28 Weeks Later

[The Jungler]

http://www.foxatomic.com/#28wkstrailer

OK, I'm a huge fan of the first movie, and was a little skeptical about a sequel without any of the old people coming back, but Jesus Christ this looks awesome. Does anyone know anything else about the movie? What do you guys think of the trailer?

[Tillius]

I still need to watch 28 Days Later.

[Let's Chop Cats!]

Looks pretty generic. The first one was only good because it was a low budget indie project that got picked up.

[Pluperfect_Arson]

I saw an advertisement for this early this morning, and I am curious as to how it will turn out. I haven't watched the trailer, yet, but I shall save that for later.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

The first one was only worth a **** because of the camera work.


Entertainment-wise it was non-existant.

[Mister Mop]

It looks great. I'll definately be looking out for this.

[CrossTheBreeze]

I can't ****ing wait!

I loved the original, I just think it sucks cause jim isn't going to be in this movie and I thought he was such a great character

[Kage]

Is it me, or is it really ****ing lame to name the sequel 28 Weeks Later? It's like they're trying to one-up the original.

"28 days later, huh? How about this, we'll make ours 28 weeks later!"

It's like they put little kids in charge of it.

[thedeadwalk!]

It's going along with the time progression. Kind of like with Night, Dawn and Day of the Dead. Makes more sense than 28 Days Later 2.

[planewreck]

Dead makes a good point. This does look pretty awesome though. Is it made by a British company? If this is an American sequel it'll probably suck, but the British make a damn good horror film. As far as this goes, it looks effectively creepy and emotionally relevant. I like the fact that they're getting kids into the mix, and maybe they won't be complete idiots.

[AlienEater]

it looks ok

[thomas is fast]

The camera looks really shaky the entire movie. That annoys me.

[Tillius]

Looks great.
I finally watched the first one a couple days ago and loved it. Don't think I've seen a horror movie that good in awhile.

Frank's death scene.....God. What a great scene.

And too bad about Jim not being in this one. Cilian Murphy did a great job in the first movie.

[simplephotographinthesun]

Looks great.
I finally watched the first one a couple days ago and loved it. Don't think I've seen a horror movie that good in awhile.

Frank's death scene.....God. What a great scene.

And too bad about Jim not being in this one. Cilian Murphy did a great job in the first movie.

123, i just wish danny boyle was behind the project though :(. we'll see what this spanish director has up his sleeve

[Opulent Cow]

As far as zombie movies go 28 Days Later was really good. This looks good too. I'm not picky.

[Generic Joshman]

hmm looks right up my alley. better go rent the first one..

[3FingeredHoek]

The song at the end totally makes the trailer.

I still need to finish the first one though.

[exodus]

I still need to watch 28 Days Later.

Its one of the best "zombie" movies ever made, though technically 28 Days Later wasn't a zombie movie since the people didn't come back from the dead, the virus just made them go insane.

Anyways, hell yea you need to see it!

[BurningSky]

I need to see 28 Days Later because they use Godspeed You! Black Emperor's East Hastings in it, which is a song made of pure badass...

[Tillius]

The song at the end totally makes the trailer.

123

It goes perfectly with it.

[Kage]

I need to see 28 Days Later because they use Godspeed You! Black Emperor's East Hastings in it, which is a song made of pure badass...

They don't live up to the song at all tbqh.

[Otherside]

yeah but any movie that features GSYBE deserves some credit tbh

[funluvinhobo]

from what i remember of 28 days later i really liked it and ill defo go see 28 weeks later :)

[Xerxes]

28 weeks later made me laugh when I first saw a poster for it yesterday, partially because the first movie, while enjoyable, was a bit silly. Ahem: "THE MONKEYS WERE INFECTED WITH RAAAGE!!"

Anyways. Yeah. I might watch it.

[br3ad_man]

First one was ok. This will probably suck.

[<3<3<3]

I love zombie-esque movies.


It's not the same director, but the directer of the first is the executive producer or something for this one.


I'm excited to see it. I hope it'll be cool.

[CrossTheBreeze]

did no one else think jim was an awesome character?

[poopoogaypoonn]

The first movie was cool. This looks sketchy

[lagirl4music]

i hope this movie is good, i loved the first one

[AA-12]

28 Days Later is my favorite "zombie" movie. The trailer for this is honestly perfect. I can't wait.

[Triangle]

This movie is pretty good. I can't really remember the first one so I can't compare. :p

[The Transporter 2]

needs more zombies

[Mexican Bandito]

I'm looking forward to seeing this alot.
From the trailers i've seen it looks as the film has lots alot of its 'small scaleness' if you know what i mean.... =/

[Gnarmageddon]

Bumpity bump.

I'm going to see this tonight, even though 28 Days Later disappointed me.

28 Days Later is my favorite "zombie" movie. The trailer for this is honestly perfect. I can't wait.
Have you never seen the original Romero trilogy?

