This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I feel that this article is being prevented from being constructive for certain reasons. In the interest of transparency, I think it is appropriate to disclose that I have brought up these problems at Wikipedia: wikiquette alerts, where I explained my problems in detail, with the hope of helping along consensus and building communication. SaintCyprian Talk 04:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I added many, many movies to the list. It's my first contribution to Wikipedia and I just kind of jumped in full force. After reading this talk page (which obviously I should have done before) I frankly feel guilty. I didn't realize it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list of zombie films - I just thought somebody was slacking. At the bottom of the list of zombie films page it said something to the affect of "This list is incomplete. You can help by adding to it." So... I did.
If anything I've added compromises the integrity or validity of the list, you can (of course) edit it. I apologize.
Liquidpig (
talk)
16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Is a necro-mutant a zombie? I think it is really, although it can run a bit faster than most of them. Then The Mutant Chronicles would be a zombie film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombiesOfRock ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
A new online zombie movie, which allows the user to choose which path they want is available at: http://www.survivetheoutbreak.com/ Does anyone else know of anymore of these types of choose your own adventure movies? travb ( talk) 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on including The Horror of Party Beach? Characters in the film refer to the monsters as zombies. 66.191.19.217 ( talk) 04:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody divide the films in the years they are made, It really makes it difficult for me to find the latest zombie films...
and by the way, is it also possible for someone to put a section for Upcoming Zombie Films
Please... --17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.194.9 ( talk)
There seems to be an issue with the References section. Items past 19 do not appear. Surv1v4l1st ( talk) 16:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to note that WP:Film does not consider imdb to be a reliable source as the information on imdb is user-generated. I've already found errors on imdb before, so it should probably be noted that this website may not be the best for sourcing this article. I know there are over 300 films cited here, but to get this list up to standard, we should consider the validity of the films and the source we are getting them from. Anyone have any alternating ideas? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have all of these unlinked titles? If there's no article for a film, it shouldn't be here. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 05:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The reference links to the imdb entry for "After Sundown". Editorial commentary on that movie or otherwise, it's just inappropriate. Since the page is currently protected, could someone with access remove this link, please? Oddmonster ( talk) 00:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The Evil Dead movies and Army of Darkness were removed. Aren't they generally considered zombie movies or am I mistaken? ( Cardsplayer4life 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
28 days later was a zombie because they were dead, only wanted to feed on the living while in Evil Dead there is no actual zombies and more like demons since there Deadites which is like poltergeist because they took over people even if there living to torture people so evil dead series isn't a zombie series because there possessed for a start, 2ndly they don't eat flesh and they talk which last time i checked zombies don't talk, tend to like eating people, even the one under the cellar is a witch or walking skeleton in the 3rd but theres no zombies whatsoever so its been removed till someone proves to me differently--
Ronnie42 (
talk)
16:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
sounds to me like this musical needs to do more research also this wiki is to define zombie movies, none of the deadites in evil dead were bitten to be infected or crave to eat also its not me you want to prove to but the people reading this since i don't know anyone who would class evil dead as a zombie film since there's not horde's of zombies chasing people down, etc... and they have no need to eat the flesh which are common needs of any zombie also a musical is not prove since that's nothing to do with the movie. if we'r going to add evil dead then poltergeist may as well be a zombie film but how many can agree with that? --
Ronnie42 (
talk)
12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltergeist this is sort of what a deadite is so technically that's the closest you'll get to evil dead while the only thing i will agree on is that the movies are a horror but as far as i'm aware evil dead. if you can class a poltergeist as a zombie then that's you up to you but last time i checked they were completely different things —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ronnie42 (
talk •
contribs)
13:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
firstly i have already gaven a decent explanation that a deadite is a demon which posses people which may also be know as a poltergeist, its not a 'opinion'--
Ronnie42 (
talk)
18:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
how the hell is the movie not the flipping source? there's no flesh eating zombies whatsoever, there flipping demons taking over things like poltergeist fact, how can anyone disagree with the actual movie?, then try say something else says its different. its not a opinion the facts are right there in the flipping movie--
Ronnie42 (
talk)
15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
like i said before deadites are demons that possess humans, even a hand which has no characteristics of any known zombie type thing even with the typical or non typical, to re-add them without a decent enough reason is why wikipedia is becoming a unreliable source if you had read what i had said before it does not involve any vodoo like some people seem to think makes a zombie but that's just a zombie like state while deadites are demons that take over peoples body like a poltergeist which is a already backed up my source wiki.-- Ronnie42 ( talk) 21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
so far you claim that the opera mentions them as zombie but like i said before the movie is a reliable source, to add them on based on opinions since the movie clearly mentions them as them as being controlled by demons, like i said before a reliable source would be google poltergeist description, you'll notice they roughly say the same thing, need someone with a book to help get rid of possession. furthermore there isn't much else you can argue on this i have already given you 2 strong sources : evil dead movies/poltergeist which have been known to make people believe that there were possessed by the devil source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_possession i would find other sources but i bet there's probably a ton in that chat page or via google-- Ronnie42 ( talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
If i have to press this further i will, its bad enough people taking the piss about universal soldier being a zombie movie which it clearly isn't but by adding this by mentioning that evil dead opera is a zombie theme is not a source since the opera is not the same as the movie which i have already mentioned several times which is not proper WP:OR and you can debate your opinion all you want but unless you get direct proof from Sam Raimi or a credibible source then I may need to report this page for vandelism since the page is there to name iconic zombie movies which evil dead has never been proven, to add evil dead 1,2 and not 3 seems biast since these movies all contain Deadites which are demons that take over people which I have already backed as poltergeist with the wiki link which wouldn't be there without a WP:OR also i understand you may believe different things but the facts are there-- Ronnie42 ( talk) 02:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
-- Ronnie42 ( talk) 00:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Ok people have different opinions on what a zombie is but how can someone have a biast opinion, say Evil dead has zombies while the 3rd doesn't. It makes no sense whatsoever. Also while I'm here anyone else thinking Frankenstein is a zombie will lose their credibility too but anyway there's a big different between a zombie, a demon or we might as well be calling gou-alds zombies which would stupid.
