the zombie genre is DEAD

[The NZA]

at least, so says George Romero

 

The zombie genre is dead. So says George Romero, whose indie horror film Night Of The Living Dead injected life into the zombie genre back in 1968. They weren’t called ”zombies” in that film, but they were beings who returned from the dead craving human flesh, and zombies pretty much have that lifestyle on lock. The Walking Dead also loves to avoid the “Z”-word, and refers to the returned as “walkers.” But according to Romero, big-budget fare like The Walking Dead and Brad Pitt’s World War Z ruined zombies for everyone else. “I think really Brad Pitt killed it,” Romero said when asked about the future of his Dead franchise in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter. And no, he doesn’t mean Pitt slayed. He means he jammed a hacksaw right through the zombie genre. “The Walking Dead and Brad Pitt just sort of killed it all,” he added.

 

 

Romero doubled down, spewing some relentless World War Z hate: “along comes Brad Pitt and he spends $400 million or whatever the hell to do World War Z. [World War Z author] Max Brooks is a friend of mine, and I thought the film was not at all representative what the book was and the zombies were, I don’t know, ants crawling over the wall in Israel. Army ants. You might as well make The Naked Jungle.” There you have it: a rather succinct review of World War Z, a.k.a. Army Ants.

 

“As far as I’m concerned, I’m content to wait until sort of zombies die off,” Romero said. “My films, I’ve tried to put a message into them. It’s not about the gore, it’s not about the horror element that are in them. It’s more about the message, for me. That’s what it is, and I’m using this platform to be able to show my feelings of what I think.”

[Da Cap'n 2099]

That moment when your loveable grampa starts saying racist shit.

 

 

 

[Visitant]

That movie was a disaster. During it's production i had a friend working on it feeding me info for the show and it sounded like it was a fucking nightmare with all the last minute edits, the having to go back after it was done filming and re-do entire scenes because they didn't work. It might not be World War Z that put the final nail in the coffin, but it was definitely helping the undertaker speed the process along.

[Jumbie]

But, was WWZ impactful enough to deserve the credit/blame for killing zombies, even if you accept that it was a mess of a movie (which I don't)

 

I'd argue Resident Evil movies have a broader fan base worldwide and have steered the perception of Zombies far more than WWZ.

 

And on top of that you have the impact of zombies in other media like TV, Video games etc.

 

I'm happy to accept that George doesn't like WWZ and it's not his thing and not up to his standard of horror movie, fine.

 

But zombies like all horror monsters can't take the light and overexposure kills off a monster faster than anything.

[The NZA]

yeah, i agree that overexposure didn't help - if WD wasn't running right now/as popular as it is though, we'd be low on zombie stuff again, no? i hardly consider the RE movies myself, like i know they somehow make $ but they seem niche and thankfully almost over.

 

i just remember how exciting it was when 28 Days Later dropped in the early aughts, the genre seemed seriously dead at that point and it felt like a cool revival.

[Da Cap'n 2099]

I'll be the first of us (and only) to say that I liked World War Z. I liked it as a straight up zombie flick. Was it a poor adaption of the book? Yes, but then again, I didn't like the book that much anyway.

 

I think people are hating on it more because of their love for the book. It's fine if you just look at it as a run-of-the-mill zombie movie and nothing more.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Da Cap'n 2099

[Visitant]

If you take a hard look at it, the film zombie genre strongly parallels the resident evil game franchise. If you consider RE1 = Night of the living dead, RE4 would be say your 28days and RE 6 would be WWZ. There's a progression of action over horror (28 days mixed both really well like RE4), but by the end people are becoming tired of it because it's just one long action sequence with no substance or anything to say anymore.

 

The RE films btw make a fucking killing overseas which is why they keep making them. Modern Hollywood cares a shit ton about China...

 

 

....but that's a talk for another thread.

[Da Cap'n 2099]

Resident Evil stopped being about zombies after 2.

[Visitant]

And most zombie films stopped being about people.

[Da Cap'n 2099]

And what does that have to do with this?

 

Sure, the zombie genre has been overexposed, but none of these films mentioned have "killed" it. Walking Dead is the biggest thing on TV right now.

 

Romero is just mad that his movies have taken a nosedive in quality since Land (and I'm being generous). That's no one fault, but his own. I will always love Romero, but he sounds like an old crusty curmudgeon with those comments.

 

I give Resident Evil credit with revitalizing the genre when no one cared anymore, but they stopped being about zombies a while ago. They are, in no way, influencing the genre anymore.

[The NZA]

you're right (RE stopped being about zombies with 3/code veronica) but i can see his analogy, at least. RE4 turned the series from survival horror to more action horror, i can see how turbo zombies in 28 did that as well...even if that movie's great because by the end of it, we're right back where Romero put it with humans as the actual bad guys. it felt like something of a nod at the time, and i dug it.

[Da Cap'n 2099]

28 Days Later is a toss up though. I love that film. I mean, REALLY love it, but it could be argued that they aren't zombies at all.

 

Romero INVENTED the concept of humans being worse than the monsters (as you mentioned), but that trope got old. It's tough, but the zombie genre had to up the stakes somehow and making bigger, faster zombies was the way to go. It's not better, but the natural progression. Now we're back to humans being the worst things ever (in The Walking Dead) and it feels fresh again.

[Visitant]

Romero is just mad that his movies have taken a nosedive in quality since Land (and I'm being generous). That's no one fault, but his own. I will always love Romero, but he sounds like an old crusty curmudgeon with those comments.

 

I completely get what you're saying here. And I agree, he's not been doing quality work. I'm not saying the genre is dead, like you said, look at walking dead. Is there less original/ great zombie content? Sure. But is that because we made so much good stuff in a short time and now we need to rethink the genre?

 

...I mean it worked for twilight right?

[Da Cap'n 2099]

Haha! Sparkling zombies.

 

Yeah, I'm with you, but what though? Zombie romance? Warm Bodies. Zombie animated? Resident Evil: Degeneration. Maybe a zombie superhero? Marvel has one (I also created one as a kid. HOLLA AT ME HOLLYWOOD!).

Edited November 4, 2016 by Da Cap'n 2099

[Jumbie]

Like Pancho, I liked WWZ as a popcorn movie. I especially found the crawling ants scene fun and noteworthy.

 

Haven't read the book, so I'm not mad about misadaptation.

 

I have to reiterate though, that the main reason Romero is wrong is that WWZ just didn't impact the public consciousness. If I say Twilight killed off vampires, you can get behind that idea, even as a Twilight fan because Twilight had an impact on how people saw the beast.

 

Also, yes, Mr. Romero, zombies can be a cute way to spread your anti-consumerist message etc. It's not all it has to be.

 

Yes, there does need too be some substance underneath, but it could be a simple love story or family story rather than a political thing