Romero's Dead Trilogy different than all other zombie films

[Andy]

But if you walk into a DVD store, you'd find 28 Days Later by the other zombiefilms. Yeah along with hostel, candyman and nightmare on elm street, its called the horror section Seriously though, classify 28 days later as a zombie movie by all means if you want, your allowed an opinion, but dont sit there and tell me im wrong when the man who made the film also says it isnt. his film, his rules. Its a key point to me that zombies are the dead reanimated, its a big part of what fascinated me about zombies as a child and got me into this subgenre, it gives it an extra mystery and wonder that 28 days, being about a plague effecting living people, dosnt have and that is very important to me and i think it is for many others here, Theres a reason 9 out of 10 zombies movies have the word 'Dead' in the title.

[Rancid Carcass]

Its a key point to me that zombies are the dead reanimated, its a big part of what fascinated me about zombies as a child and got me into this subgenre. Hey, me too! The definition of a zombie is that of a corpse that has been brought back to life, either by voodoo – where the original idea comes from or by some other means as introduced by Romero. I think the confusion with the infected comes from the idea/saying that a person or people can behave in a zombie-like fashion – acting in a mindless, unthinking way. The beginning of Shaun of the Dead probably the most obvious example I can think of, where everyone is going about their daily lives, same routine day in day out and not really thinking about it. They are behaving in a zombie-like fashion, but they are not zombies. The same can be said of the infected in 28 Days, the rage virus makes them all behave in the same mindless way – zombie-like, but not zombies. Or to put it another way – just because a jolly fat man dresses up in a red romper suit and gives you presents doesn't make him Santa. Santa-like but not Santa!

[shootemindehead]

Even the director said '28 Days Later' wasn't a zombie film. As for Romero's lot, 'Night of the Living Dead' from 1990 has replaced the original 1968 version for me. The B/W one is just a museum piece now. it's just a pity Savini had to tone down the gore. A bit more guts and it would have been a classic. 'Dawn of the Dead' is rapidly sliding into unwatchable 70's tastic nonsense and 'Day of the Dead' is still the greatest horror/zombie film ever made, bar none. I think the reason Romero's original series (including 'Land of the Dead') remains the superior take on the subject is because it was focused. Romero introduced us to the apocalypse idea and his monster was a truly terrifying one. The problem with Romero's original series though, is that the third installment shows the rest up. It's just a pity that gobshites were "put off" by it when it came out first (why...I have no idea), but it put a serious dent in Romero's growth as a genre director. Much in the same way that the negative reception to 'The Thing' stunted John Carpenter. It made them squemish to take it to that level again.

[Ragnarr]

This has nothing to do with this thread, I apologize... But; Zombies do not need to be dead or undead. Perhaps I somehow misread the definition of zombie: "Zombie (Haitian Creole: zonbi; North Mbundu: nzumbe) is a term used to denote an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means such as witchcraft." Then again, perhaps not.

[Wyldwraith]

I'm gonna have to agree about Night '90 ala Savini being my "Night of Choice" as well, I like Savini's Barbara TONS BETTER than Romero's, who I believe took the helpless screaming uselessness stereotype so far as to make Barbara into a Character/caricature. I like the FX related to the zombies much better, and I feel that the pathos of Barbara's walk-away-escape really sells the entire "They're Us, and We're Them" philosophical point, and goes one better by making an additional point that the original Night wasn't as clear on. To whit, the zombies only become an overwhelming danger because Ben and Cooper's rigidity of thought/plan of action was just as one-track-minded as the zombies themselves. Savini's zombie mass-break-in through formerly boarded up windows/door brings the fact that Ben "lost it for them" by playing to the zombie's strength instead of the human's. Ie: When survivors try to match tenaciousness and stamina with the undead, they're going to lose. Yes yes, there's the sub-text about humanity being its own worst enemy in the form of the "Im boss up here, you're boss down there" mentality, but I feel that the movie's end brings the point I mentioned prior to that subtext into sharper relief. Of course that's just my opinion, so make of it what u will.

[Ragnarr]

I also liked Night 90's Mr. Cooper more so than the original's. Although we already knew going into the remake that the Mr. Cooper character was going to be an stellar douche, Tom Towels performance was really well done. His "buncha yo-yos" shout while shaking his fist was great. Perhaps Night 90 had an unfair advantage over the original. They had a larger budget, so they could afford better actors and special effects. And I'm glad that Savini didn't follow the original exactly. Night 90's Ben & Barbara were awesome.

