Quote:
Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
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.