Talk:Zombie apocalypse/Archive 1

Title capitalization
✅ What about the weapons you should use. 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)

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, Habanero man  Sign Talk 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)

Woah Woah Woah Woah. First off, citing the film as a reference to the book is a terrible idea, as it's an incredible perversion of the book -- basically they're complete opposites. Second, in the book they're no more vampires than they are zombies, featuring traits of both. Third, arguing points like "they're way too intelligent to be undead" or "with zombies once 'your' dead you are dead" sounds completely idiotic, as the concept of a zombie is fairly abstract. George A. Romero -- who has basically single handedly invented our (changing) modern concept of the zombie apocalypse -- clearly has zombies with alpha males and great deals of intelligence in Land of the Dead. Second, just because Robert Matheson suggests that there could be a cure for the infection doesn't rule them out as zombies. If Romero made an "of the Dead" flick wherein a possible cure is mentioned at the end, I doubt everyone would be like "OH WELL CLEARLY THEY'RE NOT ZOMBIES." All that said, I'm not arguing for I Am Legend's inclusion on this list, though I probably wouldn't have removed it myself. I was simply pointing out that a majority of the arguments for NOT including are completely idiotic grammatical-error-ridden clusterfucks. Almost as if zombies were writing them. Mileslivingston

Um...ok. For someone who doesn't care if I Am Legend isn't on the list you sure do seem passionate about the arguments against it. Also please avoid personal attacks on talk pages. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't approve of it.

First the original book I am Legend is seen as both an influence on the modern zombie and vampire genres. An argument, however, can be made that the "monsters" in the book themselves have more in common with vampires than zombies (sunlight hurts them, they are killed usually by a stake, allergic to garlic, affected by religious objects). Whether that is relevant to the film in question is a matter of opinion since the film itself doesn't follow the book exactly.

Second, you are correct that the concept of a zombie is rather abstract. Anyone who has seen Romero's films, the Living Dead Series (where they do show intelligence and can talk), or read Brook's books knows that there are a wide variety of opinions on them. One user on the List of zombie films talk page, however, came up with a pretty good list IMO that has the generally accepted traits of a zombie in fiction:


 * 1) The dead re-animate.
 * 2) The dead violently consumer the living.
 * 3) ONLY removing/destroying the brain results in the re-animated corpse's 'death' in so far as it is no longer able to stay re-animated.

Now not all books/films/games/etc. follow all three (for example in the movie Flight of the Dead you don't have to shoot the zombies in the head to kill them), but the majority will follow at least two of them. The film I am Legend followed none of them, which is a mark against it being a zombie film.

Also your comment on how people would react if Romero made a movie with a cure is making a rather large assumption. Honestly we would never really know what would happen, especially considering how unlikely the creation of such a movie would be, but if made it would most likely start a controversy similar to this one.

Anyway to make a long story short, I still stand by my earlier arguments. I wouldn't mind a compromise though on this argument since I already mentioned a possible one before on this talk page. If you feel that it should be included than maybe we can work something out. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The creatures from I Am Legend are human beings infected with a virus that killed the vast majority of the human race and mutated the majority of those who weren't killed right away. They're not zombies, and they only have things in common with vampires (doesn't make 'em vampires). Groundlord (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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. Habanero man Sign Talk 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! Habanero man Sign Talk 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are more of these too that are not apocalyptic, though they have zombies. The television section is a good example plus Shaun of the Dead. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ehhh... I wasn't surprised to find that "zombie apocalypse" had 313,000 google hits as against 3600 for "undead apocalypse." It seems inarguably, trivially obvious to me that the notion of a zombie apocalypse has become culturally commonplace as a result of the Romero movies popularizing the concept.  If you try to tie in every other sort of transformation/epidemic apocalypse in, it'll end badly.  Likewise, excluding things like I am Legend and 28 Days Later will leave you with a standard of zombie rigour that will basically exclude everything except for the Romero franchise.  If people want caveats next to pseudo-zombie movies, fine.  But renaming it all undead?  I mean really, the undead/supernatural language in the Romero movies is mostly rhetorical anyway, the phenomenon is externally one of active, biological entities (ie, only dead in moral terms) and infection, even if there is meant to be an intervening moment of death.  Separating that from the never-dead but zombie-behaving fiction is angels-on-pinheads territory.   142.167.169.209 (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the end its probably for the best that the list was deleted to avoid these arguments all together. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Lucio Fulci's Zombi 2? Altho the epidemic appears limited to a small island in the Caribbean, it is still strongly implied that the zombie invasion has taken root in the outside world as well. 80.220.38.193 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a source that suggest this also? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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, Habanero man Sign Talk 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I second this-come on take 5 mins and netflix it.nowhere does it have anything to do with zombies.It makes no sense that it would be on that list and should be taken offThe Average Joe (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, it was taken off...like 2 years ago. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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, Habanero man Sign Talk 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate deletists...
what really p** me off more is when people take away from articles and don't add

