Super 7 "Official Universal Monsters Thread"

[aura of foreboding]

Incorrect; a vampire is living dead but has its own set of supernatural rules.  Zombies are dead bodies brought back to life by various means; and have been shown to walk, run, talk, think, etc. depending on the source material.

Yes, saying Dracula is a zombie is incorrect... just like saying the Monster is a zombie is incorrect. 

Using your own definition, the monster does not qualify: 

Zombies are dead bodies brought back to life

The Monster is not a dead body brought back to life.  The monster is multiple bodies sewn together, given a new brain, and then brought to life.  It is a new life. 

Just like Dracula is not a zombie, the Monster is not a zombie. 

[zombiehorror]

This is fun; various body parts combined to form one functioning body that is then brought back from a state of death....is still a form of a zombie.

[aura of foreboding]

Yes.  On the same level that Dracula is a zombie, again using your definition:

Zombies are dead bodies brought back to life by various means; and have been shown to walk, run, talk, think, etc.

Dracula has been brought back to life.  Dracula can walk, run, talk, and think.  He is a living corpse.  Vampires, just like the Frankenstein Monster, can qualify as zombies on the most basic of premises.  The point is they are not zombies, just like the Monster is not a zombie. 

Shelley, in her genius, created a totally and completely new category of monster with the invention of the Monster.  Much like how in the original Hamilton Deane script, Dracula is called a werewolf because he shapeshifts, you can call the Monster a zombie.  However, Dracula is not, in fact, a werewolf just like the Monster is, in fact, not a zombie.  All monsters have things in common.  It doesn't mean they are in the same category. 

This debate occurs in my classes all the time.  Students try to argue that pretty much every monster that returns from the dead is a zombie.  We eventually decide that, through categorization, it is better to classify vampires as vampires and the Monster as a creature/creation and zombies as zombies.

Others, from various parts of the web, tend to agree with me:

http://zombieresearchsociety.com/archives/10099
https://www.quora.com/Would-Frankensteins-monster-be-classified-as-a-zombie
https://www.darkjaneaustenbookclub.com/2012/08/how-classify-frankensteins-creation

I have never met a single person, in fandom or academia, who believed Shelley's creature was merely a zombie... until now.  I think that does a great disservice to Shelley, Boris Karloff, James Whale, and every other creative who had a part in making the Monster what it is today -- belonging in a class unto itself. 

Can we honestly believe the Monster would have been happy for Frankenstein just to dig up some dead body, zap it, bring it back to life, and call it his mate?  It would be nothing like him.  The Monster was created, like man.  Frankenstein attempted to emulate God by making a man in his own image, not taking a man, one of God's own, and bringing him back from the dead.  That is the difference.  A true understanding of Shelley's work makes the purpose of the monster quite clear, and that purpose makes it wholly distinctive and definitely not just a zombie.   

[zombiehorror]

Yes.  On the same level that Dracula is a zombie, again using your definition:

Dracula has been brought back to life.  Dracula can walk, run, talk, and think.  He is a living corpse.  Vampires, just like the Frankenstein Monster, can qualify as zombies on the most basic of premises.  The point is they are not zombies, just like the Monster is not a zombie.

I don't recall ever saying zombies could be killed with a wooden stake to the heart?  Or could turn into mist?  Or couldn't tolerate sunlight?  Or hated garlic?.....etc., etc.; you know the properties that make a vampire a vampire and not in fact a zombie.

Shelley, in her genius, created a totally and completely new category of monster with the invention of the Monster.

In Shelley's era there was no "zombie" so yes her creation is a zombie or proto-zombie if you will.

This debate occurs in my classes all the time.  Students try to argue that pretty much every monster that returns from the dead is a zombie.

That makes no sense whatsoever since a vampire is not a zombie; what other monsters are there that return from the dead?.

I have never met a single person, in fandom or academia, who believed Shelley's creature was merely a zombie... until now.

Again if you look at the range of portrayals of zombies over the years there have been intelligent zombies along with the more often portrayed aimless-shambling ones; although their tendency for appeasing their appetite is always for human flesh or brains.  Just because the monster had intelligence and was comprised of different bodies doesn't make him any less of a dead body brought back to life; i.e., a jigsaw puzzle zombie created by science.  If there is some kind of "soul" inference in this distinction between "creature/creation" and zombie then that is a whole other philosophical debate.

[Monsters For Sale]

Oh, yeah?

Well, how many zombies can dance on the head of a pin?


(And when do the Super 7 Zombies hit the stores?)

[Palifan]

Well I for one am still wondering what those Super7 trainers will look like 

Ian

[the_last_gunslinger]

The argument over whether or not Frankenstein's Monster is a zombie is proving most interesting. Both positions are sound, so I'm not really sure which side I'd go with. it depends on how one defines the word "zombie."

Aura of Foreboding, I'm not really seeing the distinction between a corpse being brought back to life, and a composite corpse being brought back to life with a new brain. Like, let's say we have creatures everyone considers zombies (from the Walking Dead, Return of the Living Dead, whatever) and you dismembered them, sowed their parts together and then gave it a functioning human brain. Is it not a zombie anymore? At what point does it cease being a zombie? The addition of the brain? How is that different than RotLD zombies that can think and talk? Does the method of resurrection matter? The fact that multiple bodies were used in its creation?

