Post on 03-Feb-2023
1
How Hollywood Got the Dead to Lay Golden Eggs: The Rise of the Zombie
Blockbuster
On June 17, 2013, in front of a “massive crowd” (Entertainment Weekly 2013) in New
York’s famous Times Square, Paramount Studios “held a splashy red-carpet affair…for the
zombie thriller World War Z” (Carlson 2013). Though there was some fuss over World War Z’s
reported $190 million price tag as well as snickers over the repeated delays in its release, few
seemed to question the suitability of its material, a full-scale zombie invasion, for a summer
blockbuster, or its affiliation with A-List superstar Brad Pitt, or even the appropriateness of its
venue. Despite their rotted clothes, fetid stenches, and lack of social etiquette, Hollywood
welcomed zombies with open, if guarded arms.
[Picture 1 Here]
This tacit acceptance of a ‘blockbuster’ zombie film would have been unfathomable
nearly a decade before when the film-type was characterized as “low on stars, short on cash and
often hurried into the cinematic equivalent of a shotgun wedding” (Russell 2006: 7). Indeed,
since 2001 there have been fourteen zombie films (twenty-four if you use a wider definition) to
receive a mainstream theatrical release from an MPAA-member studio or a mini-major with
significant distributive power (see Table 1). In short, after over seventy years of existing on the
periphery of the Hollywood mainstream, the zombie film has finally arrived. The oozy and
2
decaying corpse devoid of the personality, charisma, charm, and sex appeal found in other silver
screen fright purveyors has become the most unlikely Belle of the Monster’s Ball.
[Table 1 Here]
With the zombie renaissance firmly recognized by scholars (Bishop 2009, Dendle 2012:
1-12) and cultural observers (St. John 2006, Ogg 2011) and basically anyone who is not a
zombie, the central task of this presentation is to bring further resolution to the events and
processes that helped establish the zombie blockbuster as a staple of the modern Hollywood film
industry. Briefly, in contrast to reflection-based analyses which highlight the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001 as the catalyst behind zombie cinema’s newfound stardom, I locate the birth
of the zombie blockbuster in the intersection of broad industry trends such as the growing
confidence placed in videogame adaptations, the expansion of overseas theatrical markets, the
advent of the horror blockbuster, and the surprising profitability of horror film remakes. In other
words, a classic instance of what Rick Altman (1999: 38) has termed the “producer’s game”
1. From box-office information, identify a successful film.
2. Analyse the film in order to discover what made it successful.
3. Make another film stressing the assumed formula for success.
4. Check box-office information on the new film and reassess the success formula
accordingly.
5. Use the revised formula as a basis for another film.
6. Continue the process indefinitely.
While I place analytic focus solely on the production of high-profile zombie films, my
study is of broader utility as it will offer a case in point of how entertainment industries in the
conglomerate era (Balio 2013) come to recognize and manage salable trends, and how trends
grow out other trends in “complex matrices of content intersecting with, and locatable in,
numerous other generic categories in almost never-ending series of Venn diagrammatical
circles…” (Nowell 2011: 27). Before getting to my analysis, however, it is important to clarify
four key terms I will use throughout my discussion – zombie film, blockbuster, zombie
blockbuster film, and staple – as well as elucidate my methodological process.
Zombie Film, Blockbuster, Zombie Blockbuster Film, and Staple
Zombie Film. As Peter Dendle (2001: 13) notes, “[t]he substantial overlap among the
various movie monsters precludes the possibility of an all-encompassing definition of a zombie.”
With that being said, Leger Grindon (2012: 42-43) offers a viable throughway of this impasse
with the concepts, family resemblances and prototype. The family resemblance idea posits “a
series of characteristics that define membership in a category…rather than a rigid set of essential
traits” (43). Family membership is based on the exhibition of some distinguishing traits, not all.
Prototypes set the defining traits of particular categories by “display[ing] a vivid set of properties
central to the category” (43). With George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968) serving
as the prototype for all other zombie films (Paffenroth 2006: 1), the characteristics that define
membership in zombie cinema are, according to Kyle Bishop (2009: 20), 1) the zombies
3
themselves, 2) the post-apocalyptic backdrop, 3) the collapse of societal infrastructures, 4) the
playing out of survivalist fantasies, and 5) the fear of other survivors.
Blockbuster. Blockbusters as defined by Richard Maltby (2003: 580) are “lavish and
spectacular features…expected to perform equally spectacularly at the box-office.” These are
films designed to have broad appeal, both nationally and internationally (Balio 2013).