just remove, as if spaces, are better than nothing

how can you *not* have original reseach in an article about a zombie apocalypse like it's er, real!!!

at least I added specific examples - of the movies in question - and examples within the genre

I think I live in a world full of the brain dead

err, like a zombie apocalype

la
 * Um...before you start passing judgment maybe you should look up what original research really is. Also just because something is fictional does not mean that content does not have to be verified.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comic
I am seriously considering to insert Les Schtroumpfs Noirs from 1963 into this list. Elvis (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can dig up a critical source that refers to it as a "zombie apocalypse", feel free, but I doubt it meets the genre criteria of "apocalypse" if the action takes place in a single village. --McGeddon (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suddenly my name has taken on an entirely new meaning, haha. But on a serious note, McGeddon is right.  You really need a source that connects it to this article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * not critical source:, 91.67.138.117 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Examples" section problems
I think it's worth mentioning that there's a difference between horror movies which happen to feature zombies and those which actually merit "zombie apocalypse" status. I've never seen "Dance of the Dead", but even its article says that the students "take on the zombies and save the day". Besides, what kind of "apocalypse" could this really have been if they're still having proms? Films which concern the onset, duration, or aftermath of a zombie apocalypse should obviously be included here, or even merely those which concern characters who may believe they are among the lastliving humans (28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead remake) are worth mentioning here. I'm sure this article's visitation will rise as we near the release of films like World War Z, so maybe it's good to get the criteria down pat. Or "Patrick", if that's what you prefer. 98.247.177.218 (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the movie myself but according to one part of the source: "Many zombie movies will take up to an hour to build to the zombie apocalypse part of the program, but not Dance of the Dead. No sir, we've got a full-blown zombie apocalypse within the first twenty minutes."  Whether this means the general idea of a zombie apocalypse or the viewer is just throwing around the term is not clear, has anyone seen this movie? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Video Game Examples
Any objections to adding Zombie Panic!: Source to the list of video games examples? It is an award winning game and has one of the larger player-base of the genre. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as you can find a source that connects it apocalyptic fiction (with zombies) then yes it would be acceptable. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The inspiration for the game is zombie films depicting such an apocalypse.  I'll get the sources together and work on it tomorrow.  Thanks for the reply. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 02:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Humourous Zombie Apocalypse
I believe that the film Shaun of the Dead should be added to the list of examples, as that list does not have any humorous apocalyptic zombie films. 208.65.73.107 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources to prove its apocalyptic fiction? Sure it had zombies, but was it a zombie apocalypse?  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathematical analysis
I've added a Further reading section with Munz et al's recent book chapter. IMO it unfairly tips the scale in the zombies' favor by assuming that they cannot be permanently destroyed in any of the models. Still, it's probably worth a cite. Melchoir (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened to your addition, but in any case discussing the paper is more appropriate in the body. It is absolutely positively worth a cite; it's the first (and, so far, only) paper that corroborates the Romero thesis. YLee (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel like changing the first paragraph a bit. I couldn't find a reference to in the (initial) growth rate in the paper, but it cannot be faster than quadratic in any "infectious" scenario, and will be linear (with a high constant factor) in the case of global reasons.  If anyone thinks this is too much WP:OR, please provide a citation for another growth rate. IMHO Excitable medium is the relevant physical model here.