[Dinosawesome]

It's going along with the time progression. Kind of like with Night, Dawn and Day of the Dead. Makes more sense than 28 Days Later 2.
29 days later?

[Tillius]

I can't wait to go and see this tonight.

29 days later?

28 Days and 3 Hrs. Later

[EightMilesHigh]

I just watched the original last weekend and thought it was brilliant. I'm looking forward to this one.

[Sidetraxx]

Yeah, I just watched 28 days later this morning, can't wait for this one :D

[planewreck]

Have you never seen the original Romero trilogy?
Ugh, this is such a fallback. I'm sorry, but they're not that great. They may have pioneered the "zombie" flick, but that doesn't mean that others haven't built and surpassed them. 28 Days Later was one of them, and the remake of Dawn of the Dead was a lot better than the original. Now, Night of the Living Dead was great I admit, but Dawn and Dead couldn't match up to it and were eventually slaughtered by the competition in years to come. I admire Romero for incorporating themes to his zombie flicks and creating the zombie flick, but why does status compensate for if a film is really that good or not?
Makes more sense than 28 Days Later 2.
29 days later?
There was already a 29 Days Later. It was the re-release of 28 Days Later with a bonus ending. And yeah, this takes place 28 weeks later, and of course it's for convenience sake but why would we berate the film because of it? It has to keep with the title progression, so it's better than something else.

[DeckerDontPlay]

Why is everyone so fixated on the name of the movie?

[Iscariot]

i'm pumped for this movie

[Gnarmageddon]

Ugh, this is such a fallback. I'm sorry, but they're not that great. They may have pioneered the "zombie" flick, but that doesn't mean that others haven't built and surpassed them. 28 Days Later was one of them, and the remake of Dawn of the Dead was a lot better than the original. Now, Night of the Living Dead was great I admit, but Dawn and Dead couldn't match up to it and were eventually slaughtered by the competition in years to come. I admire Romero for incorporating themes to his zombie flicks and creating the zombie flick, but why does status compensate for if a film is really that good or not?
Night of the Living Dead was the worst of the three in the original trilogy in my opinion.

I'm not saying Romero's movies were better because of the status they claimed, I'm saying they're better because I actually think they were better than most other zombie movies I've seen.

[Iscariot]

night of the living dead is good because of how experimental it was

no one was really making zombie movies and romero poured most of his budget into special fx making it a one of a kind experience

someone watching it today won't get the same impact from it as those who saw it when it was new

[DeckerDontPlay]

I just got back from seeing this movie and it was everything i could have hoped for. Great movie.

[Gnarmageddon]

night of the living dead is good because of how experimental it was

no one was really making zombie movies and romero poured most of his budget into special fx making it a one of a kind experience

someone watching it today won't get the same impact from it as those who saw it when it was new
I can see where you're coming from, but the ending was too lame.

I just got back from seeing 28 Weeks Later, and it was actually MUCH better than I expected it to be. Go see it even if you didn't like the first one.

[simplephotographinthesun]

hmm the hoopla over this sequel implies that it's better than danny boyle's original.

:eek: erection countdown in 3...2...

[Otherside]

it's definitely not better than the first

[Tillius]

Damn. I was supposed to go see this last night but we were late to the showtime, and we had places to be that prevented us from seeing it any later.

And now I'm busy today so I have to wait until tomorrow to go see it.

[griftadan]

this moive ****ing ruled

SPOILERS





the subway scene with the nightvision scope was brilliant

[c0mpt0n4ss]

Seeing as how it's a film would English origin, I hope the next installment is called 28 Fortnights Later.

[Gnarmageddon]

this moive ****ing ruled

SPOILERS





the subway scene with the nightvision scope was brilliant
Yeah that was the only scene that scared me.

[Avalanche.]

SPOILER



I was kind of confused with the nightvision scene..Wasn't really sure what happened until she looked at her corpse.


My favorite scene was probably the chopper scene, this movie was good, not great and not better than the first.

[DeckerDontPlay]

SPOILER

My favorite had to be in the beginning when he completely says, F the wife and is running through the field. The way it was shot and the music was so awesome.

[Tillius]

Saw it last night. Awesome movie, but it didn't top the first. And, agreeably, the night vision scene was pretty creepy.

Can't wait for 28 Months Later.:p

[CarnageFairy]

I'm sure it won't be as good as the first (sequels almost never are) but I'll probably see it sometime.

[planewreck]

I liked it so much more than the first one. The first one was excellent (4/4), but this one is just as good or better. It's finally a horror film to get excited over, and everything was top notch. The beginning, the ending, the action, the direction, the acting, etc. So good. It stands as one of the best sequels I've seen.

[GleamInRanks]

If you say its as good as the first one, which I loved, I'll certainly find time to go see it.

