The Zombie Genre is Flawed

[bassman]

Stumbled onto this article or blog or whatever you call them these days...

http://goseetalk.com/2010/04/20/random-film-thought-of-the-day-zombies/

The last one I agree with(looking at you, ROTLD), but the others don't make much sense, imo. The dead don't finish the meal because the character gets away after being bitten. Simple enough, isn't it?


Is this guy a member? It feels like he is.:lol:

[Marie]

Let me get this straight.... he's expecting logic from films that depict THE DEAD RISING?

And where in any zombie movie have we seen the dead digging themselves out of the grave? Or even with dirty hands? It's the recently dead that rise, at least in Romero's films.

For a zombie fan this guy dosen't pay attention.

M_

[bassman]

For a zombie fan this guy dosen't pay attention.


:lol: That was my first thought.

As for the digging - He was referring to films outside of Romero's. It happens in quite a few but Return of the Living Dead and Thriller spring to mind.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Don't forget Cemetary Man

[Mr.G]

He makes some solid points; especially his first regarding becoming a zombie.

[BillyRay]

Seems to me the author should have used the 'Search' function on this site before he wrote his article.

IT'S THERE FOR A REASON, PEOPLE!! :lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Seems to me the author should have used the 'Search' function on this site before he wrote his article.

IT'S THERE FOR A REASON, PEOPLE!! :lol:

Signal Bassman with the chime in.

[bassman]

IT'S THERE FOR A REASON, PEOPLE!! :lol:

Douche.:lol:

[AcesandEights]

I have to go back and fully read the article, but after reading the first few paragraphs and doing a skim from there I was not impressed. Seems like the premise of the article is that the genre is broken because it has yet to fill in the cracks of the author's failing imagination by answering every little question he has, or deliver every set piece he has been longing to see.

I agree with Marie that the dude does not seem to pay attention or give much thought to what is being shown on screen in these films. He is also, in some cases, looking for universalist answers for a genre whose main components (the zombie, the 'infection' and to a lesser degree means of transmission) vary greatly depending on the individual media.

I'll read it later this afternoon when I have more time, but that's my basic take on a skim reading.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Has the guy even watched the original DAWN of the DEAD... especially the scene with Stephen in the elevator?

[darth los]

Has the guy even watched the original DAWN of the DEAD... especially the scene with Stephen in the elevator?

Well deej, in an era where most people don't even know their own cell phone numbers does that really suprise you?

:cool:

[sandrock74]

Man, I am SO angry that we didn't have the camera linger on Flyboy in the elevator while he died and the "hours later" (according to Fran's line) when he was reanimated and accidently freed by the zombies in the mall. We could have watched Flyboy be dead and eventually reanimate and do nothing FOR HOURS! What a wasted opportunity! :mad:

[AcesandEights]

Quote of the millennium from one of the posters responding to that article on that site:


I had the same question about the life span of a zombie and glad 28 Days at least addressed that…

:stunned:

Let's set aside what thematically constitutes a zombie here and focus on the fact that the 28 Days Later infected are alive...you know, subject to their own mortality, as opposed to traditional undead zombies.

[bassman]

Let's set aside what thematically constitutes a zombie here and focus on the fact that the 28 Days Later infected are alive...you know, subject to their own mortality, as opposed to traditional undead zombies.

I agree....but man you probably just opened a can of worms with that one.:lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Again... 28 Days Later infected are ZOMBIES. They are what is known as Automatons, another definition of ZOMBIE

[AcesandEights]

Again... 28 Days Later infected are ZOMBIES. They are what is known as Automatons, another definition of ZOMBIE

Again, let me reiterate per my statement...


Let's set aside what thematically constitutes a zombie here and focus on the fact that the 28 Days Later infected are alive...you know, subject to their own mortality, as opposed to traditional undead zombies.

Nothing in my above statement had anything to do with whether 28 DL infected are zombies, I was setting it aside because that is not the startlingly stupid thing about what that person posted.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Just an FYI... I only chimed n because Bassman more orless put a dare out there... not to really debate you on your reply. I got where you were coming from... I just wanted to push a button or two. :D

Its friday and I am bored. :D

[bassman]

I'm more powerful than Miss Cleo. :p

http://dontgosouth.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/misscleo.jpg

[AcesandEights]

I just wanted to push a button or two. :D


Mission accomplished :D

I was all like 'He didn't even read my post!' Rolled up my sleeves and was like 'It's on!'

Happy Friday, btw.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Mission accomplished :D

I was all like 'He didn't even read my post!' Rolled up my sleeves and was like 'It's on!'

Happy Friday, btw.

That is about the only mission I am accomplishing today.

Ain't that a bitch.

Happy friday to you too. :D

[Trin]

So 28 Days Later finally answered the question of how long a living person can live?

[DjfunkmasterG]

So 28 Days Later finally answered the question of how long a living person can live?

When they are infected with Rage

[Andy]

Again... 28 Days Later infected are ZOMBIES. They are what is known as Automatons, another definition of ZOMBIE

They are not.....

deep breaths.. deep breaths.. deep breaths... must resist..

[Trin]

That is about the only mission I am accomplishing today.
Looks like you got a little collateral damage there Deej. :lol:

Let me get you started there Andy. "Are they running breathing zombies with pulses who are alive?"

[Yojimbo]

Let me get this straight.... he's expecting logic from films that depict THE DEAD RISING?

And where in any zombie movie have we seen the dead digging themselves out of the grave? Or even with dirty hands? It's the recently dead that rise, at least in Romero's films.

For a zombie fan this guy dosen't pay attention.

M_

I too am in agreement with Marie. If anything is flawed it this dude's powers of observation & reasoning. Like most blogs, this is more about how clever he thinks he is than anything else. Got to question his taste too, since absent from his list of favorite zombie films are a number of films much better than Snyder's DAWN bullshit reimagining.

[DjfunkmasterG]

They are not.....

deep breaths.. deep breaths.. deep breaths... must resist..

They are... PERIOD! INFINITY x INFINITY. Discussion closed :D

[shootemindehead]

I got to this part...

"Take for instance, the scene in Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead."

...and stopped.

[ProfessorChaos]

here are the major flaws of the zombie genre, according to me:

1. track-star zombies
2. talking zombies
3. vegetarian zombies
4. remakes of classics with the likes of nick cannon and mena five-head casted
5. over-saturation of shitty zombie films

i'm really keeping the faith in "world war z" and "the walking dead" tv series to represent ghouls the way they should be depicted. maybe that'll turn things around...before we have to deal with crap like zombieland 3 with justin bieber starring alongside tom hanks or some bullshit...

[Andy]

They are... PERIOD! INFINITY x INFINITY. Discussion closed :D

Your suggesting that a living, breathing person who eventually starves and dies who has a virus which makes them homicidal but not hungry for flesh is a member of the undead?

