Jump to content

Talk:List of zombie films/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Caligari removal

The citation for The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari does not claim it's a zombie film, but sort of somewhat influence. Without showing any research backing that up, it says "It could be argued that the 'somnambulism' in the German expressionist film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920, Germ.) was one of the earliest examples of a hypnotic, sleep-walking state similar to that exhibited by zombies." In other words, sleepwalking resembles a zombie. That's not calling it a zombie film, or the first zombie film or any of that. I suggest not including it on this list. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

--Andys'edtits 08:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "There are a couple of Zombiless Zombie movies". Eg The Cabinet of Dr Cagliari, and The Goul (1933). The first is a Hypnotized sleepwalker, with 'Zombie like' movements, second Karloff’s character is cataleptic. I think they should be included because they are the fore fathers of the Genre, and were the westernisation of the voodoo qualities of the transformed person - between reality & not. At that point, unless they stuck with a Shelly like reference to animated corpses, teh genre may never have inspird others and developed as it has, into a wide variety of causes of zombieism. --Andys'edtits 08:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs)

That's WP:OR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Movie I am Legend is a prime example of 'Zombiless Zombie movies. An epidemic turns people into killers with rabies like symptoms - but they aren't Zombies. can cite book 'Zombie Movies, the ultimate guide' --Andys'edtits 09:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs)

Nothing to do with Caligari though. Whilst it could possibly be cited in a prose article as an influence on the zombie film genre, it does not belong in a list of zombie films. And remember to sign your posts. I left a note on your talk page about this, but you removed it without paying any attention!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on signing, Something odd-thought I had signed, using the pencil icon, at end of comment. maybe left a space.? Anyhow. I wasn't clear enough above. In book i noted for reference, it defines Caligari as one of the first of several 'Zombiless' Zombie movies. I am Legend is also on that list.--Andys'edtits 10:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs) --Andys'edtits (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC) If Caligari were to be removed then i'm suggesting 'I am legend' would also need removal for similar reason. Legend may infer zombies, but there are no 'eating/biting/canablism'. (It's more like Omega man with 'undeads' hide from light, more akin vampire mythology).--Andys'edtits (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

what matters is what the reliable sources say, not what we think. If the reliable sources call X a zombie movie, but not Y, then we call X a zombie movie, but we do not include Y.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is the source online: Kay's book I agree it doesn't need to be in the main list as the author has excluded it from his Zombie Movies list. Also in the same source, Kay groups the I am Legend monsters as "rabid sickos" source - page 50-54 has a section on how he classifies the different types. He also makes a case that Night of the Living Dead film was directly inspired by I Am Legend. However, many of the critics (Roger Ebert included) in published sources refer to the I am Legend monsters as zombies. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom TheRedPenOfDoom, Could you please explain how Kay's book is not a reliable source. It was already cited in the article? I assumed it was reasonable to use it, being an existing source, and reliable enough. I see no mention on this talk page of ambiguity re the book as a reliable source. Number of sources is a different issue. If you disagree on grounds that one could find more citations for a point of view, than that is a matter of numbers I think, not that I don't cite a reliable source. Please see Above link (thank you for providing it). The user also gives two sides to argument on 'I am Legend'. Equally valid. My case for leaving Caligari on the list is based on the pages 417-426, Appendix 'Zombiless Zombie Movies'. In this section of the book, there are discussions of a few more films that appear on the table. There are Three at a glance, but I don't want films excluded. I don't want to nit pick, it seemed odd to me that you do not take into consideration a reliable source. If you want to remove one film for reason 'x', shouldn't the same criteria apply to others. Would it not be a better policy to be inclusive rather than exclusive.? Hope you reconsider your thoughts on validity of Kay's book--Andys'edtits (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've moved The Crazies off the main list. They are now in the List of zombie short films and undead-related projects#Miscellaneous section as another reliable source besides Kay calls it not a zombie film. So I think Caligari can go on that list. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable way to go. Undead-related is good. --Andys'edtits (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Kay's book merely notes the zombie-like state of the somnambulist, and it's inclusion is pretty spurious. It could be included in prose discussion, but should not be part of any zombie and/or undead related list. We shouldn't be trying to replicate Kay's "list of films without zombies, but could be considered related somehow". That is a genre-specific book about zombie films, this is a general encyclopaedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree it is spurious. I may have a lot to say on talk pages, but I am a 'list' person over prose any day. Also agree purpose is not to replicate a list. Caligari is dear to me, and needed to put up most viable argument for it, rather than it disappear without a whisper.--Andys'edtits (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It's dear to me too, but it isn't a zombie or undead related film. It's about a hypnotised sleepwalker. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari should stay. Here's another source which identifies it as a major influence or progenitor: Stephen Krensky (2007), Zombies, LernerClassroom, ISBN 9780822585251, Early on, zombies showed up in movies. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari dates to 1919. This German film features Cesare, a white-faced creature controlled by the mad Dr. Caligari. Warden (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Some problem

