28 days later..considered a zombie movie?

[onehappyzombie]

I do because they are zombie like, and have many of the same effects in horror, except eating....Plus they are infected and angry, just not dead. And zombies are alive again, but they died so...

[Stash Horak]

A zombie is a re-animated corpse. These are not corpses. They are psychotic, blood-thursty victims of a bio-weapon virus.

Just like Romero's The Crazies...

[Brody]

It's a tough call. It has definatley left its mark on zombie horror; perhaps they are crazed out of their minds? I dont know. It definatley sits on the curve

[Bad Zombie Night]

If you do a Google search on 28 Days Later, you'll find most of the reviews refer to it as a Zombie film.... Looks like a Zombie film, smells like a Zombie film, and tastes like a Zombie Film, then it probably is a Zombie film. ;-)

[outkast]

A zombie is a re-animated corpse. These are not corpses. They are psychotic, blood-thursty victims of a bio-weapon virus.
Thats about all there is to say.

[onehappyzombie]

Thats about all there is to say.
yah i thought it would be considered somewhat part of it.

[tarman]

depending on how strict you are with zombie movies, this could go either way. i tend to lump this movie in the zombie genre the same way i do with nightmare city, last man on earth, and demons. not quite zombies, but good enough!

28 days later is zombie enough for me, plus a dash of social commentary is always a plus :drool:

[The Blind Dead]

A zombie is a re-animated corpse. These are not corpses. They are psychotic, blood-thursty victims of a bio-weapon virus.

Just like Romero's The Crazies...
I can vaguely remember an interview with Danny Boyle in which he clearly states this isn't a zombie film, although Alex Garland wrote it as one. Boyle wasn't a fan of zombie flicks so he decided to concentrated more on the whole infected human idea.

Here's what Boyle told the BBC:


It's this idea of a psychological virus. Like road rage, that moment when the red mist descends, if you magnify that a thousand times and experience it to the exclusion of everything else, imagine what that kind of power would be like. That was our monster. If you really think about that, it's very, very scary indeed.

We cast athletes as the monsters, because they're incredibly powerful and you can sense that power in them. We also used manifestations of Ebola: the vomiting and blood pouring from orifices; and the rictus look of fear at the hydrophobia stage of rabies. Hopefully all of that makes it a very scary film.

[guerrilla]

i guess i consider 28DL a zombie film and i've seen little to convince me otherwise.

[awfulman]

I would classify it as a zombie film because it's creators said in an interview that they loved zombie films, and wanted to pay homage to them, particularily Dawn of the Dead.

Aren't mummies the original zombies? They didn't hunger for flesh, as far as I know - they just strangled people. Go figure. SO these monsters in 28 Days later are just different.

[Thanks]

Must agree with it being a zombie film. Doesn't the guy at the beginning die before he gets crazy? Not quite sure. I'll have to take another look. It has many other elements of a zombie film. Survivors finding survivors, thinking the world has ended, people biting one another and firepower. What's lacking is headshots!

[Sadogoat]

Aren't mummies the original zombies? They didn't hunger for flesh, as far as I know - they just strangled people. Go figure. SO these monsters in 28 Days later are just different.

I wouldn't class them as zombies, although they DID have flesh-eating mummies in 1981's Dawn Of The Mummy :)

[Darth Erroneous]

It is zombie-like. It has qualities of a zombie movie, but lacks other things (they're not dead). It's what my old gym teacher would call a "fense stradler" Still a darn good film, though.

[Mindtraveller]

Not a zombie movie. Otherwise -just like it has been mentioned-, then The Crazies is a zombie film too. :roll:

Now I see there needs to be a higher standard for the elements that constitute the basis of what is a zombie flick.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Not a zombie movie. Otherwise -just like it has been mentioned-, then The Crazies is a zombie film too. :roll:

The Crazies were nothing more the mentally disturbed people, running around, and killing other people... The infected in 28 Days Later were bleeding from their orifices, and vomiting blood similar to a Ebola virus outbreak... Also I believe the organs liquify during this process making the victim unable to move, much less run around, or have the strength to murder anyone... On that note, I'd say the 28 Days Later creatures are more like Zombies, than a bunch of sick folk.

[Mindtraveller]

the 28 Days Later creatures are more like Zombies

There, you said it, there's the key phrase, with the most important part in bold.

It's *kinda like* a zombie movie, but not really one.

They are creatures who share many zombie-like characteristics, but are not quite the walking dead. I have never seen the problem with calling the genre "infected" or something, the problem is where I see almost a crusade from some fellows to turn it into a zombie flick, as if doing so would make it better or something.

On a side note, please keep in mind that I'm not discussing the merit of the movie itself. I actually liked it for what it is. I make this disclaimer because whenever I'm discussing the 'zombie movie or not' subject with some folks, they begin to think I'm trying to say they're not zombies because I didn't like it, which is not the case.

[Bad Zombie Night]

There, you said it, there's the key phrase, with the most important part in bold.

It's *kinda like* a zombie movie, but not really one.

I wasn't attempting to place them in a grey area... If they are not sick people, then they have to be Zombies... The Crazies was a totally ludicrous comparison.

[onehappyzombie]

The Crazies were nothing more the mentally disturbed people, running around, and killing other people... The infected in 28 Days Later were bleeding from their orifices, and vomiting blood similar to a Ebola virus outbreak... Also I believe the organs liquify during this process making the victim unable to move, much less run around, or have the strength to murder anyone... On that note, I'd say the 28 Days Later creatures are more like Zombies, than a bunch of sick folk.
Yah real "zombies", if they will ever exist, will probably be something like that. And maybe there body will fall apart and look as if it was decaying.

[SGT. DEATH]

Hell this film is a classicwhy not let it rest as so.There is worse.

[Mindtraveller]

I wasn't attempting to place them in a grey area... If they are not sick people, then they have to be Zombies... The Crazies was a totally ludicrous comparison.

Then you are contradicting yourself. First you mention they are "creatures more like zombies", then you say "they have to be zombies". If you are not trying to place them in a grey area you must avoid these kind of clashing thoughts (And still you are not saying they ARE zombies).

Of course The Crazies is a ridiculous comparison, that was exactly the point, taking things to the extreme to make the idea clearer.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Hell this film is a classicwhy not let it rest as so.There is worse.
I just can't stand it when people compare this film in any way to the Crazies. :loon:
I think some people want to give GAR credit for creating everything on the planet.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Then you are contradicting yourself. First you mention they are "creatures more like zombies", then you say "they have to be zombies". If you are not trying to place them in a grey area you must avoid these kind of clashing thoughts (And still you are not saying they ARE zombies).

I explained what I meant, and obviously you're missing my point, or you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

If they're not sick, or mentally ill people, then they have to be Zombies.

[SGT. DEATH]

I think some one should come up with a description of a zombie,or set of rules for being a zombie to settle this arguement.But if there not zombies then a new horror has been created and this hasnt happened since NOTLD by GAR.But saying that didnt he set new rules/standards in the zombie genre.

[Mindtraveller]

I explained what I meant, and obviously you're missing my point, or you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Eh, no. If someone is missing a point in this exchange of ideas, it's you. However, the fact that you are taking this as an argument is leading me to believe you are not taking it the same way I am (Argument vs. Exchange of ideas).


If they're not sick, or mentally ill people, then they have to be Zombies.

That is exactly why they are not zombies. They are sick people, these creatures have been infected by a disease that makes them stay alive for a longer period of time (probably due to a process similar to high adrenalin levels), overcome by an animalistic rage, something that is a loss of higher mental intelligence (ie. mentally ill - formerly ok, after infection: loss of greater thought capability). These persons are not dead, nor they have returned from death; those who are attacked don't die, they are infected by this virus that makes them behave in the manner described.

[Mindtraveller]

I think some one should come up with a description of a zombie,or set of rules for being a zombie to settle this arguement.But if there not zombies then a new horror has been created and this hasnt happened since NOTLD by GAR.But saying that didnt he set new rules/standards in the zombie genre.

The thing is that there is already a definition of what is a zombie. As much as some people want to deny it, the zombie is a classic monster already, much in the same way vampires and werewolves are. Trying to redefine a classic is much more harder than it seems. Someone might think that giving a werewolf the ability to fly (or jump incredibly high distances) and no longer being immune to normal bullets is a way to redefine it, and in a way this could be right, except for the fact that by doing so, he's stripping the creature from its classic characteristics, the ones that make it a werewolf.

[Bad Zombie Night]

That is exactly why they are not zombies. They are sick people, these creatures have been infected by a disease that makes them stay alive for a longer period of time (probably due to a process similar to high adrenalin levels), overcome by an animalistic rage, something that is a loss of higher mental intelligence (ie. mentally ill - formerly ok, after infection: loss of greater thought capability). These persons are not dead, nor they have returned from death; those who are attacked don't die, they are infected by this virus that makes them behave in the manner described.
It all depends on how you want to define a Zombie... There's nothing wrong with changing or tweaking what was traditionally excepted as a Zombie, or any other character in the horror genre.

