Please log in to participate in this forum.
I think we can agree on one thing about the 28 Days and Weeks Later movies: they're a lot better mainly because they use actors instead of CGI. I wish Hollywood would figure that out.
Jul 8 - 02:59 PM
Ash J. Gilmore
Not at all. Have you even seen World War Z?
Jul 5 - 05:03 AM
It's just like 28 Days and Weeks Later. Plague causes Zombie outbreak, Zombies are quick and scenes take place in laboratory. Quick zombies really started with 28 Days Later in 2002. The differences in the movies are sorta minimal. There really are no new concepts. You are forgetting that in 28 Days, it was a huge scale. Pretty much the zombies took over Britain. I would say the only big difference is in 28 Days we know where the Plague came from.
Jul 5 - 12:12 AM
I might have forgotten some stuff, but seems like in 28 days the guy wakes up and its half over, then the zombie action cools down, and then they're wandering around looking for a place to hang out, and then they're stressed out in a mansion for like 40 minutes. Seemed the apocalypse was mostly offscreen, and we followed a group of nobodies for an hour, who were just trying to get by, like Dawn of the Dead 2004.
Didn't 28 days have a happy interlude in the middle somewhere? Like a music montage where the nobodies relaxed and enjoyed themselves?
In WWZ we were watching civilization collapse, despair closing in, hopes dashed, order falling apart, and experts were looking for a solution.
That's the impression I have, but I only saw them once. Kind of the same situation from a different perspective. The specific zombie angle was pretty much identical, but in WWZ I thought they were more like swarming insects.
Jul 8 - 12:15 PM
Speedy Gonzales zombies have been popular in last decade. WWZ plays on a different scale than 28 days (Haven't seen 28 weeks, don't much care for zombie stuff). Clever guy saves the world plot, not a ragtag band of confused survivors plot.
I wouldn't go out of my way to watch WWZ, though.
Jul 1 - 08:16 PM