Redefining what constitues a Zombie

[shiddymunkie]

The recent Miami incident has got me thinking about what behaviors and characteristics are truly essential for something to be considered an “actual” zombie. Now, I already know what the definition of the word is, but words are ultimately defined by how we use them, and are not set in stone by some higher power. Similarly, I am familiar with Romero’s idea of a zombie -- and while it seems to serve as the proverbial “standard”, it’s still just one man’s vision and is not somehow above being re-imagined.

So let’s momentarily suspend our preconceived notions of what we think a zombie has to be. I am not interested in pedantic arguments about what are ultimately trivial details. What I want to know is, in a real world bound by physical laws, what is the MINIMUM criteria that would need to be met for something to still be considered a real zombie? Are you a die-hard believer that everything shown in movies must be true for it to be a zombie, or are you someone who feels that there just a few central characteristics?

If you decide to post a response after voting, please list which numbers you selected, and explain why you chose them. I am curious to see what the most "stripped down" version of a zombie is, before it is no longer a zombie.

Keep in mind -- you don't have the option to select every quality, only those that are not mutually exclusive. If you think other defining qualities need to be included, let me know and I'll add them if they make sense. I have also given you the ability to change your votes, as you may need to do this when new characteristics are added, or if you simply change your mind.


____________________

Survey Edits:

1. Changed #18 from "Behavior/Condition is a contagion" to "Condition is contagious" 6/7/12

[Akin]

In my world, a zombie is a corpse that rises up... living "Rage" victims are "Infected", not zombies...

[shiddymunkie]

In my world, a zombie is a corpse that rises up... living "Rage" victims are "Infected", not zombies...

Fair enough, I'm still not sure what I think yet...still mulling it over. If you don't mind, which numbers did you select?

[Mr. E. Monkey]

I figure 1, 5, 12, and 18 seem like a pretty basic standard. I think 5 is a result of 1, any of 10-12 would fall under "close enough, BANG BANG BANG," and I could see some arguments either way on 18, but I think as far as selecting as few options as possible, I think that's about where I'd have to draw some sort of line, personally.

[US_Army_Z28]

Heres what i posted in the other thread, my initial response and the second response from points thhat shiddymunkie made,
as for what makes a zombie a zombie, well imho first most essential thing would be thhat the persons mind would have to have devolved to its base insticts, feed and survive, all cognitive thought process and intellect would be all but non existent, because even though "zombies" are depicted as living dead isnt their manerisms and actions more what its about? I mean whos to say the decaying flesh is a sign of prior death whos to say that it isnt from not getting the essential nutrients from all the foods we eat and living on a strict diet of raw meat, and that the only thing keeping them going at all is the virus or parasite that caused this de-evolution in the first place, in my mind that makes more since than reanimated corpses, and whos to say that isnt where the idea of a zombie came from, some unkown disease or parasite that presented itself long before humans had the technology or means to study and understand what was actual happening and given the times they wouldve been living in and the amount of supersticious beliefs such as witches that was running rampant if people saw a person that was pretty much falling apart but still walking around attacking people theyre first instinct wouldve probably been that it was the "walking dead", just my opinion though not looking to fire up a debate just figured id answer the question that was the last asked

Yeah thats what i was getting at was the fact that the person being dead and brought back has nothing to do with it being classified as a zombie, i also believe that in all actuallity they probably would eat any living animal, the only eating humans thing is just something to mmake a movie interesting bc lets face it who would want to go watch a movie that had zombies running after dogs and cats? The spread is the tricky part, for it to be spread it would have to be somme sort of bacteria from saliva, some sort of virus which then opens up the possibility of airborne and waterborne transmission or a parasite which would make the posibility of the humans simply being a host and nesting ground for reproduction and transport of the parasite, feel free to copy and paste this to the other thread, im simply too lazy to type it all again but i think this is a great topic for discussion

[Zultra]

I chose 6-9 and 18-20

[squinty]

5,6 and 19 would be required for me to call a fictitious monster in film, books, game or television a zombie - I think zombies are defined chiefly by lack of agency or higher mental function - or rather, a tragic loss or deprivation of agency and higher mental function, which they possessed before (x) terrible thing befell them. The living dead in "return of the living dead" actually didn't quite fit that standard - they were reanimated dead, but they still could talk, and solve problems after a fashion but they were driven so crazy by pain and hunger for brains that they didn't really retain much agency - their will was subsumed to that hunger. Also they were "dead" - mysteriously able to move, but still subject to the ravages of death subject to rot and decay, unable to repair damaged tissue and etc.