Could this be added in the article?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8206280.stm For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done; see above. YLee (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Planet Terror
Whatever floats your boat, Smurf, but it's not obvious to me how "Rose McGowan playing a go-go dancer whose leg is replaced with a M4 carbine assault rifle with M203 40mm grenade launcher attachment" makes it more relevant to this article. —Tamfang (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the mention of the gun, I did not add that. My problem with your deletion was that there are plenty of sources out there connecting the film with the zombie apocalypse sub-genre.  If your only problem was the mention of the character then next time just remove that instead of the entire entry.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you did not add it, who did? I removed the entry not because of the gun but because it did not (then) mention zombies! —Tamfang (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I forgot I added that. I don't remember all of my edits and assumed that it wasn't one of mine.  I'm not trying to start an edit/flame war here, only to make sure something that was sourced is not deleted simply because the description of the entry could be better.  I replaced the dead link with three better ones and changed the description to mention zombies.  If there are any other weak descriptions please point them out and I will try to fix them. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not having seen Grindhouse, I didn't know whether it has zombies (it wouldn't be the first time someone added something irrelevant to a list), so I could hardly be the one to add that point. (Sorry if I seem pissy.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm glad this was resolved quickly. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Recommending an addition to the Literature list
I recommend adding the Day By Day Armageddon series by J.L. Bourne (DBDA and DBDA Beyond Exile) to the Literature list because they're outstanding. I also suggest adding them to the list of zombie novels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_zombie_novels (JanineB (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC))

I Am Legend Redux
I see that someone has added I Am Legend to the list of Zombie Apocalypse movies. I haven't removed it, but I do see that a previous discussion (last updated in 2009, upthread) it was decided not to include it because the monsters are not zombies, they are humans infected by a virus that turns them into creatures similar to vampires. I have no strong feelings either way, as the film in tone is very similar to most zombie apocalypse movies even if the details aren't, but this could be a slippery slope issue. Should I Am Legend (and similar) be included or not? Does this discussion need to be revisited? Quietmarc (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Me again. I reviewed the previous discussion and, unless concensus has changed, I Am Legend shouldn't be in the list, so I've removed it. If anyone thinks it needs to be included, they should bring the discussion here before re-adding. Quietmarc (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur, not a zombie apocalypse. I Am Legend is explicitly about vampires.  While it's done a lot to inspire the zombie genre, the work itself does not concern them.  Geoff B (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead
The last couple of edit comments are a bit puzzling. 98.218.81.113 said, "Just because they weren't called zombies doesn't mean they obviously aren't zombies, use common sense," which suggests using the word zombies broadly. Smurf replied, "using common sense we know that the definition of zombies isn't just dead that rise and eat the living," which suggests using zombies narrowly. But that's the opposite of the changes they respectively made!

