Not really related, but since adaptions got mentioned, I find it interesting how far you can drift from the source material and still call it the same story! I recently watched the movie ‘Wanted’, and while it had its good points, I was overall disappointed… Then I read that it's based on a Graphic Novel, and many people said the graphic novel was very, very different (and most said much better), so I bought and read it…
.
They were right about the about the vast differences. Movie is secret MIB type organization that specialized in assassinations… Novel is Super-powered villains secretly rule the world…
.
Aside: The movie was just disappointing. Graphic Novel was the worst of its type I ever read!! (just my personal view of course)

KimLuster wrote:
Not really related, but since adaptions got mentioned, I find it interesting how far you can drift from the source material and still call it the same story! I recently watched the movie ‘Wanted’, and while it had its good points, I was overall disappointed… Then I read that it's based on a Graphic Novel, and many people said the graphic novel was very, very different (and most said much better), so I bought and read it…
.
They were right about the about the vast differences. Movie is secret MIB type organization that specialized in assassinations… Novel is Super-powered villains secretly rule the world…
.
Aside: The movie was just disappointing. Graphic Novel was the worst of its type I ever read!! (just my personal view of course)

Then don't ever read the books “Jaws” or “Forest Gump”. If you've seen the movies you won't enjoy the books because the movies are way better and an improvement.

Dee

I already don't support anything with a lowercase “i” at the beginning of its title, and I'm well on my way to not supporting things with zombies in them.

Hawk wrote:
I already don't support anything with a lowercase i at the beginning
of its title, and I'm well on my way to not supporting things with
zombies in them.

I didn't realize I felt this way until reading your post. Hear, hear! XD

the iProduct thing annoys me. zombies don't, although they are ovr exposed, like kim kardashians arse. aka kanye west.
but izombie isn't a bad little show, it just seems a few years late. would have fit rigjht in around the time scott pilgrimm was all the rage.

I've never supported anything with “i” in the title OR zombies.
Well, I liked Zombieland, but zombies aren't a big part of that.

The whole zombie craze left me cold. I understood why people liked it and I understood the symbolisim in there too and why people REALLY liked it, but I could never get into it.
I just hate that genre.

I liked Zombieland, too. But after that I was like, “You know, I'm kind of getting done with zombies at this point.”

I did like the seemingly short lived trend of the fast moving, rabid zombies like in the “Dawn of the Dead” remake and “28 Days Later”. But now it seems to have gone back to the slow lumbering zombies like on “Walking Dead”.

I'm not nearly as fed up with zombies as I am of vampires. How played out can you get? And if I never see another vampire romance show I can live a happy life. Vampires having sex with humans is about the equivilant on humans having sex with cows. We're food to them.

Dee

I don't agree with that. That approach looks at vampires as another soecies, but traditionally they aren't at all- they're just humans with something wrong with them, be it magical or physical. They're only “inhuman” from a very narrow christian religious point of view, which is part of a story element in particular tales. Even if you look at them as fully demonic entiies, they're still mostly human.

In fact they NEED to retain their amorous atraction to other humans in order to ensure the continuation of their trait, so romances are inevitable- they can only perpetuate by biting people they like enough to make into more vampires. And they die off so easily they need to keep doing that. XD

I think the “we are food to them” idea spread from a sort of Ayn Rand kind of idea of vampires… (I'm not entirely serious and I'm not a fan of vampire romance).

Zombies… Well, the magical old style were fun, the mind controlled slave sort were ok, the viral animated corpse sort are too anoying.

ozoneocean wrote:
I think the “we are food to them” idea spread from a sort of Ayn Rand kind of idea of vampires… (I'm not entirely serious and I'm not a fan of vampire romance).

While Ayn Rand was a capitalist blood-sucker of the highest order, could it be you meant Anne Rice?

No, I meant Aynn.
I meant her classist view: people are cattle for the elite to lord over.

I yearn for the old zombie movies of the 1930's and 40's, the somnubalist like the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari or the island terror of I walked with a Zombie. People forget that Night of the Living Dead was a take off on the first film version of I am Legend with Vincent Price Last Man on Earth. Watch the original Charleton Heston Omega Man and it is a virus that creates the shambling zombie/vampires.

The cannibalistic zombie is more like a version of the traditional vampire than anything else. Many legends speak of vampires being cannibals not just sucking blood, exactly like the modern risen dead “zombie” There is an interesting exploitation movie that ties African “voodoo” religion with undead zombies as vampires all together with sex, torture, nudity and blood. Night of the Sorcerers.

One can really have fun playing around with it like 28 Days Later or Interstellar Bloodbeastsbut most just go for endless re-tellings of the original Night of the Living Dead. Usually addingbits of the virus from space angle like Andromada Strain. Dullsville 1970's shtick with 1990's angst. All I can stand is the total outrageous camp ofRape Zombie or Zombie Hunter Rika and a few others.

I have several scripts in the works about variuos parts of the whole zombie trope so I've studied the genre trying to find something worthwhile in it.

ozoneocean wrote:

In fact they NEED to retain their amorous atraction to other humans in order to ensure the continuation of their trait, so romances are inevitable- they can only perpetuate by biting people they like enough to make into more vampires. And they die off so easily they need to keep doing that. XD

Even good ol' Dracula was pretty sexy what with his harem of vampire ladies and sneaking into young ladies' rooms in the middle of the night.

ozoneocean wrote:
I don't agree with that. That approach looks at vampires as another soecies, but traditionally they aren't at all- they're just humans with something wrong with them, be it magical or physical. They're only “inhuman” from a very narrow christian religious point of view, which is part of a story element in particular tales. Even if you look at them as fully demonic entiies, they're still mostly human.

In fact they NEED to retain their amorous atraction to other humans in order to ensure the continuation of their trait, so romances are inevitable- they can only perpetuate by biting people they like enough to make into more vampires. And they die off so easily they need to keep doing that. XD

I think the “we are food to them” idea spread from a sort of Ayn Rand kind of idea of vampires… (I'm not entirely serious and I'm not a fan of vampire romance).

Zombies… Well, the magical old style were fun, the mind controlled slave sort were ok, the viral animated corpse sort are too anoying.


There's a difference in being attractive as a means to an end like attracting a victim into your clutches and having a romance with a human like Sookie and Bill (?) from True Blood or that Twilight nonsense. And that's what I'm talking about. A vampire having a “relationship” with a human is like a human having a “relationship” with a cow. Like the cow we're food to them.

Dee