PDA

View Full Version : Dead Set.



Truculent Sheep
3rd November 08, 09:42 PM
Since we all like zombies, I may as well review E4's five part mini series Dead Set that the channel put on all of last week.

DS is written by warped misanthrope par excellence Charlie Brooker, he of Screenwipe and TV Go Home fame. The basic premise is this: a plague of (running) Zombies sweeps the UK and spreads to the set of pisspoor reality TV show Big Brother. Much gore is shed, and the surviving housemates and production crew are forced to survive. Or at least try to.

It may sound contrived. Yet the show succeeds by striking a perfect balance between satire, serious horror, zombie homage, genuine tragedy and bleakness, black humour and unrelenting despair. Throw in some superb camerawork and editing, and the show looks as well as feels shockingly grim.

The cast is also great and brings depth and sympathy to what might so easily have been flat stereotypes. Patrick the megabastard producer (played with glee by Andy Nyman) in particular stands out as the comic relief, voice of brutal wisdom and Captain Rhodes-style hate figure. But the rest of the cast does a stirling job too, especially Big Brother presenter Davina McCall, playing herself albeit in a rather 'traumatised' way.

Most of all, the show keeps up the growing sense of dread and is willing and able to forget about its central satirical conceit when real drama or horror is required. It also concludes with one of the most fitting, unrelentingly brutal endings in the Zombie genre: utterly bleak, truly horrible and oddly moving all at the same time. Hubris truly brings Nemesis. But to reveal more would be to spoil it. So I won't.

But Dead Set does suffer from one major problem. Namely, THE FUCKING ZOMBIES RUN. This is simply not the done thing. Proper Zombies, like heavy metal, must be done properly and without reference to trends. Yet Dead Set leaps and bounds onto the 28 Days/Dawn of The Dead 2004 bandwagon with not a shred of shame, which is sad as running zombies simply look far too human (albeit rotten and rabid ones) to convince.

And say like you want about the shuffling hordes of yesteryear. But at least they are more convincing than the man-eating joggers of today simply because walking corpses are MEANT to be slow, unrelenting parts of a mindless horde. That is why they are frightening - they are our ever-lurking death, they are decay and frailty, they are us.

The running zombie has more in common with the werewolf or the archetypal Arachnid/Xenomorph/Zerg/Tyrannid horde. They simply do not evoke the same deep-seated fear that the slow zombie steamroller does, because the latter is a proper metaphor for our apathy, our mortality and our cultural decline. Running zombies seem far too active, feral, alien. Winners, not losers.

But still, there are those closing shots... And no amount of running zombies can ruin that or indeed the rest of this powerful drama. Most of all, Dead Set never forgets the one harsh, unbending rule of both zombie films and life itself: the bastards always get in.

8.5/10

Anyway, here are some clips:

HVop3mQU4Ds
vfoGjwHmqiw

Tanhalen21
3rd November 08, 10:02 PM
Good review, makes me want to see it. Never heard of that channel though, must be a Brit thing.

Truculent Sheep
3rd November 08, 10:25 PM
UK-based, obviously. You can get the DVD on Amazon. I've recorded it on VHS, in the best traditions of the early 80s Video Nasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty).

elipson
13th November 08, 11:39 AM
I don't find lurching zombies scary at all. Or realistic. You trying to tell me a shuffling zombie infection can spread like wildfire? Hells no!

With running zombies, I can actually believe the infection could spread within weeks or even days. That terrifies the shit out of me.

Truculent Sheep
13th November 08, 01:29 PM
Simon Pegg disagrees.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/04/television-simon-pegg-dead-set

Charlie Brooker meanwhile falls back on an argument full of many holes (fittingly, given the rotting state of zombies).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/10/barack-obama-zombies-running

mrblackmagic
14th November 08, 10:03 AM
I find running scarier, but logically zombies shouldn't run. Rigor Morits.