This movie is categorically NOT a zombie film. What is in the movie is sea beasts, plain and freakin' simple. Watch it. NOW. See. Okay? Or just take my word for it as I finished watching it not 4.7 minutes ago (give or take a little, of course.) So please remove Horror Of Party Beach or ye shall feel the wrath of, ummm, something, like an evil possessed rapid bunny or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.197.35 ( talk) 02:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Read my lips -- there are NO zombies in that movie.
I can shoot a movie about frogs in Kansas and call it Prostitutes Of Czechoslovakia but that doesn't mean it should be included on a list of films about prostitutes in Czechoslovakia. Would you include my frogs in Kansas movie on a list of movies about prostitutes of Czechoslovakia? I sure hope you wouldn't. That would be STUPID if you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Having this movie listed, along with Horror of Party Beach, is lying to people telling them they might actually watch a zombie movie if they choose to press play on said titles. You should not condone this lying. Because of that lying, I wasted my time on both movies.
I just watched Escape and once again -- there are NO zombies in this movie. Please don't say it's in someone's book so it should be included. That's lame. There isn't even the word "zombie" in the movie. It's about a playboy escape artist/private eye who tracks down a scientist whose scientist brother creates something that can then be used to create man-made life. But the scientist never actually creates a monster or zombie or anything at all. NADA. NOTHING. ZILCH. I should just delete the listing myself but I thought I'd type this out instead.
Listen, instead of trusting a book, why not view questionable films yourself and discuss with someone who has also seen the movie? Yeah? Sounds smart to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:RS/IMDB IMDB is not reliable source, this has also been previously discussed in the sections above. The criterion for addition is a reliable source that classifies the film in question as a Zombie film or otherwise explicitly makes reference to zombies in connection with the film. Primarily of course because of WP:RS and secondly to avoid all discussion here based on personal OR opinions of what constitutes a Zombie film. I propose a short period where anyone interested can go through the list, about a month is reasonable I think, and replace IMDB refs with appropriate reliable sources, established films reviewers for example, published authoritative works, and so on. After that deletion of those films that are only supported by IMDB with a link back to the archived version of the list on the talk page so people can easily access it for reference if they wish to re-add any of those deleted with reliable sources in the future.
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)
although in russian, but still understandable. Nice to check with. Pessimist2006 ( talk) 22:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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/wiki/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)
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)
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)
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 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 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 [1] || Alex Pastor / David Pastor || || 2009 || ~~
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.38.204 ( talk) 01:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2246549/ [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.14.218 ( talk) 02:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I added a section on this back in November of last year, which has since been archived, but to re-state as per WP:RS/IMDB IMDB is not reliable source, this has also been previously discussed in the sections above. The criterion for addition that had been decided by consensus and in reference to policy in previous discussions, is that a reliable source that classifies the film in question as a Zombie film or otherwise explicitly makes reference to zombies in connection with the film should be provided, reviews from reliable sources would be a good example or possibly books on the genre. Primarily of course because of WP:RS and secondly to avoid all discussion here based on personal OR opinions of what constitutes a Zombie film or even zombies themselves (which have occurred in the past as nauseum and constitute WP:OR at best). I note someone had removed a good deal of thr cites that were there, which I have re-added, though they also very very usefully and correctly changed the imdb links from being references into the column for imdb links. The article has been tagged since August 2009 for its references not meeting Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, that's three years ago, so I feel we should have a look at fixing this. Suggestions? Number36 ( talk) 03:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Why has the list of films table lost its sorting functions? It far less useful without it. 122.149.119.4 ( talk) 11:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC) OK now it's live again. Pardon me. 122.149.119.4 ( talk) 11:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The link is to a 1960's Soviet spy film, not the 2012 zombie film. Also, the 2012 film has no page. Alockwood1 ( talk) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
One question: how many films did you see from that list of zombie movies?
