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