Also the classic hallmark of a fictitious zombie is exponential multiplication - for a fictional monster to be a zombie, whether by contagiousness or by some other process (in NOTLD you just had to die with an intact brain, you didn't need to come into contact with another walker at all) there had to be some reason more and more of them would be created. The idea being that eventually, it's a state that you and your loved ones will succumb to one way or another, with some inevitability. Also they can't be created out of whole cloth: nobody ever starts out a zombie, it's a state they enter by means of illness, injury, manipulation, or some other tragedy. To be a zombie, you have to have once been a perfectly normal person, with dreams and hopes and a will of your own.

I know the OP asked what would it take for me to call someone a "real" zombie. It would take a suspension of forum rules, since we don't call other irl people "zombies" on ZS, and it would take me mistaking fiction for reality, because there are no real zombies. A drug addict suffering a loss of agency and exhibiting violent behavior, a brain damaged person exhibiting a lack of emotional affect, a mental patient doing the thorazine shuffle - all might bear superficial resemblances to the fictional monsters we love so much, but they are not "zombies."

[Akin]

In my world, a zombie is a corpse that rises up... living "Rage" victims are "Infected", not zombies...

Fair enough, I'm still not sure what I think yet...still mulling it over. If you don't mind, which numbers did you select?

Looks like I picked 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, and 20...

[shiddymunkie]

Very interesting indeed. Based on the current votes, it looks like our top 5 traits are:

1. #5 (with 15 votes)
2. #6 (TIED with 10 votes)
3. #18 (TIED 10 votes)
4. #7 (TIED with 9 votes)
5. #20 (TIED with 9 votes)

So, with 4 of the top 5 traits being behavioral in nature, it would seem that being a zombie is less about one's biological condition, and more about "the things you do". And to be honest, I understand that conclusion. If someone is behaving like a Zombie, and that behavior is severe enough, after a certain point the cause of the behavior seems inconsequential. What I am getting at is: At what point do the differences between a zombie-like creature, and Hollywood's idea of a zombie, become more pedantic than practical?

With that being said, I do believe there is at least one fundamental factor in classifying zombies that is strictly biological in nature. Like the voting indicates, I too believe that the condition has to be somehow contagious, or be able to spread to others via some medium (supernatural or otherwise). Without that trait, even if someone fits the description of a zombie to a T, I can't really consider it being more than just a (scary) fluke of circumstances.

And so, at this moment, I have voted for: 5, 8, and 18. To me, the most fundamental characteristics are a loss of humanity (#5), being driven to attack/cause severe physical harm to others(#8), and is a condition that can infect and control other people on a large scale (#18). Beyond these 3, the other traits would only serve to reinforce the notion. I do find myself going back-and-forth on #19 however...and I think it is because I have always believed that the only way to really take care of a zombie is to "put it down". If the affliction can be cured then this isn't the case. But then again, if it can be spread fast/easy enough, the formidability of the condition would remain intact -- which for me is also a defining characteristic of zombieness.

[Akin]

huh... had to revise my votes to add a couple that I'm not sure how I missed.

I still maintain that a zombie is a corpse, however... a living human would be an "Infected", in my book. They can run, sure, but they would get tired... and eventually, within weeks or months, they'd all be gone since they won't be growing food or anything... in some areas, lack of readily-available water would wipe them out even faster.

[shiddymunkie]

huh... had to revise my votes to add a couple that I'm not sure how I missed.

I still maintain that a zombie is a corpse, however... a living human would be an "Infected", in my book. They can run, sure, but they would get tired... and eventually, within weeks or months, they'd all be gone since they won't be growing food or anything... in some areas, lack of readily-available water would wipe them out even faster.

I find the "dead" aspect of zombies an intriguing topic. When you really think about it, there isn't much about a zombie that would suggest it's actually dead. Zeds have working senses, motor functions, and even a primitive consciousness. In addition to that, even their resilience -- one of the primary things we use to justify that they are dead -- is not actually consistent with the concept of death. You may say "what living thing that you know of can loose limbs, or be shot multiple times, and NOT be stopped?" Not many, but there are some. The real question is, what dead thing that you know of can be killed? Doesn't that seem strange, that we can kill something that is already dead?

It makes you wonder really, why movie makers make it a point that zombies are dead organisms. Personally, I think it's because it gives us license to indulge in violent fantasies without legal, social, or emotional consequences. It frees us from feelings of guilt or concerns of prosecution, because after all, how can it be murder if they are already dead? And how can it be wrong when it is the only thing you can do to protect the innocent?? In short, I think we want them to be dead, because it resolves the cognitive dissonance of not wanting to do anything bad or harmful, but still wanting to engage in wonton acts of violence.

