Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@ Mr Morden - Lol, I'm just a Season 2 apologist. I did originally adopt the point of view that it was boring but then I watched it again and changed my mind.

Ordered World War Z (the book) to read. Fast zombies or not, it sounds like a good read.

EDIT - Why do people think the zombie apocalypse genre became so popular in recent years? Is it because hitting the reset button seems like an attractive proposition since the global recession?

 Flashman wrote:
@ Mr Morden - Lol, I'm just a Season 2 apologist. I did originally adopt the point of view that it was boring but then I watched it again and changed my mind.

Ordered World War Z (the book) to read. Fast zombies or not, it sounds like a good read.

The book is an interesting read - hope you enjoy

Reg zombies in WWZ. Also look to the sister book the Zombie Survival Guide.

WWZ is good because it protrays different events then your normal Zombie movie: large scale actions; images of millions of zombies on the move; weird side vignettes, that sort of thing.

If your average zombie movie is Platoon, WWZ would have scenes to the level of Enemy at the Gates or Gettysberg.

I loved the book and as I was reading it I imagined it as one of those survivor story things you see on the discovery channel. You know the ones where the survivor of a shipwreck or something is narrating and they have a reenactment going on cut with shots of the survivor being all emotional.
It's the slow, Remero style zombies in the book isn't it?

Pretty slow from what I could garner.

Of course the story about the half breed wiener dogs is the best part. Wiener dogs, saving humanity since the Great Bugout...

 Jimmy_Sip wrote:
I loved the book and as I was reading it I imagined it as one of those survivor story things you see on the discovery channel. You know the ones where the survivor of a shipwreck or something is narrating and they have a reenactment going on cut with shots of the survivor being all emotional.
It's the slow, Remero style zombies in the book isn't it?

You are not to far off with that mate.

Yeah Romero style zombies.

Makes me wonder why the film settled on "super 28 Days Later" zombies then...

...presumably because they thought it made it more of an action film.

I think you nailed it on the head.

Nah, the 28 Days Later zombies just ran tirelessly. The WWZ movie zombies gained incredible speed, leaping skills and strength. It was almost like they were CGI or something. Although they got a little more shambly again in the third act, almost like those were real actors and not CGI.

Hmm...maybe the zombies were part radioactive spider. So when you get bit, you become a zombie AND get Spidey powers!

 gorgon wrote:

Hmm...maybe the zombies were part radioactive spider. So when you get bit, you become a zombie AND get Spidey powers!

Obviously, in WWZ cinematic universe, your metagene is only activated by becoming a zombie.

The only draw for the WWZ film is to see the locations used at the start which I live literally about 5-10 minutes away from.
Then having read the book the trailer showed the zombies climbing the Jerusalem wall and my attitude flipped completely to nope.
The only way I would see a WWZ miniseries working is if it was done similar to "The World at War" documentary

The vast number of movie goers didn't read the book, and that seems to be the big dividing line on whether it was hated or just tolerated/enjoyed.

 Ahtman wrote:
The vast number of movie goers didn't read the book, and that seems to be the big dividing line on whether it was hated or just tolerated/enjoyed.

I read the book, but even if I hadn't, I'd still hate the movie based on the free-flowing water gymnast zombies and the "ignores the sick, elderly, and infirm" BS alone.

 gorgon wrote:
Nah, the 28 Days Later zombies just ran tirelessly. The WWZ movie zombies gained incredible speed, leaping skills and strength. It was almost like they were CGI or something. Although they got a little more shambly again in the third act, almost like those were real actors and not CGI.

Hmm...maybe the zombies were part radioactive spider. So when you get bit, you become a zombie AND get Spidey powers!

As the video I posted said.

"It has everything you loved about the Title and nothing else."

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
The vast number of movie goers didn't read the book, and that seems to be the big dividing line on whether it was hated or just tolerated/enjoyed.

I read the book

That is all you had to say.

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't have an opinion one way or the other, and don't know the details beyond the trailers. It strikes me as being in the Transformers vein where it is a really bad movie, but still lots of people went anyway, even those that complained about it not being like the books based on the trailers. You don't get half a billion in ticket sales without a few people showing up, after all.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
The vast number of movie goers didn't read the book, and that seems to be the big dividing line on whether it was hated or just tolerated/enjoyed.

I read the book, but even if I hadn't, I'd still hate the movie based on the free-flowing water gymnast zombies and the "ignores the sick, elderly, and infirm" BS alone.

I hated the way the zombies moved like water it was utterly bizarre and made no sense.

I didnt think the movie was terrible, just distinctly average. Certainly shouldn't have been called world war z.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
The vast number of movie goers didn't read the book, and that seems to be the big dividing line on whether it was hated or just tolerated/enjoyed.

I read the book

That is all you had to say.

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't have an opinion one way or the other, and don't know the details beyond the trailers. It strikes me as being in the Transformers vein where it is a really bad movie, but still lots of people went anyway, even those that complained about it not being like the books based on the trailers. You don't get half a billion in ticket sales without a few people showing up, after all.

To be fair, I didn't see it in theaters. I refused to. The only reason I've seen it is cause my in-laws own it and the wife wanted to. She regrets that decision.

As I said, I'd hate it regardless of reading the book. I'm a fan of slow zombies, running Zeds was the worst cinematic invention there could be.

I've just always had a problem with Zombie films in general, particularly that they're only either an apocalyptic level threat by:

1) Massive 'idiot ball' holding incompetence by every of any significance ever.

2) Cheating.

'Fast' zombies basically come under cheating in my book.

The Walking Dead could have gotten away with it by doing the whole, "anyone 'recently dead' will become a zombie" thing. But if I remember the TV show, that was an evolution of the virus and not an original thing.

 Compel wrote:
The Walking Dead could have gotten away with it by doing the whole, "anyone 'recently dead' will become a zombie" thing. But if I remember the TV show, that was an evolution of the virus and not an original thing.

Well, they haven't explained how it happened at all, but they did find out that everyone is, essentially, infected. Earlier they assumed you only got turned from a zombie bite, but it turns out any non head wound death will make you turn. So yes, anyone who dies, zombie bite or no, will become a zombie.