A new sub genre (because some "zombie" films have no actual zombies)

[Jason Edwards]

My household has recently subscribed to Netflix,and although I'm impressed by their television show selection, I'm not as much with their movie selection. So, I have begun to explore movies i normally do not watch, or have not heard of before.
Today, I watched Devil's Playground, and was reminded about something that annoyed me when 28 Days Later came out. Granted, there are more worthwhile things worthy of my concern, but as a zombie fan, I have to vent.
To me, 28 Days, 28 Weeks, and Devil's Playground are not zombie movies, and I fail to understand how they keep being referred to as such. Yes, I know where the zombie concept originated from, but for the sake of my argument, I'm going to refer to zombies in a way that I grew up understanding them.
To me, a zombie is a REANIMATED CORPSE. I don't care if they are marathon runners or decaying shamblers, a zombie is a dead person whose body is ran by some sort of auto pilot, whether it's from toxic waste, fallen satellites, voodoo spells, or alien worms.
To me, a zombie is not a person driven to savage, mindless blood lust from viruses, or in Pontypool's case, spoken word. I let the creatures in Resident Evil slide because as far as I know about the zombies and animals, they are infected and UNDEAD. I don't know if it's mainly a British thing, but mobs of leaping mutants are exactly that. Something happened to their genetic makeup that turns them into bezerker killing machines, but they are STILL ALIVE. If i were to follow 28 Weeks Later's example, I would have to say that werewolves are my second type of zombie. Both lose their humanity, both become inhuman fiends, both infect people to become a creature like them, both like blood, and there's more similarities I'm sure.
I don't truly think werewolves are "zombies", I'm just saying that werewolves are as much of a zombie as the Infected are.
What I propose that we create a new sub-genre, or a new label for a modern monster. How about the term "Crazie"?
I partly came up with the term because of the 2 movies called "The Crazies", and also as a way to define their nature, as in, not undead, but crazy. As i type this, I don't recall anywhere that The Crazies (the movie) were ever referred to as zombies by anyone who has seen or reviewed the movies. When you compare The Crazies with The Infected, are they pretty much the same - rapidly moving living people driven by blind savagery?
I cannot simply classify growling sick people with a taste for blood as true zombies, and I'd like to hope I'm not alone in this.
I also hesitate to refer to the Cullens in Twilight as vampires as well, but out of the sake of avoiding unnecessary arguments, I will accept that they are vampire-like creatures (okay, I call them glitterboys). However, that is another rant reserved for other circles.
What are your opinions of my proposal? I'd love to hear from other people on this, since the people I'm actually around don't debate about zombies at all.:rockbrow:

[Sammich]

This is the end all definition of zombies:

JezqGUOWV9w

1. Slow moving.
2. Dead.
3. All messed up.

Anything else is just confused parkour hipsters and other assorted nobheads hopped up on too much Red Bull and vodka.

[Andy]

This is the end all definition of zombies:

JezqGUOWV9w

1. Slow moving.
2. Dead.
3. All messed up.

Anything else is just confused parkour hipsters and other assorted nobheads hopped up on too much Red Bull and vodka.

Take slow moving off there and you have a definitive list. I can enjoy running zombies aswell as shamblers, but the important points are;

1. They are DEAD and reanimated.
2. They eat the flesh of their victims.
3. The do not succumb to starvation/dehydration/exhaustion.
4. They are 'all messed up' and can only be killed by severe head trauma (to the brain) anything else including gunshots to the body, losing limbs, extreme blood lose and suffercation, does NOT kill them.

Anything that does not meet all of those points is not a zombie.

[AcesandEights]

A lot of energy getting upset about a term that was co-opted to begin with.

[Christopher Jon]

1. They are DEAD and reanimated.
2. They eat the flesh of their victims.
3. The do not succumb to starvation/dehydration/exhaustion.
4. They are 'all messed up' and can only be killed by severe head trauma (to the brain) anything else including gunshots to the body, losing limbs, extreme blood lose and suffercation, does NOT kill them

Yeah, that's a Romero zombie but I think the world is big enough for more variety in the zombie universe.

Romero invented his own brand of zombie but that doesn't make it definitive. Romero zombies have nearly nothing in common with Haitian, African and pre 1968 zombies. Even Haitian lore is contradictory about zombies being the dead reanimated through witchcraft or the living reduced to a death-like mindless state via drugs.

Mashup Haitian and Romero lore and you've got a naked dude in Miami eating another naked dudes face.

It's stubborn to not accept that Zombies and Vampires have evolved in popular culture over the years. There is no definitive zombie or vampire aside from zombies are typically mindless dead people and vampires are dead people that drink blood.

[EvilNed]

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080202231409/uncyclopedia/images/1/11/Beating-a-dead-horse.gif

They're zombieflicks. Deal with it.

[Jason Edwards]

I can except the different variety of zombies. Running zombies. Talking zombies. Blue zombies. Green zombies. White Zombies. Voodoo zombies. Brain slug zombies. Micheal Jackson zombies. Cyborg ninja zombies. Hang gliding zombies. NASCAR zombies. Marvel zombies. Etc, Etc.
But regardless of how they look or act, they all share one common trait: THEY'RE DEAD. If it's not dead, it's not a zombie, it's a bad case of rabies, instead.

