Dear Growling, Running, Twitching Zombie...

[EvilNed]

Please. Go to hell. I hate you. I hate you with all my guts. I f***ing wish Zack Snyder had never "re-invented" you, because you have truly sucked the life out everything there is to being undead.

I hate you because you've replaced "horror" with "action".

I hate you because of your stupid growls.

I hate you because the way you're constantly shot by cameramen who are at least as twitching as you seem to be.

I hate you because there is no longer any gothic, slow, lingering terror left in what used to be the scariest creature around.

I hate you because you're everywhere. Everywhere!

Best wishes,
EvilNed

[AcesandEights]

Best wishes,


You're going a bit soft on the runners, ain't ya, Ned?

[SRP76]

I hate you because the way you're constantly shot by cameramen who are at least as twitching as you seem to be.



Everyone that does this should be dragged into the street and shot. I HATE that shit!

To be fair, it isn't just zombies. I've seen dumbassed law shows - law shows, of all things! - on tv that are shot that same way. I have no clue what the fucking point of doing it is supposed to be, other than to aggravate the viewer to the point of wanting to throw a hammer through the screen.

Death to the twitching camera, and the piece of shit that came up with it. DEATH!!

[MaximusIncredulous]

Everyone that does this should be dragged into the street and shot. I HATE that shit!

To be fair, it isn't just zombies. I've seen dumbassed law shows - law shows, of all things! - on tv that are shot that same way. I have no clue what the fucking point of doing it is supposed to be, other than to aggravate the viewer to the point of wanting to throw a hammer through the screen.

Death to the twitching camera, and the piece of shit that came up with it. DEATH!!

Same here. I think it's supposed to suggest tension or something although I think it's really used to make the viewer so dizzy and nauseous that they forget how crappy the program/movie is.

[Mr.G]

GAR will bring us some slow zeds. We just need to be patient.

[Debbieangel]

EvilNed..ditto..I agree..I do love the slow zombies, more menacing and scary.
I don't mind them moving faster but 'running' nah..my preference is slow they just freak me out!
I am going to backpeddle abit...I don't mind 'running' zombies if it is done right. A full out marathon run, I dont see how that would be possible. A forward fast lunging ok like as fast as a person out of shape as in someone that hasn't worked out in years. Unfit to be able to run that is the type of zombie I would think as a 'runner'.

[blind2d]

Yeah, the fast-bo's are crap. I also hate the growling. I mean, what the hell is all that about? They're not freaking werewolves! Anyway, yeah, I think that it's a rule now that to be a cameraman on something you have to be drunk while filming. Otherwise you get too depressed at the horrible writing/acting of most shows on nowadays. I don't know.

[Exatreides]

Meh, I can see how having runners or growlers would be useful for some stories.

The camera I can agree with also, blame the blair witch for that shit. I haven't seen seen a great use of that yet, decent perhaps but nothing amazing.

I imagine that when night of the living dead came out, some folks were complaining about how zombies were supposed to be all about voodoo.

[Tricky]

GAR's zombies growl a bit though!how about the scene when peter is in the lift on dawn & the zombies burst in snarling & growling?or the bit in day when they get that zombie with the helmet on in the holding pen & it starts going mental!
By rights they shouldnt make any noise at all because to do so would mean they are breathing!

[Phenia Films]

Please. Go to hell. I hate you. I hate you with all my guts. I f***ing wish Zack Snyder had never "re-invented" you, because you have truly sucked the life out everything there is to being undead.

I hate you because you've replaced "horror" with "action".

I hate you because of your stupid growls.

I hate you because the way you're constantly shot by cameramen who are at least as twitching as you seem to be.

I hate you because there is no longer any gothic, slow, lingering terror left in what used to be the scariest creature around.

I hate you because you're everywhere. Everywhere!

Best wishes,
EvilNed


well said Evil Ned
fast movers are pretty lame, and getting old fast..and to top it of just not scary.

'Dawn 2004' worked (first 10min) but it was the only one that will get away with it...all these other fast movers are shit and a let-down

[AcesandEights]

Look out for that fabulous hpotd meme about the ADD MTV generation (that's pushing 40 now, btw :rolleyes:), which is obviously incoming.

[Yojimbo]

I don't mind growling- it's when they make inhuman velociraptor noises that I start to get pissed.

Other than that, I totally agree with EvilNed. Well said, brother.

[DjfunkmasterG]

You know you can't blame ZACK SNYDER for that... Ummm fingers need to be pointed at Danny Boyle who pulled that shit with 28 Days Later.

So make sure you know who gets the blame... Danny.

And why you guys keep going on about it is beyond me, starting to sound like that one record in someones vinyl collection that just keep skipping over the same lyrics every 10 seconds.

Honestly, put it to rest, the Fast Zombie is here to stay.

[krakenslayer]

You know you can't blame ZACK SNYDER for that... Ummm fingers need to be pointed at Danny Boyle who pulled that shit with 28 Days Later.

So make sure you know who gets the blame... Danny.

And why you guys keep going on about it is beyond me, starting to sound like that one record in someones vinyl collection that just keep skipping over the same lyrics every 10 seconds.

Honestly, put it to rest, the Fast Zombie is here to stay.

Aha! I knew it, my DJ sense was tingling for a while there... :D

Basically the issue boils down to this: many zombie fans, including me, to some extent, enjoy the slow, lumbering zombies (for various reasons) which are the zombies they grew up with and the zombies they think of when they imagine a zombie movie. They - we - are concerned that "running zombies" are replacing the old-school type in the same way that nu-metal subdued traditional and "real" metal in the late 90s, early 2000s. Rightly or wrongly, we simply don't enjoy "fast zombie" movies as much as the old style ones - they are just not the same monster - and are worried because the more fast zombies become the norm, the fewer slow zombie movies will be made.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Aha! I knew it, my DJ sense was tingling for a while there... :D

Basically the issue boils down to this: many zombie fans, including me, to some extent, enjoy the slow, lumbering zombies (for various reasons) which are the zombies they grew up with and the zombies they think of when they imagine a zombie movie. They - we - are concerned that "running zombies" are replacing the old-school type in the same way that nu-metal subdued traditional and "real" metal in the late 90s, early 2000s. Rightly or wrongly, we simply don't enjoy "fast zombie" movies as much as the old style ones - they are just not the same monster - and are worried because the more fast zombies become the norm, the fewer slow zombie movies will be made.


LOL...

Dude I feel everyones pain, and I understand, but I will tell you, money people just don't want to cough up for slow zombies anymore, Romero is lucky, but the money he gets isn't because of his slow zombies, its because of George Romero.

I am almost wllling to bet there is a battle at the studio producing World War Z on which type of zombie to use, because they look at numbers, and numbers show that between DAWN and 28 Days Later those two films made $200 million worldwide and then some, and audience just seem to lean toward a fast zombie now a days.

Myself, I wanted to go the slow zombie route with the next Deadlands movie, but every money person said, they need to be fast, which led to some arguments here and there, and eventually cost me two deals, but oh well fuck it.

The game has been changed forever, and to be honest someone is going to have to make some really spectacular zombie film with slow zombies before the mind set will be changed. With everything needing to be an action beat every 10 pages it just makes it harder and harder to work around it.

However, i feel that one zombie film will be made someday, and it will be nothing short of awesome, the film we all want, and then the slow zombie will be the monster everyone wants. However, in todays film market, won't happen, if someone does a zombie TV show... you may get away with it.

[AcesandEights]

Honestly, put it to rest, the Fast Zombie is here to stay.

I agree, but Kraken has a good point about the value of holding on to the slow, shall we say classic, zombies. They still have thematic and narrative relevance, they can still be scary when handled well.

I don't like raptor sounding, wall climbing or spider-sense tingling, superhuman flying zombies, though. And the intelligent zombie thing needs to be handled with extreme care, if at all.

'Nuff said, for my take on things.

[bassman]

:lol:

Couldn't agree more.

And DJ.....you're still trying to say that Boyle started the MTV Running Raptor Zeds??? 28 Days Later is NOT a zombie film!!!! I can't understand why people don't get that...

And as for broken records....."I lost faith in Romero after Land, I lost faith in Romero after Land, I lost faith in Romero after Land". That record has been scratched to death. And I think it's your debut album.:p

[krakenslayer]

LOL...

Dude I feel everyones pain, and I understand, but I will tell you, money people just don't want to cough up for slow zombies anymore, Romero is lucky, but the money he gets isn't because of his slow zombies, its because of George Romero.

I am almost wllling to bet there is a battle at the studio producing World War Z on which type of zombie to use, because they look at numbers, and numbers show that between DAWN and 28 Days Later those two films made $200 million worldwide and then some, and audience just seem to lean toward a fast zombie now a days.

Myself, I wanted to go the slow zombie route with the next Deadlands movie, but every money person said, they need to be fast, which led to some arguments here and there, and eventually cost me two deals, but oh well fuck it.

The game has been changed forever, and to be honest someone is going to have to make some really spectacular zombie film with slow zombies before the mind set will be changed. With everything needing to be an action beat every 10 pages it just makes it harder and harder to work around it.

However, i feel that one zombie film will be made someday, and it will be nothing short of awesome, the film we all want, and then the slow zombie will be the monster everyone wants. However, in todays film market, won't happen, if someone does a zombie TV show... you may get away with it.

Yeah, I see your point and I do understand, but just because that's the way it is doesn't mean we have to like it.

Look at it this way, imagine I am a fan of James Bond movies because I like the suave, sardonic, darkly humorous, dangerous character.

I don't mind too much if a new actor steps into the role and gives his own take on the character - more humorous (Moore), more dangerous (Dalton), more suave (Brosnan) - that's cool, variation keeps things interesting.

However, I would be rather peeved if Steve Martin stepped into the role as a brash, clumsy, boorish, beer-guzzling, profanity-spewing, American-accented version of Bond. Technically he's still listed in the credits as 007, he's still (ostensibly) a British secret agent, he still goes out and saves the world, but in essense he is a completely different character. He might be a really interesting character all things considered, but I would be pissed off because something else has taken on the name but not the spirit of my favourite character, and replaced him for the forseeable future.

This is the case with "fast zombies". I'm not saying they're unwatchable per se, but they're as different to Romero-style shamblers as Frankenstein's monster is to Dracula. I don't think they should be housed in the same pigeon-hole (or sub-genre) as shamblers, and should not be considered an alternative to traditional zombies. They are a separate and entirely discreet "movie monster". They should get the hell off the shambler's turf and get their own genre. :p

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yeah, I see your point and I do understand, but just because that's the way it is doesn't mean we have to like it.

Look at it this way, imagine I am a fan of James Bond movies because I like the suave, sardonic, darkly humorous, dangerous character.

I don't mind too much if a new actor steps into the role and gives his own take on the character - more humorous (Moore), more dangerous (Dalton), more suave (Brosnan) - that's cool, variation keeps things interesting.

However, I would be rather peeved if Steve Martin stepped into the role as a brash, clumsy, boorish, beer-guzzling, profanity-spewing, American-accented version of Bond. Technically he's still listed in the credits as 007, he's still (ostensibly) a British secret agent, he still goes out and saves the world, but in essense he is a completely different character. He might be a really interesting character all things considered, but I would be pissed off because something else has taken on the name but not the spirit of my favourite character, and replaced him for the forseeable future.

This is the case with "fast zombies". I'm not saying they're unwatchable per se, but they're as different to Romero-style shamblers as Frankenstein's monster is to Dracula. I don't think they should be housed in the same pigeon-hole (or sub-genre) as shamblers, and should not be considered an alternative to traditional zombies. They are a separate and entirely discreet "movie monster". They should get the hell off the shambler's turf and get their own genre. :p

How about ROMBIES

Running Zombies. :D

[darth los]

well said Evil Ned
fast movers are pretty lame, and getting old fast..and to top it of just not scary.

'Dawn 2004' worked (first 10min) but it was the only one that will get away with it...all these other fast movers are shit and a let-down


The creators of 28days/weeks later are rolling over in their graves.


Ok. Let's take this point by point.


Jugding by your statement and the statements of others in this thread you hate runners.

The films I previously mentioned has runners in it. Do you hate them as well?


Now before I get attacked, this is not about the quality of the films, it's about the type of enemy found in them. And yes guys, I'm well aware that that the british films have infected people in them while the Snyder film has Dead people that have returned to life (supposedly).

But is that really the case? To be fair, we don't even know that they were dead. That was never determined in the film. The closest we get to an answer on the subject is in the opening credits where at a C.D.C. press conference a reporter asks the representative. "Are these things alive or dead?" The rep responds "we don't know".


The Bottom Line iis that the creatures from each respective film exhibit virtually the same characteristics yet the ones from 28weeks/days later are revered and those From Dawn 04' are beaten up left and right.


And it doesn't matter what you call them. Both breeds would be indistiguishable from the other when running top speed at you ready, willing and able to rip you apart. Who cares if they're alive or dead?


What's in a name? Infected or zombies? Would a rose by any other name smell not as sweet? The bottom line is that they are basically the same creature.


Kinda reminds me about supporting democrats or republicans when there's really very little difference.. Those two parties are waaaaaaay too similar for my taste. In the end they are just politicians. All the same.






:cool:

[krakenslayer]

How about ROMBIES

Running Zombies. :D

Only if it would be pronounced Rombie Mrrrovies. In a dog voice. :D

[DjfunkmasterG]

The creators of 28days/weeks later are rolling over in their graves.


Ok. Let's take this point by point.


Jugding by your statement and the statements of others in this thread you hate runners.

The films I previously mentioned has runners in it. Do you hate them as well?


Now before I get attacked, this is not about the quality of the films, it's about the type of enemy found in them. And yes guys, I'm well aware that that the british films have infected people in them while the Snyder film has Dead people that have returned to life (supposedly).

But is that really the case? To be fair, we don't even know that they were dead. That was never determined in the film. The closest we get to an answer on the subject is in the opening credits where at a C.D.C. press conference a reporter asks the representative. "Are these things alive or dead?" The rep responds "we don't know".


The Bottom Line iis that the creatures from each respective film exhibit virtually the same characteristics yet the ones from 28weeks/days later are revered and those From Dawn 04' are beaten up left and right.


And it doesn't matter what you call them. Both breeds would be indistiguishable from the other when running top speed at you ready, willing and able to rip you apart. Who cares if they're alive or dead?


What's in a name? Infected or zombies? Would a rose by any other name smell not as sweet? The bottom line is that they are basically the same creature.


Kinda reminds me about supporting democrats or republicans when there's really very little difference.. Those two parties are waaaaaaay too similar for my taste. In the end they are just politicians. All the same.






:cool:


See, Darth gets it. :D


:lol:

Couldn't agree more.

And DJ.....you're still trying to say that Boyle started the MTV Running Raptor Zeds??? 28 Days Later is NOT a zombie film!!!! I can't understand why people don't get that...

And as for broken records....."I lost faith in Romero after Land, I lost faith in Romero after Land, I lost faith in Romero after Land". That record has been scratched to death. And I think it's your debut album.:p

:D

Maybe my debut album, but, the runner thing has been going on a lot longer. and YES Boyle did start it, if you look at 28 Days Later, and then go look at DAWN 04, DAWN 04 copied many of the shot styles. hence it is BOYLES fault.