WarPhalange
14th November 08, 11:58 AM
logically zombies shouldn't run.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

If it's an infection, I see it spreading really fast in cities. I mean, when's the last time you noticed someone brush against you in a crowded bus? Now imagine someone biting other unsuspecting people.

If it's the Night of the Living Dead type of zombie, then it has no choice but to spread.

elipson
14th November 08, 12:42 PM
Zombies in 28 days didn't suffer from rigamortis. Their bodies continued to function.

Classically speaking, yes zombies should have rigamortis. Especially if we are talking reanimation type where they come up from the graves.

I don't know what it is with you old ppl and your shuffling unscary zombie horde nostalgia. I don't need metaphors and symbolism to be scared when I'm being chased by a ravanous meth addict who doesn't get tired and runs as fast as I could if I didn't feel pain. THAT is some scary shit.

Equipoise
14th November 08, 01:54 PM
There's some issues with "fast zombies."

The 28 Days Later zombies have a mix of Ebola and Rabies. The first kills the host anywhere from 2 to 21 days. Rabies takes a bit longer to set in.

The hemorrhaging would increase exponentially through all of the running and activity leading to the host bleeding out or just falling apart in a very, very short amount of time.

Also, the "ravenous meth addict" while being immune to pain is still susceptible to bodily restrictions.

Excited Delerium tends to kill cracked out individuals quite quickly when they exceed their biological limits.

elipson
14th November 08, 03:59 PM
I tend to argree with you, in the sense that fast zombies should die out more quickly.

Kiko
14th November 08, 05:07 PM
Mayfly zombies?

Equipoise
14th November 08, 05:09 PM
Fast zombies are fine, but making them super human is bs. Plus if they're technically dead, they'd be slow if able to move at all. I'm still trying to figure out the biological capability for locomotion in zombies from the WWZ universe.

WarPhalange
14th November 08, 05:42 PM
Zombies in 28 days didn't suffer from rigamortis. Their bodies continued to function.

Those weren't zombies. Those were just angry people. They never died. That's a requirement for a zombie.


I don't know what it is with you old ppl and your shuffling unscary zombie horde nostalgia.

Seeing a wall of death come at you and knowing that they won't stop is still pretty scary. Especially if you have nowhere to go.

elipson
14th November 08, 08:27 PM
I'm still trying to figure out the biological capability for locomotion in zombies from the WWZ universe.
I've been struggling with this concept for months now since I read the book.

I've come to the conclussion that I must simply suspend my disbelief.

Point taken about 28 days later zombies. But I really don't find slow moving death all that scary. It's not scary because they can't catch me.

bob
14th November 08, 09:41 PM
The point is that they're an allegory for death itself. When we feel vibrant we believe that we can outrun it and never let it touch us. But it never stops tracking us down until eventually every man jack of us is trapped in the corner of the barn, exhausted, while the lumbering hordes batter at the walls.

Equipoise
14th November 08, 11:02 PM
I thought it was an allegory for socio-political change.

Elipson- It's more about the despair involved in it versus the "Boo!" factor. The threat is ever present and it can't be reasoned with and is everywhere. You go from your day to day life in society to scrounging for supplies and avoiding death (literally) while combating other survivors that have your same goals.

elipson
15th November 08, 12:06 AM
That's assuming your death will stalk you slowly. I think I can relate more to sudden raging death that comes out of nowhere. Death isn't gonna stalk me.

You all are just complaining because you know you are too out of shape to outrun a fast zombie.

Ajamil
15th November 08, 02:15 AM
I always like the Necroscope books' version of zombies: not reanimated corpses, but reanimated flesh. That means that shooting a corpse in the head does nothing. Cut a small piece of flesh off, and that piece is now trying to attack you. Basically until you can burn it to cinders, the horde comes forth. The series has some interesting scenes where people drown or are crushed in gibbering masses of gelatinous flesh and bone.