[Danny]

Perhaps I somehow misread the definition of zombie: "Zombie (Haitian Creole: zonbi; North Mbundu: nzumbe) is a term used to denote an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means such as witchcraft." Then again, perhaps not. spoiler: zombies aren't magical in the real world. The real world zombie outside the pop culture bubble refers to the victims of abduction, slavery and human trafficking brought on by use of drugs and poisons to cause the victim to appear as though they have died and the zombie makers collect the fresh worker drone to sell during the night. The zombie is a living creature under some foreign influence that removes their free will and alters behaviour. be it voodoo poisoning, a specific strain of cordycepts fungi or a virus that effects the functionality of the brain or whatever. The key thing that makes the zombie is not that its a walking corpse. its a human being completely acting against there will. it could be the person you live next door, could be a member of your family, it could even be you. Romero's flicks began with a ghoul/ wright idea. cannibalistic walking corpses that feed on the living that dare tread to close to the graveyards they lurk in- according to folklore. Hell i dont even remember them saying the Z word once in night of the living dead. The audience chose that definition because of the shambling similarities between his ghouls and the shambling voodoo slaves in earlier 30's and 40's films like white zombie. Doesn't mean they aren't 'zombies' by the modern pop culture definitions. It just means they are not the only definitive example of the, for lack of a better word, affliction.

[blind2d]

Eeyup. And, y'know... zombies are cool. So yeah. Also... Hm... Call it what you want, but I threw out my copy of 28 Days, and held onto the Dawn remake, so make of that what you will. Also yeah, I think I prefer Night 90 juuuust a smidge.

[EvilNed]

Perhaps I somehow misread the definition of zombie: "Zombie (Haitian Creole: zonbi; North Mbundu: nzumbe) is a term used to denote an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means such as witchcraft." Then again, perhaps not. You didn't misread it, you just missed a part. "zom·bie   [zom-bee] Show IPA noun 1. (in voodoo) a. the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose. b. the supernatural force itself. 2. Informal . a. a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless, or seemingly rote; automaton. b. an eccentric or peculiar person." I think we can agree that there are numerous zombie films out there that have nothing to do with voodoo. The word and it's meaning has evolved. Also, Danny Boyle can say whatever he wants. As far as I know, he's a director, not a film theorist. Saying that he decides what is and what isn't true about his film is suggesting that art isn't personal and that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. You're not wrong, Andy. How can anybody be wrong in a discussion like this? But most people would put 28 Days Later into the zombie film category (and that's how genres are defined). Maybe not people here on this board, but then again, we're fucking picky about our zombie films aren't we? Edit: See Danny's post about this. He makes a good point suggesting that audiences chose the word "Zombies", not the filmmakers.

[Ragnarr]

I see your point, and you are certainly correct regarding the multiple usages of the word "zombie." Personally, I still wouldn't consider 28 Days a zombie movie in the sense that the nasties are not the undead type of zombie. Hmm, now that I have my newly found broadened perspective, I'm wondering if Ron Zombie really IS one! My work place is chock full of lazy, shuffling zombies too! Oh my gawd! They're everywhere I look now! HELLLP!!!

[Danny]

Also, Danny Boyle can say whatever he wants. As far as I know, he's a director, not a film theorist. Saying that he decides what is and what isn't true about his film is suggesting that art isn't personal and that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. see the room: That guy now says "oh no, it was intentionally a parody" was it bollocks. Personally i think danny boyle just doesn't want to be lumped in with 'zombie movies' because thats too 'lowbrow' and takes him out of his 'brit flick indie' compartmentalised mystique

[Rancid Carcass]

Also, Danny Boyle can say whatever he wants. As far as I know, he's a director, not a film theorist. Saying that he decides what is and what isn't true about his film is suggesting that art isn't personal. Ah, but when you watch a film you are being told a story, the director is basically telling you how it is, what is going on and how the whole thing works. The audience can interpret what they think the film maker is saying within the subtext of the film, but it's not up to them to interpret the actual narrative on which the subtext is hung. The reason Danny Boyle has gone to great pains to explain that the infected are not zombies is because the story he's telling breaks down if you exchange infected humans for walking corpses, it just doesn't work. So on one level at least art isn't entirely personal, it cannot be or it cannot exist - or not viewed by anyone other than the person who created it. Yeah, it's late...lol.

