Romero's Dead Trilogy different than all other zombie films

[wkhan69]

Guys,
This has been racking my brain for a while. Romero's trilogy are all very different from each other, but they are all phenomenal! I mean I was mesmerized by all three. Now here's my question. Why are all the other zombie films, dare I say, not as good as the trilogy? I've thought about it and thought about it, and I can't figure out. Even Land of the Dead isn't as good as the three original. Even serious zombie films like 28 days or The Walking Dead, etc. have good moments, but as a whole, are not at the same level as Romero's Trilogy. Any thoughts?

[Andy]

28 days is not a zombie film.

:mad:

[krisvds]

While 28 days most certainly isn't a zombie film, 28 days later just might be. Though I would call it an 'infected' film if that makes any sense.
And while nothing compares to the sheer awesomeness of Romero's original trilogy, in my book, the recent 'The Dead' comes awfully close. If you're a fan of Itallian splatter there's also Fulci's Zombie2 to consider.

BTW Land wasn't that bad. More of an apocalyptic, Mad Max style action film with Zombies thrown in for good measure but still,...

[bassman]

Even serious zombie films like 28 days or The Walking Dead, etc. have good moments, but as a whole, are not at the same level as Romero's Trilogy. Any thoughts?

Of course it all boils down to one's opinion, but I think TWD is on par with Romero's trilogy. The best zombie offering since '85. :)

[Danny]

While 28 days most certainly isn't a zombie film, 28 days later just might be.

technically speaking 28 days is more of a 'zombie' film than George's ghoul flicks.

at least until he ever reveals the man behind the curtain on why the dead walk in his films. IS it some form of external influence like a virus or radiation or some other sci-fi take on the voodoo "zombie"? or something else entirely. Who knows? maybe in some other universe it was called night of the ghouls and it turned out there was some russel edgeington style vampire king raising these cannibal ghouls as an army? :lol:

[blind2d]

"While 28 days certainly isn't a zombie film, 28 days later just might be."
That makes no kind of sense whatsoever.
Anyway, it's because they're good. *shrugs* Watch Shaun of the Dead.

[krakenslayer]

That makes no kind of sense whatsoever.


28 Days: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0191754/
28 Days Later: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/

[EvilNed]

28 days is not a zombie film.

:mad:

Yes, it is. :p

[Mike70]

And while nothing compares to the sheer awesomeness of Romero's original trilogy, in my book, the recent 'The Dead' comes awfully close.

in my book, "The Dead" is better than any romero zombie flick, day excepted.

night is a cool flick even though it is creaky and primitive. it is still creepy and atmospheric, so that saves it from the trash heap. dawn is a cinematic embarrassment that i can't be bothered to waste time on anymore. then we come to day, the best of lot and one of the best horror flicks ever.

"The Dead" is a movie that any and all self-respecting zombie freaks have to make every attempt at seeing. i've not been that impressed with a zombie flick in a long, long time. "The Horde" is another recent flick that is a must see as far as i'm concerned.

[wkhan69]

in my book, "The Dead" is better than any romero zombie flick, day excepted.

night is a cool flick even though it is creaky and primitive. it is still creepy and atmospheric, so that saves it from the trash heap. dawn is a cinematic embarrassment that i can't be bothered to waste time on anymore. then we come to day, the best of lot and one of the best horror flicks ever.

"The Dead" is a movie that any and all self-respecting zombie freaks have to make every attempt at seeing. i've not been that impressed with a zombie flick in a long, long time. "The Horde" is another recent flick that is a must see as far as i'm concerned.

I agree that Romero's Day of the Dead is phenomenal and has some of the best dialog I've ever heard in a zombie film. The walking dead is quite good, no doubt, but it's a little heavy on the soap opera side I think. The beginning of Dawn (and Day for that matter) is unbeatable. There are quirky elements to Romero's trilogy, but for some reason, they all work and you get on board for the ride. Maybe it's how Romero works in social commentary, some creepy theories, and an honesty that keeps it up there.

[Ragnarr]

I think that GAR's original trilogy created a certain morbid feel to zombie horror flicks that later films tried to copy but never seemed to achieve. Even GAR's later films (Land, Diary, and whatever that third thing was) didn't come close to achieving the same feel of his original work. I think another factor as to why the originally trilogy rocked was that all non-GAR zombie flicks deal exclusively with infection as the cause of their zombie outbreaks as opposed to GAR's concept that any death (natural or otherwise) will create a zombie.

28 days, 28 weeks, 28 months, etc. are not zombie flicks. The nasties in 28 whatevers are very much alive AND are infected with a virus. They starved at the end of 28 days as you might recall. Zombies do not starve because they are dead you see. They can only decay.

