









































99

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION TO MODERN ZOMBIE COMEDIES 
  Zombie comedies are a subgenre of a subgenre of apocalyptic movies. They fit into 
the zombie apocalypse category for the most part, and yet they also feature a wildly 
different tone and subject than serious zombie movies. For example, compare Shaun of the 
Dead (2004) and World War Z (2013). Shaun of the Dead focuses on average people in modern 
British life and how they deal with a newly introduced apocalypse. World War Z is far more 

concerned with apocalypse on a global level, with settings all over the world.

 The zombie genre most notably was introduced to popular culture by George Romero 

in 1968 with his movie Night of the Living Dead, but the genre has since transformed and 

had many additions. At the beginning of the genre’s prominence, according to David  

Christopher in his article “Zombieland and the Inversion of the Subaltern Zombie,” it was 

easily dismissed as a low form of entertainment, and through that dismissal the genre could 

“avoid the scrutiny of the cultural censor” (114). As such, this genre flourished in its ability 

to critique popular culture, consumerism, and patriarchy without being heavy-handed; these 

early non-blockbuster zombie movies made an art of metaphor and of tackling difficult 

subjects in an apocalyptic setting.

 However, as time went on, a new subgenre of the zombie movie was born. Referred to 

by Kyle William Bishop as a “zomedy,” the zombie comedy is most easily associated with the

hit movies Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Zombieland (2009) (24). Even though these movies 

create a site from which to criticize the zombie genre, they have come down under a fire of

condemnation for refusing to deal with the issues that original zombie movies examined. 

This subgenre makes fun of established zombie tropes but, as a whole, refuses to 

The Evolution of Modern Zombie 
Comedies

Zombie comedies are a subgenre of a subgenre in the horror film industry, and their prevalence 

in recent film and television history is unprecedented. This essay explores the beginnings of 

zombie comedy movies, their evolution throughout the past decade, and the implications of 

this genre’s new relevance and its politics. Included is an examination of a more recent Netflix 

Original television show, Santa Clarita Diet.

by Katie Garrett, Ball State University



100

contemplate the original critique of modern society that movies like Night of the Living Dead 

presented. In this vein of thought, the zomedy uses humor and comedy not to inspire 

genuine thought or add to the zombie genre but to succeed commercially with a wider 

audience.

 This zomedy subgenre has flourished and continues to grow today, with new works 

appearing even as recently as 2017 with the Netflix original show Santa Clarita Diet. This 

more recent addition represents a possibly optimistic outlook for the potential of zombie 

comedies in the future, as it shows that zombie comedies, despite the original criticism they 

sustained, can be a powerful vessel for making political statements. They are allowed to 

stand on the base of Romero’s previous work with Night of the Living Dead and expand the 

conversation in meaningful ways.

 In this paper, I will provide an overview of opinions on several zombie comedies and 

on the way these zomedies deal with the original subject matter of zombie movies. While I 

acknowledge that the zombie comedy subgenre often departs from a place that allows for a 

critique of society to one of mindless comedy and insensitive violence, especially in 

blockbuster movies like Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland, I will use the example of Santa 

Clarita Diet to examine the ways that zombie comedy can be used for both comedy and as a 

serious form of satire.

DIFFERENT VIEWS ON ZOMBIE COMEDIES

 Opinions on the value of zombie comedies vary wildly. Kyle Bishop argues in his 

paper, “Vacationing in Zombieland: The Classical Functions of the Modern Zombie,” that 

movies like Zombieland “cleverly [challenge] audience expectations and [offer] viewers a 

glimpse of how the zomedy subgenre can function as a positive social force within both the 

comedy and horror traditions” (25). Bishop is convinced that the zombie comedy genre is 

one that is welcome and inviting to modern audiences and that, in addition, its effect is one 

of positivity and hopefulness. Rodger Payne says in his article, “Laughing off a Zombie 

Apocalypse: The Value of Comedic and Satirical Narratives,” that “because these popular 

works infuse comedy into the horror genre, they work effectively as subversive satire, 

reflecting a critical rather than an entrenched understanding of fear and threats” (222). He 

claims that the zombie comedy is successful because of its criticism of the zombie genre in 

general, rather than just as a comedy or a zombie movie.

 Recently, zombie movies give a different treatment of zombies than older movies. 

One of the reasons zombie films are so acutely horrific is the fact that the sickness is not

GARRETT



101

GARRETT

something that can be seen, at first. It silently occupies the body of our friends, neighbors, 

and family members and replaces them. In Night of the Living Dead, the horror that zombies 

inspire is that killing them is painful to the main characters because they still appear as 

human bodies. For the sake of future humanity, these dead bodies must be stopped. 

