Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Dark: Did anyone else notice how this more-or-less was close to Left 4 Dead: The Movie? From the 4 person team to the still-living zombies? I notice while watching that this entire movie could've been a single-shot campaign, with the carnival being the finale event. There also seem to be multiple references to the games, in particular Tallahassee's use of dual M1911 pistols with seemingly unlimited ammo (the same pistols used in the game), and at the end when Wichita had her hair in a ponytail, all she needed was a red jacket to make her into looking exactly like Zoey. I'm sure there's more, but those are the ones that stuck out to me.
Paradisca Corbasi: I'm not sure they were still alive. Did I miss Columbus mentioning that in his narrative, drowned out by my audience's laughter? Looked to me like they were more Dawn of the Dead (2004) Zombies. Fast, but undead, rather than still alive like 28DaysLater zombies. Thoughts?
  • Capn Andy: You missed it. Columbus does mention it as a literal virus during the narration — apparently it swells the brain and makes them full of pain and rage and blah blah blah oh look, they're zombies now. But yeah, they're explicitly just infected humans, which is why there's no special emphasis on destroying the brain.
    • Paradisca Corbasi: Oh, yeah, I do remember hearing that. I just didn't think it left them still alive. I thought it killed them and zombified them (a la Max Books), and Columbus was being snarkastic when he said "a killer case of the munchies". They seemed more like Romero rules zombies with the fast zombie modification than 28 Days Later zombies to me is all.
  • alliterator: He said it was a variant of Mad Cow Disease. "First it was Mad Cows, then Mad Humans, then Mad Zombies."

Why is the page titled Zombie Land? The movie is Zombieland, all one word. I don't know how to change page titles, or I'd do it myself.
  • Paradisca Corbasi: Because somebody put the page in before I got to it. If you go to Zombieland it's the right title and it redirects to this page.
  • Kalle: But it doesn't need the Film/ redirect, either...

Discar: I honestly don't know where we'd put this, but I was wondering if anyone knew the approximate shelf life of twinkies. It would give us a good estimation of how long its been since the world went to hell, at least.
  • ParadiscaCorbasi: According to the shelf life of a Twinkie is approximately 25 days, so that's a little over 3 weeks. Which would explain why the power's still on, too, because it might not necessarily have failed that quickly.

Andrew: I don't want to step on any toes, so I'll put this here before acting. But maybe we should write a description of Zombieland that has more to do with Zombieland and less to do with movies that aren't Zombieland?

Andrew: Except Zombieland is its own movie, and I think we do it a disservice by writing a four-paragraph description where approximately 75 percent of the narrative focuses on movies that aren't {{Zombieland.}} It warrants an actual description, not a description of other movies and how it isn't them. That's not to argue that there's no place in the description to recognize the way in which it spoofs other zombie movies, but I don't believe in defining a movie by its relationship to other movies.
  • Paradisca Corbasi: In this case, though, the relationship to other movies is kind of part of the point Zombieland is making. That being scared of zombies is a nice, normal human reaction; following rules will keep you alive, but it's also fun to kill them in creative and destructive ways. And it doesn't always have to be a gloomy, depressing Zombie Apocalpyse. So maybe we can find some way to split the difference.
    • Aura Seer: I shortened and simplified the description a bit. I think this still conveys the general idea without being quite as much of a wall of text. Thoughts?
  • Moviepyr0: Should be asleep at the moment, but I'll chime in a bit now, chime in more later. I think there's not as much of a flow interruption to set Zombieland apart from other zombie movies with the new description, but saying "This film is not so and so" isn't a bad direction to go in, and there's probably a way to have that as well a feeling of interruption (which I'll try to come up with when I'm less sleepy, or anyone else willing who wants a go at it). I'm really liking the size of the new first paragraph, the old one really was too big, and probably exacerbated Andrew's feeling of not talking directly about Zombieland enough.

  • Count Spatula: I'm wondering if the whole Bill Murray part could be considered a Big Lipped Aligator Moment. The entire scenario is just weirdly surreal, and Murray isn't mentioned again afterwards.

Tunod: I hate to be a nitpick, but why was my Did Not Do The Research entry removed? The movie pretty clearly refers to it as a "virus" that stemmed from Mad Cow Disease. Mad Cow Disease isn't viral, but rather the result of a defective protein. I'll grant that this might have just been Columbus's mistake, but Columbus is all we have to go on, so as far as it matters to us, this is DNDTR. I've put it back in — please, if you have a good reason for removing it, say so here.
  • Having entered into what appears to be a minor edit war, I'll address what seems to be the chief reason for removing it. I don't think "Mad cow disease became Mad Human Disease became Mad Zombie Disease" is a 'comparison' - it's as close to theme/setting/background as we're going to get. The average person on the street is going to take that literally, and I'm pretty sure it's meant to be taken literally, if only because there's nothing else to suggest any differently. So whether it's unintentional on the writers' part, or intentional as a subtle hint that Columbus is an Unreliable Narrator, someone Did Not Do The Research. And frankly, most people do not know Mad Cow isn't viral, so when they hear that they're gonna take it as gospel anyway.
    • Moviepyr0: Having as of yet not participated in said edit war, I see your addition as valid. Your argument of it not being a complaint, as Tropes Are Not Bad, seems sound. For me it makes the moment in the movie funnier, and you could say it's subtly making the point that whatever starting the Zombie Apocalypse isn't as important as the Zombie Apocalypse itself, intentional or unintentional as that subtlety may be.
    • Dark: I'm with Tunod on this one. I don't see why it's inaccurate, or how it's complaining at all. It's not a real complaint, just a pointing-out, and I agree with Moviepyr0 on that last part. I'd tack that addition on, if you wish.
    • Dark again: Thanks, Janitor, for the backup.

Mike: Removed this entry under Fridge Logic: "Plus judging by his lack of fat, he seems to be an amateur Warcraft player. Most pros have body shapes that violate Rule #1. " as it is 1) untrue, 2) uncalled for, and 3) does not particularly contribute to the discussion.
Under First-Name Basis it says that Wichita calls out Little Rock's real name in a moment of panic. Somehow I missed that. When did it happen, and what was her name?
  • I just rewatched it, and I missed it. Anyone?
    • Tunod: I just got the Blu-ray. I didn't see it either.

Re: What Could Have Been — how is liking Dirty Dancing and Ghost "Totally Radical"?