Author Topic: The zombie mythos (Read 10833 times)

Zathras · **on:** January 04, 2009, 07:05:21 PM

Is there a thread discussing the origins of and influences upon the zombie mythos? If there is, please direct me to it and I'll delete this.

I know Dawn of the Dead is considered the first zombie movie, but there were books before it.

Just getting things started.

Sandikal · **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2009, 12:06:58 AM

Doesn't the zombie mythos go back to the dawn of mankind?

Talia · **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2009, 12:17:06 AM

yeah, I'm p;retty confident zombie lore, alabeit under perhaps different names, is part of a long-standing tradition far predating most written literature.

jrderego · **Reply #3 on:** January 05, 2009, 12:23:56 AM

Quote from: Zathras on January 04, 2009, 07:05:21 PM

Is there a thread discussing the origins of and influences upon the zombie mythos? If there is, please direct me to it and I'll delete this.

I know Dawn of the Dead is considered the first zombie movie, but there were books before it.

Just getting things started.

There were other zombie movies before Dawn of the Dead... Even before Night of the Living Dead. And, films that seeded to the visual style of Romero's film like White Zombie, I Walked With A Zombie, Dementia 13, The Mummy, Carnival of Souls, Day of the Triffids, even Ja'ccuse (1919) has a denouement that would be echoed in pretty much all of the Romero zombie films, and the Fulci Zombie movie that followed Dawn.

Corydon · **Reply #4 on:** January 05, 2009, 02:17:43 AM

Zombies go way, way back. The dead in Homer's underworld are basically zombies: shambling and mindless, unless they get some blood to drink. There's the whole Caribbean zombie tradition, of course (White Zombie is pretty dated, but kinda worth seeing), and there's Lovecraft's "Herbert West, Reanimator". But the modern zombie canon (and the idea of zombiedom as an infection, etc.) pretty much starts with Romero, and I guess that's what you're thinking of, Zathras.

Zathras · **Reply #5 on:** January 05, 2009, 02:32:49 AM

First off, I meant Night of the Living Dead, and I know better, but I've been dealing with a head cold and between sneezing and coughing, it's hard to get a whole sentence typed.

I figured Jrderego would have some info on the films. Once upon a time, I had more info on the fiction books that helped shape the genre, but not anymore.

One of the things I think a lot of people miss is that NotLD zombies had more intelligence than zombies are considered to have. The first zombie tried to open a car door and picked up a rock to smash the window. Also, those zombies were afraid or bothered by bright light.

I guess a better way to run this discussion would be for someone to define what the current archetype of a zombie is and an early archetype and then point out when substantial changes happened.

Zathras · **Reply #6 on:** January 05, 2009, 01:06:18 PM

Are/are not about zombies.

Zombies are:

Undead. I count living voodoo zombies here.
Out to destroy the living.
Insensitive to pain.
Simple Minded.

Zombies are not:

Fast. If there are fast zombies, then it's an action movie!
Delicate.
Able to lubricate their eyes.
Very dangerous individually.

Additions? Nit picks?

oddpod · **Reply #7 on:** January 06, 2009, 04:57:54 PM

zombez can lubricate thare eyes ....IN YOURE BLOOD!!!!!

stePH · **Reply #8 on:** January 07, 2009, 05:24:21 AM

Quote from: Zathras on January 05, 2009, 01:06:18 PM

Are/are not about zombies.

Zombies are:

Undead. I count living voodoo zombies here.
Out to destroy the living.
Insensitive to pain.
Simple Minded.

Zombies are not:

Fast. If there are fast zombies, then it's an action movie!
Delicate.
Able to lubricate their eyes.
Very dangerous individually.

Additions? Nit picks?

"Zombies" are what I'm pointing at when I say it.

eytanz · **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2009, 10:25:25 PM

Quote from: stePH on January 07, 2009, 05:24:21 AM

Quote from: Zathras on January 05, 2009, 01:06:18 PM
Additions? Nit picks?

"Zombies" are what I'm pointing at when I say it.

Important safety note: in the event of a zombie attack, don't stand around pointing at things.

Zathras · **Reply #10 on:** January 07, 2009, 10:33:17 PM

Quote from: oddpod on January 06, 2009, 04:57:54 PM

zombez can lubricate thare eyes ....IN YOURE BLOOD!!!!!

Blood coagulates.

I had an idea for an independent zombie film. I was going to star in it. Now that I'm married, I have to find another star. My wife is not thrilled with me filling the role...

gelee · **Reply #11 on:** January 08, 2009, 02:51:10 PM

Quote from: Zathras on January 05, 2009, 01:06:18 PM

Zombies are not:
Fast. If there are fast zombies, then it's an action movie!
Additions? Nit picks?

Well, I'm sure you already know that the "fast" zombie is a fairly recent addition to the genre. I'm not sure how I feel about that one. It certainly adds an interesting element to the whole situation. The "28 Days Later" zombies are, I think, not necessarily scarier, but a different sort of scary. More "panic" than "dread".

Clutron · **Reply #12 on:** January 08, 2009, 04:17:26 PM

What were the beasts in I am legend? Would you classify them as zombies? Or just crazy people who hate light? So I guess they'd be more like Vampires?

jrderego · **Reply #13 on:** January 08, 2009, 04:31:03 PM

Quote from: Clutron on January 08, 2009, 04:17:26 PM

What were the beasts in I am legend? Would you classify them as zombies? Or just crazy people who hate light? So I guess they'd be more like Vampires?

