[QUOTE=Rusty100;21334576]no no nono nonononNONONONONON
NO
reiterating this as I have many times in the past:
zombies are fictional. they're made up. there can't be a set definition of something that doesn't exist. it is completely up to creative discretion as to what the attributes of the zombies are. zombies can literally be like whatever the creator of the movie/game/whatever wants them to be. and they're still called zombies, because that's what he or she calls them. zombies can be fast. zombies can be slow, they can wield guns, they can rollerblade, it doesn't make them "not zombies".
humans with rabies? in a zombie movie? zombies.
[editline]09:07AM[/editline]
i've said the word "zombie" in my head so many times it's lost all meaning[/QUOTE]
Zombie isn't a clear cut work of fiction. It comes from some form of animism practiced in Africa, then was transferred to Voodoo. In voodoo, they are slow, lumbering demons who have came back from the dead to feast on the flesh of the living. Just like the definition of an actual zombie. Zombies must be dead and slow, otherwise, they are infected.
Except the term also applies to the actual thing, which is a brain damaged person thought to be dead after a state of paralysis brought on by Tetrodotoxin from the puffer fish.
So they needn't be dead.
The term also evolves over time, if it can change to include 'flesh eating', it can also include any other number of additions.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;21338000]Zombie isn't a clear cut work of fiction. It comes from some form of animism practiced in Africa, then was transferred to Voodoo. In voodoo, they are slow, lumbering demons who have came back from the dead to feast on the flesh of the living. Just like the definition of an actual zombie. Zombies must be dead and slow, otherwise, they are infected.[/QUOTE]
are you seriously saying that the definition of a modern, fictional zombie must adhere to an older, fictional voodoo zombie?
NEWSLASH voodoo isn't real either!
[editline]02:06PM[/editline]
the word may originate from there, I don't know, but it doesn't alter it's current dictionary definition, or dictate the set attributes a zombie must have (see: there are none)
[QUOTE=Rex_Rex;21284276]Zombies shouldnt be able to run, but it makes good horror![/QUOTE]
Makes it intense.
Zombie movies are awesome.
[QUOTE=Jack_Thompson;21316690]This has tits in it too. ON YOUTUBE?! :byodood:[/QUOTE]
Yes. It's one for the books 'cause of tits, violence, sharks, and zombies.
Lets not forget:
[IMG]http://www.best-horror-movies.com/image-files/redneck-zombies-dvd-coverscan.jpg[/IMG]
I hate Troma.
So much.
[QUOTE=Drasnus;21338630]Except the term also applies to the actual thing, which is a brain damaged person thought to be dead after a state of paralysis brought on by Tetrodotoxin from the puffer fish.
So they needn't be dead.
The term also evolves over time, if it can change to include 'flesh eating', it can also include any other number of additions.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to the ancient belief, but yea.
Also, zombies can't be formed from Tetrodotoxin. It blocks the absorption of NA+ and causes Paralysis of the diaphragm, causing respiratory failure.
[editline]10:55PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;21340658]are you seriously saying that the definition of a modern, fictional zombie must adhere to an older, fictional voodoo zombie?
NEWSLASH voodoo isn't real either!
[editline]02:06PM[/editline]
the word may originate from there, I don't know, but it doesn't alter it's current dictionary definition, or dictate the set attributes a zombie must have (see: there are none)[/QUOTE]
NEWSFLASH:
Voodoo is real. It is a mix of African religion and Christianity.
Also the definition of a zombie applies to people drunk off their ass. I don't see them sprinting around, they shamble.
From here on, the word zombie applies to the zombie proposed by Max Brooks.
The word infected shall be applied to the non-dead people that just sprint around and beat shit up.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;21360263]I was referring to the ancient belief, but yea.
Also, zombies can't be formed from Tetrodotoxin. It blocks the absorption of NA+ and causes Paralysis of the diaphragm, causing respiratory failure.
[editline]10:55PM[/editline]
NEWSFLASH:
Voodoo is real. It is a mix of African religion and Christianity.
Also the definition of a zombie applies to people drunk off their ass. I don't see them sprinting around, they shamble.