[EvilNed]

We're not talking about wether something is medically a zombie (which, again, is up for debate), we're talking about the genre.

[bassman]

Everyone knows that it's not a zombie unless it can crawl on the ceiling...

http://anythinghorror.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/day-of-dead-spider.jpg

[Jason Edwards]

AcesandEights, you're absolutely right about the term "zombie" being co-opted. But on the same token, no one is here for their appreciation of Haitian rituals, either.
EvilNed, what is your definition of "zombie genre"? Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to see if I make a point or not.

[EvilNed]

The zombie genre uses some of the following conventions:

- Apocalypse
- Societal collapse
- Mindless automatons are taking over / have taken over the world
- Friends being "infected" and turning into the enemy against their will
- Gore, people being torn apart
- Political or religious allegories or metaphors
- Mankind's worst enemy is mankind itself
- Often (but not always) a sad ending with little to no hope.
- A Siege-type scenario
and/or
- People on the run from said threat

[AcesandEights]

The zombie genre uses some of the following conventions:

- Apocalypse
- Societal collapse
- Mindless automatons are taking over / have taken over the world
- Friends being "infected" and turning into the enemy against their will
- Gore, people being torn apart
- Political or religious allegories or metaphors
- Mankind's worst enemy is mankind itself
- Often (but not always) a sad ending with little to no hope.
- A Siege-type scenario
and/or
- People on the run from said threat

Sounds about right to me.

Also, if I may point out, when that horrible event happened in Miami, I didn't read about or hear a single person stop to editorialize about it 'actually' being a 'rage infected' victim, or which term was more apropos. Zombie was a sufficient analogy for what they were trying to get across.

All this amounts to debating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, though.

[Jason Edwards]

Could I not also apply the zombie genre criteria to Star Trek: First Contact as well?

[Andy]

Could I not also apply the zombie genre criteria to Star Trek: First Contact as well?

Going by EvilNed's definition you could.. and The Terminator movies too, oh and The Matrix :p

Im sorry but ill never accept 28 days later or the crazies as true zombie movies, they are not. Like i said in another topic, Dracula is closer to a pop culture zombie than 28 days later's infected are and i use the term "Pop Culture Zombie" becuase i think using the traditional Haitian or voodoo zombie to back your argument that romero didnt follow "the follows" is equally stupid, romero never set out to use the traditional zombie when NOTLD was made and the term "Zombie" is not used once in the movie. Whether Romero intended to or not he created a new kind of monster which we have applied the term zombie to and thats what i talk about when i say popular culture zombie becuase whatever romero's intentions where, his set of rules changed horror movies and defined how zombie movies were made for the next 30 years, it was only this last decade that we have started to chop and change. Those movies which defined the rules and stick by the rules are the movies that we all grew up with and the reason that we are all here.

The Haitian zombie vs Romero "popular culture" Zombie is a totally redundant argument. However 28 days later infected are also NEVER referred to as zombies in the movie itself, the creators of 28 days have gone as far to say in interviews that they never intended to make a zombie movie and they dont see their movie as a zombie movie and if the creators are saying its not, it dosnt fit with our rules of what we expect a zombie to be and it wasnt ever intended to.. then why are you arguing that we should change our defination to make it fit?

Call me a purist if you must, but if we expand and "evolve" our defination of the zombie then where does it stop? Take it far enough and you could class Star Wars as a zombie movie. The entire argument really grinds my gears.

[AcesandEights]

The Smurfs, man. The smurfs!

http://images.wikia.com/smurfs/images/c/c8/Change_Into_Purple_Smurf.jpg

I can hear the slipknot music cuing up now. :p


call me a purist if you must

I would if we were talking about voodoo style zombies, as opposed to Romeroesque ghouls.

[Jason Edwards]

I also realize this is not unlike comparing apples and oranges. But since I ordered an orange juice, it would bother me if I got apple juice instead.
And when you REALLY get down to it, fully functional (I'm using the term loosely) zombies are an impossibility, so yes, arguing over make believe things would be fundamentally silly, but to be hung up on reality totally defeats the purpose of these forums as well.
I'm coming from three angles here:
1)The Romero concept of zombies is how I was introduced to zombies to begin with (it probably wasn't an actual Romero movie that I saw, it was probably some other knock off movie), so my understanding of the concept of a zombie is an undead person eating the flesh of the living. There are also plenty examples of zombies who don't necessarily eat anybody, but they're still depicted as DEAD.
2)I'm not out to disrespect Danny Boyle or fans of the 28 Days series, and I hope no one takes this debate as such.
3)I'll admit to being anal-retentive about the whole matter, but honestly, when you enter nerd territory like Star Wars or zombies, it's a given you'll encounter fanatical people.

I find stories of society's collapse fascinating as the rest of you, I am entertained by a farmhouse full of people freaking out over monsters, and the concept of the enemy is us is interesting to me as well. Also, I think that monsters that still resemble us are a lot more frightening than, say The Blob or Cthulu. So, yeah, we're all here for the same reason.
All I'm saying is it's not a duck just because it walks and talks like one. It's almost like stereotyping in a way.
But Mike Tyson (insert mindless automaton comparison here) biting the ear off an opponent does not make him a zombie any more than Robert Carlyle was a zombie in 28 Weeks Later.

