Dear Growling, Running, Twitching Zombie...

[JSPoole]

How am i being a close minded snob becuase my opinion is different to yours? i even said you and ned will not change your opinions more than i will, so im not even arguing about it, but the poll proves my original point. thats all i said. If it wanted to be a closeminded snob i would continue to argue. Because you are ignoring the very origins of zombies. Original zombies were NOT technically dead- nor were they fleash eaters. GAR zombies are far closer, in technical terms, to vampires- undead who feed on the living. That it was also based on a vampire novel is also a clue. So to say 28 Days Later is not a zombie movie, despite sharing more in common with the original zombies than romero's shamblers, is ignoring the origins and just focusing on the narrow definition foisted on the world by pop culture, and is somewhat ignorant. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but given the roots of zombies and voodoo zombies, it would be ignoring what is actually closer to actual, voodoo zombies. Im pulling out of this argument now as ive proved my original point, which was that 28 days is not generally considered a zombie movie on these specific forums, which evilned told me was untrue and has now admitted he was wrong on that single point. . I would also say this to that then- there are a lot of people on this board who are ignorant to the origins of zombies, and the actual original Night of the Living Dead, which was very much based on a vampire novel.

[SRP76]

The only problem being that the word zombie doesn't have to refer to a dead or undead person. Zombie is just a slang term for the creatures in the Dead films. Watch Night of the Living Dead again. Nowhere - NOWHERE - will you hear the word "zombie" spoken or written anywhere in it. They are called "ghouls", "monsters", and "things", and, of course, in the title, "living dead". That's it. Zombie is fan slang, and is used for these creatures. In fact, I'm almost sure you'll hear the word "zombie" only one time in the entire 5 Romero films: when Peter tells Stephen that "with those bay doors open, there's gonna be a thousand zombies in here."

[AcesandEights]

Zombie is just a slang term for the creatures in the Dead films. Watch Night of the Living Dead again. Nowhere - NOWHERE - will you hear the word "zombie" spoken or written anywhere in it. They are called "ghouls", "monsters", and "things", and, of course, in the title, "living dead". That's it. Zombie is fan slang, and is used for these creatures. In fact, I'm almost sure you'll hear the word "zombie" only one time in the entire 5 Romero films: when Peter tells Stephen that "with those bay doors open, there's gonna be a thousand zombies in here." This is not new information and has shit all to do with my previous points that I've written about at length in other posts in this thread. Read them some time. Anyway, since someone tossed out the ignorant word a few posts above, I'll be punching out of this thread myself. It's just going to get ugly.

[Yojimbo]

In fact, I'm almost sure you'll hear the word "zombie" only one time in the entire 5 Romero films: when Peter tells Stephen that "with those bay doors open, there's gonna be a thousand zombies in here." I wanted to point out that "zombie" is also used by Kaufman in LAND, but I get where SRP is coming from. We can all continue arguing these points - and it really is an interesting read - but in the end I don't know that the disparate factions are going to come to a consensus opinion on this, so I question how fruitful it would be to continue the argument. There are understandable point on both sides, but at the end of the day, you will think what you want to think.

[SRP76]

This is not new information and has shit all to do with my previous points that I've written about at length in other posts in this thread. Read them some time. Yes, it does. Just because Romero's "zombies" aren't the dictionary definition of a zombie, doesn't mean that just any kind of creature can use the label, because the dictionary use is not fucking relevant. When someone mentions "zombies", you know what they're talking about, and it isn't "angry people", and it isn't "voodoo victims". Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is either outright lying to protect their argument, or living under a rock. Most likely lying.

[Yojimbo]

At the risk of fueling the fire, do those who consider 28 days/weeks later a zombie film also consider GAR's The Crazies or Cronenberg's RABID also to be zombie films?

[Trin]

Original zombies were NOT technically dead- nor were they fleash eaters. GAR zombies are far closer, in technical terms, to vampires- undead who feed on the living. I think this point has merit. I'm not sold on "far closer", but I think it's arguable that GAR's ghouls are equally similar (or equally disimilar if you prefer) to zombies and vampires. I'd also point out (as was said before, yes) that dead is not a zombie trait, per se, but the appearance of death is. Which GAR's ghouls have in abundance. In my mind that at least evens the score between whether they belong classified as zombies or not. That it was also based on a vampire novel is also a clue. ...and the actual original Night of the Living Dead, which was very much based on a vampire novel. However much I agree with the vampire vs. zombie angle, these statements simply don't prove anything. GAR was influenced by Matheson's I Am Legend, nothing more. You can't say that GAR's ghouls were based on Matheson's vampires any more than you can say Ben was based on Neville or the farmhouse was based on Neville's house. Clearly GAR took the story and made it his own. And let's not forget that Matheson's "vampires" were really just infected humans. The 28 Days/Weeks Infected had more in common with Matheson's "vampires" than with GAR's ghouls. Zombie is just a slang term for the creatures in the Dead films. This seems to be the crux of the disagreement. If you believe this statement to be true then certainly GAR's movies, 28 Days/Weeks, Legend, etc could be classified as zombie movies. If you adhere to a pre-GAR definition of what a movie zombie is or a voodoo definition of what a zombie is then you probably don't classify 28 Days/Weeks, or Legend, or maybe not even GAR's movies as zombie movies. @SRP - There were zombie movies before GAR. Some of us don't obviously equate the term "zombie" with GAR. And that's no lie!! @Yojimbo - I still think there are interesting angles coming out of this thread, even if most people (maybe even me) have their opinions set. And that's a good question you're asking there.

