Comments on: Rules of the Living Dead (or should zombies run?) by Bill Hussey

By: Zeke_the_Meek

Zeke_the_Meek — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:03:02 +0000

“is when a writer establishes a world with its rules within a book (or a film, presumably) and then breaks those rules in the same book” - Bill

That’s precisely it, in my mind - I never like Anne Rice because it always felt that she was flying by the seat of her pants. If the plot called for Lestat to sunbathe all afternoon on a beach in Majorca wearing only factor 4 lotion, for some reason, he’d be able to do it.

I think if you’re going to deal with a mythos but add a spin to it, you need to have that spin consistant within itself, but also not to step on the toes of the greats before you. If you’re going to be brass enough to tackle a zombie/werewolf/Alien/Lecter etc, you’ve got to be aware that you’re representing an entire world. If you do the job badly, it reflects on everyone.

Don’t dick around with convention just for the sakes of dicking around. You need a very good reason for it, and the ability to execute it.

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:33:57 +0000

I love Spaced (both series) and am a big Simon Pegg fan. Shaun is an excellent movie with so many tiny homages it is required viewing.

I am in two minds on zombies: by having them run/be fast, lends that much more terror to the movie as you know you have to run / drive that much faster to get away, so there is an immediacy to the terror. With the shuffling stumbling zombies, their inexorable slow progress is creepy beyond compare - so both types bring home the terror - it just depends what pace you wish to convey.

Werewolves and vamps have been done to death in the urban fantasy/paranormal romance genres, with each writer trying to create their own mythos. As a Stoker fan-girl (or is that fangirl?) I appreciate the Victoriana of the monsters created - the mystery and the romance and the implied sexual deviancy. I guess I like my monsters old-school, in other words.

Really good article this, Bill!

By: billhussey

billhussey — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:38:38 +0000

All really interesting points. I’ve only two things to add: of course it is refreshing when a writer or filmmaker comes up with a new take on a monster that bends or breaks the old rules. However, one thing that I know from experience a reader loathes is when a writer establishes a world with its rules within a book (or a film, presumably) and then breaks those rules in the same book. That undermines the reader’s willing suspension of disbelief, which is crucial for a writer of horror/fantasy. It is, in fact, one of the most fatal mistakes a writer of the fantastical can make.

Secondly, I won’t deny that running zombies were a refreshing change a few years ago. But I don’t go with the argument that just because a zombie runs it is scarier than the old shambling version. In fact, I think there’s something even more terrifying about those sad-faced but remorseless creatures that, clever as you are, quick as you are, will get you in the end, through sheer weight of numbers if nothing else. They’re not pissed off, they may not even be that hungry, but they’ll tear you apart with inevitable and deliberate industry! That scares the crap-ola out of me! What I would say is hopefully we can get back to the old format from time to time. Sticking to the rules can sometimes be even more radical than breaking them!

By: Zombie Boy

Zombie Boy — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:55:05 +0000

Return of the Living Dead.

That is all.

By: Benjamin Bussey

Benjamin Bussey — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:25:08 +0000

To a degree, monsters are always metaphors. Their meaning may change with time, so it’s only fitting that the so-called ‘rules’ change with them. That’s necessary to keep them from getting stale. If I’m thinking of the same Eddie Izzard sketch, he pondered whether making a cross with your fingers worked, in which case vampires were completely buggered! In these times of religous uncertainty, and with Christianity no longer accepted as the only path, I think it’s only fitting that the cross lose its power. I like Fright Night’s take on the subject - “You have to have faith for that to work on me, Mr Vincent!”

As regards running zombies - I don’t see why not. I think 28 Days Later was very overrated; didn’t dislike Zach Snyder’s Dawn remake but wasn’t blown away by it either. For Dead Set, I think it worked. The surprising brutality was one of the show’s greatest strengths. I for one was hoping Charlie Brooker would have gone a bit further with satirising Big Brother, but I guess that wasn’t the main aim.

