Talk:List of zombie films

28 Days/Weeks Later

There is some argument over whether the Infected from 28 Days Later and its sequel are zombies or not, since they are not actually dead. However, they exhibit some classic zombie-like behaviors, and the movie itself makes several nods to "genuine" zombie films, including Dawn of the Dead. Furthermore, several films on this list contain "zombies" who are not dead at all. Therefore, in the interest of completeness, I am re-inserting these films into the list. If you remove them, kindly leave a note here explaining why. Teflon Don 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting them because they aren't zombies, they're just infected. They run fast, which isn't classic like zombie behavior at all. You don't even need to destroy their brains to kill them. - Pennington

Please note that all of the films on the current list exhibit "zombies" with different characteristics and that the requirements you have listed (such as running fast, having to destroy their brains, infections etc.) are only interpretations of the individual film-makers. It would be counter-productive to scrutinize and exclude entries for such minor differences. For the sake of completeness, it would be better to include the two films as Teflon Don mentioned above. - Sunny

Exactly. They are in the zombie genre just as many other movies which don't necessarily subscribe to every zombie stereotype. I see some movies on this list that barely have any zombies in them, but they still deserve to be there. (Cardsplayer4life 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

--Nah I took them off again, there are NO zombies in either of the two films.

--By that logic Weekend at Bernie's II is a zombie movie while Shaun of the Dead isn't. I don't remember it ever being explicitly stated in Shaun of the Dead that people were coming back to life, just that they had been bitten or infected. It's implied that they appear dead, but it's never explicitly stated, so its incluson seems up for debate, just as it is with 28 Days Later. The Resident Evil series and Planet Terror (from Grindhouse) all feature "zombies" that aren't necessarily the undead, so you'll have to remove them as well.

--- indeed, there are plenty of zombie movies without the word 'zombie' used to describe the zombies. And they run fast in a few classic early zombie movies, where they also swim and fight sharks and everything. And whether the dead can move fast or not is a nonsense question since the dead shouldn't actually move at all. 28 Days Later pays too much homage to zombie movies and is too frequently referred to as a zombie movie to warrant exclusion because their uncontrollable near-death flesh-eating is due to a virus that was made by Western medical doctors and not voodoo witchdoctors.Earfetish1 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

28 Days/Weeks Later. They are NOT zombies. The use of the word zombie was reportedly banned on set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.214.114 (talk • contribs)

I just watched a movie called Zombie Diaries and they didn't call them Zombies either. I think a couple of the 'of the Dead' films also avoid the use of the word 'zombie.'Earfetish1 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no undead in 28 Days/Weeks Later. There are no corpses that get up and begin walking around. However, once infected with the virus, a person loses their humanity and becomes a mindless zombie. This is certainly a new take on the traditional zombie movie, but they are still zombie movies. 134.29.33.16 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

28 Weeks later confirms that the infected are, in fact, alive. However, if everyone will kindly bother to look up the word "zombie" you will see that being dead is NOT always a requirement. The 28 series is as much, and often more so, a contender for the title of 'zombie movie' as many on this list; it's apocalyptic, it involves hordes of mindless monsters attacking anyone not infected, and it's about survival. Not the hardest piece of evidence, but one of the original movie posters even said "Danny Boyle reinvents the Zombie horror genre...", so at least the marketing department had a right to call it one.

---

---

This is crazy! First of all, I don't know what zombie movies you're refering to help you define "zombie behavior" or how you could possibly know how a reanimated human would behave. And that's the key word: reanimated.

Would they run, talk, walk, stumble, vomit, throw poo at you? Who knows? All of the zombie movies change and rearrange the rules. The zombies themselves and their existence are handled differently in every movie.

In Romero's classics the cause of the zombie epidemic is never mentioned or explained, aside from a few biblical quotes and references. The zombies are slow and some have a notable level of intelligence ("Bub" shot a pistol at a living human in Day Of The Dead).

In the first three Return Of The Living Dead flicks, the zombies were able to run, drive cars, and a few were able to speak.

