New-age Zombies

Valmont

In the past I have been very cynical towards new-age speedy zombies (28 days later excluded) as I felt that it was taking the lazy super-action Hollywood style of direction rather than a suspenseful traditional zombie movie e.g. 1979 Dawn of the Dead.

However, watching Zombieland the other day changed this for me. I've never been any good at breaking movies down and reviewing them but this movie was an absolute gem compared to the other zombie movies that have been released in the last couple of years. Apart from being absolutely hilarious, action packed and having a great soundtrack, there were a couple of surprises in there that I will not forget for a long time. I was just glad to see speedy new-age zombies put to use in a creative and original manner as opposed to the rush rush bite bite style I am so tired of.

Suffice to say, I have put my differences aside and welcome my new-age zombie tormentors especially now that Zombieland has shown the potential of such a premise.

PS. messy post, I'm in a rush.

krudler

If anything zombie movies have gotten better, the remake of Dawn of the Dead was great, the original one, while its message is still relevant has aged HORRIBLY, 28 Days was ok until it got to the part where they meet the soldiers and it all falls apart, 28 Weeks was great, I prefered it to the first aside from the idea of a zombie stalker character, [REC] is brilliant, Zombieland I cant wait for, and Shawn of the Dead injected some decent humour and self parody into the genre

Otis Driftwood

krudler wrote: »

If anything zombie movies have gotten better

:eek:

Cant agree with you on that one.The remake of Dawn (IMO) is a ludicrously over-rated piece of CGI heavy crap made for the youtube generation.
28 days and weeks,while both very enjoyable arent zombie movies in the purest sense of the genre,neither is [REC].
In the 28 days/weeks movies and [REC] the "zombies" are still living and breathing creatures driven insane by some type of virus so there is no glaring holes with their ability to run.
Zombies in the traditional sense (Night,Dawn,Day of the Dead,Zombie Flesh Eaters,White Zombie etc) are re-animated dead flesh that are in various states of decomposition and suffereing from rigor mortis,hence their inability to move in any way other than shambling/shuffling along which is why I hate the Dawn remake.
Something that is dead shouldnt be able to do a 100 metre dash in 10 seconds,ya know.

Anyway,on topic,havnt seen Zombieland but want to check it out as it looks like a laugh but running zombies in it,hmmmm,I dunno.

Galvasean

I much prefer the ambling slow zombies (however I don't mind when they have a short burst of stumbling speed over a short distance) to the type who can chase down a person at full flight, which as nedtheshed stated is a bit weird for sometjing which is dead.
I feel there is a greater sense of dread with slow zombies, a creeping fear as they close in for the kill. It gives the victims more time to realise and contemplate their inevitable doom.

Funny this thread arrived, as I myself will soon be working on a new zombie film called Porrait Of A Zombie (which you can follow on Facebook, Twitter, Myspace and Bebo). Portraiotofazombie.com will also be live soon.
It probably should be considered 'new age' as it blends multiple generes. It's a very interesting project which I'm excited about (boards.ie film forum users will get frequent sneak peeks because I love you all).

Valmont

nedtheshed wrote: »

Anyway,on topic,havnt seen Zombieland but want to check it out as it looks like a laugh but running zombies in it,hmmmm,I dunno.

Some good points there ned. I felt the exact same way about Zombieland but I promise that you will be pleasantly surprised as there was no greater new-age zombie skeptic as myself. New-age zombies aside, it contains some great rules for how to conduct your affairs in a post-apocalyptic world. That and Woody Harrellson absolutely steals the show.

Galvasean, I'm looking forward to seeing your zombie project. There was another Irish made short zombie film a year back or so, I think it was called "detained".

Galvasean

Who said Portrait was going to be a short? :P

Valmont

krudler wrote: »

If anything zombie movies have gotten better

Goodness, absolutely not. The Dawn of the Dead remake, while enjoyable for all the wrong reasons was more of a hindrance to the genre as it showed producers that some extras dressed up in zombie make-up running around really fast would satisfy viewers. Romero's recent attempts have all been terrible with Diary of the Dead, while still crap, was a step in the right direction.

I always thought that the original Dawn of the Dead aged very well what with the satirical sketch of a consumerist America, which is more relevant than ever these days.

indough

Galvasean wrote: »

I much prefer the ambling slow zombies (however I don't mind when they have a short burst of stumbling speed over a short distance) to the type who can chase down a person at full flight, which as nedtheshed stated is a bit weird for sometjing which is dead

you kinda have to suspend the old disbelief at the first bit of movement from a corpse, i dont think the speed they travel at makes as much of a difference really

Galvasean

indough wrote: »

you kinda have to suspend the old disbelief at the first bit of movement from a corpse, i dont think the speed they travel at makes as much of a difference really

re: suspension of disbelief. There comes a point when something is pushed that little bit too far (see my post in the 2012 thread) and it just seems bogus. I mean, in a film about zombies I can suspend my disbelief enough to believe (within the constraits of the movie's universe) that a dead body could come back to life and amble around searching for flesh, but when said corpse can sprint at high speed with great balance over long distances it's just a bit too much.

krudler

indough wrote: »

you kinda have to suspend the old disbelief at the first bit of movement from a corpse, i dont think the speed they travel at makes as much of a difference really

I remember someone complaining to me once that the Dawn of the Dead remake zombies werent "realistic" zombies because they ran, i told them to think about what they just said and get back to me

jogoeire

I dont agree. If you can walk you can run. We huuuman just dont run much because were lazy. Zombies aren't lazy. Theyr dead!