Cullion
15th November 08, 08:19 AM
I liked the remake of Dawn of the Dead. There's no point arguing about the science.
I take the point about slow zombies being scarier because of the 'inevitable, creeping doom' aspect, but in the moment, I just can't suspend the disbelief that I wouldn't just be able to jog away, so fast zombies still seem scarier.

mrblackmagic
15th November 08, 08:27 AM
Remember, the scary part of the old zombie movies wasn't the creatures jumping out at you. It was the claustrophobia of being trapped in a building while they tried to get in.

Being run down and eviscerated is not as poetic, but it is plays on more instinctive fears.



What the fuck is wrong with you?

If it's an infection, I see it spreading really fast in cities. I mean, when's the last time you noticed someone brush against you in a crowded bus? Now imagine someone biting other unsuspecting people.

If it's the Night of the Living Dead type of zombie, then it has no choice but to spread.

What are you talking about? I was saying zombies' motor functions and circulatory system where operating just enough to keep the creature moving. However, not capable of running.

Cullion
15th November 08, 09:19 AM
It really is ridiculous arguing about the science of this. The closest to a scientific explanation was in 28 days later where they aren't 'living dead' it's just a disease they call 'rage' that makes you super-pissed all the time, so pissed you're too dumb to communicate or use tools or even think about gathering food. You just want to run around and spread the infection.

mrblackmagic
15th November 08, 09:22 AM
Well, yeah.

Equipoise
15th November 08, 10:54 AM
It really is ridiculous arguing about the science of this. The closest to a scientific explanation was in 28 days later where they aren't 'living dead' it's just a disease they call 'rage' that makes you super-pissed all the time, so pissed you're too dumb to communicate or use tools or even think about gathering food. You just want to run around and spread the infection.

You have to watch/read the prologue. It explains the disease better by stating its a combination of Ebola and Rabies. Also don't kill the fun, we're trying to figure out how it'd be Biologically possible.

Arjuna- The game Deadspace is like that book. You have to completely destroy the critters in that otherwise they continue to come after you sans a head, legs or arms.

Cullion
15th November 08, 12:02 PM
Well, 28 days later zombies are just people with some infection transmitted via bodily fluids who are angry to the point of ferality. I don't see what's biologically impossible about that. When they're shot, they die. They starve to death because they're so pissed they can't get it together enough to even scavenge food from stores. They're just ordinary people with a disease that makes them act like enraged wild animals all the time.

For the 'shambling living dead' you might as well look at a supernatural explanation.

mrblackmagic
15th November 08, 02:33 PM
Cracked.com ran list like this awhile ago. I can't link it because I'm at a public library right now.

Equipoise
15th November 08, 03:47 PM
Well, 28 days later zombies are just people with some infection transmitted via bodily fluids who are angry to the point of ferality. I don't see what's biologically impossible about that. When they're shot, they die. They starve to death because they're so pissed they can't get it together enough to even scavenge food from stores. They're just ordinary people with a disease that makes them act like enraged wild animals all the time.


For the 'shambling living dead' you might as well look at a supernatural explanation.


Being feral doesn't give you superhuman abilities, plus the Ebola would wipe them out in a week tops and make them unable to run at top speeds or anything strenuous without first having their internal organs turn to mush.

As for the old school zombies, WWZ goes as far as to link it to a bacteria that's been around for millenia.

Cullion
15th November 08, 03:59 PM
The zombies in 28 days didn't have any superhuman abilities that I remember, they were just humans overwhelmed by savage bloodlust. The bit about the disease being a mixture of ebola and rabies I didn't see. Sounds like non-canon horsecrap tacked on later.

Equipoise
15th November 08, 04:03 PM
How could it be non-canon? It's the best explanation they have. I think you're missing the issue that "savage bloodlust" doesn't mean one is immune to the effects of any disease, Ebola or not that causes massive amounts of hemorrhaging as seen in the movie. The average ghoul or whatever they are would make it a quarter of a mile before melting.

Cullion
15th November 08, 04:41 PM
Was it a genetic hybrid of rabies and ebola, or just the two different microbes mixed together ?

