The Mego Museum needs your help!
The Mego Museum needs your help!

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What I hate about zombie movies!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cjefferys
    replied
    I've always been kinda confused about the definition of a "ghoul". In the old EC horror comics (which I've read A LOT of), they always made it seem like a ghoul was a person that ate human flesh. There didn't seem to be anything supernatural involved (unless the dietary choice was a type of physical need, not just a preference). So, I don't know, maybe EC just portrayed a ghoul as a being that needed human flesh as a vampire needs blood, rather than just a glorified cannibal?

    I've always been a sucker for a good zombie film, ever since I had my brain warped by watching Dawn of the Dead when I was a teen. Of course, I've seen plenty of stinkers along the way ("Zombie Lake", I'm looking at you!). Sadly the bad far outweigh the good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Werewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by palitoy
    Every depiction I've seen in comics or movies has them as an ersatz vampire but that doesn't make it gospel.
    I can kinda understand that. Before Bram Stoker's Dracula and the rise of the Victorian romanticism of Vampires, Vampires were very Ghoul like. They weren't rich, charismatic, upper class beings people now think of. Vampires of earlier European folklore were from the poor classes. The people who couldn't afford proper burials. Vampires were foul wretched creatures that reaked of decay and spread sickness, death and disease. So, I guess, modern Ghouls are, in way, filling the void of the Vampires of folklore.

    Leave a comment:


  • palitoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Werewolf
    I think in some Arabic folklore they were evil spirits that could shapeshift into animals. But pre-Night of the Living Dead Ghouls, in most stories and folklore, were the prototype grave yard haunting, decaying, vicious, flesh eating un-dead monsters which most people now think of as Zombies. Before that, Zombies didn't eat people or really have any will or drive of their own. This reminds me, I haven't seen Night of the Living Dead in ages but I don't even recall them actually being refered to as Zombies by name.

    Fair enough, Ghouls are kind of underused in horror movies it seems. Usually you find them in "Tales from the Crypt" type vignettes. Every depiction I've seen in comics or movies has them as an ersatz vampire but that doesn't make it gospel.

    Leave a comment:


  • toys2cool
    replied
    Originally posted by Mikey
    That's why I like Zombieland

    They're not dead, just kinda rabid

    In a way it's more scary because it's more realistic
    I'd be just like Tallahassee in that movie , kicking ***

    Leave a comment:


  • Werewolf
    replied
    I think in some Arabic folklore they were evil spirits that could shapeshift into animals. But pre-Night of the Living Dead Ghouls, in most stories and folklore, were the prototype grave yard haunting, decaying, vicious, flesh eating un-dead monsters which most people now think of as Zombies. Before that, Zombies didn't eat people or really have any will or drive of their own. This reminds me, I haven't seen Night of the Living Dead in ages but I don't even recall them actually being refered to as Zombies by name.

    Leave a comment:


  • palitoy
    replied
    Yeah, I thought Ghouls can shape shift though, always kind of put them as sentient too, like a flesh eating cousin to the vampire.

    Leave a comment:


  • Werewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by palitoy
    Well, I don't think they're technically Ghouls because I was always under the impression Ghouls had a mystical quality to them.
    Both Zombies and Ghouls have a supernatural element to them. Ghouls are the traditional undead type creatures of folklore that eat people. Zombies didn't become really linked to that in popular culture until Night of the Living Dead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey
    replied
    That's why I like Zombieland

    They're not dead, just kinda rabid

    In a way it's more scary because it's more realistic

    Leave a comment:


  • palitoy
    replied
    Well, I don't think they're technically Ghouls because I was always under the impression Ghouls had a mystical quality to them.

    It's like the modern interpretation of Zombies are sort of (to paraphrase "The Monster Club") "Zombhouls" aren't they?

    Leave a comment:


  • Earth 2 Chris
    replied
    ^Good point.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Werewolf
    replied
    What I hate? They are not really Zombies in those shows and movies. They are Ghouls.

    Leave a comment:


  • Earth 2 Chris
    replied
    Nice idea on the shark gear. Reminds me a bit of when Baron Blood tried to bite Captain America and got a fang-full of scale-mail (yeah, I know, it always comes back to comics).

    Never was much of a zombie guy. Just doesn't have the internal mystique that says vampires, werewolves, or even Golem/Frankenstein-types do.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • palitoy
    replied
    I'd be trying to find a dive shop and see if they have any of the chain mail they use to fend off shark bites. Either that or track down a ren fair.

    Who am i kidding? I'd be dead in the opening credits.

    Oh and count me on "Zombie apathy" lately, never my favorite (unless you count Fulci), so I could absolutely get enough of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Earth 2 Chris
    replied
    Is it okay to say I'm really sick of Zombies?

    But yeah, people in zombie movies are stupid. But that kind of applies to humans in ALL horror films, right?

    You think teenagers in 80s slasher flicks would learn to obstain from sex. Sure-fire way to get hacked with a machete or a chainsaw.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey
    replied
    I'm guessing you've never been to Georgia in the summertime Rik ?

    It gets REALLY hot and humid

    Leave a comment:

Working...
😀
🥰
🤢
😎
😡
👍
👎