Talk:Shaun of the Dead

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleShaun of the Dead has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 4, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 9, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Plot expansion/ Yvonne?[edit]

Hi all. I've added a lot to the plot summary, spicing it up a bit, it seemed fairly basic and not interesting at all...

I'm also wondering if mentioning Yvonne (Shaun's friend they meet on their way to the pub) in the plot summary is appropriate. She is a minor character, but she does appear in the final scene and has the last kines of dialogue.

thanx...

Fultron89 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the DVD commentary on Shaun of the Dead, Yvonne is actually an important character from a symbolic standpoint. She and Shaun are opposites of eachother and she's a kind of what could have happened if Shaun and his friends were more competant at fighting zombies. 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.201.98 (talk)

Failed GA ?[edit]

It would be nice to know why this article failed GA. We can't fix it if we're not told what's wrong with it. My guess is it's because of that craptacular neologism "rom-zom-com". --Captain Infinity (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you checked the archives for it. -- Harish (Talk) - 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's the first line that makes this such a good article: "Shaun of the Dead is a 2004 British romantic zombie comedy". How could this ever not be a GA with such a fantastic lead for the reader to sink their teeth into? SpencerCollins (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Reference[edit]

Seems like Shaun was represented as easter egg in World of Warcraft Trading Card Game: http://wowtcgdb.com/carddetail.aspx?id=891 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.214.170 (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link seems to be broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.28.53 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm surprised there is nothing on this page about the attempted Lego set. A group of designers tried to make a set based on the Winchester Pub. They had almost 10,000 supporters on its CUUSOO page (Lego's "suggestion box"). Lego rejected it, citing its inappropriate content. Here's the link: http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/7451 (Now archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20120111034928/http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/7451)

Dianne[edit]

Can we add things from the special features? like what happened to Dianne when she went after David??Firio (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added, and removed, before. --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis from Left 4 Dead[edit]

He wears a white shirt and red tie as a subtle nod to this movie. I remember reading this somewhere, but not where. Can someone find a source? 75.63.6.6 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Left 4 Dead wiki mentions this. It says that it may be a reference. However, the Left 4 Dead wiki is unofficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.28.53 (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World's End/Paul[edit]

Paul seems to be a separate film from the world's end, even though it has frost and pegg in it. Unless further evidence suggests otherwise, I will remove the reference on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmfreak (talk • contribs) 10:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what happened to the zombie dance?[edit]

The first time we saw the video at home, there was an extra feature of zombies dancing to Thriller. Recently we rented the movie and it is no longer there? What happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.233.200 (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the extra feature was only availible on a limited edition DVD with special features. The DVD you got was regular. Heymister14 (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)heymister14[reply]

Locations[edit]

The Winchester (Duke Of Albany) pub is in [terrible disrepair] and reportedly due to be torn down to make way for a block of flats. Another source says it was demolished in 2007. It can still be seen in the google maps street view of Monson Road Lewisham, London]. Not sure how best to present this in the article. Trying to source a free image from when it was less run down might be a better option. I was trying to identify if the pub had been used for another film or television programme but on closer inspection it is clearly a different pub. -- Horkana (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country[edit]

IMDB Lists the film as UK | France, it should be kept that way, same as Hot Fuzz. Feel free to discuss. 16:44, 28th November 2009 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingharris (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't IMDb. Brit cast, filmed and set in Britain, British director, mostly British crew AFAIK. Geoff B (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of information on Actors etc: is taken from IMDB so this should be no different. 01:47, 29th November 2009 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingharris (talk • contribs) 01:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, Wikipedia is not a mirror of IMDb. Geoff B (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is France listed btw? Is it because StudioCanal was one of the producers?--81.109.72.78 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant extra[edit]

I think that there is a significant part in one of the extras that should be mentioned - it is mentioned that minor bites from zombies do not turn people into them, only very major ones. This would explain why Phillip's first bite didn't turn him into a zombie, but his second one, which was more serious, did. Grieferhate (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Source for Quentin Tarantino bit[edit]

http://www.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-tarantinotop20/1/

I don't know if we can use it as a valid source (the Shaun slide is #18), so I'm not putting it in myself. I can't seem to track down another version of the article so there it is if someone with more experience here wants to pop it in. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

trope bit[edit]

is it really necessary? isn't tvtropes good enough for stuff like that? its not even referencing anything else, just mentioning the trope. i kind of feel it doesnt belong in an encyclopedic article with wikipedia's tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.85.18.175 (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. It's not our usual practice to feature random quotes from a film, unless there's some particular reason for it (like it's become a famous quote in its own right). I don't see the need for it here. Robofish (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur as well, especially when the importance of the "Z word" trope is not discussed at all. I will remove it and make the "Cast" section double-columned so we don't have so much white space. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References/Home Media/Cult Status[edit]

I added some new information in the Cultural Reference section since there was no mention of other films often referred to in the film. I also added some information on some of the special features on the DVD and BluRay release of the film in the Home Media section. Additionally I added a Cult Status section to provide a place for information about the film's cult status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maganftw (talk • contribs) 04:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Countries[edit]

