Originally posted by MattSilver 3k
View Post
Allow me to educate you!
Now, the term 'zombie flick' was no doubt brought upon by the Romero movies, Night of the Living Dead and its sequel Dawn of the Dead helping give image to the classic, and the best, kind of zombie: An actual dead corpse person, brought back to life. If anybody dies, they come back as a zombie, unable to be killed for good unless the brain is destroyed (Cutting off the head doesn't work, unfortunately). Zombie bites speed up the rate of death, which in turn leads to zombification.
Now, that's the 'classic' zombie. Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead Remake set out to take the 'classic' image and created what we dub, the 'fast' zombie. Unlike the Classic, the Fast can only be made into zombies through bites from other zombies. Normal deaths not involving destroying the brain, do not result in reanimation. But why are the Fast different than 28 Days Later's Infected? Simple. They die before reanimating. They're still corpses, but these guys run because of whatever virus that infects the blood of the Fast zombie, and they pass it on to others through bites, hence the running.
28 Days Later and its sequel, 28 Weeks Later, adhere to the class of monsters called 'Infected'. They. Are. Not. Zombies. Zombies are corpses that can only be put down by a bullet to the brain. The Infected, meanwhile, are people who were exposed to a virus through blood or saliva contact, known as Rage. Rage does just that - it makes the person infected into a mindless monster always running and hunting down folk to kill. Now, note this as well - zombies eat people. Infected, do not. Hell, the reveal at the end of 28 Days Later reveals that the Infected are starving to death. Meanwhile, in Romero's Land of the Dead, the zombie plague has been around for half a dozen years or so, and the Classics are not dying of starvation. They're already dead. They eat people, sure, but they don't need to.
People often confuse the term 'Zombie flick' for what is actually a 'Pseudo-Apocalyptic movie involving monsters resembling people chasing other people we're supposed to sympathise with'. I've heard idiots call I Am Legend a zombie flick. No. They're vampires, kids. Kinda vampires, but that's another whole mess of **** I DO NOT WANT TO GO INTO RIGHT NOW. Feckin' Twilight... Anyways, if somebody sees 28 Days Later and sees a pseudo-Apocalyptic world with monsters chasing humans, they cannot be forgiven for thinking "Zombie!" They are idiots, who can't even tell that the Infected are not corpses, and can die as easily as normal human. For lack of a better oversimplification, the Infected in 28 Days Later are just people on a particularly nasty strain of some drug, and transmit through blood and stuff. Zombies are corpses.
Zombies are better.
Consider yourself schooled, bud.
Now, the term 'zombie flick' was no doubt brought upon by the Romero movies, Night of the Living Dead and its sequel Dawn of the Dead helping give image to the classic, and the best, kind of zombie: An actual dead corpse person, brought back to life. If anybody dies, they come back as a zombie, unable to be killed for good unless the brain is destroyed (Cutting off the head doesn't work, unfortunately). Zombie bites speed up the rate of death, which in turn leads to zombification.
Now, that's the 'classic' zombie. Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead Remake set out to take the 'classic' image and created what we dub, the 'fast' zombie. Unlike the Classic, the Fast can only be made into zombies through bites from other zombies. Normal deaths not involving destroying the brain, do not result in reanimation. But why are the Fast different than 28 Days Later's Infected? Simple. They die before reanimating. They're still corpses, but these guys run because of whatever virus that infects the blood of the Fast zombie, and they pass it on to others through bites, hence the running.
28 Days Later and its sequel, 28 Weeks Later, adhere to the class of monsters called 'Infected'. They. Are. Not. Zombies. Zombies are corpses that can only be put down by a bullet to the brain. The Infected, meanwhile, are people who were exposed to a virus through blood or saliva contact, known as Rage. Rage does just that - it makes the person infected into a mindless monster always running and hunting down folk to kill. Now, note this as well - zombies eat people. Infected, do not. Hell, the reveal at the end of 28 Days Later reveals that the Infected are starving to death. Meanwhile, in Romero's Land of the Dead, the zombie plague has been around for half a dozen years or so, and the Classics are not dying of starvation. They're already dead. They eat people, sure, but they don't need to.
People often confuse the term 'Zombie flick' for what is actually a 'Pseudo-Apocalyptic movie involving monsters resembling people chasing other people we're supposed to sympathise with'. I've heard idiots call I Am Legend a zombie flick. No. They're vampires, kids. Kinda vampires, but that's another whole mess of **** I DO NOT WANT TO GO INTO RIGHT NOW. Feckin' Twilight... Anyways, if somebody sees 28 Days Later and sees a pseudo-Apocalyptic world with monsters chasing humans, they cannot be forgiven for thinking "Zombie!" They are idiots, who can't even tell that the Infected are not corpses, and can die as easily as normal human. For lack of a better oversimplification, the Infected in 28 Days Later are just people on a particularly nasty strain of some drug, and transmit through blood and stuff. Zombies are corpses.
Zombies are better.
Consider yourself schooled, bud.
)
, maybe I should check out 28 Days Later anyway.... wasnt Carlyle in it too? or was it 28 Weeks Later? that the monsters in I AM LEGEND was not zombies, I noticed that 
although I do not like will smith, I liked that one.
Comment