Zombie Blockbuster Film. I, thus, use the term zombie blockbuster film to refer to those
films that bear a strong resemblance to Night of the Living Dead in terms of narrative structure
and which are produced or released by major production studios with the expectation of solid
box-office sales to mainstream audiences. The films identified with this definition are shown in
Table 1.
Staple. The popularity of the films discussed in this presentation has ensured that the
zombie blockbuster is now a staple of modern horror production. A staple is “a film-type that is
produced with a high degree of consistency and in regular numbers across a long period”
(Nowell 2011: 45). As discussed below, future, planned, zombie blockbuster films include:
Zombieland 2, Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, and World War Z 2 – all scheduled for release
in 2015 or 2016. Or, one to two zombie blockbusters released per year.
Research Methods
Guided by the production-of-culture perspective (Peterson and Anand 2004), I employed
a close analysis of the trade press (e.g. Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, and the
New York Times) as forms of “deep textual practices and rituals” (Caldwell 2009) to reveal the
process by which zombie cinema transformed from a moribund film-type into a cinematic
staple.1
Because much of the information necessary for understanding industry conduct is not a
matter of public record and few researchers are able to access key industry insiders, doing such
research is exceptionally difficult (Lobato 2011: 119, Nowell 2011: 8-9). Trade publications,
though lacking critical perspective, are a useful data source insofar as they provide a welter of
information regarding the changing conditions of film production and are widely available (and
likely read) by the professionals involved in filmmaking. Trade publications, it has been
observed, affect the conduct of filmmakers (Nowell 2011: 8). More importantly, they provide a
trail of records on individual films, their commercial performances, commentary from their
makers and insiders, and general contemporaneous observations concerning industry logic and
strategies of filmmaking. In other words, they provide a record, however imperfect, of the
commercial aspects of production I strive to understand by delivering an industry-wide overview
of the changes that occurred throughout the period of analysis (Lobato 2011: 119-127, Nowell
2011: 7-8).
1 The production-of-culture perspective focuses on how the content of cultural products such as films are heavily
influenced by laws and regulations, technological advances, industry careers, markets, organizational structure (the
decision chain and organization of an individual firm), and industry structure (the number and relative sizes of firms
in the market producing cultural objects).
4
Similar approaches have been used in sociological studies of culture industries (Dowd
2006, Kapsis 2009), economic approaches to media production (Gomery 1996, Havens, Lotz,
and Tinic 2009), and a growing number of film industry scholars (Maltby 2011, Nowell 2014).
Zombies as Symptoms?
Scholars exploring the recent explosion of the walking dead in film have predominantly
drawn upon what Richard Nowell (2013: 75-78) has called the socio-symptomatic principle (see
also Platts 2013). According to Nowell, the socio-symptomatic principle interprets production
trends as outgrowths of broader social, cultural, and political currents, and encompasses two
methods to explain the advent, progression, and denouement of production spikes: the ritual
approach and the zeitgeist approach.
The ritual approach suggests certain film-types offer audiences a way to indirectly
confront widespread and unsettled social issues, but those films rarely resolve the issues they
address thereby providing motive for subsequent filmmakers to fashion similar fare (see Wright
1977). Thus, it has been argued that zombie films of the twenty-first century graphically
dramatize social life under post-9/11 neoliberal social policy. “The number of post-apocalyptic
films in the Bush-Cheney years dramatically proliferated as conditions of life worsened for many
and crisis intensified,” writes Douglas Kellner (2010: 91) who maintains, “[t]he zombies and
monsters represent not only conservative nightmares, but also visions of where the ultra-right
Bush-Cheney regime has been taking us.” The zeitgeist approach, by contrast, posits that
production trends result from the political and social preoccupations of filmmakers who, in turn,
use their films as exploratory vehicles for their own concerns (see Ryan and Kellner 1988). Thus,
Tony Williams (2011: vii) observes George A. Romero uses zombies to reflect upon “the
American cultural and political landscape [to] make critical comments on a country that has
deteriorated more rapidly than could have been imagined when he began his career.”
Whether taking the ritual approach or zeitgeist approach (or both) analysts almost
unanimously point to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 as the catalyst behind zombie
cinema’s renewed popularity. “It is not without some justice, then, that the resurgence of zombie
movie popularity in the early 2000s has been linked with the events of September 11, 2001,”
observes Peter Dendle (2007: 54) before stating, “[t]he possibility of wide-scale destruction and
devastation which 9-11 brought once again into the communal consciousness found a ready
narrative expression in zombie apocalypses” (see also Bishop 2009, Muntean and Payne 2009,
Platts 2013). Put differently, modern life, Kyle Bishop (2009: 17-18) argues, has caught with the
nihilistic narratives of zombie films.