[Mike70]

Im pulling out of this argument now as ive proved my original point, which was that 28 days is not generally considered a zombie movie on these specific forums, which evilned told me was untrue and has now admitted he was wrong on that single point. you can't leave now, you've been challenged to a duel! as for this thread though - i am done with it too. there is simply no point to engaging in keyboard masturbation over something that people who have been around here for as long as i have, have argued over like 22 times already. not everything has to be labeled and placed in a box.

[Yojimbo]

not everything has to be labeled and placed in a box. Wise words. It is when things are categorized that they often become flavorless and mundane.

[AcesandEights]

the dictionary use is not fucking relevant. Would that the thrust of my argument were that simple, but it isn't. We'll just agree to disagree, SRP. /Out of thread for good or till it morphs into a new topic.

[JSPoole]

At the risk of fueling the fire, do those who consider 28 days/weeks later a zombie film also consider GAR's The Crazies or Cronenberg's RABID also to be zombie films? I honestly just think of the crazies as a piss poor movie, to be honest- the ''crazies' in the movie didn't seem to be out of their mind, from what I remember, but I am not the best person to ask since I have no desire to re-watch that movie. I also have not seen Rabid. I'd also point out (as was said before, yes) that dead is not a zombie trait, per se, but the appearance of death is. Which GAR's ghouls have in abundance. In my mind that at least evens the score between whether they belong classified as zombies or not. Oh don't get me wrong, Romero defined the modern image of what we consider the zombie, and they are of course what is now known as zombie- my point was that the meaning of the word was changed and expanded by romero's zombies, and what's happening with movies like rec and 28 days later is the same thing. Sadly people are still as resistant to change as ever, no matter how trivial the matter. I consider them ALL zombies. Plus, having the apperance of death is different to actually BEING dead- romero's zombies ARE dead, and that puts them nearer vampire territory than true, voodoo zombie territory.

[Yojimbo]

I honestly just think of the crazies as a piss poor movie, to be honest- the ''crazies' in the movie didn't seem to be out of their mind, from what I remember, but I am not the best person to ask since I have no desire to re-watch that movie. I also have not seen Rabid. Dude, your assessment of the film as "piss poor" notwithstanding - the folks in The Crazies were pretty crazy- really out of their mind folks if you ask me. Regarding Cronenberg's RABID- it's a pretty wild movie and you really ought to check it out. It really is worth your time and money. My only real point with my post - and I know that it is getting a little tiresome for many here - is that if you consider 28 days/weeks later as zombie films, then The Crazies and RABID should also be considered zombie films. Anyways, I am with Aces on the concept that we will all have to agree to disagree on these issues of semantics. My bottom line: I like the DEAD films and I also liked 28 days/weeks later, be them zombies or not. All of these films have those ASH aspects which I love - in as much as I loved the ASH in Damnation Alley, and Day of the Triffids.

[JSPoole]

Dude, your assessment of the film as "piss poor" notwithstanding - the folks in The Crazies were pretty crazy- really out of their mind folks if you ask me. Regarding Cronenberg's RABID- it's a pretty wild movie and you really ought to check it out. It really is worth your time and money. My only real point with my post - and I know that it is getting a little tiresome for many here - is that if you consider 28 days/weeks later as zombie films, then The Crazies and RABID should also be considered zombie films. Anyways, I am with Aces on the concept that we will all have to agree to disagree on these issues of semantics. My bottom line: I like the DEAD films and I also liked 28 days/weeks later, be them zombies or not. All of these films have those ASH aspects which I love - in as much as I loved the ASH in Damnation Alley, and Day of the Triffids. Well I would honestly have to watch it again to be aware but to me from what you say, it could be considered in the zombie movie genre- were they cognant or aware of their actions, or mindless killing machines?- what are the infected in rabid like? Acting like a crazy killer is one thing in my mind- a monstrous, rabid infected being with no semblance of humanity is another. I'd have to watch it again, but even if I didn't remember it being a ''zombie'' movie, I can see there being somewhat of a case for it.

[Yojimbo]

I think the whole idea of someone being as mad as the topic starter is at something trivial is both hillarious and silly. Whether it is hilarious and silly aside -I find it to be a little rude to dismiss someone's post. If you find the subject matter to be so hilarious and silly, why do you bother posting on this particular thread instead of simply ignoring the thread altogether. Well I would honestly have to watch it again to be aware but to me from what you say, it could be considered in the zombie movie genre- were they cognant or aware of their actions, or mindless killing machines?- what are the infected in rabid like? In the case of The Crazies, I don't really think that these folks were operating in the confines of reality, so whether or not this makes them aware is a matter of opinion - my argument would be that they were not. In the case of RABID, I would definetly say that these folks were not aware and their actions were closer to those of the rage infected of the 28 days/weeks. BTW: Do check out Rabid, I think you will dig it! I kind of understand where you are coming from about The Crazies, BTW. While I do enjoy that film, it is certainly not one of Romero's best works.

[MoonSylver]

This thread is starting to make Rodney King cry...