What Genre would you put 28 Days Later in?

[urgeok]

Originally posted by newb
Well......i....er............i hate you.

and i didnt even bring up Frankenstein or the Mummy !

[Despare]

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

[urgeok]

Originally posted by Despare
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 !

[newb]

Originally posted by urgeok
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 !

[urgeok]

FIRST ... YOU TAKE THE CRYSANTHIMUMUMUMS

[Despare]

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?

[bwind22]

Originally posted by Despare
Zombie


1. A snake god of voodoo cults in West Africa, Haiti, and the southern United States.

2. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse.
a. A corpse revived in this way.

3. One who looks or behaves like an automaton.

4. A tall mixed drink made of various rums, liqueur, and fruit juice.

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

[PR3SSUR3]

Oh, I assure you it can.

:p

The director himself has refered to it as a zombie film.

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.

[bwind22]

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.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by Despare
Are the movies about Jesus' ressurection zombie films?

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...