Zombie/Vampire "I am Legend" poll

[staticchanger]

I need some intelligent people to give me some input on an argument stupid argument I'm having with a friend. I am Legend, The movie, not the book. In the book they are vampires, I know that. Strictly in the re-imagined movie with Will Smith, how would you classify the creatures archetype, Vampires, or Zombies? I know there are characteristics of both, but the overall archetype is what I'm looking for. Thanks so much!

[ThePlague]

Well to be honest, they aren't either. They're like ghouls or mutants, or those things that hump you in Zelda OoT.

[Llama Juice]

It's caused by a virus. Zombies.

[ThePlague]

Have you seen Daybreakers (and other vampire movies, Blade) Llama? Vampire-ism is also caused by a virus. Also. (http://www.fvza.org/science1.html)

[king_nothing_]

I really don't think you can call them either, honestly. They are most definitely not zombies because zombies are, first and foremost, reanimated corpses, which the "Darkseekers" are not. The only characteristic I can think of that they share with vampires is their light sensitivity. They don't drink blood like typical vampires, they eat flesh. They weren't turned into Darkseekers by being bitten, they were turned by an airborne virus. They don't have fangs, they're not from hell, they aren't undead, they don't have weaknesses to garlic, holy water, or crucifixes, wooden stakes were never used or mentioned, etc. Obviously not all movie vampires possess all of these characteristics, but they do possess more than one.

If I was forced to choose one, I would call them vampires, because the fact that they're not undead is a pretty big deal breaker for the zombie idea. Some types of vampires are undead, but some aren't. Like I said though, I don't think it would be accurate to call them either of the two.

[Llama Juice]

They aren't vampires because they don't sparkle.

[ChemicalFizz]

Would rep if I could *smirk*

[Dwood]

I change my bet to them just being a mutant blend. But for all we know these guys could be considered l4d "Witches" on steroids.

[Cortexian]

They aren't really either, they're their own creature archetype. I'd say that they're closer to zombies than vampires however, vampires are generally less of a mindless rabble and more a small group of fairly intellectual individuals.

[king_nothing_]

They aren't really either, they're their own creature archetype. I'd say that they're closer to zombies than vampires however, vampires are generally less of a mindless rabble and more a small group of fairly intellectual individuals.
They weren't exactly mindless. This is obvious when one of them set up a trap and caught Neville. Also, in the alternate ending, when they're attacking Neville, the woman and the kid in the basement lab, the alpha male Darkseeker indicates that he wants the girl back that Neville took, and when he gives her back, the alpha male doesn't hurt him and he doesn't let any of the others hurt him either. Those aren't actions I would expect from zombies.

[Con]

I say vampire because they burn in the light. It's still a tough call though.

[sleepy1212]

Somebody bust out a 'Vampire: The Masquerade" resource book

[thehoodedsmack]

I'd say neither. In the film they're just suffering from a disease.

By classifying them as zombie or vampire, I think we're just furthering the dilution of two once-concrete monster types.

[ICEE]

I'd say neither. In the film they're just suffering from a disease.

By classifying them as zombie or vampire, I think we're just furthering the dilution of two once-concrete monster types.

^this

They're not zombies, and they're not vampires. The primary characteristic of zombies is that they're rabid mindless brutes. The primary characteristic of vampires is that they drink blood, and need that blood to survive.

These guys just don't fall suit to either category.