-- -------- Post added at 01:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ----------

A person could also say The Bible was the original zombie fan fic, but you can imagine the butthurt over that one as well, lol

[EvilNed]

Could I not also apply the zombie genre criteria to Star Trek: First Contact as well?

Oh,

let me add one more criteria I thought would be really, really obvious...

HORROR.

EDIT: Also, I'm not gonna bother replying to the Terminator or Matrix comparisons. If you think they have as much incommon with Day of the Dead as 28 Days Later does, then I see no point in continuing this discussion, because we're speaking two different languages.

[AcesandEights]

So you guys don't think being picayune about people co-opting a term that you are being zealous about the definition of, that was itself already co-opted isn't a bit...hypocritical?

Don't know how else to approach this topic, but that's how it seems to me. Simple as.

[Andy]

Oh,

let me add one more criteria I thought would be really, really obvious...

HORROR.

EDIT: Also, I'm not gonna bother replying to the Terminator or Matrix comparisons. If you think they have as much incommon with Day of the Dead as 28 Days Later does, then I see no point in continuing this discussion, because we're speaking two different languages.


The zombie genre uses some of the following conventions:

- Apocalypse
- Societal collapse
- Mindless automatons are taking over / have taken over the world
- Friends being "infected" and turning into the enemy against their will
- Gore, people being torn apart
- Political or religious allegories or metaphors
- Mankind's worst enemy is mankind itself
- Often (but not always) a sad ending with little to no hope.
- A Siege-type scenario
and/or
- People on the run from said threat

- Apocalypse - Terminator, skynets nuclear war. Matrix, War with the machines that drove mankind underground.
- Societal collapse - Terminator and Matrix both show how society is destroyed.
- Mindless automatons are taking over / have taken over the world - Both Terminator and Matrix show Mindless machines taking over the world.
- Friends being "infected" and turning into the enemy against their will - Terminator - The T1000 mimics people to get close to its enemy against their will, in T3 Arnolds terminator is infected by the TX and tries to kill john connor, again against his will. In the Matrix Reloaded, Smith takes over banes body and uses it to hunt Neo in the real world, against his will.
- Gore, people being torn apart - Theres so many examples in the terminator, in the first movie arnold rips a guys heart out shortly after arriving in the 80's. In the Matrix revolutions, when the machines breach zion, Hundreds of people are shredded and ripped limb from limb by the sentinels.
- Political or religious allegories or metaphors - I Guess the messages from the Terminator are mixed, beware the enemy you cant see, be wary of technology.. Countless references to judgement day. Again, the Political and religious metaphors in the Matrix are so numerous and obvious im not gonna list them, if you have any of the films, you know them. Basically neo is supposed to be jesus :p
- Mankind's worst enemy is mankind itself - Mankind builds skynet in the terminator and the initial machines of the matrix, and mankind starts the war with the machines.
- Often (but not always) a sad ending with little to no hope. - This one i will need to relent a little, The Terminators ending is kind of bleak, no hope, cant change the future kind story.. The Matrix has a more positive ending.
- A Siege-type scenario - Theres police seiges in all 3 terminator movies and salvation is set in a warzone and in the Matrix Revolutions you have the siege on Zion.
- People on the run from said threat - In both terminator and the matrix, People hide underground from the machines.

Oh and as for the horror (which you only added later :p) The Original Terminator movie was billed as a Sci Fi/Horror Movie.

See how by your very own words, by your own defination that you wrote out, not me, Both The Terminator and The Matrix movies are zombie films. Yeah ive taken your points literally and im being stubborn but ive just proved how lame your argument is.

A Key point that you missed is that zombies are dead people reanimated, which rules out the Terminator, the Matrix and 28 days later.

Now why dont you answer my question?


28 days later infected are also NEVER referred to as zombies in the movie itself, the creators of 28 days have gone as far to say in interviews that they never intended to make a zombie movie and they dont see their movie as a zombie movie and if the creators are saying its not, it dosnt fit with our rules of what we expect a zombie to be and it wasnt ever intended to.. then why are you arguing that we should change our defination to make it fit?

[EvilNed]

I was gonna respond by text but screw it, here ya go.

I rephrased some of the conventions and removed some of broad ones, such a gore, people on the run from said threat, etc. etc.

http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2996/yesnoi.png

[Sammich]

The zombie genre uses some of the following conventions:

- Apocalypse
- Societal collapse
- Mindless automatons are taking over / have taken over the world
- Friends being "infected" and turning into the enemy against their will
- Gore, people being torn apart
- Political or religious allegories or metaphors
- Mankind's worst enemy is mankind itself
- Often (but not always) a sad ending with little to no hope.
- A Siege-type scenario
and/or
- People on the run from said threat

Sounds like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

[Andy]

I was gonna respond by text but screw it, here ya go.

I rephrased some of the conventions and removed some of broad ones, such a gore, people on the run from said threat, etc. etc.

http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2996/yesnoi.png

Impressive chart, honestly :)

But what your post reads to me is that you really dont have a comeback to any of my points, so you have to change your original criteria to fit a new argument, ignore parts of the movies (all of them) that contradict your argument, completely miss my keypoint again and fail to answer my question, again.

