Zombie Fiction

[Isis]

OTOH, the remake Dawn of the Dead zombies have lost an essential quality of horror that the old school zombies possess.

Absolutely.

Sure, the original zombies may be inagile, slow and stupid. Nevertheless, they embody a certain implacable relentlessness that the fast zombies lack. You can run, hide, fight back, despair...it doesn't really matter what you do, because deep down you know they'll get you in the end. It sort of mirrors Homo Sapiens ambiguous relationship to nature; sure, we're the king of the hill 364 days of the year, and the arrogance with which we behold nature may sometimes border on contempt - but when nature turns on us unexpectedly, our vulnerability and mortality jumps to the forefront of our mind but quick.

Yes. This is why slow zombies are still a frightening concept. Unfortunately the instant gratification generation misses this point entirely.

Simon: this makes me sad. :(

I had almost managed to forget about this, but this thread reminded me - I doubt that it's possible to get from the Isle of Dogs to Wembley in 40 minutes on foot, unless you know exactly where you're going and you sprint the whole way (disappointing end of 28 Weeks Later).

[kungtotte]

Google maps tells me that it is 17 miles along the A40/Westway, which is more or less a straight line. You could save a few miles by straightening it out a little bit, but as you say you'd have to know exactly which route to take.

Even so, 40 minutes to cover 15-17 miles is impossible. You'd have to run 25 miles per hour for a full 40 minutes to accomplish that.

[Isis]

I've bored people a lot with that one in real life and yet I've never bothered to actually measure it* myself, so thanks for that. :)

*because I already know it's not possible from my knowledge of the area

[Fenryng]

I prefer the atmosphere of slow zombies, but tactically, fast zombies are a more immediate threat.

And yeah, seeing zombies with no jawbones chained to a person was a first.

Isis - I am going to presume from your response that it was Maberry you considered "meh" and that Wellington is not worth my time at best, or an abomination at worst. :-)

Ironically, I just literally picked up the Night of the Living Dead remake yesterday on DVD. It was all of six dollars, so I figured, what the hell, why not.

I almost picked up the Zombie Survival Guide yesterday, but I have been under the impression that there is not anything in it that I have not already seen or read.

I have seen both 28 days and 28 weeks. I don't really remember enough about the first one to compare the two, which is an obvious sign that I need to watch it again.

I am so far behind literature-wise, it is not funny.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Absolutely.

Yes. This is why slow zombies are still a frightening concept. Unfortunately the instant gratification generation misses this point entirely.

Simon: this makes me sad. :(

I had almost managed to forget about this, but this thread reminded me - I doubt that it's possible to get from the Isle of Dogs to Wembley in 40 minutes on foot, unless you know exactly where you're going and you sprint the whole way (disappointing end of 28 Weeks Later).

I do agree slow zombies are more frightening in what they represent. The fast ones are good too, especially for that instant gratification, but as fast as they are it becomes unrealistic when the survivors keep slipping away so it either loses its sense of reality, or the movie remains a giant chase scene. At some point the fast ones lose their sense of intimidation because you know they should have caught the survivors by now, but they must be completely incompetent. The slow ones allow for a story (like my favorite movie of all time the original Night of the Living Dead0 that really builds up a sense of fear and despair.

As far as World War Z goes--it is well written, and definitely a good book. I've tried reading it twice now and both times I start fast and love it. But I always get to the same point (somewhere midway) and lose interest. I'm not sure why. I think I'll try it again.

It is by far the best narrative based zombie novel out there. All the rest seems so silly and ridiculous they can't even be uttered in the same sentence.

[Isis]

Isis - I am going to presume from your response that it was Maberry you considered "meh" and that Wellington is not worth my time at best, or an abomination at worst. :-)

Have only read Mayberry - which is fine as long as you have no expectations whatsoever.

[Ran]

Read through volume 3 of The Walking Dead.

Positives: The plot's engaging.

Negatives: The artist I praised? Tony Moore disappears part way into the second volume; the other guy is not as skilled or talented. Not a disaster, but it's become less visually interesting. And that thing of mine, about Kirkman and his writing? Oh my goodness.

