and i didnt even bring up Frankenstein or the Mummy !

I think the most "realistic zombies" were the ones in Serpent and the Rainbow.

thats true ...



so now not only is the debate still wide open we're beginning to determine that zombie movies arent really zombie movies either !

http://www.poster.net/monty-python/m...ts-4001113.jpg

FIRST ... YOU TAKE THE CRYSANTHIMUMUMUMS

It's all in the eye of the beholder though.

Dead Alive is a Comedy Horror to me and to a few people I know just a horror film. Same with something brainless like Jason X, it was an action movie to me with bits of comedy to others it was a horror film. If you really feel the need to classify something then go around to websites that sell DVDs and look at the genres these movies are in, take the most widely used genre and apply your label. Zombie movies aren't zombie movies and vampires are zombies... I'm so confused. Are the movies about Jesus' ressurection zombie films?

THANK YOU!!! I was starting to feel like the only sane person on this board there for a minute!

The zombies in the voodoo religion don't die and then regenerate and these are known as the only REAL (non-film) zombies to exist. Therefore, the definition given that a zombie is a reanimated corpse is only a partial definition. The zombies in 28 Days Later would fall under definition #3.

Okay, so the director calls it a zombie film. The film feels like a zombie film. And the creatures in it fit the definition of a zombie.

How can this debate possibly go on?









P.S. And Newb..... Bruce Lee would whip an angry chimps ass!!!! hahaha

Oh, I assure you it can.

:p

Excellent idea - now the kids have a new zombie film to pay to go and watch, and boy do the kids love their zombies.

Zombies sell, "still alive but infected with a disease and running about not eating people" probably not so much.

However, the first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is of a revived corpse - nothing about eating people, but Romero firmly lodged this element into the contemporary zombie. Boyle's new 'take' lacks the crucial 'death' element (so they are free to run about at speed), they do not eat people but like to vomit disease into potential vicitims.

You can probably find definitions that juggle the meanings of 'zombie' around in order of importance (for there is always a first and foremost definition of a word), but it's hard to argue with the above source - and the lesser meanings are subjective, making Boyle's creatures are just too far removed from zombies for many people.

Dude this is ridiculous!


If a word has more than 1 definition, they aren't subjective. Any or all definitions could pertain to the word depending on the way it was being used.

Definitions aren't listed in order of importance, the more commonly accepted and/or used definition is generally listed first but this doesn't make it any more important. ( How can one definition of a word have more importance than another anyways??? It would depend on how the word was being used.)


George Romero's zombies wouldn't have ever even been called zombies in the first place if not for the real life actual zombies (You know? The ones that never died.) that are walking around in places like Haiti. Go check out The Serpent and the Rainbow or watch a little History Channel for more info, but I assure you that the word zombie didn't come from George Romero's version.

See, to me though all of this shit is nitpicking and I can't even believe it's required to this extent.

Director says zombie film. Looks like a zombie film. Boom. Done deal. It's a zombie film.

Just because it doesn't fit your overly analytical definition (albeit listed first :rolleyes: )of a zombie film doesn't make it any less of a zombie film.

if you want to use that analogy further ...

communion (taking the wafer and wine) is symbolically eating the flesh of christ and drinking his blood...

The order of the senses are normally based on frequency and convenience.

However in this case, the meanings apart from the first (undead) sense of the word are colloquial, and as such not used in formal (explicit) discourse.

Therefore it is acceptable to conveniently decide to call a dull or apathetic person a 'zombie' in casual circumstances, but you are in fact appealing to its 'zombie-like' traits and these are of course subjective.

My workmates are 'zombies', in the same sense.


If you think this discussion is overly analytical nitpicking, why are you indulging in it?


:cool:

its fun :p

I've just realised how bored I must be....

To the Bat-Poles!

:D

I thought of that as well, kind of funny really when you take somebody like Ed from Shaun of the Dead and apply this to him.

*SPOILER*

Ed was a "zombie" before he became a zombie.

That's just what I do. ;)




BUT this is like talking to a brick wall.

How can you argue with the artist that made the film? Would you be sitting here telling Van Gogh that the little yellow spots in 'Starry Night' aren't actually stars because stars are actually burning balls of gases?

The director says it's a zombie film. He made it. He would know.

I don't know how much simpler it could be...

No, it's like talking to Jesus.

+

You're suggesting it would not be right to argue with Danny Boyle, purveyor of zombie movies.

It makes no difference what the artist says - if the specifics are not quite right then he is appealing, even pandering to the sub-genre - some buy it, some don't.

Reasons why it is not bought are in previous posts.

No one's gonna budge on this one.

We may as well be discussing religion or politics...

or

Can an angry chimp kick Bruce Lee's ass?

I imagine it probably could now, but not in the 60s.

Unless Bruce came back as a ZOMBIE

Hmmmm......

How about: Ash, with an angry chimp sidekick, who has a miniature chainsaw for a hand, fights zombie Bruce Lee.

or a vampire !

No,no, no.... You're all missing the points of the Bruce Lee/Angry Chimp things...

For this hypothetical scenario to take place, Bruce would still have to be alive.


Basically the debate was this....

Could one of the world's toughest muthafuckas fight an irate chimp & win (Irate as in you just punched it's baby or stole a banana right out of his hand or soemthing... or would the chimp win against any human?

That was the original debate my friends and I had. Then we just gave the human a name because Bruce Lee was widely regarded as a pretty tough dude in his day.


And for the record. I dont think the chimp would have any chance at all against a trained fighter that can kill in one strike.

if a primate got a hold of bruce lee it could rip his head off ..

but i dont think it'd get a hand on him..

Yeah, that's sorta the circle we go round and round in.

haha

I personally dont think the chimp would get any sort of move of at all before Bruce Lee killed it, but even if the chimp jumped at Bruce I would think he could deflect an attack for a few seconds to get one of his own off...

Bruce Lee > Angry Chimp



And that just MIGHT be the greatest thread I ever created.