PDA

View Full Version : 28 Weeks Later



Petey Parker
03-27-2007, 08:14 AM
Looks friggen sweet. I know a lot of people didn't like the first one but I did. I was a little worried when a sequel was first announced but looks like I didn't need to be.

Here is the trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_atomic/28weekslater/)

Any trailer that uses a Muse song is automatically twice as good.

Bill!
03-27-2007, 08:16 AM
The first film was awesome. People just need to get over the fact that its not a zombie movie.

Petey Parker
03-27-2007, 08:18 AM
Apparently there is a new DVD coming out of the first film which will have a prequel to this one on it. Looks like I might be getting it for a third time. I've got both the R2 and R1 releases of the first film (since the R2 version was on DVD before it was even out in theatres here)

Ben
03-27-2007, 08:20 AM
The first film was awesome. People just need to get over the fact that its not a zombie movie.It is a zombie movie.

Matt Jay
03-27-2007, 08:21 AM
Cool. I wasn't that big a fan of the first one, but I've been on a zombie kick lately.

Bill!
03-27-2007, 08:23 AM
It is a zombie movie.

Based on the fact there were no zombies in it?

I dunno. I my zombie movies, I like the zombies to either eat people or at the very least... be DEAD.

Ben
03-27-2007, 08:25 AM
Based on the fact there were no zombies in it?

I dunno. I my zombie movies, I like the zombies to either eat people or at the very least... be DEAD.Vampires are supposed to turn into bats and wolves. Are you saying that Buffy didn't have any vampires in it?

28 Days Later was a fucking zombie movie with tons of zombies in it.

Bill!
03-27-2007, 08:38 AM
Vampires are supposed to turn into bats and wolves. Are you saying that Buffy didn't have any vampires in it?

28 Days Later was a fucking zombie movie with tons of zombies in it.

Well if you want to get technical, the only real zombie movie is probably Serpent and the Rainbow.

Vampires suck blood. That's their big defining characteristic by traditional terms.

Zombies are dead and eat people/brains. Those are their defining characteristics as we see zombies today. 28 Days Later had neither.

Ben
03-27-2007, 08:44 AM
Zombies are dead and eat people/brains. Those are their defining characteristics as we see zombies today. 28 Days Later had neither.The virus kills them. And the zombies did eat people.

Bill!
03-27-2007, 08:46 AM
The virus kills them. And the zombies did eat people.

Apparently you need to watch the movie again. They ate no one. They just beat them to death, hence the virus being called "rage". The only time the "infected" died, was when they starved to death. That doesn't sound like a zombie to me. The virus only killed them because it made them obsessed with killing people, and not letting them find time to eat. It was basically like a super rabies.

Evan the Shaggy
03-27-2007, 08:47 AM
The virus kills them. And the zombies did eat people.

The virus actually doesn't kill them. It just makes them go nutso and think only about killing and turns them into a creature with only an animalistic mindset.

They die eventually from lack of having the ability to even feed themselves.

It doesn't really matter to me if its considered a zombie movie or not, doesn't make it any less kick ass.

THWIP!
03-27-2007, 08:48 AM
It was a new take on the zombie.

Bill!
03-27-2007, 08:49 AM
The virus actually doesn't kill them. It just makes them go nutso and think only about killing and turns them into a creature with only an animalistic mindset.

They die eventually from lack of having the ability to even feed themselves.

It doesn't really matter to me if its considered a zombie movie or not, doesn't make it any less kick ass.

Yeah. It was awesome. I really loved it.

Petey Parker
03-27-2007, 08:50 AM
Did anybody watch the trailer or is this just gonna be an argument on if they are zombies or not? :)

Bill!
03-27-2007, 08:51 AM
Did anybody watch the trailer or is this just gonna be an argument on if they are zombies or not? :)

I'll be watching it shortly.

Dusto
03-27-2007, 08:53 AM
Vampires suck blood. That's their big defining characteristic by traditional terms.

Not true. Not all vampires suck blood. Check out the book The Vampire: A Casebook, by Alan Dundes, which is basically a collection of essays on vampire traditions by folklorists from around the world. There are whole clusters of motifs that constitute what people think of as vampires, and as long as something incorporates a few of those motifs, I'd say it could be called a vampire. The monsters in The Descent, for instance, are vampires in my book (batlike, nocturnal hunters, attack by biting necks, and they look like Nosferatu). I think it's a similar case with zombies. Which is to say, the zombies in 28 Days later are as much zombies as anything else. Romero's zombies in Night of the Living Dead weren't much like the traditional voodoo zombie (and he didn't call them zombies in the movie), but people called them zombies, so they were. The things in 28 Days Later are a little different, too, but people call them zombies because they are close enough to the collective idea of what constitutes a zombie. So they are zombies. Q.E.D.

Matt Jay
03-27-2007, 08:58 AM
But does a wolfman have nards?

Petey Parker
03-27-2007, 08:58 AM
But does a wolfman have nards?

