Day of the Dead

I was talking about that guy in particular who clearly is not a Romero fan. You came on here and talked about the Romero movies you love. I wasn't saying you couldn't be a Dawn remake fan if you like Romero, I was saying that I could tell that Usual Suspects was not a Romero fan. We are talking about Romero here for a reason. Romero is the king of Zombie films and there is no arguing that, I am not the first one saying it. Anyone who gives credit to the DAWN remake and acts as if he knows nothing about the original trilogy needs to learn about the original trilogy. You came at me for me for no reason. Thank you.


My bad for coming off like a obnoxious geek but do you know definition of the word zombie? You must first die to come back as a zombie. If you get infected without dying, you are in no way a zombie. 28 Days Later might have a similar premise as Zombie movies, but it is in absolutely no way a Zombie film.

The definition of a Zombie is to be dead and then to be reanimated. In 28 Days Later if I remember correctly they are infected and never die before turning. And yes Return of the Living Dead is a fine Horror. More comedy than Horror really but it is not really anything special at all. Just great 80s fun. Day of the Dead reaches so many more darn levels I'm shocked if anyone can think Return is the better film. I know you won't argue Return is a better film than Day of the Dead. This thread was not made to argue that Day of the Dead is the best Zombie film. It was made for people who don't recognize that Romero's trilogy is hands down the reason for all of this Walking Dead type stuff.

Movies about infected people ARE NOT ZOMBIE MOVIES. It is ok if you thought they were before now, but now you must realize they are not. You cannot be a Zombie if you don't die first.

Things like The Crazies(remake), [REC] and 28 Days Later don't have 'zombies' in the films but they still follow the zombie template ever so closely. They more or less share everything with the zombie sub genre. Take the three films I mentioned and change that the people die and then come back...

Some people go with the notion that a zombie film contains either people who are brought back from the dead and change, or something happens where they have no control over their mind and turn into infected/demon possessed people and attack similar to other 'actual' zombie films.

^ I totally agree with this viewpoint and find it odd when people get worked up over someone calling something very very similar a zombie.

You are right. I shouldn't get worked up about it. As you said, in general it is the same premise. At the same time though, the original trilogy goes so in depth with the idea of living after a ZOMBIE apocalypse. It is not the same thing when you get into the Infected. Zombies simply do not run. Dawn of the Dead is an exception. Romero's Dead movies are very real believe it or not, and that is why they are so highly acclaimed. As I said earlier, in Day of the Dead the main focus is learning how to deal with Zombies after realizing you cannot kill them all. When you get into the infected, it becomes a different thing.

28 Days Later, the infected heart races increase. In Romero's movies the Zombies don't have a heart rate. There is a pretty darn big difference between infected movies and Zombie movies.

Hypothetically if our lives were over run by infected people, it would be much harder to survive because the infected are clearly much more dangerous and hard to avoid. All it would take is for one of them to spit on you and you could be infected. (28 Days Later)

If we were overrun by Zombies these things would be slowly walking around and the ONLY way we could be turned into a zombie, is if one of them killed us. If you've seen movies like Night of the Living Dead, they discuss how easy it is to avoid these things. Same thing goes in BOTH the original Dawn and Day.

You cannot tell me that an infected person apocalypse and a zombie apocalypse are the same thing.

Movies like Zombie Land were spoofing Zombie movies. There was no infected movie spoofing at all and that was a conscious effort by the writers and directors for a reason.

You are dead right. One thing that really annoys me about modern Zombie movies/remakes is that the Zombie's are all infected, as opposed to the excellent Dawn of the Dead where there is a mysterious element to it. The dead are rising whether bitten or not.

"My grandfather used to say that when there's no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth".

That line really gives you the chills in Dawn of the Dead.

Also I don't like that modern Zombie's are all sprinting around like maniacs. Much better in Romero's films where they are slow moving but end up getting you in the end.

I have only seen Day of the Dead once years ago, and I didn't really rate it compared to Dawn of the Dead. I will have to give it another go at some point.

I was an avid horror fan as a child and I still am. Day of the Dead was my favorite zombie film along with The Return of the Living Dead. I didn't even watch the original Dawn of the Dead until my early twenties. I still perfer Day to Dawn simply because of its impression from my childhood. 'BOB' is a classic horror-movie character right along with Norman Bates in Pyscho or Jack in The Shining. I enjoy recent Zombie films also, such as 28 days later and Quarantine. Also big fan of The Walking Dead tv series.

The OP says that this thread is not about Day of the Dead, but the influence Romero has on The Walking Dead, yet he titles the thread Day of the Dead and does nothing but praise it. Consider me confused.

