Dead Set: Big Brother + Zombies

mike65 · 30-10-2008 10:33pm

God that would really piss you off, wouldn't it?

Mike

Basq · 30-10-2008 10:35pm

Patrick was the star of tonight's show... so many class lines!

KevIRL · 30-10-2008 10:58pm

basquille wrote: »

Patrick was the star of tonight's show... so many class lines!

Star of the series imo

Basq · 30-10-2008 11:00pm

KevIRL wrote: »

Star of the series imo

Yep, utter class!

Anyone think he's more than a tad reminiscent of Mr Brooker!

mike65 · 30-10-2008 11:03pm

Yep, he the alter ego alright, so we came presume he'll lead everyone apparent safety only to have sent them into a trap and the cast gets eaten.

Mike

pixelburp · 30-10-2008 11:26pm

Enjoying the series so far; as people have said, it feels like a movie with production values to match. Plus, so much gore! Even most zombie movies aren't as grusome as this 'un. Of course, this being the genre that it is, I'm stealing myself for the downer ending.

Unearthly · 31-10-2008 3:38pm

This show has been great craic

Hope they give it a fitting end tonight

Patrick is a legend

MementoMori · 31-10-2008 4:50pm

Really enjoying this

Like a lot of others I would say this would be a lot more watchable all in one chunk - the short episodes dont do it any favours imo

Well spotted on the Patrick as Brooker's alter ego.

I wonder if there would be scope for a proper television series with Zombies in it?

Snake Plisken · 31-10-2008 7:54pm

MementoMori wrote: »

I wonder if there would be scope for a proper television series with Zombies in it?

I was thinking that myself it would make a great series, they could call it "28 Seasons later" or something

Great show I wasn't sure while watching the first half of episode 1 if it was going to be any good, but it has exceeded my expectations.

Mad Zombie Brian was excellent as was Davina

mike65 · 31-10-2008 10:36pm

Patrick had a fine death I must say!

An exellent series/film/call it what you will. It appears to have been a good solid ratings success for E4 so hopefully Brooker will get another chance.

by the way Screen Wipe is back on Nov 18th (I think)

Mike

pixelburp · 31-10-2008 10:40pm

I dunno; I felt the end part was a bit rushed & finished on a damp squib. The status quo fell apart so suddenly it was hard to take it in. Plus

How did they all turn into Zombies when they were being savaged by their attackers? Patrick got torn to pieces by the horde, but the rest were apparently only nibbled!

Unearthly · 31-10-2008 10:40pm

Patrick being eaten is the most bizzare, gory, and funniest thing ive seen in ages

matrim · 31-10-2008 10:43pm

mike65 wrote: »

Patrick had a fine death I must say!

It took decapitation to stop him complaining

I really enjoyed the whole thing. I really liked the end where

everyone dies

Creature · 31-10-2008 11:10pm

Meh not mad about the last episode. Felt the thing fell apart just a bit too quickly. However with the limited half an hour run time I guess it was the best that could be achieved.
Loved the producer's death, even if it was a shameless Day of The Dead copy. I suppose with a character like his, a simple bite followed by zombification wouldn't really have fit. He really was the best part of the whole show both excellently written and acted.

Nimrod's Son · 03-11-2008 1:18pm

The characer of Patrick was the highlight of the show. His ranting and raving at the housemates in the fourth episode while he's

carving up the dead body

was absolutely hysetrical, coupled with his obsevations of "Lovely!" *plop* and "Look at that! What is that?!"

as pulls the innards out the corpse

. Absolutely brillliant and a fitting Captain Rhodes-esque death to boot.

I didn't cop that Patrick was played Andy Nyman (Severance, Death At A Funeral) until near the end of the first episode. Twas good to see him play a complete bastard as opposed to a wimp.

SarahJ · 03-11-2008 3:42pm

I only saw one and a episodes of this, but it was really good. Alas, I read the spoilers there (couldn't help it) but would still watch it again. Maybe it will come out on dvd, anyone know?

Creature · 03-11-2008 3:55pm

SarahJ wrote: »

I only saw one and a episodes of this, but it was really good. Alas, I read the spoilers there (couldn't help it) but would still watch it again. Maybe it will come out on dvd, anyone know?

Yeah, it's out now.