Anyone who didnt like the "Dawn of the Dead" remake either isnt a real zombie fan or is mistaking it with one of Romero films which are indeed poo. I hear they are making a DOTD 2. Whupp!

krudler

nedtheshed wrote: »

:eek:

Cant agree with you on that one.The remake of Dawn (IMO) is a ludicrously over-rated piece of CGI heavy crap made for the youtube generation.
28 days and weeks,while both very enjoyable arent zombie movies in the purest sense of the genre,neither is [REC].
In the 28 days/weeks movies and [REC] the "zombies" are still living and breathing creatures driven insane by some type of virus so there is no glaring holes with their ability to run.
Zombies in the traditional sense (Night,Dawn,Day of the Dead,Zombie Flesh Eaters,White Zombie etc) are re-animated dead flesh that are in various states of decomposition and suffereing from rigor mortis,hence their inability to move in any way other than shambling/shuffling along which is why I hate the Dawn remake.
Something that is dead shouldnt be able to do a 100 metre dash in 10 seconds,ya know.

Anyway,on topic,havnt seen Zombieland but want to check it out as it looks like a laugh but running zombies in it,hmmmm,I dunno.

I think they shuffling zombies thing has been done as far as they can go with it, zombies arent threatening because as long as you're mobile you're safe from slow ones, you just have to keep moving, granted numbers will always win but lets be honest, who wouldnt want to be part of a shuffling zombie outbreak, armed to the teeth itd be great fun, running zombies though, **** that. The DOTD remake made zombies scary again

Tusky

nedtheshed wrote: »

:eek:

Cant agree with you on that one.The remake of Dawn (IMO) is a ludicrously over-rated piece of CGI heavy crap made for the youtube generation.

I think you are in the minority there. I rate the remake of Dawn of the Dead highly, as do a lot of other horror fans. I love the original trilogy also of course but thought the remake did a lot of things right.

nedtheshed wrote: »

:re-animated dead flesh that are in various states of decomposition and suffereing from rigor mortis,hence their inability to move in any way other than shambling/shuffling along which is why I hate the Dawn remake.
Something that is dead shouldnt be able to do a 100 metre dash in 10 seconds,ya know.
.

This part is hilarious. You have no problem with the dead coming back to life to eat humans, but you do have a problem with them moving at speed ? You put it forward as if them moving slowly makes sense, but them moving fast is ridiculous.

The speed at which zombies move in films doesnt bother me. If its a good movie, its a good movie - regardless of the speed of the zombies...or infected, or whatever you want to call them.

deathstarkiller

I'm a huge zombie movie fan and I love most of the regular/slow movies. Funny though even though I've seen it maybe 5 times down the years the original Dawn of the Dead has always bored the hell out of me. I seem to give it another chance every few years becuase it has such a following. There are some really good things in it but I find the whole thing too slow (not just the zombies).
I do really love this whole running zombie thing. Thought the Dawn of the Dead remake was excellent. I've read 'The Zombie Survival Guide' and seen so many zombie movies where if you are smart and keep away from places where you can get cornered you can run circles around zombies but if you were to see 20+ zombies running full speed at you, you'd have a much smaller chance of survival. Maybe it's just the action fan in me.
I've also liked how in the past few years everything from werewolves to vampires to zombies can be attributed to an actual communicable disease not some supernatural bullcrap. Afterall for something that have always been explained as supernatural all three of those act very like diseases spread by bite or drinking contaminated blood.
So anyway I'm someone who enjoys both styles of zombie movie.

Valmont

Tusky wrote: »

I think you are in the minority there. I rate the remake of Dawn of the Dead highly, as do a lot of other horror fans.

Exactly, horror fans. To the zombie purists, the whole spiel about traditional zombies not being scary enough doesn't fly, especially since the original movie itself was quite scary and the zombies didn't so much as jog.

Tusky wrote: »

This part is hilarious. You have no problem with the dead coming back to life to eat humans, but you do have a problem with them moving at speed ? You put it forward as if them moving slowly makes sense, but them moving fast is ridiculous.

If you stretch your imagination just enough and go with dead bodies coming back to life because of a horrible virus, it makes sense within this fictional universe that they can't undertake the complicated fine motor brain and muscle movements it takes to actually sprint (and in the DOTD remake, do flips and stuff). If you add to this point the fact that Max Brooks, the author of the seminal and incredibly popular Zombie Survival Guide has pushed the idea of traditional zombies for years now and all of his fans would most likely follow his zombie idea. Watch for World War Z in the next few years, I would be very surprised if the zombies ran in that one.