I think ive won this one :p

[Jason Edwards]

That is a very concise, organized table.
Although, I'm unsure whether to interpret it as the table proves my point, or if by creating this table means you agree with us after all.
Also, if you're not "gonna bother replying to the Terminator or Matrix comparisons", then why the effort for the chart?
Aces, it is kinda hypocritical, but to say that none of us use the term correctly would also make you using the term zombie hypocritical as well.
"Zombie" has always been kind of a blanket term, but when the vernacular "zombie" is used, a person almost always thinks of a living dead person, and it is usually understood that a zombie is an undead flesh eater. It's easier to just say zombie than immediately after saying zombie, you have to explain which sense of the word you're talking about.
This forum is about the living dead, it's not the Homepage of the Crazed PCP User, it's not Homepage of the Ancient Voodoo Ritual, it's not the Homepage of the Mind Controlled Slaves, it's not the Homepage of Cranberries Famous Song. I'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to talk about other things that are not zombies, but I'm saying we're all here hammering away on keyboards and burning electricity because we love flesh eating DEAD PEOPLE.
I think to use the rebuttal of "you say potato, I say potahto" makes the topic stray from it's original purpose. I'm not making this an issue of semantics, but, bottom line, I am saying i don't agree with what i feel is a mis-used label.

[EvilNed]

But what your post reads to me is that you really dont have a comeback to any of my points, so you have to change your original criteria to fit a new argument, ignore parts of the movies (all of them) that contradict your argument, completely miss my keypoint again and fail to answer my question, again.p

The reason I changed the criteria was because I realized some of them were a little vague and some of them were very broad. Of course things like gore apply to many films, so I removed it. I'm not "ignoring" anything, I'm simply narrowing the filters. There's nothing wrong with that.
The original post wasn't that thought out, I wasn't expecting people to apply other films to those criteria, and thus just wrote down what came to mind.
When put to paper, they were a little vague. I etched them out better. This is the result. I didn't realize there was any "winning" to do here. This is simply four films compared to each other.

This is my way of answering your points. But since your points were made in response to something I've already admitted being vague and broad criteria, you were not wrong. Based on this vague and broad criteria, you were right. I don't see the point in answering them.

EDIT:

Uhm, also I guess I owe you an answer to your "the creators said 28 days later isn't a zombie flick, so there you go!"-argument:

- In Night of the Living Dead, the ghouls are never referred to as zombies. Thus it's as much of a zombieflick as 28 days later (by that logic).
- In truth, I don't really care what the creators say about their own flick. They surely had an intention. But it's really my viewing of it that matters, much in the same way I decide if a film is good or bad. I don't let a critic decide for me.

[Jason Edwards]

True, the weird people roaming the countryside in NOTLD were never referred to as zombies,
BUT
they were reanimated dead.
Which ended up as zombies.
Yup.

[EvilNed]

Yeah, I know. I agree with you. They're zombies. It's a silly argument to begin with. But Andy wanted an answer, so there it is.

[AcesandEights]

Jason, it seems like the crux of your argument is that you have an opinion that matters more than other peoples. You're right. It matters more to you, but why should it bother you what others classify as zombies, as the term and concept has been evolving for the last several decades?

[Andy]

No its not a matter of opinion, you name me ONE zombie movie where the zombies are alive... thats what me and jason are both shouting but you guys are continually missing, its the single key defining fact of popular zombie mythology.. in books, TV series's, comics, movies, games.. Shamblers or runners, silent or loud, weak or strong.. zombies ARE the reanimated dead.

28 days infected are ALIVE, its a film about a virus, they get hurt, they starve to death, they can potentially be cured. 28 days was not made to be a zombie movie, we are not saying its a bad movie, i like 28 days. its a good horror movie, but its a NOT a zombie movie.

Your changing the rules of a genre so that you can incorporate a film that has some vague similarities and that is wrong, thats what i was trying to demonstrate with the whole terminator/matrix thing.. when you start bending the rules of your genre you can incorporate ANY movie into it.

Oh titanic isnt a action film.. but if i look at this way..

wrong.

[AcesandEights]

But you guys already did all that when you moved the goal posts to include flesh eating non-voodoo undead and co-opted the term.

You don't understand how that might seem a fallacy or hypocritical to me?

[Neil]

Everyone knows that it's not a zombie unless it can crawl on the ceiling...

http://anythinghorror.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/day-of-dead-spider.jpg

How did that scene ever even reach paper, yet alone film?

[EvilNed]

No its not a matter of opinion, you name me ONE zombie movie where the zombies are alive...

28 Days Later.

Infact, that's what we've been arguing about for awhile.

How could you not see that one coming? :p

EDIT: Also, I of course agree with Aces. The zombie genre was once about Bela Lugosi with outstretched arms. It's evolved since then, and keeps doing so.

[Andy]

But you guys already did all that when you moved the goal posts to include flesh eating non-voodoo undead and co-opted the term.

You don't understand how that might seem a fallacy or hypocritical to me?