I understand the reasons for adding France/USA but as I pointed out before on Template:Infobox film it says if there is a conflict in various sources then only the common nation is published. If there is a general feeling that this should be ignored then that is 100% fine with me just as long as it doesn't then apply to other articles. I found out about this from an editor on Life of Pi (film). This occurred when I tried to add Canada / UK / Australia / Taiwan using a BFI reference. A source SchroCat repeatedly points out to me. If this is the case on Shaun of the Dead then it should apply to life of Pi. Thank you --WARNER one (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one site doesn't list a country doesn't mean we grab hold of that single straw and change an article because of it. Not only does the very reliable source of the BFI show the UK, US and France, so does the AFI (and the less reliable IMDb). If you want to change Life of Pi, then start a thread on the talk page to change the consensus on that article. – SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm gonna source a few Wikipedia pages here: WP:UCS, WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's pretty clear the film was not produced solely in the UK (hence the involvement of the France-based StudioCanal and the distribution by the US-based Universal Pictures). Yes, Template:Infobox film says that, if there is a conflict of information, to use the commonly published nations. You're right. But that is neither a guideline nor a policy, it's a suggestion. WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a policy, and even if we didn't have that, local consensus (read: the article talk page) is more important than template documentation. And it seems that the general consensus is that the film was a co-production of the United Kingdom, United States, and France. Unless you have a non-Lumiere centric argument as to why it should only be listed as British (i.e. the filmmakers saying so, specific reports, etc.) I don't see a reason to change it.
As for the Life of Pi debacle, that's for Life of Pi's talk page (hence the reference to OTHERSTUFF). Corvoe (speak to me) 12:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shaun of the Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reversions of legitimate content[edit]

@2013bchan41: Please explain to me why you keep reverting changes I make to this article. And why are you not using edit summaries like I politely suggested you should? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I give up[edit]

You guys win. I'm not touching this article ever again. I went WP:BOLD and for my trouble all I get back is... nothing. Nothing whatsoever. I won't even bother protesting beyond what I'm writing here; I know I'll lose. No discussion to be had, no debate to be decided, nothing. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dramah much? General Ization Talk 03:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Zeke was trying to include a more descriptive cast list[1] and more detailed plot section which people kept cutting back.[2] -- 109.78.222.21 (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hynes or Stevenson[edit]

Should Jessica be credited as Hynes or Stevenson in the article? At the moment she's credited under both names, which is a bit confusing - we should decide on one, and stick to that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel[edit]

Edgar Wright jokingly suggested the sequel would have to be called 'From Dusk Till Shaun' and gave permission to the film Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse to include a fake poster for the film in the background of their world.[3]

If there was any real talk of a sequel this might be worth including in the article but until then a joke sequel name does not seem notable enough to include by itself. -- 109.78.222.21 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Shaun of the Dead. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts 03:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Picking this one up for review. Rusted AutoParts 19:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Addressed all the comments to now. Kingsif (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • I find a bit more detail about what specifically in Spaced influenced making the film. It's mentioned in Production that it was a certain episode.

Plot[edit]

  • Plot is at a succinct 412 words, satisfying WP:FILMPLOT.

Cast[edit]

  • Section is solid.

Production[edit]

  • The Simon Pegg quote bleeds a bit into the Casting section, if at all possible should be moved up a little.
  • Added to quotebox with Wright's quote. Kingsif (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if a picture and two quoteboxs are needed for one section (I could be wrong). Maybe, to still make use of the Wright/Pegg image relocate it to maybe Comic adaptations and other media to use to describe their one-off comic.
  • Does it look a bit more even with the quotes combined? Kingsif (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wright has said both that he suggested the film when in a cab with Pegg after the excitement of filming the zombie scene in Spaced,[8] and while watching a horror film with both Pegg and Nick Frost" With the Frost info being in The Guardian source that follows, perhaps that sentence could be reworked to incorporate Frost into the "He began developing it in earnest after playing Resident Evil late one night himself, and going out in the early hours of the morning wondering what a British person's reaction to the zombie apocalypse would be". sentence, just so it doesn't appear unsourced at the end of Frost.
  • "It was the first time the pair had written together" feels a little awkwardly incorporated. Perhaps "Wright and Pegg, marking their first time writing together, completed the screenplay in eight weeks".
  • I've removed it, as it was a bit dubious what with Spaced. (Story credits) Kingsif (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Cameos and extras really warranting of it's own section?
  • It's a sub-heading to separate the main casting from the bit parts and zombies - the bit parts and zombies are notable because of the trilogy the bit part actors feed into and the lengths gone to for this film to get zombies. Kingsif (talk)

Release[edit]

  • Appears solid to me.

Cultural references[edit]

  • Nitpicky thing: "A poster was made for From Dusk Till Shaun to feature in the alternate universe Times Square in the 2018 animated Sony Pictures Marvel Comics movie Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse; the director of this film, Rodney Rothman, had reached out to Wright to ask for a movie suggestion that he could have theoretically made in the alternate universe." Rothman was one of three directors on the film, I feel that should be "Rodney Rothman, a co-director on this film,"
  • Sculpture image bleeds down into Analysis, should be moved up a little.
  • Done a similar thing to the quoteboxes. Kingsif (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis[edit]

  • Looks solid.

Reception[edit]

  • Should this not be following the Release section?
  • Film MOS puts the reception below things like analysis; I guess it's "here's all the information about the film, followed by how people reacted to it" Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Ensure all sources are archived.
  • The first one (Guardian) has two quotations taken from it, the rest is repetition of Wright and Pegg's names with enough frequency to stack up. The second (Dread Central) is three quotations; I have now cut one (Pegg in the quote box) down. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

All issues addressed. That's a ✓ Pass for me. Rusted AutoParts 21:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This edit meaningfully changes content without sources"[edit]

Per this edit.

As far as I can tell, with this edit, I removed an WP:EASTEREGG link and removed redundancy from the text. I did not add or change information.

Can this revert be explained, please? Popcornfud (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shaun_of_the_Dead&oldid=1219243071"