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

[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

[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.

[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. That was great! Awesome video

[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!

[AcesandEights]

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