On the surface, socio-symptomatic arguments seem appealing. Upon closer inspection,
however, they inadequately explain a number of facets important to zombies’ newfound
celebrity. First, as Peter Dendle (2012: 7-8) points out, 28 Days Later (2002) and Resident Evil
(2002) had been in development since the late-1990s. Second, market-based analyses put
zombies’ newfangled glory into question. Specifically, zombie films, on average, draw no more
box office revenue than other varieties of horror such as killer/mutant hillbilly movies,
supernatural horror films, slasher flick, or torture porn spectacles, while earning significantly less
than vampire films headlined, period horror, and Asian horror remakes (Davis and Natale 2010:
5
47-49, Terry et al. 2011). This is not to say that zombies are unpopular, but that our reinvigorated
fascination with them must be considered against other horror properties. Kyle Bishop’s (2009:
23) own socio-symptomatic account admits that the events of 9/11 and other social catastrophes,
“may not directly affect the production of zombie movies, but they certainly affect an audience’s
reception of those films.” Thus, were prior studies have focused on zombie cinema’s resonance
with the post-9/11 zeitgeist, I endeavor to spotlight the industrial underpinnings of the film-
type’s entry into the blockbuster genre.
The Zombie Blockbuster
Context
Although zombie blockbusters are highly visible examples of the modern zombie film,
they are a statistical minority within the film-type (see Dendle 2012). They constitute a mere
1.5% (14 of 886) of all zombie films released in the period between 2002 and 2013 (see chart 1).
These modest numbers may cast doubt on the assumed centrality of zombies in modern horror,
but considering before 2001 “there hadn’t been a studio funded zombie movie in more than a
decade” (Dendle 2012: 1), the arrival of the zombie blockbuster cannot be discounted as an
insignificant event in film or horror history.
[Chart 1 Here]
Rising from their Graves
Prior to 2001, zombies were seen as a moribund monster. By 2006, however, nearly
everyone recognized zombies had risen from the celluloid graves (Bishop 2009). Other than
September 11, 2001, what happened?
As late as April 2002, Variety reporter Dennis Harvey (2002: 35) pronounced zombie
movies dead to the North American and European film industries. Fourteen months later, another
Variety reporter, Jonathan Bing, observed that Hollywood “is suddenly crawling zombie movies,
and there’s no relief in sight.” Hot off of Resident Evil’s (2002) surprising success, Bing reported
that 28 Days Later (2003) was soon to debut stateside, that a Dawn of the Dead (2004) remake
and Shaun of the Dead (2004) had just begun filming, and that Resident Evil 2 [sic] and House of
the Dead (2003) were in development. Other industry watchers would soon join Bing in
recognizing the sudden presence of zombie films (see Beale 2004, Bearman 2006, St. John
2006).
The zombie renaissance, however, had been in the works before June 2003 and even
before September 11, 2001. The focus on 9/11 and related social trauma as the primary driver
behind the films mentioned above has obscured the differing business logics behind their
productions. Topicality does not necessitate the initiation and sustenance of production queues
for particular films. In fact, the apparent topicality of a film-type muddles the industry conditions
which precipitate its appearance (Nowell 2013: 79). As Peter Dendle (2012: 8) notes, “if a
number of zombie movies started to appear in 2002 and 2003, that means that many of them had
been in the works for quite a while.” Thus, to gain a clearer picture of what led to the advent of
6
zombie blockbuster, it is vital to sketch the broader dimensions of the film business in the late-
twentieth and early-twenty-first-century and to identify how zombie blockbusters intersected
with specific, contemporaneous production trends.
At the beginning of the twenty-first-century Hollywood was (and still is) dominated by
six studios who comprise the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) – Warner Bros.,
Walt Disney, Universal, Columbia, 20th
Century-Fox, and Paramount – and their independent
subsidiaries. Collectively, the major studios generate no less than 80% of domestic box-office
revenue per year, considerably more when factoring in their specialty arms (Balio 2013: 66). In
contrast to previous eras, major studios are now small parts of larger multinational
conglomerates with each studio accounting for a fraction of their parent company’s total profits
(Balio 2013, Schatz 2009). In addition to the emphasis on blockbuster films, major production
companies funnel more and more money into films that are or have the ability to become
multiplatform franchises. In this environment, mid- and low-budget productions, like horror
films, have primarily been the responsibility of the studios’ specialty arms because the genre has
proven profitable on small investments (Heffernan 2004).