GAR did it in Night of the Living Dead. ;-)

[SGT. DEATH]

The thing is that there is already a definition of what is a zombie. As much as some people want to deny it, the zombie is a classic monster already, much in the same way vampires and werewolves are. Trying to redefine a classic is much more harder than it seems. Someone might think that giving a werewolf the ability to fly (or jump incredibly high distances) and no longer being immune to normal bullets is a way to redefine it, and in a way this could be right, except for the fact that by doing so, he's stripping the creature from its classic characteristics, the ones that make it a werewolf.
Although strange and you do have a good arguement this happens witha lot of movies good and bad.And in 28 days later no one actually new if the infected where dead,cause no one checked or declaired other wise.The rules change according to the director,or the script and what these creatures are is down to a persons aceptance.To me its zombies but to you its just infected.Whats a were wolf who can die by an ordanary bullet or a zombie who runs,thinks or cant be killed by a bullet to the brain.Its fun to change. :drinking:

[SGT. DEATH]

It all depends on how you want to define a Zombie... There's nothing wrong with changing or tweaking what was traditionally excepted as a Zombie, or any other character in the horror genre.

GAR did it in Night of the Living Dead. ;-)
Just in case I got it wrong this is my point as well. :drinking:

[Mindtraveller]

There's nothing wrong with changing or tweaking what was traditionally excepted as a Zombie, or any other character in the horror genre.

Nothing wrong, I agree. And 28 Days Later is a really good twist on the zombie ideas. The only part where I can't agree is it being a full-on zombie movie; again, the "infected" term seems much more appropiate.

GAR did it in Night of the Living Dead. ;-)

Oh, definitely. I mean, if we were going by the ancient definition of zombie then only the early films would be such. However, we can't deny the fact that with Night of the Living Dead, the change just added to the original myth (ie. a living dead person who walks the earth again) by making these ghouls flesh-eaters. I mean, all the other characteristics (slow to moderately fast paced movement, trance like behaviour, etc.) were there. I can't begin to think how cool 28 Days Later would have been if the viral effect actually made people return to life and move not like sprinters, but in a moderately fast way (like the priest, for example). I know it might sound like splitting hairs, but a zombie should be a corpse, that's all. :mrgreen:

[SGT. DEATH]

Well mind traveller where these folks dead or alive.Did any one take a pulse check blood pressure or take a tempeture.I dont rember any one checking any of the through out the whole film so we dont really know.In a lot of films fans refeer to zombies as infected as that what causes the plague to spread.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Well, I guess maybe were going to have to spilt Zombies into Traditional Zombies, and New Age Zombies.

[guerrilla]

28DL will always be a zombie film to me. i mean theres plausible explanations. maybe they are dead, but the change happens instantly from when you die to being a zombie instead of taking a few moments like in most zombie films. if you noticed, i can't remember his name, but the girls father (frank?), theres an instant where he's telling her to stay away, and then its like theres a flicker, like a big change, and then he's a zombie, maybe that instant was him dying and simultaneously becoming a zombie. most zombie films involve a virus/bacteria/infection of some sort. if you're bitten, you become one. the change just happens much more rapidly in 28DL. i don't understand the need to argue or even discuss whether or not 28DL is a zombie film.

hell no one disputes the fact that ROTLD is a zombie film, yet they talk, something that i don't think a zombie should do, but i can accept that they are indeed zombies. the story in 28DL has the exact same composition of a lot of the great, classic zombie films, yet because the change happens much more rapidly people argue whether or not its a zombie film. i don't get it.

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

Just when you think the ol' Is 28 Days Later Really A Zombie Movie question has been laid to rest...

...Well...I expect this thread to come up, I'll say, at least once or twice a year. But dang! It's does get annoying. The whole What's The Definition Of A Zombie thing. *sigh* Regardless of the history of the term (as in, it doesn't matter where it started, or who did what, and blah, blah, blah)--the fact is that there are many accepted definitions of the word zombie, and not all of them include a corpse. As for my personal taste where zombie films are concerned, I prefer the corpse-come-back-to-life kind. But I suppose that the virus victims in 25DL could also be described as zombie-like (and don't give me the zombie-like argument---if it smells like :poo: , it's probably :poo: --if it acts like a zombie (insert numerous zombie traits here) it's probably a zombie--as accepted by one a variety of definitions.

Is 28DL a traditional zombie movie? No. But then, neither was Night when it came out.

[Zombie Survivor]

If I remember it correctly, weren't the "zombies" eating a soldier on the kitchen table of the mansion? I need to watch the DVD again. *heads towards collection*

[Darth Erroneous]

If I remember it correctly, weren't the "zombies" eating a soldier on the kitchen table of the mansion? I need to watch the DVD again. *heads towards collection*
Good point. I remember seeing the same thing.

[Exile]

Didn't a mere drop of blood to the eye cause infection? :cry:

If you don't even have to die to become one, then what is the point?
I don't believe it was a zombie flick.
You dont even have to come in contact with a 'zombie' to become infected.
Where is the fun in that?

[Bad Zombie Night]

You dont even have to come in contact with a 'zombie' to become infected.
Where is the fun in that?
About as fun as someone dying from natural causes, and coming back as one.

[Mindtraveller]

Well mind traveller where these folks dead or alive.Did any one take a pulse check blood pressure or take a tempeture.I dont rember any one checking any of the through out the whole film so we dont really know.

This is a valid point, and pretty questionable throughout the movie. However, the ending scene where you see one of the creatures dying because of starvation is what gives it away; a zombie won't die of starvation if there is no food around, it will simply fall victim to decay caused by putrefaction. That's pretty much what sets these creatures apart in the end. As Exile mentioned earlier, a drop of blood in the eye would make you one of them, thus you don't need to die to be transformed, therefore these creatures were not dead.

[Mindtraveller]

(... don't give me the zombie-like argument---if it smells like :poo: , it's probably :poo:

The problem is that the above is a logical faux pas and the reason why the zombie-like argument is valid; many things can be pretty deceiving when it comes to what they are. An example on the fly are those stick insects: they look like a piece of vegetation, so they are probably such, right? Nope.

I've been reading many opinions regarding this movie, and a vast majority of them say the creatures are "kinda like zombies", therefore one should expect that no one would see a problem with saying it's "kinda like a zombie movie", but for some strange reason there is. Even when the creatures are more often than not referred to as "zombie-like", the movie itself is tried to be filed as a zombie flick, which really makes no sense.

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

Zombie:

[n] several (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/several) kinds (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/kinds) of (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/of) rum (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/rum) with (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/with) fruit (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/fruit) juice (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/juice) and (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/and) usually (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/usually) apricot (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/apricot) liqueur (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/liqueur)
[n] someone (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/someone) who (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/who) acts (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/acts) or (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/or) responds (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/responds) in (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/in) a (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/a) mechanical (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/mechanical) or (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/or) apathetic (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/apathetic) way (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/way); "only (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/only) an (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/an) automaton (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/automaton) wouldn (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/wouldn)'t (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/t) have (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/have) noticed (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/noticed)"
[n] a (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/a) dead (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/dead) body (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/body) that (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/that) has (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/has) been (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/been) brought (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/brought) back (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/back) to (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/to) life (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/life) by (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/by) a (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/a) supernatural (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/supernatural) force (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/force)
[n] a (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/a) god (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/god) of (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/of) voodoo (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/voodoo) cults (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/cults) of (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/of) African (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/african) origin (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/origin) worshipped (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/worshipped) especially (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/especially) in (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/in) West (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/west) Indies (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/indies)
[n] (voodooism (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/voodooism)) a (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/a) spirit (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/spirit) or (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/or) supernatural (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/supernatural) force (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/force) that (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/that) reanimates (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/reanimates) a (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/a) dead (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/dead) body (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/body)

Seems to me that the infected in 28DL could possibly fall under the second definition...not as in "apathetic", but possibly "mechanical." OR do we only define a "zombie" by the Romero definition, which would be the third referrenced here?

[guerrilla]

This is a valid point, and pretty questionable throughout the movie. However, the ending scene where you see one of the creatures dying because of starvation is what gives it away; a zombie won't die of starvation if there is no food around, it will simply fall victim to decay caused by putrefaction. That's pretty much what sets these creatures apart in the end. As Exile mentioned earlier, a drop of blood in the eye would make you one of them, thus you don't need to die to be transformed, therefore these creatures were not dead.

was it starvation? or was the infection running its course? or do the zombie deteriorate after a certain amount of time of reanimation? by watching just the film you can't know they're starving, you're assuming that.

[Mindtraveller]

Seems to me that the infected in 28DL could possibly fall under the second definition...not as in "apathetic", but possibly "mechanical." OR do we only define a "zombie" by the Romero definition, which would be the third referrenced here?

The original meaning of the term is the most important part to consider. In this case, number five (which in turn leads to number three) is the root of the zombie myth. The root, or essence of things, is by default unmodifiable; doing otherwise results into a core change that brings an undeniable difference from the source; it ceases to be an extension (or modification) of the original thing, and turns into a new kind of creation.

The second definition is used basically in a metaphorical manner, and even in doing so, it's a consequence of the original term, taking certain elements that can be adapted to fit a certain idea. Someone says "average Joe is a zombie", meaning that Joe is basically dead inside, whether apathetic or an automaton, but this is done on a metaphorical way; Joe is not really physically dead.

Romero took the original term and left the root of the zombie intact, his zombies are "dead [bodies] that [have] been brought back to life by a supernatural force", they are mindless automatons too, with the only addition being that they crave human flesh, but the essence of the original zombie is there.

A zombie needs, by intrinsic characteristics, to be a corpse brought back to life.

[Zen Buddakhan]

Didn't a mere drop of blood to the eye cause infection? :cry:


I remember that scene with the crow,.....wouldn't the Bird be infected with rage like the test monkeys were, and why was this not evolved in to the storyline? :)

[Mindtraveller]

was it starvation? or was the infection running its course?

In this two scenarios, said creature would be alive. In order for an infection (especially a viral one) to continue its course, the host needs to be alive.

or do the zombie deteriorate after a certain amount of time of reanimation?

Even though a corpse has a predefined time for decay, this would be an interesting take, if the creatures were dead and then reanimated; which by the way, now you are assuming they were. When the thing is that...

watching just the film you can't know they're starving,

... it's mentioned earlier in the film, at the military courtyard.

[guerrilla]

... it's mentioned earlier in the film, at the military courtyard.

well the soldiers don't know that the zombies will starve though. just because they chained him up and said he would tell them how long it takes for the zombies to starve doesn't mean the zombie will starve. this again is an assumption on the part of the soldiers that you are taking as fact, which was never backed up or discussed further in the film.

[flenser]

Without getting bogged down in definitions and technicalities, I believe that 28DL is *spiritually* a zombie film.

Just in the same way that Argento's Demons are also zombies in spirit if not actuality.

Okay so the creatures in question aren't 'classic' but then neither are they in DotD '04.

As was said above - if it tastes like zombie then it probably is. :drool:

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

The original meaning of the term is the most important part to consider.

I disagree. Language evolves.

[Mindtraveller]

well the soldiers don't know that the zombies will starve though. just because they chained him up and said he would tell them how long it takes for the zombies to starve doesn't mean the zombie will starve. this again is an assumption on the part of the soldiers that you are taking as fact, which was never backed up or discussed further in the film.

Although it's true this isn't further mentioned, one has to take into consideration the fact that military people are trained in common basic first aid skills, which needless to say, include knowing whether a person can or can not be declared dead.

The point is that the film leaves too much of a grey area concerning if the creatures are dead and not. When something is uncertain, it's not really a good idea to affirm it is this or that, but to take it for what it is, an uncertain thing.

[Mindtraveller]

I disagree. Language evolves.

By taking only a part of my whole post and putting it out of context, you are neglecting the fact that within that post, the evolution of the term is also mentioned and given an explanation. Unless you want to completely ignore it to validate a personal point, I don't see where my post is clashing with the idea that some terms evolve into something more.

[Bad Zombie Night]

was it starvation? or was the infection running its course? or do the zombie deteriorate after a certain amount of time of reanimation? by watching just the film you can't know they're starving, you're assuming that.

well the soldiers don't know that the zombies will starve though. just because they chained him up and said he would tell them how long it takes for the zombies to starve doesn't mean the zombie will starve. this again is an assumption on the part of the soldiers that you are taking as fact, which was never backed up or discussed further in the film.
Excellent points... I always dismissed the scene at the end of the film as starvation, but you're absolutely correct... How do we really know what is actually killing them?

[Bad Zombie Night]

Romero took the original term and left the root of the zombie intact, his zombies are "dead [bodies] that [have] been brought back to life by a supernatural force", they are mindless automatons too, with the only addition being that they crave human flesh, but the essence of the original zombie is there.

A zombie needs, by intrinsic characteristics, to be a corpse brought back to life.
Where did you get this information from?
In the script of Night of the Living Dead, there was never a reference to Zombies, or was the word ever mentioned in the film... The term used was "Ghouls," and the Zombie reference didn't come along until after the film debuted in 68'. Furthermore, the term "Zombies," and idea of "the dead being brought back to life by a supernatural force," didn't come about until Dawn 78' was made... The explanation used in the film was the Venus space probe excuse... In addition, why does GAR always receive all the honors for writing the story? John Russo deserves half the credit for his contribution... The cast members of the movie have often said that John knew, and could readily explain the differences between a Ghoul, and a Zombie... Matter of fact, while listening to commentary on NOTLD, the cast members have often eluded to the original term of "Ghoul" as opposed to Zombie, when discussing the original term for the creatures.
So similar to 28 Days Later, NOTLD was assigned the term Zombie by the fans, and the media.

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

So similar to 28 Days Later, NOTLD was assigned the term Zombie by the fans, and the media.

Good point BZN. :)

[Mindtraveller]

You make some really good points.

Where did you get this information from?
In the script of Night of the Living Dead, there was never a reference to Zombies, or was the word ever mentioned in the film... The term used was "Ghouls," and the Zombie reference didn't come along until after the film debuted in 68'.

Indeed, the original idea didn't have the "zombie" term in mind, but the creatures could be easily seen as such because they fit the bill perfectly. The real issue here is that one should understand that "a rose by any other name..."; it is really irrelevant if they were called ghouls because they, simply put, were not. A ghoul is an ancient spirit in muslim folklore, a sort of demonic being that feeds on corpses, not on living flesh. So, if we are going to go by the semantics argument, the creatures in Night of the Living Dead are not referred to as zombies, but they fit the term because they share many of the root characteristics of these. If you want to call them ghouls then the term is being thrown without further thought, as these creatures are not spirits of any sort, and they go looking for living persons to feed themselves, which basically contradicts the core idea of a ghoul.

[the] idea of "the dead being brought back to life by a supernatural force," didn't come about until Dawn 78' was made... The explanation used in the film was the Venus space probe excuse...

Exactly, it was an excuse to try to logically explain the incidents, it was closer to the typical need of human beings to explain that which they can't comprehend.

In addition, why does GAR always receive all the honors for writing the story? John Russo deserves half the credit for his contribution... The cast members of the movie have often said that John knew, and could readily explain the differences between a Ghoul, and a Zombie... Matter of fact, while listening to commentary on NOTLD, the cast members have often eluded to the original term of "Ghoul" as opposed to Zombie, when discussing the original term for the creatures.
So similar to 28 Days Later, NOTLD was assigned the term Zombie by the fans, and the media.

Well, the differences between ghoul and zombie have been already addressed.

Let's suppose I and a couple of friend decide to make a movie which features evil demons that feed on corpses (ghouls) and decide to call them zombies. It is, in the end, irrelevant and incorrect because such creatures' definition has been set for a long, long time.

On a related note, even though I actually enjoy having so many different opinions being discussed :mrgreen:, I get the impression that this is dragging for longer than it should. So, I'd like to say the following in order for my whole point to be clearly understood. You will see it's not as bad as some of you might think:

- I like 28 Days Later
- There is no problem in seeing it being discussed by zombie fans in a zombie enthusiasts community.
- It's perfectly fine if it happens to be included in reference literature, such as if it was included in an updated version of Peter Dendle's Zombie Movie Encyclopedia.

By reading the above maybe you are wondering what the hell I'm arguing then. Well, the thing is that all of this is perfectly fine as long as the movie is acknowledged for what it is; a movie that borrows a lot from zombie flicks but -as of now- can't be regarded as a 100% zombie movie. Heck, call it a 'borderline zombie movie' if you want, but please, don't affirm it is a zombie movie as if there is no room for it being catalogued otherwise.

That's all.

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

- It's perfectly fine if it happens to be included in reference literature, such as if it was included in an updated version of Peter Dendle's Zombie Movie Encyclopedia.

I just asked Peter if he'd include it in an updated version of ZME, and he said he would. Reason (and I agree with this): Though it's really not a zombie movie--and it's not, we could argue specifics all day long, but if just thought of quite simply...they are infected people, not "zombies:--it was intorduced to us as a zombie movie (the marketing was all over calling it a zombie movie) and a lot of fans embraced it as a zombie movie. Say, Cronenberg's Robid could be equated with 28DL, however, it isn't ingrained in the zombie genre culture. That wouldn't make it into the ZME. However, the Evil Dead movies might, because there's been a lot of fans who consider them zombie movies. Understand? (sorry, I'm in a hurry, this may not be as clear as I'd like it to be...more later then). :)

[Mindtraveller]

(sorry, I'm in a hurry, this may not be as clear as I'd like it to be...more later then). :)

Pretty clear, though, and I fully agree with this because it's exactly what I've been aiming at. It's not really a zombie movie, but it has become part of the subculture. My only problem is when I see fellows affirming "they are zombies" (when talking about the infected) and don't leave room for doubt.

Oh, and that just made my day; if an updated version of Dendle's book ever sees the light of day, there'll be reason for http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/graveofguilt/hyper.gif.

[guerrilla]

It's not really a zombie movie, but it has become part of the subculture. My only problem is when I see fellows affirming "they are zombies" (when talking about the infected) and don't leave room for doubt.

in 1 sentence, you state an absolute, then in the next sentence you state that its wrong to have an absolute on the film and they should be willing to see both sides. i'm confused. if you expect those that think they are zombies to leave room for doubt, then you should also leave room for doubt instead of stating that it for sure is not a zombie film. that, or you're saying if someone disagrees with you they should have an open mind and listen to your side, but its ok for you to completely ignore the zombie side.

and ZAGG, it is a zombie film
:lol:

[Mindtraveller]

in 1 sentence, you state an absolute, then in the next sentence you state that its wrong to have an absolute on the film and they should be willing to see both sides. i'm confused. if you expect those that think they are zombies to leave room for doubt, then you should also leave room for doubt instead of stating that it for sure is not a zombie film. that, or you're saying if someone disagrees with you they should have an open mind and listen to your side, but its ok for you to completely ignore the zombie side.

and ZAGG, it is a zombie film
:lol:

I've been saying it's not really a zombie film, which basically is a substitute for saying it's not "exactly" one. You are putting words in my mouth. By saying that it's not really a zombie film, the room for doubt is left open, as it's different than saying "it's not a zombie movie" (which granted, I said that on my first reply to the thread, basically as a counter to the affirmations that had been taking place). It's understandable why you might think otherwise, though, as it's different to read than to listen. If you could listen the intonation of the "really", you'd have picked it up quickly.

Anyway, I've exposed many different points as to why it's not really a 100% zombie film, I've stated in numerous other posts that the movie itself is ambiguous when it comes to this subject. It's been mentioned more than once that the creatures might be zombies. Even in my last post I said that "as of now" it can't be seen as one, to clarify that the room is left open.

So don't try to isolate a paragraph from the rest of the thread, as it is part of a whole, not a stand-alone idea.

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

Oh, and that just made my day; if an updated version of Dendle's book ever sees the light of day, there'll be reason for http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/graveofguilt/hyper.gif.

It's possible, though not a definite. He's been caught up the last few years writing books actually related to his field (Medieval Lit), so he knows he's got a lot of zombie movie watching to get caught up (what with the onslaught of video-shot zombie flicks that have come out since 1998). I try to keep him abreast of the situation. :)

and ZAGG, it is a zombie film
:lol:

:-P

Okay, I'm dropping out of this debate...maybe I'll dig up the old "Is 28DL Zombie Movie?" threads and post them.

[Pain]

I couldn't care less what it's classed as, it's just a cool horror flick! Surely that's the most important thing? :)

Although i do recall Danny Boyle stating (when it was released over here) that it wasn't a zombie flick :x

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

That is the most important thing, Pain. It really is a great movie! If I understand correctly, Boyle did indeed say it's not a zombie movie, it's a virus movie. But the marketing folks apparently thought otherwise. Oh well.

[Mindtraveller]

Although i do recall Danny Boyle stating (when it was released over here) that it wasn't a zombie flick :x

Now, if someone had a transcript of an interview where Boyle said that, all these troubles wouldn't exist. (And we wouldn't be having fun discussing these matters as good zombie nerds.). :mrgreen:

[Pain]

Very true! I do believe i probably still have a copy of Total Film with said interview in :)

[Bad Zombie Night]

it is really irrelevant if they were called ghouls because they, simply put, were not.
Well, that's not what the script says, and that's not what the TV announcer states... TV announcer says, "At this hour, they report the level of the mysterious radiation continues to increase steadily. So long as this situation remains, government spokesmen warn that dead bodies transform into the flesh eating ghouls."


A ghoul is an ancient spirit in muslim folklore, a sort of demonic being that feeds on corpses, not on living flesh. So, if we are going to go by the semantics argument, the creatures in Night of the Living Dead are not referred to as zombies, but they fit the term because they share many of the root characteristics of these. If you want to call them ghouls then the term is being thrown without further thought, as these creatures are not spirits of any sort, and they go looking for living persons to feed themselves, which basically contradicts the core idea of a ghoul.

You know, I find it ironic how you easily you accept GAR's revamping of the Zombie definition, but when he does it to another character, Oh let's say a "Ghoul," then he is way out of context.


Exactly, it was an excuse to try to logically explain the incidents, it was closer to the typical need of human beings to explain that which they can't comprehend.


Well then turn about is fair play... If by definition, a Zombie: (voodooism) a spirit or supernatural force that reanimates a dead body. Then GAR's Zombies are not Zombies at all, but something else.

Let me restate this once again.

So similar to 28 Days Later, NOTLD was assigned the term Zombie by the fans, and the media.

Trust me, if the fans and media would have referred to the creatures in NOTLD as "Ghouls" instead of "Zombies," then GAR would have stuck with that term instead.

[Mindtraveller]

Well, that's not what the script says, and that's not what the TV announcer states... TV announcer says, "At this hour, they report the level of the mysterious radiation continues to increase steadily. So long as this situation remains, government spokesmen warn that dead bodies transform into the flesh eating ghouls."

Yes, but I already presented the reasons why even if the script says the creature is such and such, it can be a mistake, probably because of the ignorance of the persons responsible for it.

You know, I find it ironic how you easily you accept GAR's revamping of the Zombie definition, but when he does it to another character, Oh let's say a "Ghoul," then he is way out of context.

You find it ironic because you are trying to use a same approach towards different scenarios. Why is the Night of the Living Dead modification of a zombie accepted? Let's see: a. The creatures are corpses that have been brought back to life. b. They are mindless automatons. These two points are the root of the physical zombie, hence a creature which goes by these is much more akin to being called a zombie, even if said creature happens to crave living flesh.

The root of the zombie is there, the root of a ghoul is not.

Well then turn about is fair play... If by definition, a Zombie: (voodooism) a spirit or supernatural force that reanimates a dead body. Then GAR's Zombies are not Zombies at all, but something else.

Why not? The supernatural force is within those dead bodies, isn't it?

Trust me, if the fans and media would have referred to the creatures in NOTLD as "Ghouls" instead of "Zombies," then GAR would have stuck with that term instead.

Most likely, and we would be ghoul movie fans, visiting the all things ghoul forums ;) . However, that wouldn't change the fact at all that said definition would be warped and wrong at the origin. (Example: American Football, not much foot is involved in the game; it's been accepted as the description of the sport, sure, but in the end that doesn't make it right, even if we all know and call the sport by that name.)

[Bad Zombie Night]

Yes, but I already presented the reasons why even if the script says the creature is such and such, it can be a mistake, probably because of the ignorance of the persons responsible for it.
The authors probably intended to alter the term a bit, and didn't give a hoot about it being the true defintion.... It still doesn't change the fact that they were referred to as "Ghouls" in the original script.


You find it ironic because you are trying to use a same approach towards different scenarios. Why is the Night of the Living Dead modification of a zombie accepted? Let's see: a. The creatures are corpses that have been brought back to life. b. They are mindless automatons. These two points are the root of the physical zombie, hence a creature which goes by these is much more akin to being called a zombie, even if said creature happens to crave living flesh.

The root of the zombie is there, the root of a ghoul is not.

As I mentioned earlier, those so called "root" definitions that you keep referring to, have nothing to do with NOTLD... The public and media assigned the term "Zombies" to the creatures, not the original authors... Furthermore, definitions a and b are separate characterizations, and are not to be added together to form a single definition... For example, you can have mindless automations, but they don't necessarily have to be deceased.

Btw... I find it interesting to what you refer to as "root" terms or meanings which are focused on particular aspects of the Zombie definition, while you chose to ignore the other parts.

Why not? The supernatural force is within those dead bodies, isn't it?
If exposure to radiation from space, was the direct cause for their return, then that would not be a supernatural cause... The cause would be of a scientific means, which in this case, it would be deemed as science fiction.

Most likely, and we would be ghoul movie fans, visiting the all things ghoul forums ;) . However, that wouldn't change the fact at all that said definition would be warped and wrong at the origin. (Example: American Football, not much foot is involved in the game; it's been accepted as the description of the sport, sure, but in the end that doesn't make it right, even if we all know and call the sport by that name.)
... And the term Zombie wasn't warped, and it's origins altered?

[Mindtraveller]

The authors probably intended to alter the term a bit, and didn't give a hoot about it being the true defintion.... It still doesn't change the fact that they were referred to as "Ghouls" in the original script.

No one is denying the fact.


As I mentioned earlier, those so called "root" definitions that you keep referring to, have nothing to do with NOTLD... The public and media assigned the term "Zombies" to the creatures, not the original authors... Furthermore, definitions a and b are separate characterizations, and are not to be added together to form a single definition... For example, you can have mindless automations, but they don't necessarily have to be deceased.

Which in turn cease to be the original zombie. The rest was addressed on the last post. Please refer to it.

Btw... I find it interesting to what you refer to as "root" terms or meanings which are focused on particular aspects of the Zombie definition, while you chose to ignore the other parts.

What other parts? The mixed juice? All this has already been discussed on the exchange between Zombie A-Go-Go and me.

If exposure to radiation from space, was the direct cause for their return, then that would not be a supernatural cause... The cause would be of a scientific means, which in this case, it would be deemed as science fiction.

Important parts in bold. Even in the part of the script that you posted, said radiation is referred to as "mysterious" (aka. its origin and causes are undefined).

... And the term Zombie wasn't warped, and it's origins altered?

Nope, the origins are still there. Please read carefully all that has been written at this point. It's starting to be a bit frustrating in the sense that I'm repeating myself over and over.

[The TRUE lord of the dead]

I have noticed at least a few things (which is enough for me) that make it stand out from zombie movies. First one is that when someone was infected they didnt keel over and die (in comparison to zombie movies in which everytime i have seen someone bitten by the zombies they always die before turning and thats the way i have seen in even books and video games) they seem to have some kind of sizure right after infection and the second after that they go psycho. Second one i have seen was that no matter what zombies dont starve to death (when we first hear it from the military leader in the mansion and then at the normal end of the movie we see them all dead) a zombies system would almost stop aside from brain activity including the digestive system (how many people here have seen a zombie go to the bathroom :lol:). third thing i noticed is the whole rage thing behind the virus, zombie virus's dont give zombies psychotic rage they make them into eating factories (even though the digfestive system is dead) these people on the other hand have the need to harm things not eat them (which could explain why they starve cause they probably forget how to eat). fourth is aside from land of the dead zombies wouldnt normally stop and take in the information around them (aka plan to an extent) as we see numerous times in 28DL.

[onehappyzombie]

yah it seems like theirs 2 different types of zombies, ones which are virus infected, ad ones which are just reanimated corpses. I hate the beggining of 28 days later,...stupid enviromentolist terrorists.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Nope, the origins are still there. Please read carefully all that has been written at this point. It's starting to be a bit frustrating in the sense that I'm repeating myself over and over.
Well what's the point further debating this topic? It's obvious that you have a narrow minded view to what is to be considered a Zombie... The idea of the Zombie was around a long time before 1968.... In that year, GAR and JR would change the genre by creating a film, that would make Zombies a lot more interesting... The Zombies themselves weren't anything absolutely original, but you have to them credit for their fine work... By some accounts, all they did was take a Ghoul and a Zombie, and combine them into one term... The name for that new term would be called?... you guessed it... a Zombie!... Years after NOTLD debuted, the public and media would keep referring to the creatures as Zombies, despite the fact that the characterization was never mentioned in the film... But nonetheless, GAR just went with the flow, and allowed the name to stick... In the case of 28 Days Later, there is no difference... I could care a less what Danny Boyle says he intended the infected to be referred to as, because he's in the same predicament GAR was in after 1968... To prove I'm correct, just go over to Google.com and do a web search on movie reviews for 28 Days Later... You'll find that the majority of them will refer to the infected as Zombies, and not make a big hoopla about it, except for a very small group of horror movie enthusiasts.

[Mindtraveller]

Well what's the point further debating this topic? It's obvious that you have a narrow minded view to what is to be considered a Zombie...

Now, let's not degenerate this into a flamewar. There is no need to throw attacks, even if they are of the passive aggressive kind, so I'll ask you to refrain from doing it again.

Ok, Now I'll have to prove wrong your assumption about a narrow minded view regarding our favorite undead creatures.

Let's see what kind of walking dead enter the realm of what I consider zombies in film:

The ones seen in movies such as White Zombie and I Walked with a Zombie. The flesheaters from Night of the Living Dead and Zombi 2. The more 'mystical' ones like the monks of The Blind Dead series. The ones with a slightly higher intelligence seen in Return of the Living Dead. The Serpent and the Rainbow? Check. The Dawn of the Dead 2004 ones, even if they were gold champions in sprinting (and a lot of fans didn't consider true zombies). The creatures from The Fog, although they feature many ghost qualities. Hell, I even consider Friday the 13th Part IV's onward Jason a zombie (!). The list goes on and on...

By some accounts, all they did was take a Ghoul and a Zombie, and combine them into one term...

By some accounts indeed, because all they did was take the "ghoul" term and plant it into a creature that is a zombie.

Let's debunk this once and for all. Here is the definition of zombie:

1. a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force
2. someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic way; "only an automaton wouldn't have noticed"
3. several kinds of rum with fruit juice and usually apricot liqueur.
4. a god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped especially in West Indies.
5. a spirit or supernatural force that reanimates a dead body.

Here is the definition of a ghoul:

1. An evil spirit or demon in Muslim folklore believed to plunder graves and feed on corpses.
2. A grave robber.
3. One who delights in the revolting, morbid, or loathsome.

As you can see, if Russo and Romero had chosen to use the term ghoul more often in their movie, it would still have been a mistake because:

- Those creatures are not evil spirits or demons.
- They did not plunder graves and feed on their corpses.

However:

- They are dead bodies that have been brought back to life by a supernatural force.
- They act or respond in a mechanical or apathetic way for the most part.

Granted, these creatures are not a god worshipped on the West Indies, nor they are a kind of rum; just like they are not grave robbers nor delight in the gruesome. These are irrelevant to our discussion, since we are people who can actually tell apart what we are talking about.

Years after NOTLD debuted, the public and media would keep referring to the creatures as Zombies, despite the fact that the characterization was never mentioned in the film... But nonetheless, GAR just went with the flow, and allowed the name to stick... In the case of 28 Days Later, there is no difference... I could care a less what Danny Boyle says he intended the infected to be referred to as, because he's in the same predicament GAR was in after 1968... To prove I'm correct, just go over to Google.com and do a web search on movie reviews for 28 Days Later... You'll find that the majority of them will refer to the infected as Zombies, and not make a big hoopla about it, except for a very small group of horror movie enthusiasts.

Yes, but this is due to an acceptance of the logical fallacy known as "appeal to popularity".

The idea behind this fallacy is the assumption the majority are more likely to be right than you are likely to be right.

The fact that the majority agree on something does not imply that what they agree on is true.

What this fallacy suggests is that if the majority thinks that a yellow ball is orange, therefore it must be orange. This, obviously, is not true.

However, I see your point; in some cases going with the stream is the only solution. When a mistaken term has been so widely spread that is accepted as part of reality, even when at its core, it's still wrong. As I already mentioned in the example of American Football.

Now let's summarize a little so you can see and understand why I cannot say that the creatures from 28 Days Later are zombies (at this moment).

Check the list of movies where I consider there are zombies. You'll realize that even though they are quite different from each other, they share one thing: *they came back from the dead*.

Forward to the definition of a zombie; let's see why you can't determine a zombie by using only one of the characteristics that make him so.

1. a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force

Vampires fit this description, hence Vampires are zombies. - Not true.

2. someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic way; "only an automaton wouldn't have noticed"

Robots, as well as many people act that way. Therefore, robots and many people are zombies. - Not true, even though you can make the case that in the last example, the term zombie is correct. But let's elaborate on this.

The zombie myth reaches western culture. The image of a zombie is that of a resurrected body that behaves in a mindless way. After a while, this image of a creature behaving that way is the perfect way to form a description of a certain behaviour. It's like when someone says "Mary is a robot", trying to say that Mary doesn't show any feelings. The term robot is being used as an aid to form a description.

These are the reasons why both instances are needed to make a "full" zombie.

The alive or dead status of the creatures in 28 Days Later is too ambiguous. If they happen to be dead then yes, they are zombies, if they happen to be not dead then they are not. It would be as simple as that, except we don't really know, therefore the most reasonable stance here is to leave it in doubt.

Yes, it is seen as a zombie film by many, and perhaps with the years it will be integrated completely to the genre, just like football has been accepted as the term for this american sport. Will it be true then? No, unless further proof of these creatures being dead is present.

[guerrilla]

Second one i have seen was that no matter what zombies dont starve to death (when we first hear it from the military leader in the mansion and then at the normal end of the movie we see them all dead) a zombies system would almost stop aside from brain activity including the digestive system (how many people here have seen a zombie go to the bathroom :lol:).

i can't believe i have to repeat something that i said just a few posts ago. people really ought to read the thread before contributing. you don't know the zombies were starving. that was just a theory by the soldiers. the zombies at the end could have just been decaying, or maybe the virus/infection/etc. runs its course and is dying itself.

[Pain]

I don't mean to be a killjoy, but does it matter that much to everyone whether this is a "zombie" movie or not? Regardless, you either like it or you don't.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Now, let's not degenerate this into a flamewar. There is no need to throw attacks, even if they are of the passive aggressive kind, so I'll ask you to refrain from doing it again.
Maaaaan! …….. A Flame War? Somebody here has a gift for creating drama.

I never considered the usage of the connotation “narrow minded” to be a denigrating remark, but in the future I promise to take in account your sensitive nature before posting a rebuttal.

But for what it is worth, I’m sorry if I offended you.

Let's debunk this once and for all.
What’s this, a UFO investigation?

Here is the definition of zombie:



1. a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force
2. someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic way; "only an automaton wouldn't have noticed"
3. several kinds of rum with fruit juice and usually apricot liqueur.
4. a god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped especially in West Indies.
5. a spirit or supernatural force that reanimates a dead body.

Funny? I don’t see flesh eating in the original description… I wonder where that idea came from?



As you can see, if Russo and Romero had chosen to use the term ghoul more often in their movie, it would still have been a mistake because:

- Those creatures are not evil spirits or demons.
- They did not plunder graves and feed on their corpses.

However:

- They are dead bodies that have been brought back to life by a supernatural force.
- They act or respond in a mechanical or apathetic way for the most part.

I said it once, and I’ll say it again…. You can’t combine alternate definitions from the dictionary, just because they fit your views…

Secondly, the definition you provided says “brought back to life.” I not suggesting in any way, that it supports the argument for the Zombies in 28 Days Later, but you have to admit that it now poses a contradiction for you… So is the corpse actually “Living,” or is it Dead? That would seem to support the belief in Voodoo, where a dead person is believed to be dead, and is suddenly brought back to life… A good analogy to that would be The Serpent Under the Rainbow. The person isn’t actually dead, but is believed to be dead, and then brought back to life (so they think)… Hence, we have a Zombie.

Furthermore, how do account now for Romero’s intellectual Zombies? They cannot be referred to as automations anymore, because the have acquired independent thought, and don’t depend on instinct anymore…. In addition, being brought back by a mysterious radiation is not a supernatural force… It’s science, even if it is make believe science (science fiction).



Forward to the definition of a zombie; let's see why you can't determine a zombie by using only one of the characteristics that make him so.

1. a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force

Vampires fit this description, hence Vampires are zombies. - Not true.

2. someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic way; "only an automaton wouldn't have noticed"

I should’ve reinforced this before, but dictionaries and other reference texts tend to vary definitions, depending on where you’re obtaining your information.

For example, I’ve seen the term “Vampire” translated in many different ways, similar to that of a Zombie. Here’s one dictionary definition…

Vampire: A reanimated corpse that is believed to rise from the grave at night to suck the blood of sleeping people.

All except the bloodsucking part, that sounds like a Zombie… The definition of a Zombie doesn’t include flesh eating, but if your Zombies were to drink blood, then what would be the difference?

The zombie myth reaches western culture. The image of a zombie is that of a resurrected body that behaves in a mindless way. After a while, this image of a creature behaving that way is the perfect way to form a description of a certain behaviour.
Again, depending on what text reference you are reading, and how it is interpreted, Zombies were often resurrected to be placed into slavery, or under someone else’s control (Movie reference: White Zombie)… Mindless can be interpreted as lack of free will, but as we know the Romero Zombies are not under anyone’s control, because they act independently. Once again, another contradiction of the dictionary definition, and the Romero Zombies.

All I’m saying is that the definitions, and terminology changes over the years… It’s just like GoGo said,the language evolves… In that case, the genre will expanded just as it’s done in the past, to encompass different Zombie variations... Yes, that includes the infected in 28 Days Later.

[Bad Zombie Night]

I don't mean to be a killjoy, but does it matter that much to everyone whether this is a "zombie" movie or not? Regardless, you either like it or you don't.
You are not a true Zombie fan are you... You're here just for the free drinks. :drinking:

[Pain]

You are not a true Zombie fan are you... You're here just for the free drinks. :drinking:

Of course not BZN. I think 28 Days Later is a really good movie, i just don't want to sit and watch it worrying about how to classify it :x

[Mindtraveller]

Maaaaan! …….. A Flame War? Somebody here has a gift for creating drama.

Only if you want to take it that way. I'm just pointing out the fact that you are starting to throw in personal remarks into the discussion, not that I'm taking heart to them.

I never considered the usage of the connotation “narrow minded” to be a denigrating remark, but in the future I promise to take in account your sensitive nature before posting a rebuttal.

See, there you go again with assumptions about my character, based on what you think I'm trying to imply. I don't have a sensitive nature, as I said before, I don't take things said on a message board to heart, I simply don't see the point of it. However, you can rest assured that I'll point the ad hominems that I see, in hopes that the person making them can stop doing so, otherwise an objective exchange of ideas can be lost.

But for what it is worth, I’m sorry if I offended you.

No need to apologize, no offense taken.

What’s this, a UFO investigation?

No. But I wonder why that choice of words made you think so.


Funny? I don’t see flesh eating in the original description… I wonder where that idea came from?

It came from the minds of Russo and Romero, and it's exactly why you'll see that what you've been trying to say about having a wide acceptance of what a zombie is and the evolution of language arguments.

I said it once, and I’ll say it again…. You can’t combine alternate definitions from the dictionary, just because they fit your views…

True. However, you are failing to see the point. The terms are alternate in a dictionary because they are meant to be taken in a different context. The zombie myth, simply put, is that of a deceased person that has been resurrected and behaves in a mindless manner. The alternate definition of the dictionary about someone who behaves in a mechanical way is part of the evolution of the term to widen it. The zombie myth remains intact.

Secondly, the definition you provided says “brought back to life.” I not suggesting in any way, that it supports the argument for the Zombies in 28 Days Later, but you have to admit that it now poses a contradiction for you… So is the corpse actually “Living,” or is it Dead? That would seem to support the belief in Voodoo, where a dead person is believed to be dead, and is suddenly brought back to life… A good analogy to that would be The Serpent Under the Rainbow. The person isn’t actually dead, but is believed to be dead, and then brought back to life (so they think)… Hence, we have a Zombie.

It's a good argument. But I think it is a consequence of a more serious study about the reality of the zombie myth. As we know, a dead person can't be brought back from the dead, thus it's a pretty good bet that the myth is based on the idea you just wrote. Nevertheless, if we dwell deeper into this, we'll end up without any zombies in film, as we all know the walking dead do not exist.

Furthermore, how do account now for Romero’s intellectual Zombies? They cannot be referred to as automations anymore, because the have acquired independent thought, and don’t depend on instinct anymore….

It is actually more of an evolution of the creature than a separate incident. The creature is still a corpse that has been resurrected, and it still has a singular purpose to its existence, just like the ones seen in Return of the Living Dead, you can make the case that they are slightly more intelligent and in turn independent. This is true, but there is still the fact that they have only one purpose. Not much else interests them, so it's a variation of the mechanical behaviour. Just like an automaton that has been programmed to perform a singular task.

In addition, being brought back by a mysterious radiation is not a supernatural force… It’s science, even if it is make believe science (science fiction).

The thing is that such an explanation provided in the movie is more of an excuse to explain the incidents than an undeniable fact. The mere idea that they are referring to it as mysterious means that its nature is not yet understood.

I should’ve reinforced this before, but dictionaries and other reference texts tend to vary definitions, depending on where you’re obtaining your information.

For example, I’ve seen the term “Vampire” translated in many different ways, similar to that of a Zombie. Here’s one dictionary definition…

Vampire: A reanimated corpse that is believed to rise from the grave at night to suck the blood of sleeping people.

All except the bloodsucking part, that sounds like a Zombie… The definition of a Zombie doesn’t include flesh eating, but if your Zombies were to drink blood, then what would be the difference?

Again, depending on what text reference you are reading, and how it is interpreted, Zombies were often resurrected to be placed into slavery, or under someone else’s control (Movie reference: White Zombie)… Mindless can be interpreted as lack of free will, but as we know the Romero Zombies are not under anyone’s control, because they act independently. Once again, another contradiction of the dictionary definition, and the Romero Zombies.

All I’m saying is that the definitions, and terminology changes over the years… It’s just like GoGo said,the language evolves… In that case, the genre will expanded just as it’s done in the past, to encompass different Zombie variations... Yes, that includes the infected in 28 Days Later.

All of this is fine, except that this is the exact reason why we have to draw a limit in what we consider a certain creature or not. Dictionaries work more as a guideline for such situations, you have to let your own knowledge on the subject help you throughout the understanding of it. Hence why I've mentioned at various time the original zombie myth, the one where dictionaries themselves are basing their definitions on. Then I've evaluated the different alterations that we've seen all over the years on zombie movies. There needs to be a basis for it, as well as a limit.

I know you hate the comparisons to The Crazies, but let's suppose that there is a remake in the works. The people are victims of a certain drug that makes them behave in an animalistic way, with the only purpose of killing other life. It is uncertain if the drug technically kills them and then reanimates them in a matter of seconds. What we have here are zombies, of course...?

So, by bringing all these ideas about why there can be zombies that are not dead, you are letting open a door that will let a barrage of different creatures enter the zombie genre.

[MADMAN]

It's not a f**king zombie movie! It's not a f**king zombie movie! It's not a f**king... :x

Just kidding. :lol:

Honestly, I don't think it is a zombie film. If Boyle had said, yeah, this is a zombie movie then, like it or not, it would be. But, since he has emphatically denied that it is a zombie movie, then, like it or not, it ain't. Paraphrasing Aristiotle, art is about intention. As many have said, it's still damn good. If you want to put it with your zombie flicks, more power to you. If you want to add it to your own zombie mythology, more power to you.

The great thing, and the bad thing, is that every single one of us has an idea about what a zombie is. Some have a more specialized view, others more broad. That is what creates this wonderful discussion we have here, that we can take a mythological creature and lend so much depth to it. :clap:

And BZN... it ain't a zombie movie. :-P

[Mindtraveller]

Of course not BZN. I think 28 Days Later is a really good movie, i just don't want to sit and watch it worrying about how to classify it :x

You are missing all the fun. :mrgreen:

[Mindtraveller]

The great thing, and the bad thing, is that every single one of us has an idea about what a zombie is. Some have a more specialized view, others more broad. That is what creates this wonderful discussion we have here, that we can take a mythological creature and lend so much depth to it. :clap:

I agree completely. And it's one of the reasons why we can have so much fun talking about these silly things, in a geeky fun kind of way. :D

And BZN... it ain't a zombie movie. :-P

He just won't let go. :P

[MADMAN]

He just won't let go. :P


That's cool. I just like to mess with him about it. Just like he likes to remind me that it is. :)

[Bad Zombie Night]

See, there you go again with assumptions about my character, based on what you think I'm trying to imply. I don't have a sensitive nature, as I said before, I don't take things said on a message board to heart, I simply don't see the point of it. However, you can rest assured that I'll point the ad hominems that I see, in hopes that the person making them can stop doing so, otherwise an objective exchange of ideas can be lost.
Fair enough. :mrgreen:





No need to apologize, no offense taken.:)


It came from the minds of Russo and Romero, and it's exactly why you'll see that what you've been trying to say about having a wide acceptance of what a zombie is and the evolution of language arguments.



Well then, the flesh eating idea obviously came from the Ghouls.


True. However, you are failing to see the point. The terms are alternate in a dictionary because they are meant to be taken in a different context. The zombie myth, simply put, is that of a deceased person that has been resurrected and behaves in a mindless manner. The alternate definition of the dictionary about someone who behaves in a mechanical way is part of the evolution of the term to widen it. The zombie myth remains intact.
Well I interpret the list of definitions as separate individual points... Why not then include voodooism as part of the definition? I can that argue easily, because it's listed as vital component to defining a Zombie, along with the other points.


It's a good argument. But I think it is a consequence of a more serious study about the reality of the zombie myth. As we know, a dead person can't be brought back from the dead, thus it's a pretty good bet that the myth is based on the idea you just wrote. Nevertheless, if we dwell deeper into this, we'll end up without any zombies in film, as we all know the walking dead do not exist.

True... I wouldn't want to sabotage the genre, but it only proves how over the years, the meaning keeps changing, and things are added or subtracted to redefine it.


It is actually more of an evolution of the creature than a separate incident. The creature is still a corpse that has been resurrected, and it still has a singular purpose to its existence, just like the ones seen in Return of the Living Dead, you can make the case that they are slightly more intelligent and in turn independent.
I guess then what you're saying is that GAR has the power to redefine the genre into whatever he sees fit.

