Zombie Mary Jane

[Charles RB]

It should be pointed out Mary Jane isn't a zombie in the series - she's established as having been eaten by a hungry zombie Spider-Man long before.

Though aside from the valid point that it's doing a zombie version of a recent cover for a preteen girl's-oriented series (which seems an odd choice), I don't recall the same furor with the cover for #5 of Marvel Zombies. That one had a zombie version of the Spider-Man Wedding cover, with Spider-Man holding the half-chewed corpse of Mary Jane. Surely that would be worse than her as a zombie (the Marvel Zombies are still sentient and sort-of alive, after all).

[Steven Grant]

Didn't see that one.

You think pre-teen girls don't like zombies? That sounds like gender bias to me...

- Grant

[cfutino]

My only problem with said cover is that the character in it doesn't exist in the story.
Aside that little fact, I think it's a nice cover.

[Charles RB]

You think pre-teen girls don't like zombies?

I think the idea is Marvel Zombies isn't appropriate for pre-teen girls* and so Marvel should be keeping its pre-teen girl titles and its Mature Reader ones seperate.

* Or possibly just not appropriate for their parents to know about.

[Steven Grant]

* Or possibly just not appropriate for their parents to know about.

More likely the latter. I haven't read them but I can't imagine Marvel's doing anything bad enough in their zombie books - aside from the usual cannibalism and gore that are the staples of the genre, I mean, and I doubt there's a kid out old enough to change channels by themselves who doesn't know that dance - to get upset about. There's a point past which Marvel is simply not going to go because corporately they wouldn't want to get the repercussions...

- Grant

[mattx110]

More likely the latter. I haven't read them but I can't imagine Marvel's doing anything bad enough in their zombie books - aside from the usual cannibalism and gore that are the staples of the genre, I mean, and I doubt there's a kid out old enough to change channels by themselves who doesn't know that dance - to get upset about. There's a point past which Marvel is simply not going to go because corporately they wouldn't want to get the repercussions...

- Grant

the ickiest thing so far was the power pack eating nextwave, but that was off panel. they make sure to throw in humor with the more dramatic moments and really make sure you know "this is alternate spider-man, the real one doesn't eat his family". costumed zombies with a bright colorist and comedic writers is hard to be too affected by in a bad way.

in other news, it doesn't seem like the mary jane cover is iconic or well known enough to warrant a zombified cover. i didn't recognize it at first. i'd think they'd start doing marvel zombie versions of famous DC and EC covers before turning to titles from under 5 years ago.

[sehthan]

I missed the cover and controversy until I read the column just now, but having gone and taken a look, I have to say I find it odd.

Her expression, her pose - I see where people are getting "sexy" from. It's decidely un-zombie-like. In the other cover Charles mentions, the characters seem more dead, midless, more like what you'd typically expect from a zombie. In this new cover, MJ is displaying personality, there's an implied interaction there. She seems to still be a person, yet strangely unconcerned with her obvious wounds.

Outside of whatever other controversy it caused, it's an interesting horror image, but I'm not sure it works as a "zombie" image.

[siuntres]

I've been asking the same question for the last few years...haven't we had enough zombie stories already?

Never scary, just a plodding type of monster that doesn't seem to be that interesting (at least to me)

[dancj]

Has anyone got a link to this cover? Google is comic up empty for me

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Has anyone got a link to this cover? Google is comic up empty for me

Here ya go. (ttp://comics212.net/2007/06/12/no-seriously-why-do-you-put-up-with-this-shit/)

I see it as sexed up, but lot's of Zombie art is like that.

This is only being mentioned due to people looking for female art to get offended by.

[badMike]

Has anyone got a link to this cover? Google is comic up empty for meClick for the Beat article, with image, on the issue:

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/06/15/zombies-keep-on-coming/

[dancj]

Thanks.

TBH I can't see that as a particularly sexy image - and so what if it's bad taste. At least people will know from seeing the cover what sort of thing they're going to get inside.

As is often the case this looks like a lot of fuss over nothing.

[Kid Monster]

The old EC and Warren horror comics routinely had images in them that made that look like Disney material.

The whole phoney controversy is just weird.

[bartl]

More likely the latter. I haven't read them but I can't imagine Marvel's doing anything bad enough in their zombie books - aside from the usual cannibalism and gore that are the staples of the genre, I mean, and I doubt there's a kid out old enough to change channels by themselves who doesn't know that dance - to get upset about. There's a point past which Marvel is simply not going to go because corporately they wouldn't want to get the repercussions...
I don't believe that Romero used the term "zombies"; his living dead were modeled more after Richard Matheson's vampires from "I Am Legend".

So, all these flesh-eating zombies are actually misunderstood vampires.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

So, all these flesh-eating zombies are actually misunderstood vampires.

But they can come out in the day, eat people, and need to have their heads caved in to die.
They were zombies.

[bartl]

But they can come out in the day, eat people, and need to have their heads caved in to die.
They were zombies.
Shows how much you know. The way to kill (or, if they're lucky, bring back to life) zombies is to put salt on their tongues.

