the intro and having using the date of it's original release. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any further arguments with this idea? If not, I'll be changing it shortly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I don't really have a problem with the removal but I miss the point of it, the article still needs to categorized in either year. This seems to be just evading the issue at hand. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whups. Forget to mention that part. Similar ideas were discussed on the article for The Hurt Locker, and they scrapped the year from the intro, but left it as a 2008 film for it's initial premiere. I agree with this method more still as otherwise, it looks like the article is contradicting itself. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if there is no further argument. I'll change the years. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I really don't think it matters much to the quality of the article. And it may require a lot of work. Cause for film articles that follow WP:NCF, they're not only named according to their public release years, but also categorized that way. Why don't we just leave it be? Artoasis (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it contradicts other articles. What qualifies as a public release? This was not a press showing, anyone who bought tickets could attend. It's really a thin line between what qualifies as a "public release". Besides, both allmovie and imdb have in big numbers (2009) across their release pages. When we are not matching this, wikipedia looks kind of foolish. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this page were to be disambiguated it would be Daybreakers (2010 film) per WP:NCF, if you then call it a 2009 film and categorize it in 2009, you look quite silly. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's if it was. It currently is not and WP:NCF says nothing about categorization, just the header in the current article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) True, but the point remains. What you want to do would be silly on other articles and counter uniformity. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this has been done on other articles and it makes sense. If this film won any sort of award for a best film in 2009 it would look foolish if it was a listed as a 2010 article. The article on The Hurt Locker has the 2008 film category, so if anything, WP:NCF should be changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then take it up at WP:NFC. This is bigger than just this article, the only guideline we have to go of is WP:NFC which applies here by proxy. If you disagree with that, take it there. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daybreakers&oldid=1199611848"