World War Z - Set video shows running zombies?

[Geophyrd]

Pretty cool (http://blastr.com/2011/09/when-zombies-attack-world.php). I guess all the zombie effects will be cgi?

Ma8l5udOlvc

[JDFP]

If this has running zombies I refuse to watch it. I don't care if the film wins an Academy Award, I won't watch it.

It already looks like shit and sounds like it from everything reported about it, but changing from REAL zombies to running zombies would be the final nail in the coffin for me to even check it out on rental (which is what I'd be doing anyway as I won't spend $10 to see a movie in a theatre).

The only thing this seems to have in common with the excellent novel is the name at this point. It should really be called something else as it is *NOT* "World War Z".

I'm so damn sick and tired of running zombies.

j.p.

[kidgloves]

Oh FFS
:annoyed::rant::whatever:

-- -------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 PM ----------

Yonkers will be nothing like the book now. Totally killed the whole point of the segment

[bassman]

I'm not a big fan of the rage-like movements, but I'm still open to giving the movie a chance.

[kidgloves]

I'm not a big fan of the rage-like movements, but I'm still open to giving the movie a chance.

I think most of us will give it a chance but it ceases to be WWZ when you introduce running zombies.
Any news on Cranstons role yet? Heard him on a podcast the other day and he didn't mention it

[Ghost Of War]

I'm not a big fan of the rage-like movements, but I'm still open to giving the movie a chance.

I'm not. Fuck it. One of the main points in the book was the relentless onslaught of shambling hordes of dead people coming to eat you. If they run, how are they gonna do Yonkers? How are they gonna do frozen zombies? There's so many things in the book that simply CANNOT be done with running zombies that they might as well bill it as a sequel to Snyders version of Dawn Of The Dead. The more I read about this movie the more I don't want to see it.

There was a tiny bit of an article the other week that said soething about it being filmed in two timelines, so I thought "hey, cool, they might be sticking more closely to the book via flashbacks"...after seeing that guy in that video having a fit seconds after being bit by Usain Bolt-zombie, well, meh.

[Rancid Carcass]

I guess all the zombie effects will be cgi?

It looks like a rehearsal to me, so it's hard to tell what's what exactly. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say that it seems like a large crowd of panicking people and the struggle in the car is a sort of background vignette in a much wider scene of chaos.

I second the WTF/FFS motion with regards to runners. Like JD says, it might as well be called Brad Pitts Zombie Adventure for all it has to do with the book. If you're gonna adapt a book at least honour the source material not just cash in on the name... Think I might adapt Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol - with jets planes and terrorists and some sort of airport siege at Easter. :D

[Neil]

I'm not a big fan of the rage-like movements, but I'm still open to giving the movie a chance.

Agreed... Runners can be terrifying things.

But if they star roaring like Godzilla, and their eyes change (contacts) straight away, I will not go!

[kidgloves]

Agreed... Runners can be terrifying things.

But if they star roaring like Godzilla, and their eyes change (contacts) straight away, I will not go!

Have you read/listened to WWZ yet Neil?

[Neil]

Have you read/listened to WWZ yet Neil?

Oh yes... I know it has traditional Romero'esque zombies.

That said, runners can be terrifying in their own right, but lack the subtlety of shamblers. In truth I don't have a problem with them as long as they remain plausible. So, people being killed by the virus within seconds (as seen in the clip above) seems OTT for me. And the moment I hear a zombie scream like a dinosaur, or its eyes change to something unhuman, count me out!

[AcesandEights]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b205/DougOBrien/action344-girls-faint-alot.jpg

[DjfunkmasterG]

LOOK. HE's A TWITCHER


You guys need to seriously get over the fact the zombies run. If you want to even see more zombie related product you better support these films.

The argument got old back in 2004, anyone who expected the zombies to shamble was setting themselves up for disappointment. Especially after 28 days later and Dawn 2004.

Might I also add the zombies run in The Walking Dead (see episode #2)

[rongravy]

I don't like, but I can live with, runners but WTF was that guy doing? First he's doing some weird breakdancing moves, then bashing himself against a car. That looked pretty dumb.

[blind2d]

*sighs* And I bet they'll cut out all the stuff in China and Japan...
Slags.
Oh well, I'll still rent it. Might even buy the DVD.

[ProfessorChaos]

If this has running zombies I refuse to watch it. I don't care if the film wins an Academy Award, I won't watch it.

It already looks like shit and sounds like it from everything reported about it, but changing from REAL zombies to running zombies would be the final nail in the coffin for me to even check it out on rental (which is what I'd be doing anyway as I won't spend $10 to see a movie in a theatre).

The only thing this seems to have in common with the excellent novel is the name at this point. It should really be called something else as it is *NOT* "World War Z".

I'm so damn sick and tired of running zombies.

j.p.

well said. i concur on all points.

and dj, not trying to get into a pissing contest, but my main gripe is that the book didn't have runners, which worked well for many of the main scenes i wanted to see in an epic film. and i personally think that there's almost an over-saturation of silly zombie shit out there, this is just "another one for the fire".

[DjfunkmasterG]

well said. i concur on all points.

and dj, not trying to get into a pissing contest, but my main gripe is that the book didn't have runners, which worked well for many of the main scenes i wanted to see in an epic film. and i personally think that there's almost an over-saturation of silly zombie shit out there, this is just "another one for the fire".

I know what the book had, but when you're making a $120,000,000 movie, you have to make changes that work with wide audiences. The studio wanted a PG-13 film, be glad you're getting the R version as the book was, yeah so the zombies were changed... shit happens. Nothing you can do about it. It is the 21st century, scary zombies sell, slow ones don't Land proved that at the box office, where Dawn and 28 Days Later showed runners scare the living hell out of people.

I prefer things stick with the book, but the book is a dictionary in thickness, and trying to get this under 2 hours stuff had to be changed and cut... As it stands I had no faith in this project anyway when they hired the dumbass who directed Quantum of Sloace to direct it. The guy sucks... Quantum is a testament to that.

[Ghost Of War]

I got no problem with runners at all, in the right scenario. Dawn '05 was a good film, the runners worked well, I liked it. I just can't see how they'll keep the basic feel of this book without the traditional shambling hordes.

[Sammich]

Have you read/listened to WWZ yet Neil?

The question should be: HAS BRAD PITT READ/LISTENED TO WWZ?

I think not. Most likely someone in his "entourage" did and told him how great of a book it is. Hell it could have even been Mel Brook's dad calling in a favor for his son. Pitt had nothing going on (i.e. not in the headlines anymore) so he decides to take up the latest fad, which happens to be zombies.

I have to disagree with DJ's statement:

"You guys need to seriously get over the fact the zombies run. If you want to even see more zombie related product you better support these films."

If you support this kind of b.s. it is going to just result in more b.s. I think it is too late. Look at what already is happening to TWD. Creative controls for non-controversial themes are being completely lost to the MBA desk jockeys who turn everything they touch into crap.

[Danny]

I'm not a big fan of the rage-like movements, but I'm still open to giving the movie a chance.

true, running zombies do not a bad film make, nor do slow ones mean its remotely anything but dogshit. Take the film how it goes before getting full on buttmad and throwing a defcon five fanboy wobbler.

[Neil]

Two things that felt wrong in the video were:-
1) The guy was attacked, and then instantly the zombie (attacking him) ran off looking for another victim. It's as if its goal was purely to infect someone and then move on ASAP. So it wasn't driven by the desire to feed.
2) The victim them dying so quickly, before then seemingly being taken over by a 'rage virus'?

[blind2d]

Yep... Yep...
Contagion is looking like a better zombie movie all the time...
Not to be confused with Contagium. That one's cool too, though.

[bassman]

If you support this kind of b.s. it is going to just result in more b.s. I think it is too late. Look at what already is happening to TWD. Creative controls for non-controversial themes are being completely lost to the MBA desk jockeys who turn everything they touch into crap.

How is this any different from what the entertainment industry has been since it's creation? Same sh*t different day. There will be good and bad.

[LouCipherr]

Same sh*t different day.

I think the saying should be, "Same sh*t only DEEPER" :lol:

I dunno, I'm a fan of both shamblers and runners, but that clip looked like nothing more than a 28 Days Later raw footage clip. :rolleyes:

They're going to get this wrong. They already have. We'll just have to wait to see how wrong they get it when it's done. I can't say I have high hopes, but it seems nowdays I never do anyway, so... par for the course.

[Neil]

Well done AICN - Only a day late :)

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51100

[bassman]

They're going to get this wrong. They already have.

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll287/RobStill926/206di-1.gif

[MinionZombie]

Runners in WWZ?! For fuck's sake! :mad:

Mind you, the plot sounds so warped from the book anyway ... what's next, flying ragers with rainbows shooting out of their bums?

And, of course, let's just re-state the truth - 28 Days Later didn't feature zombies ... they were rage infected human beings who died after a month of being infected ... zombies are dead people, and they don't die of starvation after a month! I really dig that flick, but it's also unleashed running zombies on us - and filmmakers who know fuck all about zombies just watching 28 Days Later and going "oh we'll do that".

One of the key points in zombies is that you can get by a couple of them, but they never cease coming, so if you fart around you'll soon find yourself surrounded - and your fight or flight instincts will kick in, or you'll just flat out crumble under the never-ending encroaching pressure of the zombie hoard that simply want to eat you no matter what ... so you get enough of them, and you're royally screwed ... and that's freaking terrifying!

