What Genre would you put 28 Days Later in?

[goldenwarrior]

Hi, I am having a bit of a debate at RH What genre would you put 28 days later?

The poll is here I appreciate anyone who would like the vote it seems the majority doesn't think it should be in the zombie genre.
28 days later horror genre poll (http://www.reelhorror.com/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=7067)

My explanation here

I know I get your point.

But in my mind it just reminds me of modern day zombies if you will, like that of the remake of Dawn of the dead, and your right technically the infected are not undead zombies, but living humans driven insane by a virus. There also very fast and agile and crazy with rage.

They can die more easily to, by starvation or lack of water,you don't have to shoot them in the head.

But come on some of the Vampire movies out there have bent the rules to, wearing sun block to protect them from the sun was kind of lame to me.

28 Days Later belongs in the zombie genre for now unless you want to make a whole another genre for alive zombies... lol was that a oxymoron


Here are some reviews I ran across on the web, I really couldn't find one that said they were not a zombie movie or somewhat related to it.
juicy (http://www.juicycerebellum.com/200325.htm)
Comingsoon.net (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=67)
New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE6D8113BF934A15755C0A9659C8B 63)

Pus, Drac,me and the 2 Zombie twins ;) have a discussion about this in this thread here (http://www.reelhorror.com/forum/showthread.php?p=103320#post103320)

[Despare]

I'd say as far as the main genre you'd have to classify it as horror and sub-genre it as a thriller maybe. Checked Netflix just for the hell of it and they have it in horror, doesn't really mean much though. I personally don't put much stock in genres because I like a lot of films that transcend them and I really don't feel the need to label a movie. You could call it a pseudo-zombie film but that's simply a sub genre of horror in itself. People being overcome with rage and killing others mercilessly is pretty horrific whether they are "zombies" or not. I liked 28 Days Later, not as much as I thought I would because of the hype and even for different reasons; but I did enjoy it.

[gorefreak]

I dunno.... maybe as an action/horror type?

[persuasian70]

I would still put it in the genre of a zombie movie. Although the person might not be medically dead, the person that they once were is no more. So I would consider that person to be dead, maybe not in a literal sense, but he/she is driven by something not human.

[urgeok]

horror

[Posher778]

Horror / Sci fi, like resident evil.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by goldenwarrior
[B]Hi, I am having a bit of a debate at RH What genre would you put 28 days later?




i might add though .. it seems like an unnessessary debate .. hardly worth the effort.

i catagorize things for the sake of simplicity - being able to find it in my collection ... Other people do it for other reasons - reference books .. etc..

but as far as i'm concerned it's something you do in your subconcious in a way that seems fit to you based on whatever little criteria is floating around your braincase.

so my arguement really is : 'for my purposes - i stick it under horror .. because it's shot like a horror film despite the fact that the people arent technically dead - therefore not zombies - whoop de doo."

"i put it there.. maybe you do or dont .. it's not affecting my world in the slightest'



end of debate.

[Abominus]

Romantic Comedy! Come on women love those witty Brits in uniform.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by goldenwarrior
a bit of a debate at RH What genre would you put 28 days later?

Pus, Drac,me and the 2 Zombie twins ;) have a discussion about this in this

if pus is involved then WPAM must have been mentioned.....


....he loves his WPAM :p

[slasherman]

its the same genre as Mutant (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087796/) ..I guess you can call it a crossover.....IMDB has 28 Days Later (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/) listed as.... Genre: Horror / Sci-Fi / Thriller

[alkytrio666]

How about the "suck" genre?




But seriously, I thought this movie was dull as hell. I'd say horror/sci-fi.

[Angelakillsluts]

bore horror/sci-fi

[filmmaker2]

LOL a couple of the replies. I would put it in the "I didn't like it too much" genre. It had one good scene for me that I thought was disturbingly believable (guess which one it was?) but the rest of it I couldn't believe. That is to say, in my case, the movie did not suspend my DISbelief. Well it was a bad night that night. I watched it with two other friends and we kept picking it apart until finally we were predicting the next thing that would happen and the next; and finally we were laughing at everything that happened.