The correct answer is yes. Wolfmans got nards

Bill!
03-27-2007, 09:00 AM
Not true. Not all vampires suck blood. Check out the book The Vampire: A Casebook, by Alan Dundes, which is basically a collection of essays on vampire traditions by folklorists from around the world. There are whole clusters of motifs that constitute what people think of as vampires, and as long as something incorporates a few of those motifs, I'd say it could be called a vampire. The monsters in The Descent, for instance, are vampires in my book (batlike, nocturnal hunters, attack by biting necks, and they look like Nosferatu). I think it's a similar case with zombies. Which is to say, the zombies in 28 Days later are as much zombies as anything else. Romero's zombies in Night of the Living Dead weren't much like the traditional voodoo zombie (and he didn't call them zombies in the movie), but people called them zombies, so they were. The things in 28 Days Later are a little different, too, but people call them zombies because they are close enough to the collective idea of what constitutes a zombie. So they are zombies. Q.E.D.


I don't really agree. I didn't think of the monsters in Descent as vampires at all. Just monsters. Lots of movies have undefinable monsters. Makes them scarier sometimes.

And Romero isn't the only one who has made zombies dead and flesh eaters. Although he did really make it the norm, most zombies movies have both those characteristics, making them the tradition rather than an exception.

It's really up to personal choice in the end, but I don't see 28 Days Later as a zombie movie at all. It's made in the spirit of a zombie movie, but its more a fun apocalyptic horror flick.

Thudpucker
03-27-2007, 09:01 AM
28 Days Later is a zombie movie.

A really good one too, looking forward to the sequel

Dusto
03-27-2007, 09:03 AM
I don't really agree. I didn't think of the monsters in Descent as vampires at all. Just monsters. Lots of movies have undefinable monsters. Makes them scarier sometimes.

And Romero isn't the only one who has made zombies dead and flesh eaters. Although he did really make it the norm, most zombies movies have both those characteristics, making them the tradition rather than an exception.

It's really up to personal choice in the end, but I don't see 28 Days Later as a zombie movie at all. It's made in the spirit of a zombie movie, but its more a fun apocalyptic horror flick.

Oh well, at least we both like the movie. Even if you're wrong. :)

glk
03-27-2007, 09:25 AM
That looks great! I'm surprised that a sequel that barely has any of the creative team behind the original looks so good. Looks like they respectfully built off the original film in a logical way and really retained its look and feel rather than just try to exploit its success.

Bill?
03-27-2007, 09:33 AM
28 Days Later is a zombie movie.

A really good one too, looking forward to the sequel

its not really a zombie movie unless George Romero or Tom Savini has something to do with it.

Scotty
03-27-2007, 09:33 AM
The first film was awesome. People just need to get over the fact that its not a zombie movie.

It is a Zombie movie.

chazbot
03-27-2007, 09:35 AM
its not really a zombie movie unless George Romero or Tom Savini or Simon Pegg has something to do with it.

Fixed that for you :D

Keith P.
03-27-2007, 10:00 AM
They were zombies. The zombie is an archtype. Like the vampire or the werewolf. With the exception of the zombie really being a modern creation, a kind of gestalt between the arabian ghoul, and the eastern european wampyr, and using the name of a creature from Haitian folklore.

To say that they were not zombies, implies that there can only be one interpretation of an archtype, and that if they do not adhere to a strict formula, they do not qualify. Which is stupid.

The vampire is a perfect example. You have vampires who are cursed by God, vampires who carry a virus, vampires who are aliens, vampires who are products of genetic experiments, vampires who are a completely different race, vampires who drink blood, or feed of emotions, or sex, or laughter, vampire rabbits, vampire watermelons, vampire monkeys. Vampires that burn in sunlight, vampires who can tan, vampires who are mindless corpses, and vampires with phds.

They are still vampires.

And 28 days later is a zombie movie.

SeanC
03-27-2007, 10:02 AM
Does Ninja Jim kick Doctor Who's ass in this one too?

SteveZegers
03-27-2007, 10:02 AM
Looks good, trailer gave away way too much.

Doug
03-27-2007, 10:45 AM
its not really a zombie movie unless George Romero or Tom Savini has something to do with it.

Or Fulci.

Bill!
03-27-2007, 10:47 AM
Or Fulci.

This is a discussion about zombie movies, not shitty movies. :D

Drkemerld73
03-27-2007, 11:26 AM
Fixed that for you :D

Yeah. Simon Pegg had to be mentioned in this thread.

Thanks for adding him in the list. :thumb:

As for the trailer. Looks good. I hope that it will be a worthy sequel.

Mister Mets
03-27-2007, 11:53 AM
I like the first one. This may be good, although the preview's not that promising.

I'm surprised they didn't just do it about an outbreak in America (have some terrorists be responsible for it.)

Georgie
03-27-2007, 12:01 PM
I like the first one. This may be good, although the preview's not that promising.

I'm surprised they didn't just do it about an outbreak in America (have some terrorists be responsible for it.)

I actually thought I read somewhere that this one took place in the States. Maybe I just made that up.