WP:NOTCHAT - This is for discussing how to improve the article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Bare-URL to IMDb used as external link and counter of entries. IMDb is not used as reference so if "References" field is empty then that means "film is unreferenced" and doesn't means "film referenced by IMDb only". -- Vanquisher.UA (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The Saif Ali Khan film "Goa Going Gone", releasing May 2013 is the Indian film industry's first "zom-com" and should be included in the list of films.
The article needs to be better written in proper English. Also, the criteria should be better presented - at the moment it reads like a list of instructions to editors, rather than from the readers point of view. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The "Franchise Mark" column should be merged to the "Notes" section, and explained in prose if a film is a sequel or part of a franchise, rather than the clumsy and unencyclopedic qualifiers such as "28.. Later 1". Very unprofessional. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:RS (which IMDB fails) and the list criteria (where popular is specifically determined by a sufficient number of references) I plan on shortly deleting all of the redlink movies that have only IMDB listed as a source. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
can anyone tell me the name of a zombie movie I liked, it had like these midget wrestlers in it, and this group of people are suck on a rooftop when they decide to slingshot this one midget off the roof. then in one part they hear a baby crying, and this dude gets the baby out of this car, but the zombies are after him so he throws the baby up in the air and the baby starts smileing while in the air, until it hits the ground and gets bit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.184.70 ( talk) 20:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This list's inclusion criteria are so vague they're useless. What is a "reasonably high budget"? Ten million dollars? One million? A hundred thousand? For those films which only have an IMDb entry as a source, how can we tell whether they satisfy this criterion? The same for "have a lot of popularity". I even found a 10-minute short on the list, so we should re-check the rather clear-cut "feature length" criterion for all the entries too. My suggestion would be to abandon the rather vague "high budget" and "popularity" criteria and instead to only list films that have articles of their own. Huon ( talk) 20:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Please DO NOT REMOVE WHAT I POST HERE as I want it to be considered. It is my right to post here too.
My problem is not just low budget. You have movies that center on sex here like the Porno movies that have a stupid plot just to deviate from no plot straight porn. One movie, that I rented, thanks so much, is called "Bloodlust Zombies". I did research on it after wanting to throw up because it not only has gross sexual situations but they throw some necrophilia into it. I'm not going to sue you but someone else might. It might be a good thing to take what I am saying seriously.
I studied Psychology in college. I will never forget that we had a special seminar where they were showing naked dead bodies on film in black and white. One of the students brought her kids. They kicked her out. One of the kids was 17. He asked to stay and showed his Drivers license. They kicked him out too. They said they had a student who was 17, early college entry, that was traumatized by seeing these naked dead bodies and the parents had sued them.
There is a space to put adult movie or sex explicit after the year as someone has about the Gay movie there. Are Gays any different than heteros to Wiki?? Personal views do not matter here. Yet when I put in the space sex explicit for the hetero movies my warning was removed. Please don't try to tell me there was some logical reason that doesnt make sense.
One of you tried to tell me that putting "there are low budget and sex explicit movies listed here" is my opinion but when I went to remove where it says ...the movies are of a high budget and popular, he put that back. Please take that down or let me correct them. You want them moved? I vote for then that we make a "Sex Explicit Zombie Movie list" so the normal people and women don't have to be grossed out or have their kids molested by accidental viewings.
You could make a low budget horror movie page. Low budget is not an opinion. When you are watching a Latino movie that shows 5 minutes of Zombie action (like Zombie Farm) or where the actors are overdramatic or boring and make up and props suck, these are some really good ways to spot a low budget. One movie I watched, you could see the ketchup line sticking out of the zombie bit guys collar and the blood was spurting out like the Merlot from the wine fountain at the last wedding I attended. Usually low budgets either have no recognizable actors or just one that you haven't seen for a decade.
Good budgeted Movies are 28 Days, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, Return of the Night of the Living Dead and even Flight of the Dead. And you have movies that are deviant from Zombie movies. Mortuary is not a Zombie movie. Thats Sci Fi not Horror. The Stuff, Invasion of Body Snatchers, nice movies but not Zombie. Black Sheep...which I tried to put "Zombie Sheep" beside was low budget, dumb and not Zombie but I was being kind with the "Zombie Sheep" thing. People turning into sheep are NOT ZOMBIES.
Opinions?????Library777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, the "other" lists are small enough they could be merged here and merely say that every entry must reliably sourced, and that the reliable sources talk about zombies. The genre as a whole is notoriously (and in many cases intentionally) B-Movie (or worse!) so making some sort of WP:OR quality judgement to sort them seems counterproductive. While WP:N is much lower for individual list items, it is not a non-requirement, and everything should have at least one real review. (No database or release announcements count imo) Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, but at least allow then, me to contribute (as others already were allowed to do) by noting 'sex explicit' in the same area another person was allowed to put 'adult film' for the Gay Zombie movie. Where others were allowed to expand and put 'vampire like zombies' etc. Why do the editors erase me putting "zombie sheep"? If you want to include everything at least giving a little heads up on what to expect would be good. If I am not signing right or pasting opinion request its because I don't know where you find those links as we had Power tools on AOL, html wasn't necessary. Library777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Library777 ( talk) 22:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems like this issue could be solved simply if the movies had their rating posted. If someone wants to watch a film and it's R-rated, they can't say they weren't warned that the movie contains violence and sex. Liz Read! Talk! 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Library777- 1.Why did you allow "ADULT FILM" for the Gay Zombie Movie? 2.Why when I made the same reference for other movies you removed mine? Such an act denotes Bias and that's not permitted here.