[Tillius]

It was ****ed up when



SPOILER!!!







they start shooting everybody for the first time.

[griftadan]

the use of music/silence in the right places was awesome as well

[Gnarmageddon]

I thought the way they used the cameras, shaking them around and everything, was brilliant. It added so much to the action and suspense.

For example, the first scene in the cottage would have been bland if you saw every single thing that happened.

Rofl SPOILERZ










I thought that the dude that played Donald made a BADASS zombie.

[griftadan]

was that the dad? that was the first time i saw an infected have a character role. i liked it.

[AA-12]

I can't wait to see this. If it's as good as people say, it'll be my favorite non-LoTR movie.

[Otherside]

was that the dad? that was the first time i saw an infected have a character role. i liked it.

see land of the dead for influence

[planewreck]

see land of the dead for influence
good example, but bad film

[DeckerDontPlay]

What is the song they play throughout most of the movie mainly just an eerie guitar riff? First time it plays is when the guy is running through the field and all the infected are chasing him in the beginning.

[planewreck]

I believe it's the same song that can be found in the first film, during Murphy's rampage through the mansion.


And, uhm, here's my review I wrote for the film on this site I write for. It's a little long, but I hope it comes off like a 4/4 or that I did it justice.

There’s a wooden cottage, boarded up and dark, filled with a few survivors. A boy runs up, pleading and scared, and they let him in out of kindness. But he has brought along with him uninvited guests, and soon these people find themselves under attack. They run; some make it, others don’t. A man, in an act of cowardly selfishness, leaves his wife for dead, and, looking back over his shoulder, watches as she is dragged away from the window where she watches him flee with disbelieving eyes.

Some will tell you that it’s better for a film to begin weak and go out strong than it is for a film to begin strong and teeter out. This might be true, but that’s irrelevant here. It’s more to illustrate my point: 28 Weeks Later begins in such an alluring, terrifying, climactic way that it’s easy to imagine that it could fall prey to the criticism of strong to weak ratio; it doesn’t. Instead, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes 28 Weeks Later (sequel to Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later, one of the best films of 2003 and one of the best horror films of the new millennium) and builds off its breathtaking opener to become an adrenaline rush of horror, of both jump-out scares and psychological alike, that takes its predecessor’s hopeful ending and turns it on its head.

It’s been six months since the last of the infected have died off from starvation. Don (Robert Carlyle) lives in a quarantined section of London that is in the process of repopulation and is reunited with his children, teenager Tammy (Imogen Poots) and 12-year-old Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton), who happened to be overseas on a field trip when the first outbreak occurred. Their mother Alice (Catherine McCormack) fell prey to the infected when left for dead in the film’s opener. Just as things are working themselves out in London, a series of events brings a contagious survivor out of hiding and once again the disease is released. Orders are sent out for an extermination of the whole population to stop the spread of the infection, so Tammy and Andy, along with a military doctor Scarlet (Rose Byrne) and American army soldier Doyle (Jeremy Renner), attempt to flee the city before it is wiped out by the military or the infected get to them.

Where 28 Days Later was obviously meant as a standalone film, taking its time to give characters downtime for character development and for hopeful speculation, 28 Weeks Later barely lets the audience breathe before it throws scene after scene for its clip 99 minutes. Where this could have easily been the film’s downfall, leaving little time to get to care for the characters and their journey, Fresnadillo and co-writers Rowan Joffe and Jesus Olmos treat their characters with the same respect they treat the action. Where today’s American horror films fall to cliché stereotypes and caricatures, Fresnadillo makes sure his characters are 3-dimensional and never act out in stupid, irrational ways. They also take the time to paint a subtle political view on the military, which choose to shoot anyone without consequence, an all-too-realistic subtext that mirrors the war going on today where innocent lives are lost daily.

None of this could have been done without strong performances, seeing as the action could very well overtake the humanistic aspect of the film, but all involved are more than willing to throw themselves into the line of fire. Robert Carlyle is an emotional standout as Don who is torn between guilt for leaving his wife for dead and keeping these cowardly secrets from his children. Relative newcomers Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton have a daunting task at being believable siblings and being plausibly terrified, and they pull it off with aplomb. Special mention should go to Muggleton who never once drops his guard or acts less than natural; he is a find as Andy and proves that he is more than capable of carrying the film. As Scarlet and Doyle (a tribute to 28 Days Later’s Danny Boyle?), Byrne and Renner are realistic at their plight to save the children at all costs, doing rational things in terrifying circumstances.

But most of the film’s audiences are coming for the rush, and the film never fails to deliver. Its first half is filled to the brim with jump-out-of-your-seat moments while the second half makes way for psychological scares. They mesh to make for a satisfying and plausible horror film that never goes for clichés or take an easy way out of a situation. It helps that the audience cares for the core characters, which the film takes enough time to flesh out and make sympathetic, and proves early on that not one is safe from harm. Even the military is used as a truthful, if belligerent point of the plot that never falters in its truthful display of how they react to the outbreak. If the film falters in any way, it’s the quick cuts that make some of the scenes incomprehensible, but this is a slight miscalculation that doesn’t take away from the general overview of the film.