And yeah, I don't consider the Infected to be Zombies, just because my standard definition of a "zombie" is an undead something that has the hunger for human flesh. I don't mind if zombies run, or swim, or even use guns for that matter, as long as they don't have a pulse and wanna eat some brains, they're zombies in my book.

But I'm not gonna start an arguement with someone who sees the Infected as zombies. Who cares? Bottom line, 28 Days Later was one of the best films of the year it came out, and it had "East Hastings" in it.

Drkemerld73
03-27-2007, 12:04 PM
I'm surprised they didn't just do it about an outbreak in America (have some terrorists be responsible for it.)

If and when World War Z gets made, America will be slaughtered soon enough. :)

The beauty of having it in England is that it is contained by natural borders, and can provide it's own slant on how the outbreak is handled both internally and by the outside world.

In a way, "terrorists" were responsible for the intial outbreak, just not the warm and fuzzy terrorists we know of today.

BURKE
03-27-2007, 01:01 PM
Being one of the biggest zombie finatics alive, and i have been in this exact argument many times and won every time, i will simply list some easy to get facts.

28 Days Later= people being infected by a virus that is pure rage, and they go around all apeshit beating and clawing to death anyone who is not infected.

Zombie= A once living person who DIED and has now returned to life with the craving of eating human flesh/ brains.

There are a lot of movies that are very close to being true zombie movies but certain details make them a kinda of hibred. The biggest peice of evidence is the fact that the guy who wrote the damn movie stated that it is not a zombie movie. I fail to see why people are still trying to claim that it is a zombie movie when there are no zombies in it at all. Aside from that i do love the movie, i just wish we could all agree on the facts.

Bill!
03-27-2007, 01:07 PM
Being one of the biggest zombie finatics alive, and i have been in this exact argument many times and won every time, i will simply list some easy to get facts.

28 Days Later= people being infected by a virus that is pure rage, and they go around all apeshit beating and clawing to death anyone who is not infected.

Zombie= A once living person who DIED and has now returned to life with the craving of eating human flesh/ brains.

There are a lot of movies that are very close to being true zombie movies but certain details make them a kinda of hibred. The biggest peice of evidence is the fact that the guy who wrote the damn movie stated that it is not a zombie movie. I fail to see why people are still trying to claim that it is a zombie movie when there are no zombies in it at all. Aside from that i do love the movie, i just wish we could all agree on the facts.

Because people like to import non-tradtitional philosophic arguments of how the world views zombies socially/culturally, etc. blah blah blah. We're talking about fucking zombie movies, not fine art and poetry. I completely agree with everything you say, and we are right. When the normal person thinks of "zombie" movie, 28 Days Later does not qualify.

Powersurge_Classic
03-27-2007, 01:16 PM
The infected are not classic Hollywood zombies. However, the movie is easily lumped into the same category as your classic Hollywood "zombie movie".

The movie has all of the characteristics of a zombie movie, and as someone who loves to hate zombies, the common denominators are why I watched 28 to begin with.

I'm tickled pink to hear that they are making a sequel.

Foolish Mortal
03-27-2007, 01:26 PM
Being one of the biggest zombie finatics alive, and i have been in this exact argument many times and won every time, i will simply list some easy to get facts.

28 Days Later= people being infected by a virus that is pure rage, and they go around all apeshit beating and clawing to death anyone who is not infected.

Zombie= A once living person who DIED and has now returned to life with the craving of eating human flesh/ brains.

There are a lot of movies that are very close to being true zombie movies but certain details make them a kinda of hibred. The biggest peice of evidence is the fact that the guy who wrote the damn movie stated that it is not a zombie movie. I fail to see why people are still trying to claim that it is a zombie movie when there are no zombies in it at all. Aside from that i do love the movie, i just wish we could all agree on the facts.
I swear, I've seen people get into screaming arguments about this. Is it really that important?

Bill!
03-27-2007, 01:28 PM
I swear, I've seen people get into screaming arguments about this. Is it really that important?

No, but its fun to discuss. Kinda like any pop culture topic.

The Human Target
03-27-2007, 01:29 PM
They were zombies. The zombie is an archtype. Like the vampire or the werewolf. With the exception of the zombie really being a modern creation, a kind of gestalt between the arabian ghoul, and the eastern european wampyr, and using the name of a creature from Haitian folklore.

To say that they were not zombies, implies that there can only be one interpretation of an archtype, and that if they do not adhere to a strict formula, they do not qualify. Which is stupid.

The vampire is a perfect example. You have vampires who are cursed by God, vampires who carry a virus, vampires who are aliens, vampires who are products of genetic experiments, vampires who are a completely different race, vampires who drink blood, or feed of emotions, or sex, or laughter, vampire rabbits, vampire watermelons, vampire monkeys. Vampires that burn in sunlight, vampires who can tan, vampires who are mindless corpses, and vampires with phds.

They are still vampires.

And 28 days later is a zombie movie.

:heart:

Win!

I loved 28 Days Later, and hope this one is as good. Fingers crossed.