Tusky wrote: »

If its a good movie, its a good movie - regardless of the speed of the zombies...or infected, or whatever you want to call them.

After Zombieland, I put my prejudices aside as it was just that, a great movie. The tension, suspense and action did not overly rely on speedy zombies. That's why I'm welcoming my new-age zombie tormentors because as long as the movies tap into the mystique of a post-apocalyptic cannibal type future, I'm going to watch it regardless.

jogoeire

krudler wrote: »

who wouldnt want to be part of a shuffling zombie outbreak

AHHHHHH Hahahahahaha. Quote of the YEAR!! Word up. Id get my drop kick on.

Fysh

Galvasean wrote: »

re: suspension of disbelief. There comes a point when something is pushed that little bit too far (see my post in the 2012 thread) and it just seems bogus. I mean, in a film about zombies I can suspend my disbelief enough to believe (within the constraits of the movie's universe) that a dead body could come back to life and amble around searching for flesh, but when said corpse can sprint at high speed with great balance over long distances it's just a bit too much.

TBH given that "traditional zombies" usually involve a craving for human brains in particular or flesh in general, I think the suspension of disbelief required to accept that they're back at all is greater than that required to believe that they've also acquired Linford Christie's sporting abilities.

Aside from which I don't think any of the "fast zombie" films have ever suggested that such zombies could travel at speed indefinitely - given their ability to ignore (or inability to feel) pain I don't see why they couldn't run at speed for short periods, suffering muscle damage as a result and eventually tearing themselves to pieces if they keep going.

jogoeire

Fysh wrote: »

TBH given that "traditional zombies" usually involve a craving for human brains in particular or flesh in general, I think the suspension of disbelief required to accept that they're back at all is greater than that required to believe that they've also acquired Linford Christie's sporting abilities.

Word. And about running, Zombies can perform activities that dont require active thinking by the left brain. We dont think when we are running or eating. There abilities are hardcoded. Now if a zombie started doing a crossword...

Fysh wrote: »

Aside from which I don't think any of the "fast zombie" films have ever suggested that such zombies could travel at speed indefinitely - given their ability to ignore (or inability to feel) pain I don't see why they couldn't run at speed for short periods, suffering muscle damage as a result and eventually tearing themselves to pieces if they keep going.

About zombies ability to run re strength endurance. Re: it is a quality of zombies that they are extremely strong as their brains dont tell their muscles to "take it easy" like ours do (humans are actually much stronger than we seem). However because their fleash is sort of rotted and swolen they have a very sudden breaking point. They are kind of like carbon fibre. Real strong but likely to explode or snap.

About endurance all we need to do is refer to the law of conservation of energy. If they are using more energy than they are taking in then they shouldnt be able to move. But they have fleash on their own bodies to feed off for strength so any zombie sould be able to totter about for a few months before dropping.

Kyri

I love Horror movies, Esp Zombie ones and TBH i don't really mind what the jargon is behind how they became Zombies/Infected.

The reason behind how these people became infected or reincarnated is just part of setting for the story and whether its "They are infected with RAGE" as in 28 Days/Weeks or whether they have risen as "when there is no room left in hell the dead shall walk again" its rather trivial in my opinion when these movies are just about survival.

Don't get me wrong the idea of how these creatures came to be is a nice addition to the setting of a movie but at the end of the day its a horror flick and I'm more looking forward to getting chills and seeing some deadly scenes then about comtimplating how accurate the logic is behind the Outbreak/Decease/Experiment etc was.

At the end of the day the majority of Zombie'esk movies are refered to as such by reviewers more then the movie itself as it's rather rare to see characters in movies descride the things that are after them as Romero's Zombies. I just take them for what they are icky MOFO's that are trying to eat someone's ass so let the director take me anywhere he/she wants with the story from there.

Shawn of the Dead I thought was hilarious and I am soo excited to see this new Zom Com as its been too long for another good one. Fingers crossed World War Z won't take too long either and that Carriers, Dead Girl and the 20 other Zombie'esk movies il be worth watching to.

0ubliette

nedtheshed wrote: »

:eek:

Cant agree with you on that one.The remake of Dawn (IMO) is a ludicrously over-rated piece of CGI heavy crap made for the youtube generation.
28 days and weeks,while both very enjoyable arent zombie movies in the purest sense of the genre,neither is [REC].
In the 28 days/weeks movies and [REC] the "zombies" are still living and breathing creatures driven insane by some type of virus so there is no glaring holes with their ability to run.
Zombies in the traditional sense (Night,Dawn,Day of the Dead,Zombie Flesh Eaters,White Zombie etc) are re-animated dead flesh that are in various states of decomposition and suffereing from rigor mortis,hence their inability to move in any way other than shambling/shuffling along which is why I hate the Dawn remake.
Something that is dead shouldnt be able to do a 100 metre dash in 10 seconds,ya know.