With the aid of composer John Murphy and cinematographer Enrique Chadian, Fresnadillo has a made a worthy sequel that doesn’t feel like a company cashing in on its predecessor. It surpasses 28 Days Later in scope, emotionally and stylistically, making a more profound emotional impact by the time the credits roll. The ending, while at once hopeful and low-key in Danny Boyle’s film, doesn’t cop out for this same effect here, and instead hauntingly and plausibly keeps the film downbeat and open-ended. This only strengthens a film that surpasses the normal conventions for a sequel and any horror film in general by not opting out for more characters and instead focusing in on people we care about. Like last year’s The Descent, from the time the lights dim to the time they come back on, 28 Weeks Later succeeds where so many American horror films fail and creates an apocalyptic Hell worth getting excited over.

4/4

[Gnarmageddon]

was that the dad? that was the first time i saw an infected have a character role. i liked it.
Yeah, it was him. He kept looking for his son.

It was played out really well, but the only thing was it seemed like the rage didn't truly have a hold of him.

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*







Like when they were bombing the city, and he goes into that alley and completely avoids everything, sitting there, all nice and calm. And when he beats the medic girl with the bat instead of eating her. He shouldn't be able to think like a regular human when he's going insane.

I can't wait to see this. If it's as good as people say, it'll be my favorite non-LoTR movie.
You'll definitely love it.

[bebubly]

i saw this last night and it really scared me.

[thedeadwalk!]

I really dug this movie. It's very emotional, especially in the beginning, and had me interested the whole time.

Although, it felt like a video game at times (like the Silent Hill movie) when the chopper guy was telling them to meet him places. That takes me out of the movie and jumps from one scene to the next make me feel like I've just gotten out of a loading screen. Also, the subway scene was like the story one of the first survivors Jim comes across told him of how his family died. Then there's the eye-gouging scene that reminded me of what Jim did in the first one.

Still, it's really good and, in the least, on par with the first movie.

PS Tammy is pretty (and so is her real name: Imogen Poots).

[griftadan]

Yeah, it was him. He kept looking for his son.

It was played out really well, but the only thing was it seemed like the rage didn't truly have a hold of him.

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*







Like when they were bombing the city, and he goes into that alley and completely avoids everything, sitting there, all nice and calm. And when he beats the medic girl with the bat instead of eating her. He shouldn't be able to think like a regular human when he's going insane.


You'll definitely love it.


maybe he had part of the genes that allowed him to be less effected by it

[thedeadwalk!]

Those are some odds that both the mother and father would have some resistance to it.

They should gamble.

[A Dead Modernist]

Too over the top with me Ex: The Helicopter Scene, Car Chase
But the Cabin Scene, Night Vision, "Sniping their own people" etc. just made this a very enjoyable film, solid acting, and VERY good visuials IMO
And not as good as the first IMO
7.5/10

[The Jungler]

Honestly I thought the movie was good, but it definitely lacked the emotional aspect the first movie used so well.

SPOILERS

The subway scene definitely reminded me of The Descent and that chopper scene was stupid and cheesy. The dad should have been killed off early on, I didn't like how he some how survived through everything. The opening scene really was awesome though.


overall it was bloodier and scarier, but certainly not better.

[Tillius]

Those are some odds that both the mother and father would have some resistance to it.

They should gamble.

It's possible though. He clearly wasn't effected by it in the same way that the others were. Everytime his name was called, he would stop and realize what he was doing, but then lose the ability once again to control himself.

[The Jungler]

What is the song they play throughout most of the movie mainly just an eerie guitar riff? First time it plays is when the guy is running through the field and all the infected are chasing him in the beginning.In The House - In A Heartbeat by John Murphy

It's named after the scene they use it in during the first movie. I'm glad they brought it back for this movie (made me go all nostalgic) but 3 times was way too many to use it.

SPOILERS

Did they have to do that scene with the fingers in the eyes? It was so powerful in the first film, but it just seemed like gratuitous violence in this one.

[Tillius]

In The House - In A Heartbeat by John Murphy

It's named after the scene they use it in during the first movie. I'm glad they brought it back for this movie (made me go all nostalgic) but 3 times was way too many to use it.

SPOILERS

Did they have to do that scene with the fingers in the eyes? It was so powerful in the first film, but it just seemed like gratuitous violence in this one.

I thought that too, and the fact that they did it twice was kinda lame.

[Gnarmageddon]

maybe he had part of the genes that allowed him to be less effected by it
If he was less effected by it, he wouldn't have gouged out his wife's eyes, threw up blood, slammed his head into the wall, and pinned his son on the ground trying to bite him.

lol spoilers bai

Did they have to do that scene with the fingers in the eyes? It was so powerful in the first film, but it just seemed like gratuitous violence in this one.
It may have been gratuitous, but it was awesome.

[Hbp]

this movie looks so dope. I loved 28 Days. Its right up my ally in terms of favorite movie genre.

[planewreck]

I loved 28 Days.
Sandra Bullock lolol

[simplephotographinthesun]

In The House - In A Heartbeat by John Murphy
Did they have to do that scene with the fingers in the eyes? It was so powerful in the first film, but it just seemed like gratuitous violence in this one.

yeah, i felt it was a bit over the top throwing it in there in the sequel. i think it remains so powerful because cillian's character was plastered with blood in the first movie and you truly see the primal chaotic kill-instinct in that sequence in the mansion.

[planewreck]

you guys, he was tearing apart his wife. i don't get why this wasn't chilling. i gasped at this one as opposed to the obvious inclusion of it in the first one. he was purposely seeking out his family as if his guilt was driving his instinct to kill.

[exodus]

Saw it tonight...was alright but nowhere as good compared to the first one, felt like it went by too fast as it happened all in one day where as 28 Days Later occurred over a period of time (unknown?). This one was definitely alot more gory than 28 Days Later but the sequences were not as dramatic nor touching as the first one (in my view). I look at 28 Days Later as more of a drama than horror flick really, displays human nature at its best and worst in a time where hope is lost.

And oh people, STOP CALLING THIS A ZOMBIE MOVIE
this isn't a zombie movie, the theme is infection, as you can notice that the infected do not die, they turn. The RAGE virus is like any other epidemic, it spreads by contact of saliva and its symptoms is turning the infected into mindless violent psychos but nonetheless, they are still human. They're too rational to even think, therefore only possess the intent to harm and destroy everything in their path. Ultimately they will starve to death as they become too violent to feed.

[planewreck]

It's a zombie film. Same dynamics. The fact that they come about to their zombie-like state is different than actual zombies doesn't stop the film from being just that, a zombie flick. They get infected the same way zombies do, they attack the same way zombies do (ala Dawn of the Dead remake), and many of the characteristics you just listed have to deal with zombies ('They're too rational to even think, therefore only possess the intent to harm and destroy everything in their path. Ultimately they will starve to death as they become too violent to feed.').

[Gnarmageddon]

And oh people, STOP CALLING THIS A ZOMBIE MOVIE
this isn't a zombie movie, the theme is infection, as you can notice that the infected do not die, they turn. The RAGE virus is like any other epidemic, it spreads by contact of saliva and its symptoms is turning the infected into mindless violent psychos but nonetheless, they are still human. They're too rational to even think, therefore only possess the intent to harm and destroy everything in their path. Ultimately they will starve to death as they become too violent to feed.
You just described a zombie movie.

[Mr. Ron]

Its not a zombie film. Zombie films have slow moving, stupid, flesh hungry, back from the dead people. These are just mutated humans.

[Tillius]

Dawn of the Dead........

[AA-12]

Zombie*

[The Jungler]

Saw it tonight...was alright but nowhere as good compared to the first one, felt like it went by too fast as it happened all in one day where as 28 Days Later occurred over a period of time (unknown?). This one was definitely alot more gory than 28 Days Later but the sequences were not as dramatic nor touching as the first one (in my view). I look at 28 Days Later as more of a drama than horror flick really, displays human nature at its best and worst in a time where hope is lost.

And oh people, STOP CALLING THIS A ZOMBIE MOVIE
this isn't a zombie movie, the theme is infection, as you can notice that the infected do not die, they turn. The RAGE virus is like any other epidemic, it spreads by contact of saliva and its symptoms is turning the infected into mindless violent psychos but nonetheless, they are still human. They're too rational to even think, therefore only possess the intent to harm and destroy everything in their path. Ultimately they will starve to death as they become too violent to feed.I agree with the first part for sure, but this is definitely a zombie movie (whether there are "actual zombies" in it or not)

[AlienEater]

even if it wasn't a zombie movie, referring to it as one is far easier than saying it is a 'humans turned into mindless violent psychos by infection' movie

[DeckerDontPlay]

The answer to the question is obvious. Are they undead? No. A single gunshot and they fall as opposed to complete dismemberment. Not zombies.

Yes the movie follows the same footsteps as a zombie movie, however most infections in zombie movie's kill the host then they suddenly "wake up dead." 28 weeks later infected are just pissed off, adrenaline fed, red eyed englishmen.

GG.

[Otherside]

They are ****ing zombies godamnit. ****ing, zombies

[Tillius]

They're zombies.

Yes, it is a different take on zombie horror. An ORIGINAL take on zombie horror. But it does NOT change the fact that they are zombies. It's not hard.

[MattyBlade]

SPOILERS

































I haven't seen it but it's probably mediocre.