Some zombies used weapons in Fulci's movies and yes, a zombie fought a shark underwater. City Of The Walking Dead (a.k.a. Nightmare City) featured zombies that could fly airplanes, drive, and shoot machine guns.

You can't say that the people infected with rage in 28 days/weeks later were alive. They were killed from coming into contact with the virus and infected with a senseless and destructive rage. Whatever person that once was, your mom, grandpa, a kid down the street, ex-girlfriend, whoever it was, that person is gone and "dead", leaving only a primal instinct to kill and all it wants to do is destroy your lifeforce, just like a zombie.

My point is this...whatever the case, whenever humans are forced to barracade and lock themselves up, hide from legions of undead, defend themselves from reanimated humans, and find a way to survive, it's a zombie movie. 28 days/weeks uses this scenerio, without a doubt adding it to any zombie movie catagory.

Add these movies to the list and get on with the sequel!

Dave - October 3, 2007

---

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewha (talk • contribs) 07:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI for everyone, this was also discussed on the talk page for 28 Weeks Later here and here, as well as the page for 28 Days later here, all fairly long ago. The result of all conversations were to keep the movies in the zombie films category. (Cardsplayer4life 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, however obvious it seems that 28 Days & Weeks weren't about zombies, they're advertised as zombie movies, they're called that by oh so many good sources, and they follow the zombie movie formulas. For us to refuse to call them that would be OR/POV on our part. Doczilla (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Evil Dead/Army of Darkness

The Evil Dead movies and Army of Darkness were removed. Aren't they generally considered zombie movies or am I mistaken? (Cardsplayer4life 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

There are no zombies in those films. The "monsters" are possessed by evil which is quite different. IrishGuy ^talk 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but this strikes me as the same type of distinction people were trying to make for the "28 _____ Later" movies, because the people were infected instead of being "living dead". Of course, they still were in the zombie genre if you apply it to how the movie is laid out, the theme of the movie, etc. I really need to watch the Evil Dead/Army of Darkness movies to see, though. Are the people being chased and if they are caught then they are "possessed" or whatever happens to them? If so, I would say it would be a zombie movie, but if not, then no. I do get lots of hits when I search for "Evil Dead zombie" on google, but maybe that is just a coincidence. (Cardsplayer4life 23:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Zombies are usually dead first, but in the few distinctions where they aren't dead first, they are infected. In Evil Dead they are demonically possessed which is very different. If Evil Dead is a zombie film, so is The Exorcist. IrishGuy ^talk 23:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will take your word for it on this one. ;) (Cardsplayer4life 03:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Silent Hill Removal

How is Silent Hill a zombie film? There aren't any zombies in it, just monsters and demons. I'm taking it off. Vinny 04:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I Am Legend, but I Am Not a Zombie Movie

Since there's been an edit war over it, we need to discuss I Am Legend. It is not a zombie movie. Plenty of people will point out that 28 Days Later isn't really a zombie movie and yet it's listed. Neither one involves actually undead, after all. The people are "infected" in both. Here's the difference between the two:

28 Days Later was advertised as a zombie movie. Sources like Box Office Mojo classify it as a zombie movie.[1]

I Am Legend was never advertised as a zombie movie. Box Office Mojo, in fact, classifies it as a vampire movie. [2] I Am Legend is not on the chart for zombie movies.

We don't get to decide for ourselves which is which, though, or that would violate WP:NOR, WP:POV, and WP:V policies. We have to go by the best sources we can get. Doczilla (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing of it is, the source material is included in The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia (Richard Matheson's I Am Legend) as zombie related, and the inspiration for Romero's Night of the Living Dead. So at least one independent source calls the original material Zombie related. Jeffpw (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Zombie related" does not equal zombie. Just because Matheson's vampire novel inspired a zombie story does not retroactively turn Matheson's work into a zombie story. Doczilla (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Granted, but the film adaptations are included in the Zombie movie encyclopedia, so we have a source saying that the last two adaptations are zombie movies. What makes this film any different? I haven't see it yet, by the way, so I have no position in the matter. Jeffpw (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in the encyclopedia does not mean it's saying they're zombie movies themselves. If there's an article on Romero, that doesn't mean they're saying he's a zombie. It just means they say the material is relevant enough to be mentioned. Doczilla (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. The encyclopedia (have you read it, by the way? Wonderful book), lists and discusses the films as zombie movies. In fact, the author refers to the beings as zombies ("Overall, the relentless zombies are quite chilling"). Peter Dendle is the author. So we have a secondary source which refers to the book and film adaptation (not this latest one--the encyclopedia was written 4 years ago) as Zombies. I have no stake in this and do not intend to edit the list, but feel compelled to point out that there is precedence for calling these creatures zombies. Jeffpw (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• As to this particular film, HorrorWatch.com calls them zombies