Did you ever find, after a bitter argument, that you misunderstood the other party's position and in fact you're in almost complete agreement? —Tamfang (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My disagreement with the anon stems from the fact that it is unnecessary to describe the monsters in Left 4 Dead as "zombie-like infected." The term zombie has come to mean both the dead who eat humans of the Romero movies, to the mindless infected killers of Left 4 Dead and even 28 Days/Weeks Later.  From my point of view, I am using the word zombie broadly and IMO correctly.  I see no reason why its necessary to add "zombie-like infected." Its redundant especially considering the number of zombie books, films, etc. that actually have humans become zombies by being "infected" by a virus.
 * My comment about the Romero zombies not being called zombies was meant to convey the fact that the monsters in those movie were called ghouls, and yet they are referred everywhere else as zombies. Even though the monsters in Left 4 Dead are called infected, doesn't mean they are not zombies.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I misread your edit-comment to mean "that definition is incomplete," i.e. that there are more necessary features. I agree it's silly to confine zombies too narrowly, given how far the movie zombie is from the Haitian zombie. —Tamfang (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the description of Left 4 Dead over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undead-themed_video_games sums it up best: "The Infected in this game are not, by the root definition of the word, zombies, since they are not reanimated corpses; instead, they were common living humans stricken by a mutated rabies virus, which turned them into mindless, voracious creatures with decaying skin and flesh. It is shown that the disease can mutate further to alter the appearances of people, as seems to be the case of the five kinds of Special Infected, to varying degrees." Also, what I said was in response to Zombie Hunter's answer about his irrelevant note of Romero's zombies. --98.218.81.113 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the makers of Left 4 Dead don't think they are literally zombies is irrelevant. The makers of 28 Days Later also don't call them zombies, but that has not stopped the creatures from being called zombies.  Also the makers of Left 4 Dead marketed the game as a "zombie apocalypse" which suggests that not everyone is in agreement about what to call the creatures.
 * Pre-Night of the Living Dead, zombies were never classified as cannibals, but after Romero's movies suddenly that changed. The term zombie has evolved since then to include creatures that aren't dead.  Based on the evolution of the term zombie, it is rendundant to describe them as "zombie like" because it is easier (and truthful) just to say zombies.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also consider the number of sources out there that refer to the monsters as zombies: . Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Then why isn't the description of 28 Days Later on the article say nothing about zombies, and rather them being humans infected by a 'Rage' virus. It's the closest example to Left 4 Dead, and if it weren't for the Special Infected it'd be a perfect resemblance. I agree with you that 'zombie-like' is a low quality description but saying they're simply zombies and leaving it at that is just incorrect. They aren't undead, they don't eat people, and they're obviously different from any other type of zombie seen before due to their different classes of Special Infected ranging from the polar opposite of the stereotypical zombie, the juggernaut Tank, all the way to the acid-producing Spitter. None of that can be classified to either the classic zombie or the modern zombie of today, because they aren't. --98.218.81.113 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When you describe it like that, it doesn't sound that different from the Resident Evil fanchise, where you have the classic zombies and the bizarre monsters that apparently come from the same source. Left 4 Dead, I believe, does have the low level zombies as well as the more powerful monsters that you described.  That being considered, it seems Left 4 Dead fits just as well in the zombie definition as Resident Evil.
 * Also you mention the "modern zombie" which I take to mean a mindless violent human who has the sole goal of killing normal humans, like the monster of 28 Days Later and other similar works. I fail to see how the monsters of Left 4 Dead cannot be zombies like those monsters.
 * However, I see that it is unlikely that either of us is going to convince the other that he is right. Since you agree that "zombie like" is weak description I propose finding one that is acceptable to both of us.  I'll remove the word zombie altogether and craft a description similar to 28 Days Later.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed the description of the game. I removed the term zombie from the description and mentioned the rabies pathogen that figures in the game.  I still feel that the creatures of the game fit into the definition of the zombies and will continue to revert edits that remove mention of the game from other zombie related articles.  I hope this is a workable compromise.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Got to dispute the "90% of humanity" quote: if that's the case, then why is the military still intact? 81.129.143.249 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm also wondering where this 90% comes from. I read the linked article and it isn't mentioned there. Also, with the revelations from the L4D comic that there is genetic immunity to the infection passed along from the father it seems highly unlikely that 90% of humanity was infected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.140.155 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To add the the fact that 90% of people are infected, by what the maps in L4D show, the disease has yet to spread out of North America. Oh, but Sinebot, the comic said that the survivors are infected, but the disease doesn't show any symptoms in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.91.82 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

add evil dead and dead rising
add evil dead movies series and

dead rising video game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.69.9 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither are zombie apocalypses. Both feature relatively small-scale events. Geoff B (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: 28 Days Later type humans
There need to be some specifics picked up here. Are the infected people in these kinds of movies zombies or something else?

It seems to be quite a common theme within modern films of this genre since 28 Days Later. Take another recent one, Quarantine (2008). This is classed as a zombie film but the "changed people" within the context of the films are not dead or been reanimated.

My point is based on the whole evolution of the genre. If you consider the first early film to be in the mould of Carnival of Souls and then Night of the Living Dead in the late 60s. These contain an explicit line between the living and the dead.

I notice that 70s movies like the Romero film The Crazies, Cronenberg's Rabid or even the remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers starring Donald Sutherland are not counted as zombie movies (whereas the causes in these films are arguably within the criteria for post-28 Days Later type films). Mindless infected humans pursuing and attacking the uninfected, as the authorities are unable to prevent the spread of the contagion.