But part of the reason THIS happened was that I had heard all the stuff people were saying about it...how it was the scariest zombie movie or whatever. (Dead Zombies, Live Zombies, I'll ignore the distinction here.) So I was frankly intimidated and not anxious to see the film because, well, scary films scare me. Suffice it to say that when we started watching the film and the attacks started occurring, I sat back and said, "This isn't scary! I've seen really serious zombie movies, and this is like a piece of delicious toast with zombie marmalade on it. The critics are wimps if they were scared by THIS!"

However!! a lot of REALLY smart, wonderful people like this movie, so I think they're tuning into something that I wasn't getting. So it's not like I'm trying to disrespect the folks who like it. However, when I saw the " 'suck' genre" suggested, I did laugh, and it was a REAL laugh, not one of those fake ones!

[The_Return]

I didnt think too much of it either, though I plan to give it another day in court.

Did anyone watch the alternate endings on the DVD? The one that was just storyboard w/commentary was very good. If they'd used that, the movie would have been alot better. Boyle didnt film it beause he didnt think it was believeable enough:rolleyes:

[scouse mac]

horror/medical drama ;)

[PR3SSUR3]

A most derivative and overrated film, it seems the is it a zombie film... or not? debate is still raging all over the internet.

A zombie is described as a revived corpse, which these still living people are not.

They are also not flesh-eaters and move at a fair lick, which further removes them from contemporary zombie lore.

However they can be described as 'zombie-like', and most analysis make allowances for dull and shambling groups of folk wandering around looking for trouble.

Wait, that's just cannabis-users...

:D

[Amalthea]

Action/Horror too!

[Soloman Kane]

A waste basket
Seriously though the action/adventure gerne :D

[urgeok]

i enjoyed this film .. well directed, well acted, nicely paced ..
not sure why people jump all over it ... not enough gore ?

[bwind22]

28 Days Later is Zombie Horror and if you try to call it anything you're just nitpicking.

This reminds me of all the jokes on sitcoms about Star Trek actors facing their nerdy fans that like to point out and probe them on some stupid little technicality in an episode ten years ago.

Technically the virus has made the city have bloodlust without killing them first but who really cares? There's still a city full of people that arent curable and are trying to eat ya.

The main genre is horror. The sub genre is zombie.

I can't even believe there are SO MANY people that would sit and combat such a petty fact. It's clearly a zombie movie and the director has even said so in interviews.


EDIT: ADDED LINK TO ONE OF INTERVIEWS

http://www.indiewire.com/people/people_030627boyle.html

[bwind22]

Originally posted by urgeok
i enjoyed this film .. well directed, well acted, nicely paced ..
not sure why people jump all over it ... not enough gore ?


I thought it was pretty good too. The scene where he first walks out of the hospital into deserted London is great. I liked it enough to buy it when it came out after seeing it in the theatre.

[The_Return]

Considerig it's cheap, I plan to buy it soon. From memory I didnt like it, but I saw it before I was really into horror. After hearing some great reviews I want to check it out again.

[PR3SSUR3]

28 Days Later is Zombie Horror and if you try to call it anything (else) you're just nitpicking

That is an interpretation you are entitled to, but a zombie means a revived corpse first and foremost.

Nitpicking, accurate, whatever you want to call it.

:cool:

[newb]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
That is an interpretation you are entitled to, but a zombie means a revived corpse first and foremost.

Nitpicking, accurate, whatever you want to call it.

:cool:

Agreed....they are not zombies...they are infected people.

[urgeok]

but .................................................. ...................................


it's got all the trappings of a zombie movie ...
like The Crazies, or Rabid, or Mutant.



lets just say it's a zombie movie - without zombies.

the way April Fools Day was a slasher ... without any killings.


ooops ... delayed spoiler alert
:eek:

[newb]

Originally posted by urgeok
but .................................................. ...................................


it's got all the trappings of a zombie movie ...
like The Crazies, or Rabid, or Mutant.



lets just say it's a zombie movie - without zombies.

the way April Fools Day was a slasher ... without any killings.


ooops ... delayed spoiler alert
:eek:

I don't think James Whitcomb Riley's 1885 quote.....


