zompireIn most things that become horror genres, specific rules tend to crop up. Werewolves can be killed with a silver bullet. Zombies die if you destroy the brain. Sunlight, crosses, holy water, and garlic are the bane of vampires everywhere. If you stay awake, Freddy can’t get you. These rules and how they are utilized, bent, and broken are what makes for the versatility of a genre. But can one genre be more versatile than another?

It can be tough to classify, because if a movie bends or breaks too many of the rules, does it still belong to the seeming genre? For instance, Return of the Living Dead has what most would consider “zombies”, but many of the normal zombie rules don’t apply. These zombies (first and foremost) are runners (the older rule of stiff shambling zombies gets broken most of the time these days, as anyone who has been to the theaters to see a zombie movie in the last 10 years knows). They don’t die by destruction of the brain, severing of limbs, or anything else except complete destruction of tissue by way of a crematorium. So are they zombies? Sure, why not. They still want to eat human flesh (the brains to be specific) and are the dead returned to some form of life. The broadest idea of the genre gets a little broader and more lenient on the rules to be inclusive of similar ideas. I think ROTLD might have even started the whole eating of brains thing.

The vampire rules have been bent numerous times too. I’m sure before “Twilight” came out, Count Dracula was the first thing to come to the average person’s mind when thinking of vampires. The classic, smooth, black cape-wearin’, widow’s peak havin’, menacing hand-extendin’, lady-charmin’, blood-suckin’ Count Dracula. But since the likes of he and Nosferatu, we’ve gone through tons of variations.

The first that comes to mind is a favorite of mine, and probably because it plays out more like a zombie movie than your average vampire movie. It’s From Dusk Till Dawn. While this film doesn’t really break any of the rules (maybe a couple bent), it is far different from “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” or “Interview With the Vampire”. None of the vampires in the movie have the dignified nature of the average Victorian child of the night. With the exception (maybe) of a couple of the strippers (before they get ugly), there is no sense of style or overwhelming influence here. Surely there’s the seduction by the strippers of the bar patrons, but that’s hardly comparable to a “proper” vampire’s powers of persuasion. So it’s more dirty and the dignified nature of the vamps is nowhere to be seen. Otherwise though, everything seems to apply. Crosses, holy water, stakes to the heart, and sunlight all prove useful against the majority of these beasts.

Zombies were always funny to begin with, even as far back as the original Night of the Living Dead. But now we’ve got Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland making good cases for future zomcoms. Vampires have proved their comedic value by way of Buffy, Mel Brooks, Matt Groening, and well, Count Chocula.

I think one thing that zombies have in their favor is the one variable that seems to be a constant through every zombie movie I’ve ever seen. The cause. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a definitive cause of a zombie outbreak in any movie (unless it’s some random chemical leak or something). The characters never seem to get the exact information because there is mass hysteria and confusion. This is one element that could create a lot of elbow room in the genre without stretching too far from the canon. I suppose the cause of vampirism has never been dealt with either (unless I’m mistaken, which I very well may be), but vampires seem to just be accepted immediately as monsters, whereas it’s harder to accept with zombies because they’re often people that the characters know. Also, it’s usually a recent phenomenon.

Vampires have personality though. And as Jules Winnfield said, personality goes a long way. There hasn’t been a zombie yet to match a Count Dracula (or a Jason Voorhees, Wolfman, Mummy, Freddy, or Candyman for that matter). It’s almost always the collective of zombies that matters, not the individual. There has been decent evidence of zombie personality though, mainly in Fido and Day of the Dead. But for the time being, vampires totally own the aspect of personality.

It doesn’t look like vampires or zombies can really surpass one another in versatility. There are rules that the genres are held to, but still so much that could be done with both without having to really break the rules (but even if a couple were broken, no big deal). I definitely prefer zombies, at least at the moment. This is mostly due to the fact that there is no zombie romance series that takes itself way too seriously (that and zombies are way funnier). But even if there was a zombie romance novel, it’s probable it could only work is if it was hilarious (unless someone took the misunderstood monster (King Kong) route).