[US_Army_Z28]

I think the dead part is just an assumption we make, most movies the person is bitten they appear to die and come back to life, but like you said zeds still have all the signs of being alive just with diminished intellect and motor skills, i mean think about it, when someone gets ganged by a group of zeds and gets their guts torn out you dont see them coming back to life, the only ones you see get turned are those who get bit once but survive the encounter, like i said in one of my earlier posts i think the rotting fllesh could simply be the case of a lack of an actual diet coupled with 24/7 exposure to the elements and no hygiene care, but its just my take on things

[Akin]

I think the dead part is just an assumption we make, most movies the person is bitten they appear to die and come back to life, but like you said zeds still have all the signs of being alive just with diminished intellect and motor skills, i mean think about it, when someone gets ganged by a group of zeds and gets their guts torn out you dont see them coming back to life, the only ones you see get turned are those who get bit once but survive the encounter, like i said in one of my earlier posts i think the rotting fllesh could simply be the case of a lack of an actual diet coupled with 24/7 exposure to the elements and no hygiene care, but its just my take on things

Once the amount of zombies becomes too large, they start to hinder their ability to make more... too many zombies, and the victim is ripped into pieces too small to be viable before they can re-animate. It's only when the victim "survives" an attack that a new zombie is created... not a very effective means of reproducing, but...

[maldon007]

I think the dead part is just an assumption we make, most movies the person is bitten they appear to die and come back to life, but like you said zeds still have all the signs of being alive just with diminished intellect and motor skills, i mean think about it, when someone gets ganged by a group of zeds and gets their guts torn out you dont see them coming back to life, the only ones you see get turned are those who get bit once but survive the encounter, like i said in one of my earlier posts i think the rotting fllesh could simply be the case of a lack of an actual diet coupled with 24/7 exposure to the elements and no hygiene care, but its just my take on things

Once the amount of zombies becomes too large, they start to hinder their ability to make more... too many zombies, and the victim is ripped into pieces too small to be viable before they can re-animate. It's only when the victim "survives" an attack that a new zombie is created... not a very effective means of reproducing, but...

Kinda like a virus, if it is too lethal, too quickly, it's spread is diminsihed/halted.



As far as the topic, animated but no heartbeat = zombie, imo.

[squinty]

huh... had to revise my votes to add a couple that I'm not sure how I missed.

I still maintain that a zombie is a corpse, however... a living human would be an "Infected", in my book. They can run, sure, but they would get tired... and eventually, within weeks or months, they'd all be gone since they won't be growing food or anything... in some areas, lack of readily-available water would wipe them out even faster.

I find the "dead" aspect of zombies an intriguing topic. When you really think about it, there isn't much about a zombie that would suggest it's actually dead. Zeds have working senses, motor functions, and even a primitive consciousness. In addition to that, even their resilience -- one of the primary things we use to justify that they are dead -- is not actually consistent with the concept of death. You may say "what living thing that you know of can loose limbs, or be shot multiple times, and NOT be stopped?" Not many, but there are some. The real question is, what dead thing that you know of can be killed? Doesn't that seem strange, that we can kill something that is already dead?

It makes you wonder really, why movie makers make it a point that zombies are dead organisms. Personally, I think it's because it gives us license to indulge in violent fantasies without legal, social, or emotional consequences. It frees us from feelings of guilt or concerns of prosecution, because after all, how can it be murder if they are already dead? And how can it be wrong when it is the only thing you can do to protect the innocent?? In short, I think we want them to be dead, because it resolves the cognitive dissonance of not wanting to do anything bad or harmful, but still wanting to engage in wonton acts of violence.

The lowest form of zombie entertainment treats them as just that - cannon fodder for a conscience free shoot fest. The same role robots played in 80s cartoons, or henchmen in bond movies. It's what kind of sucked about Zombieland. It also touches on the reason for the "we don't call real people zombies" rule, since the metaphor is such a useful shorthand for dehumanizing people.

Better movies do the opposite, they use the fact that zeds are 'dead' to personify the sense of survivor guilt and remorse when a loved one passes, and personify our sense of mortality. That's why the contagiousness is important to me - the protagonists have to feel the nagging certainty that whatever they/we do, it's inevitable that the same fate will befall us. Sooner or later we all will suffer, as the zombies suffer now. We can postpone that fate, we can run, fight, hide, play tricks, hold out - but we can't ever escape it.