Zombies or not, the press consider them zombies, pretty much the general public consider them zombies... so what looks like a duck and walks/runs like a duck must be a turkey

[Trin]

I disagree with the notion that 28 Days Later runners and Dawn '04 runners are substantively the same creature. They're not. Running from them, fighting them, even destroying them might be the same. But they're NOT the same. Not psychologically, and isn't that where horror movies affect us?

An infected human is based in science. You can study it, understand it, and defeat it through science. They still conform to the laws of nature. Movies like 28 Days/Weeks, Resident Evil, I Am Legend, etc. are all about the physical reality of surviving the plague. Nothing more.

A zombie (or Ghouls as Night called them) is by its very nature supernatural. It raises questions of religion, after-life, and spirituality. Creatures are returning from the grave. There's no rational, scientific explanation. It's on par with the greatest supernatural events in history. It goes waaaay beyond mere survival. It raises questions of "why" and feelings of "this can't be happening." It brings into question everything you believe. That's scary business.

It's not Boyles fault that Snyder cannot tell an infected from a ghoul.

[Tricky]

Hows about the Zombies in the big brother dead set mini-series?they were very fast & very snarly,but it was pulled off extremely well & is probably the best example available of a modern take on the zombie film!it moved with the times but managed to have the atmosphere we want :) shaun of the dead was also gold & stuck to the old shamblers so both types work for me as long as the script is right!

[shootemindehead]

They're obviously not the same creature. In "28 Days Later", the infected humans die of starvation in a matter of weeks. The living dead don't do that. Also, at the beginning of "Dawn of the Dead (2004)", Anna's husband dies and resurects.

The give away is also in the title........."Dawn of the...ahem...Dead".

The infected can be brought down by shots (or other damage) anywhere. The zombies in "Dawn of the Dead" have to be shot in the head.

I don't see any similarity, except that the both can run the hundred yard dash.

[MinionZombie]

Hows about the Zombies in the big brother dead set mini-series?they were very fast & very snarly,but it was pulled off extremely well & is probably the best example available of a modern take on the zombie film!it moved with the times but managed to have the atmosphere we want :) shaun of the dead was also gold & stuck to the old shamblers so both types work for me as long as the script is right!
Well said - Tricky's got my argument here pretty much. I'll also add that, for me, the two Deadlands films make the concept of runners work within its framework - the help being a good story to balance out my inherent dislike for runners.

And 28 Days/Weeks Later does NOT feature zombies at all. It may feel like a zombie movie, but it just ISN'T - both the writer and director have said many times, and on the DVD, that it is NOT a zombie movie - they made the fucking thing, take their word for it.

If you can't differentiate between "living human being infected with a manmade virus" and "dead person who is dead but now up again and shambling about wanting to feed on human flesh", then you're either dim, or a member of "joe average public who says "Braaaaaaaiiiiins" whenever they talk about zombies"...

Dead Set - if only it had been shamblers - I still really like the series, it was awesome in fact, but the whole raptor vibe is still annoying as fuck.

Shaun of the Dead, despite being a comedy, proved that a shambler zed flick STILL works in this day and age. "The mainstream" is just too lazy to write a script that makes them work (it's so fucking possible too, I myself wrote a script last year involving shamblers). I do think "the mainstream" are lazy for using runners too - it's all a part of the "loud noises instead of real scares" culture that pervades modern horror.

The odd loud noise can work, but that's not really horror, plus it's fucking annoying after a very short time ... and it's bloody lazy.

[Zombie Snack]

I love zombie movies..and can appreciate both styles of zombies..it all started with Night of the living Dead way back in the day when I was just a pee wee...the slow methodical zombies scared the bejesus out of me. As I got a little..okay a lot older..god how time passes, I would watch a zombie classic but the scare factor just wasnt the same. To really enjoy a zombie flick you have to suspend all reality and accept that the Dead are returning to hunt and eat the living, but when watching the slow shamblers it just wasnt that scary anymore, you could just walk past them, it just didnt seem logical even while suspending reality that out of the entire country/world with all the military power that the dead couldnt be contained, I mean look how many zeds the rednecks in dawn kill or the hunting partys in Night kill, now put all trained police/military personel in the world on that and it just seems implausible that it would ever get to the point of a global event where the living are outnumbered 1000 to 1. With the fast zombies it is just much more believable or understandable how it could spread so much faster and not be contained, but it is hard to accept that the undead can sprint like olympic athletes. I find the fast zombies make more sence as far as a global uncontainable doomed apocolyptic senerio...the slow zombies work for me best in the realm of a containable epidemic that can be managed. The fast zombies work better for the whole end of world apocolyptic your doomed as f^#k scenerio.....JMO

[EvilNed]

Hows about the Zombies in the big brother dead set mini-series?they were very fast & very snarly,but it was pulled off extremely well & is probably the best example available of a modern take on the zombie film!

Believe it or not, Dead Set is actually the very thing that inspired me to write this thread. That series would have been AWESOME, if it weren't for the crappy camerawork and raptor-zombies. It got real old, real fast.

As for 28 Days Later, it is a zombiefilm. Here, I will prove it to you.

Genres are defined by the audience, yes? Yes, they are. NOT by filmmakers. When you go into a videostore, you have Horror, Drama, War, whatever. These are the basic genres that the audience are interested in. Etc. etc.

And thus, 28 Days Later is a zombiefilm. Because if someone asks you "Can you recommend any good, new zombiefilms?", you will not exclude 28 Days Later (Unless you don't think it's a good film). Thus, 28 Days Later is a zombiefilm, despite what the filmmakers say. Because THEY don't decide. WE decide.

And the only reason the 28 films are good are because of their good story, coupled with good acting, coupled with not being overly reliant on it's threat. The threat in the film could have been anything. It still would have worked.

[bassman]

I once walked into a video store to find The Shawshank Redemption under the Romance section, but that doesn't make it a Romance.

28 Days Later is a viral outbreak film. NOT a zombie film. If viral outbreak films were considered zombie films, does that mean 12 Monkeys is a zombie film? What about The Crazies, Outbreak, or The Andromeda Strain?

The infected in 28 Days Later are not dead, so they are not zombies. Unfortunately most of the movie-going public think they are zomnbies because they're the same people that flock to Saw 279, The Grudge, and the like.

[EvilNed]

I once walked into a video store to find The Shawshank Redemption under the Romance section, but that doesn't make it a Romance.

No, because someone had misplaced it.


28 Days Later is a viral outbreak film. NOT a zombie film. If viral outbreak films were considered zombie films, does that mean 12 Monkeys is a zombie film? What about The Crazies, Outbreak, or The Andromeda Strain?

Your argument is kinda wierd here, as you yourself (not I) label it as a Viral Outbreak film (A genre I've never ever heard off, by the way, and I've studied genres) and then claim I that I've called all Viral Outbreak films zombiefilms? Something which I couldn't possibly have done, as I'd never heard of the genre until now!

I guess my best response would be... Out of all those "Viral Outbreak" films you've mentioned, there's one sore thumb... 28 Days Later. It has more incommon with most zombiefilms than "12 Monkeys" or "The Andromeda Strain". It uses the same conventions as most zombiefilms, and aha, this is what makes the audience define a genre... Conventions! Which makes 28 Days Later a zombiefilm.

[darth los]

I once walked into a video store to find The Shawshank Redemption under the Romance section, but that doesn't make it a Romance.

28 Days Later is a viral outbreak film. NOT a zombie film. If viral outbreak films were considered zombie films, does that mean 12 Monkeys is a zombie film? What about The Crazies, Outbreak, or The Andromeda Strain?

The infected in 28 Days Later are not dead, so they are not zombies. Unfortunately most of the movie-going public think they are zomnbies because they're the same people that flock to Saw 279, The Grudge, and the like.


No, people think they're Zombies because THEY ACT THE SAME GOD DAMN WAY !!!!!

(Not at Bassman directly) :D


And yes, you are 100% correct it is a viral outbreak film, but that's not the point.


The point is not what type of film it is but the enemy that's in them and what type of characteristics they exhibit.


Oh, snap!! I just realized that We sound like a bunch of Star trek Nerds explaining the difference between Romulans and Vulcans. Think about it.....

Now that's one to grow on. :thumbsup:






:cool:

[Yojimbo]

See, Darth gets it. :D



:D

Maybe my debut album, but, the runner thing has been going on a lot longer. and YES Boyle did start it, if you look at 28 Days Later, and then go look at DAWN 04, DAWN 04 copied many of the shot styles. hence it is BOYLES fault.

Zombies or not, the press consider them zombies, pretty much the general public consider them zombies... so what looks like a duck and walks/runs like a duck must be a turkey


Hack Snyder did not start the phenomenon running "zombies" - and I am using the term for the sake of clarity and consistency with this particular argument though I am not sure that I actually consider them zombies per se - and I argue that Boyle is also guitly of ripping the running "zombies" bit as well.

RABID, the film starring Marilyn Chambers (may she rest in peace) by David Cronenberg, predated Boyles work by at least 20 years, and featured running and homicidally inclined "infected" members of society (not a bad film all things considered) And in some ways, if we are going to consider infected homicidal running dudes as zombies, then our beloved GAR started this even before Cronenberg in THE CRAZIES.

[Exatreides]

But there is no difference between Romulans and vulcans!


So, since you discount 28 days later zombies, would you also discount the Hatian zombie films that came before Night of the living dead? Are these not zombie films because they don't fit into the narrow definition that Romero created?

[Yojimbo]

Oh, snap!! I just realized that We sound like a bunch of Star trek Nerds explaining the difference between Romulans and Vulcans. Think about it.....

Now that's one to grow on. :thumbsup:






:cool:
We are just as bad as those nerds, aren't we? Ok, I'm packing up my 12 sided dice and trading cards now, this is too much reality for me!:)

[EvilNed]

Modern running zombies, however, in contrast to ROTLD and Cronenbergs stuff, also come with their handheld cameras, their twitching ticks, their raptor roars. So they are the MTV running zombies, and yes, I guess Danny Boyle is who really brought them along. But Zack Snyder still holds responsibility for "remaking" Dawn with shittier, faster, more annoying zombies.

EDIT: Also, I don't give a damn about the biological differences between the zombies of Dawn and 28. All I'm saying is that to rule-out the 28 films because the characters in the film call them "infected" rather than zombies/ghouls, when EVERYTHING ELSE, (read EXACTLY EVERYTHING) is directly influenced by zombiefilms... Not "viral outbreak whatever not even a genre" films... ;)

"Hi, what kinda films do you like?"

"Oh, I like Viral Outbreak films."

Never, ever heard anyone say that, by the way. :p

[Yojimbo]

They're obviously not the same creature. In "28 Days Later", the infected humans die of starvation in a matter of weeks. The living dead don't do that. Also, at the beginning of "Dawn of the Dead (2004)", Anna's husband dies and resurects.

The give away is also in the title........."Dawn of the...ahem...Dead".

The infected can be brought down by shots (or other damage) anywhere. The zombies in "Dawn of the Dead" have to be shot in the head.

I don't see any similarity, except that the both can run the hundred yard dash.


I would also argue that Snyder's fast zombies are also "infected"- albeit with a different infection - since Snyder raped Romero's rules and defined that you would only go zombie after you die if and only if you had been bitten by a zombie. That motherfucker!

[mista_mo]

I thought that Vulcans were 3 times stronger or so then a human but Romulans lost that strength through some stupid star trek bio-bable?

Also Star Wars is better then star trek, Katanas are higher quality then European swords, Americans have the best trained military in the world, Germans are all nazis, Insane Clown Posse are the best muscians in the world, The Resident Evil series was never scary, Halo is better then Half-life, Ps3 is better then the 360, WII is the best console ever, Obama is a tool, WOW is the best game ever, and starcraft is a rip off of Warhammer 40k.

Now, with the original topic included, a good majority of troll topics are covered, enjoy!

[EvilNed]

I would also argue that Snyder's fast zombies are also "infected"- albeit with a different infection - since Snyder raped Romero's rules and defined that you would only go zombie after you die if and only if you had been bitten by a zombie. That motherfucker!

Very good point! If 28 Days Later counts as a "Viral outbreak" film, then so do ALL zombiefilms where the zombies are actually just infected by a disease that causes their corpse to walk... And eat. Which means that Dawn of the Dead 04 is not a zombiefilm, but a "Viral Outbreak" film. Yet, you'll never find anyone to argue that case. :P

[Yojimbo]

But Zack Snyder still holds responsibility for "remaking" Dawn with shittier, faster, more annoying zombies.


Reminds me of the Six Million Dollar Man intro. "We can remake the zombie - we have the technology to make him shittier than he was before."
:)

[AcesandEights]

Well, to me, 28 Days Later & 28 Weeks later are zombie films because they fit thematically and the infected are "mindless zombies", though not of the undead variety.

Perhaps we should start referring to all these non-Voodoo/Vodou/Vodun undead shamblers as something other than zombies.

[darth los]

Hack Snyder did not start the phenomenon running "zombies" - and I am using the term for the sake of clarity and consistency with this particular argument though I am not sure that I actually consider them zombies per se - and I argue that Boyle is also guitly of ripping the running "zombies" bit as well.

RABID, the film starring Marilyn Chambers (may she rest in peace) by David Cronenberg, predated Boyles work by at least 20 years, and featured running and homicidally inclined "infected" members of society (not a bad film all things considered) And in some ways, if we are going to consider infected homicidal running dudes as zombies, then our beloved GAR started this even before Cronenberg in THE CRAZIES.


My friend,


Me thinks this debate has gotten a little side tracked and confused.

No one is saying that the infected from 28 days/weeks later are zombies as so many in this thread have alleged. My point is that they exhibit virtually the same characteristics as the runners from DAwn 04'. That much is indisputable.


With that being said how can some one just love them in 28 days but hate them in dawn 04'? It make no sense. Oh wait a minute....it does. All things being the same it must have something to do with the title " Dawn of the Dead" or the director, because the monsters in the respective films are, for all intents and purposes, the same.


Again, this is not about the quality of the films but the monsters that are in them. :)






:cool:

[EvilNed]

... because the monsters in the respective films are, for all intents and purposes, the same.


Agreed. They are. Which is why it's silly to label one of the films as a "zombie" film, and the other one is not. When you'd recommend both films to a friend who inquired about good zombiefilms! (Good, bad, whatever)

Anyway, the difference between 28 Days Later and Dawn to me is... The script. And the direction. 28 Days Later has many moments of suspense in the script and manages to stick with the number one emotion that zombies evoke: Hopelessness.

[AcesandEights]

how can some one just love them in 28 days but hate them in dawn 04'? It make no sense. Oh wait a minute....it does. All things being the same it must have something to do with the title " Dawn of the Dead" or the director, because the monsters in the respective films are, for all intents and purposes, the same.

QFMT*!

I liked your style Darth. Let's give something to the Dawn '04 haters, let's bring in allll the contentious old school v. new school zombie movie issues :D












*=quoted for mother fuckin' truth.

[Yojimbo]

Very good point! If 28 Days Later counts as a "Viral outbreak" film, then so do ALL zombiefilms where the zombies are actually just infected by a disease that causes their corpse to walk... And eat. Which means that Dawn of the Dead 04 is not a zombiefilm, but a "Viral Outbreak" film. Yet, you'll never find anyone to argue that case. :P
Exactly, and DOTD 68 <--- the good version - not a viral outbreak film, DAWN 04, only resembles DOTD in name, setting. The threatening element - so called zombies - are actually "infected" and not zombies at all.

[darth los]

QFMT*!