I wish he plotted it and he had someone else script it. His dialogue reads all wrong. Way too many words per panel. Inconsistent voices. All sorts of issues. Maybe it improves? But the plotting, yes, that's not bad. It's entertaining enough. I may continue with it to see how it goes, but I can't say I love it.

Final thought: The Walking Dead the series could easily surpass the comic in terms of quality entertainment; hard to imagine teleplay writers being as ham-handed with the dialogue as Kirkman.

[red snow]

Read through volume 3 of The Walking Dead.

Positives: The plot's engaging.

Negatives: The artist I praised? Tony Moore disappears part way into the second volume; the other guy is not as skilled or talented. Not a disaster, but it's become less visually interesting. And that thing of mine, about Kirkman and his writing? Oh my goodness.

I wish he plotted it and he had someone else script it. His dialogue reads all wrong. Way too many words per panel. Inconsistent voices. All sorts of issues. Maybe it improves? But the plotting, yes, that's not bad. It's entertaining enough. I may continue with it to see how it goes, but I can't say I love it.

Final thought: The Walking Dead the series could easily surpass the comic in terms of quality entertainment; hard to imagine teleplay writers being as ham-handed with the dialogue as Kirkman.

I remember being shocked by the change in artist but after a couple of volumes he really grew on me so that now his version is the version i see when thinking about it. I think it just takes a while for him to make the characters distinct but overall Adlard's style suits the horroe far better than his predecessor.

I think if the show takes the main story arcs and key characters as inspiration I have no problem and high hopes it will be a great show.

[KAH]

Up to issue 5 so far, and while I agree with Ran's objection about the dialogue, I also agree with red snow about the artist - he does improve markedly, and I appreciate the bleaker style of Adlard's art. Overall, I like it very well so far.

Liked the quasi-nod to the original Dawn of the Dead in issue 5... :)

[gladius]

I haven't even noticed a change of artist.

I love it. Sometimes there are too many characters around, but that's a minor complaint.

[Arthmail]

the Walking Dead:

I did notice the artist change at first, and didn't like it, but i got over it after awhile. Still would have preferred the original art all the way through, but whatever. It grew on me.

I have read the first four hardcover books they have put out of the comics, which covers something like the first 47 comics. Or thereabouts.

I'm on severe burn out right now. The kill count has taken its toll.

[Eyelesbarrow]

Some of you may find this article from Salon interesting....

What's with all the zombies?

Maybe the undead creatures surfacing everywhere in pop culture have something to do with Washington and Wall Street

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/10/zombies/

[KAH]

I don't think you were supposed to be happy with that spoiler. The whole concept of the movie seemed to be the impossible decisions that have to be made in war time situations, or situations of life and death. Every major character made decisions in the movie--what seemed right (Doyle's dilemma of sniping the boy or protecting him) had negative impacts. The decision of the commander to not listen to Scarlett about the possibility of finding immunity through the children's blood. And of course the now famous decision of Robert Carlysle in the opening of the film.

Thematically it was a more sound move. The characters were more interesting, and I was completely behind them as they made their escape.

Whereas the people in the first one mostly annoyed me, and the military presence in the second half of that film was just too bizarre.

I've heard the complaints on 28 Weeks plot holes--and I recognize there are some good ones there, but plot holes don't bother me if you have good characters, and a story driven by them.

I'd even put 28 Weeks in my top 5 best movies. It is unsettling and unflinching in how it explores the dark side of warfare and survival. When the soldiers were told to shoot everyone, you could really feel the weight of that decision through Doyle's reactions. Phenomenal movie.

That was by far my favourite scene becasue of its brutal honesty. In a way it maybe set too high of a standard with that opening because if it had I'd have enjoyed it as much as you did.

I maybe need to give it another whirl someday, hopefully when another sequel is released.

A little thread necromancy, regarding steele's appreciation of 28 weeks later.

Having given this one another 'whirl', to quote red snow, I must say that it moved from mediocre to bordering on plain bad on the second viewing.

Plot holes, if by that one means the Americans' contingency plan "Let's finish of those Limey bastards once and for all" "Code Red", do bother me.

Now, good characters can alleviate that, but there are really only two characters that border on interesting, Carlyle's character Harris, and Doyle. Robert Carlyle is an excellent actor, but he is not allowed the room to save this movie. Doyle borders on interesting, but remains too flat, and is overshadowed by the annoying kids and Scarlet.