/spoilers.

[planewreck]

Its not a zombie film. Zombie films have slow moving, stupid, flesh hungry, back from the dead people. These are just mutated humans.
Obviously if the first zombie film had slow moving, stupid, flesh hungry, back from the dea people that's what every zombie film following it has to abide by.

Are you ****ing kidding me? Do you realize how boring this would get and how little change in the genre would happen? 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later are zombie films, unconventional and with a different spin. There is no set definition on zombies, and if we're going to get technical, these aren't actually people any more. They're just as much dead as they are alive, with no soul or morals. They aren't people anymore, they've changed.

[iarescientists]

They're just as much dead as they are alive, with no soul or morals. They aren't people anymore, they've changed.

The part I liked best about the first movie was how it kind of made you wonder who were the real monsters. If it was the "zombies" or if it were the man who were planning on raping/gang banging/whatever any women that would come to them.

But haven't seen this movie yet. I was planning on going yesterday, but my friends pussy'd out and wanted to see shrek instead. ugh.

[Mr. Ron]

Ok, lets go over what a zombie, and a mutated human is. Because they are two totally different things all together. Calling the monsters in 28 "zombies" is like calling a dog a fish.


Zombies: Are DEAD people that died of natural or unnatural consequences, that are somehow raised (animated) through chemical or supernatural means. They do not have a mind, but are only driven by the natural instinct to feed on flesh. They are slow and have very poor motor functions do to stagnant forms of rigor mortise and rot.


Mutated humans: People that ARE ALIVE (this is the main difference. There is a difference between being alive, and being animate) and were mutated by some chemical contagion or virus, and have their DNA and or physical anatomy violently changed by it and are driven by the violent sides of human nature. They can THINK, solve basic problems and move at a fast pace, since they are merely crazed humans.


They are two different things all together.

[thedeadwalk!]

Zombies: Are DEAD people that died of natural or unnatural consequences, that are somehow raised (animated) through chemical or supernatural means. They do not have a mind, but are only driven by the natural instinct to feed on flesh. They are slow and have very poor motor functions do to stagnant forms of rigor mortise and rot.
Dawn of the Dead (remake) and House of the Dead: zombies are not slow, and some even talk (this occurs in the Return of the Living Dead series and other movies as well (one even with the zombies fighting for equal rights)).

Day of the Dead and Land of the Dead: zombies use tools (guns, musical instruments, razors) at, at least, a beginner level with some proficiency; not poor motor functions. And I'd argue that the zombies in Land of the Dead had more cognisance than any live "rager" in the 28... series will ever have.

I, Zombie: chronicles a man's decent into zombie-dom that finishes with his death. Until that point, his death, he had usual zombie cravings such as human flesh, but also human ones, such as human flesh (for sex), which he achieved with some humorous/horrendous outcomes (depending how you look at it).

Mutated humans: People that ARE ALIVE (this is the main difference. There is a difference between being alive, and being animate) and were mutated by some chemical contagion or virus, and have their DNA and or physical anatomy violently changed by it and are driven by the violent sides of human nature. They can THINK, solve basic problems and move at a fast pace, since they are merely crazed humans.
When was problem solving displayed?

Really, there seems to be a lot of hair-splitting going on. People are turning into mindless killing machines, be them undead or alive, from natural or unnatural causes, that spread this characteristic to others upon fluid transmission, with a shot to the head, or other fatal option, necessary to stopping it.

Alive or dead doesn't really matter when they are controlled by a singular aspect, which really strikes at the core of what a zombie is, and started out as. Live people controlled by another, singular, person.

[Mr. Ron]

I was just referring to the "classic" kinds of zombies. Slow & stupid. I wasn't thinking of the hybrid ones in the newer movies. But, there is a difference between mutated humans and zombies.

The original zombie just wanders around aimlessly searching for flesh, a mutated human *knows* where to get it, and tries to get to it. A zombie just kind of follows people around or stumbles across flesh by chance.

And yeah, this convo is awfully nerdy. Haha.

[thedeadwalk!]

It's not that they're wandering aimlessly, they're just slow so it takes them longer to get into the "chase." If you want to argue that zombies don't know where to get it I'll rebut with the mall of Dawn of the Dead. It starts off with a few but zombies see each other and congregate. The mutated humans in 28... do the same thing except they run there and beat it up. Hooligans, they are.

Surely, you see there's a very thin, if any, line between them?

And yeah, this convo is awfully nerdy. Haha.
Agreed...and I wouldn't have it any other way. :cool:

[talk show host]

Ugh, I really want to see this film, I loved 28 Days Later.

I can't stop reading the spoilers in this thread though :(

[planewreck]

I was just referring to the "classic" kinds of zombies. Slow & stupid. I wasn't thinking of the hybrid ones in the newer movies. But, there is a difference between mutated humans and zombies.