You notice the 2 key words there being "living" and "undead".. even if you choose to ignore the rest of what makes up a modern zombie like the flesh eating, you cant deny that they are the undead. if you go as far back as white zombie, which was the first zombie movie ever, its still a key trait that they are the dead risen.

Its stressed in 28 days that rage sufferers are victims of a disease but are still alive. Thus, not zombies.

Case closed.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Your suggesting that a living, breathing person who eventually starves and dies who has a virus which makes them homicidal but not hungry for flesh is a member of the undead?

You notice the 2 key words there being "living" and "undead".. even if you choose to ignore the rest of what makes up a modern zombie like the flesh eating, you cant deny that they are the undead. if you go as far back as white zombie, which was the first zombie movie ever, its still a key trait that they are the dead risen.

Its stressed in 28 days that rage sufferers are victims of a disease but are still alive. Thus, not zombies.

Case closed.


CASE NOT CLOSED ! :p See bold statement.

Definitions of zombie on the Web:

* zombi: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force
* zombi: a god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped especially in West Indies
* automaton: someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic way;

[Yojimbo]

CASE NOT CLOSED ! :p See bold statement.

Definitions of zombie on the Web:

* zombi: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force
* zombi: a god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped especially in West Indies
* automaton: someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic way;

This is why NOLD, DOTD, DAY, et al should not be referred to as a zombie film since the term "zombie" allows for films like "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers", "Rabid" and "Shivers - aka: They Came From Within" to be defined as "zombie films"

So maybe it should be "living dead" or "undead" which would both be terms which would apply to the GAR films and not allow for "rage infected" to fall under the umbrella
Personally I prefer "living dead" to "undead" because of the lame, emo themed Vampire association that "undead" has.

[Andy]

Definitions of zombie on the Web:

* zombi: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force
* zombi: a god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped especially in West Indies
* automaton: someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic way;

I Can find a defination of anything to fit anything on the web. Also, the behaviour of a 28 days infectected cannot be described as that of a mechanical of apathetic person, they are infected with rage, full of rage, attacking with passion..

Your point is self destructive as it disproves itself.

[DjfunkmasterG]

But they are programmed to attack which is mechanical in nature, therefore they are Automatons, and therefore ZOMBIES :D



edit: BTW Andy... this is an argument no one can win with me. They will always be zombies to me.

[Danny]

this thread is enough to make someone an hero.

as for the article night of the living dead was a b movie, eating flesh was a freaky idea they used as a hook. of course it doesnt make sense when you think about it. The only context it would is in the case of something like the zombies in autumn where they only want to kill you, thats it. no biting none of that, but without the stupid flesh eating we would not have the virus hook.

Unfortunately this would have saved us all of the "hes been bitten" scenes that have followed.

Yes, reread that and think before you, yes you begin penning your zombie magnum opus. George did it right with dawn, and with some measure of dignity. adding it to a film now is cheap filler where you let past films write for you and its weak as shit.

Honestly this is why i dont watch to many zombie films anymore, read the last 3 pages for example, the proper reason the zombie sub genre is flawed? its the fans. its always the bloody fans with everything. why will the daleks always come back? the fans. why cant we have a black james bond? the fans. why cant the tired and beaten star wars ip be put to rest? the fans.

Romero set a fanbase into motion where originality and creative flair is either instantly dismissed or punished. Look at the whole "i hate running zombies im a purist" thing. what are these people purists OF? Zombie films in particular are stuck with such a rabid fanaticism sometimes that any and all attempt to change a status quo in something which doesnt exist is met with rage filled rejection and as a genre that cannot happen. Look at dawn '04, not the best movie ever. But the runners were scary as hell. could you survive better in the original or the remake? if you say the remake your giving yourself a lot of credit. Trouble was the idea of changing the formulae was just not acceptable, it never will be. People can blather about how they arent acting like "real" zombies. if you want these you may have heard of these films by George romero you may like. however this does not mean all things must follow in uniform mass produced order. Zombies are probably the only creature of folklore so badly put in a box they cant escape. imagine how many incarnations of werewolves we have seen onscreen. people can accept the things in teen wolf and ginger snaps are the same, hell the subtext of both movies are the same, but zombie fans have trouble with zombies that have slightly increased self perpetuated motion, imagine zombies that arent unbandaged mummies but something like sick people driven mad by a virus. still a mindless human automotan under control from an outside influence sure. but an original movie unrelated to romeros altering the formulae even slightly? SCANDELOUS.

So what happens? exactly what i said. romero did a bite scene, so must the imitator. notice i use imitator, not filmmaker. Thats because plenty of people make a zombie film which in this day and age can only be a fan homage' at best.
I cant count on both hands a dozen times over the amount of films ive seen in the last ten years where its roughly half a dozen people in an isolated building with grey facepainted people outside. Its like a checklist. someones bitten, check. one guy makes stupid choice to be 'the cooper', check. attempt to 'make it to the car' check. its all the same. its literally the same movie. Thats the biggest problem right there. people arent making a zombie film, there making a romero film. do different your instantly hated.

Hell this is touched on in the thread where everyone ranted on the zombie riding a horse in survival of the dead. we have PAGES of people arguing about an imaginary creature and what it can and cannot do and its asinine. As the blogger in the article linked by bass states, any semblance of logic to the zombie idea breaks it down. Making sense of the unreal doesn't make sense in and of itself. The zombies have always been, at there heart, the motivator. The natural disaster that dispels some form of structure before it, some outside element to upset the status quo.

They have never been, at least in romeros films, an 'enemy' but something to cause this reversion to frontier times. When its every man for himself to stake his claim and issues of trust and sharing without the law of anything but your gun gives rise to human enemies. Romeros films have always been about people. People overcoming challenges in a world with a situation that is truly ridiculous. Maybe its some perverse fascination with that idea of "finally no law to stop me being the big dog" or something or just the allure of being the hero against an enemy where you really only need basic common sense to overcome and be the hero that appeals to some people but by and large the, for lack of a better term, human nature of zombies in terms of movie monsters literally limits them and there is only so many ways they can be used.
As i said, any variance is met with harsh disapproval from the holy romero canon and therefore the absurdities must also be cemented.

They eat flesh. why? because romero said so.

Bram stoker also said vampires could turn into bats though. last time i checked blade, interview with a vampire or hell, even twilight didnt suffer from a change from that.

Honestly im ramblin' but the article is right, albeit for the wrong reasons. the zombie sub genre is intrinsically flawed. However because any originality or flair is rejected it cannot change. its popularity will ebb and flow, but whilst broken it can never truly break either. the same reason the films romero inspired have become many and stale is why those movies keep being released regardless.

Its the idea of the zombie. it doesn't make sense. it is stupid. but the idea of it keeps people coming regardless of that.

we may not be able to change it, to improve or allow room to grow, but it will always be there to scare people as the nightmare scenario even if it never makes any bloody sense.