This is true, but there is still the fact that they have only one purpose. Not much else interests them, so it's a variation of the mechanical behaviour. Just like an automaton that has been programmed to perform a singular task.
Did they have only one purpose? Pursuing humans 24/7 just to devour them, yes.. But in Land they conquered a city... Are you saying it was just to get a free lunch? Big Daddy didn't seem interested in the free buffet.


The thing is that such an explanation provided in the movie is more of an excuse to explain the incidents than an undeniable fact.
Yeah, but that is what they intended the audience to believe... It's too bad GAR was forced to go with it, but that's the deal he made.


The mere idea that they are referring to it as mysterious means that its nature is not yet understood.

True, but radiation is still radiation regardless... It's not created by supernatural means.


All of this is fine, except that this is the exact reason why we have to draw a limit in what we consider a certain creature or not. Dictionaries work more as a guideline for such situations, you have to let your own knowledge on the subject help you throughout the understanding of it. Hence why I've mentioned at various time the original zombie myth, the one where dictionaries themselves are basing their definitions on. Then I've evaluated the different alterations that we've seen all over the years on zombie movies. There needs to be a basis for it, as well as a limit.

Yes and No... I know what you're saying... We do need standards, and guidelines to go by, otherwise how would you define a Zombie? The only thing is that script writers are always keep pumping out fresh material... They continually come up with new innovations, to try make the genre a little more exciting each time we go to the movies... Just like what GAR has done with Land of the Dead; 28 Days Later has done with the concept of the infected.


I know you hate the comparisons to The Crazies, but let's suppose that there is a remake in the works. The people are victims of a certain drug that makes them behave in an animalistic way, with the only purpose of killing other life. It is uncertain if the drug technically kills them and then reanimates them in a matter of seconds. What we have here are zombies, of course...?
GAR's Crazies? No way! They are too human like... They just don't have that Zombie vibe about them... On the other hand, we don't know what the remake will bring... I wouldn't doubt it for a second, if they took the lead of 28 Day Later, and tried to make a copycat film... Then we'll be right back here debating over that. :x


So, by bringing all these ideas about why there can be zombies that are not dead, you are letting open a door that will let a barrage of different creatures enter the zombie genre.

Possibly, but I haven't seen too many other movies like 28 Days Later yet that would qualify.... You've included Jason from Friday the 13th... That's a start, especially since I wouldn't say he was a mindless, automaton.

[Bad Zombie Night]

He just won't let go. :P

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? ;-)

[Bad Zombie Night]

And BZN... it ain't a zombie movie. :-P

Watch it kid, before I crack open your skull and suck out your brain. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Characters/zombiebite.gif

[MADMAN]

Watch it kid, before I crack open your skull and suck out your brain. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Characters/zombiebite.gif


You're soooo kinky. Stop. :rimshot:

And, uh, who you callin' kid? :lol:

[Bad Zombie Night]

And, uh, who you callin' kid? :lol:
j/k

Although I see you're pushing 30, but I still got you beat... I'm not as old as slumlord, but I'm slowly getting there. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Coolpimp2.gif

[Mindtraveller]

Well then, the flesh eating idea obviously came from the Ghouls.

That's a pretty good point, and one that I had not thought of. Looking at it from the perspective your propose, it makes much sense.

Well I interpret the list of definitions as separate individual points... Why not then include voodooism as part of the definition? I can that argue easily, because it's listed as vital component to defining a Zombie, along with the other points.

We don't include voodooism as part of the definition of a 'modern' zombie because such ritualistic things are means to an end, not the end itself.

I guess then what you're saying is that GAR has the power to redefine the genre into whatever he sees fit.

Not really, if he came with a bunch of... let's say infected people running around and killing others and call those infected people zombies, I would say he lost it. ;-)

Did they have only one purpose? Pursuing humans 24/7 just to devour them, yes.. But in Land they conquered a city... Are you saying it was just to get a free lunch? Big Daddy didn't seem interested in the free buffet.

I have not seen Land of the Dead yet, but thanks for ruining it for me. :x

True, but radiation is still radiation regardless... It's not created by supernatural means.

Could be. As the movie stands, the radiation was the only explanation it could be found for the phenomena. Perhaps, just perhaps there was another cause.

Yes and No... I know what you're saying... We do need standards, and guidelines to go by, otherwise how would you define a Zombie? The only thing is that script writers are always keep pumping out fresh material... They continually come up with new innovations, to try make the genre a little more exciting each time we go to the movies... Just like what GAR has done with Land of the Dead; 28 Days Later has done with the concept of the infected.

This we can agree on, simply because I do believe 28 Days Later has experimented with the zombie ideas, and as such I see it as a contribution to the genre, although not a zombie movie per se.

GAR's Crazies? No way! They are too human like... They just don't have that Zombie vibe about them... On the other hand, we don't know what the remake will bring... I wouldn't doubt it for a second, if they took the lead of 28 Day Later, and tried to make a copycat film... Then we'll be right back here debating over that. :x

Exactly, like you said, such creatures are too human like. The creatures from Boyle's movie are also too human like (but granted, they have some of that zombie vibe). What I am aiming at here is that the idea of a zombie being a creature that behaves mindlessly and / or in a mechanical way without being actually dead. Let me provide another example. Imagine a new movie that is released, in it, the 'monsters' are hundreds of androids that look just like human beings, but with a lighter complexion that gives them a corpse-like appearance; there is an outbreak on the facilities where these were being developed. Something goes wrong in their programming and they go ballistic. They start to swarm towns and cities, killing people bare handed and then ripping off their organs.

These creatures would be acting in a mechanical way, would have a zombiesque appearance and vibe to them, and would attack in large groups.

Now, if we say they are zombies, we are letting androids enter the genre. Androids.

This is my whole point, I think that a zombie needs to be an undead creature.

Possibly, but I haven't seen too many other movies like 28 Days Later yet that would qualify.... You've included Jason from Friday the 13th... That's a start, especially since I wouldn't say he was a mindless, automaton.

In a way he is, and that's why I consider him a zombie. Besides killing happy campers, he doesn't do much else. He's dumb as a rock and has no other interests than to kill and destroy, he can't even communicate himself by means of speech. Plus, he is undead.

[Mindtraveller]

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? ;-)

Yes, Mr. Kettle. :mrgreen:

But hey, at least I feel like this whole discussion has so far served its purpose. I believe we both have broadened our understanding not only of the movie in question, but of the whole zombie mythology itself. :)

[MADMAN]

j/k

Although I see you're pushing 30, but I still got you beat... I'm not as old as slumlord, but I'm slowly getting there. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Coolpimp2.gif


You're talking like that's a good thing. I wanted to stop at 21. :lol:

[Bad Zombie Night]

We don't include voodooism as part of the definition of a 'modern' zombie because such ritualistic things are means to an end, not the end itself.
I'm not sure what you mean this... If the end result you mean a Zombie, then Voodoo rituals are a means by obtaining that.




Not really, if he came with a bunch of... let's say infected people running around and killing others and call those infected people zombies, I would say he lost it. ;-)

ooooh.... That's a low blow. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/nutkick.gif


I have not seen Land of the Dead yet, but thanks for ruining it for me. :x

Opps! Sorry about that. :doh:
I pretty sure a made one or two references before, but nothing in great detail... You should've said something right away, after one of my earlier posts.



Could be. As the movie stands, the radiation was the only explanation it could be found for the phenomena. Perhaps, just perhaps there was another cause.

I don't know if you're aware of the true story, but GAR originally wanted to use the "no more room in hell" explanation to explain the Zombie outbreak... The distributors of NOTLD said that concept wouldn't work with the public, and they needed a more concrete explanation... GAR went with the space probe account, and the rest is history until 1978, when Dawn debuted... That's when he took the opportunity to change it, and set the record straight... Back in 1968 though, movies (especially this one) weren't setting the table for sequels, so the explanation that was used was meant to stay.
Frankly speaking, I always preferred the space probe excuse.


This we can agree on, simply because I do believe 28 Days Later has experimented with the zombie ideas, and as such I see it as a contribution to the genre, although not a zombie movie per se.

Similar to what GAR did (combine a Zombie and a Ghoul), Danny Boyle mixed the ideas of the movie Outbreak with Zombies... At least, that's the way I see it.


Exactly, like you said, such creatures are too human like. The creatures from Boyle's movie are also too human like (but granted, they have some of that zombie vibe). What I am aiming at here is that the idea of a zombie being a creature that behaves mindlessly and / or in a mechanical way without being actually dead.
I guess, I concentrate more on the behavioral aspects, and the physical ones.


Let me provide another example. Imagine a new movie that is released, in it, the 'monsters' are hundreds of androids that look just like human beings, but with a lighter complexion that gives them a corpse-like appearance; there is an outbreak on the facilities where these were being developed. Something goes wrong in their programming and they go ballistic. They start to swarm towns and cities, killing people bare handed and then ripping off their organs.
These creatures would be acting in a mechanical way, would have a zombiesque appearance and vibe to them, and would attack in large groups.
Now, if we say they are zombies, we are letting androids enter the genre. Androids.

There only one problem with that scenario, and that's the beings you are referring to are not human... Although I don't focus on the death aspect as much, the beings have to be human, and not machines.