A guy in a teddy bear costume running at you screaming like a raptor would be 'scary'... :rolleyes:

There have been a few flicks with runners in that I've enjoyed, but I'd much prefer that they didn't have runners in them ... and as I said before, when you get a filmmaker who makes a zombie movie but knows nothing about zombies and just watches 28 Days Later (rage infected living humans that die of starvation after a month) and says "that'll do", fucking annoys the shit out of me.

I also have to say that I totally disagree with the sentiment that 'now we have runners, we'll have to stick with them because of mainstream audiences' - give people a good product and they'll dig it. The Walking Dead - featuring SHAMBLERS - has been a huge success and flat out proves that shamblers still work like they always did.

...

Fuckin' runners man ... *picks nose* ... they piss me off.

[Rancid Carcass]

They're going to get this wrong.

Yes they are, and from what I've seen and heard about it so far comes across as something that's a product of a media and marketing focus group rather than a carefully crafted adaptation. The book (in my opinion at least), is a substantial, high-calibre piece of zombie fiction that's right up there with George's 'Holy Trinity', and there was a chance to craft something truly special out of that could have defined the genre for a whole new generation of kids. But what they're getting is a generic cash-grab and that, more than anything, is just disappointing – I think what we're seeing in these posts are not 'fanboy wobblies', just a real disappointment at what might/should, have been.

[MikePizzoff]

WTF was that?! Ultra corny. Seems like they have never seen a zombie movie and are taking all their cues from 28 Days/Weeks Later.

Zombie is running, looking for prey. Zombie finds Guy. Instead of feeding on Guy, Zombie simply bites him and runs off looking for someone else to pester. Instead of taking days for Guy to die/return, he instantly convulses violently as the virus rushes through his veins. Guy stands up, "zombified", and decides to attack a car.

This just reminded me of some straight-up made-for-SyFy bullshit. However, I'll still be a fool and give it the benefit of the doubt.

[paranoid101]

I always liked Z.A.Recht's morningstar saga went about having runners and shammblers, he made it that the infected started out as alive, runners and infected, only when they died did they rise up as undead shamblers, unless headshot.

[AfterMovieDiner]

Balls to running zombies BALLS TO RUNNING ZOMBIES!!! AGGGGGGGHHHHHH GRRRRRRRR
call me a fanboy freaking out, call me old fashioned, call me a pre-emptive judgmental prick but I am sorry, RUNNING ZOMBIES SUCK ASS. FACT. I agree with everything MinionZombie said in the above post about 28 Days Later, they were a new monster (rage infected alive humans) and not zombies.
Zombies are dead.
Zombies are the dead come back to life.
Makes NO SENSE whatsoever to have them run and to have them extra strong. They are DEAD!
They are not vampires and they are not Frankenstein's monster
If they can't do it properly then they shouldn't be making zombie films for mainstream people. Why does everything have to be for the F**KING MAINSTREAM??!! UH???

Slow zombies represent something, are a sympathetic monster, they are us, they reflect us and they have meaning. Also zombie films should be about human error and pettiness in the face of adversity not the monster itself. If they are running at you at a mile a minute then all you can do is have the humans running too and it just turns into a running about the place movie, the mistakes are made because of the haste of the decision and not because we are selfish, egotistical, flawed, petty, animals.

Slow zombies are interesting because they give us a chance to know the humans we are following, we have time with the characters and they in turn have time to make mistakes. Plus it's all about the numbers. slow zombie films are about the fact that there are too many of them! that's why they are threatening! just like there are too many of us currently on the planet right now and Hollywood's desire to mass produce media that 'pleases' us all is doing nothing but creating bland, banal, dumb, beige, tedious, unexciting, unchallenging and repetitive crap instead of something with balls!

Screw this for a laugh.

If there are running zombies in it (meaning the dead have come back to life as super heroes) then it is BAD. FACT. Even your precious Dawn 05. BAD CRAP.

[Ghost Of War]

true, running zombies do not a bad film make, nor do slow ones mean its remotely anything but dogshit. Take the film how it goes before getting full on buttmad and throwing a defcon five fanboy wobbler.

Pulling you up on this. It's not a fanboy wobbler, it's a FACT that the source material had shamblers, and a FACT that 75-80% of the events in the book would NOT WORK with runners. Like I said, runners work in the right scenario, and are in some ways more frightening than shamblers, but in this case it's going to ruin what could have been a masterpiece.

[JDFP]

You guys need to seriously get over the fact the zombies run. If you want to even see more zombie related product you better support these films.



No, I won't. And it's fine with me if they stop making ALL zombie movies all together if this is what they consider "zombie films" these days. I'd rather have nothing new being made as opposed to continued shit. In fact, I'd rather have Hollywood make 5 GOOD films every year only as opposed to 95% crap and 5% good. The point is, to me at least, those of us who are for traditional zombies don't want to see continued zombie films being made if this is how they want to make them. And I'll be damned before I support more crap in hopes that they make more crap based upon it being a "success".

As far as the issue of "Land" it didn't have anything to do with the fact there were shamblers as opposed to running shrieking superhuman 'zombies' in it. It had to do with the fact the film SUCKED. A film with shambling zombies can be just as menacing and terrifying as running shrieking superhuman 'zombies' if it has a good story and character development. "The Walking Dead" is a great example of this (I don't recall a running zombie in ep. #2 personally but the comparison is basically like saying there were running zombies in NOTLD based upon Bill Hinzman's ghoul being a bit faster).

We zombie fans are not the only people who feel this way. Look at what has been done to vampire films with shit like "Twilight". I'm sure there are thousands of vampire fans who would rather never see another vampire film made again as opposed to seeing the mockery of vampires these days. And just imagine how vampires themselves feel! Surely they must be enraged at the state of films depicting them today! I could definitely see the vampires possibly going out on a rampage of murderous rage based upon the sissified pussies they have been made into in the recent decade or so.

j.p.

[bassman]

If panties are getting this bunched up over spy videos from the set, I absolutely can't wait to see the fanboy sh*t storm when the trailer is released...

[LouCipherr]

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll287/RobStill926/206di-1.gif

:lol: :lol: :lol:


And, of course, let's just re-state the truth - 28 Days Later didn't feature zombies ...

Who said they did?

*looks around the room suspiciously*

:shifty:

[Mike70]

But if they star roaring like Godzilla, and their eyes change (contacts) straight away, I will not go!

or if they start sticking to ceilings, moving like they are in a benny hill skit, and jumping 30ft onto concrete like it is nothing...

-- -------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------


If panties are getting this bunched up over spy videos from the set, I absolutely can't wait to see the fanboy sh*t storm when the trailer is released...

me neither. warm up the popcorn because this shit is going to get emotional.

[Sammich]

It would not surprise me one bit if the plot is changed to the point where the "zombie plague" is blamed on middle eastern terrorists and the Israelis are the saviors of the world while everyone else is made to look like idiots. Like I said, this movie is just Pitt's excuse to make his version of Inglorious Basterds but with zombies.

I don't know if this guy is telling the truth, but here is what geffers262 said on the WWZ discussion on imdb:

"Also I do know that it takes 8 seconds from when your bit to when you change, the assistant director told us all that."

Zombie Andromeda Strain anyone?

[Neil]

Pulling you up on this. It's not a fanboy wobbler, it's a FACT that the source material had shamblers, and a FACT that 75-80% of the events in the book would NOT WORK with runners. Like I said, runners work in the right scenario, and are in some ways more frightening than shamblers, but in this case it's going to ruin what could have been a masterpiece.

It's going to be a fascinating to see how it all pans out. And how good/bad the result is!

[MinionZombie]

Who said they did?

*looks around the room suspiciously*

:shifty:

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

[blind2d]

It'll either be something to laugh at and dismiss, but keep around for shits and giggles, like Return, or... Yeah, I'm really hoping it's that one. I don't want to buy the DVD just for the cover art.

[SymphonicX]

all this time I was holding on for a shambler movie.

Didn't see this vid until today. What a load of shite.

Running zombies are indicative of a generation of movie goers who want their horror served up to them quickly, and with athletic ability.

There's no time to indulge fast zombies. No time to revel in the horror of long dead humanity. Let's just kill everyone super quick, cos like, we watch MTV and all these films are about is setting up idiots to get killed.

As with everything these days, I'll wait til someone here is stupid enough to fork out on seeing this before entertaining it. Running zombies are the worst movie "bad guy" to emerge in movies. A terrible, lazy swipe at a genre renowned for slow, lingering horror...

[bassman]

and morons who drive around in the day with their fucking lights on.


I don't know if it's the same over there but many cars in the states have day time running lights. There's really nothing you can do about it - They're always on. I've got a truck with this feature. I believe the wife's car is the same.


Anyway.....as I've said before, I'm still giving this movie a chance even though I'm not the biggest fan of runners. I've come to realize that you cant judge a movie by it's trailer and you damn sure can't judge it by spy photos/videos! I remember spy photos from Batman Begins. "The Tumbler looks like a big f*ckin tank! Batman can't drive a tank! He needs a slick, fast car!". Well.....it made perfect sense within the realm of the film, didn't it?

People are b*tching and moaning now but given the director's previous work, the large budget, and the players at hand.....I've got a feeling that at the very least we'll get a decent action flick like Dawn04. Considering most garbage that comes from this genre, I would say that's a pretty sweet deal.