[Cikorpyan]

First off I am drunk as hell (get use to that!... and thank god for grammar + spell check) , but even being totally inebriated and pretty much useless in any other capacity… the logic here is lacking. I think the zombie “lore” is inclusive to each film and not necessarily exclusive to the genre as a whole. You cannot patchwork the plots of different movies together to establish “rules” or “certainties” just compare any ROTLD to any Romero film or even to later ROTLD film and the differences become apparent. As for the justification of a “change” scene… there was an entire plot line involving Roger changing and Peter pretty much watching it happen knowing the eventual outcome. Knowing he was going to have to “finish off” his friend. Later on, we know Steven is gone the second he took that first bite, hell considering the gunshots and lack of real medical care he is pretty much doomed the second he is shot...

There are other issues from non-Romero films such as zombies coming out of sealed caskets and such… but considering the context of the films that occurs I think that the answers to those questions is quite apparent… DON”T ASK! These films do not require thinking they are just fun comedy/horror/drama meant to be enjoyed with a beer (whiskey in my case). I don’t think every movie is suppose to be a masterpiece of cinema or logic… if I wanted realism I would watch the news… or not considering the coverage we get these days.

Oh and a side note I thought it was amusing he quoted the remake in his article as being part of the “unholy trinity” yet used images from the original…

[Wyldwraith]

I agree the genre is flawed because of the fans,
Like most everything great, the addition of people TO it, or people LIKING IT = the degradation or even the destruction of IT, whatever IT happens to be atm.

The problem is more basic still than people rabidly fanboy-drooling while insisting Romero's formulae be followed to the later. People in the majority are unimaginative. That's it, simple as that. Change frightens and puts off many, because change requires them to think, and that in itself can make them afraid.

We allow vampires and werewolves to be constantly reimagined because no one franchise was the conceptual mother of either in a widespread, introduction-to-the-public kind of way. Romero movies created the formula because the formula existed nowhere else than in his films. Then, having been created, people could tolerate no deviation from it, for the reasons already mentioned.

In actuality the same "It's the Same Movie" gripe can be made about EVERY SINGLE FRANCHISE movie series. Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween...

Take something as different from zombies as you can imagine. The Xenoforms from Aliens.

Why does everyone hate the 3rd movie, yet accept/condone the 4th of even lower quality? Simple. The third departed from established convention and the 4th returned to it.

Just a fact of life that in our culture success itself is an ossifying factor. You'd think we'd want to celebrate and uplift our most creative people to new heights....if you're from another planet. Having been born here, you instead know that creating a successful intellectual property will necessitate following the same thrice-damned formula in God-only-knows-how-many more installments in that franchise.

Hell, if you want to do anything different you just about have to create a new way to reach a potential fan base at the same time. Like the phenomena of Internet Authors who first release their finished books for free, word of mouth creates buzz, then they get a book deal.

Why didn't David Moody simply send Autumn to Bantam Books? Simple, they'd have pissed on it and set it on fire. A horror novel that isn't about an abstract unfathomably vague supernatural menace, and one not written by Stephen King? THE HERESY.

So maybe that's it then. If you want more inventive zombie movies, come up with a whole new way to get the movie to potential viewers...before u even make the movie. Worked for the guys writing non-Romero zombie novels...

[Andy]

But they are programmed to attack which is mechanical in nature, therefore they are Automatons, and therefore ZOMBIES :D



edit: BTW Andy... this is an argument no one can win with me. They will always be zombies to me.

This is also a argument nobody has ever won with me, they are not zombies.. they are living people infected with a virus and they attack out of rage, pure uncontrollable unthinking rage. Brutal, yes, homicidal definatly.. but hardly mechanical or apathetic?

They dont eat the flesh of their victims, they arnt dead or undead and even your own defination dosnt fit them properly. They are not zombies.

[mista_mo]

Again... 28 Days Later infected are ZOMBIES. They are what is known as Automatons, another definition of ZOMBIE


That is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read.





:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

This is also a argument nobody has ever won with me, they are not zombies.. they are living people infected with a virus and they attack out of rage, pure uncontrollable unthinking rage. Brutal, yes, homicidal definatly.. but hardly mechanical or apathetic?

They dont eat the flesh of their victims, they arnt dead or undead and even your own defination dosnt fit them properly. They are not zombies.

ZOMBIES

BTW Read # 3 & # 4

me·chan·i·cal (m-kn-kl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to machines or tools: mechanical skill.
2. Operated or produced by a mechanism or machine: a mechanical toy dog.
3. Of, relating to, or governed by mechanics.
4. Performed or performing in an impersonal or machine like manner; automatic: a droning, mechanical delivery of the speech.
5. Relating to, produced by, or dominated by physical forces: the mechanical aspect of trumpet playing.
6. Philosophy Interpreting and explaining the phenomena of the universe by referring to causally determined material forces; mechanistic.
7. Of or relating to manual labor, its tools, and its skills.

Still Zombie


That is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read.





:cool:

I highly doubt that :p:D

[mista_mo]

I see that you attempt to define zombies by using the defintion of mechanical.

Lets see, I will define road right now.

ROAD

dick 2 (dĭk)
n.

1. Chiefly British A fellow; a guy.
2. Vulgar A penis.
3. Vulgar A person, especially a man, regarded as mean or contemptible.

tr.v. dicked, dick·ing, dicks Vulgar

1. To take advantage of; cheat.
2. To have sexual intercourse with.

Phrasal Verb(s):
dick around Vulgar

1. To spend time idly; fool around.
2. To be sexually promiscuous.

dick up Vulgar To botch or bungle.

Game set and match.

[krakenslayer]

I probably wouldn't call the infected of 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later zombies, but I would call the films themselves zombie movies, or at least kind-of-zombie movies. Why? Because they use the conventions, share the same focus and possess the same plot dynamic as an archetypal zombie movie, i.e.: humans fighting a horde of once-normal, now abnormal and mindlessly murderous, enemies who are less intelligent and articulated than the unaffected protagonists but have strength in numbers and sheer relentlessness. Sure, one or two of the minor details are different (notably that they are not actually "undead" and, therefore, are not truly zombies in most people's vocabulary), but "zombie movie" just perfectly describes the general set-up in quick, easy shorthand, and is sufficient to explain the film to almost anyone and have them immediately understand exactly what kind of movie to expect.

If anyone really feels so strongly about the minute semantics that they cannot bear to hear 28 Days Later referred to as a zombie movie, then I suggest they get a life and stop sweating the small stuff :D:lol:

In a sense, the use of the word "zombie" in relation to the infected could pretty much fall into the same category. "Infected", to someone outside zombie geekdom, probably has more connotations of "having AIDs, the flu, etc.", whereas "zombie" immediately conjures up an image of a mindless, violent enemy. It may not be semantically perfect, but it conveys the meaning simply and easy without having to go into absurd descriptive detail.

[mista_mo]

I actually think that most of the talk related to the definition of the word zombie in this thread is just joking around, Krak.

At least I hope so.