Beginning in the early-1990s, however, Hollywood began experimenting with the
prospects of blockbuster horror films after the critical and commercial success of The Silence of
the Lambs (1991, Abbott 2010). Among other strategies for big-budget horror, the industry found
a successful formula in genre spanning, action-adventure oriented, teen friendly horror films with
Blade (1998) and The Mummy (1999, ibid.: 34-37). Additional developments of significance for
zombie blockbuster films include: increasing studio confidence in videogame franchises on
account of improved complexity in storylines, ballooning industry sales, and moneymaking
adaptations as seen in Street Fighter (1994) and Mortal Kombat (1995, Picard 2007), the
growing significance of East Asian markets (Heffernan 2014: 67-71, Picard 2007), and the
reliance on recycled ideas such as spread of horror remakes (Heffernan 2014).
Adapting Resident Evil, one of top-selling videogames in the mid-1990s, was made-to-
order for these conditions. And, not surprisingly, Resident Evil was among the first video game
franchises to have its film rights “snatched up” by Hollywood in the late-1990s (Huffstutter
1999). The franchise’s unfolding storylines rife with intriguing characters set against the
backdrop of the nefarious doings of the Umbrella Corporation ideally leant itself to the type of
action-filled multiplatforming blockbuster desired by major studios. Indeed, in addition to its
high-profile videogame and film series, the Resident Evil franchise now includes, “graphic
novels, sound dramas, novels, various merchandise, and action figures” (Farghaly 2014: 1).
Given that zombies reached new heights of popularity in Japan at this time (Russell 2006:
171-174), bringing Resident Evil to the silver screen also seemed a logical extension of
Hollywood’s burgeoning interest in East Asian Markets (Heffernan 2014: 67-71) provided the
film could appeal to Japanese audiences and the traditionally youthful North American horror
and videogame market. It was, therefore, to the chagrin of zombie and horror purists that the
brass at Constantin Film – the production company behind Resident Evil – intended for their
adaptation to be a mainstream film (see Russell 2006: 175-176). After five years of rewriting and
personnel shuffling, the final product was a “fairly unthreatening” (Russell 2006: 176) “action-
packed, science-fiction movie that was admittedly more video game than narrative” (Bishop
7
2010: 17) that would go on to be a top-grossing film in Japan, nearly doubling its next closest
box office competitor in its first full week of release (Variety 2002: 14) and a modest hit in the
United States (DiOrio 2002: 1). Importantly, Resident Evil was profitable enough to receive
sequel treatment, but the zombie blockbuster had yet to arrive.
Not Quite 28 Days Later, Okay 469 Days Later
Resident Evil’s profitability may have ensured the production of at least one sequel, but a
single hit does not guarantee a cycle of similar films (see Nowell 2013). Instead, as Richard
Nowell (2011) demonstrates, the appearance of a confirmatory hit does more to trigger a cycle.
In this regard, 28 Days Later’s strong sales in the United Kingdom and its high performance on a
limited theatrical release in the United States provided the tipping point for other zombie films to
receive a green-light or to be expedited through the developmental pipeline for the film
substantiated the presence of a sizable audience for zombie material. Absent a confirmatory hit
like 28 Days Later, it would have been easy to chalk up Resident Evil’s success to factors other
than zombies: its fast-paced action, star Milla Jovovich, its link to video games, or even luck. 28
Days Later made it harder to justify these conclusions, it allowed zombies to move to the third
step of the producer’s game.
The role of 28 Days Later in the zombie renaissance, however, is rather ironic. Director
Danny Boyle tried to disassociate his film from the walking dead (see McGill 2002). Despite
Boyle’s protest to the contrary, “the look and feel of [28 Days Later’s] creatures became
emblematic for the zombie of the 2000s” (Dendle 2012: 201). And despite debate over whether
or not 28 Days Later is actually a zombie film, it and Resident Evil helped justify the release of
five studio-backed zombie films between 2003 and 2005. Those pictures include: House of the
Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004), and Land of the
Dead (2005).