No i dont, becuase there was no pre-existing zombie apocalypse genre before romero created night of the living dead. Haitian zombie movies like i walked with a zombie and white zombie never featured society crumbling and the undead taking over, man not co-operating or protected seiges.. in fact if you look down evil ned's list there virtually none of those points can be applied to early Haitian zombie movies so when romero created night of the living dead he also created a brand new formula, which i referred to in a previous post as "pop culture zombies" which has been used again and again since.

With 28 days its completely different, your not trying to create a new formula or sub-genre, your trying to merge it into an existing genre becuase it has some vague similarities and then your telling us that we are wrong to defend our beloved genre. Thats why we're getting mad and defensive lol.

[Jason Edwards]

I am currently watching Night of the Comet. I like it, even though it's not a zombie flick either.
The movie "Mutants" doesn't get referred to as a zombie movie (as far as I know), but it's basically the same as 28 Days or Devil's Playground, which are considered Z films.
Aces, maybe it bothers me because I'd like to know if I should put I Am Legend with my zombie films, or keep it in my Inflated Will smith's ego collection.
Then there are those who swear the creatures in Legend are vampires...
Why does no one consider The Crazies a zombie movie? Could it be because they're NOT zombies?
How do different movies, that are virtually the same, get called Z movies by some, and not by others?

[Sammich]

When I discovered this movie a couple years ago, it struck me as if I were watching an early draft of Night of the Living dead.

T9CAmtoltw4

It came out in 1959, but the elements are all there:

1. Slow moving.
2. Dead.
3. All messed up.

What set this apart from today's undead riff raff is that zombies back then showed pride in their group shamblings by arriving well dressed and neatly groomed.

I can't remember if they ate the people they killed though.

[EvilNed]

No i dont, becuase there was no pre-existing zombie apocalypse genre before romero created night of the living dead. Haitian zombie movies like i walked with a zombie and white zombie never featured society crumbling and the undead taking over, man not co-operating or protected seiges.. in fact if you look down evil ned's list there virtually none of those points can be applied to early Haitian zombie movies so when romero created night of the living dead he also created a brand new formula, which i referred to in a previous post as "pop culture zombies" which has been used again and again since.

With 28 days its completely different, your not trying to create a new formula or sub-genre, your trying to merge it into an existing genre becuase it has some vague similarities and then your telling us that we are wrong to defend our beloved genre. Thats why we're getting mad and defensive lol.

You're right, not many of those points (if any) apply to old Bela Lugosi zombie flicks.

Yet they were once referred to as zombie films. Just as NOTLD and 28 Days Later are.

[MoonSylver]

How did that scene ever even reach paper, yet alone film?

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00852/SNN2424CC-682_852301a.jpg

:rockbrow:

:lol:

[Christopher Jon]

Your're actually arguing over two separate things.

Zombies, as a genre, EvilNeds argument

and

Zombies, as monsters, which is Andy and Jason's argument.

Most of us would agree that Zombies, as monsters, are reanimated dead and in most cases like to snack on the living.

The Zombie Genre has outgrown the monsters themselves. Most people view films like 28 Days Later as part of the Zombie Genre even if the infected aren't flesh-eating undead.

I thought EvilNeds chart was spot-on for the Zombie Genre.

[JonOfTheShred]

I agree that 'infected' or 'rage' victims, such as the assailants in works like 28 Day Later, the Crazies, and Left 4 Dead are not "zombies" in the 'traditional', Romero sense, nor would I even refer to them as zombies, I would still lump them all together as far as GENRE of film goes. Because the recurrent thread is the same, the same feeling of dread and hopelessness that makes zombie films so awesome and endearing is present in any 'infection' movie. Hell, I'd even lump "Pontypool" and "The Signal" in with zombie movies. They all have a very similar vibe. But I definitely agree, that....

Slow-moving, reanimated corpse zombies >>> Olympian-runner infected

-- -------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------


http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00852/SNN2424CC-682_852301a.jpg

:rockbrow:

:lol:

Bath salts?

[EvilNed]

Your're actually arguing over two separate things.

Zombies, as a genre, EvilNeds argument

and

Zombies, as monsters, which is Andy and Jason's argument.

Most of us would agree that Zombies, as monsters, are reanimated dead and in most cases like to snack on the living.

The Zombie Genre has outgrown the monsters themselves. Most people view films like 28 Days Later as part of the Zombie Genre even if the infected aren't flesh-eating undead.

I thought EvilNeds chart was spot-on for the Zombie Genre.

Pretty much sums it up.

I'm not suggesting that the 28 Days Later zombies are typical Romero zombies, of course. I hope nobody thinks I am.

[AcesandEights]

Your're actually arguing over two separate things.

Zombies, as a genre, EvilNeds argument

and

Zombies, as monsters, which is Andy and Jason's argument.

Most of us would agree that Zombies, as monsters, are reanimated dead and in most cases like to snack on the living.

The Zombie Genre has outgrown the monsters themselves. Most people view films like 28 Days Later as part of the Zombie Genre even if the infected aren't flesh-eating undead.

I thought EvilNeds chart was spot-on for the Zombie Genre.

This makes perfect sense to me. I've tried explaining it this way before, last year (and the year before) and some of the die hards will still not budge.