[EvilNed]

28 days, 28 weeks, 28 months, etc. are not zombie flicks. The nasties in 28 whatevers are very much alive AND are infected with a virus. They starved at the end of 28 days as you might recall. Zombies do not starve because they are dead you see. They can only decay.

This has nothing to do with this thread, I apologize... But;

Zombies do not need to be dead or undead.

[Andy]

This has nothing to do with this thread, I apologize... But;

Zombies do not need to be dead or undead.

Im sorry but i seriously beg to differ, the one and only thing every zombie movie has as a consistent is that zombies are dead or undead. Runners or shamblers, silent or screeching, weak or strong.. The one thing every zombie movie has in common is that they are dead.

28 days is a good movie, im not taking away from it, but its a a movie about a epidemic virus that effects living people and makes them homicidal. Thats very different. If your gonna call 28 days later a zombie movie then you might aswell call i am legend, the crazies, invasion of the body snatchers and outbreak! zombie movies too but none of them are.

IN FACT, danny boyle is on record stating that 28 days is not a zombie movie.


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.

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

[EvilNed]

Are we talking the genre of Zombiefilms? Because definitions of genres have nothing to do with what a director wants or believes. He may, of course, have an opinion, as anyone else. But if you walk into a DVD store, you'd find 28 Days Later by the other zombiefilms. Why? Because that's how genres work. We use genres to define films. If I were to recommend a few good zombie films to somebody, I would not exclude 28 Days Later. Why? Because it shares all the same conventions and clichés with the zombiefilm genre.

You say that they aren't dead. True. But that doesn't mean they aren't zombies. I could go deeper into the discussion than that, but I think that the argument in itself (I.e: 28 days later isn't a zombiefilm because they aren't undead) is such a simple and near childish argument that I'm just not gonna. I don't need too.

Zombiefilms are not about the medical status of their monsters. They are about the decay of civilization. The relationship between survivors. The lack of trust one puts in ones peers when an infectious disease or virus spreads. Facing loved ones and neighbors turned into savage beasts. Hordes of anonymous, murderous monsters.

[Mike70]

The walking dead is quite good, no doubt, but it's a little heavy on the soap opera side I think. The beginning of Dawn (and Day for that matter) is unbeatable. There are quirky elements to Romero's trilogy, but for some reason, they all work and you get on board for the ride. Maybe it's how Romero works in social commentary, some creepy theories, and an honesty that keeps it up there.

I cannot stand "the walking dead" at all. it is a crappy family drama masquerading as a horror show. after the pilot, i was literally bored to tears by that show. soap opera is the perfect way to describe it. what qualifies as "character development" to some is, to me, the destruction of any and all ability of the viewer to make decisions about the characters and their motives. i'm one of those folks who prefer to know as little about the characters in a film as possible. makes it more fun, more mysterious and allows you to draw your own conclusions about their motives.

"the dead" i was referring to is a recently released zombie flick that centers on an american military flight engineer who finds himself alone and surrounded by the undead in west africa after a plane crash. it is the best zombie film of the last few years.

[Andy]

But if you walk into a DVD store, you'd find 28 Days Later by the other zombiefilms.

Yeah along with hostel, candyman and nightmare on elm street, its called the horror section :lol:

Seriously though, classify 28 days later as a zombie movie by all means if you want, your allowed an opinion, but dont sit there and tell me im wrong when the man who made the film also says it isnt. his film, his rules.

Its a key point to me that zombies are the dead reanimated, its a big part of what fascinated me about zombies as a child and got me into this subgenre, it gives it an extra mystery and wonder that 28 days, being about a plague effecting living people, dosnt have and that is very important to me and i think it is for many others here, Theres a reason 9 out of 10 zombies movies have the word 'Dead' in the title.

[Rancid Carcass]

Its a key point to me that zombies are the dead reanimated, its a big part of what fascinated me about zombies as a child and got me into this subgenre.

Hey, me too!

The definition of a zombie is that of a corpse that has been brought back to life, either by voodoo – where the original idea comes from or by some other means as introduced by Romero. I think the confusion with the infected comes from the idea/saying that a person or people can behave in a zombie-like fashion – acting in a mindless, unthinking way. The beginning of Shaun of the Dead probably the most obvious example I can think of, where everyone is going about their daily lives, same routine day in day out and not really thinking about it. They are behaving in a zombie-like fashion, but they are not zombies. The same can be said of the infected in 28 Days, the rage virus makes them all behave in the same mindless way – zombie-like, but not zombies.

Or to put it another way – just because a jolly fat man dresses up in a red romper suit and gives you presents doesn't make him Santa. Santa-like but not Santa!