Anyway,on topic,havnt seen Zombieland but want to check it out as it looks like a laugh but running zombies in it,hmmmm,I dunno.

Dawn remake was excellent, and actually features very little CGI. If youd seen the making of youd see that it was almost all prosthetics.
I saw 28 weeks last night and wasnt impressed. The original was tense and scary at times, 28 weeks was more of a hollywood style bang bang explosion film, and robert carlisles zombie stalking his family was just stupid and made no sense at all.

Edit

Also, running zombies arent a new thing. The first film ive ever seen them in was return of the living dead from 1985, i think. It had running zombies and thinking zombies..."send more paramedics!"

uncleoswald

I knew I was going to hate the Dawn remake after 5 minutes when the little zombie girl at the start did a martial arts type jump to her feet after been flat out on her back. I didn't know dying was akin to that bit in the Matrix where Fishbourne downloads skills into Keanu's brain.

0ubliette

uncleoswald wrote: »

I knew I was going to hate the Dawn remake after 5 minutes when the little zombie girl at the start did a martial arts type jump to her feet after been flat out on her back. I didn't know dying was akin to that bit in the Matrix where Fishbourne downloads skills into Keanu's brain.

Yeah, cause a zombie that can run is far more unbelieveable than a zombie that can only manage a shuffle.

Suspension of disbelief.

Its a film about the living dead taking over the world, its not a documentary

uncleoswald

0ubliette wrote: »

Yeah, cause a zombie that can run is far more unbelieveable than a zombie that can only manage a shuffle.

Suspension of disbelief.

Its a film about the living dead taking over the world, its not a documentary

I doubt the girl could have performed that move before she died so why could she do it now she is a zombie? If she suddenly could perform brain surgery you wouldn't go "hang on a minute?" Suspension of disbelief shattered.

Personally I don't have a problem with running zombies, particularly if the distinction is made that they are more "infected." One of the best zombie scenes of all time is the opening in 28 Weeks Later and it wasn't the zombies fault that the rest of the movie was sh*t.

(Did anyone else feel sorry for Robert Carlyle? So he was supposed to sacrifice his own life because his wife made a stupid decision?)

Also if the budget is tight and you can't afford a horde of shuffling zombies then running zombies are a good alternative, like in Dead Set.

Fysh

uncleoswald wrote: »

I doubt the girl could have performed that move before she died so why could she do it now she is a zombie? If she suddenly could perform brain surgery you wouldn't go "hang on a minute?" Suspension of disbelief shattered.

Jumps & movements such as the one you describe can be learned as a muscle-memory action where you don't consciously think about what you're doing in any detail (similar to walking or breathing). Brain-surgery, on the other, is not learned in such a manner. The two can't be compared.

I can sort of get the gripes about "unrealistic zombies", but tbh outside of I Am Legend I've never seen or read a story in which the functions of the monsters are examined in any great depth. That's a hard sci-fi approach which frankly wouldn't be easily compatible with most zombie movies. (Hell, I'd argue hard sci-fi only really works in prose, but that might just be me).

Valmont

Ok, people need to stop exclaiming that it is ridiculous to say that sprinting zombies are unrealistic when one already accepts the equally ridiculous premise of shuffling zombies. You are mixing up the issue entirely. We have already suspended our disbelief and are watching and conversing about zombies. For most people, zombies are traditionally slow.

The evolution of the zombie genre is unrealistic only in relation to what has come before in terms of the classical zombie movies and even relating to Max Brooks' seminal works, The Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z. So don't patronise us and wrongly assume that we mean unrealistic in terms of the actual real world when we clearly mean unrealistic in terms of the zombie world. Make sense?

Real world -> Fictional traditional zombie world -> Fictional speedy zombie world.

The third point is unrealistic with respect to the second one, not the first as many here are mistakenly assuming. I can't believe I have to explain this, it's fairly obvious.

edit: A good analogy is the unrealistic vampires in the Twilight series. Unrealistic (in terms of the well-established vampire concept) because vampires have always been unable to walk about in daylight.

Galvasean

jogoeire wrote: »

I dont agree. If you can walk you can run. We huuuman just dont run much because were lazy. Zombies aren't lazy. Theyr dead!

The effects of rigamortis would prevent a zombie from running. In fact, they prevent them from walking properly, hence their ambling shuffle.

jogoeire wrote: »

Anyone who didnt like the "Dawn of the Dead" remake either isnt a real zombie fan or is mistaking it with one of Romero films which are indeed poo. I hear they are making a DOTD 2. Whupp!

