This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.69.152.178 (talk) at 00:38, 27 July 2012 (→I Am Legend). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:38, 27 July 2012 by 74.69.152.178 (talk) (→I Am Legend)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of zombie films article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of zombie films article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Film List‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Horror List‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Removal of Carriers(2009)
I just removed "Carriers" (2009) from the list. Thinking it was a zombie flick, I just rented it last week and was quite disappointed to see that it had absolutely nothing to do with zombies. Instead, it had to do with a 100% fatal airborne virus and a handful of survivors trying to make it to the beach. Near the beginning of the film there is what looks like a dead body in a car, but then it opens its eyes. It looks at first glance like a zombie, but it was just someone in the final stages of the virus. The movie is 100% zombieless. Here is the removed entry:
|- |Carriers || Alex Pastor / David Pastor || || 2009 || ~~
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.38.204 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Multiple listings of the same movie with different names.
One example is 'Aaah! Zombies!!' (2010) This is the name they used when it was released on DVD in 2010, but further down the list we also have 'Wasting Away' (2007), this is the same movie which had a different title when it was originally released. I don't know the protocol for correcting the listings, which should stay as the main listing and which should be the alternate title? 111.92.178.246 (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Another example is 'George A. Romero's: Survival of the Dead' (2010) it is listed again further down as 'Survival of the Dead' 2010. 111.92.178.246 (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
zombie fan - list of chronologically listed zombie films
although in russian, but still understandable. Nice to check with. Pessimist2006 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Evil Dead Trilogy
This is a discussion moved from two talk pages regarding the validity of considering the Evil Dead films 'Zombie Films'. I've made my points clear below - I understand that they do not fit the traditional 'Zombie' criteria, but they are considered Zombie flicks by reliable, verifiable publications, and so, by Wiki Guidelines they belong on this list. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This entry on the admin notice boards by Ronnie42 is also relevant.
From the user talk pages:
Dude you can't force opinions on others. I have already stated a fact that you can't count evil dead 1,2 and then put ears in fingers and say evil dead 3 doesn't have zombies since the same movies, continue to vandalise then you expect a editing ban yourself. I already have proven what I have said, if you don't like it file a report, I will fight you to the end on this one since your clearly your trolling for a response. --Ronnie42 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- What opinion? This information is cited; it's not an opinion. Further, why is this edit showing up as having been done by Cfred? --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Procedural note: Ronnie42 left the message above on User:Williamsburgland. I moved the message from there to User talk:Williamsburgland, which is how I got involved in all this. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, now I understand, apologies to CFred. Ronnie, you're approaching this in utterly the wrong way. Name calling and aggression are going to get you nowhere. Now, as to the Evil Dead films, this isn't my personal opinion. Each movie is referenced by verifiable sources as zombie films. The fact that you don't consider them as such because they don't meet classic zombie criteria is irrelevant. If you wish to discuss this in a coherent, adult and non confrontational manner, I suggest you do so on the talk page of the entry in question. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Lastly, because it seems there may be some confusion on this, all three Evil Dead films are on the list. I understand your opposition to calling the Deadites zombies, but the films are indeed considered Zombie Films by reliable sources, and as such are on the list. I am now going to move this discussion to the articles talk page. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- The funny thing is he doesn't realise Army of Darkness is on the list.Number36 (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Lastly, because it seems there may be some confusion on this, all three Evil Dead films are on the list. I understand your opposition to calling the Deadites zombies, but the films are indeed considered Zombie Films by reliable sources, and as such are on the list. I am now going to move this discussion to the articles talk page. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- What opinion? This information is cited; it's not an opinion. Further, why is this edit showing up as having been done by Cfred? --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Slander of name calling is not what I have done which is a lie. I have only stated facts. Unless you get a direct from sam raimi that deadites are zombies then it should be removed completly. Also the strange 'thing' is it keeps constantly removing, adding when Evil Dead 3 clearly wasn't on the list. This matter has filed, reported. There was no mention as Deadites in the movies being refered to as zombies at any moment. Some people claiming Evil Dead movies are zombies are opinions and not facts. If you want to add them you should discuss why instead of vandalising. I also have stated previously why there not zombie films, that has been ignored which is a fact. Further changes to the list by User:Williamsburgland will be issued with a warning. --Ronnie42 (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Before I forget Deadites are Poltergeist http://en.wikipedia.org/Poltergeist Or we might as well count this as a zombie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdSnim1rDLw If you watch the video thats what Deadites are but the only diffence is they deteriorate after a while, become insane, taunt there victims like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnigxYPl_qo People seem to mix up zombie like state with real zombies. Deadites are intelligent, think for themselves, there only want to murder people but not for food, there more like parasites. They don't control from a distance like with witchcraft, yes I know theres one witch in Evil 1/2 but that witch didn't control any of the demons. This entire page needs to be either changed to zombie like state or removed from the list. --Ronnie42 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ronnie, please familiarize yourself with WP:Verifiability. As Number36 Stated, Evil Dead 3, known as Army of Darkness, is' on this list and always had been. As I've already mentioned, the fact that the Deadites do not meet the traditional Romero style criteria of zombies is irrelevant - they are considered zombie films by reliable, notable critics, and furthermore, they do rise from the dead and kill people. The introduction to this article clearly states that 'Zombie' is a broad term, and that while there are clear exclusions like vampires, and presumably poltergeists and other ghosts, the genre is more inclusive than exclusive.