Some zombie films are removed from this list. And that is first part of problem (most of them will be added in this list soon by anybody and without reading this page about inclusion criteria). Another part of problem is "consensus" above about inclusion criteria. This is HUGE list and must be split (again). More than 20 zombie films (only USA) per year and more. List must be based on popularity (count of reviewers, voters on some sites, etc.). In any case, this proposition is almost equal to relative high-budget films. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 22:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the list is large, but it will be much smaller once we remove all the non-notable films. Also, we can reduce the size of the raw text by removing the redundant references. Some of the films have three or four references, but a single reference is enough. Removing the IMDB link would also help. As I've said before, subjective criteria are against Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:CSC. If the article is split, it should be split based on year of release or alphabetic (A-M and N-Z). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to pare down the multiple references, especially with Dendle and Kay. I was also considering using sfn or harvcol straight up and small font in the reference column instead of by footnote so it goes directly to the book citation. A lot of the "low-popularity" films have moderate notability (links to horror-specific websites like DreadCentral or HorrorNews) or amateur notability (less notable horror blogs, their own business sites, and friends involved in production). After spending way too much time finding references, I'm also pondering how this list should differ from Category:Zombie films which have practically no inclusion criteria other than have a Wikipedia article, and contain the anthology short films and nominal zombie projects. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The abandoned zombie projects should be removed so only the in-progress ones that have a chance of making it to the main list are noted. They don't carry notability on their own. If they are sequel attempts, they can be mentioned in the franchise series articles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, DreadCentral, Bloody Disgusting, and Shock Till You Drop are perfectly legitimate sources. They are even explicitly listed in WP:FILM/R, WikiProject Film's list of vetted reliable sources. Sometimes these lists overlap with categories, but WP:NOTDUP states that lists and categories complement each other and have different strengths. Subjective criteria, such as budget, popularity, or content are not valid selection criteria. If a film satisfies WP:NFILM, it's notable. If it has an article and a single reference, it satisfies WP:CSC, though local consensus can determine whether lists require citations and/or articles. In the case of a zombie film, we clearly need references, because there is dispute over whether certain films are zombie films. In this case, it doesn't matter if they're "nominal" zombies or not. What matters is what the reliable sources say. To make subjective judgment calls is original research. If Bloody Disgusting says that 28 Days Later is a zombie film, then it's a zombie film. It doesn't matter if editors feel it's only a "nominal" zombie film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

What a Zombie Isnt

I want to point out that Zombies ARE NOT WEREWOLVES, and "Dylan Dog: Dead of Night" is about a Werewolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.155.209 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's mainly about the werewolf but it also has zombies, at least according to the referenced Los Angeles Times review "The New Orleans-set "Dylan Dog: Dead of Night" brings vampires, werewolves, zombies, detective noir and spoofy comedy together for a murky genre gumbo with barely any flavor." and " Dylan's zombie assistant (Sam Huntington, on wisecrack duty)." So if a movie has zombies but it isn't mainly about the zombies, how should they be classified? -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Disputed

Are the films marked as "disputed" candidates for being moved to one of the other lists? Or is there some other dispute? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I beleive the current consneus is that the other lists should be deleted, as their criteria are WP:OR and due to general WP:GNG and that all notable zombie mobies, regardless of budget go into this list. this list has a lot of cruft in it of redlink articles, and unreferenced, and those are in the process of being deleted. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


Yes, they were candidates for the other lists, however if ones such as low-budget are being merged back here then no worries. Here's the stuff that I marked but was reverted:

move to low budget:
  • Colin - budget of £45
  • Machine Head - Dendle 2012, p.124 described as low-budget film
  • Tele-Zombie: 30k budget - Keep in main list
move to short films
  • I'll see you in my dreams - Dendle 2012, p.252 -  Done
  • Mulva: Zombie Ass Kicker - Dendle clocks movie at 59 minutes (just short of full feature film) - Video Graveyard says it's 45 minutes -  Done
  • Pot Zombies - 54:30 short film according to Dendle

