Every time I write about Survival of the Dead I
read complaints from a select few jokers who seem to think that they
know zombies better than George Romero… you know, the guy who invented the genre. I guess their hours
playing Resident
Evil or
something gives them a wealth of knowledge, especially about the rules
of zombies. These are the folks who complain about Big Daddy in Land of
the Dead carrying
a gun, for instance.
But if they had actually been watching
Romero’s Dead films
they would see that Big Daddy in Land wasn’t an aberration – he was the
logical conclusion of where the films started. And Survival continues beyond that, with
characters trying to see if they can train zombies to eat something
other than people.
The next time somebody bitches about
Big Daddy and his gun, or about the zombie riding a horse in Survival
of the Dead, just direct them to the following:
Cemetery
Zombie. The very first zombie
on screen uses a rock to break a car window. The very first zombie, and
he’s using tools!
Karen Cooper. The little girl in the basement who kills her parents? She does it with a trowel.
But it all comes to a head in Day, and the story of Bub the Zombie seems to be what Romero has been playing with ever since. Bub isn’t just the best zombie in the franchise, he’s the one that proves that the undead can be trained. He has an appreciation for music, he has a sense of loyalty to Dr. Logan, and at the end, in the final zombie assault, he uses a gun.
Anybody who says that this scene isn’t one of the best in all of Romero’s films simply isn’t a fan of Romero’s Dead movies:
In summation: every single entry in Romero’s classic Dead trilogy includes a zombie using tools or being aware of their use. I’m sure there are a couple I’ve missed and you’ll let me know about them in the comments below, but the important fact remains:
George Romero knows zombies better than you do.
28 comments
Bub even talks in DAY!
The issues with SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD have very little to do with zombie tool use and very much to do with the film being outright terrible by any objective standard of quality.
The first zombie in NotLD also does a bit of a jog after Barbara in her car. Much more speedy than we all remember.
A zombie in Day pulls a rubber chicken out of Captain Rhodes. Yes, zombies can use tools. Blade uses a machete very well in Land. Survival is a great entry in the series even if the second act meanders a bit.
Well done, Devin.
using a blunt object is one thing, chimps do that… but for a zombie to pick up a gun, point, and pull the trigger is completely different… also, nevermind the fact bub salauted rhodes at the end… and jusy cause Romero invented the genre, doesn't mean that evrything he does is gold.. I mean, if his zombies started using ESP to destroy humans, is that "good"… he can do whatever the fuck he wants.. but it doesn't make it good do to his association…
I'm really sick of people ragging on Survival of the Dead. It's smart and, more importantly, it's meant to be funny. Romero has said so several times. It's the closest the series has come to slapstick, and damn if it isn't entertaining. And it still continues that wonderful tradition of clever social commentary. Most of the twits who didn't like it are gorehounds who didn't get enough of their fix.
Say "Hello Aunt Alicia."
I don't care that zombies use tools. I care that starting with Land of the Dead, every movie Romero makes is progressively worse, and it's embarrassing to watch him beat this concept into the ground.
I have a question: Why doesn't George ever make a movie with a zombie for the main character? That seems like the natural progression of where the Night/Dawn/Day/Land series was progressing, but now it seems like every new Dead movie follows the same basic beats of zombie progression without really taking it to a new place.
I know one thing zombies don't do in any Romero movie: cry and whine like little babies about shite that doesn't matter. Cheese and rice, Devin, get over it.
For #10.. try 'Colin' for a film with a zombie as a main character.. it's not great but quite interesting at times.. And SOTD may not be fantastic.. but it is still better than heaps of the other zombie crap out there.. Zombies of mass destruction anyone? Romero still nails the genre … easily..
cool little article.. plus it's FUN to watch these vids!
#11 – Bub cry's in "Day" after he sees Frankenstein laying in the freezer. Remember?
The funny thing is that all these people complaining about his recent movies will still watch the new one and that means George can make the last two sooner then later. So, watch it, complain about it, and get ready for two more.
My only problem with the zombie on horseback is that it doesn't seem physically possible. Getting up on a horse isn't that easy and Romero's zombie are the classic stiff and slow type. I guess she could've eventually pulled herself up in the saddle, but that would have to be one amazingly patient horse to put up with that shit.
I agree with this article except for the final line. Romero knows *his* zombies better than we do. He doesn't own all zombies, and his word is only law in his films. There are different interpretations of what a zombie is. Some are better than others, but all are legitimate.
Bub doesn't follow through with the feeding frenzy on Rhodes either . . . just walks away.
more zombies from the grave, less diseased people with some sores and dirty makeup called zombies.. the makeup possibilities are endless for grave zombies! don't overblow obvious social metaphors! More 'Tar Man'! 😀
Yeah devin, they are playing resident evil, a game in which zombies evolved and starting using tools and guns like in the romero movies. Next time you try to bash video games, try and get your reference right.
The best zombies of all time used a CB radio and called for "more paramedics." Just sayin'.
I saw a Australian zombie film and in no way was it legitimate…..it made "the Video Dead" look good
"Every time I write about Survival of the Dead I read complaints from a select few jokers who seem to think that they know zombies better than George Romero… you know, the guy who invented the genre."—Great, let's hear the explanations from Romero himself then. That's what i love about commentary tracks and all the behind-the-scenes stuff that gets included on DVDs, the internet, etc., that filmmakers can explain themselves to the masses and tell us whether there was deeper meaning to something or not. You can show all the clips that you want, and they certainly back up YOUR stance, fine, but I'll bet that there was no thought whatsoever put into some of those scenes aside from "that looked cool" or "we thought it would be scary if the zombie did this, so we had him do it". Also, there's a difference between knowing zombies and knowing how to write a decent script, and Romero's been slipping since his return to the genre a few years back. "Accurate" or not, I don't care about the zombies' behavior if the movie itself is nothing to care about.
All I have to say is "Diary of the Dead" has the BEST Amish character I've ever seen in any movie of any genre.
I love how when people don't like something, they blame it on the "quality" of the picture. You know, it's OK to simply not like something. No need to put on the "amateur reviewer" hat.
Wow. Another sloppy straw man argument masquerading as opinion. Using the non-specific "some people say" as the starting point for any debate always suggests a weak argument. Gwai Lo nailed it. Survival of the Dead is simply a poor movie, and the fact that a zombie rides a horse is perhaps the least objectionable thing about it. I love Romero, but he's running on empty and fast becoming a one-note joke. His recent output makes all the same stupid narrative mistakes that Lucas made with the Star Wars prequels, and deserves the same amount of scorn.
#23 – Hell yes (except for Witness – Alexander Godunov and Viggo would've fucked up any zombie dumb enough to wander onto their land)!
Wow, weak stuff. Romero's zombie films are of diminishing quality not because of some of breaking/not breaking/making up lame genre rules but because of the same things that make all bad movies, poor conception and execution. In Dawn a zombie could drive a fucking Hummer (or the 70's equivalent) for all I care and it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of a great movie.
Well, I am one of those that wishes romero would stop doind shitty movies about zombies that are developing intellectually even though their body is probably roting with time, and all I want is address the "George Romero knows zombies better than you do" argument. I suppose that this fallows in the same class as "The Wachowski Brothers know Matrix better than you do" would you agree? I mean, the 1st Matrix was amazing and I still find it hard to believe that it was a product from the same minds who delivered us the hollow Reloaded and than the abominable Revolutions, so do you find reasonable the opinion that no one should complain about the Matrix sequels since the creators had that (sh***t) in mind and it the logical (albeit uncoherent) progression of the Neo saga? Would really like to know your thoughts.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.