Anyone else annoyed at whats happening to the zombie genre?

[BelowTheMorgue]

I understand what you mean subgenius i guess i'm just a little too old school with zombie movies for my own good sometimes. I'm still waiting for the voodoo zombies to come back

[Tempest]

I am sad to say that I don't really agree with the author of this post. I hate to say it but if you think GAR was the father of flesh eating zombies than you are sorely mistaken. The first person to reffrence undead cadavers walking around eating flesh was H.P. Locvecraft in his story Herbert West Re-animator. yes I am sure most of you have seen the campy 1980s movie based on this short story, but the origional does starte quite imfatically that some of his reanimated corpeses did indeade eat the flesh of the living, and that was about 50 years before Night of the Living Dead was even conceved by GAR. So to say that you need to see NOTLD before you can be a true zombie fan is in my oppinion a crock. and proves that the person who is author of this thread is a hypocryte because I trully doubt that he had ever read or even knew that GAR wasn't the first to create fleash eating zombies. I also happen to love ROLTD and think it is a fine movie and although toung and cheek is a viable zombie movie in its own right, even if it did challange any ones pre concieved notions of zombies. but what I will say is this although I love ROTLd to death as a series I absolutely hate part 4 and 5 and think that if anything is ruining the genera it is those two pieces of crap.

[Tempest]

Originally Posted by Subgenius

I don't see it that way. The zombie sub-genre of horror is a rather specific movie sub-genre. It's not like slasher films like Halloween of Friday the 13th or Saw. Those types of films can have an extremely wide variety to the whole killer idea and the various ways that they deal with victims. It seems to me that the zombie filmmakers have the idea in mind that their audience are usually people that have watched a lot of zombie films. I would guess that easily 60% to 75% of the audience are fans of the genre and not people that are new to the concept.

Genres wax and wane often. Look at Westerns, the most definitive and the first serious film genre. It lasted a long, long time. People keep saying that it is dead or is near death, and then a new Western pops up and revitalizes the genre. Sure, there are far, far fewer Westerns being made today then what we saw in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. But, the genre continues. The same goes for Science-Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror films. The zombie sub-genre will have a high point, then drop off, and then it will come back. The idea is to strike while the iron is hot with some hit films. I think that we have seen that with Shaun of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead (2004), Land of the Dead, and Zombieland at the top end.

I also have to agree with you. I think for the most part that zombie movies going mainstream as of right now and the last few years is actuially a good thing. Why you may ask. It is because those people who have already proven themselves in the zombie arena are the ones going mainstream, even if it doesn't look like it. GAR is tecnically main stream now with his last two films being directly produced by a big time production company. while the other less than viable movies, wether they be bad or less than good due to acting, script, make up, ect are forced into the back ground where they can be forgotten. Nw there are some instances where a B-zombie movie is good and usuially the directors and actors go on to be picked up by bigger producers. So in short the good keep getting what they deserve and those that arn't get cast aside.

[SWAT Zombie]

interesting point about Lovecraft. i read reanimator a fair while ago, sometime during the '90s i think, so i don't remember it too clearly. i might have to dig thru my Lovecraft books to see if i actually have it somewhere.

[DarthJoe8]

Originally Posted by BelowTheMorgue

I think the fact that zombie movies are becoming mainstream is a big enough threat in itself. The fact of the matter is that as long as zombie movies are being made and sent to theaters to apeal to a demographic that has no appreciation for them and only wants the cheap thrill the kiddo's saw in the trailor, it may be slow but zombie movies and all horror movies really are dying a slow cancerous death.

Say it aint so....

My only concern is with all the so called zombie movies that really aren't freaking zombie movies....I am Legend, 28 Days later etc. etc.....

SG brings up westerns and makes some great points as ussual but is any ole movie with a six shooter considered a Western?? Of course not. There are elements that need to be in the movie for it to be a western. The same goes for zombie movies but people are to ready to give it a pass and say "it's zombie like", good enough.....ugh

I don't mind varity, I don't care if they run or eat brains and talk...whatever, but I do want my zombies to at least be F-ING DEAD!! That's really all I ask for...just dead...