[Danny]

Take something as different from zombies as you can imagine. The Xenoforms from Aliens.


you know in my post i was going to go on a tangent about the alien but didnt but it is basically the same deal. How on earth did a species that procreates the way it did evolve to the point it is in the films and not wipe out everthing on there homeworld before they could get to this point?

Its not movie spoiling, neither is zombies eating there victims, it just doesnt make much sense when you think about it.

[Andy]

DJ - Your just reiterating a point which i have already disproved by posting your dictionary defination, again, the infected of 28 days attack their victims out of pure rage.. its the polar oppisite of mechanical and apathetic.

Mista - I Dont think ive laughed so hard at a reply this year..

[rongravy]

Wow. Just wow.
28 Days Later and sequel...
Not zombies due to the fact alone that they waited for them to starve and die, which zombies don't normally do. Good movies, though. Everytime I watch with my wife she harps on the fact that the dood left his wife to die. Then, when she's semi-safe, he gouges her eyes out. Ha!

[Trin]

I probably wouldn't call the infected of 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later zombies, but I would call the films themselves zombie movies, or at least kind-of-zombie movies. Why? Because they use the conventions, share the same focus and possess the same plot dynamic as an archetypal zombie movie, i.e.: humans fighting a horde of once-normal, now abnormal and mindlessly murderous, enemies who are less intelligent and articulated than the unaffected protagonists but have strength in numbers and sheer relentlessness. Sure, one or two of the minor details are different (notably that they are not actually "undead" and, therefore, are not truly zombies in most people's vocabulary), but "zombie movie" just perfectly describes the general set-up in quick, easy shorthand, and is sufficient to explain the film to almost anyone and have them immediately understand exactly what kind of movie to expect.
This is a case of letting a series of movies define the genre. These movies are post-apocalyptic survival horror - often times *with* zombies. Often times without. Calling them zombie movies is just inaccurate. I would go so far as to say lazy.

Is 30 Days of Night a zombie movie? It meets all the criteria you've laid out. What about I Am Legend? Or Warning Sign? At some point we're talking about Waterworld as a zombie movie because it involves a small group struggling to survive in a post-apocalyptic world where the chief opponents are a dumb but plentiful group of idiots.

[Andy]

No no, i have to disagree.. using DJ's philosophy you could call practically any movie a zombie movie.

Using the proper defination, your protaganists in the movie are trying to survive in a world overrun by the antagonist, the undead, the zombies.

The key phrase being, the undead.

[Ollie_B1987]

Do you think that its solely Romero's input that has given these films their cult status?

The various different genre's within' horror will always be popular as there will always be dedicated fans to these; i.e Slasher fans, Zombie fans, vampire...etc etc. However, this doesn't mean that up and coming horror directors should fall into these boundaries to be successful. I mean just take a look at some of the unique films that have come out of Japan's horror cinema over the last decade - The Ring/Dark Water/The Grudge -Each of these films has had such a unique selling point that they have all been remade in the U.S.

Romero's zombie films have such a big niche market that they continue to be ever popular (42 years after the release of N.O.T.L.D) - As they saying goes; 'If it ain't broke don't fix it!'

[krakenslayer]

This is a case of letting a series of movies define the genre. These movies are post-apocalyptic survival horror - often times *with* zombies. Often times without. Calling them zombie movies is just inaccurate. I would go so far as to say lazy.

Is 30 Days of Night a zombie movie? It meets all the criteria you've laid out. What about I Am Legend? Or Warning Sign?

Is 30 Days of Night a zombie movie? No, it's a vampire movie. There already exists a genre for that, which is similar but historically distinct from zombie movies. There are probably some elements of zombie genre in there, but overall it's a vampire flick.

I Am Legend. Well, that's kinda borderline actually. The latest movie doesn't treat them as vampires and actually goes out of its way to avoid the vampire mythos. The way the movie treats the infected in is similar to the zombies in Land of the Dead and they even look a bit like zombies. I wouldn't call it a zombie flick but I wouldn't go all nerd rage on someone who did.


At some point we're talking about Waterworld as a zombie movie because it involves a small group struggling to survive in a post-apocalyptic world where the chief opponents are a dumb but plentiful group of idiots.

You're missing a MAJOR factor here: that the "dumb but plentiful idiots" are people who have in some way "turned" into something else and the whole paranoid aspect of potentially being "turned" into one of them yourself (and in the process losing your own intelligence and humanity).

As with anything else, I don't think people have to draw definitive lines in the sand and defend them all the time, what's the point? There is a continuum of genre and where one person draws a line between them will never be exactly where another person does so. In the end, it's not about laziness, but simply being realistic.

When my mother asks me what kind of movie 28 Days Later is, am I going to say "It's an infected people chasing a small group of individuals across a post apocalyptic landscape with various power struggles within the group movie", or am I gonna say "It's kind of a zombie movie"? :lol:

[Trin]

Is 30 Days of Night a zombie movie? No, it's a vampire movie. There already exists a genre for that, which is similar but historically distinct from zombie movies. There are probably some elements of zombie genre in there, but overall it's a vampire flick.
And 28 Days Later is a Plague movie.

My life is a zombie movie. There are a lot of people out there trying to convince me that zombie movies include anything that shares any single trait with zombies, and if they infect me I'll become one of them. But I'll resist. Because I don't want to come back... like that. I'm gonna try not to. I'm gonna try not to come back.

NERD RAGE!!!

[BillyRay]

Right.

It seems as if there's confusion between thematic elements in film and the actual monsters (zombies, here) "themselves".

28 Days Later is a "Zombie Film" in the sense that it has a lot of the same basic themes as anything in Unca George's back catalogue. Normal everyday people become murderous monsters thru a viral pandemic. A small but plucky group is trying to stay alive. The Government/Military isn't much help.

28 Days Later isn't a Zombie Film because they're just sick people, not technically the "Undead".

As far as I'm concerned, we're ALL...Right.


I'll shut up, now.

[Rancid Carcass]

I actually think that most of the talk related to the definition of the word zombie in this thread is just joking around

That may be, but it does raise an interesting issue regarding how people define what a zombie actually is or isn't.

Okay here's my theory...

The word Zombie has become more of an umbrella title these days rather than a specific word describing one particular creature. If you look the word up in a proper dictionary it will refer you to its voodoo origins and as someone acting in a mindless state. So yes the infected in 28 days later/Left 4 Dead are zombies as they are people acting in in a mindless state as per the original meanings of the word, but as has been argued countless times before, they are not the same as the modern Romero interpretation. So in essence you have 3 basic variations:

Voodoo Slave Zombies.
Living Dead Zombies.
Infected Human Zombies.

Plus whatever tweaks and pokes on these themes filmmakers etc. can come up with. If you think about it, it was Romero that corrupted the idea of what people thought zombies were. Up to that point zombies were Voodoo Slave Zombies, then suddenly NIGHT happened and we had Living Dead Zombies and the idea became embedded in popular culture. And now we have Infected Human Zombies though they've not had the same cultural impact - which is why when you say 'zombie' to someone they still think of the Living Dead variety – even though technically the word doesn't refer to them as being that.