That's why Shaun of the Dead was such a great film. Not only was it good satire, it was a better zombie movie in it's own right than half the movies it sent up. Take all the satirical elements out, it still works as a straight horror movie. One of the reasons is Shaun's mom. Terrific actress. Watch her in scenes where she's just in the background, look at the terror on her face and the way she quietly goes to pieces with fear and panic, and esp. as she tries to conceal the fact that she's been infected. The best thing about Shawn of the Dead was the fact that they didn't shy away from him having to shoot his poor terrified mom, and having to live with his remorse at failing her - and really, all of his friends - despite his best efforts to lead. That's scary stuff, and nothing fun or conscience free about it. We didn't want Ed or Shaun's mom to be a zombie.

[shiddymunkie]

The lowest form of zombie entertainment treats them as just that - cannon fodder for a conscience free shoot fest. The same role robots played in 80s cartoons, or henchmen in bond movies. It's what kind of sucked about Zombieland. It also touches on the reason for the "we don't call real people zombies" rule, since the metaphor is such a useful shorthand for dehumanizing people

Better movies do the opposite, they use the fact that zeds are 'dead' to personify the sense of survivor guilt and remorse when a loved one passes, and personify our sense of mortality. That's why the contagiousness is important to me - the protagonists have to feel the nagging certainty that whatever they/we do, it's inevitable that the same fate will befall us. Sooner or later we all will suffer, as the zombies suffer now. We can postpone that fate, we can run, fight, hide, play tricks, hold out - but we can't ever escape it.

That's why Shaun of the Dead was such a great film. Not only was it good satire, it was a better zombie movie in it's own right than half the movies it sent up. Take all the satirical elements out, it still works as a straight horror movie. One of the reasons is Shaun's mom. Terrific actress. Watch her in scenes where she's just in the background, look at the terror on her face and the way she quietly goes to pieces with fear and panic, and esp. as she tries to conceal the fact that she's been infected. The best thing about Shawn of the Dead was the fact that they didn't shy away from him having to shoot his poor terrified mom, and having to live with his remorse at failing her - and really, all of his friends - despite his best efforts to lead. That's scary stuff, and nothing fun or conscience free about it. We didn't want Ed or Shaun's mom to be a zombie.

I'd say just about every zombie movie has, at the very least, undertones that are meant to appeal to society's underlying desire to participate in anarchical escapades and debauchery. And what better way to seduce a secretly eager, but morally conflicted audience, than to invent a situation where they can do those things with a free conscience -- nay, where they have no choice BUT to do those things in order for them and their loved ones to survive? Its the perfect excuse, turning what would otherwise be morally reprehensible into something that is not only necessary, but possibly even righteous. And while I agree with you that the more shallow zombie movies tend to rely on this too much for my tastes, a zombie movie just wouldn't be a good zombie movie without it.

[AUA]

I chose 6, 8, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 20, because I believe that ultimately a real-world zombie would be something simply unimaginable; a human reduced to their most primal. Take away our logic, our laws, our taboos, our memories, everything that defines us as human, and what do you get? An animal, one that cannot be considered 'higher' than any other organism in Mammalia, and is in fact worse off, because it has no concept of cannibalism, only food. If it gets hungry and you happen to be there, it attempts to take you down to eat you. If you seem stronger than they do (could be likely, since the brain damage relating to their behavioral changes probably makes them feel weaker and a bit 'off' indefinitely), then they see you as competition and attempt to take you down to eliminate the threat (or for an adrenaline boost). Maybe they've resorted to using smell as a friend/foe system, and if you don't have dried/fresh blood on your face, you're fair game.

They could retain some degree of reasoning, and thus be able to solve practical problems like climbing obstacles or ambushing prey. Maybe they could eventually figure out how to use equipment like cars or use tools to make weapons. Which would be the worst possible outcome of a zombie apocalypse.

Reavers, basically. We could have an entire world of Reavers, with no way to reverse it.

That is scary shit. Scary shit that I consider a fair bit more possible than literal dead-to-life zombies.

ETA:

The 'automation' bit is the driving factor behind me calling a real-life victim a 'zombie'. Impaired higher functions implies to me that the person would become more like a vegetable than a zombie (since they would rely on basal functions, but would have no higher functions to satisfy the needs of those lower functions), but a paradigm shift, from 'functional free will' to 'bound by primal needs', there's the rub.

That guy in FL was driven by a singular task, and paid no heed to anything other than that task, which IMO is why the case was so compelling in terms of calling it a zombie incident. It could have been savage violence, like a serial killer (not to say that in itself isn't exceedingly repulsive), but the thing that separated it from all other cases is that he ignored all else, to the point that he was shot several times and continued attacking.

The idea of being driven by a singular basal motive (read: not ideologically, but cognitively; you can only think in terms of this one thing and how to achieve it), against all logic or reason, and this basal motive results in a savage, animalistic human being. That's the bare minimum of what I would consider a zombie in real life. Undead and all that is just more to worry about. But the above means ZSHTF without question, IMO.

[shiddymunkie]

Yeah, those are some good points AUA. I definitely agree that a complete loss of humanity is key. As far as #5 vs #6 goes, I think you could make an argument for either one. What I had in mind with selecting #5 was actually based on zombies having animal-like behavior similar to less cognitively developed animals (like reptiles). But again, that sort of goes back to a loss of humanity I suppose.

In retrospect, I think I may have gone about all of this backwards. My goal was to find the lowest common denominator (if there was one) between the stereotypical zombie and something that could possibly exist in real life. I decided to focus on specific behaviors and biology, however approaching the issue in this manner was difficult. After all, there are many different types of zombies, and yet despite their differences, they all still seem to fit neatly into the zombie archetype. So what was the common thread?

I am not so sure that the answer lies in the creature's specific biology or behavior, but rather that those things are just a manifestation of the real answer -- which is much more conceptual in nature. I am working on a list of conceptual qualities I think might apply to all instances of zombies, and therefor may give us some insight into what a real-world incarnation might look like.

[squinty]

The lowest form of zombie entertainment treats them as just that - cannon fodder for a conscience free shoot fest. The same role robots played in 80s cartoons, or henchmen in bond movies. It's what kind of sucked about Zombieland. It also touches on the reason for the "we don't call real people zombies" rule, since the metaphor is such a useful shorthand for dehumanizing people

Better movies do the opposite, they use the fact that zeds are 'dead' to personify the sense of survivor guilt and remorse when a loved one passes, and personify our sense of mortality. That's why the contagiousness is important to me - the protagonists have to feel the nagging certainty that whatever they/we do, it's inevitable that the same fate will befall us. Sooner or later we all will suffer, as the zombies suffer now. We can postpone that fate, we can run, fight, hide, play tricks, hold out - but we can't ever escape it.

That's why Shaun of the Dead was such a great film. Not only was it good satire, it was a better zombie movie in it's own right than half the movies it sent up. Take all the satirical elements out, it still works as a straight horror movie. One of the reasons is Shaun's mom. Terrific actress. Watch her in scenes where she's just in the background, look at the terror on her face and the way she quietly goes to pieces with fear and panic, and esp. as she tries to conceal the fact that she's been infected. The best thing about Shawn of the Dead was the fact that they didn't shy away from him having to shoot his poor terrified mom, and having to live with his remorse at failing her - and really, all of his friends - despite his best efforts to lead. That's scary stuff, and nothing fun or conscience free about it. We didn't want Ed or Shaun's mom to be a zombie.

I'd say just about every zombie movie has, at the very least, undertones that are meant to appeal to society's underlying desire to participate in anarchical escapades and debauchery. And what better way to seduce a secretly eager, but morally conflicted audience, than to invent a situation where they can do those things with a free conscience -- nay, where they have no choice BUT to do those things in order for them and their loved ones to survive? Its the perfect excuse, turning what would otherwise be morally reprehensible into something that is not only necessary, but possibly even righteous. And while I agree with you that the more shallow zombie movies tend to rely on this too much for my tastes, a zombie movie just wouldn't be a good zombie movie without it.

I guess it's a matter of taste then. Because if a Zombie film appeals to some innate desire to participate in anarchic debauchery conscience free (and it's not the only genre to do so, many sorts of action movies and "revenge" movies, for instance, do exactly the same thing. And I like some of them, but that's a different discussion) it's just innately less scary - if there's any element of "Yee-haw! Let's go shootin'!" then it isn't scary. It isn't a horror movie anymore.

Certainly, there was no gleeful participation in anarchic debauchery in the original NOTLD. Just fear and suck and scared people turning on one another.

In the original "Dawn of the Dead," there were characters who very explicitly treated the apocalypse as a cathartic free for all - the bikers who show up in the third act. But the audience isn't invited to identify with them. Their arrival, and their behavior, are as disastrous as the apocalypse itself. We are asked to judge them, not vicariously enjoy their escapades. Tom Savini was great in that scene, but I felt like he had it comin' when the zombies ate him!

You are dead on correct when you say that one crucial aspect of the modern movie zombie is the apocalyptic aspect: there's nothing you can do to save them or coexist with them, you have to destroy them or be overwhelmed by the tide of them, and that tide may destroy civilization. (True of zombies, "walkers," "the infected" - it's consistent across the board.)