[AcesandEights]

let's just re-state the truth - 28 Days Later didn't feature zombies ...

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.

[Ghost Of War]

I've got a feeling that at the very least we'll get a decent action flick like Dawn04. Considering most garbage that comes from this genre, I would say that's a pretty sweet deal.

Maybe for the causal modern action/horror movie fan, but come on, World War Z is the zombie-literature equivalent of the original Day Of The Dead, there's plenty of action films coming out that might be decent. I never, ever bitch about a film before I watch it, I'm (usually) a believer in making my own mind up, but this film doesn't look like it's going to by anywhere NEAR as good, or the same, as the book.

However, if they made a sequel to Dawn '05, with running squealing zombies, I'd be well up for it, it would probably be entertaining.

[SymphonicX]

28 days later didn't feature zombies. No death occurs before they are taken over by the virus - and the virus only affects living people, not dead ones. So no, they're not zombies. They keep all their abilities including blood flow and organ usage and can be killed in a normal way - ie: stabbing. They're NOT zombies. The movies do not deal with the idea of denial when someone gets infected, it doesn't deal with death whatsoever and the infected do not show any signs of decomposition - only starvation.

These things are no closer to zombies than zombies are to vampires.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

[bassman]

Oh god....not this argument again.:lol:

I agree that they aren't really zombies, but now you've opened a can of worms. It's only a matter of time before someone whips out the picture of the rage-infected victim running around with a hole through it's chest....

[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

:lol:

Calm down, MZ. It'll be ok. I'll get you some bolivian bone-ash and everything will be just fine. :D


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.:lol:

:D

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. :p

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/93153/zombies_can_run_why_28_days_later_is_a_zombie_movi e_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.

[paranoid101]

Going to give it a try, like others have said I don't mind it either being shamblers or runners (rather have shamblers as in the book), but its a wait and see for me, might end up being rubbish anyway even with runners or shamblers, Can't save a movie if its rubbish lol.

[Ghoulman]

I have to admit, based on all the filming video's found on youtube, WWZ LOOKS as epic as the book. I still detest runners!

[Neil]

I have to admit, based on all the filming video's found on youtube, WWZ LOOKS as epic as the book. I still detest runners!

Can but hope!

[Mike70]

I have to admit, based on all the filming video's found on youtube, WWZ LOOKS as epic as the book. I still detest runners!

that is the crux isn't it? if the movie is a big, epic zombie extravaganza, then the zombies could sprout fairy wings for all i care. no, i don't like runners. i think the massive, shambling hordes of zombies that are like an unstoppable undead tsunami, are much more creepy than runners. just my personal opinion. but still, the only thing i really care about is a quality, well made movie with decent acting and well done but not over the top good violent zombie fun.

[bassman]

See...that's the problem, though. This two minute spy video proves that the movie is a disaster. It's done! I've given up hope! :lol:

[Neil]

that is the crux isn't it? if the movie is a big, epic zombie extravaganza, then the zombies could sprout fairy wings for all i care. no, i don't like runners. i think the massive, shambling hordes of zombies that are like an unstoppable undead tsunami, are much more creepy than runners. just my personal opinion. but still, the only thing i really care about is a quality, well made movie with decent acting and well done but not over the top good violent zombie fun.

Depends...

Let's put you in the following two scenarios. You're on the end of a park, and a few hundred yards there are 30 zombies:-
1) The zombies are shamblers
2) The zombies are runners

In which scenario do you fear more for your life? Clearly (2). The prospect of dozens of fast moving zombies is obviously terrifying!!

Now, I'm not suggesting this automatically leads to a better film, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a worse film. It all depends on the script, and the over all handling of the subject matter. IMHO


Given this, there's other things in the clip in question that concern me more than the spead of the zombies.

[AcesandEights]

Depends...

Let's put you in the following two scenarios.

As someone who has nothing against running zombies, in particular, let me give you this perspective by expanding the scope of this little exercise to three scenarios...

You're on the end of a park, and a few hundred yards there are 30 zombies:-
1) The zombies are shamblers
2) The zombies are runners
3) The zombies are runners who shoot laser beams out of their eyes

In which scenario do you fear more for your life? Clearly (3), but which sends chills up your spine and gives you time to contemplate the hopelessness of your situation...the inevitability of death creeping towards you with plodding but unceasing steps? Clearly not (3) and probably not even (2). As a storytelling device, you have to hand it to the classic zombie, as bringing something singular to the table that sprinters and infected usually do not.

[JDFP]

Shambling zombies = horror film. You have time to be afraid (be very, very afraid) and it builds tension and horror.

Running zombies = action film. You don't have time to be afraid because you're already dead or about to die. There is no time to set up suspense or fear.

Fear is a creeping thing that builds, not non-stop adrenaline pumping action. If a film includes zombies running/sprinting then it might be an enjoyable action film, but a horror film it really is not. There just isn't the time for fear. Most average people are more than likely dead before they have time to concern themselves with the horror of the situation.

j.p.

[Neil]

Shambling zombies = horror film. You have time to be afraid (be very, very afraid) and it builds tension and horror.

Running zombies = action film. You don't have time to be afraid because you're already dead or about to die. There is no time to set up suspense or fear.

Fear is a creeping thing that builds, not non-stop adrenaline pumping action. If a film includes zombies running/sprinting then it might be an enjoyable action film, but a horror film it really is not. There just isn't the time for fear. Most average people are more than likely dead before they have time to concern themselves with the horror of the situation.

j.p.
To a degree yes... Shamblers allow a better build up, and are just plain more believable.

By runners can still deliver horror if done right IMHO.

I won't write this film off just for that choice.

[Mike70]

my point about the whole film is that i care less about whether the zombies run or not than i do about having a decent, entertaining flick to watch. if the script is lively and the actors are up for it and in form, then runner vs. shambler will matter a whole lot less.

[Neil]

As someone who has nothing against running zombies, in particular, let me give you this perspective by expanding the scope of this little exercise to three scenarios...

You're on the end of a park, and a few hundred yards there are 30 zombies:-
1) The zombies are shamblers
2) The zombies are runners
3) The zombies are runners who shoot laser beams out of their eyes

In which scenario do you fear more for your life? Clearly (3), but which sends chills up your spine and gives you time to contemplate the hopelessness of your situation...the inevitability of death creeping towards you with plodding but unceasing steps? Clearly not (3) and probably not even (2). As a storytelling device, you have to hand it to the classic zombie, as bringing something singular to the table that sprinters and infected usually do not.

You're sort of bending my words/example there somewhat aren't you!

I did state, "It all depends on the script, and the over all handling of the subject matter." If the script/subject matter isn't handled well, and the whole premise isn't believable then that's a big problem. And as I also said, I personally find shamblers more believable.

We're just going to have to wait and see how good/bad this film turn out.

-- -------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 AM ----------


my point about the whole film is that i care less about whether the zombies run or not than i do about having a decent, entertaining flick to watch. if the script is lively and the actors are up for it and in form, then runner vs. shambler will matter a whole lot less.

+1 :)

[Trin]

It's not running zombies that are bad. It's adapting WWZ plot to work with running zombies. You can't force running zombies into the WWZ concept. It's just a bad fit at every conceivable level.

If they're going that route their best bet is to completely divorced themselves from the source material. And if they do that it could turn out to be a fantastic movie with running zombies. But if that's the case it WON'T be the WWZ portrayed in the book.

And let's say they make a really good movie out of it by changing the concept. That may be all good and well in some people's minds, but my personal disagreement with that is that the source material has been lessened in the exchange. Anyone seeing the movie and then getting interested in the book is going to be naturally let down. Again, I'd point out the example set by I Am Legend.

[DEAD BEAT]

"Looks like they shot this in Disappointment city folks!" just sayin' ;)

[Ragnarr]

I don't like, but I can live with, runners but WTF was that guy doing? First he's doing some weird breakdancing moves, then bashing himself against a car. That looked pretty dumb.

I'm agreeing with rongravy here; I watched that clip a couple of times and can't seem to shake my confusion. EVEN if the zombies are runners and EVEN if one nibbling bite does a person in, break dancing into a zombie in mere seconds is something I feel is one notch away from retarded. I'll still watch the movie, but I think I'll buy the smaller size popcorn instead of the large.

[Moon Knight]

Laaaaaaaame. Instant undead? GTFO.

[Neil]

I'm agreeing with rongravy here; I watched that clip a couple of times and can't seem to shake my confusion. EVEN if the zombies are runners and EVEN if one nibbling bite does a person in, break dancing into a zombie in mere seconds is something I feel is one notch away from retarded. I'll still watch the movie, but I think I'll buy the smaller size popcorn instead of the large.

They've clearly decided the infection needs to be turbo charged. The zombies run, bite a person once and then run off to the next person to infect. Meanwhile the bitten individual changes in a few tens of seconds...

Does feel wrong doesn't it!

[blind2d]

Movie theater popcorn is nasty, man... I'd rather just buy Snow Caps or something...

[JDFP]

I so could not resist...

6oYAju4WI90

j.p.

[shootemindehead]

Runners in WWZ?! For fuck's sake! :mad:

Mind you, the plot sounds so warped from the book anyway ... what's next, flying ragers with rainbows shooting out of their bums?

And, of course, let's just re-state the truth - 28 Days Later didn't feature zombies ... they were rage infected human beings who died after a month of being infected ... zombies are dead people, and they don't die of starvation after a month! I really dig that flick, but it's also unleashed running zombies on us - and filmmakers who know fuck all about zombies just watching 28 Days Later and going "oh we'll do that".

