Zombie Movies

[Q?]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Bull$#!+

Romero specifically leaves out WHY the zombies are showing up in his movies, if it's radiation, plague or whatever, he simply doesn't say.

That's not what I meant, that's my own fault, I meant that 28 days later
is much more realistic, because there is a plausible explanation to how
they got infected with rabies like symptoms.
And what is realistic about "aaaaaaaaaahhhh BRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIINS"?
The realism in 28 days absolutely warrants a different label.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

It's the trademark of Romero that his zombies progress on a step-by-step mental evolution throughout his movies.

If you can't see that, then you either a} have never watched a Romero movie or b} just are in it to turn off your brain and watch blood and gore. Neither of these options are bad per se, but to talk as if you know Romero's movies like the back of your hand and then miss something so painfully obvious isn't really adding much to the conversation.

If you had read it thouroughly you would have understood that I said
the first zombies had no consciousness whatsoever. Romero obviously loves doing zombie flicks, I guess he would have had a hard time continuing his series without "evolution" of the zombies. Which was probably more of a necessity than intend. If you ask the general public of what a zombie
is, 99% would say they are reanimated dead bodies with no will of their own or something in the lines of that. And they sure as hell wouldn't say "they are the walking dead who progress on a step-by-step mental evolution"
Therefore their "trademark" or what they are known for, is that they are the
walking dead with no capability of speech and mental abstraction.
Which is not what the infected are in 28 days/weeks later.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Take a look at the movie White Zombie. You'll find someone in that movie who is a zombie, who also wasn't irradated or anything of the sort. It's Voodoo man.

You're right, and that is not realistic and has nothing to do with the infected in 28 day/weeks later, because there is no Voodoo or other mumbo jumbo, only science. Look at dictionaries on the net
and books you'll see their definitons DO NOT MATCH the infected from 28 day/weeks later.

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Why? Is he going to track me down and go "Christian Bale" on me?

Logan

Hahaha that was actually quite funny, you and Michael Cera should team up!

and by the way, how can you defend calling somebody a moron you don't know?

Lastly I wanna say that we have to agree to disagree and it's totally understandable
that this can be regarded as a zombie movie, and I'll never change your mind no matter how many links and arguments I provide.
And I just read on an IMDB board somebody quoting the writer of 28 days later Alex Garland http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/.../128672601?p=2 written by combatreview. "This is a Zombie movie with no zombie's in it." They're the Infected!!!! Not Zombies.
p.s. Opterasis thumbs up!

[JamesKurtovich]

Having a strong opinion on what defines a true Zombie movie makes you a hit with the ladies.

Zombies eat people. Virus-infected people starve to death.

[opterasis]

I like what one of the sfx guys said about 28 Days. He basically said "This is a zombie film without actual zombies".

*edit* QQQQ! just posted it.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by opterasis

Production companies constantly try to pass off movies as something they're not. Hell, Paramount tried to tell me Zoolander was hilarious, and that was far from true.

Do you ever grow weary of being wrong?

For starters: Zoolander was hilarious, you're trying to apply your own personal opinion to what is established fact. When the fact goes against what it is you're trying to say, you just spout something off as a fact that you believe in.

Truth is, I'm far from the only one that thinks of the 28 days/weeks movie as zombie. The proof is in the pudding on the website for the production company.

I provided proof from Wikipedia, that wasn't good enough, I went to IMDB one of the leading sources of movie information on the internet, that too was not good enough. So then I go to the website of the Production company that dealt with it's U.S./North American release, gee wilikers, it's telling you the same thing, {that you're wrong}

So please, enlighten us, how many times, and in WHAT different languages do you have to get told the same thing from different sources before you believe something that you're told?

And honestly, you're description of zombie is so incredibly vague that a bunch of cannibals with hydrocephalus should be zombies. They have a virus and they eat flesh, so they must be zombies. For every million points for it, there's a million points against it.

That's because most movie monsters that are created have differing stories as to their creation.

Vampires are affected by crosses in some movies, others they are not. Hell in some movies they can walk in the sunlight for limited amounts of time. I'm sure there's some goths out there somewhere that think that Twilight is sacrilege against all things vampire, but that's neither here nor there.

Facts are zombies have multiple creation myths, in Romero movies {if you listen closely} he covers a ton of them. Plague, Radiation, Meteors carrying a combination of the two passing close to the earth, etc. etc. etc. In some of the zombie movies {like White Zombie} you can have Voodoo zombies that are people that haven't died yet.

If a movie comes along tomorrow that has Werewolves in it, but doesn't call them werewolves and the director goes out of his way to be a bit of an idiot proclaiming that it's not a werewolf movie, let's call a spade a spade shall we? It would be obvious to all but the most slow observer that it would be a werewolf movie.

The 28 days/weeks movies fit just about EVERY aspect of a zombie movie, so Boyle going out of his way to claim that they're not is not only making him look like a nitwit IMO it's also rather asinine.

Logan

[GGX]

The lesson we have learned here is that there are no zombies in 28 Days/Weeks Later.

[Anthony P]

Not about cannibals no.

But, we're talking about Zombies, the ZOMBIES from 28 days/weeks later fit every definition of zombie except for the fact that they're technically still alive.

Then again, that's the definition of Romero zombies, I prefer the Voodoo type myself, and seeing as how the Voodoo zombies can still be alive, then the 28 days/weeks zombies could fall under that definition as well.

Then again, I seem to be supporting my findings with logical discussion, people who are against me are seemingly engaged in a 'no it isn't!" type mentality without providing anything to back up what they're saying.

the issue is that every word needs a definition. Then people see if that definition applies. We are giving you a definition of Zombie, and all the definitions I have seen talk about being dead, a reanimated corps as the wiki entry put it. You seem to disagree with that definition because you want to state 28 was a zombie movie. You said it is a Zombie movie because they eat human flesh, I asked if that makes it a Zombie then would movies with cannibals be zombie movies (they eat human flesh).

Yes Vampires have been around for ever and the lore does change in some of them (can withstand a bit of light, crosses do nothing....) but in the end all of them do have some stuff in common, they are undead who need to drink blood for sustenance.

28 is about people with an extreme form of rage, they get sick and then attack anyone in front of them, just like a dog with rage. Nothing more nor less.

And yes Zombies could come from different sources, they could be mystical, they could be supernatural and even biological (like a disease). But if the subject needs to be alive then it is not a zombie movie.

[aardvark77]

Anyone who liked Shaun of the Dead will like Fido and it is available on Blu-ray (but you really have to look for it)
"Grindhouse" originally covered both Planet Terror and Death Proof, but were sold separately on DVD and Blu-ray (I have both).