Bill!
03-27-2007, 01:35 PM
They were zombies. The zombie is an archtype. Like the vampire or the werewolf. With the exception of the zombie really being a modern creation, a kind of gestalt between the arabian ghoul, and the eastern european wampyr, and using the name of a creature from Haitian folklore.

To say that they were not zombies, implies that there can only be one interpretation of an archtype, and that if they do not adhere to a strict formula, they do not qualify. Which is stupid.

The vampire is a perfect example. You have vampires who are cursed by God, vampires who carry a virus, vampires who are aliens, vampires who are products of genetic experiments, vampires who are a completely different race, vampires who drink blood, or feed of emotions, or sex, or laughter, vampire rabbits, vampire watermelons, vampire monkeys. Vampires that burn in sunlight, vampires who can tan, vampires who are mindless corpses, and vampires with phds.

They are still vampires.

And 28 days later is a zombie movie.

The whole thing about vampires is that they feed off people in one way or another, and the traditional view on it is blood. The rest of what you said there is basically other non-functional adjectives that may or may not exist in that already chosen archetype. They don't really mean much in that respect.

Special Agent Bachman
03-27-2007, 01:49 PM
Fuck Simon Pegg in his homely, average-at-best ass. And Fulci rules (watch Zombie sometime). 28 Days Later is a zombie movie because there are zombies in it. Get over it. The guy that wrote the screenplay may have said that they weren't zombies, but that's like saying that Supreme isn't Superman, or that Fighting American isn't Captain America.

Bill!
03-27-2007, 02:17 PM
Fuck Simon Pegg in his homely, average-at-best ass. And Fulci rules (watch Zombie sometime). 28 Days Later is a zombie movie because there are zombies in it. Get over it. The guy that wrote the screenplay may have said that they weren't zombies, but that's like saying that Supreme isn't Superman, or that Fighting American isn't Captain America.

Wow. I don't think you could have crammed another wrong statement into that.

Dusto
03-27-2007, 02:36 PM
The whole thing about vampires is that they feed off people in one way or another, and the traditional view on it is blood. The rest of what you said there is basically other non-functional adjectives that may or may not exist in that already chosen archetype. They don't really mean much in that respect.

You do seem to be picking and choosing your own acceptable criteria. "Drain something, usually blood." I think all of the examples listed by Keith P. constitute important variations and show the flexibility of what might be considered a vampire. Some might argue, for instance, that the most defining characteristic of a vampire is that it has returned from the dead rather than that it sucks blood, but as Keith's list shows, such is not the case in every vampire story. Besides, the zombies in 28 Days Later, human bodies reduced to a mindless murderous state, might to all intents and purposes be said to be "dead" in that their minds are no longer in control of their bodies; the virus is. This is little different from the radiation animating the bodies in Night of the Living Dead, or the disease of Dawn of the Dead (which, by the way, infects living hosts). There is very little discernible difference between the zombies of 28 Days Later and the zombies of any other zombie movie. It's more a question of artistic choice than anything else.

The Hodag
03-27-2007, 02:38 PM
28 Days Later IS a zombie movie. Why? Because it PLAYS OUT exactly like a zombie movie. Same end-of-the-world scenario, same small groups of survivors, same bitey people loose in the streets, same threat of fascist rule among the survivors...

You can argue semantics, but for all practical purposes, it's a zombie movie.

Anyway, trailer looked halfway decent. Not wild about wee little urchin children in movies and the original flick was really too good to potentially be weighed down by an inferior sequel from completely different folks...but I might see this if the reviews come in positive.

Special Agent Bachman
03-27-2007, 02:41 PM
Wow. I don't think you could have crammed another wrong statement into that.

:roll:

Mark Mavro (kryptic6)
03-27-2007, 02:47 PM
The first film was a masterpiece.

This trailer looks amazing. What Muse song is that?

The Hodag
03-27-2007, 03:32 PM
The first film was a masterpiece.

It really is. Even my friends who don't like horror much really like it.


This trailer looks amazing. What Muse song is that?

Quite appropriate for a zombie flick: "Shrinking Universe"

Georgie
03-27-2007, 03:46 PM
Being one of the biggest zombie finatics alive, and i have been in this exact argument many times and won every time, i will simply list some easy to get facts.

28 Days Later= people being infected by a virus that is pure rage, and they go around all apeshit beating and clawing to death anyone who is not infected.

Zombie= A once living person who DIED and has now returned to life with the craving of eating human flesh/ brains.

There are a lot of movies that are very close to being true zombie movies but certain details make them a kinda of hibred. The biggest peice of evidence is the fact that the guy who wrote the damn movie stated that it is not a zombie movie. I fail to see why people are still trying to claim that it is a zombie movie when there are no zombies in it at all. Aside from that i do love the movie, i just wish we could all agree on the facts.

The very first time I met Burke way back at BaltCon like 3 years ago, we talked about shitty horror movies and whatnot. Dude knows his shit, and this is 100% proof.