One of the key points in zombies is that you can get by a couple of them, but they never cease coming, so if you fart around you'll soon find yourself surrounded - and your fight or flight instincts will kick in, or you'll just flat out crumble under the never-ending encroaching pressure of the zombie hoard that simply want to eat you no matter what ... so you get enough of them, and you're royally screwed ... and that's freaking terrifying!

A guy in a teddy bear costume running at you screaming like a raptor would be 'scary'... :rolleyes:

There have been a few flicks with runners in that I've enjoyed, but I'd much prefer that they didn't have runners in them ... and as I said before, when you get a filmmaker who makes a zombie movie but knows nothing about zombies and just watches 28 Days Later (rage infected living humans that die of starvation after a month) and says "that'll do", fucking annoys the shit out of me.

I also have to say that I totally disagree with the sentiment that 'now we have runners, we'll have to stick with them because of mainstream audiences' - give people a good product and they'll dig it. The Walking Dead - featuring SHAMBLERS - has been a huge success and flat out proves that shamblers still work like they always did.

...

Fuckin' runners man ... *picks nose* ... they piss me off.



Bingo.

It's not the fact that the "zombies" are moving fast. It's the fact that they are sprinting like crazy, in a fashion that they couldn't do when they were alive. That's what's stupid about the Snyder zombies. It's just thick. It's giving the reanimated corpse a sort of super power. Some fast moving zombies are ok. But they need to be f*cked up and finding difficult to move, you know, as if they were reanimated corpses.

The horror of the living dead is their disgusting "otherness", coupled with the fact that they are us. They are not to be underestimated, even in few numbers, but as a horde, they are relentless and lastly the death they promise is a truly terrifying proposition.

Carl Lewis zombies are just crap, full stop.

The clip in the OP looks rubbish. I know it's a rehearsal but, I don't care. There just so much wrong going on.

Anyway, I've long since ceased to care about 'World War Z'.

-- -------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------


Running zombies are indicative of a generation of movie goers who want their horror served up to them quickly, and with athletic ability.


I don't think it anything to do with the movie-goers, who by and large just take what's given to them.

The culprit here are studio suits who have seen relatively recent success and want to repeat, until the formula is dead. The cues here are obviously taken from Snyder's load of shite and 28 Days Later.

Money is the interest here. 'World War Z' is just a popular name to make that money. Just like 'Dawn of the Dead' was.

At least '28 Days Later' was a relatively original attempt. I.E. not a remake, or a cash in on a popular title.

-- -------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------


They've clearly decided the infection needs to be turbo charged. The zombies run, bite a person once and then run off to the next person to infect. Meanwhile the bitten individual changes in a few tens of seconds...

Does feel wrong doesn't it!

So where's the fear then?

I'm thinking fine, I'll get a small bite and I'll wake up in a few seconds and race off into the sunset.

It's feckin stupid.

Compare that with the slow agonising death that occurs in Romero's universe.

[AcesandEights]

Runners can be done properly, but usually are not. I also agree that they are a sign of lazy storytelling in many cases. Someone mentioned the Morningstar Strain, which, I always felt, was a great way of bridging the gap between sprint-capable infected and undead shamblers.



I'm thinking fine, I'll get a small bite and I'll wake up in a few seconds and race off into the sunset.
:lol:

[LouCipherr]

It's not running zombies that are bad. It's adapting WWZ plot to work with running zombies. You can't force running zombies into the WWZ concept. It's just a bad fit at every conceivable level.

If they're going that route their best bet is to completely divorced themselves from the source material. And if they do that it could turn out to be a fantastic movie with running zombies. But if that's the case it WON'T be the WWZ portrayed in the book.

This. I have no problems with runners (not "track star runners" but faster-moving zombies than shamblers) as it's always been my philosophy that when you're a fresh kill and rigor mortis hasn't set in (and you weren't completely devoured.. :D), you have the ability to move quicker than a zombie with severe necrosis...

That being said, if you're going to base the film off the book, then at least follow the goddamn original plot. If this was called anything else other than WWZ, it had a chance.. at this point, this is the equivilent of making Stephen King's "The Shining" into a movie - and putting UFO's and aliens in it.


Instant undead? GTFO.

Yeah, this too. It's annoying, and it might as well be called 28 Months Later if this is the route they're going. :rolleyes:

[MinionZombie]

I do find that in the mainstream runners are indeed used as an excuse for lazy plotting - it's piss easy to write a shambler/'Hinzman Hobbler' scenario that works (The Walking Dead has proven that in spades), but I feel that some of these 'runner movies' are coming from an angle where the zombies are the most important thing in the movie ... when the best zombie content focuses more on the humans than the zombies.

Also, with zombies, one of the creepiest things about them is that they somewhat recognise that they were once human - and now they find themselves in this horrific condition and they're totally unable to control their bodies as they once did. There's an underlying frustration and confusion to zombies - to shamblers - that makes them both sympathetic and terrifying once-human monsters.

Runners trample rough-shod over any meaning that zombies represent ... it becomes end-of-the-world-porn (Yawn04 was a big example of that - a bunch of nameless idiots (literally introduced by the truck load, and some are literally never named in the movie) farting around a teeny bopper mall, throwing toilets through windows, shooting running raptors in slow motion, reloading in extreme close-up, cutting away to random boobage, then making the most moronic decisions whilst putting everyone's lives in extreme jeopardy because of a fucking dog called Chips ... and that's just the basics of that turd-fest :mad:).

/rant

[Ragnarr]

I never got a chance to read WWZ like most of this list has. From your collective posts, I'm deducing that the book's zombies are not runners. I'm wondering though; how did the zombie apocalypse spread in the book? It wasn't the one nibble = one Michael Jackson dance zombie creation that I see in that clip, right?

btw, MinionZombie's "Fuckin' runners man ... *picks nose* ... they piss me off" is the type of awesomeness that keeps me coming back to this forum again and again. You guys rock! :)

[Rancid Carcass]

I'm wondering though; how did the zombie apocalypse spread in the book?

Ripped this from Wikipedia:

Although the origin of the zombie pandemic is unknown, the story begins in China after a zombie bites a young boy. The Chinese government attempts to contain the infection and concocts a crisis involving Taiwan to mask their activities. The infection is spread to other countries by the black market organ trade and by refugees; an outbreak in South Africa finally brings the plague to public attention.

The book goes into a lot of detail about, well, pretty much everything, it's an amazing read - It's probably the most comprehensive and important zombie work since that chap, George Whats-his-face decided to make a low budget black and white horror film back in the 60's.

You really need to read it - it's your moral duty citizen! :D

[MinionZombie]

btw, MinionZombie's "Fuckin' runners man ... *picks nose* ... they piss me off" is the type of awesomeness that keeps me coming back to this forum again and again. You guys rock! :)

I'm glad you enjoy your time here at HPOTD, Ragnarr. :)

Also - get a copy of WWZ and give it a read. It's well worth it. :cool:

[Neil]

Now shooting in London - http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=82250

[grungerocker]

The fact the zombies run ruins the thought of this being a zombie movie to begin with. Bit by bit, every time another zombie movie is released, there is always some kind of change. It's not that hard to keep the same image going. They already ruined the way I look at vampires. Don't take this away from us! Oh, the next person that refers to 28 Days Later as a zombie movie...honestly doesn't know their ass from a fresh dug hole in the ground.

[AcesandEights]

the next person that refers to 28 Days Later as a zombie movie...honestly doesn't know their ass from a fresh dug hole in the ground.

:whatever:

[Sammich]

Oh, the next person that refers to 28 Days Later as a zombie movie...honestly doesn't know their ass from a fresh dug hole in the ground.

I find that just as irritating as when people say all zombies want to do is eat brains.

[kidgloves]

:whatever:

Thats no way to welcome a new member :confused:

[AcesandEights]

Thats no way to welcome a new member :confused:

I tend to treat people in the manner their asking to be treated. Blanket statements about the validity of other members opinions, especially as a first post...pretty classless and pretty close to flamebait.

[Victim]

Well who realy gives a shit? nowdays its just good to see another zombie movie, if wwz is good then ill go see it, if its great ill buy it. but lets be honest here as soon as a film gets a big budget its not about the source anymore. it just money folks, they dont want a zombie film that will only apeal to us 10% of the movie going crowd, they want a super fast action flick that will leave people wanting more and if the film makes plus 1/3 of what it cost to make then they will milk the fucker for all its worth i.e resident evil lol coulda been sooo great but no its a dumb ass super hero film lol clowns
personaly i love shamblers over sprinters, but watching the first 10 mins of 28 weeks later in the cinema was the single most amazing thing i have ever experianced in all my years of watching films, playing games and reading books. our very own wee robert carlyle sprinting full throttle down a hill shitting himself is as good as it gets. i dont scare easily but fuck me i was in the back row screaming run you cunt! lol epic :)

but then again you cant escape sprinters, but shamblers you can run and run then hide when your body is wrecked and guess what, while you were sleeping for 3 hours 200 zombos tracked you down and are leaving gore marks all over your safehouse lol now thats fear, tired, hungry and trapped!

wtf im waaay of topic here lol, anyway great site happy to be here and no matter what guys, support the fucking film. let them make it anyway they want, it should be shamblers but its not. itll still be good, maybe even 30% as good as the book. thatll do

oh btw! its my birthday today!! yay me!

if you want to see a zombie film thats made for zombie fans watch Colin. not made to make money, its made for us. also rec gets a mention!
and if you would rather read another epic like wwz (maybe not as epic) get z.a recht's plague of the dead books.

stay cool people and stay fit, cause ya know it still might happen... and the fat guys go first ;)

[rightwing401]

Ok, if this little snippet is really a rehersal from a scene of the upcoming WWZ movie, the only thing that I've got to say to all the writers, producers, and directors that were involved in this decision to make the zombies '28 days later' types....