Weird statement. Considering zombies by their very definition arent supposed to be able to run, it's not a true zombie film. This doesn't mean it can't be a good film, just not a good zombie film. One thing which does make teh film ridiculous for me is

the way the 'zombies' for some reason don't eat dogs

. That just made no sense at all and was an awkwardly jammed in plot device.

krudler wrote: »

I think they shuffling zombies thing has been done as far as they can go with it, zombies arent threatening because as long as you're mobile you're safe from slow ones, you just have to keep moving, granted numbers will always win but lets be honest, who wouldnt want to be part of a shuffling zombie outbreak, armed to the teeth itd be great fun,

Problem. When the proverbial really hits the fan there wil be more zombies than bullets (particularly in places like Ireland). Sure you're more mobile, but as Max L. Brooks stated it will be like the tortoise and the hare, only in this case the tortoise eats the hare! :eek:

Krudler wrote:

running zombies though, **** that. The DOTD remake made zombies scary again

Perhaps for the popcorn movie generation (that said I thought the opening scene in 28 Weeks Later was damn well frightening!). Running 'zombies' may give us the relatively cheap thrill of "Oh crap, here they come!", but why do we need running 'zombies' for that when there are about a million other monsters that fit the fast and scary bill.
I think people have become so used to the 'being chased at high speeds = scary' line of thinking, that they have lost sight of of other types of horror, ie: the slow burning, more psychological sense of dread that can only be associated with a creeping impending doom.

Fysh wrote: »

Aside from which I don't think any of the "fast zombie" films have ever suggested that such zombies could travel at speed indefinitely - given their ability to ignore (or inability to feel) pain I don't see why they couldn't run at speed for short periods, suffering muscle damage as a result and eventually tearing themselves to pieces if they keep going.

What is interesting is that 'fast zombies' generally seem to die off after a few weeks without food, whereas traditional slow ones seem to last indefinately. So while the fast ones can inflict more terror over a short period of time, the slow ones pose a much greater threat in the long run.
If you hunker down in your fort (complete with food and water etc.) for a few weeks the fast ones will die off, but the slow ones will hang around until your provisions have ran out.
Perhaps we need a film with both? :pac:

Galvasean

Valmont wrote: »

Ok, people need to stop exclaiming that it is ridiculous to say that sprinting zombies are unrealistic when one already accepts the equally ridiculous premise of shuffling zombies. You are mixing up the issue entirely. We have already suspended our disbelief and are watching and conversing about zombies. For most people, zombies are traditionally slow.

The evolution of the zombie genre is unrealistic only in relation to what has come before in terms of the classical zombie movies and even relating to Max Brooks' seminal works, The Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z. So don't patronise us and wrongly assume that we mean unrealistic in terms of the actual real world when we clearly mean unrealistic in terms of the zombie world. Make sense?

Real world -> Fictional traditional zombie world -> Fictional speedy zombie world.

The third point is unrealistic with respect to the second one, not the first as many here are mistakenly assuming. I can't believe I have to explain this, it's fairly obvious.

Well said. I said this earlier on thread (albeit not so elequently put), but it seems to have fallen on mostly deaf ears.

Valmont wrote:

edit: A good analogy is the unrealistic vampires in the Twilight series. Unrealistic (in terms of the well-established vampire concept) because vampires have always been unable to walk about in daylight.

Not the best analogy TBH, considering in the original Dracula novel they could.

Fysh

Valmont wrote: »

Ok, people need to stop exclaiming that it is ridiculous to say that sprinting zombies are unrealistic when one already accepts the equally ridiculous premise of shuffling zombies. You are mixing up the issue entirely. We have already suspended our disbelief and are watching and conversing about zombies. For most people, zombies are traditionally slow.

I disagree. For people whose concept of zombies was defined entirely by the Romero zombie films and those that mimic them, that may be the case. But that's not everyone - it's not even necessarily a majority. Hell, there will be a generation whose idea of zombie movies has been formed by the likes of 28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead 2004, 28 Weeks Later, I Am Legend, and Dead Set for whom fast zombies are the norm.

Valmont wrote: »

The evolution of the zombie genre is unrealistic only in relation to what has come before in terms of the classical zombie movies and even relating to Max Brooks' seminal works, The Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z. So don't patronise us and wrongly assume that we mean unrealistic in terms of the actual real world when we clearly mean unrealistic in terms of the zombie world. Make sense?

Oh, give over. It's one thing to say that you don't like fast zombies, but the general context of those who dislike films with fast zombies is that they're inherently inferior because they don't conform to the rules established by Romero.

Zombies are like werewolves, vampires, the Frankenstein monster or any other creature in a horror movie - a representation of some sort of fear that allows the film to explore whatever theme has been chosen. Slow zombies allow the exploration of "reds under the bed" type themes, as well as the effects on humanity of prolonged exposure to siege-type situations. Fast zombies allow for more visceral encounters and themes of what happens when a species used to dominating its environment and being the top of the food chain suddenly finds itself confronted with a widespread and lethal predator.

If you don't like it, fair enough. I dislike this notion that fast zombies are somehow a filmographic aberration that should be annihilated just because they share some characteristics with the Romero school of zombies but not all of them.

indough

Valmont wrote: »

For most people, zombies are traditionally slow.

if that were the case this conversation would not even be happening

Galvasean wrote: »

The effects of rigamortis would prevent a zombie from running. In fact, they prevent them from walking properly, hence their ambling shuffle.

the effects (and cause) of rigamortis would prevent a zombie from moving at all

i dont see how you can attempt to apply rules to a completely fictional phenomenon

zombie elitism?