To say Romero is king of the zombie films isn't much of a stretch since that seems to be the only cash flow he has going for him. Look at the general consensus on imdb. Both Dawn and Night have a high rating, whereas Day has the lower of the three. I found Cooper to be a more effective antagonist than Rhodes.

To say I'm not a Romero fan because I didn't like Day and find other zombies film to be better is a stretch. I think Dawn of the Dead is the staple of all zombie films, but you're making it sound like I can't like any other zombie film if I don't like the original source material. That's a croc. Let's face it. The guy hasn't made a good zombie film in decades (lord knows he's tried) and other people are making the genre more interesting. Adding the 'fast' element to an otherwise slow enemy that quite frankly, doesn't really scare when you are being chased. Sure they look more menacing coming from afar, but once you're running away, just do a light jog and you'll be fine.

Return of the Living Dead is hilarious and more entertaining than Day. It is without a doubt a zombie film and one of the best in the genre. I put (if you consider it) beside 28 days later because some people don't consider one (you) yet other people do. The only difference between the two is one enemy is dead, the other isn't? The all have the same goal, infect you, tear your flesh, no common thinking (until Day tries to change that).Is it really that terrible that people are trying to put a spin on the genre? You're making it come off as you're way or no way.

Be shocked, since I consider Return of the Living Dead a better film...a better zombie film compared to Day of the Dead. it has 7.2 on IMDB compared to 7.1 for Day. Rottentomatoes has Day at 80% whereas Return is at 89%. Are you shocked yet? Return of the Living Dead had just as much influence over the zombie genre as Romero's Night of the living Dead did, it introduced zombies craving brains.

I do like The Walking Dead, but it's really just a soap opera with zombies.

I'm a horror fan have been my whole life, so don't go on acting like I don't know what I'm talking about regarding the original trilogy.

Good day sir.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

You're making it come off as you're way or no way.

What are you talking about?

As if I am the only one who thinks Romero's trilogy is way better than anything after it. You use Return of the Living Dead as something that compares. Solid movie but please do not put it on the same level as the OG trilogy. Go back and watch a scene in Day of the Dead with captain Rhodes. That is acting. Romero's direction in Day of the Dead is just completely and 100 percent better than what was going on in Return. Return is great fun. Day of the Dead is a great movie.

And once again look up the definition of Zombie. There are so many freaking things different about a zombie apocalypse than a infected apocalypse it is not even funny.


And then you say the only difference between 28 days later and return is that one movie they are dead and one movie they are not. What are you talking about? There are hundreds of differences between them. For one, an infected person can infect you by simply spitting blood into your eye. It is a lot harder to be changed into a Zombie. For you to say that there is no difference between Zombies and infected really shows me you haven't thought too in depth about what is going on. Zombies and infected are completely different whether you want to admit it or not. This is fact.

Oh and if you really feel like Return of the Living Dead is a better film than Day fine. If you also think that its percent ratings on Imdb and Rotten Tomatoes back you up on that than feel free to be a complete dick about this. The fact of the matter is Day of the Dead is deeper, better directed, and flat out a better film in every way. Return of the Living Dead is literally based off of Romero's series. The director/writer of the Return of the Living Dead would call you a fool for thinking you should watch his film the same way you would watch Day of the Dead. Day of the Dead is so much more serious. Return of the Living Dead is 80s cheese. I love 80s cheese but no matter what percent rating it is on Rotten Tomatoes, the movie lacks so much that Day of the Dead does not. The dialogue/special FX in Day of the Dead are unarguably better than Return.

There is no "correct" version of the zombie concept.

Evil Dead zombies were demon-possessed people. 28 Days Later zombies and Crazies are zombies in the sense that they have lost most of their higher faculties and became robotic or conscienceless animals.

Romero did not invent the zombie. He created his own interpretation and used it to make entertaining social satire.

Zombies never have had to be truly dead to be considered such. Historically, a hypnotized and/or drugged person could equally be considered a zombie, as well as the notion of being put "under a spell" was a valid explanation for "zombification".

What I hear from you is "If it isn't dead and rotting and shambling, it's not a zombie", but the truth is simply that it isn't the type of zombie you prefer.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

You're really nitpicking here. I'm talking about how the movie is crafted.

Both zombie and infected people have little to no rationalization of brain power. The simply go to feed/infect what have you. It's always an apocalypse scenario, etc. Blood in eye infected versus bite? Let's not nitpick here shall we?

I'm trying to have a serious discussion with you about zombies films and then you say stuff like this little gem.

Seriously? The director of a film that pays homage would hate it if you liked his film better? How the hell does that make any sense? The two films tried two different things. One succeeded, the other (in my opinion) did not. Romero had a gem with the social commentary in Dawn, but completely goes overboard, misses the point and overkills it with Bob the zombie in Day.

Just because a movie is 'serious' does not mean it's better than something more lighthearted. With the exception of Rhodes death, the FX in Day is nothing. The animatronic stuff in Return is a delight. How am I being a dick about this? I'm supporting my claims with other sources. You're saying i'm wrong because I disagree with you. Who's really being the dick here?

It's not better directed, it's not a flat-out better film in every way.

I'm surprised I'm on Deadites side for once, hahaha

Also, for those interested in more serious analysis, I strongly suggest John Marmysz's From "Night" to "Day": Nihilism and the Walking Dead. It's a great read, in my opinion. You can find it online if you do the google.

That's because they are part of the zombie sub-genre.

Exactly. It's splitting hairs. There is plenty of room for different zombies, whether they're explained "scientifically" by infection or radiation or chemicals, or supernaturally. Fast, slow, smart, dumb. Diversity is a good thing.

Actually, I don't have a strong preference for one over the other. I like them both a lot but I actually like Return 2 a bit better than Return 1, so you can have a sh!tfit once you realize what that means.

But there are a handful of zombie movies I place above any of those three, including "Dawn" and its remake, as well as 28 Days Later, which was probably the best zombie movie since Dead Alive...

Come at me, bro.

I love 28 Days Later. This is not about preferring one or the other. I'm simply saying that there are a lot of differences between a Zombie apocalypse, and an infected apocalypse. For one, it would be WAAAY MORE difficult to survive an infected apocalypse. It is discussed in zombie films how easy it is to get away from the Zombies. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT DISCUSSED IN A INFECTED MOVIE? Do not sit here and try to tell me they are they same things.

It is not splitting hairs. Infected people are way different than Zombies. Zombies don't have a heart rate. Infected people's heart rate increases. I am truly sorry if I have come off like a dick in this thread. I can't sit here and say a Zombie is the same thing as in infected person when I could go on and on and on about the differences. Especially when the differences are as significant as things like the infected being way harder to survive against than Zombies.

These movies should not be bunched together just. 28 Days Later is not a Zombie movie. As I said, there is a guy in that film who gets infected because a drop of blood falls into his eye. Would that ever happen in a Zombie movie? Don't tell me I'm splitting heirs.

Sorry for being a dick.

You are the one who felt the need to post 5 Zombie films you thought were better than Day of the Dead when clearly I was praising that film...and not a single one in your list is better than Day except for 28 Days Later which isn't a Zombie film and if you want to say it is, it is amazing at how derived it is from Day of the Dead on the surface. 28 Days Later literally took the idea of Captain Rhodes being capable of anything and showing no remorse, and expanded it. When you think about the plot it is very similar. I understand this and I understand that is why you bunch together Zombie films with infected. When you watch the actual movie though you realize it is completely different other than the fact that there are clearly huge influences from the original trilogy when it comes to the person on person conflicts. It is almost like the writers can't think for themselves on these modern Zombie/infected movies. They need to watch Romero's films to come up with the ideas, and then they change the intensity and feel completely by turning them to infection movies.

Half the fun of Zombie movies were the fact that the Zombies were slow. It is a whole new ball game when these things start running. This is not just my preference I'm not talking about which is better, I am just talking about there are BIG differences. The intensity changes to a whole new level and that is not necessarily a good thing. In a real Zombie film you have time to breathe, there is drama, there is conflict that a lot of the time outweighs the fear of the actual Zombie itself. There is conflict in infected films(not saying Dawn is an infected film)but fear normally is outweighed by how scary the infected person is. Zombies are scary, but not THAT scary. As I said, I could talk about the differences for days and days.

You tell me that I am splitting heirs and Zombies and Infected are the same thing.

If Night of the Living Dead was an infected movie, instead of a Zombie film, what would happen? It would be 100 percent different. You wouldn't be able to board up your house because the infected could rip right through it. You sure as hell wouldn't be able to leave. You'd be completely screwed in every way from the start. DO NOT, sit here and try to tell me that the Infected is the same thing as a Zombie. If you can't understand where I am coming from then you are really thick in the freaking head.


John Carpenter said it best. "how many ****ing times are you going to remake Romero's trilogy?!?!?!"

The worst part about it is now they are changing it. For better or worse who knows, but at least give the original damn trilogy it's credit!

I'm afraid you are all wrong, this is what one Dictionary says, so that makes it FACT.

Zombie: a cocktail consisting of several kinds of rum, liqueur, and fruit juice.