3. Why do ANY of you object to putting in information that large amounts of people want to know? 4. Its not just me that wants to know if a movie is sexually explicit, a cartoon or a trilogy of short stories and by not allowing this, you are censoring for your own ideals. By letting someone have information you are NOT censoring. You ARE censoring by suppressing it. Like it says above..there is no policy against adding these things and by doing so you give a choice to the viewer.
If they are a Perv they will be happy to know the movie is mostly Porn and if they are a Mother, like me, they don't have to worry about their little toddler seeing it and getting groomed to be molested. There is a reason why we have age of consent. There is also an age where people become adult enough to realize why there are age limits and help society to have structure vs. chaos. Wikipedia is not a playground or a college dorm. There are many group demographics that will come here and all should feel comfortable using the site.
If you want anyone to take this website seriously, than this issue should be taken just as seriously.Library777-signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.174.155 ( talk) 17:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Library777-Also I still do not understand the inclusion of a Horror movie review movie with a 90% review of other Horror Movies and 4 part movies where just one fourth is a Zombie short story. Is the 59 minutes, 59 minutes of Zombie film content? There are animated Zombie films on this list too.Library777-signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.174.155 ( talk) 17:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Library777-No one is addressing my question about the Gay Movie saying "adult film" and no other films being allowed to say that. This makes Wikipedia appear Homophobic. Also, I want to mention that this is not my personal view as I may or may not agree with alternative lifestyle and choose not to disclose my views.
I am not talking about film rating either. I am talking about adding some points of reference to this list such as:
1.sex explicit or adult film (personally to me saying the later just makes me think its gory. 2. Animation 3. Short story film 4. The type of Zombie (as someone was allowed to write VAMPIRE ZOMBIE, let others write Sheep zombies, cow zombies
Otherwise this list is not valuable for someone wanting to watch say all the Zombie animation movies, or if they are into necrophiliac..all the sex explicit etc. I have several friends who went to this list, like me and are unhappy but won't take time to debate with you.
Who do I go to to ask for a decision?, because none of you or me are going to agree. There has to be a leader who has been chosen to decide, so who is that leader? All of this is wasting time and I just came here so I could find Zombie movies to watch. None of the movies have any description, and most have no links leading to valid descriptions.
How about we make a page for each movie on the list that has a large description and have a link from this list to those pages? I see also there were some movies having this description and many of the descriptions were deleted by you editors. I agree that the IMDB site is not a good reference.
To be honest though, for me and my friends who just wanted a quick way of finding movies we like to watch, this Zombie list that everyone here just talks about, has failed us and we now all think Wikipedia is terrible and are passing that view around (am I going to get banned for saying that? because its called Freedom of Speech).
Wikipedia is biased and allows certain people to edit while banning others from it. Its not credible because it refuses to allow a complete reference. It is chaotic and in this state, we will all censor our children from it on our computers.
You talk about no censorship but that would mean no banning of valuable information or members for what they say and you do prevent information to be added and you do ban members for what they say. You are biased, because no one here did anything about the other comments allowed when mine were not. No one removed them, no one added mine, and no one even talked about the issue. Library777-signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.174.155 ( talk) 20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Zombies are distinct from ghosts, ghouls, mummies, or vampires, so this list does not include films devoted to these types of undead. OK you have movies like "The Dead Undead" and "Blacksheep" the sheep bite people and they turn into sheep-humans that eat flesh. Library777 ( talk) 21:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh and another thing is some of these are not in English and you don't allow any reference to that. Library777 ( talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
--Andys'edtits 08:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "Cause" a possible criteria. I think focus on the Cause maybe useful. Depending on the issues being explored in the storyline, different causes are required to become a zombie. Some stories examine big picture social implications, of survival, group dynamics and psychological effects of a catastrophic event. Others focus on smaller group, showing how individuals face having family affected. Going chronologically, it would be causes in categories like
I also agree on inclusion of information 1. Violence should be indicated. (general violence/ graphic/sadistic or extreme /compared to older -thriller style/) 2. Nudity. In general a stand alone zombie story doesn’t require nudity, so it’s been added for reasons. I agree it is not censorship, but part of providing information about the movie and an indication of story content. Describing minor nudity/ gratuitous/ specific other types, lets wiki users (all ages) know more rather than less about the movie. In My Humble Opinion --Andys'edtits 08:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC) --Andys'edtits 08:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)--Andys'edtits 08:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Quite a few points have been covered, so to try and focus the discussion, this is what we have:
Betty Logan ( talk) 08:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I feel that this article is being prevented from being constructive for certain reasons. In the interest of transparency, I think it is appropriate to disclose that I have brought up these problems at Wikipedia: wikiquette alerts, where I explained my problems in detail, with the hope of helping along consensus and building communication. SaintCyprian Talk 04:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I added many, many movies to the list. It's my first contribution to Wikipedia and I just kind of jumped in full force. After reading this talk page (which obviously I should have done before) I frankly feel guilty. I didn't realize it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list of zombie films - I just thought somebody was slacking. At the bottom of the list of zombie films page it said something to the affect of "This list is incomplete. You can help by adding to it." So... I did.