So in conclusion, I suppose it is testament to extraordinary impact that George Romero has had on modern popular culture that he has managed to screw up the correct word usage of an entire generation and created one of those rare situations where everybody is right and everybody is wrong all at the same time. That my friends is true genius! :D

Oh, er... zombie genre flawed? Nah it's perfect!

[krakenslayer]

And 28 Days Later is a Plague movie.

When I hear plague movie I think Outbreak, Andromeda Strain, Ebola Syndrome, etc...



My life is a zombie movie. There are a lot of people out there trying to convince me that zombie movies include anything that
shares any single trait with zombies


Close, but that's not quite what I'm saying: I'm only suggesting that if a movie shares ENOUGH traits with the zombie genre, it's not a heinous crime to say "zombie movie" and just call it close enough for government work. Otherwise, you're heading towards pointless pedantry territory. :D

[Trin]

Where it's gonna get funny is when a movie has one zombie in it, but since it is not compliant with the whole "group of survivors against a horde of undead" it is not a "zombie" movie. Because that's where this is going.

Just because a whole group of people grew up calling it an ice box doesn't mean a refrigerator is an ice box.

[krakenslayer]

Where it's gonna get funny is when a movie has one zombie in it, but since it is not compliant with the whole "group of survivors against a horde of undead" it is not a "zombie" movie. Because that's where this is going.

This is my whole point - there's no central authority that declares hard and fast rules of genre. There are no clear lines, there is only a vague gradient, so we can't get all upright about what is and isn't a zombie movie. There's much more to life :D

If a movie had one zombie, and it was clearly defined as a classic undead zombie, then I'd call it a zombie movie based on that. But it depends on the context of the film: there are three or four zombies in Creepshow, but is it a zombie movie? I'd say no.

I could create a whole questionnaire that you could use to define what was a zombie movie in my book, with different boxes to tick each with different weighting, but it would be pointless because it's a matter of subjective opinion.

[DjfunkmasterG]

This is a case of letting a series of movies define the genre. These movies are post-apocalyptic survival horror - often times *with* zombies. Often times without. Calling them zombie movies is just inaccurate. I would go so far as to say lazy.

Is 30 Days of Night a zombie movie? It meets all the criteria you've laid out. What about I Am Legend? Or Warning Sign? At some point we're talking about Waterworld as a zombie movie because it involves a small group struggling to survive in a post-apocalyptic world where the chief opponents are a dumb but plentiful group of idiots.

30 Days of night is clearly a Vampire film. Laid out as such. I am Legend... I consider vampire with a zombie mix. The industry says Vampire, critics call it a zombie film... so I just mash them together.

While the 28 Days Later monsters may not be traditionally be zombies it is in fact a zombie movie of sorts, and the MONSTERS themselves are a form of zombie.

Tomato/ TOE-MA-TOE

---------- Post added at 08:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 AM ----------


This is my whole point - there's no central authority that declares hard and fast rules of genre. There are no clear lines, there is only a vague gradient, so we can't get all upright about what is and isn't a zombie movie. There's much more to life :D

If a movie had one zombie, and it was clearly defined as a classic undead zombie, then I'd call it a zombie movie based on that. But it depends on the context of the film: there are three or four zombies in Creepshow, but is it a zombie movie? I'd say no.

I could create a whole questionnaire that you could use to define what was a zombie movie in my book, with different boxes to tick each with different weighting, but it would be pointless because it's a matter of subjective opinion.


Yet the industry classifies Creepshow as a Zombie film. Go figure.

[Trin]

You know what was a good zombie movie? The Birds. Now that was a good zombie movie. With birds instead of zombies, of course. But the premise is basically the same. Heck, it was NOTLD with birds. Before Night even existed. Maybe we should say that Night was a great Bird Movie.

lol - I get what you guys are saying, I just think that it's a crying shame that people can't use the words they're given. Survival Horror. Is it so dang hard to classify things?

28 Days Later is really just Survival Horror. Even in the loose "Zombie Movie" terminology there are problems. Remember that the people can move about the city relatively unaccosted during the day. They roam around and hide at night. You might as well call Pitch Black a zombie movie. Personally, I think Pitch Black was a great Bird Movie.

[DjfunkmasterG]

You know what was a good zombie movie? The Birds. Now that was a good zombie movie. With birds instead of zombies, of course. But the premise is basically the same. Heck, it was NOTLD with birds. Before Night even existed. Maybe we should say that Night was a great Bird Movie.

lol - I get what you guys are saying, I just think that it's a crying shame that people can't use the words they're given. Survival Horror. Is it so dang hard to classify things?

28 Days Later is really just Survival Horror. Even in the loose "Zombie Movie" terminology there are problems. Remember that the people can move about the city relatively unaccosted during the day. They roam around and hide at night. You might as well call Pitch Black a zombie movie. Personally, I think Pitch Black was a great Bird Movie.

The birds was a great zombie movie... wasn't it also known as Zombie 5: Killing Birds. :lol:

[Trin]

The birds was a great zombie movie... wasn't it also known as Zombie 5: Killing Birds. :lol:
Return of the Living Birds 5: Ravian to the Gravian... lol

[krakenslayer]

Sure, The Birds was a chilling zombie movie; those scenes where the once-human avians pecked characters causing them to grow feathers and turn into mindless, murderous man-birds... that shit will stay with me for life! :p :D

[darth los]

You know, we're here joking about it, but for all we know the ghouls in GAr's fil could be "infected" as well, he does leave the door open for that. So what would that mean?

:cool:

[AcesandEights]

You know, we're here joking about it, but for all we know the ghouls in GAr's fil could be "infected" as well, he does leave the door open for that. So what would that mean?

:cool:

He's down with the sickness?

[Trin]

You know, we're here joking about it, but for all we know the ghouls in GAr's fil could be "infected" as well, he does leave the door open for that. So what would that mean?

:cool:It means that we've come full circle on this topic yet again. From "everything is a zombie movie" to "even GAR's movies aren't *really* zombie movies." You gotta love this topic.

Was Frankenstein a zombie movie? What about The Mummy?

[AcesandEights]

Was Frankenstein a zombie movie?

The answer is:

yi + (1/6) [k1 + 2k2 + 2k3 + k4]

[darth los]

It means that we've come full circle on this topic yet again. From "everything is a zombie movie" to "even GAR's movies aren't *really* zombie movies." You gotta love this topic.

Was Frankenstein a zombie movie? What about The Mummy?


Well, if we stick to the criteria laid out here of first being dead and then somehow reanimated, in a word, yes.

:cool:

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------


He's down with the sickness?

