Dear Growling, Running, Twitching Zombie...

[AcesandEights]

Honestly, put it to rest, the Fast Zombie is here to stay. I agree, but Kraken has a good point about the value of holding on to the slow, shall we say classic, zombies. They still have thematic and narrative relevance, they can still be scary when handled well. I don't like raptor sounding, wall climbing or spider-sense tingling, superhuman flying zombies, though. And the intelligent zombie thing needs to be handled with extreme care, if at all. 'Nuff said, for my take on things.

[bassman]

Couldn't agree more. And DJ.....you're still trying to say that Boyle started the MTV Running Raptor Zeds??? 28 Days Later is NOT a zombie film!!!! I can't understand why people don't get that... And as for broken records....."I lost faith in Romero after Land, I lost faith in Romero after Land, I lost faith in Romero after Land". That record has been scratched to death. And I think it's your debut album.

[krakenslayer]

LOL... Dude I feel everyones pain, and I understand, but I will tell you, money people just don't want to cough up for slow zombies anymore, Romero is lucky, but the money he gets isn't because of his slow zombies, its because of George Romero. I am almost wllling to bet there is a battle at the studio producing World War Z on which type of zombie to use, because they look at numbers, and numbers show that between DAWN and 28 Days Later those two films made $200 million worldwide and then some, and audience just seem to lean toward a fast zombie now a days. Myself, I wanted to go the slow zombie route with the next Deadlands movie, but every money person said, they need to be fast, which led to some arguments here and there, and eventually cost me two deals, but oh well fuck it. The game has been changed forever, and to be honest someone is going to have to make some really spectacular zombie film with slow zombies before the mind set will be changed. With everything needing to be an action beat every 10 pages it just makes it harder and harder to work around it. However, i feel that one zombie film will be made someday, and it will be nothing short of awesome, the film we all want, and then the slow zombie will be the monster everyone wants. However, in todays film market, won't happen, if someone does a zombie TV show... you may get away with it. Yeah, I see your point and I do understand, but just because that's the way it is doesn't mean we have to like it. Look at it this way, imagine I am a fan of James Bond movies because I like the suave, sardonic, darkly humorous, dangerous character. I don't mind too much if a new actor steps into the role and gives his own take on the character - more humorous (Moore), more dangerous (Dalton), more suave (Brosnan) - that's cool, variation keeps things interesting. However, I would be rather peeved if Steve Martin stepped into the role as a brash, clumsy, boorish, beer-guzzling, profanity-spewing, American-accented version of Bond. Technically he's still listed in the credits as 007, he's still (ostensibly) a British secret agent, he still goes out and saves the world, but in essense he is a completely different character. He might be a really interesting character all things considered, but I would be pissed off because something else has taken on the name but not the spirit of my favourite character, and replaced him for the forseeable future. This is the case with "fast zombies". I'm not saying they're unwatchable per se, but they're as different to Romero-style shamblers as Frankenstein's monster is to Dracula. I don't think they should be housed in the same pigeon-hole (or sub-genre) as shamblers, and should not be considered an alternative to traditional zombies. They are a separate and entirely discreet "movie monster". They should get the hell off the shambler's turf and get their own genre.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yeah, I see your point and I do understand, but just because that's the way it is doesn't mean we have to like it. Look at it this way, imagine I am a fan of James Bond movies because I like the suave, sardonic, darkly humorous, dangerous character. I don't mind too much if a new actor steps into the role and gives his own take on the character - more humorous (Moore), more dangerous (Dalton), more suave (Brosnan) - that's cool, variation keeps things interesting. However, I would be rather peeved if Steve Martin stepped into the role as a brash, clumsy, boorish, beer-guzzling, profanity-spewing, American-accented version of Bond. Technically he's still listed in the credits as 007, he's still (ostensibly) a British secret agent, he still goes out and saves the world, but in essense he is a completely different character. He might be a really interesting character all things considered, but I would be pissed off because something else has taken on the name but not the spirit of my favourite character, and replaced him for the forseeable future. This is the case with "fast zombies". I'm not saying they're unwatchable per se, but they're as different to Romero-style shamblers as Frankenstein's monster is to Dracula. I don't think they should be housed in the same pigeon-hole (or sub-genre) as shamblers, and should not be considered an alternative to traditional zombies. They are a separate and entirely discreet "movie monster". They should get the hell off the shambler's turf and get their own genre. How about ROMBIES Running Zombies.