From here on, the word zombie applies to the zombie proposed by Max Brooks.
The word infected shall be applied to the non-dead people that just sprint around and beat shit up.[/QUOTE]
no that's not what i meant at all you know exactly what i mean
christianity is really practiced, as it voodoo. it doesn't make their beliefs real
let me put it this way. every religion has their own idea of god. they can't all be right can they? replace god with zombie, another thing that isn't real. you can't have a set definition of one. anybody who tries to is an idiot.
[editline]04:56PM[/editline]
you are the worst kind of person you can find in any zombie discussion
you try to define what is and isn't zombie.
stop. from here on, nobody can take what uberman says seriously
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;21360263]NEWSFLASH:
Voodoo is real. It is a mix of African religion and Christianity. [/QUOTE]
so then you'd say that wica is also real? just because people believe in and do shit that they believe to do shit, doesn't mean that the shit they do actually does anything at all. voodoo is not real in the sense that rusty was referring to.
you can't curse a bundle of sticks and burn it and burn someone alive, and eating someone's heart does not help you gain their "powers" that they didn't even have in the first place.
[editline]12:04AM[/editline]
also, you didn't make the thread, so i really do not believe you have any say if someone can refer to this or that as a zombie whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Aide;21163042]Dawn of the Dead - you know what this is.
Diary of the Dead - It's about film makers that run into zombies.
Land of the Dead - Awesome movie, loved it
Survival of the Dead - Coming out this month.
Night of the Living Dead
All directed by one guy[/QUOTE]
dont forget day of the dead
best of em all
CHOKE ON EM
CHOKE ON EM
[editline]07:12PM[/editline]
oh and dead snow
awesome norway movie about nazi zombies killin collegers
anyone seen dead snow?
[QUOTE=0_omd;21378950]anyone seen dead snow?[/QUOTE]
Yeah it's like the greatest movie ever!
[QUOTE=Rusty100;21321909]Because I think Dawn was a terrible, terrible film.[/QUOTE]
Yeah! Nevermind the jaw clenching tension and suspense, the subtle rant on consumerism, and the subtle commentary, referrences, and nods to various events and such in the 70s, that movie sUKKD!!!
It doesn't have a fuckin' 8.0 on IMDB for nothing, yknow. Night of the living dead is arguably mediocre, but it's still a really good suspenseful horror film. It's like watching a nightmare almost.
none of the things you just said necessarily make it a good film.
plus uh i didn't find it tense or suspenseful in the slightest
[QUOTE=Rusty100;21382389]none of the things you just said necessarily make it a good film.
plus uh i didn't find it tense or suspenseful in the slightest[/QUOTE]
Then you have a pretty shitty taste in films.
The characters are very likable and I found myself showing great concern toward them, it has excellent gore effects, the characters behave and act in a very real manner, must I go on further?
Again: It doesn't have an 8.0 on IMDB just because it's a "classic".
uh hey excuse me but FUCK online ratings
[editline]11:46PM[/editline]
and yeah i get that you liked it. i still think it's a terrible movie, i have an excellent taste in movies and dawn of the dead was unbearable.
[editline]11:46PM[/editline]
the 2004 remake however was really good. I don't understand any of the abuse it gets, it was quite well done.
I never liked the old movies, I enjoyed the 2004 remake of DOTD alot more because it was more like an actual film.
[editline]02:51PM[/editline]
oh and I watched survival of the dead the other day, it was alright up until they got onto the island then it was just pure bullshit.
Are you fucking ten or something
The pace is stupidly fast; one moment everything is all happy and fine, the next shit it getting fucked. There's a real lousy depiction of a state of emergency, and everyone acts stupidly robotic and perfectly rational despite their friends and family being dead along with everything going to hell. The characters are all fucking annoying, and suspense is entirely unexistant. The dramatic music makes it worse and horridly predictable.
[QUOTE=Loen;21384915]Are you fucking ten or something
The pace is stupidly fast; one moment everything is all happy and fine, the next shit it getting fucked. There's a real lousy depiction of a state of emergency, and everyone acts stupidly robotic and perfectly rational despite their friends and family being dead along with everything going to hell. The characters are all fucking annoying, and suspense is entirely unexistant. The dramatic music makes it worse and horridly predictable.[/QUOTE]
and yet it still manages to be better than the original
In terms of superficial excitement, yes.
