With the Borg though it was a more specific fear, for all the lasers and black tubes, I don't think the body horror aspect played into it much.
Since when did Zombism beomce like Vamprism
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
I've always hated zombies--especially slow, Romero-type zombies--because they're such an impotent threat, at least to society as a whole, or even to organized groups. Compare any zombie apocalypse with a real-life battle with horribly outmatched opponents. Let's use Mogadishu as an example, which most will know through the film Black Hawk Down. And if that fight comes out with 2000 dead Somalis and 30 dead allied soldiers--and that was a fight against human beings with guns, no matter how poorly-fed, poorly-equipped, ill-led, or drugged-up they were--then how do you really expect the zombie army to fare?
That's why Shaun of the Dead is, maybe ironically, the most "realistic" zombie movie of them all: the zombies are rather quickly dealt with. I doubt they'd actually use them as slave labor, but they weren't an apocalyptic threat.
My favorite zombie movie is Dead Alive, of course, because that film is hilarious. Although again one guy with a lawnmower is superior to a horde of undead.
And that right there is an accounting of the popularity of zombie films, I suspect: the idea that, after the end, you can butcher all the assholes you once knew with impunity--and heroically. Zombies are a reified impulse to Columbine all the jerks in our lives.
Vampires are generally boring as well, but even Twilight vampires have Goddamn superpowers.
That's why Shaun of the Dead is, maybe ironically, the most "realistic" zombie movie of them all: the zombies are rather quickly dealt with. I doubt they'd actually use them as slave labor, but they weren't an apocalyptic threat.
My favorite zombie movie is Dead Alive, of course, because that film is hilarious. Although again one guy with a lawnmower is superior to a horde of undead.
And that right there is an accounting of the popularity of zombie films, I suspect: the idea that, after the end, you can butcher all the assholes you once knew with impunity--and heroically. Zombies are a reified impulse to Columbine all the jerks in our lives.
Vampires are generally boring as well, but even Twilight vampires have Goddamn superpowers.
The Borg is specifically about loss of individualism.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
Today's Zombies are not really Zombies as in the dead reanimated, they are people who were infected with a virus like rabies and now crave human flesh. I don't think they ever died. The Zombies of the past were dead and then brought back to life by voodoo or some other thing. "Pet Cemetery" is the old school zombie and "I am Legend" is the new zombie.
Zombie's are popular, not because of any of the "deep" stuff listed on the first page of this thread...there's no deeper meaning than this: they are an unthinking, unliving faceless foe that one need not feel bad about "killing". And the more creative the "kill", the more awesome it is to fans of the genre. If you're relishing the blood bath in a regular video game, people might wonder about you....but if you're relishing the blood bath in a zombie game...no probs! Same applies to movie.
It's about guilt free "killing"....I mean, who doesn't love killing zombies?
That's all there is to this zombie thing.
It's about guilt free "killing"....I mean, who doesn't love killing zombies?
That's all there is to this zombie thing.
From the Department of Redundancy Department.
Of course, there is always this... it's all a matter of what you choose to read into something. Sometimes you just want to see a bunch of zombies 'die' in a bloobath, or a bunch of humans get chowed on buffet style, there are plenty of films for that... but then when you watch a film at this level, the antagonist can be just about anything: space aliens, vampires, or any other type of monster.
The OP was speaking of zombie in particular. When you talk about a specific narrative device like zombie, vampires, aliens, foreigners, women, etc., there's usually a specific reason that the concept strikes a chord in the cultural zeitgeist. Obviously, these 'deeper' themes don't have to resonate with everyone, but I think it does speak to why some kinds of monster can become more and less popular (or just be reinterpreted).
For example, going back to our vampire example... Even your average disinterested high school English student is aware of the obvious sexual metaphor of the vampire, and I think it can be argued that the increasing romanticism and 'public' nature of vampirism in fiction can be directly correlated with our society's growing awareness and conditional acceptance of not just sex but alternative sexual lifestyles such as homosexuality, polyamory, and other non-traditional relationship dynamics.
This doesn't mean that every vampire depiction is necessarily about these things, sometimes it's a straight up monster movie, but I would argue that many of the ones that end up standing the test of time do deal with this metaphor, to some extent or another...
Same thing with zombies... where the distinction is very, very clear of the two kinds of movies, as can be seen if you look at the differences between Romero's ...Dead and Russo's ...Living Dead series. Romero attempts to imbue his films with a social commentary on the ways humanity can dehumanize itself, whereas Russo's series is simply an excuse plot to showcase gory effects and macabre wackiness.
I'm not being critical of less 'serious' depictions, each has its place, but I think the more high minded explanations are why the genre continues to evolve and grow... and the metaphor of the zombie is just as evocative now as ever, just as vampires are, as well, in their own way.
Not just loss of individualism, though, but loss of individualism via technology and enforced conformity. In this sense, the Borg were meant (or became) the dark mirror to the Federation, what it could be if it wasn't careful... it also demonstrated a weakness of the Borg, in that their rigid approach eliminated any advantages the enormous diversity of their constituent races and societies could have contributed, instead, everything about everyone in the Collective was evaluated and either absorbed or abandoned. Everything was controlled and run by the Borg gestalt consciousness, which led to great technological superiority and military might, but next to no innovative capacity or lateral thinking ability that comes from diversity...