Galvasean

indough wrote: »

the effects (and cause) of rigamortis would prevent a zombie from moving at all

i dont see how you can attempt to apply rules to a completely fictional phenomenon

zombie elitism?

As has been stated numerous times in this thread (yet you persist in ignoring it) in the realms of a film about zombies we can suspend our disbelief to a point. If in the universe of the film a corpse became reanimated (for whatever reason) it should logically amble around quite slowly and awkwardly. Anything more like sprinting, leaping, backflipping, swimming (House of the Dead) pushes said suspension of disbelief that little bit too far where people like me say, "Now hang on a minute..."

Kind of like Die Hard 4, in the realms of a cheesey action movie I can let most things slide, like John McClaine killing hordes of bad guys etc., but when he took out that jet fire (and the manner in which he did) I couldn't help feeling a bit 'WTF'.
Weird things like that, which make you stop to think, "Now how did they do that?" take you out of the film and thereby reduce or enjoyment of them. It would be like if in Jurassic Park the T.rex started breathing fire you'd probably think they've taken it a step too far.

Galvasean

Oh and can I just say for the record, there is no 'right' way of doing zombies (even though I'm clearly in favour of teh slow ones). It's all down to personal preference.

Great debate all the same.

Kess73

Fysh wrote: »

I disagree. For people whose concept of zombies was defined entirely by the Romero zombie films and those that mimic them, that may be the case. But that's not everyone - it's not even necessarily a majority. Hell, there will be a generation whose idea of zombie movies has been formed by the likes of 28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead 2004, 28 Weeks Later, I Am Legend, and Dead Set for whom fast zombies are the norm.

Why do people keep calling what is in the films in bold zombies?

The I Am Legend beasties are mutated humans. They have not reanimated and are not the undead. In the book of the same name they are a take on vampires, but in the Will Smith film they are still alive and just mutated. Not zombies, so their pace and strength are part of their mutation, as explained in the film.


In the 28 Days/Weeks films, the people are infected not dead. The rage virus has shut down parts of their brains and sends them into a frenzy when they see an uninfected human. They also have their adrenal glands working at a heightened pace according to both the extras on the blu ray and the graphic novel. So again they can run fast because they are not zombies and are still alive.


In the zombie forum on boards there has been many discussions of fast and slow zombies, and while most favour the shufflers, there has been many good arguements put forward as to why a zombie could still maintain speed for a short period after it's initial death.

Those with a zombie interest should mosey on over to the forum and dive right in.

Fysh

Kess73 wrote: »

Why do people keep calling what is in the films in bold zombies?

Probably because zombies, being an entirely fictional notion, are open to interpretation. I know full well that the creatures in I Am Legend aren't "proper" zombies as per the Romero interpretation; I also know that quite a lot of people probably don't care anywhere as deeply about the subject as some posters on this thread.

IMO, the interesting thing about zombies isn't that they are specifically dead bodies reanimated and imbued with a craving for human flesh or brain matter; it is the exploration of themes like social cohesion, survivalism, and how we react to environmental upheaval that is enabled through zombies as a plot element that's interesting. Hence my comparative lack of concern as to whether they shuffle, run, skip or levitate.

In a story like the I Am Legend novel where a huge chunk of the plot revolves around understanding the biological mechanisms underpinning the creatures, then yes, internal consistency is expected because that's a focal point of the story. In a story like Night Of The Living Dead where an unspecified cause brings the dead back to life, it's irrelevant - knowing how the dead have come back to life is going to make precious little difference to the people boarding up the house and hoping like hell that they can keep the zombies at bay.

It comes down to a "mileage may vary" thing, I guess - but for me at least, the specifics of the zombie just aren't that important, and neither is the notion of a rigid definition of the term "zombie".

Tusky

I think its fair enough to call the creatures in 28 days later zombies, but definitely not ok for the mutants in I am Legend. They shouldnt even be mutants...they should have been vampires.

Blah...CGI mutants. Thinking about that film makes me angry.

Fysh

Tusky wrote: »

I think its fair enough to call the creatures in 28 days later zombies, but definitely not ok for the mutants in I am Legend. They shouldnt even be mutants...they should have been vampires.

Blah...CGI mutants. Thinking about that film makes me angry.

Agreed, it was a woeful piece of rubbish compared to the book it was based on.

To clarify, I mentioned I Am Legend in my earlier post not because I think they are a good example of "modern zombies" but because I can imagine a younger viewer seeing those films without the context of older zombie films and assuming that the creatures from I Am Legend fall into the same broad category as the rest of the films.

Necronomicon

Fysh wrote: »

IMO, the interesting thing about zombies isn't that they are specifically dead bodies reanimated and imbued with a craving for human flesh or brain matter; it is the exploration of themes like social cohesion, survivalism, and how we react to environmental upheaval that is enabled through zombies as a plot element that's interesting. Hence my comparative lack of concern as to whether they shuffle, run, skip or levitate.