* Undead Ted - 7 minutes long -  Done

move to nominal zombies list
  • Mulberry Street - Dendle considers transformation from human to rat not technically a zombie movie - Dendle 2012, p.14, Twitch Film review calls it a zombie - Keep
  • Oh My Zombie Mermaid - character isn't really a zombie - mermaid isn't a zombie, but another background character is a zombie - Keep
  • Zombie Island Massacre - nominal zombies according to Kay - Moved
  • The Zombie Walks - nominal zombies according to Kay - it turns out the "zombie" is a person in a skeleton costume who calls himself The Laughing Corpse Moved
  • Mausoleum - director: Michael Dugan - 1983 film - IMDb HorrorNews.net review calls it demon possession of existing girl horrornews.net - Moved
  • Plague Town - director: David Gregory - 2008 film - IMDb - crazy people, no revived dead [1] - Moved
  • The Signal - directors: David Bruckner, Dan Bush & Jacob Gentry - 2007 film - signal causes people to go crazy, anthology film - [1][2] - Entertainment Weekly review says it doesn't have zombies in it - [2] - Moved
  • Slices of Life - director: Anthony G. Sumner - 2010 film - first segment of anthology film, nano-code turns people into zombie-like monsters (not technically zombies) according to anythinghorror.com review [3] - other segments nothing to do with zombies - Moved to short films list.
  • Slime City Massacre - Greg Lamberson - 2008 film - people become slime monsters when they drink special wine DreadCentral review - nothing to do with zombies, just apocalypse - [4] - Deleted
  • They Must Eat - director: Tommy Brunswick - 2006 film - ghouls, not zombies - shock till you drop archive - [5] - Moved
  • Zombie Snake (Kaidan Hebi Onna, Snake Woman) || Atsushi Shimizu || 2000 || || || [6], - undead snake woman creature, ghoul or ghost, not zombie [7] - Moved

-AngusWOOF (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC) updates: -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point in maintaining separate lists. Colin is unambiguously a zombie film. It's not rated by very highly on the IMDb, but I liked it. I don't see why it should be shuffled off to a different list simply because its budget. If we did that, we'd end up with 20 films with a budget of over $500K. Not even Romero films would make the cut. 28 Days Later and other "infected human" films are frequently cited as zombie films, as well. I don't have a problem with labeling 28 Days Later or Mulberry Street as being in the "infected human" sub-genre, but if they have reliable sources that identify them as zombie films, they should stay here. Similarly, I don't mind labeling short films, but I don't see why they should be moved to a different list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm really confused now. Where is this consensus to merge all the lists back? I don't see any plan of that on any of the talk pages, besides the budget one. Are we merging back nominals (zombie in name only) and the short-films? -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know. Maybe we're having that discussion now. But I think they should probably be merged. Since we're (probably) going to remove all the non-notable redlinks, I think there's little reason to worry about the size getting out of hand. It looks like someone split off the low budget films because he thought they were unpopular. That's... not a good reason. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment. This is list of relatively high-budget films or in other words list of relatively high-popularity. Absolute value of budget is have no sense because most of them are low-budget. If zombie film popular then it have a lot of reviews in many sites, magazines, etc. In case of unpopular one, you must do hard job - finding reliable source (again that is not easy). --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 11:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Move. But Colin is enough popular to be in main list (it very well reviewed). --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 11:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

These are completely subjective selection criteria, and I would object to them even if they weren't so subjective. If it's a zombie film, it belongs in the list of zombie films. If it's not notable enough to have an article, it should be removed. If it has an article, it's plenty notable enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
This is discussed in more detail at #Inclusion criteria. There seems to be a growing consensus to merge the lists into this one, and remove any films that do not belong on the list by virtue of the inclusion criteria. There is also agreement that list inclusion should not be determined by the budget. Betty Logan (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I moved Undead Ted and crossed out the low-budget one. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC

There is a clear consensus that redlinked entries with only IMDB links and no refs should be removed from the list. It is, however, advised to search for references, before removing entries from the list and the removed entries should be posted to a talk page section. There is also a clear consensus that the IMDB column should be removed too. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the entries of this list that are redlinked and have only IMDB as a link (no refs) be deleted from this list as failing WP:V WP:RS as well as the specific criteria for this list "popular or widely known" or "relatively high budget" per WP:CSC . Proposed deletion is not prejudicial against moving entries to the "low budget" list, but such move is not a condition of being deleted from this list.