Georgie
03-27-2007, 03:48 PM
28 Days Later IS a zombie movie. Why? Because it PLAYS OUT exactly like a zombie movie. Same end-of-the-world scenario, same small groups of survivors, same bitey people loose in the streets, same threat of fascist rule among the survivors...

You can argue semantics, but for all practical purposes, it's a zombie movie.

Anyway, trailer looked halfway decent. Not wild about wee little urchin children in movies and the original flick was really too good to potentially be weighed down by an inferior sequel from completely different folks...but I might see this if the reviews come in positive.

They didn't bite or eat anyone! It's Rage, they just beat the shit out of people. So there!

Rosdower 3.0
03-27-2007, 03:50 PM
hmm, I thought the first movie ended fine...and Danny Boyle isn't directing this, but the trailer was good enough.

I might get around to checking it out.

costello
03-27-2007, 03:51 PM
Are the baddies in I am Legend zombies or vampires?

The Hodag
03-27-2007, 03:52 PM
They didn't bite or eat anyone! It's Rage, they just beat the shit out of people. So there!

I'LL SHOW YOU SOME GODDAMN RAGE!!

:hulk:

ClintP
03-27-2007, 03:52 PM
Did I see Rose from two and a half men in the trailor as some nurse or something? Am I the only person who watches that still? :scared:

costello
03-27-2007, 03:52 PM
Did I see Rose from two and a half men in the trailor as some nurse or something? Am I the only person who watches that still? :scared:

Two and a half Men? Yes.

ClintP
03-27-2007, 03:55 PM
This one kind of looks scarey to me. I thought the last one was good up until the ending. this one looks pretty serious. I like outragous in my zombie flicks, so I know it can't happen... :scared:

ClintP
03-27-2007, 03:55 PM
Two and a half Men? Yes.

:rofl: I thought so.

Georgie
03-27-2007, 03:58 PM
Are the baddies in I am Legend zombies or vampires?

I think they're just demons. They work for Satan, right?

Georgie
03-27-2007, 03:59 PM
I'LL SHOW YOU SOME GODDAMN RAGE!!

:hulk:

http://www.bugawk.net/nsiderFA/LAcolored/luigiohnoesLAzapdosCLkirbycubed.png
OH NOES!

costello
03-27-2007, 04:00 PM
I think they're just demons. They work for Satan, right?

Are you joking?

I feel like this question came out very rudely... that wasn't my intention.

Richard Matheson's I am Legend, at least the original, dealt with this vampire/zombie creature in the most scientific way possible. There was no working for Satan, but there was fear of mirrors, garlic, crosses, etc. and if I remember correctly they were raised from the dead.

If you've never read it, it comes highly recommended.

Georgie
03-27-2007, 04:33 PM
Are you joking?

I feel like this question came out very rudely... that wasn't my intention.

Richard Matheson's I am Legend, at least the original, dealt with this vampire/zombie creature in the most scientific way possible. There was no working for Satan, but there was fear of mirrors, garlic, crosses, etc. and if I remember correctly they were raised from the dead.

If you've never read it, it comes highly recommended.

Oh, fuck. For some reason my eyes just skipped over "I Am" and just saw Legend, the Tom Cruise/Tim Curry movie...

Yeah, I don't know shit about I AM Legend.

Keith P.
03-27-2007, 04:58 PM
The whole thing about vampires is that they feed off people in one way or another, and the traditional view on it is blood. The rest of what you said there is basically other non-functional adjectives that may or may not exist in that already chosen archetype. They don't really mean much in that respect.

And the whole thing about a zombie is that they are mindless. And the traditional view is that in one way or another, they are not thinking, sentient creatures in the sense of a normal human being.

If I come home from work and I am exhausted and someone says "You are acting like a zombie," or I say "I feel like a zombie" they are going to assume that I am just so worn down, that I can't function, not that I am out eating people.

The Human Target
03-27-2007, 05:39 PM
Zombies in general must be fairly mindless and must be found in large groups.

Other than that, anything flies.

Drkemerld73
03-27-2007, 05:44 PM
Fuck Simon Pegg in his homely, average-at-best ass.

George Romero would disagree. From what I've heard, he enjoyed what Pegg did so much that he had him in a cameo in Land of the Dead.

That is pretty harsh by the way.

Pegg wanted to make a fun film. And he did. And a lot of people who enjoy such films enjoyed it too.

Pegg is a man who enjoys making fun TV and films. And I applaud him for it.

Sorry if you don't like him and his work, but at least respect him for trying to do something he enjoys.

Bill!
03-27-2007, 05:44 PM
And the whole thing about a zombie is that they are mindless. And the traditional view is that in one way or another, they are not thinking, sentient creatures in the sense of a normal human being.

If I come home from work and I am exhausted and someone says "You are acting like a zombie," or I say "I feel like a zombie" they are going to assume that I am just so worn down, that I can't function, not that I am out eating people.

I think the traditional zombie definition is the living dead. Even the voodoo legend speaks to this.

Nick_Ardill
03-27-2007, 05:46 PM
Based on the fact there were no zombies in it?