Zombies Invade Hollywood
With the exception of House of the Dead, each of the five follow-ups had been in
development before the American release of 28 Days Later. It is important to note, however, that
just because a film is in production that does not mean it will be completed. According to Janet
Wasko (2008: 53), only 15 per cent of completed scripts become completed films as many enter
“development hell” and never return. As we will see, this happened to many zombie films in the
years between 2005 and 2009.
Brief overviews of each of the five film’s production histories will show the influence
exercised by Resident Evil and 28 Days Later in their release or at the very least their quicker
release. House of the Dead was one of group of videogames whose film rights were purchased
by infamous director Uwe Boll in a crass attempt to cash-in on the aforementioned videogame
adaptation trend. Boll managed to ink a distribution deal with Artisan Entertainment, a
moderately influential independent studio at the time. Despite House of the Dead’s tepid box-
office in late-2003, the film performed phenomenally well in the burgeoning DVD market
(Picard 2007: 395) signaling to others a potentially lucrative ancillary market for the film-type.
8
Dawn of the Dead had been in the works since the summer of 2001 as part of a high-
profile trend in horror remakes (Fleming 2001). Production, however, only went into high gear in
early-March 2003 (Fleming 2003) after news of Resident Evil and 28 Days Later’s triumphs
were widely known (Bing 2003). Universal Studios, Dawn of the Dead’s distributor, seemingly
attempted to capitalize on the unexpected interest in the film’s material as the twelve months
behind the film’s pre-production, production, post-production, marketing and advertising, and
release represent a remarkably quick completion time (Wasko 2008).
Shaun of the Dead would have likely got lost in the shuffle when original backer,
FilmFour, went bankrupt in 2002. The rom-zom-com was brought back to life by WT2
Productions in March 2003 (Variety 2003) after audiences exhibited fascination zombies.
Resident Evil: Apocalypse, of course, was warranted on account of Resident Evil’s
success. Its production began in June 2003, and went on to outperform its predecessor.
The true sign that zombies had arrived, however, occurred when the monster’s godfather,
George A. Romero, signed a deal to direct his first zombie film in nearly twenty years. Romero
repeatedly tried to make a zombie film for the nineties, but could never acquire the necessary
financial backing (see Williams 2011). After the zombie brouhaha initiated by Resident Evil,
Romero easily found a backer for Land of the Dead (Beale 2004), after it was clear zombie could
drive audiences to theaters.
Managing the Walking Dead
While a new Romero zombie film may have finally signaled the arrival not the return of
the living dead, the director’s reentry into the film-type also signaled Hollywood’s cautious
embrace of zombies. Whether taking a wait-and-see attitude, fearing market saturation,
something altogether different, or, more likely, a combination of the three, major studios backed
away from the film-type. Zombie inflected popular culture may have been reaching
unprecedented heights of popularity (see Platts 2013a: 548-549), but the monster’s box-office
drawing power was mediocre at best.
Put differently, the 2003 to 2005 cycle of zombie films demonstrated there was an
audience for the film-type, but not a large enough to justify multiple releases every year. Thus,
where the period between 2003 and 2005 saw the release of six zombie films, only two were
released in period between 2006 and 2008: 28 Weeks Later and Resident Evil: Extinction (both
2007) – sequels to the films that kicked off the cycle. The dearth of studio zombie films did not
reflect a dearth of zombie projects circulating in the industry. Many would-be zombie films
received green-lights at the time, but never entered production. To cite a few examples, Zach
Snyder, the director behind the Dawn of the Dead remake, began negotiations with Warner Bros.
in March 2007 for a “zombie action-thriller” to be entitled ‘Army of the Dead’ (McClintock
2007). In the summer of 2008, noted producer Thom Beers put his creative powers behind
‘Chopper Zombie’ which was intended to be released as a graphic novel and a film (Graser
2008) – only the graphic novel was ever finished. In the following year, several producers from
20th
-Century Fox got together in attempt to adapt the popular comic book Deadworld into a film
franchise of the same name (Fleming 2009).
9
Getting the Dead to Lay Golden Eggs
Though studios may be more cautious with zombies as of late, they have also placed
great confidence in the monster. Since 2009, major studios have distributed a slow trickle of
zombie films including: Zombieland (2009), Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010), Resident Evil:
Retribution (2012), Warm Bodies (2013), and World War Z; or an average of one or two releases
a year. Importantly, this group has been among the most expensive, but also most profitable
zombie films ever released. This average of one to two zombie films per year, it appears, will
continue into the foreseeable future with Zombieland 2 scheduled for a 2015 release and Resident
Evil: The Final Chapter for 2016 and World War Z 2 also aiming for a 2016 release. The
appearance and success of the top-tier zombie films discussed in this section has ensured that
that the film-type is now firmly established as part of Hollywood’s major studio’s repertoire of
horror films. The zombie blockbuster is now a staple of the industry. In short, Hollywood has
finally figured out how to make the dead lay golden eggs.