* Support. Per "but such move is not a condition of being deleted from this list". Vanquisher.UA(talk) 19:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC) --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 22:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

After looking in past, I'm hope that is about REMOVE entry from this list and I've hope then this entry will be included to another list. Seems I'm be mistaken. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 22:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


Per the unanimous support of this RFC, I propose WP:SNOW closing, and deleting the uncited and redlinked entries. Any that are notable can be readded with sources. Per WP:RS and WP:V the onus is on the person adding the information to cite it, not on someone removing it to prove it is uncitable. If desired, I can have someone from request for closure come do it, but it seems pretty obvious to me.Gaijin42 (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support/CommentIt's a good idea but I'd strongly suggest that a list of the removed movies be posted to a thread on the talk page so interested people can do further research to find sources that could support re-adding them and so that there's an easy way to see what was removed. Cat-fivetc ---- 21:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I tested this proposition by looking through the list for an entry of this kind. It took a while to find one so this doesn't seem to be a significant problem. The entry was Evil Keg so then I then looked for sources for this. It didn't take long to find one which indicates that it won some kind of prize and that there's more coverage in Fangoria. So, there should be some systematic effort made to check for sources before going on a killing spree. Warden (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose per Warden. Lets find sources for the articles. Igottheconch (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Well the column for IMDB can definitely go. I recommend using importance-inline or better source needed tags on any entries that were attempted for referencing but had only ended up with unreliable blogs, self-referenced official sites, and imdb-like entries. Give us some time to sweep through the remaining entries. ;) -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've swept through the articles and provided references for the entries. The others are listed below, however, many of them are left without a Wikipedia article. Should they be removed or left as blacklinked? -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

rotten tomatoes ratings

see User:Zeddocument for links. adding more. Zeddocument (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, why are you adding ratings to the list? This isn't a comparative list of best/worst films for Rotten Tomatoes. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This is the wrong direction for the list. There are lots of things we could add: RT, Metacritic, awards, box office etc. This data would be appropriate if we were documenting the reception of zombie films, I don't see the the gain in adding one arbitrary metric. In fact, I think violates WP:DUE since it promotes one metric above the others. Betty Logan (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. I appreciate the effort that that went into adding this information, but maybe we should scale back the number of columns to something more manageable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Zombie film

Currently, Zombie film redirects to this page. I think it's probably about time we tried to write a real article on this topic. Anyone got sources? I'll start us off with a few that I recently found:

The problem is that we'd have to find a clear way to differentiate this from Zombie (fictional) and not rehash that article's information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Template for notable list

Found this template {{notable list}}. This might be useful for this article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Redlinked entries don't seem to be a major issue right now, but I can see how it might be useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm just worried it might be too big. If there's a way to have it show when someone is editing the article instead of on the article itself, that would be best. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There is. It's called an edit notice, and I think that's what this was designed for. That big warning on ANI that says you need to notify people is an edit notice, for example. I go back and forth on whether edit notices are useful. I doubt anyone bothers to read them, even when they're bold, all-caps, and stop-sign red. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

List is overinclusive

This list includes titles that have nothing to do with the zombie trope. For instance, The Fog, where the creatures are vengeful ghosts that appear off a glowing fog and use poltergeist-like powers and are after stolen gold. To characterize such a film as a zombie film is deeply wrong, and it just ends up confusing readers who were looking for info on the topic. Problem is, the list treats The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia by Peter Dendle as a reliable source, but that book is not even remotely academically trustworthy, it just talks about random horror films like The Fog, mentioning their debts to Romero's films, which is not enough for them to be qualified as zombie films for the purpose of this list (the same rationale Dendle used would lead to call Assault on Precinct 13 a zombie film as well.) I don't think that book should be considered a reliable source. Kumagoro-42 04:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as how you added Parents – a horror film that has no zombies – without a source, I really don't think you should be complaining about a sourced entry from an academic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That is your answer to the issue I raised? According to this logic, since I made a mistake, that makes Dendle's book entirely trustworthy? Can you prove The Fog is unambiguously viewed as a zombie film by any source other than Dendle? Another question: shouldn't The Fog and several other films in this list be characterized as zombie films in their pages as well, either by calling them "zombie film" directly (Zombi 2) or by describing the depicted creatures as zombies (The Return of the Living Dead)? Kumagoro-42 00:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we all make mistakes. However, my point is that you did the very thing you accuse Dendle of doing – identifying a random film as a zombie film. You probably don't consider your own credibility blown, but you want to throw away Dendle's work because you disagree with one of his entries? I own both of Dendle's books, and I can say rather conclusively that they do not discuss random films. Ignoring all that, yes, there are other sources that discuss The Fog as a zombie film. Glenn Kay's Zombie Movies: The Ultimate Guide also lists it, though it says the creators view it as a ghost story. Some films, like 28 Days Later, do not have undead creatures, and others, such as The Fog, have undead creatures that more resemble revenants. However, multiple reliable sources have identified them as zombie films, perhaps because they borrow so much of the zombie film formula. Getting caught up in purist definitions is not something that Wikipedia is for; we go by the sources, not our own opinions on what constitutes a "true" zombie film. As for the other bit, I don't care what other Wikipedia articles say. It's immaterial to this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Splinter does not fit the definition of a zombie film