:cool:

[shootemindehead]

Even the director said '28 Days Later' wasn't a zombie film.

As for Romero's lot, 'Night of the Living Dead' from 1990 has replaced the original 1968 version for me. The B/W one is just a museum piece now. it's just a pity Savini had to tone down the gore. A bit more guts and it would have been a classic. 'Dawn of the Dead' is rapidly sliding into unwatchable 70's tastic nonsense and 'Day of the Dead' is still the greatest horror/zombie film ever made, bar none.

I think the reason Romero's original series (including 'Land of the Dead') remains the superior take on the subject is because it was focused. Romero introduced us to the apocalypse idea and his monster was a truly terrifying one. The problem with Romero's original series though, is that the third installment shows the rest up.

It's just a pity that gobshites were "put off" by it when it came out first (why...I have no idea), but it put a serious dent in Romero's growth as a genre director. Much in the same way that the negative reception to 'The Thing' stunted John Carpenter. It made them squemish to take it to that level again.

[Ragnarr]

This has nothing to do with this thread, I apologize... But;

Zombies do not need to be dead or undead.

Perhaps I somehow misread the definition of zombie:

"Zombie (Haitian Creole: zonbi; North Mbundu: nzumbe) is a term used to denote an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means such as witchcraft."

Then again, perhaps not.

[Wyldwraith]

I'm gonna have to agree about Night '90 ala Savini being my "Night of Choice" as well,
I like Savini's Barbara TONS BETTER than Romero's, who I believe took the helpless screaming uselessness stereotype so far as to make Barbara into a Character/caricature. I like the FX related to the zombies much better, and I feel that the pathos of Barbara's walk-away-escape really sells the entire "They're Us, and We're Them" philosophical point, and goes one better by making an additional point that the original Night wasn't as clear on. To whit, the zombies only become an overwhelming danger because Ben and Cooper's rigidity of thought/plan of action was just as one-track-minded as the zombies themselves. Savini's zombie mass-break-in through formerly boarded up windows/door brings the fact that Ben "lost it for them" by playing to the zombie's strength instead of the human's. Ie: When survivors try to match tenaciousness and stamina with the undead, they're going to lose. Yes yes, there's the sub-text about humanity being its own worst enemy in the form of the "Im boss up here, you're boss down there" mentality, but I feel that the movie's end brings the point I mentioned prior to that subtext into sharper relief.

Of course that's just my opinion, so make of it what u will.

[Ragnarr]

I also liked Night 90's Mr. Cooper more so than the original's. Although we already knew going into the remake that the Mr. Cooper character was going to be an stellar douche, Tom Towels performance was really well done. His "buncha yo-yos" shout while shaking his fist was great.
Perhaps Night 90 had an unfair advantage over the original. They had a larger budget, so they could afford better actors and special effects. And I'm glad that Savini didn't follow the original exactly. Night 90's Ben & Barbara were awesome.

[Danny]

Perhaps I somehow misread the definition of zombie:

"Zombie (Haitian Creole: zonbi; North Mbundu: nzumbe) is a term used to denote an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means such as witchcraft."

Then again, perhaps not.

spoiler: zombies aren't magical in the real world.

The real world zombie outside the pop culture bubble refers to the victims of abduction, slavery and human trafficking brought on by use of drugs and poisons to cause the victim to appear as though they have died and the zombie makers collect the fresh worker drone to sell during the night.
The zombie is a living creature under some foreign influence that removes their free will and alters behaviour. be it voodoo poisoning, a specific strain of cordycepts fungi or a virus that effects the functionality of the brain or whatever. The key thing that makes the zombie is not that its a walking corpse. its a human being completely acting against there will. it could be the person you live next door, could be a member of your family, it could even be you.

Romero's flicks began with a ghoul/ wright idea. cannibalistic walking corpses that feed on the living that dare tread to close to the graveyards they lurk in- according to folklore. Hell i dont even remember them saying the Z word once in night of the living dead. The audience chose that definition because of the shambling similarities between his ghouls and the shambling voodoo slaves in earlier 30's and 40's films like white zombie.

Doesn't mean they aren't 'zombies' by the modern pop culture definitions. It just means they are not the only definitive example of the, for lack of a better word, affliction.

[blind2d]

Eeyup. And, y'know... zombies are cool. So yeah.
Also... Hm... Call it what you want, but I threw out my copy of 28 Days, and held onto the Dawn remake, so make of that what you will. Also yeah, I think I prefer Night 90 juuuust a smidge.