...kiss my ass!

You want to totally bastardize what is considered one of the best zombie books ever published, you make a profit off of someone else's money.

To Victim, welcome to the boards. Hope you have some fun and enjoyable experiences here. Just a question though, have you seen the original 'Day of the Dead'? The first ten minutes of that movie should have you practically crapping your pants. While the 28 weeks later has the edge of your seat, heart pumping terror, the opening of day was the kind of inevitble dread hanging over your head that slowly smothers you.

Everytime I watch that movie and I see Miguel's scared shitless face as he turns tail and hauls ass back to the helicopter to escape the hundreds of encroaching shamblers, I always think "Damn right!"

Anyhow, Happy Birthday.

*Not really any of my business, but in the future you might want to not come to a site dedicated to the George A. Romero zombie genre that was constructed long before the 'sprinter' zombie came about and ask why we give a shit about a popular zombie novel based on Romero's shamblers has been transformed into a full length movie which now has sprinters.

[Victim]

lol yea mate i grew up on the dead , and tbh i dont think old george's movies ever beat his first and best, night. the last few min of that film was the first movie i ever shouted NO! too. followed by day, loved dawn too but i musta watched that movie a hundred times when i was a 20 something weed smoker lol and mostly it made me laugh (masks for gas! masks for gas!), i would even rate zombie flesh eaters higher than dawn, as a truley scary zombo flick.
and i didnt mean to offend but things have to move on sprinters are good but i agree it will turn wwz into something that its not but lets be honest here if max brooks was any sort of man he woulda made rules before he signed his book away to make money. wwwz could easily be turned into a 3 part epic, but its not cause they want a fast paced film with a big star in it. how did you feel when you first heard pitt would be lead? straight away i knew it wouldnt be wwz, you dont get a big star in if your gonna stick to the original work.

and as for shamblers i realy dont think people would run away from them, if dumbass whoooopiiie flyboy can smash a skull in with a hammer imagine what a group of friends could do with a few heavy hitting choice weapons, maybe scary back then but not now. we are desensitised to slow moving scary things now days. like it or not george wasnt the first and he wont be the last ;)

[Rancid Carcass]

Well who really gives a shit? nowadays its just good to see another zombie movie. but lets be honest here as soon as a film gets a big budget its not about the source any more. it just money folks, they don’t want a zombie film that will only appeal to us 10% of the movie going crowd, they want a super fast action flick that will leave people wanting more and if the film makes plus 1/3 of what it cost to make then they will milk the fucker for all its worth.

(welcome by the way!)

This is kind of the whole problem, they've gone for the mass market in a way the book didn't. The danger in trying to appeal to 90% of movie goers is that the script becomes so wishy washy that it appeals to absolutely no one. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the book didn't tank sales wise so there's an audience there for it - it's not like it's a good idea but a rubbish story that needs reworking to make any money.
You could argue that the 'hardcore' zombie fans (like us!), are exactly the type of people they should be aiming at, zombies, unlike superheroes or teen dramas, are a pretty much a specialist subject, and as a subject, dead people coming back to life and eating people doesn't inherently have a mass-market appeal and PG-13-izing it isn't going to change that. People that don't like, or are not interested in zombies tend not watch or read about them, there isn't really a casual audience for this stuff.
You then have to wonder just who this film is being aimed at if it's not 'hardcore' zombie fans. The PG-13 rating, means you're probably losing both the 'general' horror fan that's in it for the spooks, and the 'splatter' fan that in it for the blood 'n guts. If the average man/woman on the street has no interest in zombies then who are they left with? The Twilight audience that's who - it's a big audience for sure but they're not exactly 'hardcore' vampire fans - they're in it for the vampiric love story (as long as it's not too scary!). So at the very least we're going to be left with a zombie movie that's very watered down.
This is where the problem lies for folk around here, it's not that it's been adapted to work on screen, it's the fact that Paramount had so little faith in the source material that they decided that the only way they'd even touch it was if they ripped the heart and soul out of the book and turn a substantial piece of zombie literature into disposable fodder for the mass-market - an act that almost always leads to mediocrity, and mediocrity damages the genre. It's not about supporting any zombie movie it's about supporting quality zombie movies, if the money men in Hollywood think that we're happy being shovelled any old tripe, then that is all they will give us. As was mentioned in an earlier post, we're all waiting for the next big thing in zombie cinema, that once in a generation seismic shift that knocks our socks off and reaffirms just how awesome this genre can be (it's why we're all here!). And given the source material, the film adaptation of WWZ should have been it.


and as for shamblers, maybe scary back then but not now.

This may sound harsh, but runners are generally used by film makers that don't have the talent/balls to craft a well told traditional zombie movie. I say again, a film adaptation of WWZ done properly would have made shamblers terrifying. But they opted for runners and this fallacy persists...

:D

[MinionZombie]

The Walking Dead has proven that shamblers still work - you've just got to work with them properly.

In the very first episode, the bicycle zombie is really goddamned freaky - and what's more, tragic as a character - you not only feel for the plight of this thing that was once a human, but it's also such a ghastly sight. The zombie appeared in two scenes in one episode, and it's one of the most haunting visions in the entire season.

Performance is also key - to see that deadness deep in their eyes, and part of the point is that you can get by a couple of them (unless you make a really dumb mistake), but more than that you'll very soon find yourself surrounded. They're shamblers, but they never stop coming - whilst you're trying to figure out a plan (or freaking out) standing still, or heading in no particular direction, they just keep on coming - then you're royally outnumbered and that's goddamned terrifying.

One on it's own is terrifying for different reasons - for how what was once rational and human has become an agonised monster that simply won't give up trying to kill you and eat you - and performance and direction is key to that, and aye, I'd agree with Rancid ... while it's not the case always, I do feel that runners are the lazy option. Runners are the "BOO! LOUD NOISE!" scare of the zombie world ... shamblers are the haunting chills and creeping fear of an idea or a concept that gets lodged in your head for the rest of your life, the sort of thought that if you just happen to sit down and think about shambler zombies done properly, you get goosebumps.

Any old idiot running at you screaming like a raptor is easy, but it doesn't last more than a moment.

[paranoid101]

Sorry to go on about it, but in The Dead movie the Shamblers are scary as hell and used brilliantly.

Zombie movies don't normally scare me so much, but The Dead is really creepy.

As minion put the walking dead ones too are great you don't need speed to be scary, its knowing that they will just keep on coming never stopping until you are zombie food.

I've posted before on Dawn 04 on how much I liked the film and from reading about it, it explains that they needed things to fall apart super quick, thats one of the reasons they used the fast moving ones, unlike in the Night,dawn, and day that had things fall apart still but at a much slower pace.

Fast zombie can and do work, that said I will always find the shamblers way more creepy and it seems when film makers or TV makers use the shambler version they film it more seriuosly if you get what I mean, don't play many laughs to brake tension, that said maybes its just me that thinks like that.#

But if I had to pick it would be shamblers over runners for me, as they say "theres no scholl like the old school"

[Sammich]

What I find amazing is Max Brooks' utter silence as Brad Pitt completely corrupts WWZ. I highly doubt Stephen King would sit idly by if the same thing happened to one of his book to movie deals.

I am really beginning to wonder if WWZ was done by a ghost writer contracted by Brooks.

[EvilNed]

I just watched the clip in the first post. I haven't read any of the posts after it. I just wanted to say:

This looks like shit.

[Mike70]

i'm really looking forward to the first official trailer from this flick. mostly because it is going to drive some of you literally crackerdog apeshit. it should be a fun time on the ol' boards then.

[SymphonicX]

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.

Running is running my friend. You can't film someone running and make it look like they're walkng, not even with editing...if they filmed even a frame of those shots, the zombies are runners.

Fuck 'em. Fuck this movie.

[bassman]

This entire thread :

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqr4rqwLVD1qg0av2.jpg

[LouCipherr]

Runners are the "BOO! LOUD NOISE!" scare of the zombie world ...

Not to be picky, MZ, but I think George did enough of the "BOO! LOUD NOISE!" garbage with shamblers in his last 3 movies.. enough to make it boring and predictable. Survival being the worst offender.

[paranoid101]

I'm going to wait and see it before condemning it.

[MinionZombie]

True, there were "BOO!" scares in recent flicks of his (but that's the scare, not the zombie itself), and that's kind of annoying - it's a form of scare I don't often dig. Sometimes it can be appropriate - like Drag Me To Hell was a rollercoaster ghost house carnival type of a movie, so it made sense to be the loud noise boo scare type movie.

[Ragnarr]

Everytime I watch that movie and I see Miguel's scared shitless face as he turns tail and hauls ass back to the helicopter to escape the hundreds of encroaching shamblers, I always think "Damn right!"


Not for nothing, but I had a hard time believing that Miguel was ever with ANY woman much less with Sarah (not that anything is wrong with that). I think they might have considered casting someone a bit more hetero for what I'm guessing was supposed to be a hetero part.

