|
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]
|