I dunno. I my zombie movies, I like the zombies to either eat people or at the very least... be DEAD.
Yeah. The people were plague carriers, not living dead. I like how now all zombie movies made fast zombies because of 28 Days Later.

Keith P.
03-27-2007, 06:00 PM
I think the traditional zombie definition is the living dead. Even the voodoo legend speaks to this.

The traditional vampire is a corpse that rises from its grave at night, wrapped in its burial shroud and retains a semblance of life by drinking the blood of the living while they sleep.

The traditional werewolf is someone who puts on a wolfskin and salve made from boiled fat and belladonna, and changes into a wolf.

The traditional ghoul had the feet of a donkey and reproduces by fucking corpses.

The traditional zombie is someone so drugged out on datura and puffer fish venom that it reduces them to a highly suggestive and catatonic state.

So much for tradition.

BURKE
03-27-2007, 06:08 PM
The first fast zombie movie was Return of the Living Dead, not 28 Days.
Have you noticed that all the people who think it is a zombie movie go with the exact same theory, "cause i said so". I put up the proof, nuf said.

Drkemerld73
03-27-2007, 06:16 PM
I hate to divert the debate about what makes a zombie film and what doesn't, but in Land of the Dead they started having zombies act like people, feel emotion, as well as some critical thinking on a very simplistic level...

Does that take them away from being zombies then?

If so... What does that make them if they are moving away from being "mindless"?

The Human Target
03-27-2007, 06:20 PM
The first fast zombie movie was Return of the Living Dead, not 28 Days.
Have you noticed that all the people who think it is a zombie movie go with the exact same theory, "cause i said so". I put up the proof, nuf said.

Uhmmmmm where?

Dusto
03-27-2007, 06:37 PM
The first fast zombie movie was Return of the Living Dead, not 28 Days.
Have you noticed that all the people who think it is a zombie movie go with the exact same theory, "cause i said so". I put up the proof, nuf said.

Your "proof" depends on YOUR definition of zombies. Others have offered other definitions. Nothing makes your definition more correct than that offered by Keith P., for instance, who at least offers common usage in support of his definition.

Haborym
03-27-2007, 06:55 PM
If it hasn't been dead, or in Voodoo, apparently dead, then it isn't a zombie.

The hordes in 28 Days Later are infected with a virus. They weren't reanimated. They aren't even zombies in the informal sense since they're nowhere near slow moving or listless.

BTW, I loved 28 Days Later and I hope that 28 Weeks Later is a worthy sequel and not just a cash run to create a shitty franchise.

Dusto
03-27-2007, 07:00 PM
If it hasn't been dead, or in Voodoo, apparently dead, then it isn't a zombie.

The hordes in 28 Days Later are infected with a virus. They weren't reanimated. They aren't even zombies in the informal sense since they're nowhere near slow moving or listless.

BTW, I loved 28 Days Later and I hope that 28 Weeks Later is a worthy sequel and not just a cash run to create a shitty franchise.

In the original Dawn of the Dead people become zombies without clearly dying. They get bitten and then infected and wake up as zombies. Not much difference.

Petey Parker
03-27-2007, 07:01 PM
What have I started?

Haborym
03-27-2007, 07:28 PM
In the original Dawn of the Dead people become zombies without clearly dying. They get bitten and then infected and wake up as zombies. Not much difference.

In Romero's Dead films, people are infected by zombie bites or scratches, the virus then slowly kills the host and reanimates them as Zombies.

I assume you're referring to Stephen in DotD when you say people "wake up as zombies". I don't think he was taking a nap, it seemed pretty obvious that the virus ravaged his body and he died in an unconcious state then reanimated. If there's another scene of people sleeping and becoming zombies, I can't think of it.

Wastrel
03-27-2007, 07:39 PM
so which type of zombies do you people prefer:
a. zombies are poor, infected victims, spreading virus from host to host
or
b. zombies are evil, rising from the grave to feed upon the living fueling their unholy second life
?
personally i prefer the the dead as evil.

c. page
03-27-2007, 08:38 PM
so which type of zombies do you people prefer:
a. zombies are poor, infected victims, spreading virus from host to host
or
b. zombies are evil, rising from the grave to feed upon the living fueling their unholy second life
?
personally i prefer the the dead as evil.

what about c. all of the above?

Wastrel
03-27-2007, 08:39 PM
what about c. all of the above?
no, because im not curious about the opinions of those who would choose such an option. ;-)

Haborym
03-27-2007, 08:42 PM
Can you give an example of b., Wastrel? Romero's zombies would fall under a., right?

Wastrel
03-27-2007, 08:52 PM
Can you give an example of b., Wastrel? Romero's zombies would fall under a., right?
yea, the modern ones at least. im thinking in the vein of the type of stories told in old EC horror comics before the comics code. or sam raimis evil dead series (if you are the type who would argue that some of those arent zombies either, just think zombies presented in that manner)

Special Agent Bachman
03-27-2007, 09:12 PM
George Romero would disagree. From what I've heard, he enjoyed what Pegg did so much that he had him in a cameo in Land of the Dead.

