Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (film)

[Neil]

No, that's not a typo!

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Pride-And-Prejudice-And-Natalie-Portman-And-Zombies-16097.html

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news_img/66606/pride_and_prejudice_and_zombies_66606.jpg

[bassman]

Sounds pretty silly....but for zombies and Portman I will watch.:D

[deadpunk]

This thing just will not go away...

[Danny]

This thing just will not go away...

but i really wish it would.:barf:

[Mike70]

This thing just will not go away...

a shitty book will no doubt result in a shitty movie.

like i said in another thread, i've read "pride & prejudice & zombies" and it is a total and complete piece of shit. the work of a meta-hack in the extreme.


there needs to be a moratorium on zombie flicks for a bit before they are rendered as gay and ridiculous as vampires have become.

[Danny]

a shitty book will no doubt result in a shitty movie.

like i said in another thread, i've read "pride & prejudice & zombies" and it is a total and complete piece of shit. the work of a meta-hack in the extreme.


there needs to be a moratorium on zombie flicks for a bit before they are rendered as gay and ridiculous as vampires have become.

DONT MIKE!

By saying the idea and giving it a name you conjure it into being!

[Mike70]

DONT MIKE!

By saying the idea and giving it a name you conjure it into being!

i should know better after that giant apparition of alan m__re and his snake god almost ate the board when watchmen came out.

[rongravy]

there needs to be a moratorium on zombie flicks for a bit before they are rendered as gay and ridiculous as vampires have become.

Wait, you mean sparkly zombies?!?!?
Yeah, no, please don't.
Ever.

[MoonSylver]

there needs to be a moratorium on zombie flicks for a bit before they are rendered as gay and ridiculous as vampires have become.

In some ways, it's too late. In others it's NEVER too late (if that makes sense).

Even though vampires have been reduced to a joke in recent years the genre is still wide open for someone to do something totally different, take them back to their roots, whatever, & make a kickass book/movie...just takes the imagination & will to do so (& a publisher or studio who wants something other than the same ol' crap.)

Zombies are the same IMO. Despite the proliferation of sub par entries into the genre in recent years, the genre ITSELF is still fertile ground, rife with possibilities.

Now, perception in the general public? Yeah, the damage may have LONG been done with both & possibly irreparable in both cases. But then again, the GP usually has a somewhat skewed perspective on what horror movies are,what they mean, what they're capable of, etc.

[deadpunk]

In some ways, it's too late. In others it's NEVER too late (if that makes sense).

Makes perfect sense.


Even though vampires have been reduced to a joke in recent years the genre is still wide open for someone to do something totally different, take them back to their roots, whatever, & make a kickass book/movie...just takes the imagination & will to do so (& a publisher or studio who wants something other than the same ol' crap.)

Absolutely agree.

There are even a few exceptions that have pretty recently slipped through the cracks and avoided the Hollywood Sensitive Vampire label. The Vampires in 30 Days of Night come to mind. Even the Vlads in John Carpenter's Vampires had potential. (The lead vamp was clearly leaning toward Hollywood Sensitive, but the first hoarde the slayers encounted were fairly primal.)

It's solely my opinion, but I don't think vampires get a fair shake among horror fans for this reason: Vampires originate in Europe. Most big budget horror films are filmed in Hollywood. Americans are generally ignorant of European culture. And rather than subvert the differences, Hollywood exagerates them and we're always presented with a vampire that seems foppish. :D


Zombies are the same IMO. Despite the proliferation of sub par entries into the genre in recent years, the genre ITSELF is still fertile ground, rife with possibilities.

Sort of agree.

Everything zombie will always be held to the standards of one man for fans of the genre. If it doesn't conform to the Romero Dungeon Master's Guide, First Edition Rules, it probably will only receive DVD-style attention from zombie fans.

So, the genre is only semi-fertile. To be honest, my opinion has always been that it took us 20 years to get Land, because Romero had painted himself in a corner. After Day, he spent 20 years trying to figure out what happened next that really wasn't just another survival story. While Land will never be my favorite, I look on it appreciatively for that reason. At least George made every attempt to keep it interesting and not mass-produced something or just represented the same shit we'd already seen in a new locale.

Dawn 04 is probably the most hated movie on this board for the simple fact that it slapped a Romero movie title on a zombie that was very non-Romero. It will never be fertile ground until fans can accept changes to the mythos.

Shaun of the Dead showed you could still do something new with a Romero zombie and be interesting. But, it was a zomedy. To do something new & interesting with a zombie tht follows the standard set... Listen, real-life apocalypse with Romero zombies is gonna be scary, but I think we would wipe them out in almost no time and recover without losing much. Toward the end of Night 90, Barbara keeps saying "They're so slow. We could just walk out of here." And, she's right. They're only treatening in large numbers, but they can't really organize. We can.