Because of that aspect of movie zombies, and because a central feature of the movie zombie is that you are morally absolved from guilt when you destroy it, it's slightly repellent to look for "real life" examples to compare to zombies. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the zombie metaphor has great appeal to people with racist ideologies and genocidal fantasies. They pop up on this forum from time to time, and if you hang around the forum long enough you'll find somebody who wants to liken jews, croats, immigrants, queers, black people, drug addicts, the unprepared "people," cops, hippies, or whatever group they fantasize about seeing destroyed - to Zombies. ZS is pretty strenuously opposed to that.

If a central quality of zombies is that they are no longer human, and thus we are free of culpability or accountability for killing them, then by that definition there will never be "real" zombies. There is always moral accountability associated with killing a person in real life. Not saying there aren't circumstances where lethal force is necessary - but those circumstances are rare for most of us, and the moral justification hinges more on particular circumstance than the identity of the target of that force.

Sorry to flirt with Godwin like that, I'm not calling you a racist or accusing you of anything, just pointing out why there's a "we don't call real people zombies" rule, and explaining why this thread makes me a bit uncomfortable in light of that rule. OTOH it's also an interesting thread, and I'd like to keep participating in it, but this is kind of where it's led.

[squinty]

I chose 6, 8, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 20, because I believe that ultimately a real-world zombie would be something simply unimaginable; a human reduced to their most primal. Take away our logic, our laws, our taboos, our memories, everything that defines us as human, and what do you get? An animal, one that cannot be considered 'higher' than any other organism in Mammalia, and is in fact worse off, because it has no concept of cannibalism, only food. If it gets hungry and you happen to be there, it attempts to take you down to eat you. If you seem stronger than they do (could be likely, since the brain damage relating to their behavioral changes probably makes them feel weaker and a bit 'off' indefinitely), then they see you as competition and attempt to take you down to eliminate the threat (or for an adrenaline boost). Maybe they've resorted to using smell as a friend/foe system, and if you don't have dried/fresh blood on your face, you're fair game.

They could retain some degree of reasoning, and thus be able to solve practical problems like climbing obstacles or ambushing prey. Maybe they could eventually figure out how to use equipment like cars or use tools to make weapons. Which would be the worst possible outcome of a zombie apocalypse.

Reavers, basically. We could have an entire world of Reavers, with no way to reverse it.

That is scary shit. Scary shit that I consider a fair bit more possible than literal dead-to-life zombies.

ETA:

The 'automation' bit is the driving factor behind me calling a real-life victim a 'zombie'. Impaired higher functions implies to me that the person would become more like a vegetable than a zombie (since they would rely on basal functions, but would have no higher functions to satisfy the needs of those lower functions), but a paradigm shift, from 'functional free will' to 'bound by primal needs', there's the rub.

That guy in FL was driven by a singular task, and paid no heed to anything other than that task, which IMO is why the case was so compelling in terms of calling it a zombie incident. It could have been savage violence, like a serial killer (not to say that in itself isn't exceedingly repulsive), but the thing that separated it from all other cases is that he ignored all else, to the point that he was shot several times and continued attacking.

The idea of being driven by a singular basal motive (read: not ideologically, but cognitively; you can only think in terms of this one thing and how to achieve it), against all logic or reason, and this basal motive results in a savage, animalistic human being. That's the bare minimum of what I would consider a zombie in real life. Undead and all that is just more to worry about. But the above means ZSHTF without question, IMO.

WRT Rudy Eugene: It was entirely correct for the officer to shoot him, in order to save Poppo. But that was because of circumstance, not because of some intrinsic quality of RE. His behavior sure did resemble the behavior of a fictitious zombie, but:

We still don't know what happened to make him behave that way, so we don't know if, in other circumstances, he couldn't have been brought back to his senses. Let the drugs get out of his system, remove the tumor pressing on his amygdala, whatever - his humanity may have been intact, and the animal behavior a transient symptom. Which would be unlike a movie zombie.

[AUA]

WRT Rudy Eugene: It was entirely correct for the officer to shoot him, in order to save Poppo. But that was because of circumstance, not because of some intrinsic quality of RE. His behavior sure did resemble the behavior of a fictitious zombie, but:

We still don't know what happened to make him behave that way, so we don't know if, in other circumstances, he couldn't have been brought back to his senses. Let the drugs get out of his system, remove the tumor pressing on his amygdala, whatever - his humanity may have been intact, and the animal behavior a transient symptom. Which would be unlike a movie zombie.