  National Public Radio calls them zombies

  Roger Ebert calls them zombies

  The New York Times calls them zombies.

  Perhaps there is controversy about it, but several respected people call these beings in this movie zombies. Jeffpw (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

None of those are the original source. The movie does not use the term. Its advertising does not use the term (28 Days Later's ads did). The production company does not use the term. You name some decent sources -- in which case we have to evaluate the importance of the sources. From WP:V: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." Any source. Always. When we have a conflict between sources, we need to rely on the original source. Secondary sources do not take priority over primary sources.Doczilla (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The primary source, the film, does not call them vampires, either. It calls them mutants or the infected. [3]And here is an interview with the director, in which the creatures are referred to as zombies by the interview, and Lawrence does not correct him. That implies that he agrees with the assessment.

As I said, I have no stake in this issue, but I always thought of the infected as zombies, and was surprised that there would be resistance to the term, given that others have written about them as such, too. Jeffpw (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Choosing not to correct someone isn't agreement. It's choosing not to annoy your interviewer. You're right that the movie doesn't call them vampires. I'm not personally advocating for adding it to a list of vampire movies either. Anyway, like you, I don't really have any stake in this issue. I'm just trying to anticipate what would best fit Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Doczilla (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering how the creatures in the movie are very similar to those in 28 days later, and not as much like the ones in the original I am Legend book, I believe it should still fit on the list. Even if it wasn't advertised as a zombie movie, generally, the majority of people who see the movie think of them as zombies, at least from what I've seen around my area and from a few people online. Wouldn't it at least fit on the list with a side note? For completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.117.196 (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your personal experience is original research which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

However as those above have done; Citing authorities and sources on both movies in general, and Zombie Movies specifically, who do categorize it as such, as well as showing that the Director didn't overtly object to the terminology when it was presented to him, isn't original research though, that's providing supporting secondary evidence/sources. As you point out, interpreting the original source without reference to secondary sources would be original research however, i.e. it'd be as much OR to say categorically that it isn't a Zombie film without referencing a secondary source which supports this (And saying it is a Vampire movie, isn't saying that it couldn't also fit the genre of Zombie Movie). And since this is a matter of subjective terminology, then those authoritative sources are very relevant; being a Zombie movie isn't an inherent property after all but a perceived one. From the strength of the four links provided by Jeffpw above I would say it is clear that there is strong secondary source evidence that this is perceived as a Zombie movie, and should be listed here.Number36 (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a list of movies perceived as zombie movies by somebody, somewhere. It's a list of movies that are zombie movies. So the most arguable ones must be left out unless we get confirmation from the filmmakers that they're supposed to be zombie movies. 28 Days Later was advertised as a zombie movie; I Am Legend was not. Even though this section's heading says it is not a zombie movie does not mean the article itself says that it categorically is not. The article lists only those that categorically are. WP:V says the appropriateness of any source depends on context. Those secondary sources are not as good as the production company. Doczilla (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment wasn't in relation to the above links but was instead a reply to the statement: the majority of people who see the movie think of them as zombies, at least from what I've seen around my area and from a few people online. That statement is original research and unencyclopedic. IrishGuy ^talk 03:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy, I'm not sure why you think I didn't understand that, that's why I used the word 'however' and later showed I agreed with your assessment by saying 'As you say'. I was merely continuing from your point.