- I feel I've made my point clear on this as have you, and I'm open to hearing what others have to say to reach a consensus, but what's not going to work for either of us is you pushing your point of view to the end (that's almost a direct quote from you) are throwing warnings around. Calling me a troll is indeed name calling - I've got 4 years and a couple thousand edits under my belt; I think I've earned good faith.
- In case you missed this the first time, I'll say it again - I understand where you're coming from. As a matter of fact, the first edit I made on this article a year or two ago was to remove the 28 Days Later films as the 'infected' are not dead and are clearly not zombies. After my edits were reverted I monitored the discussion which brought about the consensus that despite these movies not containing zombies, they do follow the format of zombie films, and reliable, notable film critics consider them as such. The consensus is that the pathogenesis which produces the 'zombie' is irrelevant, it's simply that the film is considered a zombie film by notable critics, and that the antagonists cannot be put into another broad category of movie monsters. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
No you don't know where I'm coming from because 28 days had people coming from the dead eating flesh while evil dead series has none of that, its your opinion that its seen as zombie movie, already stated facts to why it isn't a zombie movie. It's like saying avp is about zombies but theres no zombies in it. So you agree theres no zombies but then explain why its claimed to be a zombie movie? theres no credible source from the original director cast or Sam Raimi, those reviews are opinions, not facts--Ronnie42 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ronnie, some of your statements cause me to wonder if you've seen any of these movies. 28 Days Later did not feature people rising from the dead in any way, shape or form. "The Infected", as they are called in the movie, are people that catch "Rage", a disease developed by scientists. They can be killed like a human being, and are quite alive. Meanwhile, all three Evil Dead films do indeed feature people rising from the dead and killing people. In neither series do the 'zombies' eat people, nor is it in any way relevant. Now, onto your other statements, once again I need to suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:Verifiability. If you can find a reliable source that states that AVP is a zombie movie, then by all means add it. The fact that your personal, and frankly quite unreasonable criteria isn't being met is irrelevant - we don't need the entire cast and crew to sign notarized documents indicating that the movie contains zombies to include it on the list, it just needs to meet basic criteria and have reliable, verifiable sources.