TWD has real live dead zombies, so dead zombies are hardly passe. How can I Am Legend zombies be "new zombies" when I Am Legend invented the zombie genre?
Zombies are the new Nazis.
Zombies are the new Nazis.
Why not have both?
In all seriousness, though, check it out, especially if you're into gory zombie killing goodness... It's a pretty good film.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
TWD has real live dead zombies, so dead zombies are hardly passe. How can I Am Legend zombies be "new zombies" when I Am Legend invented the zombie genre?
Zombies are the new Nazis.
I just wanted to point out there are two types of Zombies. I am Legeng is a pretty recent movie, that's why I said that.
I'm not sure if I've ever seen the original Romero, but the 1990 remake of the original Night of the Living Dead ended that way too. The heroine, ultimately, just walks out of the barn, merely walking around the zombies. The next day, having now figured out what the infection involves and how to kill them, the locals are seen sweeping through the area cleaning out the remaining zombies, holding bonfires and pit fights, etc., easily in control of the situation.
What I always thought was ironic about Romero zombies is how easily they are avoided in the open, but a natural survival instinct that compels us to seek safety in shelter (the more closed-off and womb-like, the better) is usually what allows the zombies to gang up in numbers and eventually take the survivors down. Of course, one has to sleep sometime, and it would be best not to do so where any zombie can just trip over you...
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Love the remake much better than the original, Pat Tallman gives a great performance and the ending is that much more thoughtful and intriguing, not to mention the stunning final images, especially Pat's eye merging with the Columbia symbol. I always thought the ending suggested that the world was becoming a redneck paradise, that these tough self-sufficient hillbillies with their guns and necessary brutality were inheriting the earth from the soft city types?
Even if you're dealing with the Return of the Living Dead/Evil Ernie/Evil Dead type zombies I always thought the solutions was to just cut a hole in a sturdy door and decapitate them when they stick their heads through
First of all I like the idea of zombies appealing to different people for different reasons. I think that's exactly right and amounts to a good reason why the zombie genre is so enduring. If you want a social/political point someone like Romero might be trying to make, that's fine. If you just want to see rotting flesh destroy living flesh, well there's probably gonna be a whole mess of that, too.
If you think about it there are very few zombies in the whole history of zombie films who stand out as having unique personalities that take their character beyond the basic undead status. Whereas much of the horror involving werewolves, vampires and the like gets into the struggle between perceived sanity and perceived insanity. It's a battle of wants vs. needs, and the character's depth (or lack thereof) and personality will be reflected in that. I can only think of a couple examples of that in the zombie genre. The strong personalities come from those who are still living and still fighting.
And I like the slow zombie idea. It's always worked for me because I've always attached to it this theory that involves angry bees. One or two of the little bastards isn't that big a deal. Twenty is a bit worse. Fifty is hell and a thousand would leave you in ruins.
I also think what always seems to screw humanity over in the end is how we respond to the crisis. That's how the zombies won out in Romero's films for example. It wasn't that we couldn't handle them in an actual fight. Emotionally most of the world just couldn't handle it. That's how the zombies inevitably take over.
But the movie was based on the classic 1954 novel by Richard Matheson, which pretty much invented the zombie apocalypse genre. George Romero has admitted on numerous occasions that NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD was "unofficially" inspired by I Am Legend.
Actually, I'm gratified to see Matheson getting so much credit in this thread. Usually, people just cite Romero as the creator of the new, post-voodoo zombies . . . .
Nah... we're a savvy group. We understand that Romero only popularized and to some extent codified the post-voodoo zombie. Matheson does get a large amount of credit for actually inventing it, though. There is a clear distinction there.
Last edited:
I hadn't thought of it before, but this might be important, too. 'Transformative monster characters, for example, the ones who remain human but are in the process of becoming something else (human->vampire, human->werewolf, etc.) also have a theme of coming to terms with change. Adapting to a new way of being, and how change can either cause us to become nihiistic predatory monstrosities or something different, yet still human and good (as can be seen by 'heroic' vampires, werewolves, etc. in fiction). It shows that change need not necessarily be feared, but if you're strong enough, with the right will, personality and spirit, even a horrific transformation can't change who you are.
Zombies don't have that.
Think about it for a minute. The tranformation into a zombie is complete and total. It doesn't matter what you were in life, nothing survives. Your memories, your identity, any will or spirit that you had before--gone. Just a shambling lump of predatory intent with no redeeming value.
This makes it easy and morally unambiguous to kill them with impunity, but it's also informative of our attitude toward change and transformation, that it will inevitably destroy everything about what we are, and cause us to be debased creatures, sapped of our humanity... in the end, when you think about it, it's a very right-wing, conservative mythology, especially when you think about how this is probably the only genre where a gun-toting survivalist can actually be considered a 'hero'.
Holy crap! Here I've been, waiting for a movie where the good guy is actually portrayed as a good guy, not as somebody who cries every time he defends himself/his love/his country/the universe. I need to pick me up a zombie movie!
That reminds me of why I loved "Shaun of the Dead" so much- that Simon Pegg's character lived such a humdrum life surrounded by other people living similarly humdrum lives that he doesn't initially notice that people are (literally) turning into zombies and running (well, walking) amok looking for fresh victims.
Similar threads