[EvilNed]

Perhaps I somehow misread the definition of zombie:

"Zombie (Haitian Creole: zonbi; North Mbundu: nzumbe) is a term used to denote an animated corpse brought back to life by mystical means such as witchcraft."

Then again, perhaps not.

You didn't misread it, you just missed a part.

"zom·bie   [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."

I think we can agree that there are numerous zombie films out there that have nothing to do with voodoo. The word and it's meaning has evolved.

Also, Danny Boyle can say whatever he wants. As far as I know, he's a director, not a film theorist. Saying that he decides what is and what isn't true about his film is suggesting that art isn't personal and that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. You're not wrong, Andy. How can anybody be wrong in a discussion like this? But most people would put 28 Days Later into the zombie film category (and that's how genres are defined). Maybe not people here on this board, but then again, we're fucking picky about our zombie films aren't we?

Edit: See Danny's post about this. He makes a good point suggesting that audiences chose the word "Zombies", not the filmmakers.

[Ragnarr]

I see your point, and you are certainly correct regarding the multiple usages of the word "zombie." Personally, I still wouldn't consider 28 Days a zombie movie in the sense that the nasties are not the undead type of zombie. Hmm, now that I have my newly found broadened perspective, I'm wondering if Ron Zombie really IS one! My work place is chock full of lazy, shuffling zombies too! Oh my gawd! They're everywhere I look now! HELLLP!!!

[Danny]

Also, Danny Boyle can say whatever he wants. As far as I know, he's a director, not a film theorist. Saying that he decides what is and what isn't true about his film is suggesting that art isn't personal and that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.

see the room: That guy now says "oh no, it was intentionally a parody" was it bollocks. Personally i think danny boyle just doesn't want to be lumped in with 'zombie movies' because thats too 'lowbrow' and takes him out of his 'brit flick indie' compartmentalised mystique

[Rancid Carcass]

Also, Danny Boyle can say whatever he wants. As far as I know, he's a director, not a film theorist. Saying that he decides what is and what isn't true about his film is suggesting that art isn't personal.

Ah, but when you watch a film you are being told a story, the director is basically telling you how it is, what is going on and how the whole thing works. The audience can interpret what they think the film maker is saying within the subtext of the film, but it's not up to them to interpret the actual narrative on which the subtext is hung. The reason Danny Boyle has gone to great pains to explain that the infected are not zombies is because the story he's telling breaks down if you exchange infected humans for walking corpses, it just doesn't work. So on one level at least art isn't entirely personal, it cannot be or it cannot exist - or not viewed by anyone other than the person who created it.

Yeah, it's late...lol.

:shifty:

[shootemindehead]

You didn't misread it, you just missed a part.

"zom·bie   [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."

I think we can agree that there are numerous zombie films out there that have nothing to do with voodoo. The word and it's meaning has evolved.

Also, Danny Boyle can say whatever he wants. As far as I know, he's a director, not a film theorist. Saying that he decides what is and what isn't true about his film is suggesting that art isn't personal and that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. You're not wrong, Andy. How can anybody be wrong in a discussion like this? But most people would put 28 Days Later into the zombie film category (and that's how genres are defined). Maybe not people here on this board, but then again, we're fucking picky about our zombie films aren't we?

Edit: See Danny's post about this. He makes a good point suggesting that audiences chose the word "Zombies", not the filmmakers.

Erm...virtually none of the above describes the infected people in 28 Days Later. especially in the main thrust of definition. They're certainly not "dead", they haven't been "brought to life", they aren't "supernatural".

They're also not "wooden, listless, or seemingly rote", nor are the "eccentric" in the usual application of the word.

They may be "peculiar", but so is a great many things.

So, the closest word up there would be "automaton" as they behave in a violently sungular fashion. But, that's really stretching it as far as a solid definition goes.

And, audience and (more importantly reviewers) chose the word in error, so much so, that the director had to correct them.

Futhermore, if we are talking in a filmic sense of the word, then the majority of people who are interested in the genre will agree that a "zombie" is a reanimated corpse.

The infected, living people of '28 Days Later' therefore need not apply.

[EvilNed]

Considering audiences are the ones who define genres, it would be impossible for them to choose the word in "error". The audiencees chose the word Zombies for Night of the Living Dead and it's sequels, didn't they? Even though the ghouls described there aren't voodoo zombies who are controlled by evil wizards. Using your "logic", Night of the Living Dead wouldn't be a zombiefilm either.

But they are, of course. Because a "zombiefilm" isn't about the medical status of the zombie, it's about the conventions and the narrative of a select group of films which the audiences have collectively branded as "zombiefilms" just so that they can more easily differ between films.