That is pretty harsh by the way.

Pegg wanted to make a fun film. And he did. And a lot of people who enjoy such films enjoyed it too.

Pegg is a man who enjoys making fun TV and films. And I applaud him for it.

Sorry if you don't like him and his work, but at least respect him for trying to do something he enjoys.

I never said that I disliked Shaun of the Dead (it was good), but I think that just about anyone could've played Pegg's role in an equal capacity. He's not a genius by any means. And Dead-Alive is far superior to SotD in every aspect, just so ya know, since everybody seems to call SotD the best zombie comedy ever made for some reason.

DeepDished2
03-27-2007, 09:20 PM
what about thriller? what is your stance on zombies that can dance?

Drkemerld73
03-27-2007, 09:47 PM
I never said that I disliked Shaun of the Dead (it was good), but I think that just about anyone could've played Pegg's role in an equal capacity. He's not a genius by any means. And Dead-Alive is far superior to SotD in every aspect, just so ya know, since everybody seems to call SotD the best zombie comedy ever made for some reason.

Fair enough.

You just came across as particularly harsh, concering Simon Pegg, when I didn't think there was need to be.

I think it would be better to focus on the movie as a whole rather than just the actor. Anyone can state that another person would be more suitable in a role than another actor. I think that is more due to personal choice.

He might not be a genius in your eyes, and that's fine, but the thing that stands out to me is, he is a man who wants to have fun doing TV shows and movies he enjoys. That's all that really matters to me. I never called him a genius, but I enjoy his comedic timing and ideas. What's wrong with just having fun doing something you enjoy? And watching someone do something they enjoy? I LOVE knowing that the creators and actors get into their films and have a good time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are irritated by everyone who never saw Dead-Alive, but will proclaim that Shaun of the Dead is the best zombie comedy ever made. Shaun was more of a "for mass audience appeal" kind of movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. If that irritates you so much, just recommend Dead Alive to the people. "Hey, if you liked that, you might like this" kind of deal... It might be their cup of tea, it might not.

I believe when people think of Simon Pegg and are aware of Spaced, they think of a man who respects and enjoys various genres and loves movies and TV shows. They see a man enjoying and giving back to the audience his love of it all.

While he is different, there is Tarantino, Smith, and a ton of other actor/writer/directors who give back because of their love of film. Many of whom get trashed for one reason or another.

I guess what I just want to say is, enjoy it. Sure there might be better zombie films out there for you, but isn't it nice that different people actually care enought about that genre, to want to give back the enjoyment?

If you think people aren't as well informed about the zombie genre, rather than think them ignorant (Not saying you said this), point out a few films they might not be aware of. It wouldn't hurt.

Special Agent Bachman
03-27-2007, 09:55 PM
Fair enough.

You just came across as particularly harsh, concering Simon Pegg, when I didn't think there was need to be.

I think it would be better to focus on the movie as a whole rather than just the actor. Anyone can state that another person would be more suitable in a role than another actor. I think that is more due to personal choice.

He might not be a genius in your eyes, and that's fine, but the thing that stands out to me is, he is a man who wants to have fun doing TV shows and movies he enjoys. That's all that really matters to me. I never called him a genius, but I enjoy his comedic timing and ideas. What's wrong with just having fun doing something you enjoy? And watching someone do something they enjoy? I LOVE knowing that the creators and actors get into their films and have a good time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are irritated by everyone who never saw Dead-Alive, but will proclaim that Shaun of the Dead is the best zombie comedy ever made. Shaun was more of a "for mass audience appeal" kind of movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. If that irritates you so much, just recommend Dead Alive to the people. "Hey, if you liked that, you might like this" kind of deal... It might be their cup of tea, it might not.

I believe when people think of Simon Pegg and are aware of Spaced, they think of a man who respects and enjoys various genres and loves movies and TV shows. They see a man enjoying and giving back to the audience his love of it all.

While he is different, there is Tarantino, Smith, and a ton of other actor/writer/directors who give back because of their love of film. Many of whom get trashed for one reason or another.

I guess what I just want to say is, enjoy it. Sure there might be better zombie films out there for you, but isn't it nice that different people actually care enought about that genre, to want to give back the enjoyment?

If you think people aren't as well informed about the zombie genre, rather than think them ignorant (Not saying you said this), point out a few films they might not be aware of. It wouldn't hurt.

This is a very thoughtful and well-worded post and I agree with 95% of the things you said in it. I like you.

Drkemerld73
03-27-2007, 10:02 PM
This is a very thoughtful and well-worded post and I agree with 95% of the things you said in it. I like you.

Thank you.

I really do try and put some thought into my posts and back it up. It doesn't do any good if you can't explain your POV to another person and expect them to "Get it", then proceed to slam them if you haven't done your part to communicate clearly. :)

I'm always willing to get another perspective even if, at the end, we agree to disagree and respect one another.

I have to ask...

What is the 5% that you don't agree with?