If anything I've added compromises the integrity or validity of the list, you can (of course) edit it. I apologize.
Liquidpig (
talk)
16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Is a necro-mutant a zombie? I think it is really, although it can run a bit faster than most of them. Then The Mutant Chronicles would be a zombie film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombiesOfRock ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
A new online zombie movie, which allows the user to choose which path they want is available at: http://www.survivetheoutbreak.com/ Does anyone else know of anymore of these types of choose your own adventure movies? travb ( talk) 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on including The Horror of Party Beach? Characters in the film refer to the monsters as zombies. 66.191.19.217 ( talk) 04:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody divide the films in the years they are made, It really makes it difficult for me to find the latest zombie films...
and by the way, is it also possible for someone to put a section for Upcoming Zombie Films
Please... --17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.194.9 ( talk)
There seems to be an issue with the References section. Items past 19 do not appear. Surv1v4l1st ( talk) 16:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to note that WP:Film does not consider imdb to be a reliable source as the information on imdb is user-generated. I've already found errors on imdb before, so it should probably be noted that this website may not be the best for sourcing this article. I know there are over 300 films cited here, but to get this list up to standard, we should consider the validity of the films and the source we are getting them from. Anyone have any alternating ideas? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have all of these unlinked titles? If there's no article for a film, it shouldn't be here. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 05:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The reference links to the imdb entry for "After Sundown". Editorial commentary on that movie or otherwise, it's just inappropriate. Since the page is currently protected, could someone with access remove this link, please? Oddmonster ( talk) 00:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The Evil Dead movies and Army of Darkness were removed. Aren't they generally considered zombie movies or am I mistaken? ( Cardsplayer4life 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
28 days later was a zombie because they were dead, only wanted to feed on the living while in Evil Dead there is no actual zombies and more like demons since there Deadites which is like poltergeist because they took over people even if there living to torture people so evil dead series isn't a zombie series because there possessed for a start, 2ndly they don't eat flesh and they talk which last time i checked zombies don't talk, tend to like eating people, even the one under the cellar is a witch or walking skeleton in the 3rd but theres no zombies whatsoever so its been removed till someone proves to me differently--
Ronnie42 (
talk)
16:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
sounds to me like this musical needs to do more research also this wiki is to define zombie movies, none of the deadites in evil dead were bitten to be infected or crave to eat also its not me you want to prove to but the people reading this since i don't know anyone who would class evil dead as a zombie film since there's not horde's of zombies chasing people down, etc... and they have no need to eat the flesh which are common needs of any zombie also a musical is not prove since that's nothing to do with the movie. if we'r going to add evil dead then poltergeist may as well be a zombie film but how many can agree with that? --
Ronnie42 (
talk)
12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltergeist this is sort of what a deadite is so technically that's the closest you'll get to evil dead while the only thing i will agree on is that the movies are a horror but as far as i'm aware evil dead. if you can class a poltergeist as a zombie then that's you up to you but last time i checked they were completely different things —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ronnie42 (
talk •
contribs)
13:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
firstly i have already gaven a decent explanation that a deadite is a demon which posses people which may also be know as a poltergeist, its not a 'opinion'--
Ronnie42 (
talk)
18:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
how the hell is the movie not the flipping source? there's no flesh eating zombies whatsoever, there flipping demons taking over things like poltergeist fact, how can anyone disagree with the actual movie?, then try say something else says its different. its not a opinion the facts are right there in the flipping movie--
Ronnie42 (
talk)
15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
like i said before deadites are demons that possess humans, even a hand which has no characteristics of any known zombie type thing even with the typical or non typical, to re-add them without a decent enough reason is why wikipedia is becoming a unreliable source if you had read what i had said before it does not involve any vodoo like some people seem to think makes a zombie but that's just a zombie like state while deadites are demons that take over peoples body like a poltergeist which is a already backed up my source wiki.-- Ronnie42 ( talk) 21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
so far you claim that the opera mentions them as zombie but like i said before the movie is a reliable source, to add them on based on opinions since the movie clearly mentions them as them as being controlled by demons, like i said before a reliable source would be google poltergeist description, you'll notice they roughly say the same thing, need someone with a book to help get rid of possession. furthermore there isn't much else you can argue on this i have already given you 2 strong sources : evil dead movies/poltergeist which have been known to make people believe that there were possessed by the devil source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_possession i would find other sources but i bet there's probably a ton in that chat page or via google-- Ronnie42 ( talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
If i have to press this further i will, its bad enough people taking the piss about universal soldier being a zombie movie which it clearly isn't but by adding this by mentioning that evil dead opera is a zombie theme is not a source since the opera is not the same as the movie which i have already mentioned several times which is not proper WP:OR and you can debate your opinion all you want but unless you get direct proof from Sam Raimi or a credibible source then I may need to report this page for vandelism since the page is there to name iconic zombie movies which evil dead has never been proven, to add evil dead 1,2 and not 3 seems biast since these movies all contain Deadites which are demons that take over people which I have already backed as poltergeist with the wiki link which wouldn't be there without a WP:OR also i understand you may believe different things but the facts are there-- Ronnie42 ( talk) 02:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
-- Ronnie42 ( talk) 00:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Ok people have different opinions on what a zombie is but how can someone have a biast opinion, say Evil dead has zombies while the 3rd doesn't. It makes no sense whatsoever. Also while I'm here anyone else thinking Frankenstein is a zombie will lose their credibility too but anyway there's a big different between a zombie, a demon or we might as well be calling gou-alds zombies which would stupid.