As Danny said; The DIRECTOR of The Room says it was meant to be a comedy. While watching the film, that's obviously bullshit coming from someone who realized he messed up. The Director can say whatever he wants; but that doesn't make it true. Danny Boyle presented us with a film fitting in perfectly alongside numerous other zombiefilms. If he didn't want it to be labeled as one, then he probably should have changed it around a great deal.

I don't really want to be a bitch or anything, but do you guys have any other argument other than "Well, it's not a zombiefilm because zombies are dead, and these guys are technically alive..?". Because that argument has got a few holes in it and isn't really a deal breaker when talking about this type of film.

EDIT;

Wikipedia (which is not in anyway right or definite) lists 28 Days Later, Nightmare City and The Crazies among their list of zombiefilms;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_films

They also write that; Zombies are creatures usually portrayed as either reanimated corpses or mindless human beings. While zombie films generally fall into the horror genre, some cross over into other genres, such as comedy, science fiction, thriller, or romance. Distinct sub-genres have evolved, such as the "zombie comedy" or the "zombie apocalypse". Zombies are distinct from ghosts, mummies, or vampires, so this list does not include films devoted to these types of undead.

This I would say is a very accurate and interesting writing. For instance, Day of the Dead obviously has much more incommon with the film 28 Days Later, but not so much incommon with Fido. Yet you would say that Day of the Dead and Fido are both the same genre, as where 28 Days Later is not? It's more likely that all three of them belong to different sub-genres of zombie films.

[Ragnarr]

While the pimpley clerk at your local video store might place 28 Days with GAR's movies and other zombie films, my pimpley clerk might place the movie next to Ghoulies, Gremlins, and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

In the end, it's all a matter of perception.

One question though; would you consider The Omega Man (1971 Charleton Heston) a zombie flick or part of the zombie genre?

[EvilNed]

I'm don't agree with you on the individual perception thing. If that were the case, there would be no genres. Die Hard wouldn't be labelled as an action film, it'd labelled as "A film with lots of explosions and car-chases. Make of it what you will."

As for The Omega Man... I'd put down Last Man on Earth and I Am Legend as part of the zombie film genre. But The Omega Man seemed more to me about the action and wits. Especially between Charlton Heston and his arch-nemesis. I can't say, I'd have to rewatch it.

[Danny]

what about taking it the other way?

if being dead is the only true signifier of a zombie for most of you then surely dead space is a game series involving a menagerie of zombie sub groups because they are walking corpses that exist to kill people to use their flesh to create more of themselves.

[shootemindehead]

Considering audiences are the ones who define genres, it would be impossible for them to choose the word in "error". The audiencees chose the word Zombies for Night of the Living Dead and it's sequels, didn't they? Even though the ghouls described there aren't voodoo zombies who are controlled by evil wizards. Using your "logic", Night of the Living Dead wouldn't be a zombiefilm either.

Not the case. Film makers and the film industry (including reviewers) define genres. Most Joe Public average movie goers couldn't even spell genre.

And as far as I know Romero's been using the word "zombie" to describe his ghouls since 1968.

Ask most people who are actually interested in the area and they will define a "zombie" as a reanimated corpse, with usually a craving for flesh. They certainly will not say a living person, infected with a man-made disease with a compulsion to kill.


I don't really want to be a bitch or anything, but do you guys have any other argument other than "Well, it's not a zombiefilm because zombies are dead, and these guys are technically alive..?". Because that argument has got a few holes in it and isn't really a deal breaker when talking about this type of film.

Hmmm...but your argument seems to be "it is, because I say it is", going even as far as dismissing the film makers opinion on the matter. It's not just Boyle who says that '28 Days Later' isn't a zombie film.

And as for holes in an argument, you need to look at your own. Just because '28 Days Later' shares elements with 'Day of the Dead', doesn't make it a "zombiefilm". 'Day of the Triffids' shares a lot of elements with '28 Days Later'. Is 'Day of the Triffids' a zombie film.

'28 Days Later' is not a zombie film to most people interested in the genre, because the antagonists don't really fit the bill.

[EvilNed]

I have not seen Day of the Triffids.

28 Days Later shares more than elements with Day of the Dead and the zombie genre as a whole. I agree with you there.

Genre's are defined by a general consensus. Not film makers. The industry does play it's part. Do you know how genres evolve? I know, I've studied the matter (there is actually a theoretical field on the subject, boring as it may sound, and I am by no means a master or bachelor or what you call it, but I did take a course so I know the basics at least).

Genre's are built upon conventions. Conventions come and go. Unsuccesfull conventions are booed by the audience and thus cut by the industry. Succesfull conventions are praised by the audience. The industry takes note and makes sure to make that a staple of the genre. So how do genre's evolve, you may ask?

