I know a few things about zombies, having written several stories in the genre. Zombies are about the human impact. It's a trope that allows you to say "and then zombies attack" as the easy,...
Exemplary
I know a few things about zombies, having written several stories in the genre.
Zombies are about the human impact. It's a trope that allows you to say "and then zombies attack" as the easy, uncomplicated setup to examine human issues. Do we trust one another, is it moral to kill to survive, and so on.
The opening scene from 28 Weeks Later is a great example. We meet this survivor couple, they love each other deeply ... and then when zombies attack, and have his wife cornered, the husband fucking bails. Fleeing for his life in full panic, barely escaping alive. The way things play out, if he'd hesitated even a second or two longer, he'd be dead too.
Is he "wrong"? Is he "right"? All we really know is his wife died, and he didn't because he ran. It's an enormous question condensed into (goes and checks), about ten minutes.
That's what good zombie stories do. The zombies aren't action, they're the setting for questions. To set up story. Which the rest of 28 Weeks Later really doesn't do very much of. Mostly just does some world building (see, the US came to clear Britain), and then dives into the action (see, zombies are eating people again). Not much in the way of question.
Meanwhile, 28 Days and that opening scene from Weeks, are asking questions. Sure there's some exposition, some world building, but just to set the stage for questions. It's what Zombieland does, it's what Dawn of the Dead does. It's what Shaun of the Dead does. Among others.
You can always tell a shit zombie movie by how it doesn't have any cards to play except that they hired a makeup and effects team to do zombies, and then tries to push us through zombie action set pieces like that's a story. And if you go looking, you find there are a lot of shitty, crappy zombies movies.
Why? Because horror is "fun" for a budding, low budget director. Makeup is cheap, and lets them do more than just point the camera at people. Now they can point the camera at makeup and effects! It lets them cover over a lack of story, as long as they only show the resulting movie to casual moviegoers. The moment a critic or storyteller sees it, it's pretty obvious these low effort attempts had no story, but still wanted to "make a movie" anyway, and that's what they foist off.
And the same thing happens at the big league budget level too. Hell, I found out yesterday that one of Orion Pictures' notes for James Cameron, for Terminator, was the film should end after the tanker truck explodes. What the fuck? The story's not over! Sarah hasn't completed her arc, hasn't answered her question yet! End the movie before she stands up to the Terminator, fights back instead of running?
But these are the kinds of people who fund movies. Non-storytellers. Who just see actions, who just see effects, and think "cool, that's what sells."
28 Weeks Later kind of played us dirty, because that opening scene asks such an interesting question. And asks it so well. And then the rest of the movie ... just does nothing. Contrast to 28 Days Later, which is asking and exploring the questions all the way through. The very climax of the movie, the culmination of the main question they're exploring all the way through, is brought to a head beautifully.
"That was longer than a heartbeat."
Selene broke her own rule. Hoping against hope Jim wasn't a zombie. If she'd been wrong, death. Selene would die as what used to be Jim eats her. But she hesitates.
There's a lot of things 28 Days Later does right, but the biggest is they picked a zombie question (not a zombie plot) and explored it. Played with it. Discussed it with us. Explained it, weighed it, offered it. Leaving us on the edge when the answer finally comes.
As long as 28 Years Later does something similar, there's a lot of great story they can give us.
Or, they can do the empty headed thing and just splash some zombie makeup across the screen. Hopefully Doyle has got a fun question for us to enjoy. Because 28 Days Later is the movie that made me break my rule. I never, ever liked Horror. Don't like gore, don't like empty lack of story. 28 Days Later showed me what a good zombie story can be, and hooked me before I was even half an hour into the thing.
I loved 28 Days Later and thoroughly enjoyed 28 Weeks Later. I am wondering though why they're skipping 28 Months Later, and I hope to one day see the sci-fi entry 28 Centuries Later. Joking aside...
I loved 28 Days Later and thoroughly enjoyed 28 Weeks Later. I am wondering though why they're skipping 28 Months Later, and I hope to one day see the sci-fi entry 28 Centuries Later.
Joking aside I hope this lives up to the first two.
Because 28 Months Later isn't really going to differ much from 28 Weeks Later as the former would be less than two years after the latter, not really enough time for the "world" to have changed in...
Because 28 Months Later isn't really going to differ much from 28 Weeks Later as the former would be less than two years after the latter, not really enough time for the "world" to have changed in this setting. Society either has completely collapsed or recovered and it would be covering either the brutality of anarchic collapse or adjustment of society afterward, both have been done to death.
28 years later is enough for a generation to have been born and raised in a post-virus world.
I absolutely loved Days but didn't enjoy Weeks nearly as much. I hope we see more suspense in a believable world and less... helicopter zombie chopping.
I absolutely loved Days but didn't enjoy Weeks nearly as much. I hope we see more suspense in a believable world and less... helicopter zombie chopping.
If this came to fruition then I hope it follows the same style of writing, cinematography, suspense and gore of the first two. The first movie was simple run and hide, and the second a failed...
If this came to fruition then I hope it follows the same style of writing, cinematography, suspense and gore of the first two.
The first movie was simple run and hide, and the second a failed reintroduction of non-infected humans to London. Both were excellent.