There has to be more clarity between what is considered pure "zombie" and simply "infected". As I believe there are markable differences. However these changes are probably as a result of modern, simplistic marketing, for instance it's easier to sell a disease-based story as a zombie flick as the genre is already there, rather than trying to fit it into a new slot, for instance: survivalist.

If anything, this article should have a section on how the "zombie apocalypse" genre is less defined and unclear. Thanks in part to landmark films like "28 Days Later" that brought "living" speed to the equation rather than shuffling undead mobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.120.77 (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed- 28 Days later infected are NOT zombies- they do not fall into the definition of zombies (trance victims controlled by a type of wizard or cannibalistic undead). In every location that allows people to discuss the film, the word "zombie" associated with it has been contested. We should not be adding this label to a film that is not about zombies. Just because marketers call it a zombie film (because they don't know how to sell it otherwise) doesn't make it so. Larylich (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "trance victims controlled by a type of wizard or cannibalistic undead" is a narrow Voodoo-type definition. The broader definition is of a reanimated dead person (not under the control of any particular force). The 'infected' in 28 Days Later are not zombies because they do not appear to die first. A living person who is infected with the rage virus changes almost immediately. Taroaldo (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete 28 days later?
I have read the old debate about 28 Days Later and whether the infected qualify as zombies. My question is whether it should be deleted because the outbreak is clearly not apocalyptic.

In the sequel, 28 Weeks Later, we learn that not only was the quarantine of the British Isles effective, an NATO forces, CNN and other government still present, it isn't until the end of the 2nd movie that the infected humans are found anywhere other than Great Brittan.

The Washington Post's review of 28 Weeks later notes that in 28 Days "The scourge engulfed the British Isles so completely that they were closed down, quarantined." and that in 28 Weeks Later "England has returned to pleasant status. The American military has established a secure "green zone" in London. And all the returning Brits have to do is breed, keep talking in delightful accents and reopen those tourist attractions for their American handlers. "

This demonstrates that the events shown in 28 Days Later were localized, contained, had a significant number of survivors, and not apocalyptic. A better argument for including 28 Weeks Later could be made since the end of the film it shows infected humans breaking quarantine. Cmriley (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can argue the same thing for most of the Resident Evil films. It was only the third one that became apocalyptic.  Nevertheless, 28 Days Later should remain due to the fact that from the characters POV throughout most of the movie it was an apocalypse.  64.213.188.134 (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

28 Days later needs to be removed because it's not about zombies. Yes it's apocalyptic, but it's the ZOMBIE apocalypse page, and the 28 Days later infected are not zombies. Thus, this film should not be mentioned here. Larylich (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They are zombies in every way that matters for this article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect- the infected do NOT match the definition of zombies here at Wikipedia. Just because a movie as a similar PLOT doesn't make it a zombie film; plot is not a definition of the subject. 28 Days Later is an Apocalypse film, but NOT a Zombie Apocalypse film and there for has no place on a zombie page. Being "close enough" does not count. Larylich (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting on this. There has yet to be a counter point that invalidates my argument. Larylich (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that 28 Days is a) apocalyptic and b) not about zombies. Therefore, doesn't belong. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While I personally concur that the infected in the film are not zombies, they were comparable to zombie films in many ways and perceived by many notable reviewers as a zombie film. Therefore, I feel they should stay.


