Lionsgate to adapt Dead Island trailer into feature film

Tuesday, 27th September 2011 17:46 GMT By Stephany Nunneley









Breaking news


Sign in to post a comment.


  1. Maximum Payne

    This is stupidest shit I heard for some time.
    For record I find that trailer pretty average and that def. didn’t hype the game for me.First walktrought did….

    #1 2 years ago
  2. YoungZer0

    @1: Well, you’re the exception.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. The_Red

    I agree that it is dumb to base a movie on a trailer but that was a rather well made trailer. Way above average gameplay montage with random music ones (99 problems!? Really EA!?).

    #3 2 years ago
  4. KAP

    Hollywood, awwww what’ya like.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. osric90

    There’s a better zombie movie than that trailer and Lionsgate are NEVER, EVER gonna defeat 28 Days Later. Every zombie movie after that one is translated into FAILURE. Basing a movie into a trailer… man that’s funny and any Deus Ex: Human Revolution trailer was 300% better than that one. It sucks the actual game never got those beautiful CGI cutscenes.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. YoungZer0

    @5: Except 28 Days Later is not a Zombie Film.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Demiath

    The trailer was basically a short film in and of itself, so regardless of what one thought of it – and I like it less the more I think about it – there’s really not much more that can be done with the basic concept. I don’t know what Lionsgate is planning; 90-120 additional minutes of zombie mayhem in reverse with sad piano music on top of it all?

    #7 2 years ago
  8. LOLshock94

    zombie movie on a island would be good

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Deacon

    @6 …….? what the hell is it then ?

    #9 2 years ago
  10. viralshag

    Yeah seriously, how is 28 Days Later not a zombie movie?

    #10 2 years ago
  11. Gekidami

    ^ I assume in that in 28 Days/Weeks Later the ‘zombies’ arent living dead, they’re just really violent humans so theres none of the eating humans, bullet to the head only stuff.

    Though i personally still consider them zombie movies, they’re still about an infection making people want to kill other people who have to escape them.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. YoungZer0

    @11: Thank you.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. viralshag

    Well ok, but it seems like bit of an anal technicality to not call them zombie movies, in my opinion.

    So, in zombie movies where a bite — and not necessarily death — can turn you into a “zombie” as opposed to this movie where a bite can turn you into a “not-zombie-but-zombie-like-creature” is so far different it’s not a zombie movie?

    #13 2 years ago
  14. Deacon

    Nit-picking aside, it’s a zombie movie. And a better zombie movie than any of the humdrum Day / Dawn / Diary of the Dead efforts.

    Out of curiosity, do you consider I Am Legend a zombie movie ?

    #14 2 years ago
  15. YoungZer0

    @13: Cut it down to it’s basics.

    28 Days Later: People come in contact with blood or saliva, they get mad, violent, unbearable rage. They attack and kill people, they are fast, can run as hell and died of starvation.

    Zombie Films: People get infected, they die from the infection, are reanimated, braindead and only know hunger. They eat human flesh.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. YoungZer0

    @14: No.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. Deacon

    It’s funny Zero.. when you look into the folklore and myth behind zombies, you’ll see that none of what you would call a ‘zombie’ movie hold true to the original lore behind them. Just as you say the 28DL zombies aren’t zombies, neither are the rising-from-the-dead, shuffling brain-craving ones (according to the folklore at least).

    That aside, it’s all just opinion anyway ; p

    #17 2 years ago
  18. viralshag

    @15, To be fair though, you could mash both of those basic descriptions together and still come out with a zombie movie.

    People come in contact with blood or saliva and people get infected is the same thing. The only difference is the technically one is dead and one is crazy but they both result in similar endings, that of killing people without control over themselves. Which is, in my opinion, more of a defining factor of what being a zombie is over whether or not you’re actually dead or not.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing for arguments sake here, I think this will always be a matter of opinion.

    #18 2 years ago
  19. YoungZer0

    @17: I know. But it doesn’t matter what the original folklore was. Meaning of words change with time. Nobody thinks of an undead slave when they hear the word Zombie.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. viralshag

    @19, Ok, another situation. You were the only person in the situation of 28 Days Later, and you finally found somewhere safe from the horde, would you:

    a – Say you were running from a bunch of zombies.

    b – Say you were running from a bunch of clearly infected but not dead people.

    c – Say you think Milwall just lost and they look upset.

    #20 2 years ago
  21. YoungZer0

    @18: But they don’t die when they get infected! Nor do they want human flesh! The symptoms are the most important part about an infection.

    @20: Simplifying things won’t help your argument. What you name something doesn’t make it such. They never called them zombies in the films.

    #21 2 years ago
  22. Deacon

    I agree Shag. The defining aspect that makes a zombie a zombie is it’s instinctive need for human flesh. That and poor personal hygeine.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. viralshag

    Well, it’s a shame I have to do this but let’s see what Wikipedia says:

    “In popular culture, zombies have typically been depicted as mindless, shambling, decaying corpses with a hunger for human flesh or brains. However, zombies in recent popular films have considerably increased their agility, as seen in Colin, 28 Days Later, and the 2004 Dawn of the Dead.”

    #23 2 years ago
  24. Deacon


    #24 2 years ago
  25. YoungZer0

    @23: Doesn’t help your argument either. Someone said it, someone else quoted someone who has no idea.


    Right at the beginning of the same article.

    #25 2 years ago
  26. viralshag

    @25, So how does your quted text help your argument in that case? If we are disregarding what it says.

    It still comes down to the blatent fact that the “infected” share similarities to zombies.

    If it’s not a “zombie movie” then it’s a horror movie with zombie-like infected.

    #26 2 years ago
  27. Ireland Michael

    Seriously, you guys are arguing over the technical definition of zombies?


    … *headdesk*

    #27 2 years ago
  28. YoungZer0

    @26: It’s a horror movie with infected, raging people.

    #28 2 years ago
  29. viralshag

    @28, Haha. Ok fine. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I still think of it as a zombie movie. Regardless of their actual condition.

    @ Ireland, What do you think? Haha ;)

    #29 2 years ago
  30. Ireland Michael

    @29 I think that arguing the semantics of what does or does not make a zombie is one of the most anally retentive thing I’ve ever seen. And that’s saying a lot coming from me.

    Half it’s skin is missing. It’s shambling. It’s out for your brains. IT’S A FARKING ZOMBIE!

    #30 2 years ago
  31. viralshag

    Surely it makes a change from arguing about the usual anally retentive nonsense that goes around on here?

    #31 2 years ago