Like Joseph said, monsters are there to break the rules. A lot of people hate Nightmare On Elm Street Part 2 because Freddy breaks his own rules from the original - but that’s what makes it a different story! If horror rigidly retreads the same path over and over, things get predictable pretty damn fast. Monsters should break their own rules from time to time to keep us on our toes. Otherwise, we’ll be getting out of it without breaking a sweat by making the sign of the cross with our fingers.

By: josephdlacey

josephdlacey — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:50:21 +0000

The whole point of monsters is that they break the rules. Rules of society, rules of morality, rules of fair play.

I love zombies as much as the next deadophile and I have to admit the ones that can run give me the fear. Bigtime.

When it comes to horror, I’m not a traditionalist. I’m happy to see horror fit the times. And sometimes I just want it to be horrible. As a semi-professional bullshit-artist, I like to bend horror to my mood or whim, too. Vampirism can be a virus or a sexually transmitted disease. Lycanthropy might be a psychological tic – nothing more. Maybe the 28DL and Dead Set Zombies have a touch of necrotising encephalitis. Maybe they’re on speed. Maybe their death-fever is preventing rigor mortis from setting in. Once you’ve soiled your underwear, who cares?

Fine, keep your traditional monsters in their traditional roles with their traditional behaviour. But don’t let’s stop being creative for the sake of staying the same. Sprinting zombies are a sub-genre of a sub-genre. I can live with that.

At least until they tear my fucking throat out.

By: The Hill

The Hill — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:37:38 +0000

An intriguing debate. To be honest i’m not sure where I fall with it so I shall play devils advocate for a moment. For the film-maker I suppose it boils down to the over-simplified concept; do I stick to tradition and hence the overall zombie metaphor, or do I look to break convention and attempt to move the audience out of their comfort zone?
I will personally admit to liking the zombie representation in 28 Days Later. I remember thinking that the running added a greater sense of menace and helped re-introduce the life-challenged as the acceptable face of horror. By breaking convention, the zombie became scary again. Which, in essence, is the prime purpose in making such a film.
Simon Pegg (The Messiah) states that 28 Days wasn’t actually a zombie film, but I would commit heresy and debate this due to the fact it spawned a re-birth in the genre, which had, forgive the pun, died out.
Saying that, I am aware of the secondary meaning to the Romero series and how the film stood as a metaphor for consumerism - especially the original Dawn of the Dead which was set in a mall. This message does not seem to hit home as eloquently in the spring-heeled zombie flicks of the modern era. While I greatly enjoyed Zack Snyder’s remake on a stylistic level, it seemed to lack the overall motif displayed by the shambling zombie of the classical interpretation.

So, I guess I am on the side of whatever works, without sticking so religiously to the rules and boundaries imposed by the past. I want to be made to think in a film, but I also want to go to a zombie film to be scared. So, I am in favour of whatever makes that happen.

By: thebonebreaker

thebonebreaker — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:05:48 +0000

First I just have to say that I have not yet seen Spaced [it has been at the top of my Netflix Queue for months now, with a Very Long Wait - which I suppose is a good thing, as more people are becoming aware of it] Also, I too am looking forward to next year’s Wolf Man!!
As for changes to the rules - I think that if you establish your own rules, up front, it is okay. If however you start off with traditional rules and then start to stray, that doesn’t work!

As for zombies - Fast ones worked in 28 Days Later, however, I personally prefer the slow, shambling kind.

By: nabs

nabs — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:43:20 +0000

I like to see zombies as a metaphor for the general populous. Back in the 60s-70s Romero was attributing the walking zombie to the population of the time who were led by the base instincts to consume without thought or intelligence for what they wanted and just mindlessly consumed….But today the population of … western countries have sped up in their demands for consumption at an exponential rate and the chav in the street now knows what they want (be it ipods, 360s etc) and are actively encouraged to be discerning about their consumption, hence the reflection of zombies this millennium as fast creatures searching out their prey.

By: Bo

Bo — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:25:30 +0000

I put this article up at my own site, and I am relieved to see someone else bring up the glory that is Spaced in relation to the gags first tested there. Excellent article!