Very well said. In the same regard I'd call Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 the best zombie film around that doesn't actually have zombies in it.

This might sound like nothing more than sitting on the fence, but there's room in my collection for both. It's not a debate I'd get really into because for me there are much more important considerations, like how the film creates tension, or if it manages to make me give a crap that X character is having his face chomped on. I love the Romero films and the unmistakeable oldschool feeling of the zombies, but at the same time I applaud the likes of [Rec] for creating an entirely different slant (trying to make the outbreak logical

by making it a rare strand of rabies rather than having actual living dead).

Karl Hungus

Necronomicon wrote: »

but at the same time I applaud the likes of [Rec] for creating an entirely different slant (trying to make the outbreak logical

by making it a rare strand of rabies rather than having actual living dead).

Wasn't it a demon possession that became viral?

Kess73

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Wasn't it a demon possession that became viral?

Yep

Necronomicon

Hmm, I'm scratching my head a little here. Thinking about it more I do remember the

discovery of the tape in the attic that talked about an exorcism

but I have a memory of the outbreak being described as

rabies

. Maybe they were just drawing similarities. Must watch it again, been a while.

Kyri

In [Rec] I think the

Rabies thing came from the vet which was acting as the doc trying to help his bitten Neighbours - he was saying their symptoms where like Rabies in Animals and how he had never seen it like that in people.

In Quarantine the US Version it was more drumed in though as

I think the Bio Haz guys said it was that to when they came in to test the people

, But in both you def see all the

paranormal stuff once they go into the room on the top floor which is to explain it all

.

Btw this thread is very good reading

Anyone fancy talking about Zombieland again though :P

Is it already out or is it this thursday does anyone know can't find it on UCI.ie or Dundrum movies with a date.

Eirebear

I just hope to god when there is a Zombie outbreak, theyre shufflers and not runners.

Ive spent all my life preparing for shufflers....if theyre quick im screwed. :eek:

uncleoswald

Fysh wrote: »

IMO, the interesting thing about zombies isn't that they are specifically dead bodies reanimated and imbued with a craving for human flesh or brain matter; it is the exploration of themes like social cohesion, survivalism, and how we react to environmental upheaval that is enabled through zombies as a plot element that's interesting. Hence my comparative lack of concern as to whether they shuffle, run, skip or levitate.

Well put, Zombies are just a sub-genre of apocalyptic fiction. I'd make it even simpler and put the main appeal down to the predominately male fantasy of abandonment of responsibilities.

I don't think the modern type fast zombies are responsible for bad zombie movies but I think they are a result of boardroom film-makers thinking that we need faster paced "kick-ass" action as opposed to an oppressive build up of tension. And I think the inevitable slow pace that slower zombies bring to a film leaves far more time to explore the themes you mention. Also I'd miss the joy of picking off the slow zombies with a sniper rifle...

Originally Posted by Necronomicon
Very well said. In the same regard I'd call Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 the best zombie film around that doesn't actually have zombies in it.

Great movie, even better soundtrack. Similarly, more then I Am Legend, the novel Day of the Triffides is the grand daddy of zombie horror in my opinion even though it has flesh eating plants not zombies. Watching the opening of 28 Days Later I really did expect the caption "based on the novel by John Wyndham" to flash up.

Eirebear

uncleoswald wrote: »

.
Great movie, even better soundtrack. Similarly, more then I Am Legend, the novel Day of the Triffides is the grand daddy of zombie horror in my opinion even though it has flesh eating plants not zombies. Watching the opening of 28 Days Later I really did expect the caption "based on the novel by John Wyndham" to flash up.

Alex Garland and Danny Boyle make no bones as to how much Day of The Triffids influenced them when making 28 Days Later

ScumLord

Galvasean wrote: »

Oh and can I just say for the record, there is no 'right' way of doing zombies (even though I'm clearly in favour of teh slow ones). It's all down to personal preference.

As far as I'm concerned Zombies are pretty clear cut and have been for a while. Their the living dead, it's a virus of some kind, munch on people, slow, not quite the full shilling. That's a zombie. Most of the other things don't met any of those criteria. It's like saying "it's a classic vampire film where the vampires turn into werewolves when you say their names in front of a mirror 5 times and the only way to kill them is to drop a house on their head."

28 days later and the rest are putting a new spin on the genre but what they end up with are separate entities in their own right where the easiest way to sell it to the public is to call them running zombies.

I'm such a zombie purist at this stage in my dementia that I've yet to be satisfied by any zombie film.

MikeC101

ScumLord wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned Zombies are pretty clear cut and have been for a while. Their the living dead, it's a virus of some kind, munch on people, slow, not quite the full shilling. That's a zombie.

The book Zombie CSU: Forensics of the Living Dead states that Romero zombies aren't caused by viral infection, at least not through bites. The author points to the fact that everyone who dies, unless it's from brain trauma, reanimates as a zombie, and that it's just that zombie bites are always fatal.

