Talk:Zombie apocalypse/Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"War of the Zombies"
This is not a notable addition to the article. There are no third party reliable sources to comment or recommend the book, nor foes it or the author have an article of their own. Until at least one of the previous criteria is met, there's no place for it in the article. If you feel otherwise - please discuss why an exception should be made here, rather than edit warring to include it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)