I liked your style Darth. Let's give something to the Dawn '04 haters, let's bring in allll the contentious old school v. new school zombie movie issues :D












*=quoted for mother fuckin' truth.


Exactly !!

Let's finish this once and for all!! It ends here dammitt !! :lol::lol:





:cool:

[bassman]

Ned....I wasn't calling it a genre. Ya big ol jackass.:p

Just saying that the film is ABOUT a viral outbreak and not the dead rising from the grave.

Arguing that the infected in 28 Days Later are the same as zombies just because the director was inspired by Romero's films is like saying the pod race in The Phantom Menace is the same as the chariot race in Ben Hur because it inspired Lucas....

I'm with MZ and the others that say it's not a zombie film. It's obviously not from a viewer's standpoint and it's DEFINITELY not if all the creators say it's not. That's my stance...

[Yojimbo]

My friend,



No one is saying that the infected from 28 days/weeks later are zombies as so many in this thread have alleged. My point is that they exhibit virtually the same characteristics as the runners from DAwn 04'. That much is indisputable.


:)

I do agree that the runners from 28 days/weeks are the same as DAWN 04, as they are the same from RABID which predated both films. My argument was merely that both Boyle and Hack Snyder ripped Cronenberg off. But, your point is well taken and I agree that they are all one in the same - all infected.

And though I do not consider "infected" to be "zombies" I do consider these films - 28 series, Rabid, DOTD 68 and 04, and to a lesser extent The Crazies - as being films that I would classify as "zombie films" which admittedly is a contradiction of my own terms.

Perhaps a reassessment and a new definition of what I call - and what my fellow zombies-on-the-head folks call a "zombie film" is in order?

I've said it before and I say it again here and now: I would be infinitely more tolerant of Snyder's DOTD if he called it anything but DOTD.

[AcesandEights]

The threatening element - so called zombies - are actually "infected" and not zombies at all.


So the official view of the Infected are not zombies crowd is: "We stole this definition fair and square and now we're callin' keepsies!!!"

Is that it?

[EvilNed]

Arguing that the infected in 28 Days Later are the same as zombies just because the director was inspired by Romero's films is like saying the pod race in The Phantom Menace is the same as the chariot race in Ben Hur because it inspired Lucas....

Let's see... Historical Epic inspires Sci-fi adventure and...

Film where the worlds population turns into "ghouls" and attempt to eat the survivors inspires a film where the worlds population turns into "infected" and attempt to kill the survivors...

So uhm, No, that's not "like saying" at all. :p

Audiences, not creatores, define genres. And most people place the 28 films within the zombiemovie category. Because the monsters are brainless zombies who inhabit every single characteristic as the zombies from Dawn 04 and other zombiefilm.

The difference? None! They're the same monster!

[Yojimbo]

So the official view of the Infected are not zombies crowd is: "We stole this definition fair and square and now we're callin' keepsies!!!"

Is that it?
I can't speak for everyone else, but call them "infected", or "virally-challenged", or "crazy disease dudes" - however you stack it, the threatening element which is in DOTD04 is not the same as DOTD78 since operate with entirely different rules, though in the end they may pose a similar threat to the "living"

[darth los]

I do agree that the runners from 28 days/weeks are the same as DAWN 04, as they are the same from RABID which predated both films. My argument was merely that both Boyle and Hack Snyder ripped Cronenberg off. But, your point is well taken and I agree that they are all one in the same - all infected.

And though I do not consider "infected" to be "zombies" I do consider these films - 28 series, Rabid, DOTD 68 and 04, and to a lesser extent The Crazies - as being films that I would classify as "zombie films" which admittedly is a contradiction of my own terms.

Perhaps a reassessment and a new definition of what I call - and what my fellow zombies-on-the-head folks call a "zombie film" is in order?

I've said it before and I say it again here and now: I would be infinitely more tolerant of Snyder's DOTD if he called it anything but DOTD.

Dude, I let it go the first couple of times i saw it but i Just can't hold it in any longer !! The original DOTD was released in 78' not 68', that was the original NOTLD!!

Don't worry. Happens to the best of us. :p




So the official view of the Infected are not zombies crowd is: "We stole this definition fair and square and now we're callin' keepsies!!!"

Is that it?



Hey, it worked when the white man stole the land from the indians. :sneaky:





:cool:

[bassman]

The difference? None! They're the same monster!

That's one opinion. Even if it is wrong.:p

[MinionZombie]

and the infected are "mindless zombies"

I'm surprised none of you "28 Days/Weeks Later are zombie films" people have bitched about the Robert Carlisle character in 28WL ... especially considering the sheer bile spewed over Biggy D in Land by some. :p

Also - voodoo/haitian zombies are zombies, but another kind of zombie - the link being that GAR zombies are dead people, and voodoo zombies are believed to be dead people by those who see them ... they're not, but those that see them, believe they're dead - the premise around them being that they're apparently dead. That's the link.

28D/WL has no dead or apparently dead people in it at all. It's living, breathing people infected with a "rage virus" - is "Outbreak" a zombie film? :rockbrow::lol:

[Yojimbo]

Dude, I let it go the first couple of times i saw it but i Just can't hold it in any longer !! The original DOTD was released in 78' not 68', that was the original NOTLD!!

Don't worry. Happens to the best of us. :p




:cool:
Ooopsie! My bad, I do know better and should have caught that! Happens when you are talking/typing shit faster than you should, and don't take the time to review what you tapped out.


I'm surprised none of you "28 Days/Weeks Later are zombie films" people have bitched about the Robert Carlisle character in 28WL ... especially considering the sheer bile spewed over Biggy D in Land by some. :p

Also - voodoo/haitian zombies are zombies, but another kind of zombie - the link being that GAR zombies are dead people, and voodoo zombies are believed to be dead people by those who see them ... they're not, but those that see them, believe they're dead - the premise around them being that they're apparently dead. That's the link.

28D/WL has no dead or apparently dead people in it at all. It's living, breathing people infected with a "rage virus" - is "Outbreak" a zombie film? :rockbrow::lol:


good points and well worth considering.

[Phenia Films]

Let's see... Historical Epic inspires Sci-fi adventure and...

Film where the worlds population turns into "ghouls" and attempt to eat the survivors inspires a film where the worlds population turns into "infected" and attempt to kill the survivors...

So uhm, No, that's not "like saying" at all. :p

Audiences, not creatores, define genres. And most people place the 28 films within the zombiemovie category. Because the monsters are brainless zombies who inhabit every single characteristic as the zombies from Dawn 04 and other zombiefilm.

The difference? None! They're the same monster!


Man
Evilned..i like this guy

so far youve hit it right on the head with these 'action star' zombies.
we all know everybody wants the slow movers..the fast runners was a gimmick that has long since past...havent met a 'fast movers' fan at all
maybe a little kid who dont know any better

keep them coming Mr Evil:elol:

[EvilNed]

That's one opinion. Even if it is wrong.:p

To draw the line between genres the way you do is simply crazy, tho. 28 Days Later can pass for a zombiefilm every step of the way, except for the fact that the "zombies" are not "zombies" as you are used to them. I've yet to see a good, lasting argument for why these films aren't zombiefilms.

EDIT: Watched second episode of Dead Set now, and I wanna punch the DoP in the face. ALL the shots of the zombies are shaky beyond belief! Even if the camera stands still!

[AcesandEights]

28D/WL has no dead or apparently dead people in it at all. It's living, breathing people infected with a "rage virus" - is "Outbreak" a zombie film? :rockbrow::lol:

I see where you're going with this MZ and--for the record--I agree with you. There was no voodoo in Night of the Living Dead, was there? Glad to see we're on the same page.

Listen up, all, MZ and I would like to jointly declare that NOTLD is not, I repeat, NOT a zombie movie.

Glad we could agree on that, MZ.

[bassman]

To draw the line between genres the way you do is simply crazy, tho. 28 Days Later can pass for a zombiefilm every step of the way, except for the fact that the "zombies" are not "zombies" as you are used to them. I've yet to see a good, lasting argument for why these films aren't zombiefilms.



Why is it so crazy? To me, zombies are DEAD PEOPLE. 28 Days/Weeks is about people that are ALIVE and infected with a virus. Soooo....I don't see it as a zombie film. Shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around.

And for the record, I see why you could consider it one even if I don't agree. The infected are going after someone to kill them - kinda like the zombies. I guess most slasher films are zombie films as well...

[MinionZombie]

good points and well worth considering.

Cheers.

...

Also, with the recent discussion, here are my thoughts:

Rabid - rabies-like virus spread by a chick with a monster in her armpit, totally different to Shivers which has a weird slug thing that fancies going into open orifices to turn its victims into sex-crazed loons ... ... and that's different from The Crazies, where a biological man-made weapon turns ordinary folk into homicidal maniacs ... ... which is different from 28D/WL where humans get infected with a virus and become infected humans who are constantly mistaken as zombies by people who refuse to put the effort into establishing a difference (:lol:) ... ...

*gasps*

Then Yawn04 has dead people, who ARE zombies ... but they fucking run ... ugh. Now - those zombies are actually the same as those in Dead Set...in both these two things they run and they roar up a storm like raptors ... ... but in Dead Set they don't fly, so...there's still a difference. :D

[Yojimbo]

I see where you're going with this MZ and--for the record--I agree with you. There was no voodoo in Night of the Living Dead, was there? Glad to see we're on the same page.

Listen up, all, MZ and I would like to jointly declare that NOTLD is not, I repeat, NOT a zombie movie.

Glad we could agree on that, MZ.


I am in agreement too, since they were "Ghouls" - a term I prefer to "zombies"

We are really just arguing semantics here, arent we?

[darth los]

I see where you're going with this MZ and--for the record--I agree with you. There was no voodoo in Night of the Living Dead, was there? Glad to see we're on the same page.

Listen up, all, MZ and I would like to jointly declare that NOTLD is not, I repeat, NOT a zombie movie.

Glad we could agree on that, MZ.


:lol::lol:


Hi five dude !!


This is a hot thread today huh?

I like it !! We haven't had a discussion this lively and at the same time respectfull, albeit sarcastic, in a while.


To draw the line between genres the way you do is simply crazy, tho. 28 Days Later can pass for a zombiefilm every step of the way, except for the fact that the "zombies" are not "zombies" as you are used to them. I've yet to see a good, lasting argument for why these films aren't zombiefilms.



I got one for ya ned. Add Dawn 04' to your netflix q. Now, look at all the movies that pop up "that you might also like". I'll bet you dollars to donuts that 28 days/weeks later pops up.






:cool:

[AcesandEights]

I'm surprised none of you "28 Days/Weeks Later are zombie films" people have bitched about the Robert Carlisle character in 28WL ...

Oh? How so? You mean those scenes where the kid was seeing his Dad? Did you think his Dad was actually there and the kid wasn't imagining him? Or do you mean the momentary bits of recognition Carlisle's character showed when attacking his family members? That's not really comparable to teaching another infected how to use a gun, though...is it?

Come on, MZ...clearly terms change and expand, just as the term 'zombie' had to change and expand to include the Dead franchise and all the imitators it spawned. The term zombie is now commonly held to refer to all sorts of people exhibiting mindless behavior.




This is a hot thread today huh?



It is fun to have an active back and forth about zombies and not pirates or Bush or Obama for a change. Even if the whole thing is predicated on us all disagreeing over semantics.

Good convo on all accounts.

[Yojimbo]

Cheers.

...

Also, with the recent discussion, here are my thoughts:

Rabid - rabies-like virus spread by a chick with a monster in her armpit, totally different to Shivers which has a weird slug thing that fancies going into open orifices to turn its victims into sex-crazed loons ... ... and that's different from The Crazies, where a biological man-made weapon turns ordinary folk into homicidal maniacs ... ... which is different from 28D/WL where humans get infected with a virus and become infected humans who are constantly mistaken as zombies by people who refuse to put the effort into establishing a difference (:lol:) ... ...

*gasps*

Then Yawn04 has dead people, who ARE zombies ... but they fucking run ... ugh. Now - those zombies are actually the same as those in Dead Set...in both these two things they run and they roar up a storm like raptors ... ... but in Dead Set they don't fly, so...there's still a difference. :D
:lol::lol::lol:Once again, very well said and well taken!!!:lol::lol::lol:

Though at the risk of opening up another can of worms so to speak, the orifice loving slug in SHIVERS (aka: They Came From Within) is also a man-made biological weapon of sorts, though made for a different purpose than the "Trixie" bio-weapon of "The Crazies"

[EvilNed]

:D Nice one, Aces.

[bassman]

Just had a thought....

"Slither"

Zombies or not?:shifty:

[EvilNed]

Why is it so crazy? To me, zombies are DEAD PEOPLE. 28 Days/Weeks is about people that are ALIVE and infected with a virus. Soooo....I don't see it as a zombie film. Shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around.

The people in 28 Days Later act exactly like the zombies of Dawn 04. With the little distinction that they are not dead... They still bear no semblence of their former self, and their entire body has been turned into a survivor-killing machine. How can anyone in their right mind choose to define genres by this little miniscule detail, when they share ALL OTHER things? Infact, 28 Days Laters "monsters" have more incommon with Dawn 04s "Monsters", than Dawn 04s "Monsters" have with Night 68's. Yet you accept Dawn 04 and Night 68 in the same genre. :lol:

And yes, Darth Los, another point for the 28 Days is Zombie-case. Thanks. :)

[darth los]

I am in agreement too, since they were "Ghouls" - a term I prefer to "zombies"

We are really just arguing semantics here, arent we?

That's funny because I prefer the term ghouls to zombies as well.

It was first "coined" by the t.v. newsman in night.

If my memory serves me correctly the term "zombies" is only used once, by Peter, in the entire trilogy.





:cool:

[Yojimbo]

Just had a thought....

"Slither"

Zombies or not?:shifty:
Well, whatever they are they sure as hell ain't "Ghouls":lol:

But along those lines, what of those weirdos in the boardwalk dancehall of "Carnival of Souls" - they sure look like "zombies" and they run too!


That's funny because I prefer the term ghouls to zombies as well.

It was first "coined" by the t.v. newsman in night.

If my memory serves me correctly the term "zombies" is only used once, by Peter, in the entire trilogy.

:cool:
Also by Kaufman in LAND, though not part of the holy trinity.

[bassman]

Yet you accept Dawn 04 and Night 68 in the same genre. :lol:


I don't actually. Yawn is an action film. Not horror like Night.

[EvilNed]

I don't actually. Yawn is an action film. Not horror like Night.

Well, common consensus has them placed in the same genre (along with 28 Days Later), and this is what defines genres to begin with. There's no "one person" who defines a genre.

[AcesandEights]

Just had a thought....

"Slither"

Zombies or not?:shifty:

Hrmmm...I can't add an opinion. Never saw Slither...it looked pretty bad. And I mean bad-bad, not good-bad ;)

[bassman]

There's no "one person" who defines a genre.

Of course not. That's why it's opinion.;)

Aces....I was the same about Slither, but it actually turned out to be a fun movie. It's more of a comedy than anything else. You should check it out.

[EvilNed]

Of course not. That's why it's opinion.;)


Right, well I'm not discussing opinions, I'm discussing why 28 Days Later is a zombiemovie (And thus, I am discussing genres).