Conclusion
After nearly seventy-years of being ignored, zombies have finally found a home in
Tinseltown. Once seen as moribund and niche, the zombie is alive, well, and mainstream. While
it seems reasonable to situate the zombie blockbuster as a byproduct of the terrorist attacks
September 11, 2001 and modern fears of pandemic outbreaks (Quammen 2013), it is quite
another to suggest a unilateral relationship between production trends and the varying industry
logics undergirding them (Nowell 2012). In case of the zombie blockbuster, specific industry
trends helped justify their green-lighting, production, and release. Resident Evil simultaneously
banked on the video-game adaptation craze, the advent of the action-packed horror blockbuster,
and the escalating significance of theatrical markets outside the United States. Confidence in
zombie material would only be cemented by 28 Days Later, a surprise hit, the ancillary sales of
House of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, and Dawn of the Dead, a middle entry in the horror
remake boom (Roche 2014). Once recognizing the salability of zombies, Hollywood production
companies treated zombies as they should be treated – with caution. Many zombie films were
green-lit, but few reached production and even fewer were released. Major releases are limited as
overproduction in the past has spelled the end to many hit trends from slashers (Nowell 2011) to
musicals (Balio 1990) to westerns (Stanfield 2001) by spreading profits across too many films.
With zombies, Hollywood, it appears, has learned its lessons from past failures in playing the
producer’s game, to step 6 we can add “cautiously” continue the process indefinitely.
Works Cited
Abbott, Stacey. 2010. “High Concept Thrills and Chills: The Horror Blockbuster.” Pp. 27-44 in
Horror Zone: The Cultural Experience of Contemporary Horror Cinema, edited by Ian Conrich.
New York: I.B. Tauris.
Altman, Rick. 1999. Film/Genre. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
10
Balio, Tino. 1990. “Introduction to Part II.” Pp. 259-296 in Hollywood in the Age of Television,
edited by Tino Balio. Cambridge, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Balio, Tino. 2013. Hollywood in the New Millennium. London: British Film Institute.
Beale, Lewis. 2004. “The Zombies Brought Him: George Romero is Back.” New York Times.
November 3, pp. E1.
Bearman, Joshuah. 2006. “The Zombie Zeitgeist.” LA Weekly. October 30.
http://www.laweekly.com/2006-11-02/film-tv/the-zombie-zeitgeist/full/
Bing, Jonathan. 2003. “Hip to be Ghoul.” Variety. June 23-29, pp. 5.
Bishop, Kyle. 2009. “Dead Man Still Walking: Explaining the Zombie Renaissance.” Journal of
Popular Film and Television 37(1): 16-25.
Bishop, Kyle William. 2010. American Zombie Gothic: The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of the
Walking Dead in Popular Culture. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Caldwell, John Thornton. 2009. “Cultures of Production: Studying Industry’s Deep Texts,
Reflexive Rituals, and Managed Self-Disclosures,” Pp. 199-212 in Media Industries: History,
Theory and Method, edited by Jennifer Holt and Alisa Perren. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell,
pp. 199-212.
Carlson, Erin. 2013. “‘World War Z’: Brad Pitt Attends New York Premiere Without Angelina
Jolie.” Hollywood Reporter. June 18. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/world-war-z-
brad-pitt-570505.
Davis, Blair and Kial Natale. 2010. “‘The Pound of Flesh which I Demand’: American Horror
Cinema, Gore, and the Box Office, 1998-2007.” Pp. 35-57 in American Horror Film: The Genre
at the Turn of the Millennium, edited by Steffen Hantke. Jackson, MS: University Press of
Mississippi.
Dendle, Peter. 2001. The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Dendle, Peter. 2007. “The Zombie as Barometer of Cultural Anxiety.” Pp. 45-57 in Monsters
and the Monstrous: Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil, edited by Niall Scott. New York:
Rodopi.
Dendle, Peter. 2012. The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia, Volume 2: 2000-2010. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland.
DiOrio, Carl. 2002. “Wholly Bully at B.O.” Daily Variety. March 18, pp. 1, 17.