I don't understand a word you are saying Explorer, you're running around in circle. It's different, it's similar, but it's different, but it's also similar. What's your answer?

All the films I posted are better than Day of the Dead. I can even post more, but I won't because I don't want you to go on a killing rampage, cause clearly you have issues. Saying I'm thick headed because I don't see something the same way you do? You keep going on about the differences between infected and not, blah blah blah. The people in your show, The Walking Dead are all infected....so I guess you don't want to watch that show anymore because they are infected....

I don't see how you can honestly think the Day of the Dead is the inspiration for EVERY zombie movie that came after it. You're giving it way too much credit. No one is arguing that Romeros' trilogy is the trilogy re: zombies, but you have some kind of hard-on for Romero and his films.

Please, do talk about the differences, but stop talking about the no heartbeat thing cause you've ran that into the ground already.

Sit back, relax. Realize that yes, he did not create the zombie genre, he defined it and yes, there ARE better zombie movies out there than Day of the Dead, which is a boring mess.

PS - I'm not going to argue that Carpenter quote, but you wanna post your sources?

Ha what makes you think I am going to go on a killing rampage? I just apologized for being a dick when if you go back and read the thread, you have been being a dick yourself.

The Carpenter interview was from 2012 I can't find it right now, but he definitely said it.

If you still can't see what I'm saying about how Night of the Living Dead straight up wouldn't have worked with 28 Days Later infection, then I don't know what to tell ya. This is fact though. That is how great the differences are. It is also fact that there would have never been 28 Days Later without Romero's trilogy/transcending ideas about the Zombies. I told you, I understand the similar themes, but when you look just a tad bit deeper there are so many differences it is insane to bunch 28 Days Later in the same genre as Romero's trilogy other than 28 Days Later stealing some general ideas.

And I am not even that big of a Romero fan. Not even one of my favorite directors. I own 2 of his films. When it comes to ZOMBIE films though any dope can realize Romero's were the best. What happens though is people like you get caught up in the new era garbage. Dawn of the Dead remake is nothing special. Very enjoyable but overrated as heck. 28 Days Later is great no doubt, but Dawn of the Dead sometimes feels like it was made by MTV. Return of the Living Dead I will stand by is NOTHING but 80s cheese mixed with a little horror. It succeeds very well at what it is trying to do, you prefer it, no big deal. I'm sure you think 28 weeks later is a better "Zombie" movie than Romero's were as well.... Wouldn't be surprised if one day you change your mind.

You're an idiot. Have you not been reading anything I've said? People like me get caught up in the new era garbage?

Please stop saying things are 'facts' as well, it's annoying.

Some things are facts^ Not everything is opinion. I can't stand forums these days where someone gets mad when the word fact is thrown out. It is a fact that 28 days later would not have happened without Romero's characters, especially Captain Rhodes. Can you not handle that???It is also fact that if Night of the Living Dead was not slow zombies and was 28 Days Later style infected, the movie would change DRASTICALLY. Can you not handle that I said those two things are facts? Get it together.

Call me an idiot all you want. It bothers me more that you can't understand how different a plain infection is, than a reanimated corpse.

And also nice try with the Walking Dead comparison. I'm not going to explain it to you because you WON'T be able to understand, but here ya go. http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Zombies. Walkers are Zombies.

A tad bit ironic that you called me an idiot.

Do you really believe that if The Walking Dead did not have to die to change, than it would be considered a Zombie show? Have you ever seen anything call 28 Days Later a Zombie movie other than word of mouth? 28 Days Later IS NOT a zombie movie. That is fact whether you can handle it or not. There is not a single Zombie in 28 Days Later.

And also since you wanted to used IMDB ratings as a source, try reading some imdb FAQ about what a Zombie is and what an infected person is. Hell just go back and watch the original trilogy, as well as "the slew" of others you preferred. Then let's have a discussion about what a Zombie is.

You think Zombieland could have been Zombieland if it was a bunch of alive/infected people that were not reanimated from the dead?

Please just answer that question for me^

If you think Evil Dead is a Zombie movie then I dno what to tell ya. Everything Possessed ever is a zombie? I didn't know Paranmoral Activity or Exorcist is a Zombie movie. I am just saying 28 Days Later is not a Zombie movie. Zombieland IS NOT an infection movie. Night of the Living Dead is NOT an infection movie. Evil Dead sure as hell is not a zombie movie.

The fact that you are saying "28 Days Later Zombies" is just utterly absurd. You think Zombieland could have worked with infected people who were still alive????No chance in hell

simple as that^

Also did you still not look up the definition of zombie?