From the first two there's a great horror movie (the frist) and stand alone short film (the opening of the second), though the rest of the latter that wasn't directed by Boyle was more than a bit...
From the first two there's a great horror movie (the frist) and stand alone short film (the opening of the second), though the rest of the latter that wasn't directed by Boyle was more than a bit of a mess.
I'd love to see this actually get done and turn out well, though some shade of this deal has supposedly been kicking around for years so we'll see if it actually happens or if it's just more rumbling.
I know a few things about zombies, having written several stories in the genre.
Zombies are about the human impact. It's a trope that allows you to say "and then zombies attack" as the easy, uncomplicated setup to examine human issues. Do we trust one another, is it moral to kill to survive, and so on.
The opening scene from 28 Weeks Later is a great example. We meet this survivor couple, they love each other deeply ... and then when zombies attack, and have his wife cornered, the husband fucking bails. Fleeing for his life in full panic, barely escaping alive. The way things play out, if he'd hesitated even a second or two longer, he'd be dead too.
Is he "wrong"? Is he "right"? All we really know is his wife died, and he didn't because he ran. It's an enormous question condensed into (goes and checks), about ten minutes.
That's what good zombie stories do. The zombies aren't action, they're the setting for questions. To set up story. Which the rest of 28 Weeks Later really doesn't do very much of. Mostly just does some world building (see, the US came to clear Britain), and then dives into the action (see, zombies are eating people again). Not much in the way of question.
Meanwhile, 28 Days and that opening scene from Weeks, are asking questions. Sure there's some exposition, some world building, but just to set the stage for questions. It's what Zombieland does, it's what Dawn of the Dead does. It's what Shaun of the Dead does. Among others.
You can always tell a shit zombie movie by how it doesn't have any cards to play except that they hired a makeup and effects team to do zombies, and then tries to push us through zombie action set pieces like that's a story. And if you go looking, you find there are a lot of shitty, crappy zombies movies.
Why? Because horror is "fun" for a budding, low budget director. Makeup is cheap, and lets them do more than just point the camera at people. Now they can point the camera at makeup and effects! It lets them cover over a lack of story, as long as they only show the resulting movie to casual moviegoers. The moment a critic or storyteller sees it, it's pretty obvious these low effort attempts had no story, but still wanted to "make a movie" anyway, and that's what they foist off.
And the same thing happens at the big league budget level too. Hell, I found out yesterday that one of Orion Pictures' notes for James Cameron, for Terminator, was the film should end after the tanker truck explodes. What the fuck? The story's not over! Sarah hasn't completed her arc, hasn't answered her question yet! End the movie before she stands up to the Terminator, fights back instead of running?
But these are the kinds of people who fund movies. Non-storytellers. Who just see actions, who just see effects, and think "cool, that's what sells."
28 Weeks Later kind of played us dirty, because that opening scene asks such an interesting question. And asks it so well. And then the rest of the movie ... just does nothing. Contrast to 28 Days Later, which is asking and exploring the questions all the way through. The very climax of the movie, the culmination of the main question they're exploring all the way through, is brought to a head beautifully.
"That was longer than a heartbeat."
Selene broke her own rule. Hoping against hope Jim wasn't a zombie. If she'd been wrong, death. Selene would die as what used to be Jim eats her. But she hesitates.
There's a lot of things 28 Days Later does right, but the biggest is they picked a zombie question (not a zombie plot) and explored it. Played with it. Discussed it with us. Explained it, weighed it, offered it. Leaving us on the edge when the answer finally comes.
As long as 28 Years Later does something similar, there's a lot of great story they can give us.
Or, they can do the empty headed thing and just splash some zombie makeup across the screen. Hopefully Doyle has got a fun question for us to enjoy. Because 28 Days Later is the movie that made me break my rule. I never, ever liked Horror. Don't like gore, don't like empty lack of story. 28 Days Later showed me what a good zombie story can be, and hooked me before I was even half an hour into the thing.
Do it again Doyle. Please?
I loved 28 Days Later and thoroughly enjoyed 28 Weeks Later. I am wondering though why they're skipping 28 Months Later, and I hope to one day see the sci-fi entry 28 Centuries Later.
Joking aside I hope this lives up to the first two.
Because 28 Months Later isn't really going to differ much from 28 Weeks Later as the former would be less than two years after the latter, not really enough time for the "world" to have changed in this setting. Society either has completely collapsed or recovered and it would be covering either the brutality of anarchic collapse or adjustment of society afterward, both have been done to death.
28 years later is enough for a generation to have been born and raised in a post-virus world.
Eventually they'll unify with 40k in 28 Millenia Later.
I absolutely loved Days but didn't enjoy Weeks nearly as much. I hope we see more suspense in a believable world and less... helicopter zombie chopping.
If this came to fruition then I hope it follows the same style of writing, cinematography, suspense and gore of the first two.
The first movie was simple run and hide, and the second a failed reintroduction of non-infected humans to London. Both were excellent.
I look forward to hearing more about this.
From the first two there's a great horror movie (the frist) and stand alone short film (the opening of the second), though the rest of the latter that wasn't directed by Boyle was more than a bit of a mess.
I'd love to see this actually get done and turn out well, though some shade of this deal has supposedly been kicking around for years so we'll see if it actually happens or if it's just more rumbling.