Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Can 28 Days/28 Weeks Later be put together with World War Z?

Posted on 10/31/14 at 5:29 am
Posted by LiguhTiguh
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2013
460 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 5:29 am
I haven't seen the 28's in forever and they are still good to me. I was wondering if the new movie can be put together.


Thoughts?
Posted by TotesMcGotes
New York, New York
Member since Mar 2009
27875 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 8:39 am to
World War Z definitely came across like a globalized 28 Days Later, but the latter was infinitely better.
Posted by thatguy1892
That place you wish you were.
Member since Aug 2011
4628 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 8:42 am to
quote:

World War Z


Decent movie, wrong title.
Posted by Brettesaurus Rex
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2009
38259 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 8:44 am to
Still waiting for a 28 years later
Posted by Peazey
Metry
Member since Apr 2012
25418 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 8:55 am to
I thought 28 days later was a great movie. It has been a while since I've seen it. 28 weeks was a definite step down. World War Z is nowhere near as good as the other two. It's just a generic ok zombie movie.
Posted by USMCTiger03
Member since Sep 2007
71176 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 9:13 am to
I guess it's just me but I loved WWZ. Like the 28s but WWZ was just better all around. Insanely great cinematography and acting.
Posted by stegs_81
Baton rouge
Member since Jun 2014
211 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 9:19 am to
Weren't they truly undead in World War , not infected as in 28 Days 28 Weeks?

I don't think they work together at all.
Posted by USMCTiger03
Member since Sep 2007
71176 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 9:25 am to
quote:

Weren't they truly undead in World War , not infected as in 28 Days 28 Weeks?

I thought it was pretty much the same thing in all three. Even the same characteristics, quick acting and accelerated movements.
Posted by Peazey
Metry
Member since Apr 2012
25418 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 9:28 am to
The special effects and budget of world war z were better. That's all I think is better. There were just so many problems with the production of world war z. The end result was a series of scenes that didn't really flow or work together. The story was very choppy, and it is obvious to me that they had to cut a lot out out of the movie then throw together what was left.

28 weeks was a complete story that made sense within context.
Posted by Peazey
Metry
Member since Apr 2012
25418 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 9:29 am to
quote:

I thought it was pretty much the same thing in all three. Even the same characteristics, quick acting and accelerated movements.


It's the same thing to me, but some zombie movie purists make sure to point out that the 28 movies aren't really zombie movies. They are disease movies.
Posted by USMCTiger03
Member since Sep 2007
71176 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 9:34 am to
quote:

It's the same thing to me, but some zombie movie purists make sure to point out that the 28 movies aren't really zombie movies. They are disease movies.

Well technically isn't zombie supposed to be occult-based and already dead people only, ie, no contracting the condition from being bit? That's the old school way I remember it but that's kind of hard to apply to a large scope. The contracting part is crucial IMO.
Posted by LoneStarTiger
Lone Star State
Member since Aug 2004
15947 posts
Posted on 10/31/14 at 10:06 am to
quote:

the 28 movies aren't really zombie movies


this
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram