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.

[Sammich]

This is the end all definition of zombies: 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: 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]

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...

[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 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! I can hear the slipknot music cuing up now. call me a purist if you must I would if we were talking about voodoo style zombies, as opposed to Romeroesque ghouls.