Not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just genuinely interested. I've never been privy to a discussion on zombie existentialism before.

[horrorhunter]

What was this thread about again? 

Oh well, here's another Wrightson zombie. 



BTW, saying the Frankenstein Monster is a form of a zombie is not only a real stretch...it's silly. Hell, these days even zombies aren't really zombies- they're ghouls. The popular flesh eating "zombie" was first introduced in Night Of The Living Dead (1968) and they were referred to as "ghouls" in that classic film. Later on people commonly called them "zombies" and that version of the undead has been widely known as zombies since. The classic zombie was a corpse raised through voodoo magic to do manual labor or destroy enemies. Vampires aren't zombies, the Monster isn't a zombie...give it up, it's a weak argument.

[zombiehorror]

We need a clean up on aisle 6 in this page.

In Night of the Living Dead the "zombies" were also described as "mishappen monsters"...mmmmm.....who else could fit under such a description?  The monster although created from different parts was before his "rebirth" an "inanimate body" as Shelley describes him; as well as a "demoniacal corpse".   A term very fitting of many a zombie.

And if you want to look at the definition of a ghoul, George Romero's reanimated corpses were not in fact ghouls; they were the risen dead.

Are Herbert West's experiments not zombies?  Sure he didn't stitch a body together but had he done so the result would have been the same as injecting any other corpse with his serum; the same goes for Dr. Frankenstein, he could have saved himself 2 years worth of work and just brought back a prepackaged model.  In the end he didn't really do what males and females do or what nature or "God", if you will, does he didn't create something from the fundamentals of life; there was no egg, no sperm.  Just a body brought back from the dead; a confused and tormented zombie.

[Anton Phibes]

We need a clean up on aisle 6 in this page.

OK--they're all MONSTERS. Now get a mop.

[horrorhunter]

We need a clean up on aisle 6 in this page.

You're the one making the biggest mess. The way to clean it up is to just drop it...if your overblown ego and sense of insecurity will allow that.

I was just mentioning what "zombie", "vampires", and "Frankenstein Monster", are most commonly perceived as, and you go to ridiculous lengths to try to prove silly points which should have never been made in the first place.

The best thing about a message board is that we don't have to be around aggravating individuals such as yourself in person. And, we can just begin the beautiful practice of ignoring further argument over such nonsensical points made just to vainly attempt to save face since you foolishly committed yourself to defending such a dumbassed viewpoint to begin with. 

[Monsters For Sale]

So...  what's the latest news about Super 7's Universal Monsters?

[zombiehorror]

So...  what's the latest news about Super 7's Universal Monsters?

Nadda....we're just entertaining ourselves and filling a void, waiting for an announcement.

[the_horror_man]

I never thought of Frankenstein's Monster as a zombie. I don't think of zombies as monsters. Monsters to me are like Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Wolf Man, The Mummy, Godzilla, King Kong etc.

Zombies, by what has been demonstrated in film, are primarily bodies rising from the dead where the brain still functions on a very basic level. Usually they rise from undetermined causes or voodoo. They are usually flesh eaters who can be put down by shots to the head. Frankenstein doesn't demonstrate any of these criteria. Also, he was reanimated by electricity. I do not recall any zombie films where electricity was the cause of them rising from the dead.

thm

[aura of foreboding]

I'll answer this and then will return focus to Super 7. 

Aura of Foreboding, I'm not really seeing the distinction between a corpse being brought back to life, and a composite corpse being brought back to life with a new brain. Like, let's say we have creatures everyone considers zombies (from the Walking Dead, Return of the Living Dead, whatever) and you dismembered them, sowed their parts together and then gave it a functioning human brain. Is it not a zombie anymore? At what point does it cease being a zombie? The addition of the brain? How is that different than RotLD zombies that can think and talk? Does the method of resurrection matter? The fact that multiple bodies were used in its creation?

Not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just genuinely interested. I've never been privy to a discussion on zombie existentialism before.

A zombie, in the traditional sense, is a single corpse, usually soulless.  In older folklore, dating back to the 17th century (yes, zombies did exist in literature as early as the 1600s, predating Shelley), the body would be used as a pawn, controlled by another person. 

The whole point of Frankenstein was creating a man - making a body, giving it life, but more than that -- giving it a soul, making a man in Victor's own image.  Victor intended to make a man, not a monster.  When someone resurrected the dead in the form of a zombie, it was generally to act as a pawn, to make a monster.  Victor wanted to make a human being.  Shelley's novel never really delved into the "how" of bringing the Monster to life.  But it was distinctly portrayed as an experiment to make a man, not a pawn, not a zombie, but a man.  The man, mostly because of his treatment by others, became a monster.  It is a morality tale on multiple levels, and Shelley's creation -- the Monster -- is distinct from any monster that came before -- not only because of the method, but also the intent.  Victor did not create a zombie.  He was not some voodoo priest.  He was a scientist who dared to play God.  His creation was never anything that had lived before.  It was his own, designed down to the fingernails, given a brain and brought to life for the first time ever -- not resurrecting something that had existed before.  Shelley really created a new breed of Monster, and I think we should honor that because it's not easy to do.