3 minute interview with Gary Ugarek (You Tube)

[DjfunkmasterG]

Talking about movies he likes influences from the horror realm.

QY3jRW3Jc78

[DawnGirl27]

Cool! You look so at ease in front of the camera, DJ. :p

[Yojimbo]

Ultimate coolness, brother. (Yeah, I agree with Dawngirl, very composed in front of the camera, much more so than the interviewer) Cannot wait for the release!!!!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Danka everyone...

Here is Part 2

-5vLDQ3Bv9M

and Part 3

mluP-syQ92I

[MinionZombie]

"Not always running" - regardless, the point is - they're capable of running, and frequently do so on screen.

I'm definitely of the Simon Pegg school of thought - death is a disability - and anything running at you is scary. That's what I reckon on that subject.

But like I've said before, I have two "let offs" with running zed's, Dead Set and Deadlands. I'd still much prefer them to be shamblers, but I can at least stomach the notion in those two examples as there's something else on offer.

Dead Set has a great idea - zombie apocaylpse and a bunch of numpties on Big Brother are trapped in the house - plus it's British, and was made for TV, so it's unlike a lot of American output, so I actually found it quite scary at times ... haunting is maybe a better word - but the familiar setting and country worked to really punch the horror buttons for me. Plus it's jet black comedy written by Charlie Brooker.

Deadlands - the first one is full on pure-as-pure-can-be indie filmmaking. I watch it and I can see it being made, I can see the production behind it, I can see the family spirit of how it was put together, plus I liked the story - like you said, you get to see things you never get to usually see. Plus it's damn impressive for such a low amount of cash ... ... and then you make the superior DL2 for even LESS money, and yet ramp up the scale - that in itself is reason enough to dig DL2, but add in significant improvements on all aspects of the film (not to say DL1 was "teh suckage", far from it), a cool plot, cool setting and so on - and it easily overcomes the running zombie issue.

Plus you have a combo of runner & shambler, which makes the bitter runner pill easier to swallow. :D

...

But I still hate runners. It's like making Dracula sprout a jet pack and fly, or Frankenstein pretty, or The Mummy with skin grafts, or The Wolf Man with a 'thing for silver bling' etc etc etc.

I do think that for the average schmuck out there, runners are easier to write, there's less thought in 'how to make it scary', because as I maintain - anything running at you is pretty damn scary - and I think it's harder to write shamblers as scary, but it's definitely possible, you just have to think around the 'problem' (writing problem anyway), of having a slow moving enemy. I don't mean Fulci-slow, they take the piss, but GAR-slow ... the "GAR stumble" if you will.

Anyway, I've experienced it myself when I was writing the full version of "The End", my zombie epic featuring shamblers - I had to figure out how to make the slow ones scary as well as an intimidating force that can eventually take out the protagonists. But I figured my way around it all, and I think it works (obviously it's a first draft - but it works I think).

...

I still hate Yawn04 though, I can't abide that shitly-written MTV turd festival.

Dead Set and Deadlands, though, have a lot more going for them than just "runners", so it out-weighs that problem (problem, to me at least).

...

Anyway, got off on a rant there - kick arse interview there, nice to see, and thanks for posting it. :)

[DjfunkmasterG]

but but but.... they don't always run man. :D

I was glad I was asked that question about runners, and even I laugh at my expression when it comes up in the interview.

(See eye roll and head tolt)

[MinionZombie]

but but but.... they don't always run man. :D

The weakest argument I've heard from you in defense of runners. :lol:

Athletes are athletes, but they don't always do their sport.

Snooker players are snooker players, but they sometimes don't play snooker.

Footballers are footballers, but sometimes they're off spit-roasting jailbait.

Runners are runners, but sometimes they've got nothing to run to.

Shamblers are shamblers, and they never run anywhere, and are therefore awesome. :cool:

[AcesandEights]

DJ, great news. I'll have to give it a look when I get home this evening, but I think it's very cool for you to have had the opportunity.



But I still hate runners.

We know :p
(It's like some sort of mathematical or celestial constant, the likes of which might prove utterly world shattering were any of us to wake one morning and find it to no longer be the case :D)

[bassman]

It's FIRST BLOOD!!!! There is no "Rambo" in the title of the film!!! Damn it pisses me off when people call it Rambo. The films with "Rambo" in the title don't deserve to smell First Blood's shit!

Luckily you caught it and corrected yourself.:p

Cool interviews though. I never realized that there was an argument about whether they're running only sometimes or all the time. Just the fact that they run AT ALL makes them runners, imo. And cheap.:sneaky:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yeah i caught my slip up as well, which I didn't want to make in the first place, but it was 2:00am and I was tired as hell. :D

[DjfunkmasterG]

Part 4 of the interviews... only 5 more parts to go.

-TGRlWde5_U