"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

...is relevant here.

[bwind22]

This is like trying to argue the fact that Steinbrenner ruined baseball to a Yankees fan and I just don't understand it...


The director himself has refered to it as a zombie film.

A film is a work of art.

How can you tell an artist he's wrong when he's telling you what it is?

Artists should be allowed creative liscence.

So if he, the director, says it's a zombie film and it has the general feel of a zombie film throughout the entire movie except for one point-of-origin detail, then I think creative license should be a no-brainer. Who are we (You guys actually, not me.) to argue with the artist that created the work of art that the film he directed is not what he says it is?

Who cares how this new breed of zombies got this way? We the horror fans are always the ones bitching at them to do something original in the first place, aren't we? They try a fresh idea on an old as dirt film villain and all they catch is slack from the same folks griping at them to do something new to begin with. Geez!

[/rant]

[bwind22]

Originally posted by urgeok


lets just say it's a zombie movie - without zombies.



let's say it's a zombie movie with a fresh different sort of zombie. One that doesn't neccesarily die first before becoming a crazed bloodthirsty contagious maniac in an entire city full of them chowing on the last few survivors....

[urgeok]

were people eaten in 28 days later ? (i havent seen it in ages)
i thought they were just killed ...

[bwind22]

Hmmm...

I'll rewatch it after I finish Kong and Narnia and let ya know. I thought they were, or bitten at least to spread it?

[newb]

People were getting eaten in "Deep Throat", but i wouldn't call that a "zombie" movie.:D

This is the only the second time i have disagreed with Bwind. The first being the Bruce Lee vs. Chimp debate.

[The Mothman]

its definetly a horror film. and enough with this "its not a zombie movie, because technically they are still alive."

[The Mothman]

oh and i also thought it was a pretty damn good film. especially the end.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by newb
People were getting eaten in "Deep Throat", but i wouldn't call that a "zombie" movie.:D



poor mrs newb ... the guy cant tell the difference between sucking and eating :D


probably never had to feed him as a baby .. his gut was full of all the soothers he downed :D

[newb]

Originally posted by The Mothman
its definetly a horror film. and enough with this "its not a zombie movie, because technically they are still alive."

Bingo....by defination a zombie is reanimated life.

You wouldn't call the antagonist in "The Omega Man" zombies....would you....of course not...they are infected.

[newb]

Originally posted by urgeok
poor mrs newb ... the guy cant tell the difference between sucking and eating :D



she hasn't complained yet.:D

[urgeok]

Originally posted by newb
Bingo....by defination a zombie is reanimated life.

You wouldn't call the antagonist in "The Omega Man" zombies....would you....of course not...they are infected.



so ... are vampires zombies then ? ;)

[Despare]

Zombie


1. A snake god of voodoo cults in West Africa, Haiti, and the southern United States.

2. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse.
a. A corpse revived in this way.

3. One who looks or behaves like an automaton.

4. A tall mixed drink made of various rums, liqueur, and fruit juice.

[newb]

Originally posted by urgeok
so ... are vampires zombies then ? ;)

Well......i....er............i hate you.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by Despare
Zombie


1. A snake god of voodoo cults in West Africa, Haiti, and the southern United States.

2. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse.
a. A corpse revived in this way.

3. One who looks or behaves like an automaton.

4. A tall mixed drink made of various rums, liqueur, and fruit juice.


struth !

origionally zombies didnt go around eating people ...
they just behaved like slaves ...

sort of like the people where i work.


the closest thing any recent film has gotten to re. proper zombies is the ones wandering around at the Mall in the origional Dawn of the Dead.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by newb
Well......i....er............i hate you.


and i didnt even bring up Frankenstein or the Mummy !

[Despare]

I think the most "realistic zombies" were the ones in Serpent and the Rainbow.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by Despare
I think the most "realistic zombies" were the ones in Serpent and the Rainbow.

thats true ...



so now not only is the debate still wide open we're beginning to determine that zombie movies arent really zombie movies either !