Doczilla, I'm afraid I disagree, and you don't appear to understand the point I'm putting forward. Whether or not it is a Zombie movie isn't an inherent property of a film, sift a film down and all you'll find are grains of celluloid, no genre molecules; and authorial intent, while important, isn't necessarily definitive in a matter which is subjective (and for that matter no one has shown that there is authorial intent to exclude it from being described as a Zombie movie (and some to show there's no overt objection), so it's a moot point). Authoritative secondary sources, especially from sources whose background is in critical analysis of the medium, are indeed relevant in this matter, and that is the context that satisfies WP:V, you haven't presented an argument that dissuades me of that. Certainly not by mischaracterizing it as merely 'somebody, somewhere'.Number36 (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Authorial intent is absolutely relevant and is never a moot point. However, we don't know authorial intent in this case.

2. I can throw plenty of sources at you that say it's not a zombie movie, and yet I must concede that the better sources tend to call it a zombie movie. Of the movie reviews linked at Metacritic, the majority call them zombies, a few call them zombie/vampires, and not one in the top half of the list (I got tired of checking somewhere down into the yellow section) specifically says it's not a zombie movie. Clearly, "zombie movie" has been redefined.

3. Because it doesn't really have any undead in it, do not relist this movie without linking several of the best possible sources that call it a zombie movie. Doczilla (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I didn't say authorial intent wasn't relevant, quite the opposite, I said it was important, but it's precisely because we have no evidence of what it is (and some to show no overt objection to being described as a Zombie film), that it is moot.

2. As I said, whether it is or is not a Zombie film is a matter of perception, it's not an inherent quality the film possesses, that so many regarded and authoritative sources conclude that it is indeed a zombie movie this lends to my argument. And since no one has said that it isn't a zombie movie and plenty have said it is, I can't see where the problem is. I'm not sure why you conclude that it has been redefined, it's not as though there was ever an official definition, if people conclude that it features enough 'zombie movie'-like traits then there's nothing incorrect about them calling it a Zombie movie.

3. Plenty of Zombie movies don't have 'undead' in them, in some the cause of the 'Zombie' outbreak is a virus (people infected with a virus are not dead, or undead), or even living people who have been cursed or controlled by a voodoo priest or something of that sort. For that matter in real life, the current opinion is that the people referred to as Zombies are actually under the control of a powerful drug, certainly not 'undead', so there's no reason for that to be a prerequisite. And what's wrong with the links that have already been presented, they're all of extremely high quality; highly regarded, authoritative sources in the area of movies, and/or zombie movies. Surely unless you can counter them, which you've said you can't, then this movie should be added back to the list.Number36 (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? I just conceded. What do you think "do not relist this movie without linking several of the best possible sources" means? It does not mean they can't go in the article. The fact that we're having this whole exchange illustrates how seriously they need sources.Doczilla (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla, your post above mine here could be seen as a bit uncivil. I don't think there is anything wrong with Number36. I was also a bit confused by your comment. While you indicate that the film now, in your judgment, is fit for inclusion, you say it needs links to sources. Why? There are no other refs or links on the page for other controversial additions, such as 28 days or weeks later. As consensus has now been reached that the film may be included, I am adding it to the list. There are a host of sources on this discussion page, including the New York Times, which amply demonstrate that it has been critically received as a zombie flick. I'm going to see the IMAX version today; after all this discussion, my curiosity is piqued. Jeffpw (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew it could be seen as uncivil, and I hated that. I seriously did, but civil and impersonal somehow failed to make the point.

Sources on this discussion page aren't sources in the article itself -- besides which, there are no links to these sources (not the ones that directly call the I Am Legend film a zombie movie). Unless you want people cramming everything they consider a "zombie movie" which doesn't really have zombies into the list, those that don't really have zombies need citations to the fact that they're zombie movies. Once we add I Am Legend, we open the flood gates for a lot of other movies to pop up on the list. Either this list or the article itself needs sources establishing it as a zombie movie. Now that I Am Legend is on the list, 28 Days Later needs a source too. The filmmakers advertised 28 Days Later as a zombie movie; filmmakers did not advertise I Am Legend as a zombie movie. Now that criteria for inclusion on this list have changed, future readers will need some guidance as to why they should not add any old film that strikes their fancy. It's not just about consensus on this one film; it's about Wikipedia's greater consensus to provide sources (WP:V), to avoid personal opinion (WP:NPOV), and to show that you are not engaging in original research, to show that somebody else has decided it's a zombie movie (WP:NOR). There was one more relevant policy, but it slips my mind right now.

