World War Z

[Bob NC]

And I know it's silly to debate about a reality that doesn't exist, but zombies don't run.

You may have hit the nail on the head right here.

 

[LuLuO]

28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later had fast zombies. I thought those movies were great.

I haven't read the WWZ book but in the movie wasn't the virus what killed people and then caused them to turn? So, they weren't alive with a virus. They were dead.

 

[aaarcher86]

28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later had fast zombies. I thought those movies were great.

I haven't read the WWZ book but in the movie wasn't the virus what killed people and then caused them to turn? So, they weren't alive with a virus. They were dead.

Dawn of the Dead 2004 had running zombies.... And then my fear started.

I don't run!

 

[tajz90]

Dawn of the Dead 2004 had running zombies.... And then my fear started.

I don't run!

Died laughing! I don't run either. My chances are way better with the lumbering zombies!

 

[jenny105]

I was never thought zombies were that scary until I saw the Dawn of the Dead remake. A zombie running & chasing you is a hell of a lot scarier than one who is dragging a-s-s IMO.

 

[LuLuO]

Dawn of the Dead 2004 had running zombies.... And then my fear started.

I don't run!

I run but not very fast.

 

[Colleen27]

Just got back from the movie and haven't read the whole thread yet, but just wanted to share my take...

I enjoyed the book. I also enjoyed the movie. But as far as I'm concerned, they're two almost completely unrelated stories.

The book was very "realistic", at least as much as a novel concerning a zombie plague can be, and very well presented in all the different voices of the many "eyewitnesses". But from the first I heard of a movie adaptation I knew it couldn't possibly be true to the book. The two medium are just too different, and a movie needs a main character and main story where a book can be more scattered and still be coherent.

The movie was very intense and entertaining, but did require more suspension of disbelief. I'm not a zombie "purist" - I like fast, fierce zombies, I like the idea of zombie-as-predator - so I'm sure that helped. And I loved that they didn't go super-gory with it like some recent zombie flicks have, just because I tend to find that distracts from the story and the living characters. It was a fun summer movie, not great filmmaking but what summer action/adventure flick is? I'm glad DD insisted we see it in the theatre.

 

[tajz90]

Just got back from the movie and haven't read the whole thread yet, but just wanted to share my take...

I enjoyed the book. I also enjoyed the movie. But as far as I'm concerned, they're two almost completely unrelated stories.

The book was very "realistic", at least as much as a novel concerning a zombie plague can be, and very well presented in all the different voices of the many "eyewitnesses". But from the first I heard of a movie adaptation I knew it couldn't possibly be true to the book. The two medium are just too different, and a movie needs a main character and main story where a book can be more scattered and still be coherent.

The movie was very intense and entertaining, but did require more suspension of disbelief. I'm not a zombie "purist" - I like fast, fierce zombies, I like the idea of zombie-as-predator - so I'm sure that helped. And I loved that they didn't go super-gory with it like some recent zombie flicks have, just because I tend to find that distracts from the story and the living characters. It was a fun summer movie, not great filmmaking but what summer action/adventure flick is? I'm glad DD insisted we see it in the theatre.

I love bloody and gross, but realized at the end of the movie I experienced a different level of suspense because the gore wasn't there.

And yes, mindless fun. I like being able to divorce myself from reality and just enjoy. I'm glad I don't question every little thing because when I do, I lose a little bit of the movie magic.

 

[Colleen27]

Based on how the film ends, I'd say they are definitely pushing for sequels.

From what I've read, that was the idea from the start. And depending on how it is done, that would be the best hope of seeing something of the book in the movie(s) - taken as a trilogy of different perspectives on the events of the war, it would capture something of the book. But there's no way to cram all those perspectives into a single film so unless the sequel is made we'll never know.

But zombies, like many other movie monsters, have roots in the film medium. While there might be tales of different kinds of zombies from different cultures from all over the world -- just like with ghosts, demons, vampires, werewolves -- zombies in pop culture are slow-moving, human flesh-eating drones. They're scary because of their deliberation and because they never become exhausted. And, above all, they're terrifying because of what they represent.

But there's always been variation in the legend/mythology surrounding any movie monster, even in Hollywood. Nosferatu is nothing like Dracula (and don't even get me started on Twilight). And those variations help to keep the fiction believable. If every incarnation of a particular movie monster behaved the same way, the ending to the story would already have been written.

Besides, slow-moving, uncoordinated, decaying zombies are the weakest point of so much zombie fiction... If they're slow, stupid, unlearning and unadapting, a species as intelligent and creative as mankind should be able to conquer them relatively quickly. I love The Walking Dead, but how do the survivors not think of moats, barbed wire, lines of cars, etc for two whole seasons when they've seen first-hand how easily the walkers are trapped or deterred? There has to be another angle, whether it is faster, more threatening zombies like in WWZ or mankind being the bigger threat as in The Walking Dead, because just fighting reanimated corpses only goes so far. And the other advantage of fast zombies is that they keep the characters in "reaction" mode rather than "deliberate plan" mode, which excuses a lot of gaps in basic logic/decisionmaking.

