Escalation of Zombie Threat Level Via..

[Wyldwraith]

Ok,
There's all sorts of debates about what constitutes a zombie movie, what sort of zombie is the "true" zombie, and even debates about which of these elements in what combination will place a movie in the Zombie-Film Genre.

So, I have something I want to point out in all of this. Escalation.
What do I mean by that? It's simple really. As scriptwriters/moviemakers discover some measure of increasing success by augmenting the capabilities of their zombies, two things happen.

1) The older, more "classic" creative archetypes become marginalized. There are tons of factors that work in combination to make this statement true, but this thread isn't meant to explore all of those factors. Just accept the notion as a working assumption for what follows. So, as more and more running-zombie movies come out, less and less shambling-zombie movies are created.

2) The training of the viewing public to equate scariness with the physical lethality of the monster begins. While on its own this is nothing new, it does begin the process of nudging viewer expectations away from the claustrophobically relentless sort of fear iconic of the zombie genre, and towards other more direct/overt forms of horror. It does one other thing as well. It begins a "zombie arms race" of sorts.

IMO, once the audience embraces the running zombie simply because of its more overt action-intense methodology on the part of the ghouls, it's only a matter of time before an easily bored viewing populace no longer respond to the direct action-oriented sort of thrill that movies like Dawn '04 offer. Once that happens, the money men behind the industry start demanding even more threatening ghouls. Running after their victims not enough? Have them bound onto their hapless human prey like great cats leaping for the kill. Bounding leaps not enough? Have the zombies become smarter. Ghouls working in packs to herd fleeing humans into ambushes. Zombies systematically testing the perimeters of survivor safehouses for weaknesses etc.

Where do we ultimately end up? With a creature that has far more in common with a vampire than a zombie.

What evidence of the trend reaching such a ridiculous extreme can I present? Brian Keene's The Rising and City of the Dead come to mind. Big Daddy give you a migraine? Try on a population of zombies who retain their complete physical and mental proficiency after reanimation for size.

My point in all this is simple really. The traditional "Romero-esque" zombie is a minimalist entity. It's power to frighten lies in the paradox that despite a human being's vast superiority over this creature, they can bring us and our works down into the dust.

Once you abandon the simple you're left with the complex. As a thing grows more complex it has less and less in common with its first-generation progenitor. Increase the complexity of the zombie through enough phases of creative evolution it will simply stop being a zombie at some point.

Don't believe me? Then ask yourself why GAR was able to portray an outbreak from start to finish in 3 brilliant and 1 so-so/fair movie, but the Resident Evil franchise was reviled starting with the first sequel?

To me it's as simple as the idea that GAR worked with a creative constant to build an evolving narrative, while the makers of the RE films tried to make their antagonists evolve to make the narrative evolve along with them.

It isn't as simple as liking shamblers or runners. It's a question IMO of whether the viewing populace's demands for "MORE, FASTER, IN OUR FACES!!" will leave us with anything we can call a zombie at all.

Just my .02

[sgrosse]

This was a well thought out post but I might add something as well.

As a species we are on the top tier of the food chain. Although many creatures maintain a level of supremecy in there own enviroments(sharks are dominate in water, lions are superior on the plains) we still maintain the most important evolutionary trait. We have the ability to adapt to whatever threat we face. And as such we find ourselves in a very strange predicament. Even though we do not face immenant danger(with the exception of the threat of each other, and possibly Chuck Norris) our imaginations keep dreaming up scenarios of events that would endanger us. It is a instinct that we all carry that helps us adapt to our surroundings. So now that we dont have to worry about lions, bears and sharks we focus our attentions on more otherworldly predators such as Vampires, Demons and of course, Zombies.

At first people were content with the slow shambling Zombie. It was new and the idea of a walking corpse sole bent on eating you was terrifying. To be fair it still is. But after a few decades the terror fades. People are not as afraid of the shambling zombie as they used to be. So in order to keep that ole survival instinct alive we dream up something even more dangerous. And what is more dangerous than a slow unstoppable zombie horde? Well a fast running unstoppable zombie horde. Now the zombie has reached berserker status and our collective psyche can chew on it(pun intended) for a while and it stays sharp.

It is no coincident that we keep dreaming up faster stronger zombies. And although it might seem like it is all due to a degredation of our taste in the suspense, it is in my opinion that what is more at fault is our tendency to create things that we cannot escape from.

These are just my opinions of course. I am sure there is someone out there with more experience in evolutionary traits than I am(it wouldnt be hard to find one). take care yall.

[Wyldwraith]

Hmm,
You raise an excellent point. If people become interested in running-zombie, and other augmented ghoul-based films because it stirs the primal part of us related to perceiving/fearing threats to ourselves, then the trend in the viewing public is in all likelihood here to stay.

However, that's a separate issue from the financiers of low-grade survival horror films trying to exploit this trend by "upping the ante" through the utilization of more and more individually dangerous zombies. The viewing public isn't a hegemonic mass composed of people who all like the exact same thing.
If the writers and directors interested in pursuing projects that utilize more classic forms of zombies, then the money-men are quite capable of almost entirely eliminating all but the trendy formats of survival horror films.

Now THAT disturbs me. The fact that people like Uwe Boll always seem to be able to snag enough cash to keep pumping out a steady stream of pseudo-zombie crapfests, but talented directors can't get their projects off the ground bothers me, a lot.

I try to be an open-minded sort. I don't always succeed, but I try. Heck, I even find the good in each of the Resident Evil films, especially extinction. So I'm not some GAR-fanboy, or zombie purist railing at the evolution of my beloved genre. My problem isn't with different kinds of survival horror movies, it's with SHITTY survival horror movies.

Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave doesn't suck because the zombies are agile and quick on their feet. It sucks because the plot and characterization are thinner than the weak attempt at a plot you'd find in a cheap porno, the FX look like they were handled by a finger-painting retard, and the camera work makes The Blair Witch look like the height of professionalism.

Let's face the core truth though. When one experiments/deviates from the successful/tried 'n true format, some of those experiments are bound to be complete failures. That's when the screenwriters, directors, actors and everyone else involved in making the movie(s) give it their all. A lot of times you can tell that this simply isn't the case.

Or is someone going to tell me that Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis/Rave to the Grave, Undead and movies of similar ilk were the very best efforts their creators were capable of delivering?

If that's the case, then a lot of these folks should be doing ANYTHING but making movies.

My .02