[newb]

Originally posted by urgeok
thats true ...



so now not only is the debate still wide open we're beginning to determine that zombie movies arent really zombie movies either ! http://www.poster.net/monty-python/monty-python-my-brain-hurts-4001113.jpg

[urgeok]

FIRST ... YOU TAKE THE CRYSANTHIMUMUMUMS

[Despare]

It's all in the eye of the beholder though.

Dead Alive is a Comedy Horror to me and to a few people I know just a horror film. Same with something brainless like Jason X, it was an action movie to me with bits of comedy to others it was a horror film. If you really feel the need to classify something then go around to websites that sell DVDs and look at the genres these movies are in, take the most widely used genre and apply your label. Zombie movies aren't zombie movies and vampires are zombies... I'm so confused. Are the movies about Jesus' ressurection zombie films?

[bwind22]

Originally posted by Despare
Zombie


1. A snake god of voodoo cults in West Africa, Haiti, and the southern United States.

2. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse.
a. A corpse revived in this way.

3. One who looks or behaves like an automaton.

4. A tall mixed drink made of various rums, liqueur, and fruit juice.

THANK YOU!!! I was starting to feel like the only sane person on this board there for a minute!

The zombies in the voodoo religion don't die and then regenerate and these are known as the only REAL (non-film) zombies to exist. Therefore, the definition given that a zombie is a reanimated corpse is only a partial definition. The zombies in 28 Days Later would fall under definition #3.

Okay, so the director calls it a zombie film. The film feels like a zombie film. And the creatures in it fit the definition of a zombie.

How can this debate possibly go on?









P.S. And Newb..... Bruce Lee would whip an angry chimps ass!!!! hahaha

[PR3SSUR3]

Oh, I assure you it can.

:p

The director himself has refered to it as a zombie film.

Excellent idea - now the kids have a new zombie film to pay to go and watch, and boy do the kids love their zombies.

Zombies sell, "still alive but infected with a disease and running about not eating people" probably not so much.

However, the first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is of a revived corpse - nothing about eating people, but Romero firmly lodged this element into the contemporary zombie. Boyle's new 'take' lacks the crucial 'death' element (so they are free to run about at speed), they do not eat people but like to vomit disease into potential vicitims.

You can probably find definitions that juggle the meanings of 'zombie' around in order of importance (for there is always a first and foremost definition of a word), but it's hard to argue with the above source - and the lesser meanings are subjective, making Boyle's creatures are just too far removed from zombies for many people.

[bwind22]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Oh, I assure you it can.

:p



Excellent idea - now the kids have a new zombie film to pay to go and watch, and boy do the kids love their zombies.

Zombies sell, "still alive but infected with a disease and running about not eating people" probably not so much.

However, the first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is of a revived corpse - nothing about eating people, but Romero firmly lodged this element into the contemporary zombie. Boyle's new 'take' lacks the crucial 'death' element (so they are free to run about at speed), they do not eat people but like to vomit disease into potential vicitims.

You can probably find definitions that juggle the meanings of 'zombie' around in order of importance (for there is always a first and foremost definition of a word), but it's hard to argue with the above source - and the lesser meanings are subjective, making Boyle's creatures are just too far removed from zombies for many people.

Dude this is ridiculous!


If a word has more than 1 definition, they aren't subjective. Any or all definitions could pertain to the word depending on the way it was being used.

Definitions aren't listed in order of importance, the more commonly accepted and/or used definition is generally listed first but this doesn't make it any more important. ( How can one definition of a word have more importance than another anyways??? It would depend on how the word was being used.)


George Romero's zombies wouldn't have ever even been called zombies in the first place if not for the real life actual zombies (You know? The ones that never died.) that are walking around in places like Haiti. Go check out The Serpent and the Rainbow or watch a little History Channel for more info, but I assure you that the word zombie didn't come from George Romero's version.

See, to me though all of this shit is nitpicking and I can't even believe it's required to this extent.

Director says zombie film. Looks like a zombie film. Boom. Done deal. It's a zombie film.

Just because it doesn't fit your overly analytical definition (albeit listed first :rolleyes: )of a zombie film doesn't make it any less of a zombie film.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by Despare
Are the movies about Jesus' ressurection zombie films?

if you want to use that analogy further ...

communion (taking the wafer and wine) is symbolically eating the flesh of christ and drinking his blood...

