Quoting T!M:

Quote:
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.

Yes, well, that line of reasoning can be used with regards to pretty much EVERY SINGLE group role.

I beg to differ as most group roles are written in a plural format...soldiers, policemen, zombies...this one is not.

Quote:
But really, if you look at these credits (also look at the previous "Herzogs Livvakter" group), you don't really have any doubt, do you? It doesn't get much clearer than this, really... 

Since 'Herzogs Livvakter' translates into 'Herzog's bodyguards'...plural...and 'zombie #1' translates into 'zombie #1'...singular, it could be a lot clearer.  In fact, 'Primær Zombies', or something similar, would have been much clearer.

Please note, I am not trying to start an argument here, just pointing out why I believe it is not as clear cut as some might believe.

Ya know, it could just be a typo by the company that made the credits...

Do we need to go into lengthy conversations about language and translations?

Judging by the formatting on the screen, it is an alphabetised group of people with one role. WYSIWYG or WYSIWYPIP (What you see is what you put into Profiler).

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting jmbox:

Quote:
What you see is what you put into Profiler

OK. Simple. Zombie #1 for first actor, no role for others. Exactly what I see...

Well, no, this is a group. You see the space between Zombie #1 and the group above? Those spaces define the group. There's no space between the members of the group.

No it can also be a group with singular: One role played by different actors! And as we don't know what the filmmakers want to do with this credit, we enter it as we see it. In this case it looks like a group divider and so it should be entered.
After getting the called additional infos, we can be also sure this is correct.

And now we can stop discussing on this.

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
No it can also be a group with singular: One role played by different actors!

True! I've got several of these in my collection, indeed. Baby's and toddlers are, for instance, often played by twins: one singular role name, two actors, still a group divider.

Quoting bentyman:

Quote:
That's how the Director explained it, so therefore: group divider.

That surely settles it, but as explained before, it really wasn't necessary. We really shouldn't have to "interpret" the role name to decide how to enter the data - this is purely a formatting issue. And the format is that of multiple cast members credited with a group role - for which there is only one correct way to enter it into the database. It really doesn't matter whether the role name is singular or plural (see VirusPil's comment, too) - only the format matters.

Not just to argue, but IMHO a group comprises persons (plural) by definition.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
Not just to argue, but IMHO a group comprises persons (plural) by definition.

It does. But that applies to the persons in the group (here: the actors), not name of that group (here: the role name). That name can be either singular or plural, but the group indeed needs to consist of more than one actor.

Yes, it can be singular, but only if all the actors are playing the same character...John Smith, Joe Smith & Sam Smith as Baby James.  If, as in this case, the actors are playing a group of the same character type...soldiers, policemen, zombies...it should be plural...at least it should in order to make sense.

I know, I know, this isn't an english language film.  The problem, however, is that they used and english word.  Because they did, it isn't unreasonable to believe people will interpret that word the same way they would any other english word.

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
In some way I can also understand this opinion, but if the filmmakers want to call these group just "Zombie #1" we can't change this.

Perhaps they say at filming: "Here we need a Zombie #1 and there another Zombie #1" (No matter which actor plays zombie #1 in this scene)
"And here in background we need a group of five Zombie #2"

This explains just the type of zombie and not a special zombie.

(Hope I wrote in a understandable way  )