Dowd, Timothy. 2006. “From 78s to MP3s: The Embedded Impact of Technology in the Market
for Recorded Music.” Pp. 205-226 in The Business of Culture: Strategic Perspectives on
11
Entertainment and Media, edited by Joseph Lampel, Jamal Shamsie, and Theresa K. Lant.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Entertainment Weekly. 2013. “‘World War Z’ Premiere Draws Massive Crowd in New York.”
June 18. http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/06/18/world-war-z-brad-pitt-new-york-premiere/.
Farghaly, Nadine. 2014. “Introduction: Unraveling the Resident Evil Universe.” Pp. 1-5 in
Unraveling Resident Evil: Essays on the Complex Universe of the Games and Films, edited by
Nadine Farghaly. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Fleming, Michael. 2001. “A New ‘Dawn’ on Beacon’s Horizon.” Daily Variety. August 6, pp.
10.
Fleming, Michael. 2003. “Strike Revisits ‘Dawn’ Patrol.” Daily Variety. March 6, pp. 1, 71.
Fleming, Michael. 2009. “Zombies Attack.” Daily Variety. June 11, pp. 1, 38.
Gomery, Douglas. 1996. “Toward a New Media Economics.” Pp. 407-418 in Post-Theory:
Reconstructing Film Studies, edited by David Bordwell and Noel Carroll. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Graser, Marc. 2008. “Beers Rides Zombie Bikers Pic.” Daily Variety. July 16, pp. 1, 9.
Grindon, Leger. 2012. “Cycles and Clusters: The Shape of Film Genre History.” Pp. 42-59 in
Film Genre Reader IV, edited by Barry Keith Grant. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Harvey, Dennis. 2002. “Bio-Cops.” Variety. April 1-7, pp. 35.
Havens, Timothy, Amanda D. Lotz, and Serra Tinic. 2009. “Critical Media Industry Studies: A
Research Approach.” Communication, Culture & Critique 2(2): 234-253.
Heffernan, Kevin. 2004. Ghouls, Gimmicks, and Gold: Horror Films and the American Movie
Business, 1953-1968. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Heffernan, Kevin. 2014. “Risen from the Vaults: Recent Horror Films Remakes and the
American Film Industry.” Pp. 61-73 in Merchants of Menace: The Business of Horror Cinema,
edited Richard Nowell. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Huffstutter, P.J. 1999. “Now Video Games Are as Big as the Movies.” Los Angeles Times. May
10, pp. 1.
Kapsis, Robert E. 2009. “Hollywood Genres and the Production of Culture Perspective.” Pp. 3-
16 in The Contemporary Hollywood Reader, edited by Toby Miller. New York: Routledge.
Kellner, Douglas. 2010. Cinema Wars: Hollywood Film and Politics in the Bush-Cheney Era.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
12
Maltby, Richard. 2003. Hollywood Cinema 2d ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Maltby, Richard. 2011. “New Cinema Histories.” Pp. 3-40 in Explorations in New Cinema
History: Approaches and Case Studies, edited by Richard Maltby, Daniel Biltereyst and Philippe
Meers. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
McClintock, Pamela. 2007. “WB Fleshing Out Zombies.” Daily Variety. March 26, pp. 1, 8.
McGill, Craig. 2002. “‘My Robotic Flesh-Eaters are not Zombies, Zombies are so 70s”;
Exclusive ‘Trainspotting’ Film-maker Danny Boyle’s New Baddies are Dead Well Dressed.”
The Mirror. October 30, pp. 26-27.
Muntean, Nick and Matthew Thomas Payne. 2009. “Attack of the Livid Dead: Recalibrating
Terror in the Post-September 11 Zombie Film.” Pp. 239-258 in The War on Terror and
American Popular Culture: September 11 and Beyond, edited by Andrew Schopp and Matthew
B. Hill. Madison, WI: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Nowell, Richard. 2011. Blood Money: A History of the First Teen Slasher Cycle, New York:
Continuum.
Nowell, Richard. 2012. “Getting Down to Genre Business.” Iluminace 24(3): 5-12.
Nowell, Richard. 2013. “Hollywood Don’t Skate: US Production Trends, Industry Analysis, and
the Roller Disco Movie.” New Review of Film and Television Studies 11(1): 73-91.
Nowell, Richard. 2014. “Introduction: There’s Gold in Them There Chills.” Pp. 1-10 in
Merchants of Menace: The Business of Horror Cinema, edited by Richard Nowell. New York:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Ogg, Jon. 2011. “Zombies Worth $5 Billion to Economy.” October 25, 24/7 Wall Street.
http://247wallst.com/2011/10/25/zombies-worth-over-5-billion-to-economy/
Paffenroth, Kim. 2006. Gospel of the Living Dead: George Romero’s Vision of Hell on Earth.
Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
Peterson, Richard and Anand N. 2004. “The Production of Culture Perspective.” Annual Review
of Sociology, 30: 311-334.
Picard, Martin. 2007. “Video Games and Their Relationship with Other Media.” Pp. 293-300 in
The Video Game Explosion: A History from PONG to PlayStation and Beyond, edited by Mark
J.P.Wolf. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Platts, Todd K. 2013. “Locating Zombies in the Sociology of Popular Culture.” Sociology
Compass 7(7): 747-760.
13
Quammen, David. 2013. Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic. New
York: W.W. Norton.
Roche, David. 2014. Making and Remaking Horror in the 1970s and 2000s: Why Don't They Do
It Like They Used To? Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.
Russell, Jamie. 2006. Book of the Dead: The Complete History of Zombie Cinema. Surrey: FAB
Press.
Ryan, Michael and Douglas Kellner. 1988. Camera Politica: The Politics and Ideology of
Contemporary Hollywood Film. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Schatz, Thomas. 2009. “New Hollywood, New Millennium.” Pp. 19-46 in Film Theory and
Contemporary Hollywood Movies, edited by Warren Buckland. New York: Routledge.
St. John, Warren. 2006. “Market for Zombies? It’s Undead (Aaahhh!).” New York Times. March
26, pp. H1.
Stanfield, Peter. 2001. Hollywood, Westerns and the 1930s: The Lost Trail. Exeter: University of
Exeter Press.
Terry, Neil, Robert King, and Robin Patterson. 2011. “Vampires, Slashers, or Zombies: Opening
Weekend’s Favorite Box Office Monster.” Journal of Business and Economics Research 9(2):
95-106.
Variety. 2002. “International Box Office.” September 16-22, pp. 14.
Variety. 2003. “‘Shaun’ Comes Back to Life at WT2.” March 24-30, pp. 18.
Wasko, Janet. 2008. “Financing and Production: Creating the Hollywood Film Commodity.” Pp.
43-62 in The Contemporary Hollywood Film Industry, edited Paul McDonald and Janet Wasko.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Williams, Tony, ed. 2011. George A. Romero Interviews. Jackson, MS: University Press of
Mississippi.
Wright, Will. 1977. Sixguns and Society: A Structural Study of the Western. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
14
Appendix
Picture 1: The New York Premiere of World War Z
Chart 1: Zombie Blockbuster Films Compared to All Other Zombie Films, 2002-2013
14
872
Zombie Blockbusters
All Other Zombie Films
15
Table 1: Top Box-Office Drawing Zombie Films, 2002-20132
2 Films shaded gray can be tangentially understood as zombie films. Non-shaded films are more traditionally defined
and popularly understood zombie films and are the films assessed in this section.
Year Title Release Date Domestic Box Office Estimated
Box Office Rank Budget
2002 Resident Evil March 15 $40.1 64th
$33
2003 28 Days Later June 27 $45.0 66th
$8
House of the Dead October 10 $10.2 133rd
$12
2004 Dawn of the Dead March 19 $59.0 51st $26
Resident Evil: Apocalypse September 10 $51.2 64th
$45
Shaun of the Dead September 24 $13.5 129th
$6
2005 Corpse Bride September 16 $53.4 51st $40
Doom October 21 $28.2 96th
$60
Land of the Dead June 24 $20.7 112th
$15
2006
2007 I Am Legend December 14 $256.4 6th
$150
Resident Evil: Extinction September 21 $50.6 51st $45
28 Weeks Later May 11 $28.6 87th
$15
Planet Terror April 6 $25.0 96th
$67
The Invasion August 17 $15.1 126th
$80
2008
2009 Zombieland October 2 $75.6 42nd
$23.6
2010 Resident Evil: Afterlife September 10 $60.1 55th
$60
Legion January 22 $40.2 78th
$26
The Crazies February 26 $39.1 80th
$20
2011
2012 ParaNorman August 17 $56 58th
$60
Resident Evil: Retribution September 14 $42.3 79th
$65
2013 World War Z June 21 $202 13th
$190
Warm Bodies February 1 $66.4 53rd
$35
Evil Dead April 4 $54.2 65th
$17
R.I.P.D. July 19 $33.6 85th
$130