Dear Growling, Running, Twitching Zombie...

[Andy]

Infact, I think you'll mind many a people who disagree. I for one. I find them very similar to zombies, and I have a hard time thinking even you can't find it very similar to zombies. A zombie does not have to be dead. A braindead person can also be a zombie. Infact, this is just as a correct usage of the term. Mindlessly doing whatever you're programmed to do (like, for instance, the infected victims of the 28 films?) is a genuine definition of being a zombie. So, I fail to see how they cannot be even remotely similar? Or, why 28 Days Later cannot be a zombiefilm, when it DOES infact, feature... dun dun dun... Zombies! I Just gave you the exact defination of zombie, the very first line of it states "the body of a dead person given the semblance of life." You do realize, however, that the modern movie definition evolved from NOTLD? Exactly my point when i refered to the movie defination rather than the literal defination.

[AcesandEights]

"Exact definition?" "Movie definition?"

[EvilNed]

I Just gave you the exact defination of zombie, the very first line of it states "the body of a dead person given the semblance of life." Exactly my point when i refered to the movie defination rather than the literal defination. You gave us an exact definition of a zombie, and then you go on with a second definition (which you made up on the spot, I believe)... Yet you cannot accept my, much more widely used, definition of a zombie. Strange. And don't tell me you've ever heard "zombie" when referring to brainless people. I agree that there is a movie definition of a zombie, and that the movie definition changes from film to film. Most zombie films adhere to different rules. As do 28 Days Later. Again, you seem to accept the things that suit your case, but not the ones that do not. For instance, you accept that NOTLD evolved the term "zombie". Yet, you cannot accept that 28 Days Later also did this. You accept the movie definition of the word "zombie". But you do not accept any other definition than the dictionarys... and your own.

[clanglee]

The fear that I experience in a zombie movie does not stem from the relative speed of the zombie or even indeed whether the zombie is "life challenged" or not. My fear in a zombie movie is actually a viral one. Not neccissarily of the medical variety tho. The fear of getting bitten and then becoming "one of them" In a sense, loosing my seperate identity and joining the mindless masses. Loosing my ability to act independently. . .even when not bitten because the mindless masses will get me if I leave my comfort zone. And they are constantly attempting to break into my safe place and "infect" me. Any movie that has that theme will be, to me, a zombie movie. Because zombie movies are the movies that have best captured that fear. Even if it's not a zombie. Instead, say a vampire, or a very crazy person. Thematically, it would still be a zombie movie to me.

[Andy]

You gave us an exact definition of a zombie, and then you go on with a second definition (which you made up on the spot, I believe)... Yet you cannot accept my, much more widely used, definition of a zombie. Strange. And don't tell me you've ever heard "zombie" when referring to brainless people. I agree that there is a movie definition of a zombie, and that the movie definition changes from film to film. Most zombie films adhere to different rules. As do 28 Days Later. Again, you seem to accept the things that suit your case, but not the ones that do not. For instance, you accept that NOTLD evolved the term "zombie". Yet, you cannot accept that 28 Days Later also did this. You accept the movie definition of the word "zombie". But you do not accept any other definition than the dictionarys... and your own. So either your saying that 28 days later evolved the zombie genre the manner which romero's trilogy did by taking the literal, voodoo term for zombie (Which btw still states "dead person") by taking the implied evil and giving it a real physical evil (flesh eating).. somehow 28 days evolves the zombie genre by ignore the dead factor.. OR Your denying that there is a movie defination aswell as a literal voodoo defination. OR im reading your post wrong.

[EvilNed]

im reading your post wrong. This would be the one. There's more to a genre than people being dead. You can't find a single genre that is defined by it's audience as something so miniscule a detail as that which you are suggesting. 28 Days Later is a zombiefilm in every sense of the word, yet some people refuse to call it such because of a minor detail. I find it amusing, but childish and silly. Of course it's a zombiefilm. Why wouldn't it be a zombiefilm? It has all the elements which define the genre, and people accepted it as a zombiefilm (which is the number one proof that it IS a zombiefilm). If I made a film about war, and claimed it was a film about war, and people watched it. And afterwards they'd go "This is not a war film... Where's the war? This is a romance!", and I'd look at the film and maintain it's a war film. But no matter how long I kept it up, the audience has spoken. They're not gonna place the film in the "Top Ten War Films" poll, or on the War-shelf at Blockbusters. They're gonna put it under Romance. Right? Same thing applies here. You've basicly got a 100% zombiefilm in your hand. Yet some people refuse to label it as such, despite it actually having zombies in it. Not dead zombies, but zombies nonetheless.