[SWAT Zombie]

but would you say that a western without six shooters is not a western? does a western require six shooters to be a western? i'd say not. many things are involved in a western. they aren't always cowboys, indians (sorry, native americans) and gun fights. some are dramas. others are historical. i agree that certain elements need to be present in a particular genre. there needs to be something that makes a movie a zombie movie or western or space opera or whatever. but those things don't have to be all set in stone to make a particular genre. not all westerns need six shooters, not all space operas necessarily need funny looking aliens. not all vampires burst into flames under sunlight or gag on garlic and aren't always actually dead, i've seen a few movies where they're scientifically created. Ultraviolet comes to mind, as does the book I Am Legend (not sure what they were meant to be in the movie. mutants i guess). for a zombie movie to be a zombie movie it does require some elements to qualify. being dead is just one element, maybe a major one but only one. others are the flesheating, mauling, mindlessness, the hordes, the contagiousness. all which can be individually used or discarded or altered in some way. now don't get me wrong, if someone only likes to watch the dead zombie movies, i'm fine with that. just like i'm fine with someone only liking westerns with six shooters and gunfights, like me. but i accept that other people can watch the other types. and the fact that there are those of us that like the alternatives to the traditional zombies, in my mind, validates them and makes them part of the genre. if u don't like, don't watch.
the other thing is that GAR didn't invent zombies, he borrowed the concept and added his own elements to the idea. just as 28 days/weeks later and other movies took GAR's ideas and added to that.

[DarthJoe8]

You make some good points and I agree with you....but I'm not saying I personally don't like them, what grinds my gears is the mislabeling of them.

28 Days/Weeks are fine films and enjoyable to watch over and over again but they are not and never will be zombie movies. Why?? because certain key elements are not present....like they're not dead. Why water down and blur the lines between genres?? It's just not necessary to do so and I understand that the "regular" folk do not know any better and they are typically, grossly misinformed. I've read reviews and such that cater to and perpetuate this ignorance but it doesn't make it right...

[MacSupreMe]

I've actually found that their are overall alot more Apocalypse movies coming out, and while we generally call Zombie flicks a sub-genre of horror, I guess they could also be considered a sub-genre of Apoc movies. I've found in the last couple decades that we've developed an obsession with making movies about the end of the world..

And it seems Hollywood is just covering all of its bases, making sure that every single outcome has been made before we all nuke each other to sh*t.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, it's not so much zombie movies hitting the big time, it's about Apocalypse movies, and whats a better end of days then the dead rising from the earth (or some infection) and wiping out the whole of humanity.

Thats one way of looking at it anyways.

[SWAT Zombie]

Originally Posted by DarthJoe8

28 Days/Weeks are fine films and enjoyable to watch over and over again but they are not and never will be zombie movies. Why?? because certain key elements are not present....like they're not dead. Why water down and blur the lines between genres?? It's just not necessary to do so and I understand that the "regular" folk do not know any better and they are typically, grossly misinformed. I've read reviews and such that cater to and perpetuate this ignorance but it doesn't make it right...

the only thing i see missing from 28 days/weeks is the dead thing. every other aspect that makes a zombie movie for me is there so i don't really see 28 days/weeks being called zombie movies as being a blurring or watering down of the genre. just a bit of an alternative potrayal to what we've seen in the past. having said that tho, i guess its just a matter of having differing perspectives on the subject. all i know is that when i feel like watching a zombie movie 28 weeks later is part of the pile of movies i choose from because of the typically zombie aspects it does have.
and i'm not sure if you were implying it but i just want to say that i don't see myself as being ignorant or grossly misinformed, been a huge zombie fan for about a quarter of a century and i think i'm as well informed as anyone on it. not that i think that makes my opinons anymore right than any other zombie fan, just wanted to clarify that i'm not a "regular" and my views aren't ignorant, just different to some.

EDIT: i think at this point i should actually point out that as much as i may classify 28weeks as a zombie movie and don't mind the "not dead" thing, i do actually prefer them dead, mainly because they become rotten and its a more grisly concept. i'm just open to certain variations is all.

[DarthJoe8]

Originally Posted by SWAT Zombie

and i'm not sure if you were implying it but i just want to say that i don't see myself as being ignorant or grossly misinformed, been a huge zombie fan for about a quarter of a century and i think i'm as well informed as anyone on it. not that i think that makes my opinons anymore right than any other zombie fan, just wanted to clarify that i'm not a "regular" and my views aren't ignorant, just different to some.

Not at all!! I did mention "regular" folk as the ones "misinformed"... I wasn't implying anything about you or anyone else in this thread...sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

I think the confusion started with 28 Days coming out with infected sprinters and then when DotD 04 having the DEAD sprinters. Of course the infected and the zombies in these movies look similar which also adds to the confusion imo.

I keep all my zombie movies separate from "everything" else. If I put my 28 days with my zombie movies then that would make me a hypocrite....

That said, I will admit that I have my 28 days later comic books in with my zombie comics.... but that's just so I can find them easier, that's all.... no zombies in that book....Pretty cool read by the way!!

