Tuesday, August 23, 2011

YOU Make The Call!

To anyone who isn't a LAMB, you probably don't know about this major controversy that's been going around since late 2009 or so. Even if you're a LAMB, probably only a few of you know about this. It's a subject that when anyone involved hears about, they immediately groan and wait for the flame war to die out. What, pray tell, am I talking about?

Is "28 Days Later" a zombie film?

Pretty much is split between Nick Jobe, who says it's NOT a zombie film and on the other side is...everyone else. I feel bad for Nick because I know what its like trying to fight your point and having a gang of people team up and tell you that you're wrong and you suck and you should go to hell. (Reference: Jason Soto v Everyone Who Doesn't Get That Most Comedy Sequels Are Always Gonna Be Like The First Film.)

I have been asked a couple of times what do I think about this subject matter and my answer tends to piss people off: I don't know, but it is a post-apocalyptic film. Since both sides of this heated debate don't seem to know where I'm coming from, here's why I can't make up my mind.

Why It Could Be Considered A Zombie Film:
If you look back to the early films that started this whole zombie craze, mainly "Night of the Living Dead", you have a core group of people holed up somewhere while stumbling beings are outside trying to attack/eat you. Every zombie film since "Night" has followed this. Including "28 Days Later". The difference is the core group of people are constantly moving, and the stumbling beings run 200 MPH.

And what happens when one of those beings attack you? You become one of them. Much like zombies. Now Nick, before you hire hackers to take my website and turn it into a German Fetish site, let's look at:

Why It Could NOT Be Considered A Zombie Film:
Zombie, by definition, is a being who was DEAD, then came to life. The beings in "28 Days Later" have not died at any point. They get infected by, I forget, tainted love blood? By some monkies? Sometime like that. Then they bite each other, infecting each other and so on and so on. You COULD argue that there is no cure to this and you shoot them (in the head) to kill them. I agree with that. But if you don't get bitten, you're ok.

Now, I never seen "28 Weeks Later" so maybe some of this is explained. I do know there is a cure at some point, then of course some fucking stupid kid fucks it up. Ugh, I hate kids in movies. But the important part is, the people are never dead, just really angry to the point they aren't human anymore. Does that make someone a zombie? I don't think so.

What I DO know is, after the monkey bites whoever and that whoever bites whoever and so on and so on and so on, 28 Days Later, the world (or at least England) is one giant shithole. So therefore, it is a post apocalyptic film. I dunno how "28 Weeks Later" handles this. Are they like "Well everybody, things are ok now? Go back to work and your lives and...what not? Tally-ho! Cheers! God Save The Queen!" So this kinda throw a wrench into my theroy but really, I don't have much go on here.

So now, dear reader, I throw it to you. What do you think "28 Days Later" is? A zombie or not-zombie film? Can you at the VERY least agree it's a post-apocalyptic film? Sure it's no "Road Warrior" with a spikey guy yelling "JUST TURN BACK RIGHT NOW!! THIS GAS IS MINE!!!" but still.

As for me? I stand by what I said. I don't really know. If it is a zombie film, it's an interesting change into the zombie genre. And it's 200 times better than "Survival of the Dead". Fuck THAT movie.
-Jason

8 comments:

Nick said...

Actually, the Infected in 28 Days Later rarely even bite, and you don't have to be bitten to become infected. All you need is a drop of their blood or saliva into your system. Remember, Frank gets a drop of blood in his eye and that infects him.

Your basic zombie has 3 qualities: 1) They're reanimated dead. 2) They eat people. 3) They can only be killed by massive head trauma or by being shot in the head.

In 28 Days Later, none of that is true. They aren't dead. They don't eat people (and, in fact, they starve to death by the end of the movie). And you can kill them just like you would kill any other person. Again, Frank is just shot in his torso, as an example.

As for 28 Weeks Later, the kid doesn't actually fuck it up. He's the cure. Well, the kids DO mess things up by bringing a pseudo-infected back into the cleared zone, but that's beside the point. And if you're curious, all the Infected died of starvation and the U.S. military cleared a chunk of London for people to start integrating back into their normal lives. But again, that's kinda beside the main point.

As for it being a post-apocalyptic film--hell yes it is. It's more of a small-scale one since only the UK is apparently inflicted by the problem, but it would be considered one. And then "Weeks" is like a post-post-apocalypse that just relapses or something.

My issue is more semantics than anything. By calling it a zombie movie, you are implying that they are, indeed, zombies. They are not. At all. However, what most people are arguing is that it is a zombie FORMULA movie. And by that I have at least given credence to. So if you want to argue that it's a Zombie Formula Movie, I'll stop. But don't call it a zombie movie, because it isn't. There are no zombies involved.

Kaiderman said...

You're both wrong... zombie film!

Dr. Blacksteed said...

HAHAHA! I love that you guys are still arguing about this. What I really wanted to say is - I HATE KIDS IN MOVIES TOO! That's what's really important. I think we should ditch this zombie/non-zombie argument in favor of a kids in movies/no kids allowed argument.

Dylan said...

"So if you want to argue that it's a Zombie Formula Movie, I'll stop. But don't call it a zombie movie, because it isn't."

See, this is what's frustrating. I think Nick keeps up the argument just because he likes being the only one on the other side or something. He KNOWS exactly what everyone is talking about, but still puts up this fight.

We, similarly, all KNOW that they aren't *technically* zombies. Big whoop. And no one's going to call it a "zombie formula film" just because of that technicality because saying that sounds retarded.

It happens all of the time. Many films are called Westerns that don't take place in the West...big whoop. They fit into that genre, just as 28DL fits into the Zombie Movie genre. Period.

JoelB said...

Maybe time for a clash of the titans episode on the LAMBcast with Nick vs Everyone (or at least Sam) on the subject so it can be settled once and for all.

Dylan: I actually could call it a Zombie formula film because it is somewhat of a subgenre.

Nick said...

Dylan: You can't single me out for being stubborn about it when Kai purposefully says I'm wrong and says they're zombies. :P

Duke said...

Still need to see the film, heard great things though.

Quite honestly, I'm not too knowledgable when it comes to zombie films.

Movie Guy Steve said...

I do consider this a zombie film because it fits the formula (yes, I'm playing both sides here). And it does fit the formula perfectly. The argument I've heard from Kai (and it's a good one) is that if you removed the infected and replaced them with Romero zombies, would the film change? And the answer is, "No."

Essentially, Dylan makes the point I wanted to make--we categorize things not on the technicalities but on the feel, and 28DL feels like a zombie film. It's a complete reimagining in many ways, but it has all the earmarks.