[bassman]

"Are we gonna split hairs here, Donny?"

http://tarmojuristo.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/walter.jpg

[Trin]

I'd agree that Dawn '04 and 28 Days/Weeks belong in the same genre. But the genre they share is not zombies. It's apocalyptic survival horror. Movies like Dawn '04, 28 Days/Weeks, I Am Legend, and Omega Man all appeal to a similar crowd. But it's not because the creature is the same. It's because the threat is. Are the vampire/infected in Legend zombies? No. Clearly not.

Running Zombies and Infected are not the same just because you treat them the same way when they run at you. That's just ridiculous. Is a virus the same as a bacteria just because I wash my hands to keep from getting them? No.

I maintain that the supernatural and religious implications of a dead body returning to life presents a HUGE psychological difference between the two. And that psychological difference governs heightens the fear of zombies in ways Infected cannot achieve. I'd also contend that Dawn '04 did zombies a disservice by handling them outside that psychological effect, essentially treating them as infected humans.

[EvilNed]

"Are we gonna split hairs here, Donny?"

http://tarmojuristo.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/walter.jpg

It's not splitting hairs when we're discussing two very different things. You, opinion, and me, genres.

Trin: I agree somewhat with you. It's not "zombie movies" per say, but apocalyptic survival horror. Definetly a genre most zombie films belong too, and definetly 28 Days/Weeks Later.

As for the psychological differences between zombies and infected, I don't think they are as vast as you make them out to be. It's still your family and friends you're facing.

[Exatreides]

I think you guys may have mistaken my comments about Zombies when I was referring to Haitian zombies.

White Zombie came out, and for quite some time it was considered when someone said the word zombie that it meant Haitian Voodoo. They were alive physically but dead mentally. They shambled, they groaned and they obeyed their masters.

Then George A Romero came around and made Night of the living dead, now he added "The undead", "flesh eating" to the collective pool that the word Zombie had became.

Do you think that Romero was suggesting that we were all flesh eating drones in the original dawn of the dead? Or that we we were mindless drones who obey our masters(Consumerism) in shopping malls? He was of course using traditional Haitian zombies ideology mixed with his version to push a point.

Till 28 days later emerges, the term zombie only refers to either Haitian Voodoo or slow shambling undead.

28 days later, simply mixes the prior definitions a little bit. They are alive like Haitian Zombies, but also have a unknown desire to consume human flesh. They can also be killed simply by staving to death or bleeding to death (So it leans more on the Haitian Voodoo side of zombies, however it's the mysticism of biology and science instead of the spells of Haiti )


Dawn of the Dead 2004 simply mixes the prior definitions once again. They are fast, dead, and have an unknown desire to consume human flesh, will not stave to death and have to be killed by a blow to the head (So it leans more on the traditional George Romero type zombies. ) The mall that Romero bashed in his version, now acts as a sort of cushion and safety for the survivors. Outside of the mall were all the dangers of the world, that would strike you dead. Inside was safety and salvation.

Very similar to the Bush Administrations after 9/11, go shop consume and act like nothing will happen. Consumerism is your protection from the evils of the outside world. While different then Romero, I think synder either intentionally or unintentionally pushed satirical elements into the film


The English vernacular is always expanding and changing. What we consider a zombie now wasn't considered a zombie 40 years ago, and what was considered a zombie then wasn't 40 years before that.


Would you guys also throw out Bub and Big daddy? Since they don't fit into Romero's classical zombie, but shake it up a little bit on there own. And keep the genre from stale, christ look at werewolfs and vampires


" zom·bie also zom·bi (zhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifmhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)n. pl. zom·bies also zom·bis 1. A snake god of voodoo cults in West Africa, Haiti, and the southern United States.
2. a. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse.
b. A corpse revived in this way.

3. One who looks or behaves like an automaton.
4. A tall mixed drink made of various rums, liqueur, and fruit juice.

[Caribbean French and English Creole, from Kimbundu -zumbi, ghost, departed spirit.]
"

[AcesandEights]

Good post, Exatreides.



4. A tall mixed drink made of various rums, liqueur, and fruit juice.

Ahhh, a new element to debate over emerges. :D



And, Bassman, now I'll give Slither a look. If it might be good-bad or reasonably funny, I'm game.

[EvilNed]

I just watched another episode of Dead Set and two characters just had a confrontation with a zombie... And shit!!! I couldn't grasp one fucking thing that transpired. Not one!!! The zombie came, the camera was all over the place and there were alot of stabbing and growling, and then the zombie is dead... But how!?

Gaaaarh, I hate this waste of an otherwise good series.

[Trin]

As for the psychological differences between zombies and infected, I don't think they are as vast as you make them out to be. It's still your family and friends you're facing.You don't think that a creature inexplicably risen from death with the sole motivation of feeding on the living is more deeply horrifying than a person who has contracted a man-made virus that makes them homicidal? If those two are the same in your mind then... well, I respectfully disagree.

In my opinion, to downplay the supernatural element undermines a great deal of what Romero succeeded at with the Dead series. If the ghouls could simply be explained away with science or infection we'd never be forced to question our belief system or our faith in the afterlife. So much of the Dead series revolves around the theme of religious wrath and resulting depression trying to reconcile what's happened with continued living, it's hard to imagine the series without it. More to the point, it's hard to imagine a zombie movie that ignores that aspect.

Dawn '04 simply screwed up with the whole supernatural aspect. They really did act a lot more like infected than undead, ghouls, zombies, what-have-you. Bad...

[EvilNed]

You don't think that a creature inexplicably risen from death with the sole motivation of feeding on the living is more deeply horrifying than a person who has contracted a man-made virus that makes them homicidal? If those two are the same in your mind then... well, I respectfully disagree.

Thematically, zombies are of course more horrifying! But when faced with either in real life, I wouldn't give a damn which was which, I'd shit my pants regardless.

As for the supernatural aspect of zombies, I never noticed or pondered upon any of them in Romero's films. There are zombie films out there with much more supernatural overtones than his films.

[darth los]

You don't think that a creature inexplicably risen from death with the sole motivation of feeding on the living is more deeply horrifying than a person who has contracted a man-made virus that makes them homicidal? If those two are the same in your mind then... well, I respectfully disagree.

In my opinion, to downplay the supernatural element undermines a great deal of what Romero succeeded at with the Dead series. If the ghouls could simply be explained away with science or infection we'd never be forced to question our belief system or our faith in the afterlife. So much of the Dead series revolves around the theme of religious wrath and resulting depression trying to reconcile what's happened with continued living, it's hard to imagine the series without it. More to the point, it's hard to imagine a zombie movie that ignores that aspect.


To your first statement, I disagree. I made the point in an earlier post that in the film it is actually said that it is not known whether these beings are dead or alive. Society just fell apart too fast for there to be any significant research on these subjects and then for it to be relayed to the public.

For all we know there was a virus that's doing this to them.


To your second statement, I agree. The dead rising would definitely screw with a whole lotta people's belief system, similar to the way an encounter with intelligent alien life would.






:cool:

[Yojimbo]

To your first statement, I disagree. I made the point in an earlier post that in the film it is actually said that it is not known whether these beings are dead or alive. Society just fell apart too fast for there to be any significant research on these subjects and then for it to be relayed to the public.

For all we know there was a virus that's doing this to them.




:cool:
But if there was actually a virus, wouldn't this have been easy enough to discover in the bunkers of DAY by Frankenstein, et al.? Come to think of it, maybe they did not have the right equipment to figure it out, but you would think a virus would be something that they would be able to iron out relatively easily with microscopes and blood samples.

[shootemindehead]

I would also argue that Snyder's fast zombies are also "infected"- albeit with a different infection - since Snyder raped Romero's rules and defined that you would only go zombie after you die if and only if you had been bitten by a zombie. That motherfucker!

True. But the zombies of George Romero's world are "infected" too.

My point is, that if we are to define the zombie as a reanimated dead corpse with an inexplicable desire to feed on flesh (or even just a reanimated corpse al la I Walked With A Zombie), then the "infected" in 28 Days/Weeks do not meet that criteria as they are not either (a) Dead or (b) feeding on flesh. Therefore "28 Days Later" is not a zombie film.

Also, it was not made as a zombie film or marketed as a zombie film and as far as I know Danny Boyle has never said it was such either.

[AcesandEights]

My point is, that if we are to define the zombie as a reanimated dead corpse with an inexplicable desire to feed on flesh (or even just a reanimated corpse al la I Walked With A Zombie), then the "infected" in 28 Days/Weeks do not meet that criteria as they are not either (a) Dead or (b) feeding on flesh. Therefore "28 Days Later" is not a zombie film.

Then I guess they are not zombies in your definition, but the fact remains that use of the word zombie can cover a lot of things (per earlier posts on the matter), words by their very nature being slippery things.

[shootemindehead]

The people in 28 Days Later act exactly like the zombies of Dawn 04. With the little distinction that they are not dead...

They also don't eat their victims and can be killed in ways other than a shot to the head.

So the only thing they actually have in common is that they can run.

[clanglee]

Jesus this thread went mad!!! I have to make a comment now before I forget my points, so If I am repeating anything, forgive me, But I'm only up to like post 50.

28 movies are indeed zombie films. They have the same basic plot as any good zombie movie. Which is essentially a siege movie with dead/crazy people as the antagonists. If you are going to change the film genre, then call them seige movies.

GAR movies are not zombie movies. Zombies aren't really dead. They only think they are dead because the houguin(sp) told them they are and the drugs make them all freaky and shit. George never started calling his mosters zombies until we did. NEVER said it in Night. Only said it once in Dawn. etc etc.

The Robert Carlisle smart zombie/infected guy. Yeah. . I'll bitch about him if you like MZ. It's the main reason that I liked weeks a lot less than days.


They also don't eat their victims and can be killed in ways other than a shot to the head.

So the only thing they actually have in common is that they can run.

They do indeed bite and claw at their victims tho. And they can stand a LOT of abuse before going down. So they seem almost invulnerable.

[MinionZombie]

Ugh ... bunch of word manipulating, crazy-in-the-head folks around here.

I can't abide such nonsense, you're like a bunch of mindless infected living humans who've been injected with a man-made virus while strapped in to a chair, Ludovico style, in front of a bunch of violent imagery.

Zombie - voodoo or GAR - the key aspect is either the appearance & firm belief by those that see them that they're DECEASED, or they actually are DECEASED.

Now before I feel like Aces' sig image, I'm-a-going-home.

[EvilNed]

They also don't eat their victims and can be killed in ways other than a shot to the head.

So the only thing they actually have in common is that they can run.

Hey, Guy, please read the entire thread before you jump into this conversation. I have no wish to repeat myself. Everything you've said has already been countered. :)

I'm still waiting for a good, reasonable argument for why the 28 Films are not (in a genre point of view) zombiefilms. So far, Trin is the only one who's actually made a good argument.

[shootemindehead]

They do indeed bite and claw at their victims tho. And they can stand a LOT of abuse before going down. So they seem almost invulnerable.

But, they don't EAT their victims.

The infected of "28 Days Later" are just mad (living) people driven insane by the RAGE virus.


Hey, Guy, please read the entire thread before you jump into this conversation. I have no wish to repeat myself. Everything you've said has already been countered. :)

I'm still waiting for a good, reasonable argument for why the 28 Films are not (in a genre point of view) zombiefilms. So far, Trin is the only one who's actually made a good argument.

Oh well...to paraphrase Marcel Duchamp, "Zombies are what I say they are".
:D

[EvilNed]

But, they don't EAT their victims.

The infected of "28 Days Later" are just mad (living) people driven insane by the RAGE virus.


Zombies in popular folklore do not EAT their victims either. Yet both are zombies. However, dead people EATING live people weren't zombies until GAR made his first film. So there you go, the term evolves. Either the guys in 28 Days Later are zombies, or not even NOTLD is a zombie film.

[shootemindehead]

...Or to quote Danny Boyle...


Q. 28 Days Later had a similar feel to the classic zombie film Night Of The Living Dead. Can you tell us which films in particular influenced you? Alex Lochrie

A. The Romero films are obviously the most important zombie films, but 28 Days Later isn't really a zombie film. Other films like Cronenberg's Rabid and John Wyndham's The Day Of The Triffids are big influences for both Alex [Garland, the writer] and I.

:D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/webaccess/danny_boyle_1.shtml


Zombies in popular folklore do not EAT their victims either. Yet both are zombies. However, dead people EATING live people weren't zombies until GAR made his first film. So there you go, the term evolves. Either the guys in 28 Days Later are zombies, or not even NOTLD is a zombie film.

Yes, but my point above is to illustrate that the monsters of "28 Days Later" are not the same creature as in "Dawn of the Dead" as was alluded to earlier.

This thread has gone off in several different tangents, it seems.

[EvilNed]

...Or to quote Danny Boyle...

Yes, but my point above is to illustrate that the monsters of "28 Days Later" are not the same creature as in "Dawn of the Dead" as was alluded to earlier.

This thread has gone off in several different tangents, it seems.

First off, What Danny Boyle says isn't law. You know Andrei Tarkovsky said STALKER and Solyaris weren't sci-fi films? Does that mean they aren't sci-fi films? No, that just means Andrei Tarkovsky was full of himself. Directors often are when it comes to their own films.

What Danny Boyle says off his own film holds little regard... AGAIN, if you'd READ the THREAD you'd have seen we already passed this subject. :) (I do hate repeating myself...)

As for the monsters in 28 not being the same as those in Dawn, you'll see, again, if you read the thread that they are... With the keyphrase being "For all intents and purposes".

EDIT: Infact, please do not make another post until you've read the entire thread or you will be ignored as you'll likely to bring something that's already been discussed.

[Trin]

To your first statement, I disagree. I made the point in an earlier post that in the film it is actually said that it is not known whether these beings are dead or alive. Society just fell apart too fast for there to be any significant research on these subjects and then for it to be relayed to the public.I believe you are referring to Dawn '04 whereas I was commenting on the undead in general. In the case of Dawn '04 I agree. It treats the whole phenomenon much more like Infected than like undead. In fact, Dawn '04 is extremely loose with the concept of dead, undead, infection, whatever. Rules seem to be about as important as plot or character development. What are you gonna do. It's an action flick. So booo on Dawn '04 for causing this problem.

The whole "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck" argument doesn't work for me. In my old guy worldview society has become too quick to judge a book by its cover when in truth the devil is in the details.

If we look at the details the renimated dead and the infected have too many differences to ignore. Some have been cataloged and argued in this thread. I agree with most of them and won't rehash.

But there's one crucial difference to me and it lies in why we embrace Horror movies. Horror plays on fear. Horror makes us scared. The undead play on people's fear of death and fears of what lies beyond death. Mess with that and you're upending thousands of years of who we are. People also fear contracting a deadly disease. Little invisible germs that invade our bodies and make us infirm, or crazy, or disabled. The infected play on that fear. The two fears are different. When I watch a "zombie" movie with undead it incites a whole different reaction in me than when I watch a "zombie" movie with infected.

On a final note, if you're putting GAR's movies, Dawn '04, 28 Days/Weeks, and Legend into the same genre that's fine. They have commonalities. But calling it "zombie movies" is missing the resounding common theme. I think it's the whole world besieged by "creatures" which is the commonality. If McCammon's book "They Thirst" or F. Paul Wilson's book "Midnight Mass" became movies they'd likely fall into this same category because they are instances where the whole world is under siege - in these cases by vampires, but in the broader sense "evil creatures." Likewise a movie like Warning Sign doesn't really fit the "zombie movie" genre because it's such an isolated instance. It's NOT the whole world besieged. Yet the infected in Warning Sign are nearly identical to 28 Days. Just food for thought.