On the other hand, "zombie" is going to take on a new meaning when burnudanga finds its way to the United States (considering its effectiveness in crime, it's surprising that it is largely limited to Colombia, only beginning to hit Ecuador).

And eating living people, and thereby spreading their condition to those people, is what vampires do. Yes, Romero created a sort of combination creature, but I still maintain they have a lot more in common with the Matheson vampires than with traditional zombies.

[Steven Grant]

Technically it's ghouls who eat human flesh, not vampires. Though ghouls technically eat the flesh of the dead. Vampires don't eat flesh, they drink blood. Werewolves eat flesh. Romero's zombies don't qualify as vampires because, though they're back from the dead, they're mindless and have simply risen from the grave. Romero's zombies don't turn other people into zombies. They just kill them. It's death that turns other people into zombies.

- Grant

[dancj]

Romero's zombies don't turn other people into zombies. They just kill them. It's death that turns other people into zombies.
You might be right but that never occurred to me before.

I'd assumed that if someone died after the zombies had appeared that they'd probably stay dead if they hadn't been bitten by a zombie, and it's the zombie bites that turned people into zombies.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

You might be right but that never occurred to me before.

I'd assumed that if someone died after the zombies had appeared that they'd probably stay dead if they hadn't been bitten by a zombie, and it's the zombie bites that turned people into zombies.

Yeah, I thought that was like the one original idea in Kirkman's The Walking Dead.

[Charles RB]

No, it's stated in the Living Dead films that it's all the recently dead who are coming to life and you have to destroy all bodies, and there's a scene in Land of the Dead of a suicide victim coming back.

[badMike]

Romero's zombies don't turn other people into zombies. They just kill them.In the first film, that's true. Even Barbara's brother, who is killed by a zombie, isn't bitten. He gets his head smashed in on a tombstone -- and then comes back as the living dead to eat his sister.

But in "Dawn of the Dead," Romero changed it so that whoever gets bit by a zombie becomes a zombie, even if it's a non-fatal bite. Roger, the SWAT team guy, gets a small bite on the leg and eventually becomes a zombie days later. Then in the other two films, the bite time to zombie changing ratio changes considerably. It only takes a matter of minutes. "Night of the Living Dead" blamed the dead rising on space radiation, but in future films it was a virus of sorts.

[badMike]

I'd assumed that if someone died after the zombies had appeared that they'd probably stay dead if they hadn't been bitten by a zombie, and it's the zombie bites that turned people into zombies.I think other zombie movies, particularly the "Dawn of the Dead" remake and "28 Days Later," made it so that only people bitten by zombies turn into zombies, while the actual dead stay dead.

In Romero's films, you can become a zombie by either dying conventionally or getting bit by a zombie and catching "the virus."

[Steven Grant]

You might be right but that never occurred to me before.

I'd assumed that if someone died after the zombies had appeared that they'd probably stay dead if they hadn't been bitten by a zombie, and it's the zombie bites that turned people into zombies.

Not according to Romero. I interviewed him for the 20th anniversary re-release of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD for Video magazine, and he was quite clear on the point that anyone who died would come back as a zombie at that point. No biting necessary, just death. It was his twisted take on the "resurrection of the dead" thing in (at least) Catholic creed. I'm pretty sure that in at least one of his DEAD movies, someone gets accidentally gut shot or something like that and reanimates after death without ever having come into direct contact with the zombies.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

But in "Dawn of the Dead," Romero changed it so that whoever gets bit by a zombie becomes a zombie, even if it's a non-fatal bite. Roger, the SWAT team guy, gets a small bite on the leg and eventually becomes a zombie days later. Then in the other two films, the bite time to zombie changing ratio changes considerably. It only takes a matter of minutes. "Night of the Living Dead" blamed the dead rising on space radiation, but in future films it was a virus of sorts.

Sure, the bite is fatal. It kills. But it doesn't turn people into zombies. It doesn't have to. The people just die, and automatically become zombies because they're dead.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

I think other zombie movies, particularly the "Dawn of the Dead" remake and "28 Days Later," made it so that only people bitten by zombies turn into zombies, while the actual dead stay dead.

In Romero's films, you can become a zombie by either dying conventionally or getting bit by a zombie and catching "the virus."

28 DAYS LATER is about the only straight zombie film besides Romero's that I like (also like SHAUN OF THE DEAD) but it's not the bite per say that turns you into a zombie, it's an infection passed by any sort of bodily fluid contact. You may remember one scene where the father of the family on the run that hooks up with the heroes wanders out into a destroyed military outpost and just looks up at a mangled, bleeding, motionless body above him. A single drop of blood falls and hits him in the eye, and that's enough to pass the rage infection along. Getting bit or scratched would do the trick as well, if the skin was broken.

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

28 DAYS LATER is about the only straight zombie film besides Romero's that I like (also like SHAUN OF THE DEAD) but it's not the bite per say that turns you into a zombie, it's an infection passed by any sort of bodily fluid contact. You may remember one scene where the father of the family on the run that hooks up with the heroes wanders out into a destroyed military outpost and just looks up at a mangled, bleeding, motionless body above him. A single drop of blood falls and hits him in the eye, and that's enough to pass the rage infection along. Getting bit or scratched would do the trick as well, if the skin was broken.