- It seems there will be no convincing you, so my suggestion would be to participate in the process of gathering consensus, and try to convince others of your point of view without being demeaning or contentious as I feel you've been in every single exchange with me. Furthermore, a quick review of your past edits indicates a history of treating talk pages as discussion forums and outright vandalism, vandalism and more vandalism. Since both movies are properly referenced, please do not remove them again until a consensus has been reached. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ronnie you've made that exact same point in regards to 28 Days Later in earlier discussions on this page, and it was pointed out to you then that it's completely incorrect as well.Number36 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I had no idea that such an in depth discussion on this had already taken place; I'd call that a consensus. For posterity's sake, here is the discussion I am referencing: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:List_of_zombie_films&oldid=462483324
- Ronnie, at this point the matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. A consensus has been reached that all three Evil Dead films qualify for inclusion of this is. Any further removal on your part would constitute disruptive editing as you've been involved in the discussion throughout. I hope this closes the matter, and I wish you the best of luck in your future editing endeavors. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ronnie you've made that exact same point in regards to 28 Days Later in earlier discussions on this page, and it was pointed out to you then that it's completely incorrect as well.Number36 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Seriously I know what Vandalism is, already reported you for Vandalim previously. 2ndly I never stated AVP was a zombie movie but was proving a point that Avp isn't but has several features that relates to taking over peoples bodies which is similar to a Deadite, I have said this countless times the source is the movie, once again, you have shown no source whatsoever from the original director even remotely calling them zombies. For the record you have already been disruptively editing the page without any facts to back up your statements. Even Ign clearly states "Sam Raimi's Evil Dead II, while not a zombie movie", source http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/05/29/resident-evil-and-the-hollywood-zombie-movie, thats a good enough reliable source last time I checked. And if thats not enough MTV even state "'The Crazies' Is Not A Zombie Movie, And Neither Are These Five Thrillers!" at http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/02/26/the-crazies-is-not-a-zombie-movie-and-neither-are-these-five-thrillers/ Do you need more proof or are you going to keep ignoring facts? And yes I have watched all 3 films even the first which is basically a more serious version of the 2nd film. Any further changes will be taken as trolling since you have ignored my statements from which I have sourced,clearly don't care if I have watched the film, made aquastations about me that weren't true. --Ronnie42 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ronnie, the IGN reference says it isn't a zombie movie in the classic sense, it doesn't say it isn't a zombie movie, and the second link you pointed to is a blog, which isn't reliable, and it doesn't matter, because for whatever reason you're now complaining that the Crazies is not a zombie movie. I'm done trying to point you to Misplaced Pages protocols and policies and I'm done having this discussion. The consensus has been that these films are zombie movies since before I joined this useless discussion. Feel free to 'report me for trolling' all you like, but as I've already pointed out, you've got a long, long history of disruptive editing, treating wikipedia talk pages as a forum (which seems to be the bulk of your usage here) and outright vandalism. I'm not going to bother playing games or offering advice next time, I'm simply going to seek outside intervention. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Stop making stuff up. I never mentioned 'Crazies' movie. I have already reported, already told you that you have violented rules with several attacks personal/directly, avoided sources constantly, your the one with the 'disruptive editing'. This page is not a talk page, have stated facts which have been ignored, they were removed till someone can prove differently, that has not been backed up but instead re-added, been frequently disrupted by User:Williamsburgland, claiming vandalism when I have not made any random edits, mass deletes or false information. I have already seeked outside intervention, will be forwarding this on further, attacking me on my own wall to provoke responses will get you nowhere since theres threats against my account directly from you. Please refrain from posting further or will be seen as act as aggression/vandalism --Ronnie42 (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow. --Williamsburgland (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I Am Legend
I am legend is a movie based on a vampire book. While the movie makes the vampires seem oddly zombie like... they are not zombies, they are vampires. I have removed it from the list. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/03/i-am-legend-vampire-novel-century ☠ Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 22:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't recall one way or the other, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up one thing or another, but I'd just note that, as with every other argument arising from this list, what these monsters are matters less than what verifiable sources call them. Can you provide something that indicates they're vampires for sure to put the issue to rest before it rises from the dead and becomes one? ;) --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to point out that while the link regarding the book certainly helps with your point, one that specifically refences the 2007 movie would be more definitive, since filmmakers are free to change the contents of their source work as much as they see fit. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just a quick visit to rotten tomatoes seems to reinforce the position that they can be considered zombies: the First, Second and Third reviews all refer to the monsters as zombies. That said, BOM does not seem to consider it a zombie film. I hope others join this discussion, it's an interesting one. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Roger Ebert explicitly uses zombie in his review, here I'd say that's more than good enough. He even notes it as a different presentation than the more traditional vampires from the novel it's based on, and that it represents a 'change in the nature of the creatures'.Number36 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- This makes sense to me. Let's see if Teamcontra comes back within the next week or so and if not I'll just revert. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Roger Ebert explicitly uses zombie in his review, here I'd say that's more than good enough. He even notes it as a different presentation than the more traditional vampires from the novel it's based on, and that it represents a 'change in the nature of the creatures'.Number36 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Who the hell cares what Ebert says? Did he write the book? No. They aren't zombies. They are vampires.
- As with the above section, I didn't realize that such thorough discussions had already taken place. I'm going to revert now, and use the four references we've come up with. I think we can call that a consensus as well. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)