"A REALLY INTELLIGENT INTERVIEWER." -- Lance Henriksen "QUITE SIMPLY, THE BEST HORROR-THEMED BLOG ON THE NET." -- Joe Maddrey,Nightmares in Red White & Blue
I like the occasional burst of fast zombies. To put my nerdly D&D spin on it I tend to think of fast zombies as ghouls, wolfish undead. 28 Days Later was scary because the humans were the bad guys, not because of the zombies.
Since zombies can't be science, they must be magic, so it is likely there would be various types of undead we call zombies. Ghouls, in my opinion, pop up in vampire movies as well. The low level brute vampires are more ghoulish.
ahh gets all excited about the debate. opens. press play. no sound. damned brother has nicked off with my speakers!! i will return to watch tho!! and im fully all for slow zombies... its jus the way its sposed to be ;)
Just droppin gin from zombieinfo.com to say I've gone over this debate myself a ton, but the whole 28 days thing: Danny Boyle, the writer/director has gone on record saying it's not a zombie movie, and using your statement of 'the rules are what the screenwriter says' say that 28 days is just NOT a zombie movie. Great episode! Loved it!
Moonwalking Zombies? That's not a Zombie film. But I agree with B-Sol. You can get away from one creeper but than they gang up on you and that's when 20 of them rip you apart as you tell them to choke on it. Much Scarier. Great episode!!
If a zombie was chasing after a 17 year-old Pauline Hickey (as she was in 1985, in her absolute prime) do you think the zombie would move fast or slow...EXACTLY...especially knowing that when he caught her he was going to get his knob up her bum, that would be the ultimate incentive for him to chase her at 200mph ! ! !.
Darius, I agree with your assessment about the whole "ghoul" concept. However, isn't it interesting how the revamped zombie mythos seems to be all about science, and NOT magic? Amie, did you ever get to listen in? If so, what did you think? Thanks for the listen, ZombieKing. I agree that technically 28 Days Later is not a zombie movie, but the tropes are still all in place, and it plays out totally like one...just like The LAst Man on Earth, which is technically a vampire movie, but actually acts as the prototypical zombie movie. Evil, glad you agree with my very well-reasoned assessment :-)
I haven't had a chance to watch the video just yet, but personally, I Prefer slower zombies in terms of realism and what makes more sense. But without a doubt, fast-moving zombies are way more terrifying.
"There is no science with things that are fake." I generally agree with you. BUT That sentence, even in context, is patently goofy. The term we are skirting here is "science fiction" and while most fast zombie movies only wave their metaphorical hand in the direction of a scientific explanation - they are open to sensible criticism as science fiction. The only science fictional explanation which will serve for actual dead zombies is one involving a "puppeteer" of some sort, probably an organism which grows throughout the corpse and actually replaces the function of the dead nervous system. Not a perfect solution as the host corpse would now contain a living organism, which would need air and water and food... Not totally zombieish. Such an organism could be posited as reasonable science fiction and might be handled believably. The brain/nervous system activation suggested in a few films really doesn't seem sufficient, as a corpse without heartbeat or respiration is going to run down like a very smelly cuckoo clock in fairly short order leaving it's mysteriously active nervous system in the lurch. Trying to keep the science fiction on a relatively "hard" level, I omit external control of the "puppet-zombie" via telekenesis, since that is obvious pseudoscience. The "rage-zombies" are totally believable as science fiction since they are simply victims of a "perfect" version of rabies. Am I just being pedantic? Yeah, probably, but I really am a science fiction fan and that statement was like a needle in my limbic system.
Thanks for such a well-reasoned response, Thingmaker! I'm so glad our commentary was so thought-provoking for you. I have to say that I too am a fan of "hard" science fiction. However, I feel the need to point out that zombies are not hard science fiction. They are supernatural, at least in the Romero incarnation. So what I really was referring to is the fact that there are no real "rules", despite people getting carried away with the need for them when defending the "believability" of zombie movies. Quite simply, the "rules" are whatever the screenwriters determine them to be, and there's no reason why they wouldn't be different from film to film. To pretend there is an objective set of "rules" that needs to be adhered to from film to film, is to cling to a false pretense.