 

[Jennasis]

You don't have to be able to outrun the fast zombies....just the person/people with you.

 

[skatalite]

But there's always been variation in the legend/mythology surrounding any movie monster, even in Hollywood. Nosferatu is nothing like Dracula (and don't even get me started on Twilight). And those variations help to keep the fiction believable. If every incarnation of a particular movie monster behaved the same way, the ending to the story would already have been written.

Besides, slow-moving, uncoordinated, decaying zombies are the weakest point of so much zombie fiction... If they're slow, stupid, unlearning and unadapting, a species as intelligent and creative as mankind should be able to conquer them relatively quickly. I love The Walking Dead, but how do the survivors not think of moats, barbed wire, lines of cars, etc for two whole seasons when they've seen first-hand how easily the walkers are trapped or deterred? There has to be another angle, whether it is faster, more threatening zombies like in WWZ or mankind being the bigger threat as in The Walking Dead, because just fighting reanimated corpses only goes so far. And the other advantage of fast zombies is that they keep the characters in "reaction" mode rather than "deliberate plan" mode, which excuses a lot of gaps in basic logic/decisionmaking.

Oh sure, deviations exist and they help expand the culture surrounding the monster. However, turning a monster into the extreme opposite of what it is at heart, and what it represents, is absurd to me.

You mentioned the vampires in "Twilight." The way you mentioned them tells me you think they're silly. And I agree! Because they're nothing like how they should be. Besides the fangs, the powers and the long life, the "Twilight" vampires have nothing in common with "traditional" vampires of folk and movie lore. Nosferatu is different from Dracula, but they both have inherent qualities that make them comparable at the base level. One thing all three kinds of vampires have in common is the romanticism surrounding them, but the overall tone "Twilight" has destroys any semblance otherwise.

The same thing with zombies. To me, anyway.

If you guys couldn't tell, I'm a zombie purist. I'm stubborn when it comes to it, and I am bias for the way zombies have traditionally been portrayed in movies and comics. Zombies are dead, decaying flesh. They can hardly walk, much less run. They shouldn't be able to outrun Usain Bolt, nor should they be stronger than average man. Zombies are scary because of what they represent, how persistent and untiring they are, and because they become our predators. Making zombies fast and superhuman makes them something they're not.

 

[jen0610]

I love bloody and gross, but realized at the end of the movie I experienced a different level of suspense because the gore wasn't there.

And yes, mindless fun. I like being able to divorce myself from reality and just enjoy. I'm glad I don't question every little thing because when I do, I lose a little bit of the movie magic.

DH was horribly bad at disecting movies when we first started dating. To the point, that I had to tell him that we wouldn't be going to see any more action/horror/suspense movies if he kept it up. It would be drama's and girl flicks from there on out. For the most part, he has stopped. Couldn't break him of the habit with it comes to weapons. Yes, he counts the shots and will point out that they shot X number more than that gun could. Both kids have picked up the habit. And with that, some times it's just better to join them then fight them.

But, I don't knit pick details apart. I go to be entertained. And with this movie, we were entertained.

You don't have to be able to outrun the fast zombies....just the person/people with you.

DH tells us, the kids and I, this all the time. If we can't keep up, we are the bait as he gets away. With fast moving zombies, I told him ain't none of us running away. We will need to be using some pretty sharp machetes to hack our way thru the horde or we need to invest in a lot of suppressors to pick them off at a greater distance but cut down on the noise.

 

[Tasha228]

Haven't read the book but dh and I had been looking forward to this movie since we first saw a preview for it nearly a year ago. We saw it Friday night. We were disappointed, honestly. We were expecting so much more.

 

[DonaldnDaisy5]

Haven't seen it or read book but am wondering what those who have think about a 9 yr old seeing it?

 

[BriarfoxinWA]

Haven't seen it or read book but am wondering what those who have think about a 9 yr old seeing it?

I wouldn't have taken my boys to see it at 9 years old. It's really intense.

 

[sonnyjane]

Haven't seen it or read book but am wondering what those who have think about a 9 yr old seeing it?

Pretty intense, edge of your seat, lots of "jumps" and shouts, but really not too much gore, at least relatively speaking for a zombie film. I left the theater out of breath!

 

[roliepolieoliefan]

Haven't seen it or read book but am wondering what those who have think about a 9 yr old seeing it?

My kids are with their grandparents out west and they took my 15 yo DS and 9 yo DD to see it.

My son read the book and he liked the movie. My daughter said it wasn't too scary and she thought it was good.

Just a side note that DD has seen many other PG 13 movies and Jaws is her all time favorite movie. So take my opinion for what it's worth.

 

[DonaldnDaisy5]

I don't plan on taking our kids....my sil and bil mentioned tonight that they took their dd, and we should take ds to see it. He hasn't expressed an interest and I didn't think it was really geared to kids....we aren't super protective over movies....thanks for the input I was just confused on why they thought it was a must see for him

 

[BriarfoxinWA]

I wouldn't take your DS then unless he decided he wanted to see it.

 

[dansamy]

My kids are zombie apocalypse obsessed. We'll be seeing it. They're excited.