[darth los]

well said Evil Ned fast movers are pretty lame, and getting old fast..and to top it of just not scary. 'Dawn 2004' worked (first 10min) but it was the only one that will get away with it...all these other fast movers are shit and a let-down The creators of 28days/weeks later are rolling over in their graves. Ok. Let's take this point by point. Jugding by your statement and the statements of others in this thread you hate runners. The films I previously mentioned has runners in it. Do you hate them as well? Now before I get attacked, this is not about the quality of the films, it's about the type of enemy found in them. And yes guys, I'm well aware that that the british films have infected people in them while the Snyder film has Dead people that have returned to life (supposedly). But is that really the case? To be fair, we don't even know that they were dead. That was never determined in the film. The closest we get to an answer on the subject is in the opening credits where at a C.D.C. press conference a reporter asks the representative. "Are these things alive or dead?" The rep responds "we don't know". The Bottom Line iis that the creatures from each respective film exhibit virtually the same characteristics yet the ones from 28weeks/days later are revered and those From Dawn 04' are beaten up left and right. And it doesn't matter what you call them. Both breeds would be indistiguishable from the other when running top speed at you ready, willing and able to rip you apart. Who cares if they're alive or dead? What's in a name? Infected or zombies? Would a rose by any other name smell not as sweet? The bottom line is that they are basically the same creature. Kinda reminds me about supporting democrats or republicans when there's really very little difference.. Those two parties are waaaaaaay too similar for my taste. In the end they are just politicians. All the same.

[krakenslayer]

How about ROMBIES Running Zombies. Only if it would be pronounced Rombie Mrrrovies. In a dog voice.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The creators of 28days/weeks later are rolling over in their graves. Ok. Let's take this point by point. Jugding by your statement and the statements of others in this thread you hate runners. The films I previously mentioned has runners in it. Do you hate them as well? Now before I get attacked, this is not about the quality of the films, it's about the type of enemy found in them. And yes guys, I'm well aware that that the british films have infected people in them while the Snyder film has Dead people that have returned to life (supposedly). But is that really the case? To be fair, we don't even know that they were dead. That was never determined in the film. The closest we get to an answer on the subject is in the opening credits where at a C.D.C. press conference a reporter asks the representative. "Are these things alive or dead?" The rep responds "we don't know". The Bottom Line iis that the creatures from each respective film exhibit virtually the same characteristics yet the ones from 28weeks/days later are revered and those From Dawn 04' are beaten up left and right. And it doesn't matter what you call them. Both breeds would be indistiguishable from the other when running top speed at you ready, willing and able to rip you apart. Who cares if they're alive or dead? What's in a name? Infected or zombies? Would a rose by any other name smell not as sweet? The bottom line is that they are basically the same creature. Kinda reminds me about supporting democrats or republicans when there's really very little difference.. Those two parties are waaaaaaay too similar for my taste. In the end they are just politicians. All the same. See, Darth gets it. Couldn't agree more. And DJ.....you're still trying to say that Boyle started the MTV Running Raptor Zeds??? 28 Days Later is NOT a zombie film!!!! I can't understand why people don't get that... And as for broken records....."I lost faith in Romero after Land, I lost faith in Romero after Land, I lost faith in Romero after Land". That record has been scratched to death. And I think it's your debut album. Maybe my debut album, but, the runner thing has been going on a lot longer. and YES Boyle did start it, if you look at 28 Days Later, and then go look at DAWN 04, DAWN 04 copied many of the shot styles. hence it is BOYLES fault. Zombies or not, the press consider them zombies, pretty much the general public consider them zombies... so what looks like a duck and walks/runs like a duck must be a turkey

[Trin]

I disagree with the notion that 28 Days Later runners and Dawn '04 runners are substantively the same creature. They're not. Running from them, fighting them, even destroying them might be the same. But they're NOT the same. Not psychologically, and isn't that where horror movies affect us? An infected human is based in science. You can study it, understand it, and defeat it through science. They still conform to the laws of nature. Movies like 28 Days/Weeks, Resident Evil, I Am Legend, etc. are all about the physical reality of surviving the plague. Nothing more. A zombie (or Ghouls as Night called them) is by its very nature supernatural. It raises questions of religion, after-life, and spirituality. Creatures are returning from the grave. There's no rational, scientific explanation. It's on par with the greatest supernatural events in history. It goes waaaay beyond mere survival. It raises questions of "why" and feelings of "this can't be happening." It brings into question everything you believe. That's scary business. It's not Boyles fault that Snyder cannot tell an infected from a ghoul.

[Tricky]

Hows about the Zombies in the big brother dead set mini-series?they were very fast & very snarly,but it was pulled off extremely well & is probably the best example available of a modern take on the zombie film!it moved with the times but managed to have the atmosphere we want shaun of the dead was also gold & stuck to the old shamblers so both types work for me as long as the script is right!

[shootemindehead]

They're obviously not the same creature. In "28 Days Later", the infected humans die of starvation in a matter of weeks. The living dead don't do that. Also, at the beginning of "Dawn of the Dead (2004)", Anna's husband dies and resurects. The give away is also in the title........."Dawn of the...ahem...Dead". The infected can be brought down by shots (or other damage) anywhere. The zombies in "Dawn of the Dead" have to be shot in the head. I don't see any similarity, except that the both can run the hundred yard dash.