 * However, as I've said every time I've weighed in on the discussion surrounding this franchise, I think it would behoove us to find some sources we can use (i.e. not blogs and fansites) that note there is a controversy about calling the infected zombies. That seems like it would allow us, in the article, to address the concerns of those fans of zombie and horror fiction who seem so invested in the classification. I know some reviews at the time of the first film's release addressed the issue in passing by saying things along the lines of "the creatures aren't zombies but that's the closest analogy I can make". If I have the time later I'll go digging for similar material myself.  Then we could keep them in the film do to notable comparisons but note that there was some debate as to the accuracy of labeling the films zombie.  Should be a decent compromise for both the realists and the purists. Millahnna (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Millahnna. There a numerous reliable third party sources that list them as zombies.  The movie also appears on the list of zombie films.  Also the film was billed as a reimagining of the zombie genre.  As for whether it is apocalyptic, well yes it was just limited to one island, but it contained many tropes that belong in apocalyptic fiction.  Still we can discuss that more, but the issue on whether they are zombies is moot.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Conversely, numerous third party sources have refuted their characterization as zombies. Just from my own observation, the accounts I've read that call them zombies tend to be generalized sources, while the ones that refute it tend to be more "specialized" sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm talking about though. Are any of those sources we can use to make note of the fact that the zombie classification has been controversial.  I've been looking through a few reviews and the ones I've found were from reviewers that aren't notable enough for us to use here.  But it shouldn't be to hard to reference the controversy.  Millahnna (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if there is a controversy, this article is really not the place to make note of it. That is something for the 28 Days Later article, which the editors there have continued to label the creatures as "zombies".  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've mentioned this there as well, since it would be more appropriate to go into any detail about it there than here.. Keep the zombie label but give a notation about "but sort of not really" with some sources to back it up.  Millahnna (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO (though it has little weight here) the definition of zombie is so flexible that it makes little sense to argue whether the 28 Days Later creatures are zombies or not. The original definition of zombies from the Vodou religion is vastly different from the Romero version of zombies.  Even Romero did not originally call his monsters zombies (and still doesn't in most of his films) and instead called them ghouls.  Nevertheless his creatures were referred to as zombies by third parties, just as the infected from 28 Days Later are called zombies.  I see no reason why we must be nitpicky about whether the infected are zombies since an argument can easily be made that Romero's ghouls are not zombies as well if you are willing to go back to the original meaning of zombies.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you; I've mentioned that argument a time or two myself. I'm just trying to find a way to compromise in some fashion that heads off the edit warring that crops up periodically. To me, the easiest way to do that is find a few reviews that say "but they aren't zombies the way we usually think of them", throw in a passing sentence and move on. Unfortunately, the only stuff I've found so far is from non-notable reviewers (fansites, small weekly independent papers, etc.). I'll keep digging I guess. Millahnna (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we don't refer to them as zombies at all in this article, though originally they were called zombies back in the day but it was removed as a compromise to those who did not feel they were zombies. Obviously the problem remains and while I would not mind some mention of the controversy for sake of compromise, the controversy seems only to exist among the most ardent zombies fans and putting a line about the controversy could violate WP:UNDUE.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For this article at least, very good point. Is this going to turn into something we have to rfc on? Millahnna (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Correct me if I am wrong (my knowledge of Wikipedia is very narrow) but rfcs are usually not called for unless the editors working on an article cannot come to a consensus after a really long discussion.  Let us wait and see what happens.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Zombie Hunter Smurf. Wikipedia has a set definition of zombies- either the voodoo or Romero kind. 28 Days Later is neither of those, and therefor must be removed. They are diseased living, NOT dead. Just because something has similar traits does not make it so. I could say my Ford Focus is a Ferrari because it has tires, doors, and drives. However it's NOT a Ferrari. Same thing here. Larylich (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't use wikipedia articles as references. Instead we use third party sources and those sources list them as zombies. Also you are being overly simplistic with the article.  The word "usually" tends to come up often when describing the modern zombies, suggesting that zombies are not just the Romero types.  Plus right in the lead we see "The monsters are usually hungry for human flesh, often specifically brains".  Neither Vodoo or Romero zombies eat specifically BRAINS!!!!, yet you claim the only definition is from those two sources.  Also 28 Days Laters is listed in the zombie article, so according to those editors at least they are zombies.  Really this is an unecessary conversation, it happens every few months and the consensus is always that they are zombies due to the vague definition of the term.  The people who do not believe they are zombies base their opinion on their own observations and not on any reliable sources.    Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted Omissions
Could there be mention of some strange facts that seem to always be omitted from zombie works, the most important being how can these zombies live and function without starving to death. Zombies can't just go on forever, they must all die after a month or so, so why couldn't people just wait it out? These is never talked about in any zombie shows I've seen. It's an impossible "given" of the genre, like lightspeed travel is for science fiction. --75.108.199.245 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Be a little careful with that. Undead zombies are driven to eat, but are not alive and can not starve to death. Decomposition can take a LONG time in many parts of the world, especially cold climates, so specific drop off dates should be avoided. In the Zombie Survival Guide, it was stated that bacteria couldn't break down the dead flesh, and the flesh was fatal to those scavengers who ate it, allowing the zombies to stay active for years. Larylich (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but Max Brooks' book is just ONE take on the genre. It may be used by many as a genre bible but it is not, in fact, fact.  Nor is it the only take on the genre. Millahnna (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be the big problem with adding a section like that to any page which isn't about a specific franchise. It'd be like trying to say how far dragons can fly or how long elves live; because they're not real everyone is free to make up their own version so there's little consistency between franchises and no obligation to explain it at all if it's not relevant to the storyline. For example I know the T-virus stops Resident Evil zombies decaying indefinately - they don't actually need to eat at all and so can't starve but in other places they're portrayed as reliant on human flesh. (Although the only place I remember seeing zombies shown starving was 28 Days Later and as discussed here they're not really zombies.) Danikat (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Also in many cases we only know what the main characters know and they're often civillians who only know they're surrounded by zombies and about to die. Especially in apocalypse situations where no one has had time to study the zombies extensively it'd be unrealistic for anyone to know exactly how they work internally so this information is never avaliable to us. Danikat (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Recommended addition to film list
Has nobody heard of The Last Man on Earth (1964 film)? It is a feature regarding I Am Legend (novel), but -- instead of the book's vampires -- it depicts zombie-like creatures. I think it is the very first film about zombie apocalypse with monsters acting like Night of the Living Dead's zombies. Maybe it wasn't the film that started the trend, but it inspired NOTLD filming for sure. --MarcelloPapirio (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be better under an apocalypse event page, but since they are not zombies (See the Wikipedia definition), it should not be included on the specific zombie page as zombie events. Larylich (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Parade of the Dead Hilltop Hoods
Austrailian hip-hop group Hilltop Hoods have released both a song and movie about a zombie apocalypse Called Parade of the Dead, ths should be included--132.198.196.62 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Zombigenic: yes or no?
I coined the word "zombigenic" and considered using it in the introduction instead of "zombie-creating." I thought better of it though because as far as I knew it wasn't an English word. However, I just Googled it and found ~26 hits from science farce and gaming websites mostly, which used either "zombigenic" or "zombigenesis." In scientific literature it is proper to coin words like this, but I don't think it is in popular literature. I have no idea what to do in WP because WP doesn't fall neatly into either category. I really want to use the word in this article, partly as a nod to the quirky and fictitious nature of the topic. What do you think? Dcs002 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

