A new sub genre (because some "zombie" films have no actual zombies)

[EvilNed]

No its not a matter of opinion, you name me ONE zombie movie where the zombies are alive... 28 Days Later. Infact, that's what we've been arguing about for awhile. How could you not see that one coming? EDIT: Also, I of course agree with Aces. The zombie genre was once about Bela Lugosi with outstretched arms. It's evolved since then, and keeps doing so.

[Andy]

But you guys already did all that when you moved the goal posts to include flesh eating non-voodoo undead and co-opted the term. You don't understand how that might seem a fallacy or hypocritical to me? No i dont, becuase there was no pre-existing zombie apocalypse genre before romero created night of the living dead. Haitian zombie movies like i walked with a zombie and white zombie never featured society crumbling and the undead taking over, man not co-operating or protected seiges.. in fact if you look down evil ned's list there virtually none of those points can be applied to early Haitian zombie movies so when romero created night of the living dead he also created a brand new formula, which i referred to in a previous post as "pop culture zombies" which has been used again and again since. With 28 days its completely different, your not trying to create a new formula or sub-genre, your trying to merge it into an existing genre becuase it has some vague similarities and then your telling us that we are wrong to defend our beloved genre. Thats why we're getting mad and defensive lol.

[Jason Edwards]

I am currently watching Night of the Comet. I like it, even though it's not a zombie flick either. The movie "Mutants" doesn't get referred to as a zombie movie (as far as I know), but it's basically the same as 28 Days or Devil's Playground, which are considered Z films. Aces, maybe it bothers me because I'd like to know if I should put I Am Legend with my zombie films, or keep it in my Inflated Will smith's ego collection. Then there are those who swear the creatures in Legend are vampires... Why does no one consider The Crazies a zombie movie? Could it be because they're NOT zombies? How do different movies, that are virtually the same, get called Z movies by some, and not by others?

[Sammich]

When I discovered this movie a couple years ago, it struck me as if I were watching an early draft of Night of the Living dead. It came out in 1959, but the elements are all there: 1. Slow moving. 2. Dead. 3. All messed up. What set this apart from today's undead riff raff is that zombies back then showed pride in their group shamblings by arriving well dressed and neatly groomed. I can't remember if they ate the people they killed though.

[EvilNed]

No i dont, becuase there was no pre-existing zombie apocalypse genre before romero created night of the living dead. Haitian zombie movies like i walked with a zombie and white zombie never featured society crumbling and the undead taking over, man not co-operating or protected seiges.. in fact if you look down evil ned's list there virtually none of those points can be applied to early Haitian zombie movies so when romero created night of the living dead he also created a brand new formula, which i referred to in a previous post as "pop culture zombies" which has been used again and again since. With 28 days its completely different, your not trying to create a new formula or sub-genre, your trying to merge it into an existing genre becuase it has some vague similarities and then your telling us that we are wrong to defend our beloved genre. Thats why we're getting mad and defensive lol. You're right, not many of those points (if any) apply to old Bela Lugosi zombie flicks. Yet they were once referred to as zombie films. Just as NOTLD and 28 Days Later are.

[MoonSylver]

How did that scene ever even reach paper, yet alone film?

[Christopher Jon]

Your're actually arguing over two separate things. Zombies, as a genre, EvilNeds argument and Zombies, as monsters, which is Andy and Jason's argument. Most of us would agree that Zombies, as monsters, are reanimated dead and in most cases like to snack on the living. The Zombie Genre has outgrown the monsters themselves. Most people view films like 28 Days Later as part of the Zombie Genre even if the infected aren't flesh-eating undead. I thought EvilNeds chart was spot-on for the Zombie Genre.

[JonOfTheShred]

I agree that 'infected' or 'rage' victims, such as the assailants in works like 28 Day Later, the Crazies, and Left 4 Dead are not "zombies" in the 'traditional', Romero sense, nor would I even refer to them as zombies, I would still lump them all together as far as GENRE of film goes. Because the recurrent thread is the same, the same feeling of dread and hopelessness that makes zombie films so awesome and endearing is present in any 'infection' movie. Hell, I'd even lump "Pontypool" and "The Signal" in with zombie movies. They all have a very similar vibe. But I definitely agree, that.... Slow-moving, reanimated corpse zombies >>> Olympian-runner infected -- -------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ---------- Bath salts?