Sources will reduce how often people have to repeat these same discussions (about these that are already controversial plus films people try to add in the future). Not eliminate, but reducing helps. A lack of sources might eventually get this article deleted for appearing to be original research. Sources were what kept List of fictional anti-heroes from getting deleted. In a AfD discussion, the inclusion of controversial movies whose inclusions are not backed up by solid external sources could get this article killed. I've seen it happen too many times, and I do not want to see that happen here. Doczilla (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, at the risk of seeming deliberately obtuse, should we add a source for this film on this list, due to the controversy, and should we perhaps add a section to the film article about how it is perceived as a zombie film even though the filmmakers did not intend it as such? That should be easy to do, and I will start on that in the next few hours. Incidentally, having just seen the movie, I actually agree with you and Irishguy that this is in no way a zombie movie. The whole movie was disappointing, actually, except for the scene where Will Smith takes his shirt off. That alone was worth the €12.50 (US$18.50 at today's exchange rate). Jeffpw (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doczilla, I apologise if my last comments sounded divisive or argumentative, I was in a bit of a rush last time I was here and I was just trying to quickly answer your points in a clear fashion, point by point as you presented them.

I entirely agree that linking refs is appropriate, and understand your point that Sources on this discussion page aren't sources in the article itself, but I must have detected more emphasis on your use of the word 'several' than you intended (which to me sounds like at least seven, but usually more), when the four already posted here seemed adequate to me, I was just trying to ascertain why those four alone might not be adequate with my question. I didn't want to add it back into the article if it was still in discussion as to whether it was appropriate to or not (and if so, what the appropriate way to reference it is).

For what it's worth, I agree as a strictly literal term it's an entirely reasonable position to say that 'Zombie Movie' is only technically accurate if the source material itself specifically references the creatures as Zombies; since Zombies don't actually exist after all, the creatures are only defined within the context of the fiction by the fiction itself. But since even fictional works don't exist in a vacuum, I still think that notable, authoritative, secondary sources, especially of a critical nature, are a valid and proper way to define the context of the fiction and unfortunately, even if this doesn't appear to be technically a Zombie film to us, it would be original research to ignore those notable secondary sources that do refer to it this way (in favour of our own opinion), taken in combination that there doesn't seem to be any overt disagreement from comparable sources, if some can be found, then we can reference that there's some disagreement, which would be the best solution I think.Number36 (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not zombies

28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later should be removed from this list. The people in those movies are not zombies, because they do not die before they turn.83.177.8.69 (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above conversation about these films. IrishGuy ^talk 22:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghosts of Mars

There is consensus on the discussion page for Ghosts of Mars that it is zombie film, so I've added it to the list.S0343463 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One comment and one agreement does not consensus make. IrishGuy ^talk 00:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Article itself calls it a zombie flick, too, though there is not one single ref in the entire thing. Jeffpw (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Without credible external sources, it doesn't go here. Doczilla (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't one citation in this entire list of films - the "28 Days Later" discussion proves that as far as zombie films go, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. Ghosts of Mars makes for a pretty convincing duck.S0343463 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are citations within the articles themselves. Ghosts of Mars isn't a zombie film but instead deals with possession. IrishGuy ^talk 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ghosts of Mars" doesn't "deal with" possession so much as include it as a plot device. Your far-fetched assertion that "Ghosts of Mars" is closer in genre to the exorcist than to any zombie films just exposes that that you're using a very personally determined and artificial view of what a "zombie" is. There's no such thing as zombies. What determines whether or not a zombie film is a zombie film is whether or not it does the things that zombie films do. You can't speak in pedantic terms as to whether you can say that one thing is or isn't a zombie, as zombies aren't real. Zombies are mythical creatures that don't have a fixed definition. In other words: why does the definition of "zombie" exclude the potential for possession? S0343463 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)