They were people infected with, killed by, and resurrected via a vampirism bacteria.

Zathras · **Reply #14 on:** January 08, 2009, 04:31:45 PM

Quote from: Clutron on January 08, 2009, 04:17:26 PM

What were the beasts in I am legend? Would you classify them as zombies? Or just crazy people who hate light? So I guess they'd be more like Vampires?

I think they fall into the "new" zombie category. Faster, stronger, more agile than humans, but "stupid" until we realize that we "misunderstood" them. To me, Mad Max is more of a zombie movie than this new crop is.

DKT · **Reply #15 on:** January 09, 2009, 10:47:14 PM

Quote from: gelee on January 08, 2009, 02:51:10 PM

Quote from: Zathras on January 05, 2009, 01:06:18 PM
Zombies are not:
Fast. If there are fast zombies, then it's an action movie!
Additions? Nit picks?
Well, I'm sure you already know that the "fast" zombie is a fairly recent addition to the genre. I'm not sure how I feel about that one. It certainly adds an interesting element to the whole situation. The "28 Days Later" zombies are, I think, not necessarily scarier, but a different sort of scary. More "panic" than "dread".

Why can't zombies be fast?

Zathras · **Reply #16 on:** January 09, 2009, 10:53:36 PM

Quote from: DKT on January 09, 2009, 10:47:14 PM

Why can't zombies be fast?

It's my crotchety old opinion that zombie movies are not about the zombies. Zombie movies are about the survivors. When you make the zombies fast, it becomes an action movie. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed 28 Days Later, and it had the survivor vs military aspect, but most of the "fast" zombie movies are action flicks.

Other people can express this better than I can.

Corydon · **Reply #17 on:** January 10, 2009, 04:34:02 AM

Quote from: Zathras on January 09, 2009, 10:53:36 PM

It's my crotchety old opinion that zombie movies are not about the zombies. Zombie movies are about the survivors. When you make the zombies fast, it becomes an action movie. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed 28 Days Later, and it had the survivor vs military aspect, but most of the "fast" zombie movies are action flicks.

I sorta agree. That is, I agree that zombie movies (at least, the good ones) are always about more than just zombies. Zombies are boring- they're blank slates without personalities, so the filmmaker can use them to serve lots of different purposes. As a result, Night of the Living Dead is about racism, Dawn of the Dead is about consumerism, etc. I don't know that I agree about the fast zombies, though. While 28 Days Later didn't really have a coherent, consistent message (as opposed to the sequel, which is all about Iraq), it's all about the survivors: the isolation and loneliness Jim feels as he explores a deserted London, the realization that other humans are much more dangerous and terrifying than the infected, etc. So I don't buy your notion that the fast zombies turn it into another genre.

Zathras · **Reply #18 on:** January 10, 2009, 07:02:06 AM

I made an exception for 28 Days because it wasn't centered on the zombies.

NotLD was a horror movie, there was very little "action" about it.

Fast zombies are still zombies, and as such still zombie movies. The movies are generally more about action than horror. Is that better? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, just reach a better definition.

stePH · **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2009, 11:59:15 PM

Quote from: Zathras on January 10, 2009, 07:02:06 AM

I made an exception for 28 Days because it wasn't centered on the zombies.

I thought 28 Days was that Sandra-Bullock-in-rehab movie.

Zathras · **Reply #20 on:** January 11, 2009, 02:23:10 AM

Quote from: stePH on January 10, 2009, 11:59:15 PM

Quote from: Zathras on January 10, 2009, 07:02:06 AM
I made an exception for 28 Days because it wasn't centered on the zombies.

I thought 28 Days was that Sandra-Bullock-in-rehab movie.

Don't make me sic Thundarr on you!

Corydon · **Reply #21 on:** January 11, 2009, 04:33:46 AM

Quote from: Zathras on January 10, 2009, 07:02:06 AM

Fast zombies are still zombies, and as such still zombie movies. The movies are generally more about action than horror. Is that better? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, just reach a better definition.

Oh, I didn't think you were being sarcastic- and neither was I!

But I don't know that I see what the difference is between an action and a horror film. After all, isn't a horror film defined by its being scary? (Or to put it another way, "a horror film is what we point to when we scream it.") Fast zombies or no, I think that 28 Weeks Later has some pretty scary moments. So I'd have no problem calling it a horror movie. The remake of Dawn of the Dead wasn't all that scary to me, but I'd call it a failed horror movie rather than an action movie.

Zathras · **Reply #22 on:** January 11, 2009, 08:22:50 PM

Quote from: Corydon on January 11, 2009, 04:33:46 AM

Quote from: Zathras on January 10, 2009, 07:02:06 AM
Fast zombies are still zombies, and as such still zombie movies. The movies are generally more about action than horror. Is that better? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, just reach a better definition.

Oh, I didn't think you were being sarcastic- and neither was I!

But I don't know that I see what the difference is between an action and a horror film. After all, isn't a horror film defined by its being scary? (Or to put it another way, "a horror film is what we point to when we scream it.") Fast zombies or no, I think that 28 Weeks Later has some pretty scary moments. So I'd have no problem calling it a horror movie. The remake of Dawn of the Dead wasn't all that scary to me, but I'd call it a failed horror movie rather than an action movie.

Ok, I think I managed to confuse things. I think 28 Days Later does qualify as a zombie movie.