[Bad Zombie Night]

You're talking like that's a good thing. I wanted to stop at 21. :lol:
Hell, I'd settle for 30. :mrgreen:

[Pain]

I stand corrected, this thread is great. It's nice to see some thought go into the replies :clap:

I'm happily gonna sit on the fence on this though! :evil:

[MADMAN]

There only one problem with that scenario, and that's the beings you are referring to are not human... Although I don't focus on the death aspect as much, the beings have to be human, and not machines.


You sir are racist. All beings should have an equal opportunity to be zombies! :lol: :? :rock:

[Bad Zombie Night]

You sir are racist. All beings should have an equal opportunity to be zombies! :lol: :? :rock:
haha... But that wouldn't make me a racist, but it would make me a Zombist.
Oh God! Nooooooo!http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/Faint.gif

[MADMAN]

Hell, I'd settle for 30. :mrgreen:
Well, after playing D line and being over 300 lbs. 30 ain't so rosy.

I stand corrected, this thread is great. It's nice to see some thought go into the replies :clap:

I'm happily gonna sit on the fence on this though! :evil:

Thought? What is this deviltry you speak of?

[Bad Zombie Night]

Well, after playing D line and being over 300 lbs. 30 ain't so rosy.

I was still in reasonably good shape at 30, but I smoking about 2 packs a day. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/CoolsmokeCool.gif

[MADMAN]

I was still in reasonably good shape at 30, but I smoking about 2 packs a day. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/bzn123/Smileys/CoolsmokeCool.gif


Oh, I'm not that far out of shape. It's just that being large takes its toll. And you need to quit that s**t before it kills you and you turn into a zombie and I have to kill you.

[Bad Zombie Night]

Oh, I'm not that far out of shape. It's just that being large takes its toll. And you need to quit that s**t before it kills you and you turn into a zombie and I have to kill you.
Nah... I quite that :poo: about 3 or 4 years ago cold turkey, but that's when I put on a little weight... Believe it or not, I was up to 4 packs a day. :?

[Mindtraveller]

I'm not sure what you mean this... If the end result you mean a Zombie, then Voodoo rituals are a means by obtaining that.

Yes. What I mean is that, taking into consideration the kind of zombies we are talking about (film ones), voodoism is just one of the causes for a zombie to exist. This was basically the premise for Zombi 2, but as we all know, there are many different causes for the walking dead to roam the earth, not only magic rituals.

Opps! Sorry about that. :doh:
I pretty sure a made one or two references before, but nothing in great detail... You should've said something right away, after one of my earlier posts.

No big deal, it was kind like what I thought was going to happen anyway.

I don't know if you're aware of the true story, but GAR originally wanted to use the "no more room in hell" explanation to explain the Zombie outbreak... The distributors of NOTLD said that concept wouldn't work with the public, and they needed a more concrete explanation... GAR went with the space probe account, and the rest is history until 1978, when Dawn debuted... That's when he took the opportunity to change it, and set the record straight... Back in 1968 though, movies (especially this one) weren't setting the table for sequels, so the explanation that was used was meant to stay.
Frankly speaking, I always preferred the space probe excuse.

Keep in mind then that just as you pointed out about the ghoul thing, the original idea of the creator should be taken into consideration. By reading what you just wrote, we could assume that the original story was written using the more mystical reason for the zombie outbreak, and in the last minute, a new excuse was created just to please studio executives.

Similar to what GAR did (combine a Zombie and a Ghoul), Danny Boyle mixed the ideas of the movie Outbreak with Zombies... At least, that's the way I see it.

Bear with me, this should be addressed further in our conversation.

I guess, I concentrate more on the behavioral aspects, and the physical ones.

I'll keep this in mind.

There only one problem with that scenario, and that's the beings you are referring to are not human... Although I don't focus on the death aspect as much, the beings have to be human, and not machines.

All throughout the course of this thread, you've basically concentrated (as you yourself said above) on the idea of the behavioral aspects (and physical to an extent) of a creature being the most important part to acknowledge in order to reach the conclusion that said creature is a zombie.

Now, in the hypothetical movie I just presented you, the creatures behave like, look like, and have the vibe of a zombie. I'm even going to throw in a twist to the script* and add that the humans these androids kills, rise and begin attacking other people as well (why? I'll tell later). All of these behavorial characteristics just fit the bill to perfection about what you consider is needed for a zombie to exist. But, you say there is a problem with that because...

the beings have to be human, and not machines.

To which I only pose a single question:

Why?


* I already went and patented the idea, you thiefs! :mrgreen:

[outkast]

Its kind of funny, but the same argument is going on at another forum I go to. A non zombie forum that is.

[Bad Zombie Night]

This was basically the premise for Zombi 2, but as we all know, there are many different causes for the walking dead to roam the earth, not only magic rituals.
Ok, so you do incorporate ideas that do not necessarily conform to that of the dictionary definition.




No big deal, it was kind like what I thought was going to happen anyway.

When you finally get to see Land, I'm curious to see what your thoughts are about it... The forum is kind of spilt the film.



Keep in mind then that just as you pointed out about the ghoul thing, the original idea of the creator should be taken into consideration. By reading what you just wrote, we could assume that the original story was written using the more mystical reason for the zombie outbreak, and in the last minute, a new excuse was created just to please studio executives.

Yes and No... All the time, movies change portions of the script, and ideas about how the story will translate on film... You can't get caught up second guessing what they should've done, or what they originally intended to do... The film is the finished product... End of story.




All throughout the course of this thread, you've basically concentrated (as you yourself said above) on the idea of the behavioral aspects (and physical to an extent) of a creature being the most important part to acknowledge in order to reach the conclusion that said creature is a zombie.

Remember... I said concentrated, not totally ignored their physical characteristics.


Now, in the hypothetical movie I just presented you, the creatures behave like, look like, and have the vibe of a zombie. I'm even going to throw in a twist to the script* and add that the humans these androids kills, rise and begin attacking other people as well (why? I'll tell later). All of these behavorial characteristics just fit the bill to perfection about what you consider is needed for a zombie to exist. But, you say there is a problem with that because...



To which I only pose a single question:

Why?

Well, whether we're discussing the behavior or physical characteristics of a Zombie, their origins are human... An androids is either alive or dead, it just exists as machine with it's programing... If you want to have Zombie-androids, just like their is Zombie-Dogs, or Zombie-Cats? I suppose I am powerless to stop that... They just can't be considered plain old Zombies.


* I already went and patented the idea, you thiefs! :mrgreen:

I wish you all the luck! :mrgreen:

[Mindtraveller]

Ok, so you do incorporate ideas that do not necessarily conform to that of the dictionary definition.

Only when -as I mentioned before- these are means to an end, and not the end itself. ;-)

When you finally get to see Land, I'm curious to see what your thoughts are about it... The forum is kind of spilt the film.

I just went to the theater today and watched it. Still too early to tell, as it's not the same thing to watch a movie once at the cinema than to check a DVD in your house, where you can scrutinize every little detail and understand a film better. However, as a first impression I'd say it was merely ok. Very high and low, some really interesting moments and then some a bit too far fetched.

Yes and No... All the time, movies change portions of the script, and ideas about how the story will translate on film... You can't get caught up second guessing what they should've done, or what they originally intended to do... The film is the finished product... End of story.

Indeed. But then we are back to where we initially started, the excuse about a space probe causing some mysterious radiation was only that, an excuse.

[The zombie] origins are human...

And so we reach the exact point I wanted to reach. You just have to use this very same criteria to understand what I've been saying.

The zombie origins are of the undead kind.

If you want to have Zombie-androids, I suppose I am powerless to stop that...They just can't be considered plain old Zombies.

Exactly.

If you want to have infected people seen as zombies, I suppose I am powerless to stop that. They just can't be considered plain old zombies. ;-)

To wrap this post, I can say that you are now using the same argument I've been using from the beginning:

A zombie has a certain intrinsic characteristic that can't be modified, otherwise it loses its essence as a zombie.

[max_brooks_saved_me]

The monsters in 28 Days Later are only infected. They DO eat people, but they can starve to death. They can also be killed without destroying the brain. Zombies are indifferent to both the former and latter.

The movie was good, but its mislabled as a zombie movie.

[Raccoon_City_Survivor]

Who labeled it as such?

[Francesco Dellamorte]

This has been debated many times on this board.

-FD

[A Feast for the Fallen]

me and my friend have this debate all the time :)

[Pain]

Link to the original thread :x

http://www.allthingszombie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4789

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

Thanks again, Pain. You're just a step ahead of me. :)

Use the above thread to continue this conversation, please.

[ManditorySuicide]

It is a zombie movie, because the people who were infected would die then 28 days later would return and be psychotic(sp?).

[Mindtraveller]

It is a zombie movie, because the people who were infected would die then 28 days later would return and be psychotic(sp?).

The infection would take immediate effect. The 28 Days reference is, if I recall correctly, the time the protagonist takes to awake in the hospital. And then again, 28 days later, all that remained was... Pepsi. ;-)

[Dark Prince]

Must agree with it being a zombie film. Doesn't the guy at the beginning die before he gets crazy? Not quite sure. I'll have to take another look. It has many other elements of a zombie film. Survivors finding survivors, thinking the world has ended, people biting one another and firepower. What's lacking is headshots!

I don't know if the guy at the beginning dies or not but death is not necessary for the victim to become infected by 'Rage'.

I hope you weren't serious about the headshots thing as it would destroy a great realistic movie by using cheesey American action.

:guns: + :zom2: = :poo:

[Darth Erroneous]

I hope you weren't serious about the headshots thing as it would destroy a great realistic movie by using cheesey American action.
Hey! What's wrong with a good old-fashioned American headshot? :)