Well, if you take a convention and use it 10 times, people may become bored by it. The 11th film released with that convention will get booed. The industry either understands and cuts it out of their next genre-film or they don't get it and keep the convention in, but they eventually catch the point.

Genre's are "bigger" than just "Is he dead? No? Then it's not a zombiefilm". Just think about what I said in my last post. Please, think about it. Do Fido and Day of the Dead belong to the same genre, whereas Day of the Dead and 28 Days Later do not? Don't you find that a little bit weird? Even if you're entitled to your opinion, I'm willing to bet you think 28 Days Later and Day of the Dead share more incommon with each other than Day of the Dead and Fido (smart, pet, zombie excluded... You get the point).

28 Days Later may not be a zombie film to most zombie film fans, but to average Joe it's definetly a zombie film. And sorry to say, considering genre's are defined by general consensus, 28 Days Later IS a zombie film. And it definetly is a zombie film to the industry, you can bet your ass on that. They marketed those films to the exact same people whom they market Zombie films too.

[Ragnarr]

In the Omega Man, Robert Neville (Charleton Heston) is for most of the movie, the last man on earth. There was a viral attack that killed most people, and left a number of them alive but messed up. The infected, who could only come out at night wore black robes, sun glasses and religiously shunned technology as "evil". Robert Neville as the last man from the before time was therefore evil and the infected (called "the family") were always trying to kill him after sunset. During the day, Neville would hunt the infected. Great flick, much better than "I Am Legend" which was a half-assed attempt to redo "The Omega Man." The book, "The Omega Man" also involved a viral outbreak, but it turned those infected into vampires.

I would not consider either Omega Man film or Omega Man novel to be in the zombie genre. Why? Because the film dealt with altered religious zealots trying to kill the main character, and the book would be best placed with vampire literature. My video store places "The Omega Man" in the science fiction section as B&N places the novel.

If I were to say "undead movies" instead of "zombies movies", would that include both zombie and vampire movies solely because vampires are considered to be undead? No, vampire movies are vampires movies. You know what to expect when you rent a vampire movie. Same holds in my opinion to zombie movies. I expect to see the living dead stumbling about trying to kill the main characters. I do not expect to see a bunch of people with a disease running about barfing on the main characters.

[EvilNed]

For narrative and genres sake, it makes little difference. Agree to disagree. (To be honest, the minute you compared I Am Legend to other vampire litterature rather than zombie litterature, I realized this was all about words for you guys. Vampires / Zombies / Infected)

[blind2d]

Now why don't Langoliers have this problem?

[shootemindehead]

I have not seen Day of the Triffids.

'Day of the Triffids' is based on a John Wyndham novel about "Triffids", or plants that have the ability to move and to be aggressive. The opening of '28 Days Later' (and 'The Walking Dead' for that matter), plus much of the theme and flow is ripped directly from Wyndham's work. I'd recomend that you seek out the BBC mini series from the 1980's starring John Duttine or read the actual book. Avoid the creaky 1960's movie and the recent TV movie from the 2000's.


Genre's are defined by a general consensus. Not film makers. The industry does play it's part.

Consensus, perhaps, but not from an audience, that's for sure, at least not initially. Audiences have traditionally been told what the particular film is they are going to see. "Horror", "Comedy", "Thriller" etc and their subsequent sub-genre's were coined by the industry and elements within, no doubt taken from the literary world originally, where the names were no doubt dreamt up by publishers. Likewise, recent sub-genre's like "Rom-Com" or "Zom-Com" or even "Rom-Zom-Com" (as coined by Edgar Wright) were defined by people within the movie industry (and I include the reviewing community here too).

However, an audience may get to choose if a particular genre or sub-genre survives, largely by choosing to endorse or ignore, but it has yet to define the initial stages of such, at least not as far as I am aware. An audience also gets to approve or disapprove of where a genre changes to (simply by turning up). For instance, for nearly 40 years, zombie movies largely consisted of the "traditional" slow moving, flesh eating corpse. Then Snyder's coke fuelled remake altered the rules. So, in a number of years time, it may be possible to see them being accepted as being able to a whole number of mad things.

Anyway, it looks like there'll be no solid agreement on this, just like the last time when the topic came up.

I'll see you in 2015, when it'll no doubt come up again. :D

[EvilNed]

EDIT: BLAH.

There's no solid argument here, just like you said.

I don't agree with how you define genre's as that excludes audiences too much. I think Shaun of the Dead is a good example. It's "labelled" as a rom-zom-com. But most people I know simply refer to it as a comedy. I'd say it's a comedy, first and foremost. But I digress...

