Talk:List of zombie films
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. |
Article policies
|
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. |
Article policies
|
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 High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Note - The Evil Dead films are possession/demon films, not zombie related. I'll let AoD slide cause the bad guy does have zombie like footsoldiers rise up.
List of zombie films that need to be further researched
Direct-to-video
- Zombie Babies || Eamon Hardiman || 2011 || || [1][2] || [1]
- Rise of the Damned - Michael Bafaro - 2011 film - "RISE OF THE DAMNED". British Board of Film Classification. January 29, 2011 (last updated). Retrieved November 18, 2013.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - IMDb - while the film got rated by the BBFC for direct-to-video, it needs information on a theater release, or any notability past some trailers; it has not been reviewed by the horror websites or media sources for actual zombies - Zombie Toxin || Thomas J. Moose || 1998 || || || [2] - review implies direct-to-video [3]
- Ghost Zombie (Yûrei zonbi, Yurei Zombie) || Kōji Shiraishi || 2007 || direct-to-video || [3] || [4]
Notability
The following movies require notability WP:NFILM beyond self-published websites, unreliable/anonymous blogs, Kickstarter, IMDB-like databases and lists, and distribution stores such as Amazon/eBay:
- King Zombie (Yau chat guen see um leun nei) || Cub Chin || 2008 || || || IMDb
- Long Live the Dead - 2012 film - director: Richard Poche - DVD anthology of five zombie short films - have only found Poche-related websites and Kickstarter
- The Last Days of Humanity - 2002 film - director: Peter Dubiel - IMDb
- The Necro Files 2 - 2003 film - director: Ron Carlo - IMDb
- Necro Wars - director Robert Conway - 2010 film - IMDb IMDb announced movie was in post-production, however it is unclear whether it was properly released, even IMDb has no release date, can't find reviews online [5]
- Vågn op! – en religiøs zombie parodi - dir: Peder Pedersen - 1992 film - Swedish film - IMDb
- Punk Rock Zombie Kung Fu Catfight - dir: Peter Bernard 2004 film - IMDb
- Raw Zombie 11 - dir: Jared Saverino - 1999 film - IMDb
- Space Zombies: 13 Months of Brain-Spinning Mayhem! - Regan Macaulay & Christopher Cordell - 2004 film - limited release to local venues , based on a book of the same name [6] - started as a trilogy of short-films spoofing zombie movies [7], need better source besides self-generated - IMDb
- Teenage Zombie House Massacre - Jared Bulls - 2000 film - IMDb
- Untot – Undead Unleashed (Untot — Kämpfer in der Leichenwelt, Untot) || Martin Erling || 1999 || || [4] || IMDb
- Urban Scumbags vs. Countryside Zombies Reanimated - Maxim Matthew - 2009 - remake of 1992 film - IMDb - sources mainly from its own website, need others
- Walk Like a Zombie (Jombi-cheoreom georeobwa) || Yoon Young-ho, Kim Jeong-gu, Kim Seol-woo, Yoo Ha || 2002 || || || IMDb
- Zombie Hunters - dir: Peter Maris - 2007 film - no distribution company according to quietearth [8] main refs are self generated IMDb
- Zombie in a Haunted House (Gu wu jiang shi) || Evan Yang || 1959 || || || IMDb
- Zombie Reanimation || Jochen Taubert & Thomas Kercmar || 2009 || || || IMDb
Status unknown
The following movies seem to have notability, however, their release status is unknown as the supporting articles show in-production or trailers. They can best be addressed with reliable sources that point to official releases and reviews. They may be moved to the in-progress/abandoned film list, in that case, please strike them from this list.
References
- ^ Hoyle, Blair (2012-10-05). "Zombie Babies (2011) Review". Cinema Slasher.
- ^ http://anythinghorror.com/2012/08/16/zombie-babies-2011/
- ^ http://www.neowing.co.jp/track_for_cdj.html?KEY=ADE-801
- ^ "Untot – Undead Unleashed". untot.funactpictures.de. Retrieved 2012-11-05.
Discussion
I've grouped the films that still need help here. Please discuss or take action. Thanks. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Should direct-to-video films be included in the main list as long as they have notability? -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- When the RfC closes, we'll have consensus on whether non-notable films (those without an article) should be included. Other selection criteria have no basis in guidelines or policy, and I think a merge is in order. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- What consensus? Where's the discussion at all? Pessimist2006 (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion has been archived, however it was not merely for films which are redlinked, a previous discussion had already established a policy based consensus that having a Wikipedia article does not denote lack of notability in of itself, nor should be a criteria. The most recent consensus was that entries "that are redlinked and have only IMDB as a link (no refs)" should be removed. The second part was part of the previous discussion as well, but the entries were left on the page for the time being so references could be found iirc. Quite some time has passed since then, so removing those only supported by IMDB (or similar), to the talk page seems reasonable.Number36 (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- What consensus? Where's the discussion at all? Pessimist2006 (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Redlinked zombie films
Here are the zombie films that have no article:
And here are the references:
References
|
---|
References
|
Feel free to edit this post as you see fit. Remove the entry from this list when you add a film back to the main list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- In light of the point I made in the section above, why have redlinked pages with WP:RS references been removed? The consensus reached on the page regarding this point was that whether a page is redlinked is not a criteria in and of itself (see archive 1), and the outcome of the most recent consensus (archive 3) concerned entries "that are redlinked and have only IMDB as a link (no refs)".Number36 (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, any thoughts on this? I'm getting recent edits to restore these redlinks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- A couple of them look like they have the potential to be notable. I could look into creating articles on them, which might stem the edit warring from the IP editor. Unfortunately, I can't really do much about it in an administrative capacity, since I've heavily edited this article. If it continues, we could try requesting page protection at WP:RFPP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2017 (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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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 [149] 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 [150] "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. [151] 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.
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)