*laughs*

Bill!
03-27-2007, 11:59 PM
Dead Alive and Shaun of the Dead are both hilarious and wonderful movies. They are both laugh out loud funny but for very different reasons. I'd hesitate to compare the two because they are so different. But I guess for a straight zombie comedy, Shaun of the Dead was better because it tackles it more directly.

The Hodag
03-28-2007, 01:46 AM
If it hasn't been dead, or in Voodoo, apparently dead, then it isn't a zombie.

Thinking about it a bit, I've come to two realizations. First, it's true that by most definitions of the word "zombie", the creatures in 28 Days Later don't qualify.

However!

Paradoxically, 28 Days Later IS a zombie movie. It passes the duck test. You know, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." And, indeed, it follows all the tropes of the increasingly codified zombie movie:


*Small band of survivors
*End of the world scenario
*Story has minimal concern with the cause of the scenario
*Antagonists were once regular people, even still look like regular people, but are driven now only by primal hunting instincts
*Heroes struggle over whether there's any reason to survive
*Darker, fascistic elements arise among some survivors

So that's where I come down. No zombies in it. Still a zombie movie. ;-)


BTW, I loved 28 Days Later and I hope that 28 Weeks Later is a worthy sequel and not just a cash run to create a shitty franchise.

Fanboy debates aside, it's the one thing we all seem to agree on. Rockin' movie, whatever you call it.

Doug
03-28-2007, 05:15 AM
Thinking about it a bit, I've come to two realizations. First, it's true that by most definitions of the word "zombie", the creatures in 28 Days Later don't qualify.

However!

Paradoxically, 28 Days Later IS a zombie movie. It passes the duck test. You know, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." And, indeed, it follows all the tropes of the increasingly codified zombie movie:


*Small band of survivors
*End of the world scenario
*Story has minimal concern with the cause of the scenario
*Antagonists were once regular people, even still look like regular people, but are driven now only by primal hunting instincts
*Heroes struggle over whether there's any reason to survive
*Darker, fascistic elements arise among some survivors

So that's where I come down. No zombies in it. Still a zombie movie. ;-)


Yes. I agree 100%. It has all the trapings of a zombie movie, it's just that the infected aren't actual zombies.

Ethan Van Sciver
03-28-2007, 05:29 AM
Apparently you need to watch the movie again. They ate no one. They just beat them to death, hence the virus being called "rage". The only time the "infected" died, was when they starved to death. That doesn't sound like a zombie to me. The virus only killed them because it made them obsessed with killing people, and not letting them find time to eat. It was basically like a super rabies.

The zombies bite, and the bite infects, making more zombies. 28 Days Later was a zombie movie.

BURKE
03-28-2007, 04:31 PM
Sooooo, if there were a porn movie were a person with a strange STD starts biting people, and the people then get the STD as well. It is also the end of the world and there are only a few none infected left, would that be a zombie movie?...........................NO.

Roman Noodles
03-28-2007, 05:09 PM
They made a sequel? SWEET!!!!

Special Agent Bachman
03-28-2007, 05:15 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are irritated by everyone who never saw Dead-Alive, but will proclaim that Shaun of the Dead is the best zombie comedy ever made.

This is the 5% that I disagree with, but it may be more like 10%, whatever.

Haborym
03-28-2007, 05:25 PM
Sooooo, if there were a porn movie were a person with a strange STD starts biting people, and the people then get the STD as well. It is also the end of the world and there are only a few none infected left, would that be a zombie movie?...........................NO.

Have you ever seen David Cronenberg's Rabid? If you haven't, coincidentally that's almost the exact plot.

Mark Mavro (kryptic6)
03-28-2007, 05:25 PM
Does anyone have the song, Shrinking Universe by Muse that plays in the trailer? I'm dying to hear the song in its entirety.

BURKE
03-28-2007, 05:32 PM
Oh my holy fucking christ, i have to see this Rabid movie ASAP.

Drkemerld73
03-28-2007, 05:39 PM
This is the 5% that I disagree with, but it may be more like 10%, whatever.

That's fine. :)

It wasn't by any means a shot at you, just so you know.

That was just a generalization about the feeling I got from your post. That's why I asked for a correction so I clearly understood what you were thinking. I wasn't sure what complaints you had, so I tried to cover everything I could think of. I don't want to make any false assumptions.

Thanks. :)

Keith P.
03-28-2007, 06:34 PM
Have you ever seen David Cronenberg's Rabid? If you haven't, coincidentally that's almost the exact plot.

Actually, its more like Cronenberg's Shivers. Rabid fits more the vampire genre, and Shivers is more of a zombie movie.

Haborym
03-28-2007, 06:51 PM
Actually, its more like Cronenberg's Shivers. Rabid fits more the vampire genre, and Shivers is more of a zombie movie.

Yeah, damn, got my Cronenberg movies mixed up. Rabid has Marilyn Chambers, the penis with fangs comes out of the vagina in her armpit and drinks the blood of her victims, who in turn become bloodthirsty. It has an end of the world conclusion, if I'm remembering correctly.

Shivers is set in an apartment or something, and it has the sexually transmitted parasite thingamawhatzit.