[blind2d]

Okay, now we're talkin' Shaun? Here I come!
Uh! So, what you got here IS a comedy, yeah, but check out the ghouls! Check out the opening credits! Check out the tone, the effects, the behavior of the zeds! If Shaun is a comedy first and foremost then so is Ghostbusters and any other horror film with comedic elements (RotLD, I'm looking at your ugly mug). Look, just because a film has humor, does not make it a comedy film. A film that is ALL ABOUT humor is a comedy film (i. e. Dumb and Dumber, Freddy Got Fingered, etc.). Shaun is a zombie film with a little romance and awesome comedy throughout. It's different. Now... Anyone who thinks, 'oh, let's watch a fun comedy that we don't have to think about' will probably reach for Paul or Hot Fuzz over Shaun, but maybe that's just my personal experience talking. Anyway, Shaun is zombies first, comedy a very close second, and romance a fairly distant third. A Zom-Com-rom, if you will. I've said all this before most likely, but yes, it's how I feel. And labels from anyone who's not me can eat a dick. Also, someday I'll watch Triffids... someday...
PS: "Is it... zombies?!" - Spike the baby dragon
"There's no such thing as zombies,..." - Twilight Sparkle the unicorn
Oh Twilight... For such a smart pony, there's so much you don't know...

[bassman]

I don't see how anyone can see Shaun and Ghostbusters as anything other than comedies. Previously established actors/writers/directors all making a comedy film based around a common love. Zombies for Wright/Pegg, the supernatural for Aykroyd. They might take that subject matter a bit more seriously than some others have, but it's still very much a comedy.

That's the main difference between those films and the other slapstick stuff you mention - they take the subject matter seriously in an attempt to keep the world of the film believable. The others are just "anything goes" fart gags.

[fishfast41]

I would say that zombie films fit into more than one genre. They could be called horror, or even science fiction, because in NOTLD 68, they talk about a mysterious radiation from a fallen satellite as a possible cause. Or you could fit them in with films like The Omega Man, or even Damnation Alley in a Post Apocalyptic genre. It's all highly individual, depending on what aspect of the story hits you the hardest. I catagorize them under Post Apocalypse with subgenres for zombies, plague, nuclear war, etc

[JDFP]

Well, there can be multiple genres for the same film for classification purposes. You don't have to classify everything together into one tidy little genre. For example, I don't classify "28 Days Later" to be a zombie film by a long shot, but I consider it to be a horror film and thus as a horror film it has similarities to "Day" and "Dawn" and what not as being a horror film. Just because a film has zombies (i.e. "Shaun of the Dead"; "Fido", or zombie like creatures for that matter) doesn't mean it's a zombie film necessarily, but it will share certain elements with horror films that may be zombie films as well.

I'd classify "Scream" for example to be a comedy. As a comedy I think it's a highly entertaining film. But, it's not a horror film. It has horror-like elements to it, but it's not a horror film to me and will never be considered as such.

Ultimately, isn't really just a matter of how an individual considers specific films to be interpreted? Who cares what a "consensus" is of people - it's all about how you personally see something and accept something for yourself. Ultimately it's how you personally see the film, so I don't see what the issue is in arguing over the issue.

j.p.

[AcesandEights]

'Day of the Triffids' is based on a John Wyndham novel about "Triffids", or plants that have the ability to move and to be aggressive. The opening of '28 Days Later' (and 'The Walking Dead' for that matter), plus much of the theme and flow is ripped directly from Wyndham's work.

So if I read you correctly, and I think I do, you're saying...triffids...are...zombies!

That means we can add mobile, aggressive plants to the list of what qualifies as zombies along with 28 Days Later Infected, Runners, howlers, ceiling crawlers and--my personal fav--"undead Romeroesque cannibal ghouls of indeterminate origin."

[shootemindehead]

Eh, no. I was making the point that because a film shares numerous things with another film, it doesn't necessarilly mean that it's the same type of film, or that it falls under the same genre, or subgenre.

[Andy]

So if I read you correctly, and I think I do, you're saying...triffids...are...zombies!

That means we can add mobile, aggressive plants to the list of what qualifies as zombies along with 28 Days Later Infected, Runners, howlers, ceiling crawlers and--my personal fav--"undead Romeroesque cannibal ghouls of indeterminate origin."

You forgot the terminator, he's not technically alive and he is killing people so by neds standards, The Terminator is a zombie movie too :D

[AcesandEights]

You forgot the terminator, he's not technically alive and he is killing people so by neds standards, The Terminator is a zombie movie too :D

I thought that went without saying ;)


Eh, no. I was making the point that because a film shares numerous things with another film, it doesn't necessarilly mean that it's the same type of film, or that it falls under the same genre, or subgenre.

