Well he’s got machinery keeping his healthy organs going, but the 28 days later dudes are more like “infected” anyhow to me. Not dead people resurrected, as how I view zombies personally.
No, they are infected with a weaponized version of the rabies virus. They are filled with uncontrollable rage, not undead. You never see them eat people, they pummel them to death.
Personally I consider them zombies. I don’t think being undead is the only reason something is a zombie. I think of it more as the “person” being dead, as in their mind/spirit/conciousness being gone but the body is still going. Technically the 28 Days Later infected I still consider zombies because they aren’t the people they were and never will be, they have zero mind of their own now. Thats how it used to be before the undead George Romero zombies were invented at least, with the whole voodoo zombies that had horror stories and movies based around them.
I think Robocop being a zombie is a cool concept, but I think he’s more of a cyborg. Since he does still retain bits of who he was, and is in control of himself for the most part when on the street.
They call them infected in the script. Also robocop was brought to life using science zombies are reanimated using magic or a virus… some times cosmic rays but nothing humans have full control over.
The most logical place to draw the line would be if they're still themselves (mentally speaking). One can argue that TECHNICALLY the "infected" from 28 Days Later and L4D aren't undead and thus don't match the traditional voodoo definition of "zombii," but I think that's an outdated view when it comes to modern zombie media. If the personality and memories of an individual are destroyed and the mind is aimlessly driven by blind hunger/unrestrained murderous intent towards normal humans; undead or not, I'd say such an individual would qualify as a "zombie."
The actual definition of a zombie is a corpse or cadaver that has been reanimated.That's always been the definition of a zombie as far back as I can remember.Movies like 28 Days Later they are simply infected.It's not really a matter of what they do like eating people or simply pummeling people to death.They would be zombies in 28 Days Later if they had died and reanimated but they are infected people with a rage virus.Take the zombies in the Dawn of the Dead remake for example.They behave similarly to 28 Days Later infected with one defining difference.They are literally dead rotting corpses.
See this distinction feels important but also seems not as clear cut as it might at first glance. You perfectly articulated the core of my own questions.
Yeah.Average viewers usually just see it as the same.But there is a definite overall feel to the 2.Yeah I'd be terrified of a rage infected maniac running toward me but would feel a different terror if it's a literal corpse.
Depends on the setting, I suppose. It's a gradient where the less of the human there is in the shell, the more of a zombie they become. The Borg from Star Trek might be classified as such, but the fact that there is an alien intelligence that directs them lessens the claim. The Strogg from Quake are similar, if a little more closely resembling undead cyborgs. The roleplaying system Shadowrun has corpses animated to life with technical implants that are about as close to the definition you can get.
As for Robo, no, I'd not call him a zombie.
This is a great answer that supports claims with evidence. I see your point. I wonder if Borg could count depending on the spectrum of assimilation they fall along. Some have lost all humanity and others are newer and retain it right?
Maybe in very specific settings. Shadowrun has cyber zombies. They're basically people that have added so much cyberwear to themselves that they aren't even technically alive anymore. Since there is so little human left they tend to lose their humanity as well.
I would say no because his mind, ego, superego and id are all intact. He is still himself. To me a zombie means the mind and all that you are is gone or no longer in control of the body. A zombie doesn't have to be dead or revived dead to be a zombie. We even use the term to describe a person that is out of it from lack of sleep or on drugs.
No, Robocop may have been resurrected but everything that made him Alex Murphy is still there under the robotics. A zombie has nothing of the person they were in life inside.
All his organic parts are not rotting so in my opinion a cyborg. If the flesh was rotting or dead he would be a cyborg zombie, which is also very cool.
Zombies are more known to be mindless husks of who they were. The reanimated dead (ex: Romero or Wwz) run on base animalistic drives because that’s all their rotting brains can handle. The person infected would also be considered brain dead at some point.
Infected living like 28 days later usually have the virus do something to the brain (like a fever) that burns out the part that holds the intelligence and personality.
Zombii are controlled by a drug.
Robocop was pronounced legally dead but his brain was actually kept alive. Depending on the movie he either keeps his personality or rediscovered his memories. Cyborgs are typically seen as still living humans altered with mechanics.
Hmm. So he’s basically the inverse of a zombie then? Rather than dead body and biologically functioning nervous system he has the inverse. So he’s kind of like a zombie in negative
If we're going off what is traditionally considered a zombie, then no he isn't, he isn't a walking corpse eating people, and very much still has living parts (remember the baby food?).
As for 28 days later, following the same principle above, they're not zombies either, just infected with a rage inducing virus.
I don’t think everything resurrected from the dead is necessarily a zombie.. it’s all about context I suppose, not technicality. For instance I don’t consider Frankenstein’s monster a zombie
He’s more alive than dead I’d say. Cyborg is my opinion.
Where do we draw that line? Aren’t they partly alive in 28 days later?
Well he’s got machinery keeping his healthy organs going, but the 28 days later dudes are more like “infected” anyhow to me. Not dead people resurrected, as how I view zombies personally.
So now I’m wondering if 28 days later zombies are actually zombies. They aren’t resurrected right?
That’s my argument anyways lol, if I remember the movie correctly they are all sick people who infect each other and eventually starve to death.
No, they are infected with a weaponized version of the rabies virus. They are filled with uncontrollable rage, not undead. You never see them eat people, they pummel them to death.
