Romero's Dead Trilogy different than all other zombie films

[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.

[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.