Oh, I know, but you forget your audience :)

[Ragnarr]

It's like I stated earlier in this thread; when push comes to shove, genre is all about perception. There is no definitive "Board of Genre Determination" that meets periodically to bang a gavel and state which movie is offically whatever genre (at least I hope there isn't). Until there is, I will continue to exclude movies like 28 Days from my ever growing collection of zombie films, and will instead place it with my collection of kool apocolyptic films.

[EvilNed]

This thread:

VePxbFQ-qfw

[bd2999]

I think it is the best there is honestly. There are some that might be on the same level and others that are close but most fall reall really short.


technically speaking 28 days is more of a 'zombie' film than George's ghoul flicks.

at least until he ever reveals the man behind the curtain on why the dead walk in his films. IS it some form of external influence like a virus or radiation or some other sci-fi take on the voodoo "zombie"? or something else entirely. Who knows? maybe in some other universe it was called night of the ghouls and it turned out there was some russel edgeington style vampire king raising these cannibal ghouls as an army?

This confuses me a little but why does that make 28 Days Later more of a zombie film? I always thought that was one of the best things about Romero's world, or one of them, no one knows what causes it. The people who would be looking into it are dead or ran. And who knows if they would ever find anything. It is a situation that is not possible as presented, so why try to give an actual reason to something that is fantasy and fiction anyway?

If you want to be honest, as much as I like 28 Days Later, and I really do, as a biologist myself it takes you out of the movie a bit for it to be a virus. Knowing the biology of these things takes you out of a movie fairly quickly unless it is done just right. There are alot of movies that equate virus or bacteria to magic. Which is fair enough and you need a suspension of disbelief for any sort of zombie movie. But in general you are safe if the approach is we do not know what is causing this thing.

[Danny]

This confuses me a little but why does that make 28 Days Later more of a zombie film?

because unlike romeros films there is a concrete answer to what they are and why they act why they do. Some foreign body has completely overridden their free will and turned them into autonomous killing machines. They aren't the common walking dead variety, buy in terms of the humans they used to be they may as well be.

[bd2999]

I suppose but I think they have more problems with trying to be realistic than not. Does there need to be a hard and fast rule as to why they are driven to kill and eat people or other animals? I do not think it needs to be much more than what it is. It is a primal need that goes back so like has been speculated on in the movies that it is just the core part of the being that remains and not the parts that made them a person.

One could argue that some of the virus driven stories are similar to say rabies. But honestly that is only the famous depiction of the disease. Sure the case of a rabid aggressive dog or animal is true to a point but not that extreme. I just see lots of problems with to much realism. If you go out of your way to make something real and define everything where is the mystery? People have studied many things for decades and do not know everything. Why define it all? I think 28 Days Later worked well for what it was doing, but there are problems with it from the perspective of a virus. The incubation time being a few seconds for instance. IMO that is just as fantastical as anything Romero did. Sure a virus once it enters can start infecting cells, although getting into a cell takes longer than that infection time. Let alone altering it's function and then multiplying the effect by infecting more cells.

Along the lines of sometimes the horror comes from what we do not see.

[Ragnarr]

because unlike romeros films there is a concrete answer to what they are and why they act why they do. Some foreign body has completely overridden their free will and turned them into autonomous killing machines. They aren't the common walking dead variety, buy in terms of the humans they used to be they may as well be.

...soooooooo if I'm following you correctly, a zombie is MORE of a zombie if we as viewers know the precise reason of a zombie's initial zombifiction as it relates or is opposed to an infected non-zombie type of zombie, or at any rate not a zombie of undisclosed origin or vague zombification process. Got it!

Just one question though; what the hell am I saying?

[krisvds]

Hmmmm. A bit confused on the whole 'Triffids' analogy concerning 28 days later. That film has way more in common with Romero's trilogy than anything else, no?
Apart from the whole infected vs. undead debate it shares a lot of the conventions: an apocalyptic setting where the survivors are constantly under attack, not by monsters or plants, but by enemies that were once just like them. Enemies that, unlike say the body snatchers, have lost all sense of common sense. That act ravenous, relentless. Pure instinct as it were. That's what I percieve as a 'Zombie'-film. What sets Romero's trilogy apart for me is the dark humour, the satire.

BTW not every film with the undead in them is generally percieved as a zombie-flick. To further complicate things ;-).
Fulci's The Beyond features the undead but is generally not considered a 'zombie'film.

Oh, and the shambling undead are the coolest zombies in school! By all means check 'The Dead.'