The original zombie just wanders around aimlessly searching for flesh, a mutated human *knows* where to get it, and tries to get to it. A zombie just kind of follows people around or stumbles across flesh by chance.

And yeah, this convo is awfully nerdy. Haha.
Why do the "classic" zombies mandate what zombies should be interpreted now? If every zombie film had slow moving zombies, they'd be awfully boring and repetitive, especially considering how not scary those films were. This is just a new twist on an old genre, that doesn't make it wrong or anything otherwise.



and why do i always start new ****ing pages?

[talk show host]

and why do i always start new ****ing pages?

Switch to 40 posts per page and it won't happen as often ;)

Also I agree with you when you say zombie films would get boring quite fast if they were all composed of these slow moving monsters who you could escape from at a brisk walk.

It's a pointless discussion though, if you don't want to think of it as a zombie film then don't, it has no actual bearing on the film's quality! Just think of it as some monster movie or something.

[exodus]

Ok, lets go over what a zombie, and a mutated human is. Because they are two totally different things all together. Calling the monsters in 28 "zombies" is like calling a dog a fish.


Zombies: Are DEAD people that died of natural or unnatural consequences, that are somehow raised (animated) through chemical or supernatural means. They do not have a mind, but are only driven by the natural instinct to feed on flesh. They are slow and have very poor motor functions do to stagnant forms of rigor mortise and rot.


Mutated humans: People that ARE ALIVE (this is the main difference. There is a difference between being alive, and being animate) and were mutated by some chemical contagion or virus, and have their DNA and or physical anatomy violently changed by it and are driven by the violent sides of human nature. They can THINK, solve basic problems and move at a fast pace, since they are merely crazed humans.


They are two different things all together.

This is why I'd rather be a zombie rather than an infected from 28 Days Later because I'd be died before I turn into a zombie therefore I wouldn't know or feel anything while I'm a zombie because I'll be dead, it'll be the "virus" or etc that uses my body.

If I was infected by the RAGE virus, I'd still be alive and would feel the pain and such of the infected and there would be nothing I can do about it because I wouldn't be able to control myself.

[AlienEater]

i love "classic zombies" but i also think new "twists" should be brought to the genre

but really zombies ****ing rule

[GreyHam]

romero zombies undoubtably set the standard (lets be honest, popular knowledge of zombies is based on the romero idea)

the infected are scary in a completely different way though...

[loathed]

i really want to watch this...sounds interesting.

but im still going to catch the first, first.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

i didnt like it

[planewreck]

romero zombies undoubtably set the standard (lets be honest, popular knowledge of zombies is based on the romero idea)

the infected are scary in a completely different way though...
Of course they set the standard; he basically made them. Of course popular knowledge of zombies is based on the Romero idea; he basically made them. This doesn't make him right or better.

[UpperDecker]

My friend saw it and said there was something funny about it. I don't care about spoilers. What was the funny thing?

[Rams]

Survival of the fittest.

[UpperDecker]

Survival of the fittest.


huh?

[A Spoonful Supreme]

probably because one of the characters was in trainspotting so seeing him act serious is like LOL

[planewreck]

Or that one of the guys was in The Full Monty, about a bunch of british guys who decide to raise money by putting on a Chippendales type gig.

[Iscariot]

@ the discussion earlier: zombies are undead

the creatures in 28 days/weeks later are not undead so they aren't zombies

when these things die they're dead there is no second time around

simple simple simple

[DeckerDontPlay]

@ the discussion earlier: zombies are undead

the creatures in 28 days/weeks later are not undead so they aren't zombies

when these things die they're dead there is no second time around

simple simple simple

Trust me its a war your never going to win. The incompetence in this thread is almost sickening.

[Iscariot]

everyone wants to be objective

[planewreck]

The discussion wasn't whether they're zombies or not (they aren't) but if the film can be labeled in the "zombie film" genre.

[DeckerDontPlay]

It deserves its own special place.^^

[Iscariot]

nah it's an apocalyptic thriller

[planewreck]

only apocalyptic movie i can remember liking. someone name some others, cause i can only think of a few.

[Otherside]

A zombie is an animated human body devoid of a soul.


ok i guess we can agree then that this was a zombie movie ok

[Iscariot]

too bad the actual definition is

zom·bie
–noun

1. (in voodoo)
a. the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.
b. the supernatural force itself.

[Mr. Ron]

@ the discussion earlier: zombies are undead

the creatures in 28 days/weeks later are not undead so they aren't zombies

when these things die they're dead there is no second time around

simple simple simple

yup

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Or that one of the guys was in The Full Monty, about a bunch of british guys who decide to raise money by putting on a Chippendales type gig.

lol same guy

[AlienEater]

Of course they set the standard; he basically made them. Of course popular knowledge of zombies is based on the Romero idea; he basically made them. This doesn't make him right or better.

what do you mean by "right"?

