Talk:Zombie apocalypse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Title capitalization
Per WP:CAPS, only the first word in article titles should be capitalized, excepting proper nouns. Since this isn't a proper noun, this article really should be at Zombie apocalypse (no redirect). However, Zombie apocalypse already exists, as a redirect to this article (Zombie Apocalypse). So we'll need an admin to delete the existing "Zombie apocalypse" page and move Zombie Apocalypse into its place (otherwise we'll loose the edit history of this article). I do note that there is some edit history at the target, too; not sure what to do about that. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I solved the old page edit history problem by moving to Zombie apocalypse/Old and re-creating the redirect at Zombie apocalypse. So now I'll request the move. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Page moved, per request. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Page moved, per request. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] orangekubrick's changes
Added several films to the list and removed Evil Dead one and two as their events take place in a cabin and no real apocalypse threat is present. Will add a page for Zombie Holocaust and Days in Hell soon. orangekubrick
[edit] I Am Legend
It fits with the theme, but I Am Legend is more about vampires than zombies, especially the book. Should it be removed from the list? ChlorineFriday (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Close enough, I think. I'd say leave it here, until and unless a "Vampire apocalypse" article needs to be created. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that you should leave it. Technically, from research I've personally been doing for the academic scene, the 'I Am Legend' film creatures are both vampires and zombies since they fall under the confines of 'the infected zombie'. Besides the fact that zombies since 1961 (with the film 'I Eat Your Skin')have been almost exclusively vampiric (meaning they feed on human flesh), so the creature cross-over is largely inevitable. Vrgirl (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
First, I notice that the Evil Dead trilogy is noticeably absent, and I would agree that those movies are not zombie movies. But Evil Dead has more of a case for being put in this genre than I Am Legend does, and so I am confused as to why I Am Legend is still listed when its monsters are clearly NOT zombies. I think I Am Legend should be taken out. The I Am Legend night creatures are said to feed on blood, not flesh. There is no indication of them disembowling/entirely consuming their victims, as thoughtless zombies would. They show signs of communication, adapting and learning; zombies have no intelligence. Night creatures can be killed by means other than destroying the brain, which is very different than a traditional zombie. Finally, the night creatures can actually be restored to human form, whereas zombies can never return to a human life; it is their nature to be undead and thus uniquely inhuman. -bridget —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itmeantnothing (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I Am Legend is definitely not a zombie movie. No way. Reason: THEY'RE NOT F***ING ZOMBIES!!! They are still people, just infected. They are affected by other wounds, and they are way too intelligent to be undead. They also have an alpha male and female. Zombies just run around eating people, under no one in particular's control. They may work in hordes, but they still aren't smart.
Sincerely, as always, Habaneroman SignTalk 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
d
The monsters in I Am Legend are not zombies. First the original book clearly stated they were vampires. Second, in the movie they are clearly hurt by sunlight, which is a vampire trait. Third, no where in the movie did it say they ate human flesh, a zombie trait. Instead they seemed to drink blood, a vampire trait, from the scene where Will Smith lured one to be captured with his blood. Finally the monster in I Am Legend aren't even dead, a must to be a zombie, but instead were just mutants who could be cured. That seems to me to be more like a vampire since some vampire movies have suggested you can be cured. With zombies once your dead you are dead.
Are their similarities? Sure, but that doesn't mean they should be included in the zombie apocolypse category. It makes more sense to place it in general Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction rather than the more specific category of zombie apocalypse, since the genre also includes such things as mutants that do not have zombie qualities. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Listed Movies that are either not zombie films or not apocalyptic
Several of the Films listed do not fit the criteria to be in this section. The first paragraph defines the zombie apocalypse a as the rise of "reanimated corpses" that are "hostile to human life engage in a general assault on civilization". The following films do not fit this description and should either be removed, or we need to redefine the description in order to incorporate them:
28 Days Later - The infected in this movie are not zombies as they never fully die and can be killed in many ways. Also, the out break is contained to Great Britain, which causes it to fail to meet the definition of an apocalypse which requires a world wide event.
28 Weeks Later - Although the infection spreads at the end of the film the infected do not meet the definition of zombie.
I am Legend - See separate discussion. Infected are not zombies. The definition used should be revised if we want to keep the film on the list because of shared themes but with current wording it is incorrectly listed.
Omega Man - See discussion. Same reasons as I Am Legend it has even less to do with the subject.
Last Man on Earth - Similar to Omega Man and I Am Legend. Is defined as a Vampire Plague not a Zombie infestation. For it to remain on the list we should either define zombie apocalypse or remove the listing. Cmriley (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The only other option for it to remain on the list would be to redifine zombies as vampiric, but that would never pass. Habaneroman SignTalk 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying, but maybe we can keep those movies/etc in their own section but make it clear there similar but not having anything to do with zombies. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps renaming the page "Undead Apocalypse", or creating a section for that, would solve most of the problems. Undead is defined on wikipedia as: "a collective name for beings that the superstitious believe are deceased yet behave as if alive. Undead may be spiritual, such as ghosts, or corporeal, such as vampires and zombies. Undead are featured in the legends of most cultures and in many works of fantasy and horror fiction." So it would definitely include I Am Legend, Omega Man and Last Man on Earth. Perhaps 28 Days/Weeks later could be asterisked to point out they aren't zombies but share many characteristics. Cmriley (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah the first movie was billed as a reimagining of the zombie genre. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You know what? I actually agree with Crimley's remark. It seems that it might just work! Habaneroman SignTalk 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Omega Man????
Are you kidding me? Has anyone but me actually seen Omega Man? If you had even watched a nanosecond, you would know that it has nothing at all to do with zombies. Even less than I Am Legend. I vote for its immediate removal. Sincerely as always, Habaneroman SignTalk 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bad Links
There is a serious number of bad (red) links in the "List of zombie apocalypse fiction" section. Also, that isn't a great, attention sustaining title, for a section, eh? Sincerely, as always, Habaneroman SignTalk 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