This page is prefaced by a paragraph on what the page considers a "zombie film" to be. Based on those guidelines, Splinter is not a zombie film.

A porcupine-like animal infects a gas station attendant via the animal's spikes, (splinters). The gas station attendant, (who also develops these splinters), begs a girl to kill him. After following the girl out onto the petrol station forecourt, the attendant is shot dead by the girl's boyfriend. The girl becomes infected by the garage attendant's splinters. Parts of the girl's body break off (fingers, hands, arms), and are able to operate as autonamous beings controlled by splinters. The girl then rips a police woman in two before merging with her into a freakish hybrid of the two women which ends up being destroyed by fire.

The plot on the Wikipedia page is more detailed, though makes no mention of zombies. Nor are zombies mentioned on Rotten Tomatoes info, IMDB, or the film's official website.


On the film's website, the trailer has a Vimeo link to the film's Director, Toby Wilkins, so I put my "theory" to him: "... reminded me of John Carpenter's 'The Thing', though there was elements of 'from Beyond' and 'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers'. I've got a question for you. I think the film runs along the lines of the films I mention above and it is the Splinters that control the hosts and the host are not the things that are "hunting thier prey" but in fact the Splinters. But there's people who say this is a zombie film. I look at zombie films and think of Romero type zombies, Evil Dead Posessed zombies, or 28 Days Later "rage" zombies etc. The beings in your film don't seem like zombies to me. So my question is, is this a zombie film, or would you say it was something else?"

Toby replied: "You are correct! The hosts of the Splinter entity are nothing more than a source of nutrients and a source of a skeletal structure. It is irrelevant to the Splinter intity if the host is alive or dead, although the victim will certainly wish they were."

I don't want to decry the original source. Peter Dendle's 'Zombie Movie Encylopedia' it is an excellent book, but just because the source is a published work, does not mean it is 100% accurate or reliable source. I'm sure, like me, he's watched hundreds of zombie films, read countless books, comics and graphic novels on the subject as well as reading and watching material on the directors, writers and actors involved in those films...I didn't publish a book on the subject though. No matter how much "research" someone does on the subject, there is no definitive definition of a zombie. When you have the film Director's definition though, surely you have to go with that?

Also, I would like to apologise for editing the page without discussing it first, here in the talk. The whole editing process was rather overwhelming and I blundered in. So thank you to NinjaRobotPirate for pointing me in the right direction.


Mickusher (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mickusher

I'm seeing reviews that consider it a zombie movie. IGN Hollywood Reporter OK Gazette. Screenrant calls it a virus movie [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The rise of postmodernism and The Death of the Author makes authorial intent of dubious value in some academic circles. I'm not sure how much weight that should have on Wikipedia – I guess it depends on how you feel about postmodernism. I think people get too caught up in definitions of what a zombie film is. This Wikipedia article is a list of films that have been labeled as zombie films, nothing more or less. We use secondary sources to determine if the film qualifies as a zombie film. Per WP:ONUS, verifiability isn't the end-all of inclusion, but on a topic as subjective as "what counts as a zombie film?", I think we should generally stick to what the weight of sources say. This means avoiding fringe opinions but sometimes including films with which we may personally disagree. There are many contradictory definitions of a zombie film, and it's impossible to reconcile them all into one "true" definition that will satisfy every horror fan. This is something that Dendle discusses in his first book. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


We're in agreement that there's no definitive zombie description, that's not the issue here.

I asked the director and co-writer of the film wether Splinter was a zombie film and he said it wasn't, surely that should carry more weight than Peter Dendle and some reviews? Talking of which, Peter Dendle says in his Encyclopedia ""A template monster movie with solid execution from Oklahoma offers an innovative take on the zombie, or at least on a creature that winds up conceptually close to a zombie" ...even he felt compelled to add that disclaimer as he seems unsure it is a zombie movie.