11 comments:
I like the occasional burst of fast zombies. To put my nerdly D&D spin on it I tend to think of fast zombies as ghouls, wolfish undead. 28 Days Later was scary because the humans were the bad guys, not because of the zombies.
Since zombies can't be science, they must be magic, so it is likely there would be various types of undead we call zombies. Ghouls, in my opinion, pop up in vampire movies as well. The low level brute vampires are more ghoulish.
BTW: Rabid was awesome.
ahh gets all excited about the debate. opens. press play. no sound. damned brother has nicked off with my speakers!! i will return to watch tho!! and im fully all for slow zombies... its jus the way its sposed to be ;)
Heya B-Sol...
Just droppin gin from zombieinfo.com to say I've gone over this debate myself a ton, but the whole 28 days thing: Danny Boyle, the writer/director has gone on record saying it's not a zombie movie, and using your statement of 'the rules are what the screenwriter says' say that 28 days is just NOT a zombie movie. Great episode! Loved it!
-the Zombieking
Moonwalking Zombies? That's not a Zombie film. But I agree with B-Sol. You can get away from one creeper but than they gang up on you and that's when 20 of them rip you apart as you tell them to choke on it. Much Scarier. Great episode!!
If a zombie was chasing after a 17 year-old Pauline Hickey (as she was in 1985, in her absolute prime) do you think the zombie would move fast or slow...EXACTLY...especially knowing that when he caught her he was going to get his knob up her bum, that would be the ultimate incentive for him to chase her at 200mph ! ! !.
Darius, I agree with your assessment about the whole "ghoul" concept. However, isn't it interesting how the revamped zombie mythos seems to be all about science, and NOT magic?
Amie, did you ever get to listen in? If so, what did you think?
Thanks for the listen, ZombieKing. I agree that technically 28 Days Later is not a zombie movie, but the tropes are still all in place, and it plays out totally like one...just like The LAst Man on Earth, which is technically a vampire movie, but actually acts as the prototypical zombie movie.
Evil, glad you agree with my very well-reasoned assessment :-)
I haven't had a chance to watch the video just yet, but personally, I Prefer slower zombies in terms of realism and what makes more sense. But without a doubt, fast-moving zombies are way more terrifying.
-Matt
www.horrorjunkies.tk
I'll always prefer the slower ones in my movies. Fast is scary in reality, but it just doesn't translate as well to the screen.
"There is no science with things that are fake."
I generally agree with you.
BUT
That sentence, even in context, is patently goofy. The term we are skirting here is "science fiction" and while most fast zombie movies only wave their metaphorical hand in the direction of a scientific explanation - they are open to sensible criticism as science fiction. The only science fictional explanation which will serve for actual dead zombies is one involving a "puppeteer" of some sort, probably an organism which grows throughout the corpse and actually replaces the function of the dead nervous system. Not a perfect solution as the host corpse would now contain a living organism, which would need air and water and food... Not totally zombieish. Such an organism could be posited as reasonable science fiction and might be handled believably. The brain/nervous system activation suggested in a few films really doesn't seem sufficient, as a corpse without heartbeat or respiration is going to run down like a very smelly cuckoo clock in fairly short order leaving it's mysteriously active nervous system in the lurch. Trying to keep the science fiction on a relatively "hard" level, I omit external control of the "puppet-zombie" via telekenesis, since that is obvious pseudoscience.
The "rage-zombies" are totally believable as science fiction since they are simply victims of a "perfect" version of rabies.
Am I just being pedantic? Yeah, probably, but I really am a science fiction fan and that statement was like a needle in my limbic system.
Thanks for such a well-reasoned response, Thingmaker! I'm so glad our commentary was so thought-provoking for you. I have to say that I too am a fan of "hard" science fiction. However, I feel the need to point out that zombies are not hard science fiction. They are supernatural, at least in the Romero incarnation. So what I really was referring to is the fact that there are no real "rules", despite people getting carried away with the need for them when defending the "believability" of zombie movies. Quite simply, the "rules" are whatever the screenwriters determine them to be, and there's no reason why they wouldn't be different from film to film. To pretend there is an objective set of "rules" that needs to be adhered to from film to film, is to cling to a false pretense.
Post a Comment