Equipoise
15th November 08, 04:46 PM
Let me see if I can find the video/comic of it. I believe they engineered it to work together or something. They didn't delve too much into the science of it.

Cullion
15th November 08, 04:48 PM
If they messed with the genomes or spliced them together, there's no reason to expect it to have all the same effects as real-world ebola.

Equipoise
15th November 08, 04:59 PM
YUpoviKLPpQ

Equipoise
15th November 08, 05:02 PM
If they messed with the genomes or spliced them together, there's no reason to expect it to have all the same effects as real-world ebola.

Well they still hemorrhaged significantly though, right?

Cullion
15th November 08, 05:16 PM
One of them spewed up blood and they looked like they had ruptured blood vessels in their eyes. They definitely didn't just bleed out like real world ebola is supposed to cause, and the cartoon talks about him using part of the ebola genome to create a whole new microbe, nor just mixing ebola and rabies bacilli.

Equipoise
15th November 08, 06:27 PM
So... they created a hybrid. This hybrid makes people spew blood (hemorrhaging) and insane (rabies). Why does this sound like what I've been saying for the past 10 posts?

Cullion
15th November 08, 06:34 PM
Because you were wondering why they didn't suffer the effects of real world ebola (i.e. saying they'd fall apart after running a short distance), and I pointed out that they don't have ebola. They have a different disease, with different effects, that happens to have some of the Ebola genome.

Some genetically modified foods have genes from scorpions in them. They don't run around stinging things with their barbed tail.

elipson
15th November 08, 06:40 PM
Let me see if I can find the video/comic of it. I believe they engineered it to work together or something. They didn't delve too much into the science of it.

Maybe they didn't delve too much into the science of it because they just made it up?

It's fictional. Arguing the science of a fictional-non-existent disease is silly.

Looks like me and cullion finally agree on something. All it took was a discussion on apocalyptic zombie infestations.....

Ajamil
16th November 08, 06:37 AM
Looks like me and cullion finally agree on something. All it took was a discussion on apocalyptic zombie infestations.....

It's amazing how many enemies end up working together and forming bonds because of zombies...or any other doomsday scenario, really. We should have more of them so people could bond and be happy!

Also,


Some genetically modified foods have genes from scorpions in them. They don't run around stinging things with their barbed tail.

I want this now - can you give this to me? We should modify corn so that it can sting people who protest against GM foods.

mrblackmagic
16th November 08, 08:28 AM
A lot of food dye, particularly for candy, comes from crushed insects.

Anyway, the zombie apocalypse was usually about the breakdown of society not the bonds it creates.

Cullion
16th November 08, 10:25 AM
I never found the slow zombies convincing because I always thought the epidemic would be too easy to contain. How big would the crowd of shambling goons get before it was just strafed with machine gun fire from helicopters? or napalmed?

Let's say we had a late-night outbreak in a major city. Granted, it's going to take some time before people realise that the stumbling, ill-looking people moaning in pain are zombies. Lots of people are going to get cornered in their beds, or bitten whilst trying to render them assistance before the alarm is raised and survivors start streaming out of cities in vehicles that can easily outrun the horde, whilst befuddled cops and soldiers in helicopters and tanks just start liquidating them at a fairly leisurely pace.

Let's say the delay is sufficient for the zombie horde to block enough of the streets of a major city so that a critical mass of new recruits is cornered, and the whole city is then taken over. What then? How are they going to spread the infection to other cities if it's transmitted by a bite and they move at 2 mph ?

Once people have some idea what's happening and 'get' that the only thing to do with these zombies is destroy them, the few stragglers who make it to other cities due to delayed onset are going to be individual slow-movers or small groups. Easy to avoid and destroy once you're aware that there's a 'shambler' epidemic going on.

Fast moving zombies don't have this problem.

I can only see slow-moving zombies spreading if there's a relatively slow-onset infection, that doesn't depend on a bite, and a large number of individuals are infected at once in the initial outbreak. Maybe a big leak of experimental re-animation gas or something.