A-wah-wah-wah-wah. :D

:cool:

[Wyldwraith]

I get what the purists are saying,
However, at the same time I long ago switched to the Survival Horror-as-Umbrella category, with zombies occupying a separate genre. So my terminology goes like:

Night of the Living Dead: Zombie Movie
28 Days/Weeks Later: Survival Horror
Resident Evil 1-?: Zombie Movie
I Am Legend: Survival Horror

The key for me is that all Zombie Movies are also Survival Horror movies, but not all Survival Horror flicks are Zombie Movies. By calling the "hybrid" movies Survival Horror, I've created a "close enough" association amongst my regular circle of friends. If we're talking about a new movie and I say its Survival Horror, they envision something with many zombie-movie elements, that for whatever reason doesn't involve Classic Romero Ghouls.

Has worked for me ever since 28 Days Later came out. Don't see myself needing to ever change the system.

[Trin]

Yeah, I'm with you Wyld!! Survival Horror FTW!!

I think it'd be fun to have Dawn redone with people wrapped in bandages who died from an infection from alien vampire bats. Then we can bicker about whether it's a zombie movie, mummy movie, vampire movie, plague movie, alien movie, or my favorite - Bird Movie!!

The Happening - A zombie movie with Zombie Trees!!
The Mist - A zombie movie with Zombie Air!!
:moon:

[DjfunkmasterG]

He's down with the sickness?

Oooo WAH AH AH AH


Sorry couldn't resist :p

[Danny]

He's down with the sickness?

OOOHHM, CHIKKA, OOHHM-WIKKI-WIKKI!

had to be done.

[Andy]

I get what the purists are saying,
However, at the same time I long ago switched to the Survival Horror-as-Umbrella category, with zombies occupying a separate genre. So my terminology goes like:

Night of the Living Dead: Zombie Movie
28 Days/Weeks Later: Survival Horror
Resident Evil 1-?: Zombie Movie
I Am Legend: Survival Horror

The key for me is that all Zombie Movies are also Survival Horror movies, but not all Survival Horror flicks are Zombie Movies. By calling the "hybrid" movies Survival Horror, I've created a "close enough" association amongst my regular circle of friends. If we're talking about a new movie and I say its Survival Horror, they envision something with many zombie-movie elements, that for whatever reason doesn't involve Classic Romero Ghouls.

Has worked for me ever since 28 Days Later came out. Don't see myself needing to ever change the system.
I Could agree with that.

[krakenslayer]

I get what the purists are saying,
However, at the same time I long ago switched to the Survival Horror-as-Umbrella category, with zombies occupying a separate genre. So my terminology goes like:

Night of the Living Dead: Zombie Movie
28 Days/Weeks Later: Survival Horror
Resident Evil 1-?: Zombie Movie
I Am Legend: Survival Horror

The key for me is that all Zombie Movies are also Survival Horror movies, but not all Survival Horror flicks are Zombie Movies. By calling the "hybrid" movies Survival Horror, I've created a "close enough" association amongst my regular circle of friends. If we're talking about a new movie and I say its Survival Horror, they envision something with many zombie-movie elements, that for whatever reason doesn't involve Classic Romero Ghouls.

Has worked for me ever since 28 Days Later came out. Don't see myself needing to ever change the system.

Survival horror, which is almost never used outside of videogames and is not a widely understood term, could cover people trying to survive in any environment, against any adversary. It is such a wooly and vague term that it would cover pretty much every horror film ever made - there are always people trying to survive something, right? Sure, you could start piling up adjectives "post-apocalyptic survival horror", "viral outbreak survival horror", etc. But that would make you sound like a pedantic douche when speaking to anyone other than a hardcore horror fiend.

I still don't see the problem with using "zombie movie" to cover movies where the enemy is a previously-human, zombie-like menace without any other obvious well-understood monikers (vampires, etc.). We KNOW they're not really zombies, but whoever you're speaking to will have an immediate commonsense understanding of what the type of movie entails.

[Trin]

Personally, I think Survival Horror is the more recognized and understood term when referring to these types of movies. But I run with a videogamer crowd.

I also run with a group that spent years renting any video that had Zombie or Dead in the title. Do that for a while and you will associate "Zombie Movie" with utter laughable crapfest barely worthy of ridicule.

[darth los]

The term zombie predates GAr's interpretation, that we all know.

The definition was something different until he made night.

Is it so far fetched that the definition continues to evolve into what we see in pop culture today?

And as we all know you can either evolve or cease to be. It's the main law of nature.

:cool:

[Drew_OTD]

I still don't see the problem with using "zombie movie" to cover movies where the enemy is a previously-human, zombie-like menace without any other obvious well-understood monikers (vampires, etc.). We KNOW they're not really zombies, but whoever you're speaking to will have an immediate commonsense understanding of what the type of movie entails.

I completely agree.
Weather or not the 'things' in the films are traditional Romero styles zombies, or the new breed of athletic infected, it doesnt mean we cant talk about 28 Days Later as a zombie movie.

It could be that Boyle just gave the genre a little push in it's new direction.
Take a look at Zombieland, they are the same style zombies as 28 Days, yet are said to be suffering from a disease.
Zombies, that suffer from a disease...

Survival of the Dead kind of hints at this idea of infection with the death of Francisco.
Is Romero himself adopting the infection as a catalyst for zombiefication..?

[darth los]

I completely agree.
Weather or not the 'things' in the films are traditional Romero styles zombies, or the new breed of athletic infected, it doesnt mean we cant talk about 28 Days Later as a zombie movie.

It could be that Boyle just gave the genre a little push in it's new direction.
Take a look at Zombieland, they are the same style zombies as 28 Days, yet are said to be suffering from a disease.
Zombies, that suffer from a disease...

Survival of the Dead kind of hints at this idea of infection with the death of Francisco.
Is Romero himself adopting the infection as a catalyst for zombiefication..?

I'd take it with a grain of salt. GAr has hinted at many causes for the plaugue from radiation to viruses to voodoo mysticism.

:cool:

[Drew_OTD]

The pinch of salt in mind, but i would say that the zombie has always represented whatever is in societies conciousness...

Because Romero's films have spanned the past half century, who's to say that with the progression of time, there hasn't been a progression in themes of whatever the cause may be.

Alternativley, Romero has never established a specific cause for his zombies, and it has remained ambiguous throughout the series... meaning his films can withstand the test of time.

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing,
Categorization isn't about literal, anal-retentive-level analysis of the terminology. It's about quickly and effectively conveying/communicating that Objects/Persons/Events/etc. are alike enough to be grouped together.

As for Survival Horror only being used in videogames, I wholeheartedly disagree. I see it used in Fangoria movie previews/reviews, and that's about as "horror mainstream" as you can get.

However, I think the main thrust of what I was saying got lost in the pedantry. Was speaking about how when I say a movie is Survival Horror that my friends & others I speak to regularly immediately understand the concept/shorthand description I'm trying to convey.