[Yojimbo]

But the zombies of George Romero's world are "infected" too.


Shootemindehead, could you please clarify how you have come to the conclusion "ghouls" of George Romero's world (I will no longer refer to them as zombies) are "infected"?

I do not believe that this was ever shown to be the case in any of GARs "- of the dead" films so I am interested as to how you came to this conclusion.

[shootemindehead]

Shootemindehead, could you please clarify how you have come to the conclusion "ghouls" of George Romero's world (I will no longer refer to them as zombies) are "infected"?

I do not believe that this was ever shown to be the case in any of GARs "- of the dead" films so I am interested as to how you came to this conclusion.

Don't they say in one of the films that scientists are looking at the phenomenon "...from a viral infection point of view" ? I think it's in "Dawn of the Dead".

Also, in "Night of the Living Dead", isn't there the Vinus Probe space virus idea?

It's never explicit in GAR's zombie flicks, but it seems implied as a possible cause...no?

[Yojimbo]

Don't they say in one of the films that scientists are looking at the phenomenon "...from a viral infection point of view" ? I think it's in "Dawn of the Dead".

Also, in "Night of the Living Dead", isn't there the Vinus Probe space virus idea?

It's never explicit in GAR's zombie flicks, but it seems implied as a possible cause...no?
Shootem, you are correct in that it is mentioned in DAWN 78 (background news broadcast) that they were looking at the phenomenon from a viral infection point of view - which makes sense since they were scrambling to figure out why this phenomenon was occuring in the first place - but in none of the movies did they ever conclude that it was in fact a virus.

NOLD is a little different in that it was being speculated that the return of the Venus Probe and the raditation hitting the earth following it's subsequent destruction (since it fell out of orbit and had to be destroyed) MIGHT have something to do with the phenomenon. I don't believe that they mentioned that the probe had released a virus, per se, but I could be wrong. Perhaps someone here that has viewed their own copy recently (admittedly it's been a few months since I popped this one in my player) could clairfy whether or not "viruses" were mentioned in the NOLD news broadcasts. Since the radiation and the venus probe is never mentioned in any of the other films, I assume that is was just a theory that did not pan out, or was not shown to be a direct cause of the phenomenon.

This all differs from Hack Snyder's rape of the concept, since he inserted a that scene in the DAWN 2004 where they find out that you do not ressurect after you die unless you have been bitten, which therefore points to a communicable disease of some sort (much like Cronenberg's RABID, or the 28 Days/Weeks scenarios) which is different from the GAR "of the Dead" universe of films where everybody, bitten or not, will come back after they die. So in the GAR universe, if you die of a heroin overdose and have not been bitten, for example, you will become a "Ghoul" whereas in Hack Snyder's ripoff if you die of a heroin overdose but have not received a bite from a "zombie" you will not return (I guess, unless that zombie used the needle before the poor dude overdoses!)

So my interpretation - and I could be wrong - is that the "Ghouls" in GAR's "Of the Dead" series are not returning due to some sort of virus or infection, whereas it is explicitly shown in Snyder's reimagined piece of shit that the phenomena is the result of a communicable disease.

[Andy]

However much you pick at it and twist definations, it is generally accepted that a zombie is a reanimated corpse.. whether their runners or shamblers, flesh eating or brain eating, inteligent or not... their dead.

Its one thing every zombie movie, tv series, comic, book.. everything... its one thing they all have in common. they are dead.

28 days/weeks are clearly NOT zombie movies as the plot is about a virus that infects people and makes them insane and attack others, and vomit blood on them, spreading the virus. its a film about a epidemic, the victims are insane and continue to attack until they starve to death, where they do not reanimate and they pose no more threat.

No part of this is zombie or even similar to zombies.

[Trin]

...since he inserted a that scene in the DAWN 2004 where they find out that you do not ressurect after you die unless you have been bitten...I think Yojimbo that everything you said is accurate. I'd just like to add that the Dawn '04 reference to not being bitten = not coming back is so short and inconsequential that at first I wondered if Snyder just flubbed it up. Or maybe he never understood how a GAR ghoul works. Or just wanted to be different to be different. I wasn't even sure how the characters knew this to be true since they had so little experience with the phenomenon themselves. I would've had a shotgun pointed at that thing for ten minutes, and if it didn't reanimate by then I'd probably still secure it somewhere for observation.

Long and short - GAR proved in Land with the hanging scene that no bite is required for a GAR dead body to reanimate. Dawn '04 proved with the dead guy not coming back that in Snyder's interpretation it was more of an infection base.


However much you pick at it and twist definations, it is generally accepted that a zombie is a reanimated corpse.. whether their runners or shamblers, flesh eating or brain eating, inteligent or not... their dead.

Its one thing every zombie movie, tv series, comic, book.. everything... its one thing they all have in common. they are dead.

28 days/weeks are clearly NOT zombie movies as the plot is about a virus that infects people and makes them insane and attack others, and vomit blood on them, spreading the virus. its a film about a epidemic, the victims are insane and continue to attack until they starve to death, where they do not reanimate and they pose no more threat.

No part of this is zombie or even similar to zombies.Amen!!

[AcesandEights]

However much you pick at it and twist definations, it is generally accepted that a zombie is a reanimated corpse.. whether their runners or shamblers, flesh eating or brain eating, inteligent or not... their dead.

Gotta disagree with you, Andy. The definition of the word zombie and what it can applied to is broader than that and with all the other thematic elements being so similar in the 28DL/28WL...well...you probably know my opinion on the matter (assuming you've read the last 6 or so pages of posts).

[Yojimbo]

Forgive me for the digression, but this is the best...thread...ever!

Intelligent and well composed arguments, clashing of ideas without degenerating into a petty name calling flame fest, various interpretations of minutae that only true believer fans would participate in without the residual dorkiness that accompanies Trekker/Trekkie groups - all of these things are reasons why I continue to come back here as often as I can to visit with all of you, my extended family.

And now, back to the firefight. :)

[Andy]

I Have and i see what your doing, but i do think your picking at the defination, and i think there is a clear difference between the factual defination of zombie which your using and the movie defination which many people here are using.

Lets take a look at the defination as it stands on dictionary.com


zom⋅bie   /ˈzɒmbi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [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.

3. a snake god worshiped in West Indian and Brazilian religious practices of African origin.

4. a tall drink made typically with several kinds of rum, citrus juice, and often apricot liqueur.

5. Canadian Slang. an army conscript assigned to home defense during World War II.


-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1810–20; appar. < Kongo or Kimbundu nzambi god

Related forms:

zom⋅bi⋅ism, noun

lets break it down.

Number one, firstly, mentions that is a dead person. 28 days later does not apply, it neither has anything to do with voodoo or supernatural forces. definatly does not fit.

Number two, Victims of "rage" are not exactly wooden, listless or seemingly rote are they? sure they are enraged and insane, but definatly not the behaviour of a automaton or eccentric person, for a start rage is a emotion and zombies by this defination do not feel emotion. 28 days does not fit.

Number three, 28 days has nothing to do with West Indian and Brazilian religious practices of African origin. does not fit.

Number four, 28 days is not a tasty drink.

Number five, again, 28 days has nothing to do with this.

Defination number 1 is the most relevant to this argument, and the one most people will immediatly use, the defination states a dead person so 28 days is excluded there.. but it also refers exclusively to voodoo or supernatural which modern Z movies dont really use.. so by using the exact defination of zombie, which is what i think your trying to do, your excluding almost every zombie we know and love unless your a huge fan of white zombie.. which is why we have the movie defination.

So whats our conclusion? if you want to pick the defination of Zombie apart, which i have, 28 days doesnt fit it in any shape. it is not a zombie movie. fact.

[EvilNed]

No part of this is zombie or even similar to zombies.

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!


so by using the exact defination of zombie, which is what i think your trying to do, your excluding almost every zombie we know and love unless your a huge fan of white zombie.. which is why we have the movie defination.

You do realize, however, that the modern movie definition evolved from NOTLD? In much the same way it has now evolved further, as from 28 Days Later? Right? Because how can we accept one "evolvement" of the phrase, yet deny any further evolving?

How... conservative... ;)

[Yojimbo]

I would've had a shotgun pointed at that thing for ten minutes, and if it didn't reanimate by then I'd probably still secure it somewhere for observation.

Long and short - GAR proved in Land with the hanging scene that no bite is required for a GAR dead body to reanimate. Dawn '04 proved with the dead guy not coming back that in Snyder's interpretation it was more of an infection base.

Amen!!
In agreement with Trin- if in the DAWN 04 universe, I wouldn't take any chances with an unbitten, unrevived corpse and would either secure it, or sever the head from the body if I had the guts.

I had forgotten about the hanging scene in LAND - Thanks Trin- which does in fact prove that an unbitten corpse in the GAR universe will rise.

[AcesandEights]

so by using the exact defination of zombie

:stunned:Since when do words have exact definitions and when does one online source constitute it?:stunned:

I've already explained how words are slippery things. 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.

This is just going to be something we disagree on.

[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?"

:confused:

[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. :p

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. :p

[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. :p

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. :p
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!!


:lol: 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!!

[capncnut]

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.
Which is a bit of a poser considering most of the film is set on board a spaceship...


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...
I do agree that the 2DL infected are zombie-ish and even one of them, Mailer, was loosely based on Bub from Day Of The Dead. They are definitely not zombies in the Romerian TM sense of the word, but they will chase you, they will attack you, you will get infected, and you will turn into one. It's practically a twin.

[Mike70]

Everyone that does this should be dragged into the street and shot. I HATE that shit!

Death to the twitching camera, and the piece of shit that came up with it. DEATH!!

a hearty second to that. i'll also throw in the twitchy camera's retarded cousin - movies shot in the first person. fuck that shit.

quit moving cameras around and for fuck's sake stop shooting movies in the first person.

[EvilNed]

Just stumbled upon this... And guess which films are first on the list? :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_zombie_films

Not saying Wikipedia is a fact. But SOMEONE put them on that list, which I view as proof that they're generally regarded as zombiefilms.

Yojimbo, the problem is that 28 Days Later (a "virus" film) has more incommon with many zombiefilms than many other zombiefilms do. Thematically and conventionwise, that is.

So how can 28 Days Later be in a seperate category from a film which it is very similar too, whereas that film shares category with films it is not so similar too.

[MinionZombie]

No part of this is zombie or even similar to zombies.

Plus - another fact - at the end of 28DL the infected are dying from starvation - because they're human. Being infected, they have no compulsion to eat food to sustain themselves, they just want to attack others - to kill, not to feed - or indeed to spread the infection - hence the vomming of infected blood over their 'prey' or victims - how many zombies do that? :p

As we've seen in Land of the Dead - 3 years into an outbreak - the zombies are still wandering around, like that really emaciated female zombie by the bandstand at the beginning of the movie.

Zombies don't die of starvation, humans do - and they do in 28 Days Later. Case fucking closed, quite frankly. :D

[EvilNed]

Zombies don't die of starvation, humans do - and they do in 28 Days Later. Case fucking closed, quite frankly. :D

We've established long ago (infact, probably around the time 28 Days Later was released) that they aren't zombies in the Romero sense of the word. So that case was closed around... 5 years ago? Something like that. Old news!

[shootemindehead]

Just stumbled upon this... And guess which films are first on the list? :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_zombie_films

Not saying Wikipedia is a fact. But SOMEONE put them on that list, which I view as proof that they're generally regarded as zombiefilms.

So, if you are in a room full of colour blind people and they're telling you that red is in fact brown. does that make red, brown? Just because some have mis-represented '28 Days Later' as a "zombiefilm" doesn't make it so.

I think there are a few people in here that will have to agree to disagree. :D

To me anyway, '28 Days Later' is not a "zombiefilm", simply because the threat in the film aren't zombies, in any sense of the word. It shares a lot of commonality in story with Romero's zombies flicks, but so does 'Assault on Precinct 13' or 'Day of the Triffids' as has been pointed out earlier.

Brown can look a bit like red...but red is still red.

[darth los]

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?


That's gotta be the best counter to the other side's arguement yet.


The 28 days/weeks films (As well as shaun of the dead) are forever mentioned as films that "got it right" when discussing our favorite genre. Kinda strange , doncha think? :confused:

Good work Clang !! :thumbsup:






:cool:

[EvilNed]

So, if you are in a room full of colour blind people and they're telling you that red is in fact brown. does that make red, brown? Just because some have mis-represented '28 Days Later' as a "zombiefilm" doesn't make it so.


If the majority of the world calls the color Brown for Red, then the color Brown IS Red, yes. But how can we define color? How can we make sure you percieve the same color as I? We cannot be absolutely sure. So this point is moot.


To me anyway, '28 Days Later' is not a "zombiefilm", simply because the threat in the film aren't zombies, in any sense of the word.

And this here, my friend, is bullcrap. The threat in the film shares ALOT ALOT ALOT incommon with zombies. As they ARE mindless zombies. I respect your opinion, as you stated... But I don't buy that you can view the infected in the 28 films as "not being zombies in any sense of the word".

[Trin]

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?


That's gotta be the best counter to the other side's arguement yet.

The 28 days/weeks films (As well as shaun of the dead) are forever mentioned as films that "got it right" when discussing our favorite genre. Kinda strange , doncha think? :confused:

Good work Clang !! :thumbsup:I think this thread proves that movies like 28 Days/Weeks are not "generally accepted as zombie films" or we wouldn't have 10 pages of debate over it. Whenever someone compares 28 Days/Weeks to GAR's work someone is always quick to point out they're based on Infected rather than zombies.


And this here, my friend, is bullcrap. The threat in the film shares ALOT ALOT ALOT incommon with zombies. Having a lot in common and being the same are different. I don't think anyone is saying that they don't have a lot in common.

I think both series are generally accepted as part of the ASH genre, and this site is very accomodating to discussion not strictly limited to "of the Dead" movies. But of course the entire topic is not black and white - or brown and red if you prefer. And Dawn '04 blurred the lines considerably.

Probably the first ASH movie I saw was "The Birds" and I was hooked on the genre. I didn't even know zombies were in my future at that point.

Maybe we should rename the site "Homepage of the Dead Or Things That Act Similar to Dead For All Intents and Purposes".

HPOTDOTTASTDFAIAP - you gotta admit, it's catchy!! :p

[AcesandEights]

Maybe we should rename the site "Homepage of the Dead Or Things That Act Similar to Dead For All Intents and Purposes".

HPOTDOTTASTDFAIAP - you gotta admit, it's catchy!! :p

I like Homepage of Apocalyptic Survival Horror. ;)

HASH, for short :D (we'll just leave out that pesky 'p', after all it's a part of another full blown word).

[EvilNed]

I think this thread proves that movies like 28 Days/Weeks are not "generally accepted as zombie films" or we wouldn't have 10 pages of debate over it. Whenever someone compares 28 Days/Weeks to GAR's work someone is always quick to point out they're based on Infected rather than zombies.

As clanglee said, if they're not generally accepted as such, why do they pop up so often in this here (Dead Discussion) forum? heh? :p


Having a lot in common and being the same are different.

Right, well in that case, Shockwaves is not a zombiefilm, for it's zombies are not "the same" as NOTLD. Right?

[Trin]

As clanglee said, if they're not generally accepted as such, why do they pop up so often in this here (Dead Discussion) forum? heh? :pSo if enough people talk about a movie in the Dead Discussion forum it proves that the creatures in the movie are dead? And since when do you require zombies to fit the definition of "dead?"