[PR3SSUR3]

It's a zombie film


The order of the senses are normally based on frequency and convenience.

However in this case, the meanings apart from the first (undead) sense of the word are colloquial, and as such not used in formal (explicit) discourse.

Therefore it is acceptable to conveniently decide to call a dull or apathetic person a 'zombie' in casual circumstances, but you are in fact appealing to its 'zombie-like' traits and these are of course subjective.

My workmates are 'zombies', in the same sense.


If you think this discussion is overly analytical nitpicking, why are you indulging in it?


:cool:

[urgeok]

its fun :p

[PR3SSUR3]

I've just realised how bored I must be....

To the Bat-Poles!

:D

[Despare]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
The order of the senses are normally based on frequency and convenience.

However in this case, the meanings apart from the first (undead) sense of the word are colloquial, and as such not used in formal (explicit) discourse.

Therefore it is acceptable to conveniently decide to call a dull or apathetic person a 'zombie' in casual circumstances, but you are in fact appealing to its 'zombie-like' traits and these are of course subjective.

My workmates are 'zombies', in the same sense.


If you think this discussion is overly analytical nitpicking, why are you indulging in it?


:cool:

I thought of that as well, kind of funny really when you take somebody like Ed from Shaun of the Dead and apply this to him.

*SPOILER*

Ed was a "zombie" before he became a zombie.

[bwind22]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3

If you think this discussion is overly analytical nitpicking, why are you indulging in it?


:cool:

That's just what I do. ;)




BUT this is like talking to a brick wall.

How can you argue with the artist that made the film? Would you be sitting here telling Van Gogh that the little yellow spots in 'Starry Night' aren't actually stars because stars are actually burning balls of gases?

The director says it's a zombie film. He made it. He would know.

I don't know how much simpler it could be...

[PR3SSUR3]

No, it's like talking to Jesus.

+

You're suggesting it would not be right to argue with Danny Boyle, purveyor of zombie movies.

It makes no difference what the artist says - if the specifics are not quite right then he is appealing, even pandering to the sub-genre - some buy it, some don't.

Reasons why it is not bought are in previous posts.

[bwind22]

No one's gonna budge on this one.

We may as well be discussing religion or politics...

[newb]

Originally posted by bwind22
No one's gonna budge on this one.

We may as well be discussing religion or politics...

or

Can an angry chimp kick Bruce Lee's ass?

[PR3SSUR3]

I imagine it probably could now, but not in the 60s.

[newb]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
I imagine it probably could now, but not in the 60s.

Unless Bruce came back as a ZOMBIE

[The Flayed One]

Hmmmm......

How about: Ash, with an angry chimp sidekick, who has a miniature chainsaw for a hand, fights zombie Bruce Lee.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by newb
Unless Bruce came back as a ZOMBIE

or a vampire !

[bwind22]

No,no, no.... You're all missing the points of the Bruce Lee/Angry Chimp things...

For this hypothetical scenario to take place, Bruce would still have to be alive.


Basically the debate was this....

Could one of the world's toughest muthafuckas fight an irate chimp & win (Irate as in you just punched it's baby or stole a banana right out of his hand or soemthing... or would the chimp win against any human?

That was the original debate my friends and I had. Then we just gave the human a name because Bruce Lee was widely regarded as a pretty tough dude in his day.


And for the record. I dont think the chimp would have any chance at all against a trained fighter that can kill in one strike.

[urgeok]

if a primate got a hold of bruce lee it could rip his head off ..

but i dont think it'd get a hand on him..

[bwind22]

Originally posted by urgeok
if a primate got a hold of bruce lee it could rip his head off ..

but i dont think it'd get a hand on him..

Yeah, that's sorta the circle we go round and round in.

haha

I personally dont think the chimp would get any sort of move of at all before Bruce Lee killed it, but even if the chimp jumped at Bruce I would think he could deflect an attack for a few seconds to get one of his own off...

Bruce Lee > Angry Chimp



And that just MIGHT be the greatest thread I ever created.