It all pretty much comes down to:

I grew up with zombies meaning a certain thing, so I was okay that the definition was able to expand to include what I knew and loved. I do not however like that it seems to be changing to include something I do not approve of.

[Sammich]

You all should be sent to the Dr. Phil house for a week to work out all of these issues.

[Jason Edwards]

It pretty much comes down to preference. I just prefer my zombies to be dead.

[Christopher Jon]

You all should be sent to the Dr. Phil house for a week to work out all of these issues.

http://ocdbloggergirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/image001.jpg

[Trin]

Take slow moving off there and you have a definitive list. I can enjoy running zombies aswell as shamblers, but the important points are;

1. They are DEAD and reanimated.
2. They eat the flesh of their victims.
3. The do not succumb to starvation/dehydration/exhaustion.
4. They are 'all messed up' and can only be killed by severe head trauma (to the brain) anything else including gunshots to the body, losing limbs, extreme blood lose and suffercation, does NOT kill them.

Anything that does not meet all of those points is not a zombie.
So Return of the Living Dead is not a zombie movie because they fail all or in part on several of those points.

I maintain my long-held and often stated belief that we should throw out the term "zombie movie" and use the correct term "apocalyptic survival horror" instead. That way your fall of society monster movie can include zombies, vampires, crazies, CHUDs, or whatever you like.

I have to say that I love the "what defines a zombie movie" debate. There are so many different perspectives and the various viewpoints are always interesting. It is all interpretation.

Whether or not it's all opinion is a matter of opinion. :p

[Andy]

Are you guys deliberately misunderstanding me? Im not talking about zombies as monsters, im talking about the genre. If anything you have it the wrong way around.

Look, what im saying is Horror as a whole is a pretty big genre and has alot of subgenres. Horror changes and evolves as more subgenres are added to it. Subgenres themselves dont change, if your going to evolve and change subgenres then you can fit ANY movie into ANY subgenre, how we organise movies completly breaks down like i said you could call titanic an action film if you look at it a certain way, but you dont becuase it isnt.

Like 28 days later isnt a zombie movie. Read my posts through this thread and you'll see what im arguing is the modern, popular zombie subgenre was started by romero when he made NOTLD, i do not ascioate this at all with the earlier voodoo zombie movies becuase frankly they have NOTHING in common. This subgenre has been used for 40 years now and produced some brilliant movies, and again i emphasize this subgenre alone is the reason we are all here on HpotD. 28 days later and its sequel are good horror movies, i am not saying their not.. but ther are not zombie movies, they only share some similarities. They are not about zombies, the guys who have made them have said their not about zombies, they where never intended to be. They about a virus, that effect living people and makes them homicidal like romero's The Crazies.

What you guys in the "its a zombie movie" camp are doing is trying to mash a film into a subgenre it dosnt belong in and it happens to be a subgenre i love so call me a purist or old school or whatever else, but i will never relent, 28 days/weeks are NOT zombie movies and they never will be.

[Trin]

I see what you're saying Andy. If you ask me what a zombie is my definition is closely aligned to yours - reanimated dead, feasts on the living, etc.

But I also believe that the opposing opinions have merit. Someone could easily argue that Romero defined the "Living Dead" genre, not the "zombie" genre, and Romero's "ghoul" is a subset of zombie. This board is not called "Homepage of the Zombie" after all. And Romero no more set out to make zombies than Boyle did.

Where I think the real confusion lies is that Romero defined a genre... and it has widely been coined the "zombie" genre... but it's not the zombie genre. He created a genre around a desperate situation where society has fallen to a mindless slew of once-human creatures. It's apocalyptic survival horror. And the creatures just happen to be zombies. So when movies like 28 Days Later and I Am Legend come along they seem like the same kind of movie and get lumped into the "zombie genre" but they are no more zombie movies than Romero's are. They have a similar vibe.

For example, Dawn of the Dead and I Am Legend feel more like they belong in the same genre than Dawn and Dead Snow. Yet Dead Snow is clearly a zombie movie moreso than Legend.

It's all perspective.

[Christopher Jon]

And the creatures just happen to be zombies.
Correction,

In Night of the Living Dead, the creatures were called Ghouls, which actually fits, undead creatures that feed on living flesh.

I doubt anybody knows when or who first associated Romero's creatures with zombies but I doubt it was Romero himself. It was probably fans or the media and Romero just went with it when he returned to make Dawn of the Dead nine years later. I'm actually unsure if zombie is even said in that film. SWEET! A good excuse to rewatch it.


Where I think the real confusion lies is that Romero defined a genre... and it has widely been coined the "zombie" genre... but it's not the zombie genre. He created a genre around a desperate situation where society has fallen to a mindless slew of once-human creatures. It's apocalyptic survival horror. And the creatures just happen to be zombies.
This was my point earlier about the genre being larger than the creatures themselves.

The genre of Zombie Films has grown and evolved. Romero introduced flesh eating in 1968, Boyle introduced rage virus in 2002 and a lot of other creative minds have brought their own take on zombies and the Zombie Genre over the years. While the creatures in many of those films and novels aren't stereotypical zombies, they all fall into the 2012, poorly named, Zombie Genre.