The examples you cite do not refer to the film as a zombie movie.

The IGN review referes to the film as a "Monster movie", repeatedly referring to those infected with Splinters as "monsters", not zombies.

The Hollywood Reporter doesn't call it a zombie movie either and referes to the infected as "creatures".

Other than in one instance calling one of the infected a "splinter-zombie", the OK Gazette repeatedly referes to the infected as "monster". Mickusher (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Mickusher

You sure about that? (bolding phrases below)"
  • IGN: "Taking cues from several subgenres, the film plays as part slasher, part monster movie, part zombie feature and part torture porn, with a pretty hefty dash of originality, particularly when it comes to the film's central monster, which spreads like a virus, but manifests itself as a treacherous monster. "
  • Hollywood Reporter: "The film now stagnates into a waiting game. You wait for the trapped victims' various schemes to fail so the siege -- and the movie -- can continue. You wait for that finger prick to start turning Dennis into a zombie. And you wait for the biologist Seth to figure out how to outfox the creatures."
  • OK Gazette: "Polly and Seth must make their peace with Dennis, their captor, and hunker down in the station to fend off the two splinter-zombies, while formulating an escape plan and trying to determine just what makes the monsters work."

It may be okay to add a footnote to say that the director agreed with you that they're not traditional zombies, but my point is that there are mainstream reviewers that describe the monsters as zombies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


IGN - "part zombie", e.g. it takes elements of the traditional zombie movie. So does Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, The Thing or The Crazies Hollywood Reporter - It says the viewer waiting for it to start "turning Dennis into a zombie". It doesn't say Dennis is a zombie. OK Gazette - Describing something as a "splinter-zombie" doesn't necessarily mean it is a zombie in the conventional sense. None of the reviews refer to it as a "zombie movie", and it is notable the lengths they go to avoid using the term "zombie" at all. I totally agree, a footnote saying the entry in the list is "debatable" (as Peter Dendle says), and that the writer/director thinks this is different to a zombie film, would seem like a solution. Even 28 Days Later has a disclaimer of sorts, (as does I am Legend which is certainly debatable).

I was wrong to delete Splinter's entry I should have raised it here in Talk - that was inexperience on my part and I have apologised for doing it. I don't think I am wrong about the inclusion of Splinter, (though I accept inclusion is debatable), and should be noted as a debated entry. Mickusher (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Mickusher

I still see reviews that group it among zombie films like New York Times [9] "These four will spend the next 90 minutes or so bickering and fighting off the strange, spiky predators, who turn the bodies of their victims into spastic, ravenous porcupine zombies." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the vimeo comment. [10] has 12 comments, but nothing about your correspondence. Can you provide the link for that? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


Just because someone mentions a "zombie" doesn't mean it is a zombie film, (or even a zombie). Roger Ebert refers to The Crazies as a zombie film Filmsite.org repeatedly refers to zombies in a review of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

There wasn't a vimeo comment, I sent him a personal message by clicking the link in the video window which takes you to the Director's Vimeo page, I then sent him a message from there, I took a screenshot of the conversation.

File:Conversation with Toby Wilkins
Conversation with Toby Wilkins

Mickusher (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Mickusher

Oh, dang, private correspondence can't be used as a reliable source. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of zombie films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of zombie films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Zombie film vs film with a zombie

I read through the archived talk pages and haven't seen this point addressed. Does a mere existence of a zombie in a film make it a zombie film? A specific case in point is the movie Hocus Pocus (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hocus_Pocus_(1993_film) where a corpse named Billy is raised by the witches as a zombie. The focus of the movie is not on this event, character, or source of zombification, hence I am strongly inclined to say that this isn't a zombie film. However, what would be the proper guideline for this particular issue. I'm trying to compile a list of all zombie films from as many sources I can find, on a spreadsheet, that I'll eventually transfer over to here gradually, but for issues like this I'm asking for guidance since it's a challenging nuance to make a decision on. Please let me know what you guys think. Thank you. --ZombieZombi (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

What makes a film a "zombie film" is a citation to a reliable source that says so. Without that, it's not a zombie film. Some commonly-used sources can be found at WP:FILM/R. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you kindly! --ZombieZombi (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Emerson, Jim (February 21, 2008). "The Signal Movie Review & Film Summary". RogerEbert.com.
  2. ^ http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179148,00.html
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_zombie_films/Archive_3&oldid=1090397249"