This movie is categorically NOT a zombie film. What is in the movie is sea beasts, plain and freakin' simple. Watch it. NOW. See. Okay? Or just take my word for it as I finished watching it not 4.7 minutes ago (give or take a little, of course.) So please remove Horror Of Party Beach or ye shall feel the wrath of, ummm, something, like an evil possessed rapid bunny or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.197.35 ( talk) 02:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Read my lips -- there are NO zombies in that movie.
I can shoot a movie about frogs in Kansas and call it Prostitutes Of Czechoslovakia but that doesn't mean it should be included on a list of films about prostitutes in Czechoslovakia. Would you include my frogs in Kansas movie on a list of movies about prostitutes of Czechoslovakia? I sure hope you wouldn't. That would be STUPID if you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Having this movie listed, along with Horror of Party Beach, is lying to people telling them they might actually watch a zombie movie if they choose to press play on said titles. You should not condone this lying. Because of that lying, I wasted my time on both movies.
I just watched Escape and once again -- there are NO zombies in this movie. Please don't say it's in someone's book so it should be included. That's lame. There isn't even the word "zombie" in the movie. It's about a playboy escape artist/private eye who tracks down a scientist whose scientist brother creates something that can then be used to create man-made life. But the scientist never actually creates a monster or zombie or anything at all. NADA. NOTHING. ZILCH. I should just delete the listing myself but I thought I'd type this out instead.
Listen, instead of trusting a book, why not view questionable films yourself and discuss with someone who has also seen the movie? Yeah? Sounds smart to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt ( talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:RS/IMDB IMDB is not reliable source, this has also been previously discussed in the sections above. The criterion for addition is a reliable source that classifies the film in question as a Zombie film or otherwise explicitly makes reference to zombies in connection with the film. Primarily of course because of WP:RS and secondly to avoid all discussion here based on personal OR opinions of what constitutes a Zombie film. I propose a short period where anyone interested can go through the list, about a month is reasonable I think, and replace IMDB refs with appropriate reliable sources, established films reviewers for example, published authoritative works, and so on. After that deletion of those films that are only supported by IMDB with a link back to the archived version of the list on the talk page so people can easily access it for reference if they wish to re-add any of those deleted with reliable sources in the future.
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)
although in russian, but still understandable. Nice to check with. Pessimist2006 ( talk) 22:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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/wiki/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)
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)
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)
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 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 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 [1] || Alex Pastor / David Pastor || || 2009 || ~~
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.38.204 ( talk) 01:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2246549/ [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.14.218 ( talk) 02:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I added a section on this back in November of last year, which has since been archived, but to re-state as per WP:RS/IMDB IMDB is not reliable source, this has also been previously discussed in the sections above. The criterion for addition that had been decided by consensus and in reference to policy in previous discussions, is that a reliable source that classifies the film in question as a Zombie film or otherwise explicitly makes reference to zombies in connection with the film should be provided, reviews from reliable sources would be a good example or possibly books on the genre. Primarily of course because of WP:RS and secondly to avoid all discussion here based on personal OR opinions of what constitutes a Zombie film or even zombies themselves (which have occurred in the past as nauseum and constitute WP:OR at best). I note someone had removed a good deal of thr cites that were there, which I have re-added, though they also very very usefully and correctly changed the imdb links from being references into the column for imdb links. The article has been tagged since August 2009 for its references not meeting Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, that's three years ago, so I feel we should have a look at fixing this. Suggestions? Number36 ( talk) 03:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Why has the list of films table lost its sorting functions? It far less useful without it. 122.149.119.4 ( talk) 11:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC) OK now it's live again. Pardon me. 122.149.119.4 ( talk) 11:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The link is to a 1960's Soviet spy film, not the 2012 zombie film. Also, the 2012 film has no page. Alockwood1 ( talk) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
One question: how many films did you see from that list of zombie movies?