I think it's time to ask, in your view, "What isn't a zombie?" I mean, you've made the definition so loose I have to wonder what's left out? They don't have to be dead (28 Days/Weeks Infected=zombies). They don't have to be slow or uncoordinated (Dawn '04=zombies). They don't have to be mindless (Legend vampires=zombies). What would rule something out?

Or do we let the killer bees in if the Night of the Killer Bees movie "feels" like it should fit the genre? What if they were living dead killer bees risen from the undead beehive? :p

[Andy]

And this here, my friend, is bullcrap. The threat in the film shares ALOT ALOT ALOT incommon with zombies. As they ARE mindless zombies. I respect your opinion, as you stated... But I don't buy that you can view the infected in the 28 films as "not being zombies in any sense of the word".

Am sorry mate but their not... their not dead, they dont eat flesh, they die of natural causes (starvation etc)... they are human.

28 days later is a good movie, but it is not a zombie movie in anyway, its a movie about a epidemic of a virus which turns people into insane murderers. simple as.

[Debbieangel]

28dl is NOT a zombie movie...they have RAGE and what they want to do with a person when they catch up to them is tear them apart not eat them. Now I have to get the movies out again and watch all of them again. :rockbrow:

[EvilNed]

So if enough people talk about a movie in the Dead Discussion forum it proves that the creatures in the movie are dead? And since when do you require zombies to fit the definition of "dead?"


No but it proves that enough people consider it to be a "dead" movie (i.e. Zombie movie).

What makes a zombie? Well, mindless action, for one thing. Of which 28 Days Later has abundance. I doubt any of you would disagree. :)

[Andy]

No but it proves that enough people consider it to be a "dead" movie (i.e. Zombie movie).

What makes a zombie? Well, mindless action, for one thing. Of which 28 Days Later has abundance. I doubt any of you would disagree. :)


What makes a zombie, um... something thats dead? or eats flesh? and dosnt starve?.. i added a poll anyway so we will see who's right.

[clanglee]

Riddle me this. Why do the rage infested people not attack each other? If they are simply filled with rage then they would just go around and attack anything and everything. . . . not just normal humans.

Once again. With me anyways, the key factor in a zombie movie is the mindless teeming masses wanting to get you and make you just like them.

If we throw 28 days/weeks out of the zombie movie category we will need to do so with many other movies as well.

Lifeforce, Nightmare City, Demons I and II, Last Man on Earth, etc etc.

These movies all have the "zombie" theme.

There are also a lot of movies that I never considered zombie movies that I guess we would need to add. Mainly any movie where one corpse rises from the grave for whatever reason. I never considered movies with a singular "zombie" to be zombie movies per se.

I think that this whole argument is so opinion based that it doesn't really matter. I define a zombie movie on it's theme mostly, mechanics slightly. It seems that many of you define a zombie movie on mechanics first. But even then, the lines blur on what is considered a zombie. so there are probably many many viewpoints out there.

Hmmm. . .really really interesting how we can all be here because of the love for a particular type of movie. . and then disagree wholly on what exactly defines the movie genre that we all love.

At least we can all agree on Romero Zed movies. . . . .I hope:shifty:

[EvilNed]

What makes a zombie, um... something thats dead? or eats flesh? and dosnt starve?.. i added a poll anyway so we will see who's right.

Touchy subject I see. :p If you need a vote to be truly settled, but the answer is already obvious... And you know it. As Clanglee pointed out, if 28 Days Later is not a zombiefilm, why is it so discussed?

Anyway, mindless zombies they be. Accept it or not. This is just crazy and childish. The evidence is right infront of you. There is nothing in the film that can exclude it from being part of the Zombie-genre, as it not only "loans" a few conventions from that genre... But pretty much embodies them all. If you cannot see this, I dare say, that YOU, Andy, have either not SEEN the film, or know nothing about zombiefilms. :p (Btw, I don't believe either of this is the case, but this is just very silly behavior).

And I agree with clanglee. "Zombiefilms" per say are something more than "a dead person walks", as that would put any number of films in this category. Heck, the Sixth Sense would be "more of" a zombiefilm than 28 Days Later! Which is just crazy. The Mummy. The Mummy Returns. X-Men 3 is a zombieflick by your definition, Andy!

[Neil]

Oh God what an impossible question! It depends how you take the 'zombie' definition. By the true definition of course it is not as they are not dead, and blowing a massive hole in their ribs will kill them - unlike a Romero zombie.

But the nature of the chaos that ensues is zombie'esque.

So I'm not voting... It's an impossible choice... *places butt on fence*

PS: The longer standing meaning of a zombie of course is not necessarily someone who is dead!

[MinionZombie]

PS: The longer standing meaning of a zombie of course is not necessarily someone who is dead!

If you mean voodoo/haitian zombies - then they have the appearance of being dead, in that those who see them believe they are dead, because they have 'seen them die', so when they see them up and walking around again in a zoned-out state, they believe they're dead.

The key aspect being dead.

28D/WL features no dead people at all, and certainly not in a voodoo sense. :rolleyes:

[krakenslayer]

My opinion - they're not zombies, but it is a zombie movie.

[SRP76]

There's nothing zombie about it. It's an "angry mob" movie. Your average lynchmob is closer to the 28 people than any living dead.

[AcesandEights]

Oh God what an impossible question! It depends how you take the 'zombie' definition. By the true definition of course it is not as they are not dead, and blowing a massive hole in their ribs will kill them - unlike a Romero zombie.

But the nature of the chaos that ensues is zombie'esque.

So I'm not voting... It's an impossible choice... *places butt on fence*

PS: The longer standing meaning of a zombie of course is not necessarily someone who is dead!

A well balanced opinion.

[JSPoole]

If you mean voodoo/haitian zombies - then they have the appearance of being dead, in that those who see them believe they are dead, because they have 'seen them die', so when they see them up and walking around again in a zoned-out state, they believe they're dead.

The key aspect being dead.

28D/WL features no dead people at all, and certainly not in a voodoo sense. :rolleyes:

New guy here, thought this would be a good thread for my first post.

First off, to adress this point...just because some believe voodoo zombies to be dead, doesn't mean they are dead. So the idea that a zombie HAS to be dead, is kind of silly, considering none of the original zombies from voodoo were actually dead (and that's the big catch here...believing someone dead is not the same as them being dead).

At the basic core, the voodoo zombie is someone with no will of their own, and that can be applied to the 28 days later zombies (OH NO HE DIDN'T ;) )
as they are slaves to the rage virus and have no control or self awareness.

Second, I find this hate for the running zombie to be, quite frankly, close minded and rather stupid. Maybe it's just me and enjoying this pesky ''diversity'' buisness, but I love zombies. Slow, fast, whatever you prefer, I think anyone who truly love zombies wouldn't discriminate.

There is no ''right'' way of doing zombies. I mean, if the dead ever do come back to life and they do act slow and plodding, THEN you can complain about ''realisim'' and how ''zombies can't run''. Till then? I'm afraid any of those statements are , to be blunt, nonsense.

I personally find running zombies scarier. Why? They are like classic zombies but this time they can actually catch you. I could outrun the slow zombies with broken legs. I appriciate why slow zombies are scary, though, and find them rather frightening, and the idea that you or your loved ones could be turned into slow, stalking machines with no pity or remorse or fear.

I find both scary, and I like both. And I believe this, and having a diverse range of zombies and zombie movies, is a good thing for those of us that don't like things to stagnate and repeat endlessly with no new ideas thrown in.

That's my two cents anyway, and I do respect other's opinions, but there you have it.

[Mike70]

Second, I find this hate for the running zombie to be, quite frankly, close minded and rather stupid. Maybe it's just me and enjoying this pesky ''diversity'' buisness, but I love zombies. Slow, fast, whatever you prefer, I think anyone who truly love zombies wouldn't discriminate.


first off - welcome to HPOTD.

secondly, i'd stand to and prepare to repel boarders because running zombies have some serious haters here.

i don't really care for running zombies but yet if a film is good, then i can overlook that. 28 days later was a good film (to me at least). the dawn remake was a shit movie. the fact that it was a shit movie has nothing to do with the zombies running. they could've been crawling, burrowing underground or flying through the air as a trapeze act and it would've still sucked goat testicles. yawn04 is garbage because it is vacuous, trivial, and utterly lacking in any sort of meaning. it is the diet coke of zombie films.

anyhoo, i think my main beef with running zombies is that movies with them tend to devolve into cinematic track meets. the movie becomes nothing more than people running from one place to another.

[JSPoole]

first off - welcome to HPOTD.

secondly, i'd stand to and prepare to repel boarders because running zombies have some serious haters here.

i don't really care for running zombies but yet if a film is good, then i can overlook that. 28 days later was a good film (to me at least). the dawn remake was a shit movie. the fact that it was a shit movie has nothing to do with the zombies running. they could've been crawling, burrowing underground or flying through the air as a trapeze act and it would've still sucked goat testicles. yawn04 is garbage because it is vacuous, trivial, and utterly lacking in any sort of meaning. it is the diet coke of zombie films.

anyhoo, i think my main beef with running zombies is that movies with them tend to devolve into cinematic track meets. the movie becomes nothing more than people running from one place to another.

I loved the Dawn remake, as I do the original. I make no apologies for it.

I can see that running zombies have serious haters here, but you know what?
That's fine :) If people hate them, that's their view and they are entitled to it. I will forever say that it is a silly stance to take, and that zombie lovers should actually try to appriciate different aspects and takes, but I also understand some people are too set in their ways to ever appriciate different takes on stuff they consider standard. I will keep my opinion regardless, and I will continue to enjoy zombie movies with every type, instead of limiting myself and my enjoyment to only one type of zombie and one type only.

Thank you for the welcome by the way :)

[Mike70]

Thank you for the welcome by the way :)

you're welcome.


that zombies on a trapeze line i used in my above post has me thinking. i should really approach uwe boll with that idea. i bet i'd get a development deal out of him because that sounds like it is right up his alley.

[SRP76]

I find this hate for the running zombie to be, quite frankly, close minded and rather stupid. Maybe it's just me and enjoying this pesky ''diversity'' buisness, but I love zombies. Slow, fast, whatever you prefer, I think anyone who truly love zombies wouldn't discriminate.



There's always a preference. You may like pizza in general, but always go for the pepperoni before the spinach topping. Same thing with zombies. Many people will watch runners, but would prefer the shamblers.

[Neil]

If you mean voodoo/haitian zombies - then they have the appearance of being dead, in that those who see them believe they are dead, because they have 'seen them die', so when they see them up and walking around again in a zoned-out state, they believe they're dead.

The key aspect being dead.

28D/WL features no dead people at all, and certainly not in a voodoo sense. :rolleyes:

someone who moves around as if they are unconscious and being controlled by someone else.

It's all open to debate and interpretation, hence my buttox remain on these fence posts! *ouch! one's diggin in*

[krakenslayer]

The infected are not zombies. They do not look like zombies, they do not act like zombies, they are not technically zombies (by most people's definition).

However, forget about the specifics of the "monster" for a moment - think about the empty streets, the few survivors holing up in buildings against a manifold once-human menace, the threat of becoming one of the enemy (the fear of losing your intelligence, self-will and identity, a very important trait of zombie movies), the mindless determination of the ever-present threat. To me, the movie ticks enough of the boxes to be considered a zombie movie.

Yes, the term is not 100% accurate, but it manages to describe in two words enough of the style, plot, structure and atmosphere of the movie to be a perfectly workable paraphrasing of the film's genre. I think I Am Legend and Demons are two other examples of movies that fall very loosely under the zombie movie header (bearing in mind that the Will Smith movie never directly identifies the enemy as "vampires").

[MoonSylver]

secondly, i'd stand to and prepare to repel boarders because running zombies have some serious haters here.

I don't know if it's JUST the runners, or more the movies they're IN, as you point out below....


i don't really care for running zombies but yet if a film is good, then i can overlook that. 28 days later was a good film (to me at least). the dawn remake...(edit)is vacuous, trivial, and utterly lacking in any sort of meaning. it is the diet coke of zombie films.

That sums it up for me. I don't hate it, just a bit *meh* about it. Ok action flick, not deep, can't hold a candle to some of the other movies in the genre.


anyhoo, i think my main beef with running zombies is that movies with them tend to devolve into cinematic track meets. the movie becomes nothing more than people running from one place to another.

Pretty much. You CAN have great movies w/ runners...28 Days, ROTLD & DEAD SET(especially proved this to me), BUT if it's not a good movie it's almost like the runners just add to the...not good-ness...they compound it somehow...:lol:

[EvilNed]

However, forget about the specifics of the "monster" for a moment - think about the empty streets, the few survivors holing up in buildings against a manifold once-human menace, the threat of becoming one of the enemy (the fear of losing your intelligence, self-will and identity, a very important trait of zombie movies), the mindless determination of the ever-present threat. To me, the movie ticks enough of the boxes to be considered a zombie movie. .

Bingo, you got it.

As for Running zombies being scarier than slow zombies, consider this:

1) A guy suddenly pulls a gun and shoots you in the head. You die instantly.

2) A guy ties you down, pulls out a revolver and inserts ONE bullet. He then points the gun at you and starts pulling the trigger.

Which is scarier? I know one I'd pick...

[Trin]

It's really not a big point. Just whether or not you are comfortable with your "zombie movies" not having zombies in them. For me - nope. I think if you want to call things like 28 Days "zombie movies" that's fine. But I think it's an imprecise and innaccurate definition. Or better said, I think there are better definitions out there that fit it more precisely.

Take the hundred vampire hunter movies from the 60's and 70's, then compare against the werewolf hunter movies of the same time period. Would it be commonplace to call them all "vampire movies?" They were really similar movies with just a different creature. The term mostly used is "monster movies."

The thing that set "zombies movies" apart is that GAR set the bar with his, and anyone/everyone coming afterward who makes an even similar movie is compared against his zombies.

My personal opinion (braces for impact) is that calling all these movies "zombie movies" ignores what the movies were trying to accomplish. Just like GAR doesn't want NOTLD to be called a vampire movie because it was so close to Matheson's book "I Am Legend" I don't think Boyle wants 28 Days to be called a zombie movie just because it has influences from GAR. Just my 2 cents.

[Andy]

I strongly agree trin, very well said.

[EvilNed]

The thing that set "zombies movies" apart is that GAR set the bar with his, and anyone/everyone coming afterward who makes an even similar movie is compared against his zombies.

My personal opinion (braces for impact) is that calling all these movies "zombie movies" ignores what the movies were trying to accomplish. Just like GAR doesn't want NOTLD to be called a vampire movie because it was so close to Matheson's book "I Am Legend" I don't think Boyle wants 28 Days to be called a zombie movie just because it has influences from GAR. Just my 2 cents.

Well, genres do evolve. And let's say that if, IF there is such a genre called a "zombie movie" (which is questionable, after all, regarding your post regarding Apocalyptic Survival Horror, of which not all zombiefilms apply either), then 28 Days Later is indeed closer to that genre than any other. And that's how films and genres are defined, on a greater scale.

[krakenslayer]

Take the hundred vampire hunter movies from the 60's and 70's, then compare against the werewolf hunter movies of the same time period. Would it be commonplace to call them all "vampire movies?"