[Trin]

You've never referred or heard reference to a living person as a zombie, or acting like a zombie? I've seen it used in such cases going back prior way prior to 28DL/28WL. And don't tell me you've ever heard "zombie" when referring to brainless people. These are both fine points, and good evidence that the term "zombie" is used loosely, and yes words are slippery, but come on. A rage induced homicidal maniac is a zombie? I'm pretty sure if you called the police saying a guy was acting like a zombie outside your house and they showed up to find him tearing at the walls trying to rip you to shreds they'd question what the hell you were talking about. "Well, he's a zombie like in 28 Day Later because they were zombies since it's a zombie genre film." Yep. Any movie that has that theme will be, to me, a zombie movie. Because zombie movies are the movies that have best captured that fear. Even if it's not a zombie. Instead, say a vampire, or a very crazy person. Thematically, it would still be a zombie movie to me. *clapping* Lol - Gotta hand it to ya clang!! Don't care if its killer bees, robots, vampires, or the living challenged - if they're trying to steal your lucky charms then dang it they're zombies!! Stop dancing around the point. We all love the same genre - Apocalyptic ... surivival ... horror

[Andy]

This would be the one. There's more to a genre than people being dead. You can't find a single genre that is defined by it's audience as something so miniscule a detail as that which you are suggesting. 28 Days Later is a zombiefilm in every sense of the word, yet some people refuse to call it such because of a minor detail. I find it amusing, but childish and silly. Of course it's a zombiefilm. Why wouldn't it be a zombiefilm? It has all the elements which define the genre, and people accepted it as a zombiefilm (which is the number one proof that it IS a zombiefilm). If I made a film about war, and claimed it was a film about war, and people watched it. And afterwards they'd go "This is not a war film... Where's the war? This is a romance!", and I'd look at the film and maintain it's a war film. But no matter how long I kept it up, the audience has spoken. They're not gonna place the film in the "Top Ten War Films" poll, or on the War-shelf at Blockbusters. They're gonna put it under Romance. Right? Same thing applies here. You've basicly got a 100% zombiefilm in your hand. Yet some people refuse to label it as such, despite it actually having zombies in it. Not dead zombies, but zombies nonetheless. Ok i do get what your saying, honestly i do.. but the fact that their not dead, their merely infected with a virus.. is a big deal to me and not a minor issue as it is to you. When i first got into zombies, im talking like when i was kid, what frightened the life out of me and what intrigued me at the same time was the fact that this dead flesh is reanimated, its relentless in its pursuit of me, it will continue to attack me until i die or it is physically destroyed, nothing will stop it. ever. The infected in 28 days later are not relentless.. they tire, they sleep, they need to eat, they die of starvation.. i can hide from them and they will die and thats it.. no threat. To me, thats not even the same page as a zombie. Also, i was under the impression that they are not generally accepted as zombies or a zombie movie.. this is honestly the first topic ive seen on HPotD to defend this argument, also danny boyle, the creator of 28 days, has gone on record saying it is NOT a zombie movie.

[EvilNed]

danny boyle, the creator of 28 days, has gone on record saying it is NOT a zombie movie. Andrei Tarkovsky, the creator of Solyaris, has gone on record saying it is NOT a sci-fi movie. What the directors vision is, and what audiences actually percieve, are two different things. 28 Days Later feature mindless zombies. No debate about that. Also, if it's not a "zombiefilm", then it has no genre (Save the Apocalyptic Horror Survival genre, which is probably more fitting for 28 Days Later AND all zombiefilms)? Viral Outbreak is not a genre. Yet it has soooo, soooo many similarities with zombiefilms, that dismissing it as one is simply fanboy childishness. Let's get real. 28 Days Later features mindless zombies...

[clanglee]

Also, i was under the impression that they are not generally accepted as zombies or a zombie movie.. this is honestly the first topic ive seen on HPotD to defend this argument, also danny boyle, the creator of 28 days, has gone on record saying it is NOT a zombie movie. If they are not generally accepted as zombie films, then why do we mention them in the same breath as other recent zombie movies ALL THE TIME on this site?

[EvilNed]

If they are not generally accepted as zombie films, then why do we mention them in the same breath as other recent zombie movies ALL THE TIME on this site? Very, very good point.

[clanglee]

*clapping* Lol - Gotta hand it to ya clang!! Don't care if its killer bees, robots, vampires, or the living challenged - if they're trying to steal your lucky charms then dang it they're zombies!! ok now, come on now. Not Bees obviously. And robots are debateable as well. The threat should at the very least be humanoid. The robot thing could work if its some sort of Borg kinda thing. The Borg are space zombies!! Stop dancing around the point. We all love the same genre - Apocalyptic ... surivival ... horror Exactly!! The theme is the same. between these "zombie" movies and these "infected" movies. The zombie movie was just the first/best example of this horror type. So the name stuck.

[EvilNed]

So what say ye we unite as fans of the apocalyptic survival horror genre? ASH for short...

[Yojimbo]

So what say ye we unite as fans of the apocalyptic survival horror genre? ASH for short... I second that. However different our views of zombie/not zombie are, I think we can all agree that we are fans of "apocalyptic survival horror". This genre will include GAR's "of the dead" films, and films like "Day of The Triffids" alike. Maybe we can agree to call GAR's "of the dead" films "Ghoul Films" under the ASH heading, and films of like Omega Man, Rabid, 28 days/weeks, Crazies, Last Man on Earth, etc., "Virus Films"

[clanglee]

Motion carried? A vote then. A poll!!