[shootemindehead]

You didn't misread it, you just missed a part. "zom·bie   [zom-bee] Show IPA noun 1. (in voodoo) a. the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose. b. the supernatural force itself. 2. Informal . a. a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless, or seemingly rote; automaton. b. an eccentric or peculiar person." I think we can agree that there are numerous zombie films out there that have nothing to do with voodoo. The word and it's meaning has evolved. Also, Danny Boyle can say whatever he wants. As far as I know, he's a director, not a film theorist. Saying that he decides what is and what isn't true about his film is suggesting that art isn't personal and that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. You're not wrong, Andy. How can anybody be wrong in a discussion like this? But most people would put 28 Days Later into the zombie film category (and that's how genres are defined). Maybe not people here on this board, but then again, we're fucking picky about our zombie films aren't we? Edit: See Danny's post about this. He makes a good point suggesting that audiences chose the word "Zombies", not the filmmakers. Erm...virtually none of the above describes the infected people in 28 Days Later. especially in the main thrust of definition. They're certainly not "dead", they haven't been "brought to life", they aren't "supernatural". They're also not "wooden, listless, or seemingly rote", nor are the "eccentric" in the usual application of the word. They may be "peculiar", but so is a great many things. So, the closest word up there would be "automaton" as they behave in a violently sungular fashion. But, that's really stretching it as far as a solid definition goes. And, audience and (more importantly reviewers) chose the word in error, so much so, that the director had to correct them. Futhermore, if we are talking in a filmic sense of the word, then the majority of people who are interested in the genre will agree that a "zombie" is a reanimated corpse. The infected, living people of '28 Days Later' therefore need not apply.

[EvilNed]

Considering audiences are the ones who define genres, it would be impossible for them to choose the word in "error". The audiencees chose the word Zombies for Night of the Living Dead and it's sequels, didn't they? Even though the ghouls described there aren't voodoo zombies who are controlled by evil wizards. Using your "logic", Night of the Living Dead wouldn't be a zombiefilm either. But they are, of course. Because a "zombiefilm" isn't about the medical status of the zombie, it's about the conventions and the narrative of a select group of films which the audiences have collectively branded as "zombiefilms" just so that they can more easily differ between films. As Danny said; The DIRECTOR of The Room says it was meant to be a comedy. While watching the film, that's obviously bullshit coming from someone who realized he messed up. The Director can say whatever he wants; but that doesn't make it true. Danny Boyle presented us with a film fitting in perfectly alongside numerous other zombiefilms. If he didn't want it to be labeled as one, then he probably should have changed it around a great deal. I don't really want to be a bitch or anything, but do you guys have any other argument other than "Well, it's not a zombiefilm because zombies are dead, and these guys are technically alive..?". Because that argument has got a few holes in it and isn't really a deal breaker when talking about this type of film. EDIT; Wikipedia (which is not in anyway right or definite) lists 28 Days Later, Nightmare City and The Crazies among their list of zombiefilms; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_films They also write that; Zombies are creatures usually portrayed as either reanimated corpses or mindless human beings. While zombie films generally fall into the horror genre, some cross over into other genres, such as comedy, science fiction, thriller, or romance. Distinct sub-genres have evolved, such as the "zombie comedy" or the "zombie apocalypse". Zombies are distinct from ghosts, mummies, or vampires, so this list does not include films devoted to these types of undead. This I would say is a very accurate and interesting writing. For instance, Day of the Dead obviously has much more incommon with the film 28 Days Later, but not so much incommon with Fido. Yet you would say that Day of the Dead and Fido are both the same genre, as where 28 Days Later is not? It's more likely that all three of them belong to different sub-genres of zombie films.

[Ragnarr]

While the pimpley clerk at your local video store might place 28 Days with GAR's movies and other zombie films, my pimpley clerk might place the movie next to Ghoulies, Gremlins, and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. In the end, it's all a matter of perception. One question though; would you consider The Omega Man (1971 Charleton Heston) a zombie flick or part of the zombie genre?