And when the soldiers where told to shoot everyone, the only thing going through my mind was...why?

Are they trying to protect the fleeing uninfected english by killing everyone (including the fleeing uninfected english)?

Are they trying to contain the Infected from overrunning an empty, corpsefilled London?

Are they trying to protect their own soldiers by having them out in the streets as fodder for Infected?

Why not retreat the soldiers into secure positions, let the Infected and non-infected run out into the streets of London, and do sweeps afterwards? At worst, they could simply remain secure, gather up surviving non-infected that manage to sneak around the Infected, and if necessary wait for the Infected to die of thirst or starvation like the last time?

This on top of failing to secure an extreme biohazard with even one guard; or herding all the non-infected into a room, starting panic by locking the front doors and killing the lights, and fail to secure the other entrance which is broken down by a single infected.

Even Donald Rumsfeld couldn't come up with this plan if he tried to shit it out.

Anyway, since this was originally a topic for the Walking Dead series, I should mention that I've read volume 11. Still intrigued, but IMO, the story needs to change direction and evolve soon, or it will get too repetitive...

[Isis]

Having given this one another 'whirl', to quote red snow, I must say that it moved from mediocre to bordering on plain bad on the second viewing.

Yeah, I reckon twice has to be the limit for watching this film.

[Calibandar]

If you'rew a fan of zombie fiction, definitly pick up "The New Dead" anthology edited by Christopher Golden that was released a few days ago. Many good authors contributing, including a new story by Max Brooks,John Connolly and Joe Hill.

[Stego]

If you'rew a fan of zombie fiction, definitly pick up "The New Dead" anthology edited by Christopher Golden that was released a few days ago. Many good authors contributing, including a new story by Max Brooks,John Connolly and Joe Hill.

I saw that in the stores today, but I'm always concerned with 'all original' collections. I prefer to pay money for 'best of' collections. Not enough time to read all short fiction and all that.

Is it any good?

[Dr Adder]

I loved Jim Butcher's take on zombies in Dead Beat.

A very interesting read I came across the other day was John Meaney's Bone Song, first in a series which has very intriguing ideas about the undead.

[awesome possum]

My wife picked up a book a few weeks ago from the library called "The Forest of Hands and Teeth".

From the summary on my library website:

"Through twists and turns of fate, orphaned Mary seeks knowledge of life, love, and especially what lies beyond her walled village and the surrounding forest, where dwell the unconsecrated, aggressive flesh-eating people who were once dead."

She said it was a good read, but I'm trying to decide whether to give it a shot. It's labeled Young Adult, and sounds a little hokey (she heard about it because someone called it "like Twilight but with zombies"), but she also had zombie dreams/nightmares every night while she was reading it, so that's a major plus in my book.

Anyone heard of this?

[Isis]

I think there was a thread on this last year. Wert has read it anyway.

[Slurktan]

And when the soldiers where told to shoot everyone, the only thing going through my mind was...why?

Are they trying to protect the fleeing uninfected english by killing everyone (including the fleeing uninfected english)?

Are they trying to contain the Infected from overrunning an empty, corpsefilled London?

Are they trying to protect their own soldiers by having them out in the streets as fodder for Infected?

Why not retreat the soldiers into secure positions, let the Infected and non-infected run out into the streets of London, and do sweeps afterwards? At worst, they could simply remain secure, gather up surviving non-infected that manage to sneak around the Infected, and if necessary wait for the Infected to die of thirst or starvation like the last time?

As to why on the order.... because it's logical. If the only way to ensure to a 100% degree that there is no chance of infection spreading is by killing everyone in the square, then kill everyone in the square. I fail at all to see the problem with this rationale particularly given how the events of the film play out in the 'epilogue' in Paris.

As to why not just let let the infected and non infected roam free? 2 reasons I can think of: 1)Non infected may try to escape the island through some means and while not likely there is a small chance they would succeed, there is an equally small chance that those that succeeded may have unwittingly brought some way of being infected with them. 2) Time. Armies cost money, money means time must be seen to be used efficiently. Letting them all go is not particularly efficient as then should they again try and repopulate they would have to wait 6 months (or however long it said at the beginning) on the off chance that one infected escaped and is at large.