AMC's 'The Walking Dead' Trailer (Frank Darabont, Gale Anne Hurd)

[Harvey]

How did they follow it up in Land Of The Dead?

The zombies start to organize, exhibiting collective intelligence. I've only seen it once, but at the time I liked it. I can't emphasize how bad "Survival of the Dead" is, though. Fans tend to dump on "Diary of the Dead," but its far better than the follow-up.

 

[stj]

Mostly zombies bore me, but I'll check it out because AMC productions have been batting pretty good lately. It is striking how many zombi movies/stories have been devolving into some sort of make friends/coexist with zombies/let's all be zombies together tales. It's like zombies are characters who let the viewers act out aggressive fantasies but after a while the viewers want their fantasies validated.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Am I the only one that would like to see a movie/tv show about fully conscious zombies? what happens when youre still you but youre slowly decaying, limbs falling off, and you can pass it on to other poeple by touch? I guess it would sort of stop being a horror film & more sci-fi, kinda like Outbreak with all the body horror scenes in District 9 happening to many people at once.

Or to still make it somewhat horror related, what if the virus(or whatever causes the zombification) only causes half the affected to become mindless predators & the other half keep their personalities? So then there's this problem of how do you treat the self consious good zombies? Some of them will probably want to be put out of their misery but what do you do with all the others who still want to live their lives but they are actually a public menace b/c they can infect others & they stink & leave body bits all over the place? Do they get advocates & become a zombie minority? ok actually this is starting to sound like X-Men & mutants.

There was a book like that a few years ago. It's called Wet Work (by Philip Nutman).

It was about a zombie outbreak caused by the earth passing through the tail of a comet. But in it, there are different 'stages' of dead; some are the standard Romero-esque shambling zombies, all the way up to those who retain their full intelligence and personality. These 'smart zombies' can put on new clothes, drive cars, organize ambushes using guns ("Body patrol, come and bag our food!"), and quickly take over the government - renaming it the United States of Hell (a government by the undead, of the undead, for the undead).

 

[scnj]

How did they follow it up in Land Of The Dead?

The zombies start to organize, exhibiting collective intelligence. I've only seen it once, but at the time I liked it. I can't emphasize how bad "Survival of the Dead" is, though. Fans tend to dump on "Diary of the Dead," but its far better than the follow-up.

I had much more fun with Survival than Diary. Yeah, it was bad, but enjoyably so. Romero continues to make his films how he wants despite the negativity, and I admire that about him.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I wouldn't mind a film which starts out with *everyone* a zombie. Absolutely no living humans to be seen. Then some of them start to become un-undead - i.e. become living again. How would the zombies deal with an outbreak of "life"?

 

[scnj]

I wouldn't mind a film which starts out with *everyone* a zombie. Absolutely no living humans to be seen. Then some of them start to become un-undead - i.e. become living again. How would the zombies deal with an outbreak of "life"?

Hmm. Daybreakers starts with the majority of the world's population living as vampires. Have you considered that?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Yep. Seen it, own the Blu-Ray.

 

[Silvercrest]

I wouldn't mind a film which starts out with *everyone* a zombie. Absolutely no living humans to be seen. Then some of them start to become un-undead - i.e. become living again. How would the zombies deal with an outbreak of "life"?

"Finally! Some fresh braaaaains! Subsisting on rat and dog brains just isn't the same!"

 

[Trent Roman]

I had 'smart zombies' in a short story currently with a publisher, the idea being that those directly affected by the original curse (the cause in this case) retained most or some of their intellect, degrading as one went down the chain of infection into the mindless hordes the original zombies could command (borrowing a bit from vampire lore). It was set in Roman times, and I call the zombie lords 'plutocrats', because I am not above a cheesy double entendre.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[RJDiogenes]

How did they follow it up in Land Of The Dead?

The zombies start to organize, exhibiting collective intelligence. I've only seen it once, but at the time I liked it.

Interesting. I'll have to get around to seeing that soon.

I can't emphasize how bad "Survival of the Dead" is, though. Fans tend to dump on "Diary of the Dead," but its far better than the follow-up.

That's too bad. Did Romero direct both of them? It's kind of funny that after such a long dry spell he's now churning out all these sequels. Maybe he'll get around to making a couple of more Creepshow films-- that's what I'd really like to see.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

Plutocrats?

Aw, man, that hurt my eyes.

OK, but then I laughed.

 

[Zachary Smith]

I can't emphasize how bad "Survival of the Dead" is, though. Fans tend to dump on "Diary of the Dead," but its far better than the follow-up.

The ONLY sensible explanation for "Survival of the Dead" that I can muster is that after so many years of being associated with zombie films, Romero has come to resent it so much that he contrived to make a zombie movie SO bad that NO ONE would ever want to see him make another one. Romero has had some spectacular moments and made a couple really outstanding films. While he's not an overly brilliant film-maker, it's hard to imagine he made a film as bad as "Survival" by accident. He didn't respect his own subject matter in the film and played the zombies pretty much for (VERY lame) laughs. I honestly don't WANT to see another "living dead" film by him. Let someone who respects the concept take over now.

 

[Harvey]

I can't emphasize how bad "Survival of the Dead" is, though. Fans tend to dump on "Diary of the Dead," but its far better than the follow-up.

That's too bad. Did Romero direct both of them? It's kind of funny that after such a long dry spell he's now churning out all these sequels. Maybe he'll get around to making a couple of more Creepshow films-- that's what I'd really like to see.

Indeed, he has written and directed every dead film in his canon (Night, Dawn, Day, Land, Diary, and Survival).

The ONLY sensible explanation for "Survival of the Dead" that I can muster is that after so many years of being associated with zombie films, Romero has come to resent it so much that he contrived to make a zombie movie SO bad that NO ONE would ever want to see him make another one. Romero has had some spectacular moments and made a couple really outstanding films. While he's not an overly brilliant film-maker, it's hard to imagine he made a film as bad as "Survival" by accident. He didn't respect his own subject matter in the film and played the zombies pretty much for (VERY lame) laughs. I honestly don't WANT to see another "living dead" film by him. Let someone who respects the concept take over now.

What ruined it for me were not the moments played for laughs, but the moments played straight that still elicited laughter. "I have a twin sister" is the most embarrassing twist I've seen on screen in a long time--the way it is played is straight out of a daytime soap opera (it doesn't help that most of the actors involved are the usual mediocre band of locals that appear in Romero's films).

 

[RJDiogenes]

I am now immensely curious about Survival Of The Dead.

 

[Harvey]

Well...I can't deny that as a midnight movie that may or may not have been under the influence of alcohol, it was certainly fun. It's just hard to hold in the same light as any of Romero's other zombie pictures...even The Crazies, which wasn't any fun, poorly acted, and heavy handed.