I mean, if you REALLY wanted to, you could create a sub-genre for every individual Director's work. Every film whose antagonists are generated by a highly similar "origin phenomena." Every movie that shares X number of plot conventions/devices with other movies. Etc. Etc. Etc. You'd end up with hundreds if not thousands of sub-genres, that anyone who wanted to understand what you mean by use of a given term would need an exhaustive Reference Document.

You COULD, but it would defeat the entire purpose of categorizing things to begin with. Precision is great, but if adherence to it results in less easily, and much more slowly gained comprehension on the part of the listening individual, in all likelihood the listener will quickly grow irritated and no longer wish to discuss the matter at all.

"Close enough" counts in hand grenades, horseshoes...and movie descriptions.

Rule of thumb I go by: If it takes you longer to explain/otherwise communicate your method of categorization than it would to explain the entire plot of the movie in extensive detail, something has gone horribly wrong.

If it's for your own edification, fine. If it matters THAT much to you, more power to you. Me? I'll stick with my Survival Horror umbrella term usage.

It's close enough.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Me tooo... I will stick with 28 Days later being a zombie film :p

[bassman]

Clearly 28 Days Later is a romantic comedy, Romero's films are sci fi space adventures, and Dawn 04 is a buddy cop film.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Clearly 28 Days Later is a romantic comedy, Romero's films are sci fi space adventures, and Dawn 04 is a buddy cop film.

Who was the other cop... you need two cops for it to be a buddy cop film?

Rent a Cops don't count. :p

I think my job is done here... i feel I have douched up this thread quite enough. :p

[krakenslayer]

Here's the thing,
Categorization isn't about literal, anal-retentive-level analysis of the terminology. It's about quickly and effectively conveying/communicating that Objects/Persons/Events/etc. are alike enough to be grouped together.


See, this is my point. Amongst all the pedantry, we seem to have lost sight of the fact that we actually agree on that. Context is everything - I wouldn't refer to 28 Days Later as a "zombie film" on here, because would be discussing the movie in far more depth than with anyone I would be talking to in real life, and we all share a detailed knowledge of the subject, but at the same time I don't want to be bitched at because I use the term in casual conversation with, say, a colleague who has no connection to, or knowledge of, the horror in-crowd and its naming conventions. If I think the person I'm talking to will understand "zombie movie" better and more naturally than some new-fangled variation on "survival horror", then I will use "zombie movie", if not, I won't. Simples. :clown:

It's not the words themselves that count, but the clear conveyance of meaning and understanding, the demands of which can vary from person to person.

[Yojimbo]

Do you think that its solely Romero's input that has given these films their cult status?

The various different genre's within' horror will always be popular as there will always be dedicated fans to these; i.e Slasher fans, Zombie fans, vampire...etc etc. However, this doesn't mean that up and coming horror directors should fall into these boundaries to be successful. I mean just take a look at some of the unique films that have come out of Japan's horror cinema over the last decade - The Ring/Dark Water/The Grudge -Each of these films has had such a unique selling point that they have all been remade in the U.S.

Romero's zombie films have such a big niche market that they continue to be ever popular (42 years after the release of N.O.T.L.D) - As they saying goes; 'If it ain't broke don't fix it!'

Think that those films got remade here not so much because the originals were unique but more because overall the big shots at the studios lack the balls to finance an original film and/or are too lazy to come up with one on their own. Remake of Bewitched? Miserable failure and a good example of the Lind of film they like to green light

[Trin]

@Kraken - yeah, you're making a lot of sense. But there is a big gulf between what you and your friends define as "zombie movie" and what me and mine do. It may be a generational gap thing since we've spent a lot more time watching movies like Dead Snow than GAR movies. To be honest, if I'm talking with them about a GAR Dead movie I say a "Dead movie." If I'm talking about any of the 100 piss-poor movies with zombies then I call it a "zombie movie." If I'm talking about any of the 50 or so decent movies where a group of survivors battle against some force (ala Legend, 28 Days, Happening, etc.) I call it Survival Horror. Just like you and yours, me and mine understand that.

What does bug me is the "evolution" of language and the casual acceptance of it. Strike that - not acceptance - it's the downright arrogance of a group to suggest that they can redefine what a word means.

In 15 years if you call something a vampire movie you'd better be prepared for the backlash when the prevailing opinion is that a vampire has black fingernails, perfect hair, and an angst-ridden love/hate relationship with his/her teenage peers. Because that's the "evolution" of a word in action by the general populace who are today being exposed to what vampires are, and that's how they will define them going forward.

Goddam I'm old.

[shootemindehead]

...and Dawn 04 is a buddy cop film.

"Damn...I was only 2 days away from retirement"

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/bigpicture/images/vingrhames.jpg

[Drew_OTD]

What does bug me is the "evolution" of language and the casual acceptance of it. Strike that - not acceptance - it's the downright arrogance of a group to suggest that they can redefine what a word means.

In 15 years if you call something a vampire movie you'd better be prepared for the backlash when the prevailing opinion is that a vampire has black fingernails, perfect hair, and an angst-ridden love/hate relationship with his/her teenage peers. Because that's the "evolution" of a word in action by the general populace who are today being exposed to what vampires are, and that's how they will define them going forward.


I would say that its not arrogance, but it is infact evolution to a certain extent.
when GAR made his 1st zombie ghouls, my god they must have been terrifying, and god bless the man for doing so.
and the fact that he is still churning out gems is a testament to the fact that we will always love the classic zombie.

but with regard to your vampire analagy... of course what defines something will change within time, it is inevitable.
as films change with time, so does the content and the words used within those films. Zombies have become something other than a shuffling hoarde, audiences became accustomed to it, still fans of it, but a new direction was taken.

after all, can you remember when we thought the Nokia 3210 was the must have phone.
yeah, its still cool now, but for different reasons...

[ummmbrains]

I would agree with this...
With time everything evolves, the society we live in changes and therefore ideas in film genres like the zombie and vampire will change.

I love GAR's original vision of the flesh eating zombie that shuffles along, but the zombies in 28 Days later as so fucking scary now.. its the progression that keeps it fresh, combined with the essence of Romero's 'Night' that keeps me watching .

[DjfunkmasterG]

"Damn...I was only 2 days away from retirement"

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/bigpicture/images/vingrhames.jpg


Not too mention, he is probably getting to old for that shit. :p

[bassman]

Now he's fighting Piranhas. IN 3D!!!! OMG!1!

Dude went from Marcellus Wallas to making crap remake after crap remake after crap remake.....

[DjfunkmasterG]

Sometimes you just go where the paycheck is... when you're an actor, this is what you do, it sucks, but Ving isn't really leading man material.

[AcesandEights]

What does bug me is the "evolution" of language and the casual acceptance of it. Strike that - not acceptance - it's the downright arrogance of a group to suggest that they can redefine what a word means.

Words evolve and change. This is pretty natural from what I'm aware of.

Is it arrogant to so preciously hold onto what you consider the 'proper' definition of a term? A term whose very definition was co-opted by fandom in the first place?