I meant to say that it was a significant factor in why people called it a 'zombie attack', but that since it failed the litmus test of the other things (infective nature, grouping behavior, no hope in returning to previous condition, etc), it cannot be considered an actual 'zombie attack'. Savage/cannibal attack probably be a more acceptable assessment.

I agree that it was correct as well; lethal force for lethal force. They wouldn't even draw if there wasn't a reason to do so, right?

I am wondering why the Taser, OC spray, and/or baton was not used, though. I'm thinking that even if he was highly motivated, it could have been possible to disable him with the Taser/OC and then use the baton to subdue.

Of course, I have never been a LEO, so I'll defer to the officer's judgement for that. It could have been a more dire situation on the ground than what I'm thinking of.

[squinty]

WRT Rudy Eugene: It was entirely correct for the officer to shoot him, in order to save Poppo. But that was because of circumstance, not because of some intrinsic quality of RE. His behavior sure did resemble the behavior of a fictitious zombie, but:

We still don't know what happened to make him behave that way, so we don't know if, in other circumstances, he couldn't have been brought back to his senses. Let the drugs get out of his system, remove the tumor pressing on his amygdala, whatever - his humanity may have been intact, and the animal behavior a transient symptom. Which would be unlike a movie zombie.

I meant to say that it was a significant factor in why people called it a 'zombie attack', but that since it failed the litmus test of the other things (infective nature, grouping behavior, no hope in returning to previous condition, etc), it cannot be considered an actual 'zombie attack'. Savage/cannibal attack probably be a more acceptable assessment.

I agree that it was correct as well; lethal force for lethal force. They wouldn't even draw if there wasn't a reason to do so, right?

I am wondering why the Taser, OC spray, and/or baton was not used, though. I'm thinking that even if he was highly motivated, it could have been possible to disable him with the Taser/OC and then use the baton to subdue.

Of course, I have never been a LEO, so I'll defer to the officer's judgement for that. It could have been a more dire situation on the ground than what I'm thinking of.

I think the fact that the officer was intervening on behalf of a person who was suffering a lethal/grievously injuring attack concurrent with the officer's intervention made a difference. Tasers and OC and batons are less likely tp stop than bullets, and the officer needed to end the attack "right now." If RE had just been walking around growling, and finished with his face meal, perhaps a tasering would have been more appropriate. I wouldn't rust pepper spray pr a baton in such a situation. You have to get close to use either, and the officer was by himself. I'd be damned if I would have gotten any closer to RE than I had to, or gone one on one with him with just a stick if I had better tools at my disposal!!

[shiddymunkie]

I guess it's a matter of taste then. Because if a Zombie film appeals to some innate desire to participate in anarchic debauchery conscience free (and it's not the only genre to do so, many sorts of action movies and "revenge" movies, for instance, do exactly the same thing. And I like some of them, but that's a different discussion) it's just innately less scary - if there's any element of "Yee-haw! Let's go shootin'!" then it isn't scary. It isn't a horror movie anymore.

You definitely can find this same element in many different types of movies. The reoccurring theme seems to be some sort of invasion of a hostile, non-human threat (aliens, robots, monsters, etc). However, I think a key difference between these types of movies and a zombie flick is that zombies used to be considered human, where as aliens/robots were not. With this in mind, there is a certain uncannyness that is unique to zombie movies, and think this shift from the familiar to foreign is a trademark worth noting.

For me, I like my zombie movies (and most movies, really) to have some complexity in its palate. I am not going to like a zombie film as much if it is too heavy on the "YEEHAW", in the same way as if it is too heavy on the "FML". There needs to be contrast, that's what gives a film dimension. I want the ups and downs, the fear and excitement, the captivity and the freedom. Without this spectrum of emotions, a movie risks either being boring or draining.

You are dead on correct when you say that one crucial aspect of the modern movie zombie is the apocalyptic aspect: there's nothing you can do to save them or coexist with them, you have to destroy them or be overwhelmed by the tide of them, and that tide may destroy civilization. (True of zombies, "walkers," "the infected" - it's consistent across the board.)

Yes, I do believe that is one of the cornerstones of zombism.

Because of that aspect of movie zombies, and because a central feature of the movie zombie is that you are morally absolved from guilt when you destroy it, it's slightly repellent to look for "real life" examples to compare to zombies. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the zombie metaphor has great appeal to people with racist ideologies and genocidal fantasies. They pop up on this forum from time to time, and if you hang around the forum long enough you'll find somebody who wants to liken jews, croats, immigrants, queers, black people, drug addicts, the unprepared "people," cops, hippies, or whatever group they fantasize about seeing destroyed - to Zombies. ZS is pretty strenuously opposed to that.

I'll come back to this in a moment.