EDIT: i think at this point i should actually point out that as much as i may classify 28weeks as a zombie movie and don't mind the "not dead" thing, i do actually prefer them dead, mainly because they become rotten and its a more grisly concept. i'm just open to certain variations is all.

I think that the "dead" rotten zombies are much scarier, it's unnatural to have the dead walk and feed on the living. Also, I think that if the people in 28 days are really just sick people ( they cured the infected in I Am Legend ) then they could be cured, which is cool, but "zombies", being dead cannot ever be cured because you can't cure death. This is a BIG difference between the two ideas imo. If you want to create a vaccine to prevent bites from killing and stuff like that then that's all good.

Side note: I'm not criticizing 28 days, as I said before, I think it's a great film, and one of my favorites. I just think it's in its own sub-horror catagory.

[SWAT Zombie]

Originally Posted by DarthJoe8

Not at all!! I did mention "regular" folk as the ones "misinformed"... I wasn't implying anything about you or anyone else in this thread...sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

no worries, mate. i didn't really think you were but i just wanted to be sure.

Originally Posted by DarthJoe8

That said, I will admit that I have my 28 days later comic books in with my zombie comics.... but that's just so I can find them easier, that's all.... no zombies in that book....Pretty cool read by the way!!

i'm yet to read my 28 days later comics. i have 3 issues so far so i'll wait for a bit. i like to let my comics build up a bit so i can have one big read of them.

[DarthJoe8]

Originally Posted by SWAT Zombie

i'm yet to read my 28 days later comics. i have 3 issues so far so i'll wait for a bit. i like to let my comics build up a bit so i can have one big read of them.

I often do that but sometimes I can't wait...

[BelowTheMorgue]

Originally Posted by DarthJoe8

Say it aint so....

My only concern is with all the so called zombie movies that really aren't freaking zombie movies....I am Legend, 28 Days later etc. etc.....

SG brings up westerns and makes some great points as ussual but is any ole movie with a six shooter considered a Western?? Of course not. There are elements that need to be in the movie for it to be a western. The same goes for zombie movies but people are to ready to give it a pass and say "it's zombie like", good enough.....ugh

I don't mind varity, I don't care if they run or eat brains and talk...whatever, but I do want my zombies to at least be F-ING DEAD!! That's really all I ask for...just dead...

I Am Legend was one of my many biggest dissappointments, but i have to stick up for it on the zombie defense cause they were vampires or supposed to be from Richard Mathesson's book. If you havent read the original book do it its great.
28 days/weeks was definatly a failure. Little thrills and some jumps but one thing I did enjoy (sigh...minus the flesh eating zombie aspect) is that they tried to make the most realistic zombie holocaust they could. Granted they werent zombies in the end and any genre fan could see that right away, but its still nice to see people trying to explain what none of us can..... radiation from a venus probe, voodoo, god, toxic waste... i think someone who knows what their doing should go back and re-do 28 d/w and actually make it a zombie flick.

[SWAT Zombie]

28 days later was ok. but i think 28 weeks later was totally awesome. one of my favourite zombie movies (yes, i'm going to call it that). whether you see them as zombies or not, i don't think that movie needs to be redone at all. it was perfect the first time round. and i think what i liked the most about it was that it was the first movie i can think of that actually scared me as an adult. that first bit when they suddenly attacked the cottage was fantastic and actually had me almost crapping myself. or at least more so than any other movie. other movies, like dawn04, give me a rush during the more intense scenes and dawn78 was totally creepy but that first scene in "weeks" just had such a huge effect on me. love it!!

[DarthJoe8]

Yeah, I've read I am Legend and I own Last Man on Earth and Omega Man (sucks)....so I know that they are vampires. I was disappointed in the movie also, I read that the creatures in I Am Legend weren't vampires, even though they were light sensitive, dormant during the day, and fed on blood but they still weren't vampires... figures right!!

28 Days was awesome, 28 weeks was a bit of disappointment for me. The story as a whole was cool but had some major plot problems for my liking.

Such as the father having access to a quarantine area. He just walks right in to see his wife, no guards, no access denied...nothing, retarded. Locking all the people in the whatever that was without guards...of course the infected father breaks in and infects everyone...stupid. The kids getting out and going that far before being found and captured...retarded. The city being gassed and the gas entering into the car vents and they just cover their mouths...yawwwwn,,,, blah blah....other than that it was generally entertaining but I found the first one to be an all around better movie...

I agree with BTM about it being the most "realistic" apocalyptic movie...for sure. But I don't know if it needs a redue...