**Welcome Victim**

[LouCipherr]

True, there were "BOO!" scares in recent flicks of his (but that's the scare, not the zombie itself), and that's kind of annoying - it's a form of scare I don't often dig. Sometimes it can be appropriate - like Drag Me To Hell was a rollercoaster ghost house carnival type of a movie, so it made sense to be the loud noise boo scare type movie.

When the camera suddenly flips to a zombie and "BOO!" it freaks you out (ala Romero style in the last 3 flicks), then I would certainly consider the zombie part of the scare. I don't see runners as a "boo!" scare either - it's not like they just suddenly appear and eat you from out of nowhere - you wouldn't even know if they were runners if that was the case. Oh no, they spot you from 100 yards away and charge at you like a true track star! :lol: Not sure how that makes the runner zombies themselves 'the scare' but... uhhh... ok. :lol:

Agreed that sometimes it's appropriate though, it just depends. Most of the time it's a turn off, only because it's played out and has been done a million times.

[MinionZombie]

When the camera suddenly flips to a zombie and "BOO!" it freaks you out (ala Romero style in the last 3 flicks), then I would certainly consider the zombie part of the scare. I don't see runners as a "boo!" scare either - it's not like they just suddenly appear and eat you from out of nowhere - you wouldn't even know if they were runners if that was the case. Oh no, they spot you from 100 yards away and charge at you like a true track star! :lol: Not sure how that makes the runner zombies themselves 'the scare' but... uhhh... ok. :lol:

Agreed that sometimes it's appropriate though, it just depends. Most of the time it's a turn off, only because it's played out and has been done a million times.

It's like the difference between Pirate Ghosts and Ghost Pirates, there's a subtle difference in the concept that you might not get, but oh it's there my friend. :)

[LouCipherr]

It's like the difference between Pirate Ghosts and Ghost Pirates, there's a subtle difference in the concept that you might not get, but oh it's there my friend. :)

:lol:

I think you're splitting hairs that are way too small to split. ;) That is, unless you can explain the difference between a "Pirate Ghost" and a "Ghost Pirate" to me.

Lets see.. one is a pirate that's a ghost.. and one is a ghost that used to be a pirate.

Dude, that doesn't even qualify for "toe-may-toe / toe-mah-toe" kind of comparisons. :lol:

[Mike70]

This entire thread :

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqr4rqwLVD1qg0av2.jpg

just wait. i'm sure it will get much, much worse as more info becomes available.

[Rancid Carcass]

Dude, that doesn't even qualify for "toe-may-toe / toe-mah-toe" kind of comparisons.

Let's call the whole thing off... :shifty:

[Mike70]

Let's call the whole thing off... :shifty:

Ba-Doom-Boom (cymbal crash)

rancid carcass, ladies and gentlemen, rancid carcass. he'll be here through halloween. try the veal.

[Rancid Carcass]

Ba-Doom-Boom (cymbal crash)

rancid carcass, ladies and gentlemen, rancid carcass. he'll be here through halloween. try the veal.

:lol:

I'm afraid that's the highlight of my act, it's all down hill from there - well apart from thing with the chicken, although last time it resulted in the deaths of three people and a goat. Not sure why...

[Excessium]

If I didn't know this had anything to do with WWZ, I would have thought this was part of the 28 days later franchise. As an avid fan of the book, I'm really disappointed that we're going to have runners. Zombies being slow was such a huge part of the book. It brought so much tension to the stories. The zombie attack on the church was probably my favorite interview. The images those words brought to my head really got to me. Kids screaming hard, parents trying to suffocate their kids before the zombies got to them. Really just a horrible scene. I don't see how they can capture stories like that with runners. The scene would be over in a minute.

[Afi]

Ok guys... New guy here, so have mercy as I throw my two pennies in the ante.. I realize that I'm coming into this conversation a month and a half late.

Shamblers v runners.. I don't want to get into a debate about what is better. I enjoy both of the movie genre's.. Yes, they are two different genres. It was pointed out earlier that one is action and the other is horror. I had never thought of it that way, but it is a very good analogy.

I'm a huge fan of 28 Days/Months.. But they are disease-crazed lunatics amped up on adrenaline. They move fast but can be killed with shots to the body, albeit the adrenaline keeps them going for a short time, like shooting a crackhead.

I'm also a GAR zombie purist. The zombies/ghouls move slow, but you got to take your time and make headshots. Max Brooks took GAR's rules and put a little bit of science(fiction) behind it with the Solanum Virus. There was some changes such as dead do not reanimate unless they were infected before death.

I thought that this footage was a hoax.. I guess that it is not. It might be a good movie. I'm keeping my hopes up that it will be a good movie. But it is not WWZ . It can't even be close. I'll explain;

Solanum is a virus that spreads only through direct contact. It incubates like a regular virus, taking days or weeks to kill and then reanimate. If it were something like the rage virus (which requires more suspension of disbelief) in a matter of seconds, how would it reach pandemic levels? A person who is infected with the Max Brooks Universe Solanum could get on a plane for intercontinental travel. That's not going to happen with someone who is infected with a virus that incubates in seconds.

Government's not reacting, denial by the media, and corporate exploitation (marketing of the Phalanx "vaccine") are central plot theme's are central to the book.

The military's initial incompetance and subsequent adaptation to an undead enemy are central to the book's plot. Heavy crew-served weapons and shrapnel producing munitions were virtually useless because a shambling zombie can keep moving, or at least crawling after being pretty much cut to ribbons.

The military, or what was later left of it adapted the Raj-Singh maneuver formation and centered logistics on small caliber weapons, good enough for head shots. Let's not forget the Lobotomizer either.

These are just a few of the holes in the book's plot that I can think of. The only way to fill them in is to create a different story, granted perhaps a good story in and of itself. But it is no more WWZ than American football is Soccer, both of which are enjoyable games.

A poster wrote earlier that Stephen King would not have tolerated that. I respectfully, but adamantly disagree. Almost all of the movies that were produced from Stephen King novels were torn apart and rebuilt. Sometimes, it worked (The Shining), other times it produced a pile of feces (Running Man) .

Think of the Shining. I loved the book. I also loved the movie. Kubrick teamed with Nicholson!! but almost everything had been changed. Back in the 90's they produced a made-for-tv movie of The Shining that followed the book pretty faithfully. Who remembers that? Not as many people as who remember the Kubrick movie.

In conclusion. I'm very sad to see that they are going this route in the movie.. But maybe it might be a good action movie that is completely seperate from the book. I'll set aside my excitement that they will make Max Brook's WWZ into a big screen movie. Maybe decades from now they will do a "remake" that follows the book. I can think of "True Grit" as an example.

Cheers! and hope to add to the group..

[Ragnarr]

Having never read WWZ (not as of yet anyway), I'm interested to see how the movie is. My take is I wish that they didn't use big name actors in the film. It always seems to detract from any feel of realism for me when a famous actor is cast.

Welcome to HPotD Afi!

[Mike70]

Having never read WWZ (not as of yet anyway), I'm interested to see how the movie is. My take is I wish that they didn't use big name actors in the film. It always seems to detract from any feel of realism for me when a famous actor is cast.

Welcome to HPotD Afi!

if you have waited this long to read the book, you probably should just hold on until this flick finally comes out. it might make the movie more enjoyable to you if you aren't constantly sitting there comparing the film scene for scene with the book.

i've read the book twice but it has been years since my last read through of it and i have no intention of reading it again prior to this films release. after the film, i'll re-visit the book.

i may have said this before: i absolutely love using Capt. Avatar as an Avatar. "Star Blazers" is something deeply nostalgic to me. i can remember not being able to wait for 4pm to come, so we could begin "heading for a distant star, sailing off to Iscandar." this concludes the non-thread related, nostalgia moment of this post.

[Ragnarr]

i may have said this before: i absolutely love using Capt. Avatar as an Avatar. "Star Blazers" is something deeply nostalgic to me. i can remember not being able to wait for 4pm to come, so we could begin "heading for a distant star, sailing off to Iscandar." this concludes the non-thread related, nostalgia moment of this post.

Thanks. I just thought it made sense to use an "avatar" for an avatar! :) My vile and cunning plan is to keep altering my Captain Avatar using MS Paint as it (he) becomes more and more zombified due to posting on HPotD. Just you wait until he's all corpsified and nasty!

[Rancid Carcass]

Maybe decades from now they will do a "remake" that follows the book.

Decades?! If the Spiderman reboot timescale is anything to go by it should be about 18 months after it's premiere before we get a WWZ reboot... ;)

Welcome aboard HPOTD too by the way - it's kinda like Cheers but without the live studio audience. Or the bar. And it's not in Boston. Actually it's more like a website about zombies and stuff, but other than that, they're practically identical. :shifty:

[MinionZombie]

Welcome aboard HPOTD too by the way - it's kinda like Cheers but without the live studio audience. Or the bar. And it's not in Boston. Actually it's more like a website about zombies and stuff, but other than that, they're practically identical. :shifty:

Although on occasion we do get the odd member stagger in drunk and post their slurred "I love you guys" type sentiments. :p

Welcome aboard Afi. :cool:

[Thorn]

It looks like a rehearsal to me, so it's hard to tell what's what exactly. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say that it seems like a large crowd of panicking people and the struggle in the car is a sort of background vignette in a much wider scene of chaos.

