Dignam

I can't stop laughing at that! Where's it from?

Numanoid

Aren't the original zombies (from Voodoo) actually still living people that give the appearance of being walking dead?

Kudama

YOU GUYS ROCK! (whether or not you agree with me on this pressing zombie issue)

Yeah. Was The Serpent and the Rainbow a zombie movie?

AGuyNamedMike

That's the theory put forth by Wade Davis in his book, but in Vodou mythology the people are quite dead and the bokor reanimates their corpses, controlling them with his magic.

DeputyDave

If we are getting into strict definitions then Fulci's Zombie (or Zombi 2) would be one of the only pure Zombie flicks of the major films (yes, I know there were hundreds of voodoo based zombie movies in the 70's, but none of them rased to the level of the majors).

Regardless, I consider 28 Days Later a Zombie flick. They perform the same function, only their orgin story has been tweaked a bit more than usual.

nodeerforamonth

Not at all zombies. They're just people that are infected. They actually can be cured by a blood transfusion (as seen on either the alternate scenes or the actual movie "28 Days Later", I forget which).

Zombies are the unDEAD. They're animated DEAD people. They have died and come back to "life".

Corvin

I'm with DeputyDave in that they perform the same general function within the story. You can call them whatever you want---it's really just pointless semantics.

Kudama

Just curious, but do you consider the bloodsucking immortals in Near Dark vampires?


-oops. Forgot to add spoiler tags.

mzupeman2

I can't call them 'zombie films' as that really does refer to the more 'supernatural' aspect when we're looking at the zombie genre as a whole, but the infected would be classified as zombies in my mind. I mean, 28 Days/Weeks just looks at the possibility on a more plausible level... from some kind of bio-engineering that happened to outbreak and cause most people to be infected with it. Do they have souls anymore? Debatable, they're infected with rage and pretty much every aspect of who they once were is gone... they now only act upon primal instinct. Hunt and feed.

Kudama

By the logic of “supernatural cause” you cut out these films from the genre, to name a few.

Night of the Living Dead
Dawn of the Dead
Day of the Dead
(Comet. Although maybe the comet was some avenging angel and only seen through telescopes as a comet.)

Return of the Living Dead (and horrible sequels)
(Gas)

Dead Alive
(Infected)

I think Della Morte Della More (sp?) is the only truly supernatural zombie movie I can think of, right now at least.

rexinnih

Always considered them zombies.

CreatureX

I consider '28 Days/Weeks Later' zombie movies. On the back of the '28 Days Later' dvd case, the phrase "zombie horror" is used to describe the movie.

Giantrobo

But didn't the makers say it wasn't a "Zombie film"?

Seantn

NO, they can't be cured by blood transfusion. It is explained on the commentary that the reason they didn't use this ending was because it makes no logical sense for a blood transfusion to work, as you'd have to pump bleach through someone's veins to get rid of the virus altogether. If this actually worked, we would have a cure for aids: Just replace the person's blood.

Kudama

Their creation took over. It's their Frankenstein's monster. New poll. Was 28 Days/Weeks Later a Frankenstein's monster?

Giantrobo

I think a better question would be:

Is Kudama infected and will his infection spread?

Kudama

I hope so and so not. (Family and whatnot.)

harpo787

I've gotta go with not zombies on this one. They're INFECTED with some sort of disease. Zombies are infected with backfromthedeadisitis.

That and based upon the first entry over at dictionary.com, "the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose."

PPP

I'm gonna go with zombies and not think too hard about it.