Talk:Warm Bodies (film)

Image Update

Entertainment Weekly has released a revised official poster for Warm Bodies, which can be found here: http://www.impawards.com/2013/warm_bodies_ver2.html I'd like to propose that the image in the infobox be updated to this new poster. Summit Entertainment is a client of my employer and I therefore have a conflict of interest so I don't want to make any edits myself. If someone could update the image for me it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Vgreenwo (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you are not inserting content into the article but rather simply providing another image, I'd suggest you simply upload the image and edit the infobox yourself, explaining you've left a COI notice in the talk page. A word of warning: The image you linked to is extremely high resolution, and the version you upload needs to be very low resolution in order to meet fair use requirements. If you need help, leave a message on my talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why has this image now been removed? MisterShiney ✉ 10:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that, it wasnt the one that was removed. Im going to upload this one. MisterShiney ✉ 10:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Genre

Further to a conversation on Charlr6's talk page, the genre is disputed. Part of the conversation went as follows (note, I had previously asked editor to follow BRD):

I have read other rules where they say if it is done multiple times, then be discussed. And I have seen several main editors, who I'm sure you would know if named, who dodn't follow BRD at all.

And I wasn't going to discuss my edit on Warm Bodies the second time round because I put it back with sources I found for it. If you weren't happy with that, then I would have discussed it.

But as you seem happy with it now, as you haven't reverted it, then there isn't any problem. Charlr6 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because they don't, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Old saying, "do as I say not as I do" comes to mind. In other words, do as Wikipedia says, not as other editors do, and you can't really go wrong.

It's not a case of being happy with it, I just don't want to edit war over it. I do not believe that it is classed as "paranormal" the lead needs sorting anyway as there are far too many genre's listed in the opening lead. MisterShiney ✉ 22:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea of free will also comes to mind. Like I said, if it was reverted a second time I would have said why it should have been included on the talk page. I'm not going to waste my time. I added an edit in and then later found a source for it. Paranormal romance is currently the only genre there with a source. As we are using our own opinions on the page, you don't believe paranormal romance should be included as there are too many genres, l well I personally think "fantasy" could go. The story is focusing more on paranormal romance than it is on the fantasy, it is inspired by the love story Romeo and Juliet. Charlr6 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll get rid of it. A source isn't usually needed for every genre. I will also transfer a copy of this conversation to the article talk page. Just so other involved can par take. MisterShiney ✉ 23:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to add? MisterShiney ✉ 23:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah I do, although it can be humourous at times I in NO way see it as a comedy. I think that should be struck off. groovygower (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The defining feature of comedies is a happy ending, not over the top humor. As it is also a Romeo & Juliet adaptation, it's fair to call it Romantic comedy, set in a zombie movie. 23PowerZ (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete the prequel book part

I don't get why this part should be included in the movie page at all, as it doesn't seem to have had any influence on it. And besides this, it reads like a blurb. --134.34.147.11 (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Name

What does "decides to keep his name R, making it an unsolved mystery" mean? There is no mystery, unsolved or otherwise, in his decision not to adopt a new name, but to keep R.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

i think the names are a reference to romeo and juliet. You have Juliet (julie), Romeo (R), Mercutio (M), and w/e. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.75.24 (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Reception Range

The Critical reception section of the article currently states, "The film has received mixed to positive reviews from critics." This appears to be somewhat of a synthesis and consequently isn't really appropriate.

As available alternatives, we could delete the sentence altogether (it's arguably unnecessary) or instead we can provide a sourced statement.

A couple of sourced statements as well as a broader discussion of using ranges such as "mixed to positive" are being discussed here. If anyone wants to take the initiative in one direction or another I probably won't have an objection. Otherwise if there's no movement on this in the next few days I'll see what I can do. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Another way to approach the matter is something like The East (film)#Critical response where we can "unpackage" the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes a bit more. For example, for Warm Bodies, Metacritic groups the reviews as 22 positive, 13 mixed, and 3 negative. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it is unnecessary and can be left out without replacement. There often is confusion among readers (and editors) as to whether saying it got "mixed" reviews is saying that it got a lot of reviews where the critics said some positive things and some negative things or it is saying that the film got some positive reviews and some negative reviews. These are very different things. So except in a context (like what Metacritic does) where "mixed" is more clearly defined, the ambiguity makes it a term worth avoiding. 99.192.52.45 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the phrase. If anyone, including the editor who defended its inclusion, wants to add a properly sourced summary of the reviews, they are welcome to do so. DonIago (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing

@Erik: Just curious: which character in this film is traditionally of Ethiopian descent? The article doesn't say anything to this effect, which might be helpful, but right now I'm just asking for my own gratification. DonIago (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The sources (from the list article) are this and this. I also found this (a source that the list article hasn't used yet). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I think it might help the article if something to that effect was added, but I'm not sure whether it's quite at that level of significance. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)