[MinionZombie]

Hows about the Zombies in the big brother dead set mini-series?they were very fast & very snarly,but it was pulled off extremely well & is probably the best example available of a modern take on the zombie film!it moved with the times but managed to have the atmosphere we want shaun of the dead was also gold & stuck to the old shamblers so both types work for me as long as the script is right! Well said - Tricky's got my argument here pretty much. I'll also add that, for me, the two Deadlands films make the concept of runners work within its framework - the help being a good story to balance out my inherent dislike for runners. And 28 Days/Weeks Later does NOT feature zombies at all. It may feel like a zombie movie, but it just ISN'T - both the writer and director have said many times, and on the DVD, that it is NOT a zombie movie - they made the fucking thing, take their word for it. If you can't differentiate between "living human being infected with a manmade virus" and "dead person who is dead but now up again and shambling about wanting to feed on human flesh", then you're either dim, or a member of "joe average public who says "Braaaaaaaiiiiins" whenever they talk about zombies"... Dead Set - if only it had been shamblers - I still really like the series, it was awesome in fact, but the whole raptor vibe is still annoying as fuck. Shaun of the Dead, despite being a comedy, proved that a shambler zed flick STILL works in this day and age. "The mainstream" is just too lazy to write a script that makes them work (it's so fucking possible too, I myself wrote a script last year involving shamblers). I do think "the mainstream" are lazy for using runners too - it's all a part of the "loud noises instead of real scares" culture that pervades modern horror. The odd loud noise can work, but that's not really horror, plus it's fucking annoying after a very short time ... and it's bloody lazy.

[Zombie Snack]

I love zombie movies..and can appreciate both styles of zombies..it all started with Night of the living Dead way back in the day when I was just a pee wee...the slow methodical zombies scared the bejesus out of me. As I got a little..okay a lot older..god how time passes, I would watch a zombie classic but the scare factor just wasnt the same. To really enjoy a zombie flick you have to suspend all reality and accept that the Dead are returning to hunt and eat the living, but when watching the slow shamblers it just wasnt that scary anymore, you could just walk past them, it just didnt seem logical even while suspending reality that out of the entire country/world with all the military power that the dead couldnt be contained, I mean look how many zeds the rednecks in dawn kill or the hunting partys in Night kill, now put all trained police/military personel in the world on that and it just seems implausible that it would ever get to the point of a global event where the living are outnumbered 1000 to 1. With the fast zombies it is just much more believable or understandable how it could spread so much faster and not be contained, but it is hard to accept that the undead can sprint like olympic athletes. I find the fast zombies make more sence as far as a global uncontainable doomed apocolyptic senerio...the slow zombies work for me best in the realm of a containable epidemic that can be managed. The fast zombies work better for the whole end of world apocolyptic your doomed as f^#k scenerio.....JMO

[EvilNed]

Hows about the Zombies in the big brother dead set mini-series?they were very fast & very snarly,but it was pulled off extremely well & is probably the best example available of a modern take on the zombie film! Believe it or not, Dead Set is actually the very thing that inspired me to write this thread. That series would have been AWESOME, if it weren't for the crappy camerawork and raptor-zombies. It got real old, real fast. As for 28 Days Later, it is a zombiefilm. Here, I will prove it to you. Genres are defined by the audience, yes? Yes, they are. NOT by filmmakers. When you go into a videostore, you have Horror, Drama, War, whatever. These are the basic genres that the audience are interested in. Etc. etc. And thus, 28 Days Later is a zombiefilm. Because if someone asks you "Can you recommend any good, new zombiefilms?", you will not exclude 28 Days Later (Unless you don't think it's a good film). Thus, 28 Days Later is a zombiefilm, despite what the filmmakers say. Because THEY don't decide. WE decide. And the only reason the 28 films are good are because of their good story, coupled with good acting, coupled with not being overly reliant on it's threat. The threat in the film could have been anything. It still would have worked.

[bassman]

I once walked into a video store to find The Shawshank Redemption under the Romance section, but that doesn't make it a Romance. 28 Days Later is a viral outbreak film. NOT a zombie film. If viral outbreak films were considered zombie films, does that mean 12 Monkeys is a zombie film? What about The Crazies, Outbreak, or The Andromeda Strain? The infected in 28 Days Later are not dead, so they are not zombies. Unfortunately most of the movie-going public think they are zomnbies because they're the same people that flock to Saw 279, The Grudge, and the like.

[EvilNed]

I once walked into a video store to find The Shawshank Redemption under the Romance section, but that doesn't make it a Romance. No, because someone had misplaced it. 28 Days Later is a viral outbreak film. NOT a zombie film. If viral outbreak films were considered zombie films, does that mean 12 Monkeys is a zombie film? What about The Crazies, Outbreak, or The Andromeda Strain? Your argument is kinda wierd here, as you yourself (not I) label it as a Viral Outbreak film (A genre I've never ever heard off, by the way, and I've studied genres) and then claim I that I've called all Viral Outbreak films zombiefilms? Something which I couldn't possibly have done, as I'd never heard of the genre until now! I guess my best response would be... Out of all those "Viral Outbreak" films you've mentioned, there's one sore thumb... 28 Days Later. It has more incommon with most zombiefilms than "12 Monkeys" or "The Andromeda Strain". It uses the same conventions as most zombiefilms, and aha, this is what makes the audience define a genre... Conventions! Which makes 28 Days Later a zombiefilm.