World War Z - Set video shows running zombies?

[LouCipherr]

Zack Snyder, Ruben Fleischer, Yann Demange (director of Dead Set) off the top of my head ... but I've heard it said so many goddamned times that it's one of my Top Ten All Time Pet Peeves ... not that I've particularly constructed a list, but it'd easily be in a potential Top Ten ... along with people interrupting you while you're answering their question, and morons who drive around in the day with their fucking lights on. /rant Calm down, MZ. It'll be ok. I'll get you some bolivian bone-ash and everything will be just fine. Of course they were zombies...oh, did you mean the original definition? You're right in that respect, at least. There was no voodoo involved. Oh god....not this argument again. Where's that popcorn eating pic of what's-her-name that bass likes when I need it? (Wasn't it Scar Jo? I can't remember now). *grabs popcorn, sits back and waits for the shit to start flying*

[SymphonicX]

does that happen, Bassman? Cos...I swear I know every frame of that movie and can't picture it....besides no one's saying that infected with the hole didn't die after the photo was taken

[bassman]

I think it may have been in 28 WEEKS, but someone around here has used it to show that they were dead. It was a pretty big hole, actually...

[SymphonicX]

I think it may have been in 28 WEEKS, but someone around here has used it to show that they were dead. It was a pretty big hole, actually... ahh fuck that, 28 weeks was an abortion. horrible horrible film. Anyway wouldn't that be like using the zombies from Day of the Dead: Contagium as a basis for judging them rather than the actual Day of the Dead? 28 Weeks had almost nothing to do with the original creatives.

[MinionZombie]

Of course they were zombies...oh, did you mean the original definition? You're right in that respect, at least. There was no voodoo involved. Whether Voodoo or Romero zombies, they both involve death. The former appear to be dead, and are believed to be dead by those who have apparently witnessed their family member 'die' only to be found walking around after their supposed funeral. Romero zombies are dead people. 28 Days/Weeks Later doesn't feature actual dead people wandering around, and nor do any of the uninfected humans believe them to be dead - they just ain't zombies - and those who made the film clarified that very situation ... that they're NOT zombies.

[bassman]

ahh fuck that, 28 weeks was an abortion. horrible horrible film. Anyway wouldn't that be like using the zombies from Day of the Dead: Contagium as a basis for judging them rather than the actual Day of the Dead? 28 Weeks had almost nothing to do with the original creatives. That's a bit of a stretch. Boyle and Garland were both involved with Weeks. Definitely more of an official sequel than Contagium was. I also didn't think it was all that bad. I enjoyed it as much as the first, actually. Seemed to be a good continuation.

[SymphonicX]

Really? You enjoyed that movie? Did you kinda sit there thinking to yourself "I wouldn't have given the janitor access all areas passes to the vault containing a virus which just wiped out an entire nation" ?? Didn't you get a little annoyed at the "let's use kids in the film to tie you down emotionally to their innocence?" Didn't Robert Carlyle manage to survive just a little bit too much there? What was the point in the movie? Nothing happened, nothing was discussed, it was just a movie based on infected chasing a bunch of kids and a semi fit american soldier chick through London....? Mind you, the opening 10 minutes with Robert C and his wife in the farmhouse was nothing short of brilliant...after that, for me, it just went down and down and down into absurdity...! Glad you liked it tho!

[bassman]

ehh....to each his own. I enjoyed it on the same "zombie" level as the rest that have been thrown at us lately. There's been nothing GREAT from the genre since 1985, so I kinda got to take what I can get. Well....nothing great since 85 with the exception of TWD.

[blind2d]

I still think Land was great... And Shaun... Come on bass, you're too harsh. I saw 'Weeks' once. Can't remember much at all about it, except that it felt more like a Resident Evil movie... The beginning was decent, with the raft...

[bassman]

I like Land but it's not great. I wasn't counting Shaun because it's a comedy. So yeah....like said, with the exception of some bits of TWD, there hasn't been a truly great zombie film since 85. Day is still the king of all zombie movies, imo.

[Suicycho]

Perhaps the shot will be cut up into smaller clips and edited in a way to make it appear more time had passed? It may have been easier, logistically to film it that way, knowing it would be edited later.