- Grant

Which according to the DVD is why they scrapped an alternative ending.
From memory, they had a whole thing where there was to be a blood transfusion either to save a certain character, or to make a cure or some such.
While writing the scene they realised they'd already made it so that only one drop of blood was enough to be infected, and it would mean that the character would have to have all the blood drained out off them, cleaned and put back in, and that was impossible.
The extra where it's featured is quite amusing, as it's the writer and director narrating/acting out the script to storyboards, and then you hit that part and they just stop and go 'And then we realised that it made no sense and we'd written ourselves into a hole' (paraphrasing) and talk about what idiots they were for trying it.
Very self-depreciating and very funny.

[Steven Grant]

While writing the scene they realised they'd already made it so that only one drop of blood was enough to be infected, and it would mean that the character would have to have all the blood drained out off them, cleaned and put back in, and that was impossible.

Whaddaya mean, "impossible"? Keith Richards has had it done dozens of times.

- Grant

[bartl]

It was his twisted take on the "resurrection of the dead" thing in (at least) Catholic creed. I'm pretty sure that in at least one of his DEAD movies, someone gets accidentally gut shot or something like that and reanimates after death without ever having come into direct contact with the zombies.
Well, the traditional (Dracula-style) European vampires are a twisted take on Christianity. You get turned into the vampire by drinking the vampire's blood (a twisted form of holy Communion). The vampire must be buried on sacred ground, and is ressurected in 3 days. Silver would not reflect the vampire. There's something about mustard seeds (I think if you drop mustard seeds in front of a vampire, it can't move until it has counted them all). There's a bunch of other stuff, but there are many legends of once-human creatures who must eat from living humans in order to survive, and turn people into them.

In Matheson's I AM LEGEND, vampirism is a plague (later determined to be bacterial). If you died, you became a vampire. You could also be infected while still alive. I don't want to screw it up for people who have never read the book, so I won't give too many details, but the hero of the book theorized (apparently correctly) that he had suffered from a pre-mutated form of the disease once, which made him immune. He spends much of the book trying to find a way to cure those who suffer from the disease.

Wikipedia gives a few sources that state that Romero WAS influenced by I AM LEGEND; Matheson apparently considered it to be an adaptation.

[badMike]

but it's not the bite per say that turns you into a zombie, it's an infection passed by any sort of bodily fluid contact.You are correct, sir. Sloppy typing on my part. I think that's what makes "28 Days Later" so effective -- that fear that anybody can turn into a zombie at any time even if there are no other zombies around. Did you see the sequel yet? Terrible. They totally removed that element of dread and the movie severely suffers for it.

[Charles RB]

From the column:

Wow. So [Marvel Zombies] is innovative, after all?

Well, having the zombies as the leads and having the plot & reader sympathies be "how do the zombies find more flesh to eat?" certainly was unique. Kirkman says in his intro it was Ralph Maccio's idea and he'd been previously assuming we'd need a sympathetic human lead: "It couldn't all just be zombies... but actually... it could."

[Steven Grant]

Somehow it being Ralph's idea makes perfect sense.

- Grant

[bartl]

Somehow it being Ralph's idea makes perfect sense.
I will not make a political comment out of that.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

In Matheson's I AM LEGEND, vampirism is a plague (later determined to be bacterial). If you died, you became a vampire. You could also be infected while still alive. I don't want to screw it up for people who have never read the book, so I won't give too many details, but the hero of the book theorized (apparently correctly) that he had suffered from a pre-mutated form of the disease once, which made him immune. He spends much of the book trying to find a way to cure those who suffer from the disease.

Wikipedia gives a few sources that state that Romero WAS influenced by I AM LEGEND; Matheson apparently considered it to be an adaptation.

I AM LEGEND is getting turned into a film, starring Will Smith, after previously being adapted as The Omega Man, starring Charlton Heston.

Way to sell out!!!

[mattx110]

I AM LEGEND is getting turned into a film, starring Will Smith, after previously being adapted as The Omega Man, starring Charlton Heston.

Way to sell out!!!

zombie and vampire movies are some of the few "horror" movies that have translated completely well from book to screen, or sometimes from screen to book. i'm sorry clive barker and stephen king, but if you've got a big creepy human-lookingthat eats or drinks people, you've got an awesome visual.

odd twisted nightmares of your family drinking blood while you fight an immaterial devil... sometimes it works.

but zomies have a built-in audience that enjoys the humor/horror of people turning into what is basically a completely expendable character that can be killed in a cartoonish manner without ruining the mood.

[Sean Walsh]

I've been asking the same question for the last few years...haven't we had enough zombie stories already?

Never scary, just a plodding type of monster that doesn't seem to be that interesting (at least to me)

Have you read MARVEL ZOMBIES? This ain't exactly your standard zombie story.......not by a longshot...