not needed template
I don't know who placed that template into article but after reading 2011 CDC warning about zombie apocalypse I must say that the "apocalypse" IS NOT TRUE! This was only a metaphore and real goal of that stuff was to raise people awareness about emergency situations (i.e. hurricanes or earthquakes) !

Geez... 62.152.146.101 (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is there not a reference to the Bible and the Tribulation?
Doesn't the whole idea of zombies rely on the beilef that the whole world will be wiped out and then their bodies will be occupied by demons or that zombies will walk as proof that more things are to come according to the bible? The whole article doesn't even say anything about how it originated from the bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.103.129 (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Example games
What are the guidelines for adding games? There's a post-zombie-apocalyptic multiplayer online browser RPG named Zedwars (gets about 83k results on Google but I'm not sure if any of it counts as a source).--86.8.75.27 (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Darkwatch: The main villain is a vampire, but he does raise dead cowboys and indians across the wild west. --99.101.160.159 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Zombie (fictional)?
Most of the information in this article is either examples in media (which are listed at Zombie (fictional)) or historical background (which is listed there as well). The unique material (such as Robert Smith?'s study) would be well suited to that article, I think.  Serendi pod ous  22:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Zombie apocalypse should be merged with Zombie (fictional) because Zombie (fictional)already has a part on Zombie apocalypse--Fopnor (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Subsection: Websites
Zombie Squad is mentioned under "See Also", but there are several websites that fall under this category as well (Zombie Research Society is probably the most prominent). --99.101.160.159 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)