[Rancid Carcass]

There hasn't been a truly great zombie film since 85. This is the whole crux of the argument - given the source material, WWZ should have been it. This why people are really disappointed with the direction they've taken. It's a missed opportunity to do something of real significance within the sub-genre, but what we're getting instead is a generic popcorn cash-in. It's not hard to understand people's frustration with it.

[clanglee]

I like this expaination on the zombie/not zombie argument. Up against all of the prior invention that has characterised the short history of Western zombie stories comes 28 Days Later and the remake of Dawn of the Dead, both of which so many people seem unwilling to describe as “zombie movies”, or which are the subject of bizarre criticism about zombies that run. So the victims of the ‘Rage’ virus didn’t die before “turning”. So what? Really – so what? It just isn’t significant. My responses to complaints about running zombies are equally glib. We’ve had plenty of films in which zombies moved at varying speeds from shuffling and shambling to an average walking pace, and sometimes even a fairly rapid amble – but apparently jogging or sprinting just isn’t convincing. Rotten muscles just don’t work like that, yeah? In every other way these films, and others which have similarly been singled out for spurious rejection from the loose zombie canon, are clearly drawing upon the Western zombie tradition, and clearly they’re utilising the same open attitude to reinvention that has been a consistent feature of the tradition from its inception. With all this in mind it is missing the point to moan a bit because some zombies run, or because – shock! – they’re not dead yet. Such gripes might have a single, wobbling, fractured leg to stand on were it not for that folkloric origin, or the fact that plenty of other zombie “characteristics” have been violated or ignored in the past, or even the common zombie need to feed (a habit dead things aren’t generally noted for, no matter how much we might try to nurse deceased pets back to life). Still, this isn’t me calling out people who think otherwise. Maybe you have some counterpoints to what I’ve said above. It’d be interesting to hear your arguments, certainly. But please, wouldn’t it be more interesting to devote our time to discussing whether or not a film is good rather than whether or not it deserves to fit into an arbitrary category? Isn’t it more interesting to use these critical brains – so attractive and succulent to our undead friends and foes – to consider whether or not a film succeeds at what it tries to do, rather than trying to draw a box that excludes it? And if a film walks, talks and looks like a zombie film in just about every way, doesn’t that mean that examining it like it’s a zombie film will be the best way to discuss such questions? http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/9315...after_all.html

[Trin]

I have no problem with runners vs. shamblers. However, running zombies will undermine the point of WWZ. The entire impact of the book will be lost with runners. What hope does the movie have of standing out in the genre when it has divorced itself from the foundational concept of the book? If the clip is any indication, I have to believe WWZ has a better chance of tarnishing the genre than bolstering it. And I will be personally saddened that shamblers aren't part of it. But the shambler problems have been with us a while now... Land of the Dead hurt us by failing to deliver on shamblers and atmospheric horror. I don't think that this can be overstated enough. GAR had a chance to prove once and for all that shamblers are scary. And regardless of whether you personally liked or disliked Land, Hollywood was left with the message that shamblers don't work. Diary and Survival reinforced that message, with the godfather of the genre turning shamblers into gags. Dawn '04 didn't help. It purposefully divorced itself and the genre from shamblers. It made runners just good enough to assure more of the same. The larger issue is really around the decline of apocalyptic survival horror in general... 28 Days/Weeks Later were decent action movies with a plague theme. But both suffered from bad storytelling and implausible outcomes. 28 Weeks in particular started off brilliantly (good pacing, good foreshadowing, good characters, etc.) and then threw out plausibility for insane plot twists and frenetic nonsense action scenes. I Am Legend proved that you can desecrate the source material, but so long as you throw in lots of action and a big named star you'll land a boxoffice success. WWZ is poised to do the exact same thing. Supporting WWZ unconditionally is not the answer. We don't want prospective filmmakers to look back and see that popcorn action zombie films are the surest way of being profitable. Continuing to feed them moderate boxoffice successes for ever declining movies just continues to hurt the genre. Walking Dead is a good example of how storytelling and properly capturing the success of the source material can lead to a successful adaptation. Shamblers vs. runners doesn't matter - it's just good storytelling. That's what we as fans need to support.

[Mike70]

f*ck me if this movie isn't going to put some of you on a 72 hour hold at the local psych ward. like i said before: get the popcorn ready because this shit is going to get emotional.