Romero vs. Russo: Who is the King of Zombies?

[Tani Coyote]

George A. Romero is the founder of the Living Dead series, whereas Russo is the founder of the Return of the Living Dead series. They both created Night of the Living Dead, but after that, disagreed on where to take the series, and so split it into two... kind of like Capt. Rhodes in Day of the Dead.

---

Romero's films - Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead, and coming soon, Survival of the Dead - are known for the satirical theme that each film has, such as consumerism in Dawn and the military buildup in Day.

Russo's films are... well, I've only seen one, but I guess they go for being more ridiculous/humorous.

---

Romero's zombies are killed if shot through the head, or likewise incapacitated from the relevant nerve damage. Romero's zombies move slow, and are quite dumb for the most part, despite evolution in Day and Land. Romero's zombies crave flesh, period, resulting in gore galore; the zombies eat just for the sake of eating, as they will consume flesh even if their stomach has been removed. The cause of the zombie plague is unknown, but everyone will rise from the dead by default unless they died of brain trauma.

Russo's zombies have varying speeds, and their limbs will still move if severed, even if not originally attached to a zombie. Russo's zombies are infected with Trioxin(or something like that), and this chemical is highly transmissible and anyone infected with it can turn into a zombie, ever so slowly. These zombies crave brains to relieve the pain of their decomposition. Russo zombies are far smarter, capable of speech and making plans, and even posing as normal humans.

---

I vote Romero, obviously. I like his satire, I like his emphasis on humans being a greater threat to themselves than even the massive zombie horde, and above all, his zombies are just more realistic: like us, they function on a nervous system, however basic, and make basic use of our muscular and skeletal structures. They are pure, motorised instinct, using a less optimal system to function.

Russo's are just... way out there. Romero's could actually work, provided the brain somehow remained active after death, if in a reduced capability state. I know it's a bit insane to discuss realism with freakin' zombies, but still.

I would like to add that I detest fast zombies, smart zombies, and people who are still alive but are so bloodthirsty and insane they're listed as zombies. I may have liked the 28 ... Later series, but I still disapprove of it being called a zombie film if the antagonists aren't DEAD to begin with! I also respect the Dawn of the Dead remake for at the very least keeping dead people and not posing as a true zombie film.

Discuss.

 

[GoodGame]

In terms of movies, I think I'm a closet Romero fan.

In terms of zombie lore, a good mix of the two zombie types is desirable. It adds to fear factor to have both lumbering and sprinting zombies after you.

I can't agree with you that zombies have to be dead. The American zombie movie is basically Frankenstein merged in with imported West African mythos about zuvembie/ju-ju magic. The latter actually don't have to be dead.

 

[Lord Baal]

Romero is the superior director and writer by a wide margin. I prefer his films and his zombies to those of Russo. I'm actually surprised he's only made those four; I've seen all of them, and I'd always assumed I'd seen just a few films in a larger series. I've seen one of Russo's films,where a zombie that used to be a cop sets up roadblocks to catch the unsuspecting. It was not a good film.

28 Days Later never claimed to be a zombie film, though the writer did admit to starting with the idea of a "genre" film - presumably the zombie genre - before moving away from it, so it would seem that zombie films were an inspiration. I like 28 Days Later more than any other zombie/infected film, btw.

 

[Tani Coyote]

In terms of zombie lore, a good mix of the two zombie types is desirable. It adds to fear factor to have both lumbering and sprinting zombies after you.

If that's the case, you might want to check out the novel series, "The Forest of Hands and Teeth", since it apparently has both.

I can't agree with you that zombies have to be dead. The American zombie movie is basically Frankenstein merged in with imported West African mythos about zuvembie/ju-ju magic. The latter actually don't have to be dead.

Well yes, I'm aware that zombies were inspired by voodoo and people in a near-death state. But the modern zombie was created by Romero, and so maybe I'm just archconservative on this, but I'm very against efforts that depart far from the whole "shambling undead hordes" feel.

Romero is the superior director and writer by a wide margin. I prefer his films and his zombies to those of Russo. I'm actually surprised he's only made those four; I've seen all of them, and I'd always assumed I'd seen just a few films in a larger series. I've seen one of Russo's films,where a zombie that used to be a cop sets up roadblocks to catch the unsuspecting. It was not a good film.

Indeed... sounds quite ******** from every possible angle.

Actually, he's made 6 zombie movies. Night through Land are the first four, then he rebooted it with Diary of the Dead, and now he's making Survival of the Dead.

28 Days Later never claimed to be a zombie film, though the writer did admit to starting with the idea of a "genre" film - presumably the zombie genre - before moving away from it, so it would seem that zombie films were an inspiration. I like 28 Days Later more than any other zombie/infected film, btw.