No because there exists a term with popular understanding that better describes the movie; everyone knows what a werewolf is and how it differs from a vampire. With 28 Days Later on the other hand, there is no commonly used term that can accurately describe the "monsters" (a rage-infected-people movie?) or the type of scenario/dynamic/essence of the film; "zombie movie" has more cultural significance and comes closest to describing the type of film in an quick and easily-understandable way.

Look at it this way: imagine someone makes a movie about a creature sleeps in a gothic graveyard, stalks its prey at night and turns its victims into monsters just like itself, but instead of drinking blood it sucks out its victims brains and is killed only by a stake through the balls. If someone who knew nothing about the movie asked me, then in the interests of parsimony I'd call it a vampire flick.

[JSPoole]

The infected are not zombies. They do not look like zombies, they do not act like zombies, they are not technically zombies (by most people's definition).

However, forget about the specifics of the "monster" for a moment - think about the empty streets, the few survivors holing up in buildings against a manifold once-human menace, the threat of becoming one of the enemy (the fear of losing your intelligence, self-will and identity, a very important trait of zombie movies), the mindless determination of the ever-present threat. To me, the movie ticks enough of the boxes to be considered a zombie movie.

Yes, the term is not 100% accurate, but it manages to describe in two words enough of the style, plot, structure and atmosphere of the movie to be a perfectly workable paraphrasing of the film's genre. I think I Am Legend and Demons are two other examples of movies that fall very loosely under the zombie movie header (bearing in mind that the Will Smith movie never directly identifies the enemy as "vampires").


Being undead and devouring humans, GAR original zombies are actually much closer to being vampires than the original voodoo definition of ''zombies''.

Original zombies were not dead, despite the apperance, and had no will of their own. In that sense, 28 Days Later infected are closer to the true meaning of zombies than GAR's shamblers.

[MinionZombie]

Just call it an "infection movie" - like with Doomsday - massive virus breaks out, Scotland gets walled off, absolute devestation happens - but not a single dead person up and walking about, and it's all about an infection that people catch - another term could be "plague movie".

Zombies are pure make-believe, but the likes of Doomsday and 28D/WL base their infections and viruses on real-life viruses. There's a whole featurette on the 28DL DVD about real-life viruses ... ... in amongst all the times Boyle and Garland (who created the movie in the first place!) stating very clearly that 28DL isn't a zombie movie.

[krakenslayer]

Just call it an "infection movie" - like with Doomsday - massive virus breaks out, Scotland gets walled off, absolute devestation happens - but not a single dead person up and walking about, and it's all about an infection that people catch - another term could be "plague movie".

Zombies are pure make-believe, but the likes of Doomsday and 28D/WL base their infections and viruses on real-life viruses. There's a whole featurette on the 28DL DVD about real-life viruses ... ... in amongst all the times Boyle and Garland (who created the movie in the first place!) stating very clearly that 28DL isn't a zombie movie.

No, I disagree. Yes, technically 28 Days Later is about an outbreak of disease, but if we're going to restrict ourselves to a two word genre definition (which I don't really agree with when describing movies, but is the the accepted norm these days) then "outbreak movie" does not cover several major issues - the fact that those infected become hostile/homicidal, the fact that the hostile enemy can turn others into more of itself, the fact that survivors are forced hole up in fortified buildings to defend themselves against the enemy, and that being killed outright by those homicidal infected is the primary threat throughout the film (with the risk of infection being secondary).

I prefer "zombie movie" because I think that expressing the overall dynamic and structure of the film is more important than the hair-splitting minutae of the monsters involved.

[JSPoole]

Just call it an "infection movie" - like with Doomsday - massive virus breaks out, Scotland gets walled off, absolute devestation happens - but not a single dead person up and walking about, and it's all about an infection that people catch - another term could be "plague movie".

Zombies are pure make-believe, but the likes of Doomsday and 28D/WL base their infections and viruses on real-life viruses. There's a whole featurette on the 28DL DVD about real-life viruses ... ... in amongst all the times Boyle and Garland (who created the movie in the first place!) stating very clearly that 28DL isn't a zombie movie.


Actually, in the commentary, Boyle and Garland don't seem particularly bothered what you call them- one of them makes a comment about the ''zombies, infected, or whatever you wish to call them''. It's there in the commentary track if you want to hear it.

[shootemindehead]

....................


Actually, in the commentary, Boyle and Garland don't seem particularly bothered what you call them- one of them makes a comment about the ''zombies, infected, or whatever you wish to call them''. It's there in the commentary track if you want to hear it.


He seems pretty definte here...

Quote:
Q. 28 Days Later had a similar feel to the classic zombie film Night Of The Living Dead. Can you tell us which films in particular influenced you? Alex Lochrie

A. The Romero films are obviously the most important zombie films, but 28 Days Later isn't really a zombie film. Other films like Cronenberg's Rabid and John Wyndham's The Day Of The Triffids are big influences for both Alex [Garland, the writer] and I.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/webaccess..._boyle_1.shtml

[JSPoole]

....................




He seems pretty definte here...

Quote:
Q. 28 Days Later had a similar feel to the classic zombie film Night Of The Living Dead. Can you tell us which films in particular influenced you? Alex Lochrie

A. The Romero films are obviously the most important zombie films, but 28 Days Later isn't really a zombie film. Other films like Cronenberg's Rabid and John Wyndham's The Day Of The Triffids are big influences for both Alex [Garland, the writer] and I.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/webaccess..._boyle_1.shtml

Seriously, do you have 28 Days Later on dvd? You can put it on now and listen to the commentary. You can hear Danny Boyle (or Garland, can't remember which) call them ''zombies, infected, or whatever you wish to call them''. Seriously, if you don't belive me, it's on the dvd, in their own words.


And in this interview, he refers to the infected as zombies several times:

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/062603/film2.html

''On the phone from his Manchester flat, the director behind such hits as Trainspotting and Shallow Grave confirms he was uneasy about entering into zombie turf. "You’re right, it’s very hard to drag things back into the realm of the scary once they’ve become parody," he says. "I mean, they’re on South Park, for God’s sake. We knew we couldn’t have them wandering around slowly. We set about to reinvent them, to re-think them entirely."

"There’s a stage of rabies where people develop hydrophobia, a bizarre and irrational fear of water. We wanted the zombies to be bloodthirsty, but completely full of fear themselves." The zombies have also been sped up, looking like quivering psychos in the midst of epileptic seizures. (Shot in 2001, the filmmakers couldn’t have forseen SARS nor Monkey Pox, but those collective popular fears only add to the creepiness running through this film.)

[EvilNed]

Again, DROP the Garland/Boyle definitions. So in an interview they said that it "isn't really a zombie movie", and on the commentary track they acknowledge that they can be viewed as zombies. And in yet another interview they call them zombies. Whatever. Doesn't matter. 28 Days Later still belongs in that genre. Solyaris is still a sci-fi film! No matter WHAT Boyle or Tarkovsky says.


I prefer "zombie movie" because I think that expressing the overall dynamic and structure of the film is more important than the hair-splitting minutae of the monsters involved.

I agree with this. Not to call it a zombie film because of such hair-splitting details is just pure nonsense. But whatever, do what you want. It still plays out like a zombie movie, and it features zombies. Not dead ones, but zombies nonetheless. So call it what you want. Most people call it a zombie movie, and it's generally acknowledges as such. Again:

If a friend asks you "Know of any good, recent zombie flicks?", most people would include 28 Days Later when recommending a few recent films. And if they don't, they probably just didn't like the film. Nobody, NOBODY can deny this.

[JSPoole]

Again, DROP the Garland/Boyle definitions. So in an interview they said that it "isn't really a zombie movie", and on the commentary track they acknowledge that they can be viewed as zombies. And in yet another interview they call them zombies. Whatever. Doesn't matter. 28 Days Later still belongs in that genre. Solyaris is still a sci-fi film! No matter WHAT Boyle or Tarkovsky says.



I agree with this. Not to call it a zombie film because of such hair-splitting details is just pure nonsense. But whatever, do what you want. It still plays out like a zombie movie, and it features zombies. Not dead ones, but zombies nonetheless. So call it what you want. Most people call it a zombie movie, and it's generally acknowledges as such. Again:

If a friend asks you "Know of any good, recent zombie flicks?", most people would include 28 Days Later when recommending a few recent films. And if they don't, they probably just didn't like the film. Nobody, NOBODY can deny this.


Hey, I completely agree with you. I was simply pointing out that someone who tried to use Boyle to disprove it's ''zombie'' association/status might have missed other interviews in which he very much makes the comparison. I fully agree that he probably doesn't mind either way, if you call them zombies or not, and I really think that if someone is THAT bothered by a movie like 28 days later being called a zombie movie, they probably should reassess their life lol.

I agree that most people just love splitting hairs. The GAR zombies define what zombies are considered by the mainstream, but the original voodoo zombies were neither dead nor flesh eaters. Times, as they say, are a'changin, and people add to genres and they change, and if the people who oppose that don't like it, tough. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. Most people don't give a crap if a tiny percentage of other people get deeply butt hurt at a movie being called a zombie movie, and rightfully so. I understand having a preference, but saying that it can be done one way and one way only is just plain stupid.

I think the whole idea of someone being as mad as the topic starter is at something trivial is both hillarious and silly.

[MinionZombie]

:rolleyes:

Officially done with this thread - the poll speaks for itself.

*dusts hands*

*wanders off in search of SModcast*

[Andy]

:rolleyes:

Officially done with this thread - the poll speaks for itself.

*dusts hands*

*wanders off in search of SModcast*

Well the poll is now 13-5 in favour of its not a zombie movie, so whatever you guys think, we should now be able to agree its generally not accepted as such, which was my original point before this all blew up.

[JSPoole]

Well the poll is now 13-5 in favour of its not a zombie movie, so whatever you guys think, we should now be able to agree its generally not accepted as such, which was my original point before this all blew up.

Wrong lol.

Just because people on a homepage dedicated to GAR's zombies vote that 28 days later isn't a ''zombie movie'' (which lets face it, is no surprise). It's incredibly arrogant and foolish to think that your view = everyones. I GUARENTEE you most people outside of a few elitest GAR considers it a zombie movie.

The mainstream press often called it a zombie movie- and what do you think is more ''generally accepted'' MAINSTREAM media, or a fairly obscure amount of people on a message board who think their opinion is accepted opinion?

Here's another poll in which 28 Days Later beats Dawn of the Dead in a favourite ''zombie movie'' poll

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2007/06/poll-results-our-favorite-zombie-movie/

and again, on a more mainstream poll, 28 Days Later gets the nod over Dawn:

http://www.flixster.com/poll/what-is-the-scariest-zombie-movie

And it has way more partcipants than this poll.

Before you declare your opinion be all-end all, think about the fact that what you call generally excepted is generally niche and a rather small fanbase's opinon.

[Andy]

Wrong lol.

Just because people on a homepage dedicated to GAR's zombies vote that 28 days later isn't a ''zombie movie'' (which lets face it, is no surprise). It's incredibly arrogant and foolish to think that your view = everyones. I GUARENTEE you most people outside of a few elitest GAR considers it a zombie movie.

The mainstream press often called it a zombie movie- and what do you think is more ''generally accepted'' MAINSTREAM media, or a fairly obscure amount of people on a message board who think their opinion is accepted opinion?

Actually if you look back a few pages, i was refering to the general opinion on this site specifically, you know being my forums an all, i was told i was wrong and i was merely pointing out that the poll shows im right.

I Dont care what the mainstream press call it, ive seen dracula called a zombie in the mainstream press, it dosnt make it true and of course you and ned are entitled to your opinions, this thread could go on for another 100 pages and we still wouldnt all agree becuase your not going to change your minds anymore than we are.

BUT i was pointing out that in my original point, that it was generally considered not to be a zombie movie on my forums, i was right and the proof is right there.

[clanglee]

I hear ya Andy. . . I would really like to see who voted where though. Just to see where people lay in the polls. I know for a fact that the 28 movies have gotten a LOT of conversation time from a lot of us. On this zombie fan site. That, at the very least, shows that in most peoples minds here, the 28 movies have at least a whole lot in common with zombie movies. Otherwise it would never even come up at all.

Anyways. . whatever. It's one of those things where noone is going to be convinced either way. .you know? At least I know I'm right even though noone else seems to be. . . .;):p

[JSPoole]

Actually if you look back a few pages, i was refering to the general opinion on this site specifically, you know being my forums an all, i was told i was wrong and i was merely pointing out that the poll shows im right.

I Dont care what the mainstream press call it, ive seen dracula called a zombie in the mainstream press, it dosnt make it true and of course you and ned are entitled to your opinions, this thread could go on for another 100 pages and we still wouldnt all agree becuase your not going to change your minds anymore than we are.

BUT i was pointing out that in my original point, that it was generally considered not to be a zombie movie on my forums, i was right and the proof is right there.

Even GAR has said he didn't consider his original Night of the Living Dead a zombie movie (the ''zombies'' were based on the vampires in I am Legend).

In fact, GAR'S movies aren't technically zombie movies at all. Vodoo zombies were NOT dead, and did NOT eat flesh. 28 Days Later zombies are far closer to that than GAR'S ''zombies'', don't you think?

So if you wanna be a close minded snob about it, then the proof is there that GAR'S movies aren't technically zombie movies. If you don't consider 28 Days Later infected zombies, despite being closer to the actual definition of zombies, then you certainly can't consider GAR'S movies zombie movies, lest you be a hypocrite.

[Andy]

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.

[EvilNed]

Well the poll is now 13-5 in favour of its not a zombie movie, so whatever you guys think, we should now be able to agree its generally not accepted as such, which was my original point before this all blew up.

Also, as always with statistics, the numbers can be misleading depending on the question. For instance, if you were to ask a hundred people: "Do 28 Days Later and Night of the Living Dead belong in the same genre?" you'd probably a completely different result.

The Polls JSPoole brought up also clearly indicate that the greater public seem to regard it as a zombie movie. Infact, I've never come upon anyone who HASN'T regarded it as such except people on this board. Kinda strange, huh? :p

I KNOW some people on this board don't consider a zombie movie. Didn't need a poll to tell me that! I was hoping I could make a few people see that when it's down to defining genres, it's not down to splitting hairs but rather conventions and how the audience views it. Alas, I was wrong.

[shootemindehead]

For instance, if you were to ask a hundred people: "Do 28 Days Later and Night of the Living Dead belong in the same genre?" you'd probably a completely different result.

That's because it's a misleading question Ned. Of course 'Night of the Living Dead' and '28 Days Later' belong to the same genre. The "horror genre" and people would answer it as such.

[darth los]

There's nothing zombie about it. It's an "angry mob" movie. Your average lynchmob is closer to the 28 people than any living dead.


So i guess that would make the 1970's cult classic "The Warriors" A zombie movie as well since it features an "angry mob" relentlessly pursuing the protagonists for the entire film. Right? :confused:






:cool:

[SRP76]

So i guess that would make the 1970's cult classic "The Warriors" A zombie movie as well since it features an "angry mob" relentlessly pursuing the protagonists for the entire film. Right? :confused:






:cool:

No. Just like how 28 isn't a zombie franchise, either. A bunch of people who are just angry and chasing people around doesn't make them the living dead. Not even close.

[Mike70]

i see the only way to settle this argument is going to be the old fashioned way: with weapons and a duel.

evilned pick your weapon, a second and which member you are going to challenge from the opposing side and let's settle this once and for all in a rational, civilized manner.

[EvilNed]

I pick clanglee as my second, and Andy as my opponent! I'll let Andy have the honor of picking the weapon...