The problem is that Hollywood always wants to present zombies in a horror genre. But, really good zombie stories are designed to make you think, not for just a cheep scare.


Now, perception in the general public? Yeah, the damage may have LONG been done with both & possibly irreparable in both cases. But then again, the GP usually has a somewhat skewed perspective on what horror movies are,what they mean, what they're capable of, etc.

Despite the damage to both, I would wager that vampires could make a quicker recovery than zombies. Again, this is because the general populcae have come to terms with the fact that every vampire story brings it's own interpretation of the creature. Can you imagine killing a vampire to the Stoker standards? It would take all damn day to kill a vampire. So, you're still presented with the problem of creating something original with a zombie that can be frightening enough to be marketed as horror, deep enough to pull in fans (and a lot of guys that think they're Les Stroudt), and hasn't already been done to death. You can only see 'X' amount of people barricade themselves in a location, finally get out numbered enough that they realize they have to leave, develop a half-assed escape plan and meet a grisly end before it becomes routine.

Zombie fans expect something original from something that isn't allowed to change. Thats a pretty rough obstacle.

:)

[MoonSylver]

The Vampires in 30 Days of Night come to mind.

Actually I was thinking of them when I wrote the above.:)


Everything zombie will always be held to the standards of one man for fans of the genre. If it doesn't conform to the Romero Dungeon Master's Guide, First Edition Rules, it probably will only receive DVD-style attention from zombie fans.

So, the genre is only semi-fertile...
...It will never be fertile ground until fans can accept changes to the mythos.

Eh...the mythos SHOULDN'T really be relevant per se, as it's not about the ZOMBIES, it's a about the STORIES, the PEOPLE...which was what I meant when I say the genre is still rife with possibilities.

All of the modern zombie movies that suck don't necessarily suck because of deviations from the GAR pattern, but because they're just not good movies. At the risk of paraphrasing GAR "they're not ABOUT anything".

To refer back to your example of Yawn '04, the breaks from "GAR Mythos",while irksome in a minor way, could have easily been forgiven. But really, they're just an easily grasped surface embodiment of a much deeper issue with the movie itself, non-mythos related,which is that the movie is hyper kinetic, fast, & flashy, but shallow, vapid, & lacking in depth & substance. The human characters are mostly forgettable, most of them poor caricatures whose stories are generally cliched. Poor plot, irrational, unbelivable decisions, etc.

(Despite all that, I actually LIKE YAwn '04, to a lesser extent, but only as an action-ish "zombie" movie that wished it were "28 Days Later" when it grows up.)

Now, to offer up an example of one that breaks one GAR commandment (Runners) & still totally rocks: "Dead Set". Do I prefer Shamblers. Absolutely. Am I willing to overlook because the story & the characters are so compelling? You bet.

I think(?)fans will be overlook departures from the GAR tradition (to a certain extent) IF you make a good movie. The only caveat I would add to that is that if you DO depart from "da rulez" you have to make the zombies "believable" in that, you have to buy that this was a former living human being that now got up & started moving around again. Or as Simon Pegg put it "Death should be a handicap, not an advantage."

Again, to refer back to Dead Set, yes they run, but they pretty much run like a PERSON would run, NOT like the T-1000 runs (Yawn '04 I'ma lookin' at you)

Ghey '08 is probably the WORST offender of BAD departures from Mythos (they jump around like Wonder Woman, climb walls & ceilings like Spider-Man, you name it! Apparently being a zombie gives you super powers...), PLUS it's just an awful movie ON TOP OF THAT.

Anyway...[/rambling...];)

[Neil]

Moving forwards - www.cinemablend.com/new/Pride-Prejudice-Zombies-Back-From-Dead-Casts-Its-Three-Leads-66606.html


“Downton Abbey” actress Lily James, Sam Riley (“Maleficent”) and Bella Heathcote will star in the long-stalled movie version of “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.”

Filming will start in September. Cross Creek Pictures, which has a distribution deal with Universal, has acquired domestic rights with a commitment for a wide U.S. release.

Burr Steers (“Charlie St. Cloud”) is directing from a screenplay he wrote with David O. Russell.

[Neil]

Lena Headey and Charles Dance join the cast - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/68901

http://media.aintitcool.com/media/uploads/2014/papa_vinyard/njgvhgcwin_large.png

[blind2d]

Wow crazy. Hopefully it'll be a better book to film adaptation than WWZ. But then, how could it not?

[Neil]

Wow crazy. Hopefully it'll be a better book to film adaptation than WWZ. But then, how could it not?
Harsh.... But true...