Comments | veins_of_ink: (без темы)

veins_of_ink

(Untitled)

Jul 07, 2007 22:14

So everyone knows how I feel about zombies, it has been well documented, but I have a question that was brought up by a SciFi movie that Laura and I saw - should mummies be considered zombies; are they basically the same thing ( Read more... )

Comments 16

Hard to say but... sealpup_otter July 8 2007, 03:04:41 UTC

I think they are different.

Zombies have only one purpose; to eat. They have no other functions beyond that. No feelings. No motivation. And they are created by a virus and continue to have a brain that drives them. They know only that they must feed beyond all other things that happen to them.

A Mummy on the other hand does not eat. It does not crave brains or flesh. It does not even have a brain. It is a preserved person that has been brought back to life via a curse or spell. They actually have motivation. They will drive until they have protected that which they protect, or are utterly destroyed. They destroy only those that activate the curse, or get in their way of doing so.

Are they both undead? Definitely. Are they horrible abominations of the living? Oh Yeah! Are they great beings for film? Quad Yes!

So speaketh Jesse.

Re: Hard to say but... veins_of_ink July 9 2007, 19:22:33 UTC

plus when has a zombie ever scared Abbott & Costello? :)

oh! veins_of_ink July 9 2007, 19:25:00 UTC

And - if you go by the new Brendan Frasier Mummy movie, that mummy needed to incorporate the organs and fluids of others to become "whole" again - so he did thirst for flesh, in a way.

Re: oh! jane_stclaire July 9 2007, 20:15:46 UTC

erm, the new Brendan Frasier Mummy movie? The one that came out when we were in high school, over 8 years ago?

prodigalpanda July 8 2007, 13:11:40 UTC

Totally different

vadrice July 9 2007, 02:00:05 UTC

yes. the difference is not a superficial one. on the surface they are quite similar.
i dislike the modern film/video game idea that zombies are made from a virus that causes the dead to rise. that is just lame and/or dumb.
zombies are an expression of will. they are ragged bastards who refuse to be dead or shuffle off their mortal coil, despite all biological nd historical president therein. their will sustains them into the inherently braindamaged automations that the are.

now mummies, on the other hand, they are sustained through religio-magical means. thus they are not hindere by the fact that their brains are dried up rotted husks. they are fully cognizant. however, they are also fully bound to whatever it was they were set to protect with no deviation whatsoever. theyare an expression of ancestral duty.

zombies- to stubborn to lie down (unless you chainsaw off their legs).
mummies- bound to fuck your shit up because you aren't suppose to steal from the dead through devine magic.

jane_stclaire July 9 2007, 14:17:51 UTC

Good point, but leave us not forget the pseudo-religious/faith-based voodoo zombie, which is fast becoming my personal favorite. Considering that possibility, voodoo zombie -enslaved for purposes of revenge or spite- is rather similar to ancestral-bound mummy.

vadrice July 9 2007, 17:34:36 UTC

aah- a very fine point.
the difference between mummies and voodo zombies is more superficial. however, the difference remains in that mummies are defending places and objects sacred to the religio-magic itself (as they themselves in life were not only human royalty but devine beings, and thus their bodies and posessions and resting places are holy relics). it is not anyone's to become (or for that matter make) a mummy. it was done as a devotional thing, like lighting incense or uselessly slaughtering livestock to show you are willing to sacrifice.
voudon revenge zombies, however, are acting on behalf of a person for that person's will. the fact that the zombies were allowed to be raised by the religiomagic could occur for any number of reasons, from whim to approval to fear to bargain on the part of the entities involved in such matters, fine upstanding rum drinking loa that they be.

rosered2318 July 9 2007, 14:08:02 UTC

I thinking that Zombies and Mummies are different Classes in the Phyla of "Undead." So, perhaps, it isn't the definition of Zombie that is misleading, but Undead.

The term Zombie is very definitive. The Zombie is a reanimated life that comes from the grave, has primitive thinking skills, but still retains a semblance to a human body. While this is very similar to a mummy, the mummy does not retain it's human form, rather inside the bandages are the dust of the former corpse.

Different Orders of Zombies have different goals - some to eat brains, others raw flesh, others that can turn humans into Zombies, etc. But people use the term Undead interchangeably with Zombie which is obviously not the case. Undead can also apply to Vampires, Mummies, Frankenstein, any related reanimated corpse-type homosapien.

jane_stclaire July 9 2007, 14:18:29 UTC

"corpse-type homosapien"

HAH!!!!!

love it

rosered2318 July 9 2007, 18:22:07 UTC

*bows*

thank you, thank you

jane_stclaire July 9 2007, 14:20:13 UTC

While I have complex views on this subject, I think the most convincing argument is founded on the fact that, while you can calmly watch a film about mummies, zombie movies scare the fuck out of you.

Therefore, there must be a basic difference . . . or else we must revise your scary movie tolerance standards.

veins_of_ink July 9 2007, 19:28:25 UTC

I have a zombie contingency plan, true. And I have never thought about the mum-pocalypse. This may need thought. . .

jane_stclaire July 9 2007, 20:00:24 UTC

*wraps self in toilet paper and hides behind the closet door*

Yesss, it maaay!