Somewhere a Haitian witch is casting a curse on all of us. :)

OK.... time to watch some mutha-fucking zombies in a mutha-fucking mall.

[Trin]

Correction,

In Night of the Living Dead, the creatures were called Ghouls, which actually fits, undead creatures that feed on living flesh.

I doubt anybody knows when or who first associated Romero's creatures with zombies but I doubt it was Romero himself. It was probably fans or the media and Romero just went with it when he returned to make Dawn of the Dead nine years later. I'm actually unsure if zombie is even said in that film. SWEET! A good excuse to rewatch it.
LOL!! This is a thread where you just can't win!! I went back and forth over using the word "ghoul" versus "zombie" in that sentence. But I think that zombie is the correct word because in contemporary discussion of the Romero movies his creatures are most often referred to as zombies. And that's at the crux of my point. The genre has gotten muddled by terminology! Even Romero calls his creatures zombies now, most likely just as you've stated, because the fans and media thrust that term upon him.

And of course I agree with exactly what you stated about them originally being ghouls!

[Danny]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1334856168378s.jpg
again. you guys do this again...

[EvilNed]

The genre of Zombie Films has grown and evolved. Romero introduced flesh eating in 1968, Boyle introduced rage virus in 2002 and a lot of other creative minds have brought their own take on zombies and the Zombie Genre over the years. While the creatures in many of those films and novels aren't stereotypical zombies, they all fall into the 2012, poorly named, Zombie Genre.


This, more or less. Andy says a sub-genre can't evolve. I think that's silly. Who says they can't?

Even though some would disagree, this really just boils down to opinion. Ok, fine, don't put the 28 Days Later film into the Zombie genre. But to me, there's no question about it: It's there. It's a zombiefilm. Danny Boyle may have set out to do whatever he wanted, what came through was a zombiefilm. Using this logic, the Night of the Living Dead isn't a zombiefilm either, because that wasn't Romero's intention.

[Sammich]

If 28 Days Later is considered a zombie movie, then so should Warning Sign from 1985.

[AcesandEights]

If 28 Days Later is considered a zombie movie, then so should Warning Sign from 1985.

Whoah, Jeffrey DeMunn was in it.

Is it mid-80s bad or mid-80s good?

[Sammich]

It good and has elements which have been used in subsequent "outbreak" movies. The movie channels on satelite/cable show it every once in a while.

[AcesandEights]

It good and has elements which have been used in subsequent "outbreak" movies. The movie channels on satelite/cable show it every once in a while.

Thanks, I'll make a point to try and see it.

[Christopher Jon]

LOL!! This is a thread where you just can't win!! I went back and forth over using the word "ghoul" versus "zombie" in that sentence.
I'm just havin fun. I think it's a silly topic to begin with.

[Trin]

Whoah, Jeffrey DeMunn was in it.

Is it mid-80s bad or mid-80s good?
It's pretty good. I watch it most every time it comes on. It's small in scope compared to the world-wide stuff of Night/Dawn/Day or 28 Days/Weeks, but it's quite well done.

And to Sammich's point, it is every bit as much a zombie movie as 28 Days. Or every bit NOT as much as 28 Days if that's your stance! :p

I think I have decided on my own new personal deciding point for whether something belongs in the exalted "Zombie Genre." If I watch a movie and it makes me go Fuckin-A like Night/Dawn/Day did... it's in.

[Sammich]

There is krab which is artificial crab, so how about psumbies (psuedo zombies) for artificial zombies?

[AcesandEights]

There is krab which is artificial crab, so how about psumbies (psuedo zombies) for artificial zombies?

Psumbies for psycho zombies? :lol: That works well.

As for their being artificial crab...wow :eek:

[shootemindehead]

28 Days Later.

Buzzzzzzzzz!

Sorry, that's wrong. But thanks for playing. Did you have a good time?

[EvilNed]

Buzzzzzzzzz!

Sorry, that's wrong. But thanks for playing. Did you have a good time?

Funny guy, huh?

But still... 28 Days Later. Thanks for the paycheck, Mr. Trebek.

Party all night long! Yeah!

Wake up next morning with super aids.

Turns into zombie.

Kills everyone.

[shootemindehead]

...Nerds on HPOTD discuss whether Neds terrible demise and subsequent killing spree would be called a zombie movie.

General consensus is...no.

[Danny]

this argument is just the same as 'who shot first han or greedo?', because the answer is nobody cares about your opinion unless it is the same as theirs and in the long run its a bloody pointless and stupid thing to have an opinion about anyway not that it wont stop this same 'debate' in a 657th thread about the same thing :lol:

[Christopher Jon]

Party all night long! Yeah!

Wake up next morning with super aids.

Turns into zombie.

Kills everyone.

Is that what that rash is? That explains everything.

Back on track... zombies. Cool video that I don't think has been posted here.


http://vimeo.com/33133076

[JonOfTheShred]

Is that what that rash is? That explains everything.