Zendetta
16th November 08, 12:33 PM
Go watch Fido you fuckers!!!

Its got Billy Connelly as a zombie and gives some good idea for how this "zombie problem" can be made to work for our advantage.

Truculent Sheep
16th November 08, 02:20 PM
I never found the slow zombies convincing because I always thought the epidemic would be too easy to contain. How big would the crowd of shambling goons get before it was just strafed with machine gun fire from helicopters? or napalmed?

Let's say we had a late-night outbreak in a major city...

But the slowburn plague is still a dire threat. Assuming, as is probable, the authorities aren't ready for the initial onslaught, the disease has a Romero-length incubation period and everyone else are running around in a panic, the disease would spread like wildfire. Remember, if you were told that the Dead were walking, how would you react?

Moreover, even a minor zombie plague would destabilise an area badly. If you've got recent corpses suddenly springing up in places that aren't (for obvious reasons) designed for containing zombies (like the Manchester City Morgue - terrible design decisions there), you've got a nasty problem.

Now, in Sean Of The Dead, it's implied the army are ahead of the game (doubtless being lead in the field by a starchy but effective Brigadier who insists on 'five rounds; rapid') and manage to put down the zombies before they really take over. Nonetheless, that's still a major national disaster there, and poor Ed ends up (un)living in the shed...

In the Dead films, there's no such fast response (and this is the most likely result when you think about it) when El Revenantos start staggering around in a peckish fashion. By the time, we've all worked out what the fuck is going on, the shuffling zombie horde is at its zenith (since there are so many zombies at this point that anyone who is attacked are usually torn apart before they can reanimate), and most if not all urban centres are lost to the rotting hordes. That means most of your nation's infrastructure is buggered, your food production is shagged, the rest of the world is either also afflicted or has quarantined you, and central government is down the crapper.

Oh, and there's millions of flesh-eating undead after you. They don't need to run - because you've got nowhere to run to.

Scared yet?

elipson
16th November 08, 02:50 PM
Amazingly not.

Now the scene in 28 later where he gets chased out of the church, that was terrifying.

And infection with a slow incubation period, but that is contagious before the onset of symptoms (resident evil) would make it believable. Other than that, slow zombies just aren't a credible threat.

WWZ had some interesting takes on this. Such as harvesting organs from infected donors, or blood, in the opening stages. Also WWZ had a slow burn type which allowed infected to spread out. hitting large city center in quick succession would allow the horde to get ahead of containment efforts.

Cullion
16th November 08, 02:59 PM
I haven't seen Sean of the Dead, but the scenario described sounds more likely to me than the original Romero one. Even with long incubation periods, how long do you think it would take the following to occur?

1) People realise that shambling, moaning people are to be avoided can only be safely dealt with by destroying them at a distance? I think that happens once the killings get televised.

2) The method of transmission is a bite, so anybody with wounds needs to be imprisoned until they either reanimate (and get destroyed), and at the very least, avoided ? I think that happens fairly soon after.

Once people realise those two things, then small pockets of zombies springing up in new cities would seem pretty easy to deal with.

National disaster (i.e. quarantine London and gun down anything that looks a bit pasty and moans a lot until we stop seeing new cases) I can buy, but total collapse of all infrastructure and only tiny bands of barricaded, terrified survivors wishing they could hear another voice on the ham radio (as we saw on the remake of Dawn of the Dead), well.. I still think that requires quick zombies.

I think the main danger period would be whilst sleeping in the early phase when you didn't realise what the weird stories about riots on TV were all about, but if you make it through that, you're able bodied and you've got a vehicle, then you're alright unless you wake up trapped in the middle of a major urban centre with the streets blocked with lurchers.

If you're on a military base that the hordes haven't reached by the time people realise what's going on, you're fine.