WP:NOTCHAT - This is for discussing how to improve the article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Bare-URL to IMDb used as external link and counter of entries. IMDb is not used as reference so if "References" field is empty then that means "film is unreferenced" and doesn't means "film referenced by IMDb only". -- Vanquisher.UA (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The Saif Ali Khan film "Goa Going Gone", releasing May 2013 is the Indian film industry's first "zom-com" and should be included in the list of films.
The article needs to be better written in proper English. Also, the criteria should be better presented - at the moment it reads like a list of instructions to editors, rather than from the readers point of view. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The "Franchise Mark" column should be merged to the "Notes" section, and explained in prose if a film is a sequel or part of a franchise, rather than the clumsy and unencyclopedic qualifiers such as "28.. Later 1". Very unprofessional. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:RS (which IMDB fails) and the list criteria (where popular is specifically determined by a sufficient number of references) I plan on shortly deleting all of the redlink movies that have only IMDB listed as a source. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
can anyone tell me the name of a zombie movie I liked, it had like these midget wrestlers in it, and this group of people are suck on a rooftop when they decide to slingshot this one midget off the roof. then in one part they hear a baby crying, and this dude gets the baby out of this car, but the zombies are after him so he throws the baby up in the air and the baby starts smileing while in the air, until it hits the ground and gets bit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.184.70 ( talk) 20:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This list's inclusion criteria are so vague they're useless. What is a "reasonably high budget"? Ten million dollars? One million? A hundred thousand? For those films which only have an IMDb entry as a source, how can we tell whether they satisfy this criterion? The same for "have a lot of popularity". I even found a 10-minute short on the list, so we should re-check the rather clear-cut "feature length" criterion for all the entries too. My suggestion would be to abandon the rather vague "high budget" and "popularity" criteria and instead to only list films that have articles of their own. Huon ( talk) 20:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Please DO NOT REMOVE WHAT I POST HERE as I want it to be considered. It is my right to post here too.
My problem is not just low budget. You have movies that center on sex here like the Porno movies that have a stupid plot just to deviate from no plot straight porn. One movie, that I rented, thanks so much, is called "Bloodlust Zombies". I did research on it after wanting to throw up because it not only has gross sexual situations but they throw some necrophilia into it. I'm not going to sue you but someone else might. It might be a good thing to take what I am saying seriously.
I studied Psychology in college. I will never forget that we had a special seminar where they were showing naked dead bodies on film in black and white. One of the students brought her kids. They kicked her out. One of the kids was 17. He asked to stay and showed his Drivers license. They kicked him out too. They said they had a student who was 17, early college entry, that was traumatized by seeing these naked dead bodies and the parents had sued them.
There is a space to put adult movie or sex explicit after the year as someone has about the Gay movie there. Are Gays any different than heteros to Wiki?? Personal views do not matter here. Yet when I put in the space sex explicit for the hetero movies my warning was removed. Please don't try to tell me there was some logical reason that doesnt make sense.
One of you tried to tell me that putting "there are low budget and sex explicit movies listed here" is my opinion but when I went to remove where it says ...the movies are of a high budget and popular, he put that back. Please take that down or let me correct them. You want them moved? I vote for then that we make a "Sex Explicit Zombie Movie list" so the normal people and women don't have to be grossed out or have their kids molested by accidental viewings.
You could make a low budget horror movie page. Low budget is not an opinion. When you are watching a Latino movie that shows 5 minutes of Zombie action (like Zombie Farm) or where the actors are overdramatic or boring and make up and props suck, these are some really good ways to spot a low budget. One movie I watched, you could see the ketchup line sticking out of the zombie bit guys collar and the blood was spurting out like the Merlot from the wine fountain at the last wedding I attended. Usually low budgets either have no recognizable actors or just one that you haven't seen for a decade.
Good budgeted Movies are 28 Days, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, Return of the Night of the Living Dead and even Flight of the Dead. And you have movies that are deviant from Zombie movies. Mortuary is not a Zombie movie. Thats Sci Fi not Horror. The Stuff, Invasion of Body Snatchers, nice movies but not Zombie. Black Sheep...which I tried to put "Zombie Sheep" beside was low budget, dumb and not Zombie but I was being kind with the "Zombie Sheep" thing. People turning into sheep are NOT ZOMBIES.
Opinions?????Library777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, the "other" lists are small enough they could be merged here and merely say that every entry must reliably sourced, and that the reliable sources talk about zombies. The genre as a whole is notoriously (and in many cases intentionally) B-Movie (or worse!) so making some sort of WP:OR quality judgement to sort them seems counterproductive. While WP:N is much lower for individual list items, it is not a non-requirement, and everything should have at least one real review. (No database or release announcements count imo) Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, but at least allow then, me to contribute (as others already were allowed to do) by noting 'sex explicit' in the same area another person was allowed to put 'adult film' for the Gay Zombie movie. Where others were allowed to expand and put 'vampire like zombies' etc. Why do the editors erase me putting "zombie sheep"? If you want to include everything at least giving a little heads up on what to expect would be good. If I am not signing right or pasting opinion request its because I don't know where you find those links as we had Power tools on AOL, html wasn't necessary. Library777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Library777 ( talk) 22:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems like this issue could be solved simply if the movies had their rating posted. If someone wants to watch a film and it's R-rated, they can't say they weren't warned that the movie contains violence and sex. Liz Read! Talk! 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Library777- 1.Why did you allow "ADULT FILM" for the Gay Zombie Movie? 2.Why when I made the same reference for other movies you removed mine? Such an act denotes Bias and that's not permitted here.