[AcesandEights]

A bunch of people who are just angry and chasing people around doesn't make them the living dead. Not even close.

The only problem being that the word zombie doesn't have to refer to a dead or undead person.

You, yourself, are looking at the definition of zombie from a point of view that was borrowed and heavily influenced by the fandom of GAR's films and similar works. I understand that this is the definition you refer to whenever you refer to zombies and zombie movies and that it's a finer, tighter distinction than what some of us are talking about in this thread, but I do hope you understand that the definition to which you're referring is, itself, derived from older sources.


Actually if you look back a few pages, i was refering to the general opinion on this site specifically, you know being my forums an all, i was told i was wrong and i was merely pointing out that the poll shows im right.


Andy, it’s not a competition (well, it’s not one for most of us). I understand that this is a site for fans of GAR, so most people will adhere to the idea that the general vision his fans ascribe to is the only ‘way to go’, but I don’t think there is a right or wrong distinction to what the definition of a zombie is (in the context of this conversation, anyway).

You have a very specific definition of what zombies are--more so than my definition--but the fact is that there are even tighter distinctions than the general GAR definition of what constitutes a zombie.


I pick clanglee as my second, and Andy as my opponent! I'll let Andy have the honor of picking the weapon...

Why is it this is the image I see after reading that:

http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200306/tos-034-spock-and-kirk-battle/320x240.jpg

[Andy]

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.

Im not arguing your opinion of whether it is or it isnt, becuase frankly, its your opinion and your not going to change it no matter what i say, as much as im not going to change mine.. this is another "like or dislike land?" or "runners vs shamblers" topic, which everyone has their own opinion and answer to it and theirs is right, no-one is going to disprove it.

[Trin]

I think a lot of the opinions expressed in this thread have a lot to do with when you became a zombie movie fan. For me, I watched tons of zombie movies prior to becoming a GAR fan. NOTLD was just one movie back then, and wasn't my favorite. In terms of sheer scope it was fairly small. If you look at the movie without Dawn in the picture the threat started and ended in one night.

My point is that the "zombie movie" was well established before GAR got a hold of it. If GAR created a genre (and I think Matheson has grounds to disagree) it wasn't zombies movies.

I personally despise the use of "generally accepted" as an argument. On either side of the debate. Truth is not defined by large groups of people believing something.

Zombies are "generally accepted" to be creatures that wander around saying "Brraaaaaaaainnnnss..."

[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...

http://flywithbats.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/rodney_king.jpg

[Yojimbo]

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

http://flywithbats.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/rodney_king.jpg
Wise words, and I think I contributed on some level to the appearance of discord, so my apologies. It is sure easy to get worked up over our differences in opinion over issues such as these when what we should always remember how much we actually do have in common.

[MoonSylver]

Wise words, and I think I contributed on some level to the appearance of discord, so my apologies. It is sure easy to get worked up over our differences in opinion over issues such as these when what we should always remember how much we actually do have in common.

No worries dude...we've all been there. I have to remind myself, we're such fanboys that if we step back & take a look we're basically arguing who would win in a fight, Superman or Mighty Mouse (*geez* everybody knows Superman would win 'cuz he's a real guy!...:rolleyes: )

[Yojimbo]

No worries dude...we've all been there. I have to remind myself, we're such fanboys that if we step back & take a look we're basically arguing who would win in a fight, Superman or Mighty Mouse (*geez* everybody knows Superman would win 'cuz he's a real guy!...:rolleyes: )
Mighty Mouse is pretty powerful too in his own right, but your point is well taken! :lol:

Thanks for your understanding, brother!

[MoonSylver]

Mighty Mouse is pretty powerful too in his own right, but your point is well taken! :lol:

Thanks for your understanding, brother!

I almost use Kirk vs Picard as my geek metaphor, but that one just popped into my head from somewhere...:D

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/skstandbyme.jpg

[JSPoole]

I just want to say too Rosarche is an amazing character :D


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.


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.

The discussion of what makes a movie a ''zombie'' movie is valid- I wasn't dimissing that point- I just think if someone gets as angry and worked up about it as the topic starter, they probably need anger management.

I mean come on, I have disagreed with some here, but it really doesn't upset me what anyone else considers a zombie movie - it does get a bit annoying when people are hypocritical about it, but never angry.

[Trin]

I think what's obvious is that a Dawn '04 zombie is what rises when a Rage Infected human dies after being bitten by a NOTLD ghoul.

And whether or not they're anything like vampires is just silly because everyone knows vampires aren't real.

And the poll clearly shows that either (1) 28 Days/Weeks is obviously NOT a zombie movie or (2) the poll was not worded correctly because it obviously IS a zombie movie.

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

[AcesandEights]

And the poll clearly shows that either (1) 28 Days/Weeks is obviously NOT a zombie movie or (2) the poll was not worded correctly because it obviously IS a zombie movie.

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

So, wait a second...the poll shows (currently) that just over a third of responders think that 28 Days Later is a zombie movie. Now, setting aside the fact that this is a tiny population to poll, one third is a sizable chunk of responders for something you allude to being a cut and dry matter...especially considering this is a GAR fansite.

Personally, I expected the responses to be more skewed away from 28 Days Later being a zombie film and assume it will skew that way further over the next few weeks as people amble onto the topic, vote and necro it.

[Mike70]

... we're basically arguing who would win in a fight, Superman or Mighty Mouse (*geez* everybody knows Superman would win 'cuz he's a real guy!...:rolleyes: )

well let me ask you this: who'd win in a fight between superman and thor? thor is a god afterall. he probably crush superman's balls with mjollnir, causing superman to have to run off the fortress of solitude to put ice on them.:lol::p

[MoonSylver]

well let me ask you this: who'd win in a fight between superman and thor? thor is a god afterall. he probably crush superman's balls with mjollnir, causing superman to have to run off the fortress of solitude to put ice on them.:lol::p

Ooooohhhh no...I'm not goin' THERE!!! ;)















(Ok....I am...Supe's invulnerability doesn't extend to magic. Thor's hammer is made of mystical Uru metal, plus has all kinds of enchantments laid on top of it, so yeah...kinda have to agree. Unless of course Superman relies on his super speed, in which case Thor might not be able to land a hit on him....)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_U1sNSxy9T0E/STyYuwrSd8I/AAAAAAAAAW0/AlIpy3pqh38/s320/Superman_vs_Thor.jpg

[krakenslayer]

Yeah, but considering Superman can push planets out of orbit, can fly so fast he travels back in time, that his powers basically seem to be adjusted to whatever situation he is in (i.e. sometimes struggles to lift a heavy bus, yet sometimes lifts a continent off the face of the earth with only a little more exertion), and that he is more or less immortal, I'd say Superman is - for all intents and purposes - just as much a god as Thor is.

After all, what is a god if not simply a being that's more powerful than we could ever hope to be?

Can't believe I'm having this conversation.:lol:

[Trin]

So, wait a second...the poll shows (currently) that just over a third of responders think that 28 Days Later is a zombie movie. Now, setting aside the fact that this is a tiny population to poll, one third is a sizable chunk of responders for something you allude to being a cut and dry matter...especially considering this is a GAR fansite.Lol - I was pure tongue-in-cheek my friend. Poking fun at the tendency of HPOTD polls to leave people in the majority or in the group that claims the poll's wording was bad. And I'm guilty of being in both categories - sometimes in the same poll!!! :lol:

Thor vs. Superman. What a stupid conversation. This could never happen. Thor is Marvel and Superman is DC. Geesh...

And Superman would win. He's got higher marketability.

[Mike70]

Ooooohhhh no...I'm not goin' THERE!!! ;)


(Ok....I am...Supe's invulnerability doesn't extend to magic. Thor's hammer is made of mystical Uru metal, plus has all kinds of enchantments laid on top of it, so yeah...kinda have to agree. Unless of course Superman relies on his super speed, in which case Thor might not be able to land a hit on him....)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_U1sNSxy9T0E/STyYuwrSd8I/AAAAAAAAAW0/AlIpy3pqh38/s320/Superman_vs_Thor.jpg

dudes, dudes, dudes - this was a total joke in response to the mighty mouse/superman throwdown. i wasn't seriously intending to start a discussion about it.

our collective nerdiness still amazes me.

this is it a zombie movie or not is starting to sound like the "tastes great!", "less filling!" beer commercials.

[AcesandEights]

dudes, dudes, dudes - this was a total joke in response to the mighty mouse/superman throwdown. i wasn't seriously intending to start a discussion about it.


Too late :D




Thor vs. Superman. What a stupid conversation. This could never happen. Thor is Marvel and Superman is DC. Geesh...

Ahh, but there have already been crossovers between the companies to allow the characters to meet and fight (Supes beat Thor...that time :( ).


And Superman would win. He's got higher marketability.

Boooooo! I like Thor :p

Here (http://old-wizard.com/thor-vs-superman)'s an interesting breakdown of a possible fight between the two and their different edges:



The Mighty Thor and Superman are the heavy-hitters of Marvel and DC respectively, each of them arguably the most powerful hero in their respective universes. So its natural that this is the most discussed versus debate amongst comic book fans. No other versus battle comes close to being talked about as much than this one. Some of you may remember our “Top 10 Most Powerful Superheroes” list that we released a while back, where we made the controversial claim that Thor was the most powerful superhero of all time (Superman coming in at number three on that list). Months later we are still receiving emails either agreeing with us, or flaming us for that decision. Many fans cite Superman’s speed as the deciding factor in any fight between the two behemoths. Other emails claiming that Thor’s magical powers would be enough to stop the man of steel in his tracks. So, the natural question is, do we still stand by our claim that Thor is more powerful than Superman? The answer is still “yes.” In this article we’ll break down the seven most common arguments and give you our take on them.

1. Super Strength

The claim has often been made that Superman is stronger than Thor. Many times on versus forums threads this claim is accepted as a given by both sides of the debate. We don’t concede that the Man of Steel is physically stronger than the god of thunder though. Thor has performed feats such as lifting the World Serpent, and once hurled the Odinsword, an enormous mystical blade, through a Celestial. A Celestial! Thor has also single-handedly matched the strength of the Hulk on numerous occasions (the Marvel Universe’s strongest character). Not only that but Thor is capable of entering into a state known as the “Warrior’s Madness”, which will temporarily increase his strength tenfold. Some of these feats have no true equivalent in the DC universe. We think at the very least, the two character’s physical strength is equal.

2 . Super Speed

This is Superman’s one true advantage in this fight. Superman is fast. We’re talking warp speed fast. We’re talking once around the entire planet and back before you can blink fast. You could easily make the argument that Thor would be lucky if he even saw Superman before he got pounded. But is Thor as slow as everyone seems to think? Unknown to many DC fanboys Thor can throw his hammer at the speed of light (See Thor#140, Thor#274). He can also swing it at TWICE the speed of light (Journey Into Mystery#102). In Thor -#393- it’s established that the speed of Thor’s hammer TRANSCENDS both TIME & SPACE. In addition Thor can appear anywhere across the Universe or other dimensions in just seconds (see- FF#339, and Thor#166). And, most importantly, Thor could, visually, detect objects that move at fantastic speeds (this happened when Thor was the target of artillery fire- see Invaders#33- and Avengers-#281- when he saw the speedy Hermes. And yes, I do need a life). It’s true that he doesn’t use these abilities often, but how many times have you seen Superman not use his super speed when he should have?

3. Stanima

Who can take more punishment, Thor or Superman? This is a difficult question. Thor has withstood a blast from Asgardian Destroyer. Superman has withstood a direct hit from a nuclear bomb. Thor has taken everything the Hulk could dish out. Thor also once took a glancing hit by a Doomsday Bomb that was capable of destroying an entire planet, and soon after that explosion he fell from space (leaving a crater miles wide) to a planet called Pangoria-see Thor#387. Both characters have come back from the dead a couple of times. In my mind this one is a draw. Both characters have approximately the same stanima. The difference is Superman has weaknesses (i.e. Kryptonite and Magic) whereas Thor pretty much doesn’t.

4. Magic

Even the most diehard Superman fan would concede that Thor’s magical abilities would be an advantage for Thor. First, I would like to note that just because an opponent can wield magic, it in no way guarantees a win over the last son of Krypton. Superman has defeated countless magic users in the past, and so I have no illusions that just because Thor has magic powers and a magic hammer that he would automatically own Superman. That being said magic is just as lethal against supes as kryptonite. Superman has no defense against it, and it can affect him greatly. Superman getting pounded by Mjolnir is the same as you and me getting pounded by a normal hammer. And consider the guy who’s swinging it. It’s Thor. The god of thunder. Not only that, but Thor’s lightning is magical too. Remember that just a single lightning bolt is equivalent to 15,000,000 volts of electricity and could travel over 224,000 miles an hour. The clear advantage here goes to Thor.

5. Super Powers

Before Thor inherited the Odinforce, the super powers of these two heroes were a little more even. Now there is absolutely no contest. Thor has a clear edge over Superman here. His magical hammer gives Thor the ability to control the weather, the ability to fly; energy projection and absorption; dimensional apertures; matter manipulation, as well as the most powerful of his offensives: the God Blast, and the Anti-Force. Superman is no push over in this department either, with the already mentioned super strength, super speed, as well as heat vision, x-ray vision, enhanced senses, and the ability to blow hurricane force winds from his mouth. But what is that compared to being able to summon an actual hurricane? Not only that but with the Odinforce Thor was then capable of feats such as reconstructing the Earth’s Moon, willing the Asgardian monster Mangog into nothingness, and by focusing his entire power into a hammer throw even decapitated a Desak-occupied Asgardian Destroyer. Having accepted his heritage as the son of the earth goddess Gaea, he has recently been shown to be capable of opening chasms in the earth itself, and who knows what other abilities he’ll be displaying now that he’s done that.

6. Superman beat Thor in the Avengers / DC Crossover

I don’t want to spend much time on this one. Most fans of comics know how much weight we should give to crossovers. I personally have no doubt that Superman would beat Galactus in a crossover. He’s DC’s flagship character after all. Enough said on that one.

7. Thor has Thousands of Years of Combat Experience

This is a common argument used by Thor fans to claim that Thor would take down Superman. It seems fairly obvious. If I somehow gained super powers and a Viking Warrior somehow gained the exact same or nearly equivalent powers, most people would put their money on the Viking if we fought each other. Now imagine the Viking warrior was thousands of years older than me, and had been using his powers for all those thousands of years to battle trolls, giants, demons, robots, aliens, and gods, and I have only been using my powers for 20-30 years. It seems clear to me that the Viking Warrior god has a clear cut advantage over me in a fight. Again advantage Thor.

It seems obvious to me that Thor has a clear advantage over Superman in a fight. I don’t think that Thor is so powerful that there is no way that Superman could ever defeat him. But I believe that the majority of the time Thor would beat Superman in a one on one fight, assuming its not a fight to the death. If it is a fight to the death, then I think Thor would almost invariably win. So there you have it, the definitive answer to one of the most talked about and controversial debates in comic book nerdom. Brought to you by your pals at Old-Wizard.com.

[darth los]

^^

I guess the direction this thread has taken is only natural. It had run it's course but people still want to debate along the lines of, "tastes great, less filling".


Imo, I like it. Why can't we nerd out on different things?

Man cannot live on zombies/infected alone.





:cool:

[Andy]

I Cant beleive this topic is still going and is now soooooo far from the original point.. im putting this topic to sleep before it degenerates into flaming.