I also predict that people working at well-stocked 24 hour petrol stations with access to vehicles, fuel and pre-packed food all behind locable shatter-proof glass doora are about the safest people, especially if it's on a remote stretch of bypass or A-road.

elipson
16th November 08, 03:19 PM
Have to worry about flaming zombies spreading fiery death. fire takes longer to consume a zombie than it does a regular person.

Cullion
16th November 08, 03:44 PM
Why's that ? I would have thought that the gases from decomposition would make them more flammable?

Truculent Sheep
16th November 08, 03:52 PM
Amazingly not.

Now the scene in 28 later where he gets chased out of the church, that was terrifying.

But since those weren't really zombies...


Other than that, slow zombies just aren't a credible threat.

In response, I refer you to the many pre-28DL zombie flicks that, at their most frightening, showed how dangerous slow zombies could be.


WWZ had some interesting takes on this. Such as harvesting organs from infected donors, or blood, in the opening stages. Also WWZ had a slow burn type which allowed infected to spread out. hitting large city center in quick succession would allow the horde to get ahead of containment efforts.

That's how all zombie plagues spread - the initial bite brings an infection that only takes effect over a few hours. Enough to get as many carriers as possible carrying the disease without showing too many of the symptoms. Yet.

Cullion
16th November 08, 04:05 PM
I don't see why we can't call 'the infected' zombies. What's the definition of a zombie? surely common usage is the issue. Most people, whether they find them frightening or not, would call them zombies. As they would the fast zombies in the remake of Dawn of the Dead. My problem with the old style zombies was I never found it credible who the slow-movers managed to build up their numbers into the omnipresent shoulder-to-shoulder horde that they seem to need to be before they're truly dangerous.

elipson
16th November 08, 04:39 PM
People on fire die from smoke inhalation and trauma/pain.

Zombies don't need air and don't feel pain. They have to burn long enough to consume the muscle tissue to the point where the muscle stops functioning. In theory its effective, just under the right circumstances. Using nukes/radiation has a similar effect of spreading destruction without stopping anything.

The language of zombie culture is changing. The purists on this thread won't accept the new age of zombie. That's too bad, cause its cool. I seem to remember in the old zombie movies the dead rising from the ground. Now THIS would be scary and would negate the issues of spreading the infection.

Personally, I think a person who loses all social thought and wants to attack any person they see, and will spread such contagion to others, is classified as a zombie. Whether its a reanimated, cold, slow moving type, or a hot burning olympic track star type zombie. I'm also a youngin, having missed the really old zombie classics. I have no nostalgia for them.

Shawarma
16th November 08, 05:55 PM
I'm wondering: Does a zombie need a functional nervous system? Does it need its heart to beat? So could you potentially poison them with curare to paralyse them or stop their hearts beating with electric shock?

Equipoise
16th November 08, 06:01 PM
I'll give you my AED and you can get close enough to try it out if it ever happens.

Shawarma
16th November 08, 06:03 PM
"Don't taze me braaaainnnnzzz?"

elipson
16th November 08, 06:13 PM
WWZ zombies are infected in the nervous system, but they are not affected by nerve toxins.

The 28DL zombies were affected by nerve gas in the second movie.

Here we see the practical implications of two zombie types.

mrblackmagic
16th November 08, 08:23 PM
If you want to split hairs, 28 Days later was an "infected" movie and the "zombies" were very much alive.

Equipoise
16th November 08, 08:57 PM
So were the zombies in WWZ. They were infected with a Bacteria called Solanum.

Truculent Sheep
17th November 08, 06:10 AM
The language of zombie culture is changing. The purists on this thread won't accept the new age of zombie. That's too bad, cause its cool.

This reminds me of the debates in the metal scene a decade ago regarding crap like Korn - apparently 'Nu' metal was the future and we were, like, down on the kids or something. But it was just another naff trend that was quickly forgotten. Rather like Zoombies.


I seem to remember in the old zombie movies the dead rising from the ground. Now THIS would be scary and would negate the issues of spreading the infection.

That's an angle that's not been explored much.