Tony EH · 03-11-2008 4:15pm

I thought this was just ok. The gore effects were pretty decent, but that god-awful "shaky cam" crap made it very difficult to make out what was going on a lot of the time.

i understand why the producers set this in the BB house (cheap pre-built sets and all), but it did feck all for the show and was ultimately a bad idea. It became extremely irritating, extremely quickly.

Also, am I the only one who's getting sick of these super fast zombies? Since Zack Snyder did it in his average Dawn of the Dead title cash in, there have been a few other films who think it's a good idea (Rec etc)...it's not.

It's ridiculous to think that a rotting corpse can have the strength needed to run at sustained speeds for very long periods of time...but aren't able to smash glass or break down flimsy wire fences to get to their victims.

That's just bloody stupid.

Go back to Romero's original rules I say. Zombies are revived corpses and and should be subject to some parameters of reality in order to enhance the suspension of disbelief.

The menace of these Linford Christie zombies is somehow diluted too. The fact that they can do the 100 yard dash doesn't do anything for the genre at all.

2/10

Tony EH · 03-11-2008 4:21pm

billy the squid wrote: »

The real Big Brother 9 was in progress when this was being filmed, so they couldn't use the real house.

The eviction at the start was recorded on a real eviction night as part of that weeks event. an extra treat for the attending eviction crowd if you will.

Oh dear.......That's all the more reason to hate that particular plot device. Fücking lame.

They could have just set it in a TV studio then.

The Big Brother angle was bloody awful.

Nimrod's Son · 03-11-2008 4:48pm

Tony EH wrote: »

I thought this was just ok. The gore effects were pretty decent, but that god-awful "shaky cam" crap made it very difficult to make out what was going on a lot of the time.

i understand why the producers set this in the BB house (cheap pre-built sets and all), but it did feck all for the show and was ultimately a bad idea. It became extremely irritating, extremely quickly.

Also, am I the only one who's getting sick of these super fast zombies? Since Zack Snyder did it in his average Dawn of the Dead title cash in, there have been a few other films who think it's a good idea (Rec etc)...it's not.

It's ridiculous to think that a rotting corpse can have the strength needed to run at sustained speeds for very long periods of time...but aren't able to smash glass or break down flimsy wire fences to get to their victims.

That's just bloody stupid.

Go back to Romero's original rules I say. Zombies are revived corpses and and should be subject to some parameters of reality in order to enhance the suspension of disbelief.

The menace of these Linford Christie zombies is somehow diluted too. The fact that they can do the 100 yard dash doesn't do anything for the genre at all.

2/10

You thought it was ok but gave it two out of ten?? Holy hell, I can only imagine what your assessment of a truly awful show would be...

On the fast-zombie debate, you've stated that a rotting corpse, resurrected from the grave, shouldn't be able to sprint and that I agree with. But a victim of a fresh bite would not start to rot for a while so they'd be more than capable of going at a decent speed. And, also, in a lot of zombie films the outbreak is never explained so in those cases it's always possible that a magical/voodoo/witchcraft etc reason is behind reanimation and so a fast-zombie is not beyond the realms of reckoning.

And anyway, there's no set of rules to define a zombie. They only thing they all have in common is flesh-eating.

It'd be interesting to see a mix though: fresh victims starting off as quick zombies but eventually slowing down as they decompose.

Tony EH · 03-11-2008 11:12pm

Nimrod's Son wrote: »

You thought it was ok but gave it two out of ten?? Holy hell, I can only imagine what your assessment of a truly awful show would be...

On the fast-zombie debate, you've stated that a rotting corpse, resurrected from the grave, shouldn't be able to sprint and that I agree with. But a victim of a fresh bite would not start to rot for a while so they'd be more than capable of going at a decent speed. And, also, in a lot of zombie films the outbreak is never explained so in those cases it's always possible that a magical/voodoo/witchcraft etc reason is behind reanimation and so a fast-zombie is not beyond the realms of reckoning.

And anyway, there's no set of rules to define a zombie. They only thing they all have in common is flesh-eating.

It'd be interesting to see a mix though: fresh victims starting off as quick zombies but eventually slowing down as they decompose.

Well, "ok" is very vague. It was OK on the lower end of "ok". That make more sense?

A truly awful show would get 0 and a torrent of abuse that would be 3000 words long.