3. Why do ANY of you object to putting in information that large amounts of people want to know? 4. Its not just me that wants to know if a movie is sexually explicit, a cartoon or a trilogy of short stories and by not allowing this, you are censoring for your own ideals. By letting someone have information you are NOT censoring. You ARE censoring by suppressing it. Like it says above..there is no policy against adding these things and by doing so you give a choice to the viewer.
If they are a Perv they will be happy to know the movie is mostly Porn and if they are a Mother, like me, they don't have to worry about their little toddler seeing it and getting groomed to be molested. There is a reason why we have age of consent. There is also an age where people become adult enough to realize why there are age limits and help society to have structure vs. chaos. Wikipedia is not a playground or a college dorm. There are many group demographics that will come here and all should feel comfortable using the site.
If you want anyone to take this website seriously, than this issue should be taken just as seriously.Library777-signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.174.155 ( talk) 17:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Library777-Also I still do not understand the inclusion of a Horror movie review movie with a 90% review of other Horror Movies and 4 part movies where just one fourth is a Zombie short story. Is the 59 minutes, 59 minutes of Zombie film content? There are animated Zombie films on this list too.Library777-signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.174.155 ( talk) 17:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Library777-No one is addressing my question about the Gay Movie saying "adult film" and no other films being allowed to say that. This makes Wikipedia appear Homophobic. Also, I want to mention that this is not my personal view as I may or may not agree with alternative lifestyle and choose not to disclose my views.
I am not talking about film rating either. I am talking about adding some points of reference to this list such as:
1.sex explicit or adult film (personally to me saying the later just makes me think its gory. 2. Animation 3. Short story film 4. The type of Zombie (as someone was allowed to write VAMPIRE ZOMBIE, let others write Sheep zombies, cow zombies
Otherwise this list is not valuable for someone wanting to watch say all the Zombie animation movies, or if they are into necrophiliac..all the sex explicit etc. I have several friends who went to this list, like me and are unhappy but won't take time to debate with you.
Who do I go to to ask for a decision?, because none of you or me are going to agree. There has to be a leader who has been chosen to decide, so who is that leader? All of this is wasting time and I just came here so I could find Zombie movies to watch. None of the movies have any description, and most have no links leading to valid descriptions.
How about we make a page for each movie on the list that has a large description and have a link from this list to those pages? I see also there were some movies having this description and many of the descriptions were deleted by you editors. I agree that the IMDB site is not a good reference.
To be honest though, for me and my friends who just wanted a quick way of finding movies we like to watch, this Zombie list that everyone here just talks about, has failed us and we now all think Wikipedia is terrible and are passing that view around (am I going to get banned for saying that? because its called Freedom of Speech).
Wikipedia is biased and allows certain people to edit while banning others from it. Its not credible because it refuses to allow a complete reference. It is chaotic and in this state, we will all censor our children from it on our computers.
You talk about no censorship but that would mean no banning of valuable information or members for what they say and you do prevent information to be added and you do ban members for what they say. You are biased, because no one here did anything about the other comments allowed when mine were not. No one removed them, no one added mine, and no one even talked about the issue. Library777-signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.174.155 ( talk) 20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Zombies are distinct from ghosts, ghouls, mummies, or vampires, so this list does not include films devoted to these types of undead. OK you have movies like "The Dead Undead" and "Blacksheep" the sheep bite people and they turn into sheep-humans that eat flesh. Library777 ( talk) 21:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh and another thing is some of these are not in English and you don't allow any reference to that. Library777 ( talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
--Andys'edtits 08:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "Cause" a possible criteria. I think focus on the Cause maybe useful. Depending on the issues being explored in the storyline, different causes are required to become a zombie. Some stories examine big picture social implications, of survival, group dynamics and psychological effects of a catastrophic event. Others focus on smaller group, showing how individuals face having family affected. Going chronologically, it would be causes in categories like
I also agree on inclusion of information 1. Violence should be indicated. (general violence/ graphic/sadistic or extreme /compared to older -thriller style/) 2. Nudity. In general a stand alone zombie story doesn’t require nudity, so it’s been added for reasons. I agree it is not censorship, but part of providing information about the movie and an indication of story content. Describing minor nudity/ gratuitous/ specific other types, lets wiki users (all ages) know more rather than less about the movie. In My Humble Opinion --Andys'edtits 08:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC) --Andys'edtits 08:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)--Andys'edtits 08:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Quite a few points have been covered, so to try and focus the discussion, this is what we have:
Betty Logan ( talk) 08:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)