Back on track... zombies. Cool video that I don't think has been posted here.


http://vimeo.com/33133076

That was great! Awesome video :elol:

[bd2999]

I actually liked Devil's Playground. Depending on the definition it fits although I tend to like they are dead angle as well. They are near enough though where I do not think this is going to get adjusted any time soon. My issue with Netflix is the amount of trash they have on it. With zombie films for every decent one there are five very recent straight to DVD unwatchable movies. I know there are not boat loads of good zombie films but come on.

[AcesandEights]

My issue with Netflix is the amount of trash they have on it. With zombie films for every decent one there are five very recent straight to DVD unwatchable movies. I know there are not boat loads of good zombie films but come on.

So painfully true! Too many "let's just stamp 'zomedy' on it" projects, as well.

[Andy]

Jason, it seems like the crux of your argument is that you have an opinion that matters more than other peoples. You're right. It matters more to you, but why should it bother you what others classify as zombies, as the term and concept has been evolving for the last several decades?

Followed by..


So painfully true! Too many "let's just stamp 'zomedy' on it" projects, as well.

Must.... resist........

sorry really cant...

SIR YOUR T-SHIRT HAS ARRIVED!

http://www.flogarecords.com/store/images/hypocrisy%20-%20hypocrite.jpg

[AcesandEights]

:lol: Judgement on the quality of a zombie movie doesn't mean it's a judgement about whether it sits in the genre :p

And you have to admit, a lot of bad zombie attempts get branded 'zomedies' nowadays. :(

[Trin]

I would also point out (for right or for wrong) that when I go onto Netflix and look in the zombie movies category I get exactly what I expect. A hodgepodge of good and bad movies, with a general theme of mindless human creatures attacking normal living humans.

Come to think of it, I remember when zombie movies were a dime a dozen at the local mom & pop video rental store (prior to Blockbuster!) and you could bank on half of them being parasites, aliens, infections, etc. There were actually very few that were dead people. It was still fun to watch them, if only for the groan factor.

This gets back to my question about Return of the Living Dead... zombie movie? Or not zombie movie? It was a chemical infection. Some of the "zombies" are reanimated corpses. But not exclusively. The two mortuary guys were close to turning without dying. The "zombies" only eat brains and they don't die from brain trauma. And they talk. I'm curious how the more rigid zombie movie genre fans classify this.

[Sammich]

Because of what was in the final scene of Game of Thrones last night, it can now officially be called a zombie show.

[Andy]

This gets back to my question about Return of the Living Dead... zombie movie? Or not zombie movie? It was a chemical infection. Some of the "zombies" are reanimated corpses. But not exclusively. The two mortuary guys were close to turning without dying. The "zombies" only eat brains and they don't die from brain trauma. And they talk. I'm curious how the more rigid zombie movie genre fans classify this.

Im probably considered quite a rigid purist even though i have on occassion defended movies which defy the tradition. Dawn '04 is a good example, i really enjoyed that movie and have defended it several times, But i am a purist in that i beleive when romero created NOTLD in 1968 he created a brand new subgenre which was not related to the previous voodoo zombie genre and which over the years through tweaking has become the modern zombie genre, now a subgenre can be tweaked (the introduction of runners for example, only a tweak becuase you could argue that in romeros early movies like Night and Dawn, there are fast moving zombies about) but the fundementals cannot be changed, for example including 28 days later becuase its vaguely similar. If anything i consider 28 days later closer to the vampire genre ala i am legend than the zombie subgenre and yes they are seperate becuase like in i am legend, 28 days later infected are alive and can be cured. It is my firm beleif that zombies are and should be limited to the living dead and it should be a one way process. How much drama would have been lost from the original dawn if some scientist walked in with a syringe, injected roger on his deathbed and in the next scene roger was up tapdancing?

The fundementals of a subgenre, the very foundation the subgenre is built on, cannot and should not be changed and for zombies, thats the fact they are the living dead and not just the living. Night of the living dead, dawn of the dead, day of the dead. If a movie dosnt have the fundementals then it clearly dosnt belong there and that means 28 days later, i am legend and the crazies are all their own genre. Probably the same one for all 3, but it aint zombies. Thats what really pisses me off about this whole argument, this should be clear to everyone on here, i shouldnt be arguing with you guys. The fact that "something has to be a reanimated corpse to call it a zombie" should only be an argument i have with my girlfriend, workmates and other ignorants of the topic. Hardcore fans like you guys should get all this already and it pisses me off that i have to preach this here, we should all be laughing at the ignorants calling 28 days later a zombie movie together.
Imagine people trying to argue that Star Trek:Generations should be called a star wars movie becuase they both happen in space on a star wars fan forum. This is THAT stupid.

Anyway, returning to your point, return of the living dead, yeah i call it a zombie movie. Its not a particullarly good one but i dont hold that against it.

[Trin]

Great post Andy! Very insightful to your mindset.

I think, for me, the only place where your line of reasoning falters is elevating Romero's Living Dead to be the only allowable zombie. I agree that Romero's movies shaped the modern day zombie, but not to the point of exclusivity. He created a sub-genre, as you say, but it remains a sub-genre.

The Living Dead are zombies... but zombies are not necessarily the Living Dead.

I expect that the rest of the board would agree there is a self-evident argument around the term Living Dead... Is 28 Days a Living Dead movie? Or I Am Legend? I bet everyone would agree no.

But I see your point.