I second the WTF/FFS motion with regards to runners. Like JD says, it might as well be called Brad Pitts Zombie Adventure for all it has to do with the book. If you're gonna adapt a book at least honour the source material not just cash in on the name... Think I might adapt Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol - with jets planes and terrorists and some sort of airport siege at Easter. :D

No question about it I prefer slow shambling zombies, always have always will. It was what the genre was about to me a slow moving never ending tide of death you could not escape but that you had some advantages over like speed and intellect. Running zombies are just a different animal to me, and while I am sure I will watch it anyway I am not going to lie I feel really let down by this bit of news. I think I am just too passionate about the source material, and the genre as a whole. I certainly can enjoy a running zombie film the same way I can enjoy pumpkin pie. It can be great, but I would rather have apple.

The issue here is someone took a perfectly good apple pie and through a lot of pumpkin on it.

Screw you Brad.

[AcesandEights]

Ok guys... New guy here, so have mercy as I throw my two pennies in the ante..

Excellent 1st post, Afi! I think you'll find a lot of people agree with at least one or another of your feelings with regards to World War Z.

Welcome, btw.:)

[blind2d]

I certainly can enjoy a running zombie film the same way I can enjoy pumpkin pie. It can be great, but I would rather have apple.

The issue here is someone took a perfectly good apple pie and through a lot of pumpkin on it.


Sorry but... Pumpkin pie is better. Anyway, yes, I don't like runners at all. Oi vey... still will see it though.

[Ragnarr]

Maybe we can alter "Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater"

Peter, Peter zombie feeder,
Had a wife but wouldn't eat her;
He put her in a pumpkin shell
And there he kept her very well.
Peter, Peter zombie feeder,
Chased another but didn't love her;
He learned to run instead of shamble,
And then he ate her very well.

[Mike70]

Although on occasion we do get the odd member stagger in drunk and post their slurred "I love you guys" type sentiments. :p


though there has been a remarkable downswing in those sort of posts as a few of the "offenders" have either been banned or simply faded away.

when i used to drink my favorite topic to ramble on about was the history of ohio or some abstract astronomy thingy.

[Thorn]

Sorry but... Pumpkin pie is better. Anyway, yes, I don't like runners at all. Oi vey... still will see it though.

ROFL the great debate of the ages is not Walkers VS runners or TWD vs Romero films, it is what is the best pie.


Maybe we can alter "Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater"

Peter, Peter zombie feeder,
Had a wife but wouldn't eat her;
He put her in a pumpkin shell
And there he kept her very well.
Peter, Peter zombie feeder,
Chased another but didn't love her;
He learned to run instead of shamble,
And then he ate her very well.

Love this ;)

[Gemini]

I'm sorry, but sprinting zombies are the only way a zombie apocalypse could be feasible imo. And it adds considerably to the suspension of disbelief as a result. Watching TWD, I can only imagine how military kill units would just absolutely raze entire populations of zombies.

[Ragnarr]

I'm sorry, but sprinting zombies are the only way a zombie apocalypse could be feasible imo. And it adds considerably to the suspension of disbelief as a result. Watching TWD, I can only imagine how military kill units would just absolutely raze entire populations of zombies.

We still don't know how the zombie outbreak occurred in TWD. Not sure myself how the undead could overrun military kill units, tanks, etc. Actually, I don't see how anything living OR dead can overrun our military. They're that awesome.

[mpokera]

We still don't know how the zombie outbreak occurred in TWD. Not sure myself how the undead could overrun military kill units, tanks, etc. Actually, I don't see how anything living OR dead can overrun our military. They're that awesome.
Have you read WWZ? Max Brooks explained it very well, in a believable, thorough fashion. Largely its due to our own tendency to muck things up for public relations and psychological purposes and not let the men and women at the sharp end of the sword do the job the way it should be done until its too late.

[Ragnarr]

Have you read WWZ? Max Brooks explained it very well, in a believable, thorough fashion. Largely its due to our own tendency to muck things up for public relations and psychological purposes and not let the men and women at the sharp end of the sword do the job the way it should be done until its too late.

No no, I was referring to TWD (The Walking Dead), not WWZ which I haven't read yet. I was saying that we the viewers of TWD do not yet know the cause of their zombie outbreak, and therefore cannot explain how the military was defeated or why the corpses we see slumped in cars aren't also active zombies.

[Thorn]

Have you read WWZ? Max Brooks explained it very well, in a believable, thorough fashion. Largely its due to our own tendency to muck things up for public relations and psychological purposes and not let the men and women at the sharp end of the sword do the job the way it should be done until its too late.


He really did. It was explained very well how the weapons we have designed as war machines, and even our tactics and that we have perfected over the years work because they are designed to kill humans with emotions, fears, and limitations like dying from blood loss, and becoming immobile when they lose their legs.

Zombies are like the Honey badger when faced with shrapnel. They don't give a s#1t.

Not to mention zombies do not shock, and they are never in awe...

Except with "sky flowers and road flares" apparently.

[Zombolla]

Ok look running zombies are just terrible. Its stupid to have the dead running and moving fast. Zach Snyders dawn of the dead remake was a terrible, horrible remake with no redeeming qualities. Thats the problem with hollywood today is we have these awful directors running around destroying really good source material. Snyders totally forgetable dawn remake, Bryan singers superman returns (UGH), MC G terminator was horrible and so on. Snyder started this running zombie garbage and every movie that copies it sucks too like the terrible zombieland.

[Wyldwraith]

Agreed,
I just can't buy into runners the way I can shamblers. There's only a couple of possible origins for dextrous/agile/fast zombies that, improbable as they are, make the tiniest amount of sense internal-consistency-wise. For example: Brian Keene's The Rising and City of the Dead are based on the concept that an advanced physics experiment (like Large Hadron Collider, but even bigger) tore a hole into some alternate hell-reality, and demon-spirits are inhabiting the bodies of the dead and utilizing them at 150% efficiency + complete detailed access to the host-body's memories. It's ridiculous, but it makes a bizarre sort of sense if you can swallow the absurdity. Demons possessing soldiers/officers who died fighting other demon-possessed corpses start forming up into military units and using military hardware to bust into the few strongholds humans are using. Like deploying multiple bunker-busters to get into the CoG bunker.

Then you've got things like Monster Nation, Monster Planet etc. Where again, heedless scientific explorations ruptures the membrane keeping entropic and dynamic forces in concordant opposition to each other. Resulting in tons of mindless zombies, but also like .1% of the "zombies" are more like Marvel Zombies, because in addition to being dead they also develop super-powers ranging from the ability to become incorporeal at will, to high-speed tissue regeneration etc...but all of these human-level-intelligent zombies barely decay and have an innate ability to control huge numbers of mindless zombies like queens of some screwed up undead Hive. Again, the premise is absurd but internally consistent throughout the series. (And no, I didn't pay to read em. Caught em when they were still free-to-read online, before someone gave David Wellington a book deal to publish all of them.

Seeing the trend here? If you don't try to explain how undead corpses can behave like track-stars and/or He-Man, it's stupid. If you DO TRY to explain it, it's exponentially more idiotic. Runners contravene our basic expectations when it comes to zombies. Zombies who run, climb walls and use weapons aren't zombies, they're just retarded vampires with an eating disorder.

[MinionZombie]

Ok look running zombies are just terrible. Its stupid to have the dead running and moving fast. Zach Snyders dawn of the dead remake was a terrible, horrible remake with no redeeming qualities. Thats the problem with hollywood today is we have these awful directors running around destroying really good source material. Snyders totally forgetable dawn remake, Bryan singers superman returns (UGH), MC G terminator was horrible and so on. Snyder started this running zombie garbage and every movie that copies it sucks too like the terrible zombieland.

I like this guy already. :)

Welcome to the board.

Although personally I enjoyed Zombieland, I was annoyed that it was made by people that clearly had no idea about the zombie genre itself (they admit so on the DVD extras) - but yes, T4 was abominable, Yawn04 was a load of horse shit (110 reasons in 110 minutes why it sucked balls, people ;) - not to mention Snyder et al based their 'zombies' on the Rage infected HUMANS in 28 Days Later ... and that movie just doesn't feature zombies, as confirmed in no uncertain terms by director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland) and yeah, I wasn't into Superman Returns either (my biggest beef with that movie was, Kate Bosworth is her name I think, the one playing Lois ... it was like watching an ironing board with the emotion of a brick).

The 'Hinzman Hobble' is the maximum speed for a proper zombie. :)

[Thorn]

The 'Hinzman Hobble' is the maximum speed for a proper zombie. :)

I feel this is the top speed a zombie should ever reach, I think he was too animated when smashing things though. I also think the older the walker the slower it should be. Also zombies that scale fences, ladders, fire weapons and so forth is just plain annoying.

With my finger smashed wit ha hammer it is numb, and I find it hard to pull a trigger on a nail gun I can not imagine if I was suffering through rigor, or decay...

[Ragnarr]

I feel this is the top speed a zombie should ever reach, I think he was too animated when smashing things though. I also think the older the walker the slower it should be. Also zombies that scale fences, ladders, fire weapons and so forth is just plain annoying.

With my finger smashed wit ha hammer it is numb, and I find it hard to pull a trigger on a nail gun I can not imagine if I was suffering through rigor, or decay...

All very true. I also noticed that after sitting in a weird position for a long time, my leg tends to falls asleep. The funny part kicks in when I attempt to stand up and especially so when I attempt to walk (CRASH BANG OW!!!). I can't imagine what it would be like to be a zed with absolutely no blood circulation whatsoever.