[shootemindehead]

Not too mention, he is probably getting to old for that shit. :p

:lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

:lol:

Isn't it great being a message board about a group of genre films with members who are fluent in just about all genre of film?

The never ending twist and play on movie quotes can provide hours upon hours of sheer entertainment if used in the right moment or context.

[Wyldwraith]

Hmm,
Fortunately the majority seems able to resist allowing the shittiest examples of a genre to become the "guiding lights" of that genre. Example: Pre-Teen/Adolescent females may currently define Vampire = Sparkly Edward Cullen OMG ISN'T HE CUTE?!?!

The rest of us just roll our eyes and think back to other better films. Besides, angsty love-ridden self-hating vamp protagonists have been around for decades without completely taking the genre over.

Barnabas Collins: Dark Shadows 60s-70s
Nicholas Knight: Forever Knight 80s
Buffy/Angel: Series of Same Names: 90s-early 2000s.
Mick St. John: Moonlight Mid 2000s
Bill Compton: True Blood Late 2000s

Every 5-10yr period has a series depicting a self-hating vampire mourning for his lost humanity, who nearly always finds some means of surviving without tripping over any moral stumbling blocks. (Feeding on animals, connections at the blood bank(s), consensual donors etc). This vampire will in turn fall in love with some hapless human who either a) Reminds them of a long-dead long-lost love from their days as a human, or b) Someone they view as representative of all the goodness inherent in the human condition ::rolls eyes::.

Despite such shows constantly running, there's been no lack of violent, ruthless, dangerously amoral vampire antagonist and anti-hero literature and movies. The "Human Wannabe Vampire Shows" simply get more societal exposure because the nearly always male vampire protagonist is a specimen of masculinity who generally dampens the nether regions of the female & homosexual viewing audience.

Which isn't to say these shows are bad. Quite the opposite in fact. In a network lineup consisting of endless sitcoms and reality tv shows, I look on them as a welcome Oasis amid the desolate, creativity-free wasteland that after-dark TV has become.

My general point though was this. You can have successful, widely recognized TV shows that make an absolute travesty of a beloved genre, and inevitably find said travesty has in NO WAY affected the number or quality of more serious works in the genre.

Besides, I worry a LOT more about Zomedies rising popularity than I do angsty vampires. As someone already astutely pointed out, we're saddled with so many sequels, remakes and Book-to-Movie adaptations because of gutless producers/studios, unwilling to take a real risk on anything innovative (Which I believe ultimately will go a long way towards destroying the movie industry)

[DjfunkmasterG]

Besides, I worry a LOT more about Zomedies rising popularity than I do angsty vampires. As someone already astutely pointed out, we're saddled with so many sequels, remakes and Book-to-Movie adaptations because of gutless producers/studios, unwilling to take a real risk on anything innovative (Which I believe ultimately will go a long way towards destroying the movie industry)

Well I agree about the producers/studio comment, but if a zombedy has Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Woody Harrelson, Thom Mathews or James Karen it will pretty much be guaranteed a spot on my Blu-Ray shelf. :D

[AcesandEights]

Well I agree about the producers/studio comment, but if a zombedy has Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Woody Harrelson, Thom Mathews or James Karen it will pretty much be guaranteed a spot on my Blu-Ray shelf. :D

That's all well and good, but there is a shit-ton of crap zombie films that have come out the last few years that seem to try and pardon their writing/production etc. by tagging the film as a 'zomedy'. Get too much of that and zombies in film will start to lean ever more towards being known as just a comedic trope.

[DjfunkmasterG]

That's all well and good, but there is a shit-ton of crap zombie films that have come out the last few years that seem to try and pardon their writing/production etc. by tagging the film as a 'zomedy'. Get too much of that and zombies in film will start to lean ever more towards being known as just a comedic trope.

I see the same trend you are hence why with my flicks i am trying to keep it at a very serious tone through every movie. I want zombies to be scary, they are supposed to be scarier... so you will never have to worry about me ever making a zombedy... But at some point if my career doesn't take off I can't keep making these uber low budget cheapies... I like it and I am fine with it, but the production time is killer on my sanity and health... but if I keep making zombie films I will keep it true to the scary side... even if I use running zombies :p

However, the trend is leaning towards gag films like Zombieland, which i like, but if they keep going that way it could be downhill from there and it may not be revive-able :dead:

[bassman]

I don't see this genre ever being in any kind of danger. Someone will eventually come along and give us another great entry. There's a few promising ideas coming up now. The Walking Dead and World War Z.

There are hundreds of poor zombie films, but there have been and will be a few more that do it justice.

[Trin]

Words evolve and change. This is pretty natural from what I'm aware of.
Only if you let em, Charlie. Only if you let em. lol


Is it arrogant to so preciously hold onto what you consider the 'proper' definition of a term? A term whose very definition was co-opted by fandom in the first place?
You mean, the actual definition?

If a word evolves, fine. But if a group of people willfully misuse a word out of laziness, convenience, ignorance, or sheer audacity... then that gets me irritated.

It's my generation that screwed up the term "zombie" by calling GAR's ghouls by that term. Now it appears the next generation is going to take that success and run with it.

[DjfunkmasterG]

It's my generation that screwed up the term "zombie" by calling GAR's ghouls by that term.


How fucking old are you? :lol:

[Wyldwraith]

I don't see this genre ever being in any kind of danger. Someone will eventually come along and give us another great entry. There's a few promising ideas coming up now. The Walking Dead and World War Z.

The danger I foresee is that Zomedies will continue to rise in trendiness until new directors begin to view the idea of doing a serious zombie movie as being hopelessly old-school. It's funny really. Every director wants to be new and edgy, but we just keep getting more of the same in variations on the preexisting themes because the guys writing the checks/green-lighting new projects abhor the idea of "risking" money on anything they can't do a reliable market-share/profit projections on ahead of time.

Of course that's an issue affecting all genres, that shows no sign of abating, and will not until the majority of viewers send the studios a message in the only language they understand: Bottom Line-ese.

Could go on all day about how sick I am of remakes, re-adaptations and book-to-movie conversions, but wouldn't be saying anything everyone here doesn't already know.

Only seen 2 movies at the theater in something like the last 3 years. Avatar and Clash of the Titans (with Clash being a remake itself).

[BillyRay]

However, the trend is leaning towards gag films like Zombieland, which i like, but if they keep going that way it could be downhill from there and it may not be revive-able


Coming in 2011...Zombie Movie!

(with Anna Faris, Carmen Electra and Tracy Morgan)

[darth los]

Coming in 2011...Zombie Movie!

(with Anna Faris, Carmen Electra and Tracy Morgan)

Jesus Fucking H. Christ. :(

That is all.

:cool:

[BillyRay]

You do realise I'm kidding, right?

Breathe, buddy, breathe...

[AcesandEights]

You do realise I'm kidding, right?

You kid, sure, but it can't be unsaid or un-thought now! It's just a matter of time I'm afraid :shifty: