Dear Growling, Running, Twitching Zombie...

[MoonSylver]

secondly, i'd stand to and prepare to repel boarders because running zombies have some serious haters here. I don't know if it's JUST the runners, or more the movies they're IN, as you point out below.... i don't really care for running zombies but yet if a film is good, then i can overlook that. 28 days later was a good film (to me at least). the dawn remake...(edit)is vacuous, trivial, and utterly lacking in any sort of meaning. it is the diet coke of zombie films. That sums it up for me. I don't hate it, just a bit *meh* about it. Ok action flick, not deep, can't hold a candle to some of the other movies in the genre. anyhoo, i think my main beef with running zombies is that movies with them tend to devolve into cinematic track meets. the movie becomes nothing more than people running from one place to another. Pretty much. You CAN have great movies w/ runners...28 Days, ROTLD & DEAD SET(especially proved this to me), BUT if it's not a good movie it's almost like the runners just add to the...not good-ness...they compound it somehow...

[EvilNed]

However, forget about the specifics of the "monster" for a moment - think about the empty streets, the few survivors holing up in buildings against a manifold once-human menace, the threat of becoming one of the enemy (the fear of losing your intelligence, self-will and identity, a very important trait of zombie movies), the mindless determination of the ever-present threat. To me, the movie ticks enough of the boxes to be considered a zombie movie. . Bingo, you got it. As for Running zombies being scarier than slow zombies, consider this: 1) A guy suddenly pulls a gun and shoots you in the head. You die instantly. 2) A guy ties you down, pulls out a revolver and inserts ONE bullet. He then points the gun at you and starts pulling the trigger. Which is scarier? I know one I'd pick...

[Trin]

It's really not a big point. Just whether or not you are comfortable with your "zombie movies" not having zombies in them. For me - nope. I think if you want to call things like 28 Days "zombie movies" that's fine. But I think it's an imprecise and innaccurate definition. Or better said, I think there are better definitions out there that fit it more precisely. Take the hundred vampire hunter movies from the 60's and 70's, then compare against the werewolf hunter movies of the same time period. Would it be commonplace to call them all "vampire movies?" They were really similar movies with just a different creature. The term mostly used is "monster movies." The thing that set "zombies movies" apart is that GAR set the bar with his, and anyone/everyone coming afterward who makes an even similar movie is compared against his zombies. My personal opinion (braces for impact) is that calling all these movies "zombie movies" ignores what the movies were trying to accomplish. Just like GAR doesn't want NOTLD to be called a vampire movie because it was so close to Matheson's book "I Am Legend" I don't think Boyle wants 28 Days to be called a zombie movie just because it has influences from GAR. Just my 2 cents.

[Andy]

I strongly agree trin, very well said.

[EvilNed]

The thing that set "zombies movies" apart is that GAR set the bar with his, and anyone/everyone coming afterward who makes an even similar movie is compared against his zombies. My personal opinion (braces for impact) is that calling all these movies "zombie movies" ignores what the movies were trying to accomplish. Just like GAR doesn't want NOTLD to be called a vampire movie because it was so close to Matheson's book "I Am Legend" I don't think Boyle wants 28 Days to be called a zombie movie just because it has influences from GAR. Just my 2 cents. Well, genres do evolve. And let's say that if, IF there is such a genre called a "zombie movie" (which is questionable, after all, regarding your post regarding Apocalyptic Survival Horror, of which not all zombiefilms apply either), then 28 Days Later is indeed closer to that genre than any other. And that's how films and genres are defined, on a greater scale.

[krakenslayer]

Take the hundred vampire hunter movies from the 60's and 70's, then compare against the werewolf hunter movies of the same time period. Would it be commonplace to call them all "vampire movies?" No because there exists a term with popular understanding that better describes the movie; everyone knows what a werewolf is and how it differs from a vampire. With 28 Days Later on the other hand, there is no commonly used term that can accurately describe the "monsters" (a rage-infected-people movie?) or the type of scenario/dynamic/essence of the film; "zombie movie" has more cultural significance and comes closest to describing the type of film in an quick and easily-understandable way. Look at it this way: imagine someone makes a movie about a creature sleeps in a gothic graveyard, stalks its prey at night and turns its victims into monsters just like itself, but instead of drinking blood it sucks out its victims brains and is killed only by a stake through the balls. If someone who knew nothing about the movie asked me, then in the interests of parsimony I'd call it a vampire flick.

[JSPoole]

The infected are not zombies. They do not look like zombies, they do not act like zombies, they are not technically zombies (by most people's definition). However, forget about the specifics of the "monster" for a moment - think about the empty streets, the few survivors holing up in buildings against a manifold once-human menace, the threat of becoming one of the enemy (the fear of losing your intelligence, self-will and identity, a very important trait of zombie movies), the mindless determination of the ever-present threat. To me, the movie ticks enough of the boxes to be considered a zombie movie. Yes, the term is not 100% accurate, but it manages to describe in two words enough of the style, plot, structure and atmosphere of the movie to be a perfectly workable paraphrasing of the film's genre. I think I Am Legend and Demons are two other examples of movies that fall very loosely under the zombie movie header (bearing in mind that the Will Smith movie never directly identifies the enemy as "vampires"). Being undead and devouring humans, GAR original zombies are actually much closer to being vampires than the original voodoo definition of ''zombies''. Original zombies were not dead, despite the apperance, and had no will of their own. In that sense, 28 Days Later infected are closer to the true meaning of zombies than GAR's shamblers.

[MinionZombie]

Just call it an "infection movie" - like with Doomsday - massive virus breaks out, Scotland gets walled off, absolute devestation happens - but not a single dead person up and walking about, and it's all about an infection that people catch - another term could be "plague movie". Zombies are pure make-believe, but the likes of Doomsday and 28D/WL base their infections and viruses on real-life viruses. There's a whole featurette on the 28DL DVD about real-life viruses ... ... in amongst all the times Boyle and Garland (who created the movie in the first place!) stating very clearly that 28DL isn't a zombie movie.

[krakenslayer]

Just call it an "infection movie" - like with Doomsday - massive virus breaks out, Scotland gets walled off, absolute devestation happens - but not a single dead person up and walking about, and it's all about an infection that people catch - another term could be "plague movie". Zombies are pure make-believe, but the likes of Doomsday and 28D/WL base their infections and viruses on real-life viruses. There's a whole featurette on the 28DL DVD about real-life viruses ... ... in amongst all the times Boyle and Garland (who created the movie in the first place!) stating very clearly that 28DL isn't a zombie movie. No, I disagree. Yes, technically 28 Days Later is about an outbreak of disease, but if we're going to restrict ourselves to a two word genre definition (which I don't really agree with when describing movies, but is the the accepted norm these days) then "outbreak movie" does not cover several major issues - the fact that those infected become hostile/homicidal, the fact that the hostile enemy can turn others into more of itself, the fact that survivors are forced hole up in fortified buildings to defend themselves against the enemy, and that being killed outright by those homicidal infected is the primary threat throughout the film (with the risk of infection being secondary). I prefer "zombie movie" because I think that expressing the overall dynamic and structure of the film is more important than the hair-splitting minutae of the monsters involved.

[JSPoole]

Just call it an "infection movie" - like with Doomsday - massive virus breaks out, Scotland gets walled off, absolute devestation happens - but not a single dead person up and walking about, and it's all about an infection that people catch - another term could be "plague movie". Zombies are pure make-believe, but the likes of Doomsday and 28D/WL base their infections and viruses on real-life viruses. There's a whole featurette on the 28DL DVD about real-life viruses ... ... in amongst all the times Boyle and Garland (who created the movie in the first place!) stating very clearly that 28DL isn't a zombie movie. Actually, in the commentary, Boyle and Garland don't seem particularly bothered what you call them- one of them makes a comment about the ''zombies, infected, or whatever you wish to call them''. It's there in the commentary track if you want to hear it.

[shootemindehead]

.................... Actually, in the commentary, Boyle and Garland don't seem particularly bothered what you call them- one of them makes a comment about the ''zombies, infected, or whatever you wish to call them''. It's there in the commentary track if you want to hear it. He seems pretty definte here... Quote: Q. 28 Days Later had a similar feel to the classic zombie film Night Of The Living Dead. Can you tell us which films in particular influenced you? Alex Lochrie A. The Romero films are obviously the most important zombie films, but 28 Days Later isn't really a zombie film. Other films like Cronenberg's Rabid and John Wyndham's The Day Of The Triffids are big influences for both Alex [Garland, the writer] and I. http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/webaccess..._boyle_1.shtml

[JSPoole]

