Just read briefly here, but Zombie #1 means (from the commentarytrack and special features) the ones that is near the camera. Zombie #2 and #3 is the zombies further from the camera. Hope this explains it better

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
The reason I offered that bit of the rules is because I don't believe my opinion trumps anybody else's opinion.

Sounds absolutely lovely, sure, but a consistent online database cannot be built on dozens of different opinions. There needs to be a consistent approach to these matters. In this case, the screenshot clearly shows group roles, and we've decided to enter those using dividers. I really don't see how anything else is acceptable as far as the online database is concerned.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
The reason I offered that bit of the rules is because I don't believe my opinion trumps anybody else's opinion.

Sounds absolutely lovely, sure, but a consistent online database cannot be built on dozens of different opinions. There needs to be a consistent approach to these matters. In this case, the screenshot clearly shows group roles, and we've decided to enter those using dividers. I really don't see how anything else is acceptable as far as the online database is concerned.

I don't disagree, but it isn't my database, nor is it yours.  Try as we might, we can't enforce anything.  All you, or I, or anybody can do is offer our opinions on the matter.  Beyond that, it is up to Ken to decide what is and isn't acceptable as far as the online database is concerned...and it isn't always consistent.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
All you, or I, or anybody can do is offer our opinions on the matter.

But of course. My opinion is that these are clearly and unmistakeably group roles, which we enter using dividers, with no role names for the people listed as part of that group.

While I agree it is a group divider, I don't believe it is clear and unmistakeable.  In English, and taken at face value, 'Zombie #1' is a singular role.  For that reason, I can see how people would see it differently that we do.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I can see why people could make that mistake, yes, but it stays just that: a mistake.

The fact that it's not an English language movie makes it an even more avoidable mistake, since that fact ought to make people even more careful when jumping to conclusions about what names and headers mean.

I have no problem understanding why the initial reaction is: "Oh, if that's Zombie #1, then the dude below must be Zombie #2," but the immediate reaction afterwards really ought to be be: "But then again, this isn't in English, so maybe it means something else."

To not make that a consideration is just sloppy.

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
Actually it's not automatically a group role.

Agree. If it was a group role, wouldn't it be Zombies #1 ???

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
Actually it's not automatically a group role.

Agree. If it was a group role, wouldn't it be Zombies #1 ???

If it were an english film, yes - but the film is Norwegian. Bentyman has already explained what "Zombie #1" means.

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
Actually it's not automatically a group role. It could be that the first person is credited as Zombie #1 and the rest are simply not credited with a role. We just don't know.

Exactly my point...taken at face value, this is an easy conclusion to come to.  It isn't until further information is provided, thanks northbloke and bentyman, that the true picture is understood.