[Gnarmageddon]

too bad the actual definition is
That's a voodoo zombie. Completely different from a traditional zombie.

[Mr. Ron]

That's a voodoo zombie. Completely different from a traditional zombie.

Not at all. All zombies were undead raised by a chemical reaction or a supernatural force.

[<3<3<3]

Geez guys, did any of you read the Zombie survival guide?


:rolleyes:


just kidding, of course, but that book was seriously awesome.

[Iscariot]

That's a voodoo zombie. Completely different from a traditional zombie.

the zombies in the zombie movies may not have been revived by voodoo but they were still revived from the dead unlike the infected in 28 days/weeks

[<3<3<3]

While they may not be zombies, they are still zombie-esque creatures, yah?

[Tillius]

The original zombie just wanders around aimlessly searching for flesh, a mutated human *knows* where to get it, and tries to get to it. A zombie just kind of follows people around or stumbles across flesh by chance.

Actually, if you want to look at the "originals", the original appearance of zombies were those who died and were somehow brought back, wandering mindlessly around. Now, this can be said for many zombie movies, however, the original zombie was not meant to be anything but a disturbing outcome of death. The original zombie did not kill, did not need flesh.

It was Romero that created the image of the zombie that we see today in his first film Night of the Living Dead.

[Gnarmageddon]

Not at all. All zombies were undead raised by a chemical reaction or a supernatural force.
Yeah, all zombies are undead. But zombies infected with the Solanum virus, and zombies raised by rituals are different. Virus infected zombies are slower, don't respond to things as fast, etc. Voodoo zombies are more human-like, and can react to pain sensations, lights, sounds, etc. Definitely not the same.

Geez guys, did any of you read the Zombie survival guide?


:rolleyes:


just kidding, of course, but that book was seriously awesome.
Yeah, actually I did. It's a good book.

the zombies in the zombie movies may not have been revived by voodoo but they were still revived from the dead unlike the infected in 28 days/weeks
Yes, I'm with you there, but the definition you gave only mentioned voodoo zombies. I was just saying.

[Tillius]

the zombies in the zombie movies may not have been revived by voodoo but they were still revived from the dead unlike the infected in 28 days/weeks

But that's only how they start. Then they begin to attack people, causing an epidemic. Such is the way zombies are created.


Now, unless I somehow missed something in the movie, it doesn't really say how the rage virus started. Whose to say the first infected wasn't killed and brought back to life by something?

Once again, if they explained it and I somehow missed it...well....whoops.

[DeckerDontPlay]

too bad the actual definition is

zom·bie
–noun

1. (in voodoo)
a. the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.
b. the supernatural force itself.

This is /thread. Gameover.

or /argument seeing the thread should be about how great this, NOT A ZOMBIE MOVIE is

[Tillius]

.........

[DeckerDontPlay]

Thats real talk.

[planewreck]

Way to blatantly skip over all the posts that countered it.

[Tillius]

Thats real talk.

What can I say? I'm speechless when it comes to your sheer idiocy. I've already given many different reasons that this IS a zombie film, as have many others.

Why don't you take a peak at it you dumb ****?

[DeckerDontPlay]

Nah i read them all just not convinced. The definition is not invalid just because of "voodoo".

[Tillius]

No, but simply giving a definition for JUST voodoo zombies sure as hell doesn't make it valid.

[Mr. Ron]

You cannot call it a pure zombie film. These people in this film WERE NOT DEAD, THEN RAISED. You can't call something what its not just because its similar.

[Tillius]

So if a movie was made and the "infected" grew fangs began to need the blood of humans to survive, and drank from the neck, however, they did not all become vampires just because of a bite and they could walk in the sun, would you not consider it a vampire movie?

[Mr. Ron]

So if a movie was made and the "infected" grew fangs began to need the blood of humans to survive, and drank from the neck, however, they did not all become vampires just because of a bite and they could walk in the sun, would you not consider it a vampire movie?

Yes.

Their actions would mock vampireism, but they would not be true vampires.

[DeckerDontPlay]

So if a movie was made and the "infected" grew fangs began to need the blood of humans to survive, and drank from the neck, however, they did not all become vampires just because of a bite and they could walk in the sun, would you not consider it a vampire movie?

Holy hell I thought I the display of idiocy in these forums.

[Mr. Ron]

Meh, we're arguing over nothing. Lets just agree to disagree.

[Tillius]

Yes.

Their actions would mock vampireism, but they would not be true vampires.

Just because they weren't created the standard way that most vampire are created in works of fiction?

Is there no room for originality anymore?

Holy hell I thought I the display of idiocy in these forums.
You do.
I'm simply setting up another scenario to try and make a point and see his view on it, now shut the **** up if you have nothing real to say.

Meh, we're arguing over nothing. Lets just agree to disagree.
I suppose we are.
Agreed.