Well it isn't called that by its creators, but it seems to be widely perceived as a zombie film... naturally, that makes me wryyy and rant.

 

[Lord Baal]

Ahh, so I haven't seen all the films. I didn't think I had. I'll have to get my hands on all of them and watch them on a lazy day.

Public perception doesn't define a film. After all, the public think that the last Star Trek film was good and entertaining. This proves nothing except that the general public should be employed as menial labour for those of us who are their intellectual superiors, so we can spend our evenings in luxury playing backgammon in front of fireplaces. We just have to be sure they don't evolve to eat us somewhere along the line.

 

[Glassfan]

During my daily commute, I always check out buildings for zombie-defensibility.

 

[Lord Baal]

On a related note, I discovered The Ultimate Zombie Survival Guide in my local bookstore the other day. Should I get it? I feel I am fairly well prepared for the inevitable zombie apocalypse, but if it's a good book it may prove useful.

 

[Tani Coyote]

On a related note, I discovered The Ultimate Zombie Survival Guide in my local bookstore the other day. Should I get it? I feel I am fairly well prepared for the inevitable zombie apocalypse, but if it's a good book it may prove useful.

It's a very good book, so yes, I would get it.

It covers everything from basic survival, to zombie biology and characteristics, various scenarios, weapons, strongholds, etc. even recorded attacks!

A great book for any zombie enthusiast.

 

[illram]

Romero hands down.

In before the walking or running debate!

 

[Lord Baal]

Romero hands down.

In before the walking or running debate!

Walking wins!

 

[Tani Coyote]

Romero hands down.

In before the walking or running debate!

Walking wins!

Indeed, as Romero himself said, running zombies would snap their ankles. (This is good, however, as the undead basically become a carpet and thus much easier to avoid/massacre)

He even makes a joke about that in Diary of the Dead; one of the characters who played a zombie was told to walk slow otherwise he'd snap his ankles... and sure enough, when he became a REAL zombie, the other person said, "See? I told you they walk slow!" and some such.

 

[illram]

I think from a storytelling perspective walking is more creepy and reflects the classic zombie-film theme: the zombie is slow, creeping death that you cannot escape and never will escape. No matter how fast you run or climb or drive, the zombie horde does not stop and you will die a horrible death.

However I do find running zombies entertaining. I view it as more of a monster movie. Dawn of the Dead (the remake) for example was an awesome, awesome movie. Running zombies are scary, in the more thrilling sense of scary-ness.

So to me they are basically different genres of film, and I see the merit in both.

 

[Lord Baal]

Indeed, as Romero himself said, running zombies would snap their ankles. (This is good, however, as the undead basically become a carpet and thus much easier to avoid/massacre)

He even makes a joke about that in Diary of the Dead; one of the characters who played a zombie was told to walk slow otherwise he'd snap his ankles... and sure enough, when he became a REAL zombie, the other person said, "See? I told you they walk slow!" and some such.

Diary of the Dead is extant proof that a good story can overcome bad acting to produce a good film. The acting is amongst the worst I've ever seen, but the story is good enough to make the film quite enjoyable.

I think from a storytelling perspective walking is more creepy and reflects the classic zombie-film theme: the zombie is slow, creeping death that you cannot escape and never will escape. No matter how fast you run or climb or drive, the zombie horde does not stop and you will die a horrible death.

However I do find running zombies entertaining. I view it as more of a monster movie. Dawn of the Dead (the remake) for example was an awesome, awesome movie. Running zombies are scary, in the more thrilling sense of scary-ness.

So to me they are basically different genres of film, and I see the merit in both.

Agreed on pretty much every detail here. I didn't find the Dawn remake that good though. Except for killing Burt Reynolds of course. And the nudity. I love hot female nudity.

 

[azzaman333]

I am.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Diary of the Dead is extant proof that a good story can overcome bad acting to produce a good film. The acting is amongst the worst I've ever seen, but the story is good enough to make the film quite enjoyable.

Well, it's supposed to be a documentary so maybe the acting was bad on purpose(since the people aren't acting despite technically acting, and gah, it hurts my brain)... who knows.

Or do you mean, they fail at acting like actual people? In which case, I can understand that.

 

[Lord Baal]

Well, it's supposed to be a documentary so maybe the acting was bad on purpose(since the people aren't acting despite technically acting, and gah, it hurts my brain)... who knows.

Or do you mean, they fail at acting like actual people? In which case, I can understand that.

The acting is just horrendously bad, no matter what they're trying to do. Especially the lead woman. "I will speak in the same monotone voice regardless of the emotions I am supposed to be portraying. I am happy that I have won the lottery but I am sad that my grandmother has died."

 

[Sterf]

Lucio Fulci's films still got the best zombies as far as I am concerned.