Personally, I think a person who loses all social thought and wants to attack any person they see, and will spread such contagion to others, is classified as a zombie. Whether its a reanimated, cold, slow moving type, or a hot burning olympic track star type zombie. I'm also a youngin, having missed the really old zombie classics. I have no nostalgia for them.

Your zoombies, like I said in my review, have more in common with 'killer swarm' aliens or werewolves. In fact, make a few subtle mods and 28DL would be one of the best werewolf films ever.

elipson
17th November 08, 01:25 PM
Instead of one of the best zombie movies ever?

Cullion
17th November 08, 02:33 PM
I didn't think 28 days later was that amazing. It was 'pretty good'. The remake of Dawn of the Dead deserves that accolade.

TS, I don't think it's fair to compare the new Dawn of the Dead with Korn. Think of the scene in the 'a-team bus' they build where they hit a bump and the blonde slut got her shit accidentally ruined with the chainsaw. Don't tell me you didn't smile.

Zendetta
17th November 08, 03:02 PM
THat chainsaw accident was awesome, and highlights an aspect of the Zombie Apocalypse that you guys are forgetting: most of our troubles will come from other surviving humans when law and civil society break down.

Case in point: 28 Weeks Later. The true horror isn't the horde, its the government's crazy-ass fascist response.

You are gonna catch more shit from the bands of roving raiders than you will from the zombies. Heck, the moral of 28 Days Later is that Horny Soldiers are worse than zombies.

Now go watch Fido, dammit!

Cullion
17th November 08, 03:04 PM
Maybe, but as far as the fear element goes, there's something more frightening about a mindless thing you can't negotiate with.

mrblackmagic
17th November 08, 03:32 PM
So were the zombies in WWZ. They were infected with a Bacteria called Solanum.

But zombies because they died and came back to life.

I know. It is a headache. Here's how it was explained to me. "Infected" movies are a subgenre of "zombie" movies. Zombies are the walking, moaning, hissing dead. Infected are just batshit because they have a disease.

Zendetta
17th November 08, 05:00 PM
Maybe, but as far as the fear element goes, there's something more frightening about a mindless thing you can't negotiate with.

Like Horny Soldiers, exactly.

Shawarma
17th November 08, 05:09 PM
In this age of Obamaness, I wish to point out how I always loved the main character in Night of the Living Dead being black. Apart from being totally hardass, his blackness didn't really matter much to anyone in the movie, but I think he was the first black badass action hero, messing up zombies left and right.

Truculent Sheep
18th November 08, 07:38 AM
Instead of one of the best zombie movies ever?

Zombie-influenced, I'd say - and the people who made it pretty much make this point explicit on the DVD commentary.

Adouglasmhor
18th November 08, 03:03 PM
I think the main danger period would be whilst sleeping in the early phase when you didn't realise what the weird stories about riots on TV were all about, but if you make it through that, you're able bodied and you've got a vehicle, then you're alright unless you wake up trapped in the middle of a major urban centre with the streets blocked with lurchers.


http://www.borntorun-whippetsandlurchers.co.uk/images/dogs/shebabracken01.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/422105954_e1bc1e5943.jpg
http://www.coloradocathouse.com/Lrchr0055.jpg

For some reason I never imagined them as being more prone to being undead than any other type of dog.

Cullion
18th November 08, 03:09 PM
Well, now you know.

Kiko
18th November 08, 06:19 PM
Zombie gypsy dogs?
ooooh!

At first I was gonna ask what those pups had to do with Gomez' butler.

partyboy
18th November 08, 06:57 PM
In this age of Obamaness, I wish to point out how I always loved the main character in Night of the Living Dead being black. Apart from being totally hardass, his blackness didn't really matter much to anyone in the movie, but I think he was the first black badass action hero, messing up zombies left and right.

...and a redneck white guy shot him in the head


^ ZOMG SPOILERS!

elipson
20th November 08, 10:29 AM
Was gonna rent that this weekend asshole. Thanks for spoiling it.