.................... He seems pretty definte here... Quote: Q. 28 Days Later had a similar feel to the classic zombie film Night Of The Living Dead. Can you tell us which films in particular influenced you? Alex Lochrie A. The Romero films are obviously the most important zombie films, but 28 Days Later isn't really a zombie film. Other films like Cronenberg's Rabid and John Wyndham's The Day Of The Triffids are big influences for both Alex [Garland, the writer] and I. http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/webaccess..._boyle_1.shtml Seriously, do you have 28 Days Later on dvd? You can put it on now and listen to the commentary. You can hear Danny Boyle (or Garland, can't remember which) call them ''zombies, infected, or whatever you wish to call them''. Seriously, if you don't belive me, it's on the dvd, in their own words. And in this interview, he refers to the infected as zombies several times: http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIV...603/film2.html ''On the phone from his Manchester flat, the director behind such hits as Trainspotting and Shallow Grave confirms he was uneasy about entering into zombie turf. "You’re right, it’s very hard to drag things back into the realm of the scary once they’ve become parody," he says. "I mean, they’re on South Park, for God’s sake. We knew we couldn’t have them wandering around slowly. We set about to reinvent them, to re-think them entirely." "There’s a stage of rabies where people develop hydrophobia, a bizarre and irrational fear of water. We wanted the zombies to be bloodthirsty, but completely full of fear themselves." The zombies have also been sped up, looking like quivering psychos in the midst of epileptic seizures. (Shot in 2001, the filmmakers couldn’t have forseen SARS nor Monkey Pox, but those collective popular fears only add to the creepiness running through this film.)

[EvilNed]

Again, DROP the Garland/Boyle definitions. So in an interview they said that it "isn't really a zombie movie", and on the commentary track they acknowledge that they can be viewed as zombies. And in yet another interview they call them zombies. Whatever. Doesn't matter. 28 Days Later still belongs in that genre. Solyaris is still a sci-fi film! No matter WHAT Boyle or Tarkovsky says. I prefer "zombie movie" because I think that expressing the overall dynamic and structure of the film is more important than the hair-splitting minutae of the monsters involved. I agree with this. Not to call it a zombie film because of such hair-splitting details is just pure nonsense. But whatever, do what you want. It still plays out like a zombie movie, and it features zombies. Not dead ones, but zombies nonetheless. So call it what you want. Most people call it a zombie movie, and it's generally acknowledges as such. Again: If a friend asks you "Know of any good, recent zombie flicks?", most people would include 28 Days Later when recommending a few recent films. And if they don't, they probably just didn't like the film. Nobody, NOBODY can deny this.

[JSPoole]

Again, DROP the Garland/Boyle definitions. So in an interview they said that it "isn't really a zombie movie", and on the commentary track they acknowledge that they can be viewed as zombies. And in yet another interview they call them zombies. Whatever. Doesn't matter. 28 Days Later still belongs in that genre. Solyaris is still a sci-fi film! No matter WHAT Boyle or Tarkovsky says. I agree with this. Not to call it a zombie film because of such hair-splitting details is just pure nonsense. But whatever, do what you want. It still plays out like a zombie movie, and it features zombies. Not dead ones, but zombies nonetheless. So call it what you want. Most people call it a zombie movie, and it's generally acknowledges as such. Again: If a friend asks you "Know of any good, recent zombie flicks?", most people would include 28 Days Later when recommending a few recent films. And if they don't, they probably just didn't like the film. Nobody, NOBODY can deny this. Hey, I completely agree with you. I was simply pointing out that someone who tried to use Boyle to disprove it's ''zombie'' association/status might have missed other interviews in which he very much makes the comparison. I fully agree that he probably doesn't mind either way, if you call them zombies or not, and I really think that if someone is THAT bothered by a movie like 28 days later being called a zombie movie, they probably should reassess their life lol. I agree that most people just love splitting hairs. The GAR zombies define what zombies are considered by the mainstream, but the original voodoo zombies were neither dead nor flesh eaters. Times, as they say, are a'changin, and people add to genres and they change, and if the people who oppose that don't like it, tough. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. Most people don't give a crap if a tiny percentage of other people get deeply butt hurt at a movie being called a zombie movie, and rightfully so. I understand having a preference, but saying that it can be done one way and one way only is just plain stupid. I think the whole idea of someone being as mad as the topic starter is at something trivial is both hillarious and silly.

[MinionZombie]

Officially done with this thread - the poll speaks for itself. *dusts hands* *wanders off in search of SModcast*