If a central quality of zombies is that they are no longer human, and thus we are free of culpability or accountability for killing them, then by that definition there will never be "real" zombies. There is always moral accountability associated with killing a person in real life. Not saying there aren't circumstances where lethal force is necessary - but those circumstances are rare for most of us, and the moral justification hinges more on particular circumstance than the identity of the target of that force.

Unless, of course, that circumstance is an unavoidable outcome of the identity itself. You make a good point, but I don't think your conclusion is necessitated by your premises. I think it's within the realm of possibility for people to genuinely (and permanently) loose their humanity, especially when we are talking about biological forces that can cause physical and irreversible changes in the body.

Sorry to flirt with Godwin like that, I'm not calling you a racist or accusing you of anything, just pointing out why there's a "we don't call real people zombies" rule, and explaining why this thread makes me a bit uncomfortable in light of that rule. OTOH it's also an interesting thread, and I'd like to keep participating in it, but this is kind of where it's led.

It's difficult to not be offended by that statement, nor do I think it was necessary to "go there" in terms of this discussion.

[squinty]

I guess it's a matter of taste then. Because if a Zombie film appeals to some innate desire to participate in anarchic debauchery conscience free (and it's not the only genre to do so, many sorts of action movies and "revenge" movies, for instance, do exactly the same thing. And I like some of them, but that's a different discussion) it's just innately less scary - if there's any element of "Yee-haw! Let's go shootin'!" then it isn't scary. It isn't a horror movie anymore.

You definitely can find this same element in many different types of movies. The reoccurring theme seems to be some sort of invasion of a hostile, non-human threat (aliens, robots, monsters, etc). However, I think a key difference between these types of movies and a zombie flick is that zombies used to be considered human, where as aliens/robots were not. With this in mind, there is a certain uncannyness that is unique to zombie movies, and think this shift from the familiar to foreign is a trademark worth noting.

For me, I like my zombie movies (and most movies, really) to have some complexity in its palate. I am not going to like a zombie film as much if it is too heavy on the "YEEHAW", in the same way as if it is too heavy on the "FML". There needs to be contrast, that's what gives a film dimension. I want the ups and downs, the fear and excitement, the captivity and the freedom. Without this spectrum of emotions, a movie risks either being boring or draining.

You are dead on correct when you say that one crucial aspect of the modern movie zombie is the apocalyptic aspect: there's nothing you can do to save them or coexist with them, you have to destroy them or be overwhelmed by the tide of them, and that tide may destroy civilization. (True of zombies, "walkers," "the infected" - it's consistent across the board.)

Yes, I do believe that is one of the cornerstones of zombism.

Because of that aspect of movie zombies, and because a central feature of the movie zombie is that you are morally absolved from guilt when you destroy it, it's slightly repellent to look for "real life" examples to compare to zombies. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the zombie metaphor has great appeal to people with racist ideologies and genocidal fantasies. They pop up on this forum from time to time, and if you hang around the forum long enough you'll find somebody who wants to liken jews, croats, immigrants, queers, black people, drug addicts, the unprepared "people," cops, hippies, or whatever group they fantasize about seeing destroyed - to Zombies. ZS is pretty strenuously opposed to that.

I'll come back to this in a moment.

If a central quality of zombies is that they are no longer human, and thus we are free of culpability or accountability for killing them, then by that definition there will never be "real" zombies. There is always moral accountability associated with killing a person in real life. Not saying there aren't circumstances where lethal force is necessary - but those circumstances are rare for most of us, and the moral justification hinges more on particular circumstance than the identity of the target of that force.

Unless, of course, that circumstance is an unavoidable outcome of the identity itself. You make a good point, but I don't think your conclusion is necessitated by your premises. I think it's within the realm of possibility for people to genuinely (and permanently) loose their humanity, especially when we are talking about biological forces that can cause physical and irreversible changes in the body.

Sorry to flirt with Godwin like that, I'm not calling you a racist or accusing you of anything, just pointing out why there's a "we don't call real people zombies" rule, and explaining why this thread makes me a bit uncomfortable in light of that rule. OTOH it's also an interesting thread, and I'd like to keep participating in it, but this is kind of where it's led.

It's difficult to not be offended by that statement, nor do I think it was necessary to "go there" in terms of this discussion.

I apologize for going there. I do not think the point of your thread was to dehumanize anyone, nor was it racially motivated, nor could anyone get that impression from this thread. Just pointing out that what you identified as a central characteristic of movie zombies - the moral obligation to exterminate them/absence of culpability associated with killing - makes the zombie metaphor attractive to people with such unsavory ideas.