[EvilNed]

Your're actually arguing over two separate things. Zombies, as a genre, EvilNeds argument and Zombies, as monsters, which is Andy and Jason's argument. Most of us would agree that Zombies, as monsters, are reanimated dead and in most cases like to snack on the living. The Zombie Genre has outgrown the monsters themselves. Most people view films like 28 Days Later as part of the Zombie Genre even if the infected aren't flesh-eating undead. I thought EvilNeds chart was spot-on for the Zombie Genre. Pretty much sums it up. I'm not suggesting that the 28 Days Later zombies are typical Romero zombies, of course. I hope nobody thinks I am.

[AcesandEights]

Your're actually arguing over two separate things. Zombies, as a genre, EvilNeds argument and Zombies, as monsters, which is Andy and Jason's argument. Most of us would agree that Zombies, as monsters, are reanimated dead and in most cases like to snack on the living. The Zombie Genre has outgrown the monsters themselves. Most people view films like 28 Days Later as part of the Zombie Genre even if the infected aren't flesh-eating undead. I thought EvilNeds chart was spot-on for the Zombie Genre. This makes perfect sense to me. I've tried explaining it this way before, last year (and the year before) and some of the die hards will still not budge. It all pretty much comes down to: I grew up with zombies meaning a certain thing, so I was okay that the definition was able to expand to include what I knew and loved. I do not however like that it seems to be changing to include something I do not approve of.

[Sammich]

You all should be sent to the Dr. Phil house for a week to work out all of these issues.

[Jason Edwards]

It pretty much comes down to preference. I just prefer my zombies to be dead.

[Christopher Jon]

You all should be sent to the Dr. Phil house for a week to work out all of these issues.

[Trin]

Take slow moving off there and you have a definitive list. I can enjoy running zombies aswell as shamblers, but the important points are; 1. They are DEAD and reanimated. 2. They eat the flesh of their victims. 3. The do not succumb to starvation/dehydration/exhaustion. 4. They are 'all messed up' and can only be killed by severe head trauma (to the brain) anything else including gunshots to the body, losing limbs, extreme blood lose and suffercation, does NOT kill them. Anything that does not meet all of those points is not a zombie. So Return of the Living Dead is not a zombie movie because they fail all or in part on several of those points. I maintain my long-held and often stated belief that we should throw out the term "zombie movie" and use the correct term "apocalyptic survival horror" instead. That way your fall of society monster movie can include zombies, vampires, crazies, CHUDs, or whatever you like. I have to say that I love the "what defines a zombie movie" debate. There are so many different perspectives and the various viewpoints are always interesting. It is all interpretation. Whether or not it's all opinion is a matter of opinion.

[Andy]

Are you guys deliberately misunderstanding me? Im not talking about zombies as monsters, im talking about the genre. If anything you have it the wrong way around. Look, what im saying is Horror as a whole is a pretty big genre and has alot of subgenres. Horror changes and evolves as more subgenres are added to it. Subgenres themselves dont change, if your going to evolve and change subgenres then you can fit ANY movie into ANY subgenre, how we organise movies completly breaks down like i said you could call titanic an action film if you look at it a certain way, but you dont becuase it isnt. Like 28 days later isnt a zombie movie. Read my posts through this thread and you'll see what im arguing is the modern, popular zombie subgenre was started by romero when he made NOTLD, i do not ascioate this at all with the earlier voodoo zombie movies becuase frankly they have NOTHING in common. This subgenre has been used for 40 years now and produced some brilliant movies, and again i emphasize this subgenre alone is the reason we are all here on HpotD. 28 days later and its sequel are good horror movies, i am not saying their not.. but ther are not zombie movies, they only share some similarities. They are not about zombies, the guys who have made them have said their not about zombies, they where never intended to be. They about a virus, that effect living people and makes them homicidal like romero's The Crazies. What you guys in the "its a zombie movie" camp are doing is trying to mash a film into a subgenre it dosnt belong in and it happens to be a subgenre i love so call me a purist or old school or whatever else, but i will never relent, 28 days/weeks are NOT zombie movies and they never will be.