We have to suspend reality just a bit whenever we consider what zombies physically can or cannot do I think. Besides, everybody digs Bub chasing Rhodes in Day of the Dead, right?

[AcesandEights]

A lot of sacred calves in the genre.

[Wyldwraith]

We're already suspending our disbelief sufficiently,
Know how I know this? The fact that enjoyable Survival Horror films have been made that didn't and still do not require any additional suspension of disbelief have already been made. More suspension of disbelief just ends up translating into scriptwriters and directors putting even LESS work/energy/thought into the Zombie Movies they crank out.

Romero complains because supposedly 99% of Zombie Movie fans want him to remake the Original Dead Trilogy over and over, when that's simply NOT the case. I don't want Dawn remade (again), I want a movie of Dawn of the Dead's quality made. Not something that has zombies launching underwater Seal Team 6 night-raids on the last idiotic fragment of humanity, NOT a buncha young adult caricatures of college kids playing Let's Make Another Crappy Blair Witch Knockoff, and CERTAINLY NOT a severely inbred lovechild of a Hatfields Vs. McCoys blood-feud and every possible offensive stereotype and generalization of the Irish,.....with Zombies.

NONE of these movies get better if we become willing to believe that Crap is not, in point of fact, CRAP. Making a good Zombie Movie isn't rocket science. Step #1: Assemble a cast of unknown/almost unknown actors that can actually, you know, ACT. Actors that can take their characters and make us feel anything other than a longing for the zombies to hurry up and eat these lame-asses already. Make us CARE what happens to the characters, and CARE about what they're trying to accomplish. (Hint: If that "Whatever they're trying to accomplish" isn't retarded, it's a damned sight easier to make us care about it.)

Step #2: Don't go cheap on your makeup and makeup prosthetics guys. Doing so leads to the necessity of using more and more badly-spliced-in CGI effects. Spend a bit more up front, and you'll not only save money on the back end, people will actually become *gasp* IMMERSED IN your characters struggles to eliminate the zombies trying to eat their intestines. Go watch TWD for a few hours, then you'll get the idea on this Step.

Step #3: The Characters don't need to be Supercop or Ex-elite-military-unit badasses. A) It's implausible, and B) Regular people with enough common sense to think of ONE TENTH of the ideas that occur to a viewer on their first viewing are much more entertaining to watch. Less flash-in-the-pan, and generate more respect for the Characters from We the Audience if you have them engaged in a survival effort that someone whose seen 10+ zombie movie can't poke 50 plot-holes and inconsistencies in with 30 seconds thought.

Step #4: Repeat after me Scriptwriters & Directors: "I don't need Zombies that might as well be wearing capes and tights with red-and-yellow SZs emblazoned on their chests. I DO NEED to provide for a believable, at least semi-realistic, relatively straightforward Main Goal for the characters to struggle to achieve while fending off zombies. It can be a workable escape plan from a siege-situation, reaching a Place of Safety the Characters have learned of somewhere a good distance away from where they are now, finding somewhere somewhat ORIGINAL but nevertheless BELIEVABLE as a long-term refuge from the Zombie Apocalypse (Heck, Do Day in reverse. Have the characters trying to get INTO instead of OUT OF say, a decommissioned but structurally-intact government Bunker, like the one below the Greenbrier Hotel, for example). Rule of Thumb: If the guy who brings you lunch says "Yea, that's cool. I'd go see that" when you hit him with a plot synopsis, you're in business.

Step 5: Avoid like Cougars with Genital Herpes any genre-mixing. No, ninjas/vampires/mummies/the Loch Ness Monster will NOT make your Zombie Movie cooler, just retarded. If your plot doesn't work with Good Humans, Bad Humans, Ambiguous Humans and LOTS OF ZOMBIES, toss it in the circular files where it belongs and start again.

Last and finally, Step 6: Downer "Everybody Dies" endings do NOT make crappy movies a) profound, b) darker, c) scarier, or d) more interesting. The Everyone Dies, and the slight variant Everyone Dies Except 1 Plucky Protagonist, who ALSO dies a split-second before the movie ends when an unseen or thought-to-be-terminated Zombie grabs them and starts chewing as they scream and the screen fades to black, have been DONE TO DEAD, resurrected, and beaten to an unrecognizable, fan-infuriating pulp by legions of hack scriptwriters. No, YOUR VERSION is NOT THE EXCEPTION.

Now tell me guys, have you EVER seen a truly enjoyable Zombie Movie that ignores more than 1 of these 6 Rules?

[AcesandEights]

We're already suspending our disbelief sufficiently,
Know how I know this?

Because you have an opinion that says so? :)

[Wyldwraith]

Hmm,
I rather thought the entire "Successful Zombie Movies exist that didn't require any additional suspension of disbelief" was a cogent, well-reasoned argument. Then again, what do I know?

[Ragnarr]

Because you have an opinion that says so? :)

lmao :)

[Zombolla]

We're already suspending our disbelief sufficiently,
Know how I know this? The fact that enjoyable Survival Horror films have been made that didn't and still do not require any additional suspension of disbelief have already been made. More suspension of disbelief just ends up translating into scriptwriters and directors putting even LESS work/energy/thought into the Zombie Movies they crank out.

Romero complains because supposedly 99% of Zombie Movie fans want him to remake the Original Dead Trilogy over and over, when that's simply NOT the case. I don't want Dawn remade (again), I want a movie of Dawn of the Dead's quality made. Not something that has zombies launching underwater Seal Team 6 night-raids on the last idiotic fragment of humanity, NOT a buncha young adult caricatures of college kids playing Let's Make Another Crappy Blair Witch Knockoff, and CERTAINLY NOT a severely inbred lovechild of a Hatfields Vs. McCoys blood-feud and every possible offensive stereotype and generalization of the Irish,.....with Zombies.

NONE of these movies get better if we become willing to believe that Crap is not, in point of fact, CRAP. Making a good Zombie Movie isn't rocket science. Step #1: Assemble a cast of unknown/almost unknown actors that can actually, you know, ACT. Actors that can take their characters and make us feel anything other than a longing for the zombies to hurry up and eat these lame-asses already. Make us CARE what happens to the characters, and CARE about what they're trying to accomplish. (Hint: If that "Whatever they're trying to accomplish" isn't retarded, it's a damned sight easier to make us care about it.)

Step #2: Don't go cheap on your makeup and makeup prosthetics guys. Doing so leads to the necessity of using more and more badly-spliced-in CGI effects. Spend a bit more up front, and you'll not only save money on the back end, people will actually become *gasp* IMMERSED IN your characters struggles to eliminate the zombies trying to eat their intestines. Go watch TWD for a few hours, then you'll get the idea on this Step.

Step #3: The Characters don't need to be Supercop or Ex-elite-military-unit badasses. A) It's implausible, and B) Regular people with enough common sense to think of ONE TENTH of the ideas that occur to a viewer on their first viewing are much more entertaining to watch. Less flash-in-the-pan, and generate more respect for the Characters from We the Audience if you have them engaged in a survival effort that someone whose seen 10+ zombie movie can't poke 50 plot-holes and inconsistencies in with 30 seconds thought.

Step #4: Repeat after me Scriptwriters & Directors: "I don't need Zombies that might as well be wearing capes and tights with red-and-yellow SZs emblazoned on their chests. I DO NEED to provide for a believable, at least semi-realistic, relatively straightforward Main Goal for the characters to struggle to achieve while fending off zombies. It can be a workable escape plan from a siege-situation, reaching a Place of Safety the Characters have learned of somewhere a good distance away from where they are now, finding somewhere somewhat ORIGINAL but nevertheless BELIEVABLE as a long-term refuge from the Zombie Apocalypse (Heck, Do Day in reverse. Have the characters trying to get INTO instead of OUT OF say, a decommissioned but structurally-intact government Bunker, like the one below the Greenbrier Hotel, for example). Rule of Thumb: If the guy who brings you lunch says "Yea, that's cool. I'd go see that" when you hit him with a plot synopsis, you're in business.

Step 5: Avoid like Cougars with Genital Herpes any genre-mixing. No, ninjas/vampires/mummies/the Loch Ness Monster will NOT make your Zombie Movie cooler, just retarded. If your plot doesn't work with Good Humans, Bad Humans, Ambiguous Humans and LOTS OF ZOMBIES, toss it in the circular files where it belongs and start again.

Last and finally, Step 6: Downer "Everybody Dies" endings do NOT make crappy movies a) profound, b) darker, c) scarier, or d) more interesting. The Everyone Dies, and the slight variant Everyone Dies Except 1 Plucky Protagonist, who ALSO dies a split-second before the movie ends when an unseen or thought-to-be-terminated Zombie grabs them and starts chewing as they scream and the screen fades to black, have been DONE TO DEAD, resurrected, and beaten to an unrecognizable, fan-infuriating pulp by legions of hack scriptwriters. No, YOUR VERSION is NOT THE EXCEPTION.

Now tell me guys, have you EVER seen a truly enjoyable Zombie Movie that ignores more than 1 of these 6 Rules?

Wow really well put.

[Zombie Snack]

I'll see the movie when it comes out, it cant be much worse than the book..I read about 1/2 of the book and that was all I could stand...and I really really really wanted to like & enjoy the book after reading so many great comments about wwz here.