Also, a recently revived corpse would be subject to the effects of rigor mortis. I doubt they'd be doing too much sprinting. I wouldn't mind "new" zombies being slightly more nimble than "older" zombies. But I draw the line at the record breaking athletes that are popping up in recent zombie flicks. It's just silly, plain and simple and at the end of the day, it adds absolutely NOTHING to the genre.

Honestly though, the sprinting zombies is absolutely ridiculous IMHO.

Jip · 05-11-2008 9:54am

Tony EH wrote: »

Also, a recently revived corpse would be subject to the effects of rigor mortis. I doubt they'd be doing too much sprinting. I wouldn't mind "new" zombies being slightly more nimble than "older" zombies. But I draw the line at the record breaking athletes that are popping up in recent zombie flicks. It's just silly, plain and simple and at the end of the day, it adds absolutely NOTHING to the genre.

Honestly though, the sprinting zombies is absolutely ridiculous IMHO.

I only watched the last of this yesterday evening but I find this post highly amusing. The poster had no problems with the general idea of people rising from the dead after a bite with the sole aim of eating other people, but balks at the idea that they can move fast ? As if that's the only issue that doesn't fit in with reality

:D

pixelburp · 05-11-2008 10:01am

I think the "fast zombies" idea leads to sloppy writing to be honest. Whereas you needed a bit of clever scripting to contrive your slower form of zombies into brain-chomping scenarios (whilst reinforcing the idea that you can only run so far; they'll eventually catch up, slow but sure), with the sprinting zombies it's all too easy to have them figuratively burst from the cupboard and go "boo" - to hell with careful planning & relentless tension, just have your monsters break into a run and boom, bye bye character.

Tony EH · 05-11-2008 11:35am

Jip wrote: »

I only watched the last of this yesterday evening but I find this post highly amusing. The poster had no problems with the general idea of people rising from the dead after a bite with the sole aim of eating other people, but balks at the idea that they can move fast ? As if that's the only issue that doesn't fit in with reality :D

Oh zombies are real...........don't you forget it. I live with one.

Nimrod's Son · 05-11-2008 12:57pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I think the "fast zombies" idea leads to sloppy writing to be honest. Whereas you needed a bit of clever scripting to contrive your slower form of zombies into brain-chomping scenarios (whilst reinforcing the idea that you can only run so far; they'll eventually catch up, slow but sure), with the sprinting zombies it's all too easy to have them figuratively burst from the cupboard and go "boo" - to hell with careful planning & relentless tension, just have your monsters break into a run and boom, bye bye character.

I don't agree, I like the fast zombie idea, it's a fresh take on an old idea. I'm dredging my memory here so correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there were many key scenarios in Dead Set that couldn't have been replicated with slow zombies (apart from the obvious hectic running for vans, through fields etc).

All the deaths of the main characters could just have been easily caused by slow-moving zombies

Cactus Col · 05-11-2008 1:05pm

I don't mind fast zombies, I thought they were great in 28 Days later (**** infected, they're zombies), and the dawn remake.

For this I would've prefered the slower zombies, it would have been much creepier. But with the time constraints I can see fast zombies were the better option.

The whole series I thought was very good, watched it in two sittings over the last couple of days and was very impressed with most of it.

05-11-2008 7:21pm

See the bad thing about the original Zombie's is that their shuffling wasn't all that scary. I mean you could outrun a horde of them at a healthy walking pace really. Admittedly their numbers would be what gets somebody in the long run.

But put against a horde of ones that can run, then that's terrifying! They don't get tired or slow down. They just keep going and going and going. Sorta like if the Duracell bunny got bitten.

It was a great show. Probably would be better to watch on DVD without any breaks between episodes so you get the full film effect.

panda100 · 06-11-2008 12:39am

I watched it all in one sitting tonight. Im a massive Charlie Brooker fan and he didnt dissapoint,I loved it. Though his obsession with Ashleyne is getting a tad OTT.

pixelburp · 06-11-2008 10:29am

Just on the subject; seems that the running zombies of Dead Set have irked Simon Pegg enough to write into the Guardian, giving off about it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/04/television-simon-pegg-dead-set

condra · 07-01-2009 3:54am

I just started watching this on CH 4 tonight and it's freakin brilliant.

Dead Set: Big Brother + Zombies

Comments