What killed it for me was how completely uninteresting the mass of characters were. Dawn 1978 definitely has it beat there with its memorable four.
The remake also didn't use the mall in any interesting ways, it was just a place they went to. The original made great use of the location and the stores.
i didn't find any of the original's characters memorable. my proof being that i can't remember them. at all.
I loved the original Resident Evil movie. Had a horror aspect and ZOMBIEZ
Also the remake does not have this comedy gold:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmTxOguTaSQ[/media]
Okay I'll jump into the Dawn of Dead discussion.
I too prefer, no LOVE the original movie. I also love the remake of Dawn, but it just doesn't top the original. I agree with the points raised by Drasnus, and will elaborate on them.
[b]Why Did They Go To The Mall[/b]
In the original Dawn, they were flying in the chopper and were running low on fuel. Spotting the mall, they decide to stop and take a breather (it was implied that they were flying all night). However, they decide to stay because of all the items in the mall, despite the fact the mall is literally crawling with the undead.
In the remake, the reason is much more clear cut. The mall is simply the closet place that they can think to go for temporary safety. Not a bad reason by any means, but I prefer the way it panned out in the original. It just explained it a little bit more.
[b]How They Used The Mall[/b]
This is where the original really shines through. Since the original had zombies already in the mall, they were able to really use the setting to it's full potential. One of my favorite scense is when Roger and Peter are baiting the zombies to going down to the first floor, then running back up to the second to get the supplies away safely. Then there's the Zombie cleanup scene in dawn, which in itself is awesome; but the fact that they store the dead bodies in the big meat freezers is just another way that George saw locations in the mall and incorporated them into the script.
The remake went in a completely different direction. There were only three Zombies in the mall to begin with, which completely killed off the main aspect of the original. Instead, the initial conflict was with the security guards, which I did like. CJ and his crew had the right idea, even if they were assholes. Zack says in the commentary that he was going for an Alamo feeling, and it does that well. But I don't feel like they used the location to it's full potential.
However, both movies have terrific montages of them messing around in the mall, and I like both of them equally. This was one of the few times in the Remake that it really capitalized on the setting, whereas I felt it was more consistent in the original movie.
[B]Characters[/b]
This is more or less opinion, but I too love the original cast more so then the remakes. I'll make this short then. There are a few standout characters I loved in the remake, like Steve, CJ, and Ken, and Tucker; but I could take or leave the rest of the cast. Not that they were bad by any means, but I didn't find that they stood out enough. I felt that perhaps the movie could of benefited if there were a few less people.
As for the original, they just had great chemistry, and I feel that made the movie so much more for me. Roger and Peter had a great partnership, and it was always fun to see the two on screen (and made it that much harder to watch the death of Roger). Stephen is a great character in that he wants to be as cool as the other two, but he's a complete twit, but a lovable one. And he does such a great zombie walk, it's just fantastic acting.
And that's all I care to dive into right now. I'm just throwing out some thoughts, but I don't want to sound conceited and think anyone who doesn't like the original is somehow lesser then me. There are plenty of classic movies that I don't care for that I'd probably get called a moron as well.
Am I the only one who thought 28 Weeks Later was better than the first one?
[QUOTE=Nibwoddle;21395851]Am I the only one who thought 28 Weeks Later was better than the first one?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Not enough zombie action, too much doing stupid things and running from the army.
[QUOTE=Nibwoddle;21395851]Am I the only one who thought 28 Weeks Later was better than the first one?[/QUOTE]
As I said before, first 10 minutes of weeks: fucking brilliant. Rest of the film: shit.
It's unfair to compare it to the first, but you can't help it. It's just really an inferior film from an inferior crew from an inferior director. :(
I can't say I liked 28 Days later, but I can't really say it's a bad movie.
I loved the atmosphere, but I felt it just dragged on. I need to watch it again though to pass final judgment, it's been awhile.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