I'm not sure that's 100% correct though - anyone know more?

I'd always thought the initial cause of Romero zombies were open to interpretation - radiation is speculated in one, and the possibility it's a virus in another.

The remake of Dawn of the Dead though seems to make it clear it is viral, and spread by bites or scratches, and there's less of a delay in the person turning into a zombie after death, hence the lack of rigor mortis, perhaps?

Galvasean

On the back of my Night of the living Dead DVD it says the dead were brought back to life by radiation from a satelite or something like that. I'm pretty sure the only way a living person gets infected in a Romero movie is if they get away with a bite or two. Often the zombies don't leave enough to actually reanimate.
It's been a while since I've watched one so this may not be 100% accurate.

ScumLord wrote:

As far as I'm concerned Zombies are pretty clear cut and have been for a while. Their the living dead, it's a virus of some kind, munch on people, slow, not quite the full shilling. That's a zombie. Most of the other things don't met any of those criteria. It's like saying "it's a classic vampire film where the vampires turn into werewolves when you say their names in front of a mirror 5 times and the only way to kill them is to drop a house on their head."

28 days later and the rest are putting a new spin on the genre but what they end up with are separate entities in their own right where the easiest way to sell it to the public is to call them running zombies.

That's actually a very valid point. Much like the way a lot of people won't accept the 'vampires' from Twighlight as being such, because vampires on't glow in the daylight.

krudler

MikeC101 wrote: »

The book Zombie CSU: Forensics of the Living Dead states that Romero zombies aren't caused by viral infection, at least not through bites. The author points to the fact that everyone who dies, unless it's from brain trauma, reanimates as a zombie, and that it's just that zombie bites are always fatal.

I'm not sure that's 100% correct though - anyone know more?

I do have to laugh at this, as if that book is a definitive scientific study of zombies, they dont exist! Anyone could write a book about zombies and make it sound plausible they're imaginary, like the easter bunny or jesus

MikeC101

Galvasean wrote: »

On the back of my Night of the living Dead DVD it says the dead were brought back to life by radiation from a satelite or something like that. I'm pretty sure the only way a living person gets infected in a Romero movie is if they get away with a bite or two. Often the zombies don't leave enough to actually reanimate.
It's been a while since I've watched one so this may not be 100% accurate

I remember in Night of the Living Dead, one of the scientists speculates that it's radiation - but that's not confirmed. Also, I think the brother from the beginning falls and whacks his head and dies while fighting off a zombie - I don't think he's bitten (could be wrong) and he later appears as a zombie. Plus the father of the family (Harry?) is shot and falls into the cellar, where he dies. He comes back as a zombie too. Though the zombie kid did feed on him, but he was already dead at this point. Also, the kid kills the mother with a trowl, and the mother reanimates, I don't think she was bitten either.

It's possible, maybe quite likely, that Romero didn't have everything neatly worked out for Night of course, and expanded and improved in the following movies.

Though I think a zombie movie is as more about the overall setting and post apocalyptic scenario, and where the director goes with the metaphor, much more so than about whether zombies should be able to run or not.

MikeC101

krudler wrote: »

I do have to laugh at this, as if that book is a definitive scientific study of zombies, they dont exist! Anyone could write a book about zombies and make it sound plausible they're imaginary, like the easter bunny or jesus

:rolleyes: FFS..

You may have missed the point where I referred to "Romero" zombies. As in, zombies as presented in George Romero movies, using the rules present in said movies.

And I was asking if the author was correct, with regards to Romero movies, if that was how it worked.

Show me where I said it was a definitive scientific study - it's just the name of the book, hence my using it when referring to, you know, the book.

Valmont

Fysh wrote: »

Oh, give over. It's one thing to say that you don't like fast zombies, but the general context of those who dislike films with fast zombies is that they're inherently inferior because they don't conform to the rules established by Romero.


If you don't like it, fair enough. I dislike this notion that fast zombies are somehow a filmographic aberration that should be annihilated just because they share some characteristics with the Romero school of zombies but not all of them.

Did you read the very first original post I made? I said that after watching Zombieland, I put my prejudice aside and now I welcome new-age zombies as this new film has shown me that new-age zombies can make a great film. I didn't like the remake of Dawn of the Dead and this coloured my perception of running zombies but no longer. However I still love the slow, menacing dread that is exclusive to traditional zombies.

It isn't just the Romero school, it's the Max Brooks' school too, and in this day and age, Brooks' holds more sway.

Personally, I enjoy the zombie genre because I enjoy thinking about what I would do in a post-apocalyptic survival situation with shambling hordes of dead milling about. If I introduce speedy athletic zombies, it changes the entire scenario as to be almost impossible to survive and to be honest, it spoils my fun a little bit. However, I'm hopeful that Zombieland will set a precedent and encourage film makers not to resort to new-age zombies simply for the bang-bang action factor but to use them as an ingredient in their own original take on the zombie phenomenon, as Zombieland did excellently.