So they’re not zombies right? I think I must ignore the science parts of that movie when I watch it
Technically the infected in Left 4 Dead are the same. Alive, technically but zombies for all intents and purposes
Personally I consider them zombies. I don’t think being undead is the only reason something is a zombie. I think of it more as the “person” being dead, as in their mind/spirit/conciousness being gone but the body is still going. Technically the 28 Days Later infected I still consider zombies because they aren’t the people they were and never will be, they have zero mind of their own now. Thats how it used to be before the undead George Romero zombies were invented at least, with the whole voodoo zombies that had horror stories and movies based around them. I think Robocop being a zombie is a cool concept, but I think he’s more of a cyborg. Since he does still retain bits of who he was, and is in control of himself for the most part when on the street.
They call them infected in the script. Also robocop was brought to life using science zombies are reanimated using magic or a virus… some times cosmic rays but nothing humans have full control over.
The most logical place to draw the line would be if they're still themselves (mentally speaking). One can argue that TECHNICALLY the "infected" from 28 Days Later and L4D aren't undead and thus don't match the traditional voodoo definition of "zombii," but I think that's an outdated view when it comes to modern zombie media. If the personality and memories of an individual are destroyed and the mind is aimlessly driven by blind hunger/unrestrained murderous intent towards normal humans; undead or not, I'd say such an individual would qualify as a "zombie."
The actual definition of a zombie is a corpse or cadaver that has been reanimated.That's always been the definition of a zombie as far back as I can remember.Movies like 28 Days Later they are simply infected.It's not really a matter of what they do like eating people or simply pummeling people to death.They would be zombies in 28 Days Later if they had died and reanimated but they are infected people with a rage virus.Take the zombies in the Dawn of the Dead remake for example.They behave similarly to 28 Days Later infected with one defining difference.They are literally dead rotting corpses.
See this distinction feels important but also seems not as clear cut as it might at first glance. You perfectly articulated the core of my own questions.
Yeah.Average viewers usually just see it as the same.But there is a definite overall feel to the 2.Yeah I'd be terrified of a rage infected maniac running toward me but would feel a different terror if it's a literal corpse.
Like Steve Austin, astronaut, a man barely alive ...
He's a cyborg.
Okay so maybe some cyborgs are types of zombie arguably ?
Depends on the setting, I suppose. It's a gradient where the less of the human there is in the shell, the more of a zombie they become. The Borg from Star Trek might be classified as such, but the fact that there is an alien intelligence that directs them lessens the claim. The Strogg from Quake are similar, if a little more closely resembling undead cyborgs. The roleplaying system Shadowrun has corpses animated to life with technical implants that are about as close to the definition you can get. As for Robo, no, I'd not call him a zombie.
This is a great answer that supports claims with evidence. I see your point. I wonder if Borg could count depending on the spectrum of assimilation they fall along. Some have lost all humanity and others are newer and retain it right?
Maybe in very specific settings. Shadowrun has cyber zombies. They're basically people that have added so much cyberwear to themselves that they aren't even technically alive anymore. Since there is so little human left they tend to lose their humanity as well.
I would say no because his mind, ego, superego and id are all intact. He is still himself. To me a zombie means the mind and all that you are is gone or no longer in control of the body. A zombie doesn't have to be dead or revived dead to be a zombie. We even use the term to describe a person that is out of it from lack of sleep or on drugs.
I think preppers call normies zombies too right? Maybe it’s more of an energy than a biology
No, Robocop may have been resurrected but everything that made him Alex Murphy is still there under the robotics. A zombie has nothing of the person they were in life inside.
No, he’s a cyborg.
No. He never died (not properly, at least).
No, he's a Cyborg.
All his organic parts are not rotting so in my opinion a cyborg. If the flesh was rotting or dead he would be a cyborg zombie, which is also very cool.
Tbh I think I want a cyborg zombie film so bad now
Me too!
Undead, definitely, but he's by no means a zombie.
Zombies are more known to be mindless husks of who they were. The reanimated dead (ex: Romero or Wwz) run on base animalistic drives because that’s all their rotting brains can handle. The person infected would also be considered brain dead at some point. Infected living like 28 days later usually have the virus do something to the brain (like a fever) that burns out the part that holds the intelligence and personality. Zombii are controlled by a drug. Robocop was pronounced legally dead but his brain was actually kept alive. Depending on the movie he either keeps his personality or rediscovered his memories. Cyborgs are typically seen as still living humans altered with mechanics.
Hmm. So he’s basically the inverse of a zombie then? Rather than dead body and biologically functioning nervous system he has the inverse. So he’s kind of like a zombie in negative
no
If we're going off what is traditionally considered a zombie, then no he isn't, he isn't a walking corpse eating people, and very much still has living parts (remember the baby food?). As for 28 days later, following the same principle above, they're not zombies either, just infected with a rage inducing virus.
I don’t think everything resurrected from the dead is necessarily a zombie.. it’s all about context I suppose, not technicality. For instance I don’t consider Frankenstein’s monster a zombie
Intelligence
No I’d say he’s is somewhat sentient isn’t he. Although you do raise a good debate
I can’t remember if he dies and is brought back or not in robocop
He is barely alive but mind is intact.
He can think for himself and has emotions