However, in a zombie comedy these figures become little more than “a narrative punching 

bag” (Kelly 86). For example, Zombieland takes particular enjoyment in the dispatching of 

zombies. It even features a “Zombie Kill of the Week.” In zombie comedies, the zombies 

aren’t “people” to the main characters; they are just something to be avoided and 

slaughtered en-masse when possible. Kelly writes that “not only is the zombie increasingly 

rendered as funny (a mindless fall guy for violence gags), it is positioned within narratives as 

a creature that is fun to kill” (85-86). Zombies aren’t a sight of fear for the protagonist 

characters of zombie comedies; rather, they fall more under the category of “object that 

must be destroyed.” There doesn’t seem to be much rumination beyond it. As Kelly puts it, 

“the zombie has transformed from a device for cultural contemplation to a figure which has 

become a focal point for bloody fun, a newly justified target of aggression” (84).

 This trend is particularly ominous when considering what zombies really are. It 

isn’t hard to tell what inspired the sight of bodies rising from the dead. They are victims of 

a plague—regular humans who caught a sickness. Even within the context of the zombie 

comedies, zombies aren’t a coherent villain, as they have no consciousness; they are merely 

dead human bodies. It feels like “zombies in these films seem relatively easy to slay and do 

not consistently pose an existential threat” (Payne 220). At what point in watching 

Zombieland is the audience ever concerned for the lives of the main characters? They always 

have an arsenal of weapons and take enjoyment in a kind of zombie hunting.

 Characters in Shaun of the Dead exhibit the same joy in killing zombies. For example, 

Shaun has a daydream where his stepfather Phillip gets infected and becomes a zombie. 

Shaun happily kills him outright, annoyed about the part Phillip has been playing in his life. 

This was just in a daydream, but in the reality of Shaun of the Dead, Shaun and his friend Ed 

make a kind of game out of killing zombies in their backyard, throwing records to attempt 

to hurt them. In this zombie comedy, “to kill a zombified body is not to kill a ‘person’ or 

‘hurt anyone’. Instead, it is simply enjoying an activity at an amusement park” (Payne 99).

What does it mean that movies that depict human bodies being decimated in ridiculous

and violent ways have become so popular? Zombieland is one of the most popular zombie

comedies to date, and it is one of the movies guiltiest of using gratuitous violence against

zombies. It also includes some intense coded politics about race, gender, and class, which I



102

GARRETT

will now discuss.

 The only message Zombieland gives about race is evident in the complete absence 

of people of color in the movie. Christopher writes that not one person of color appears in 

this movie as either human or zombie (119). The exclusion of every race but white has to be 

intentional and plays into Christopher’s theory that “Zombieland normalizes a number of 

patriarchal social constructs including capitalist consumerism, the heteronormative 

bourgeoisie, and whiteness” (118). In watching Zombieland critically for indicators of race, 

gender, and class, it is obvious that the only target consumers of the movie are white,

middle class families. This movie’s choices in lack of diversity are exclusionist. Its casting 

says that people of color aren’t main characters, aren’t side characters, and aren’t even 

zombies. They don’t have a role in this world.

 In addition, Zombieland has some fairly strong politics about gender. The main 

character, Columbus, makes it clear from the beginning that his goal is to have a girl to 

bring home to his family. From the start, this positions all his potential female companions 

as a kind of trophy to have and show off. Many aspects of patriarchal structures are visible 

in the narrative. Another important character, Tallahassee, has a slogan that he yells as he 

goes to slay zombies: “Nut up or shut up” (Zombieland 00:20:02). Wichita and her sister Little 

Rock are underestimated at first by the male characters, using their femininity to rob 

Tallahassee and Columbus by surprise; this provides some hope that the movie might not be 

so patriarchally minded. However, by the end of the movie, the two female characters find 

themselves stuck motionless on an amusement park ride, reliant on the male protagonists to 

save them from approaching zombie hoards.

 This patriarchal gender dynamic does not simply appear in Zombieland, either. Cady 

and Oates, authors of the article “Family Splatters,” suggest that “[m]any female main 

characters in 21st century zombie movies embody physical strength and emotional 

toughness in the heat of a zombie attack, while happily coupling in domestic tranquility 

after the threat has passed” (322). This is particularly true of Shaun of the Dead, where 

Shaun’s girlfriend Liz transfers seamlessly from badass zombie killer to domesticated 

housewife at the end of the movie. In Zombieland, Wichita loses her ability to defend herself 

when she teams up with Columbus and Tallahassee.

 Generally, zombie comedies—up until recently—have focused on the 

heteronormative, white, middle class perspective while criticizing the standards of the 

zombie genre. They often center around familial structures and leave behind the valuable

critiques on society that made the first zombie movies so popular. Is it possible that the



103

GARRETT

zombie comedy genre should be left for dead? Or is it possible for the zombie comedy to 

pull out of its conservative position and into something that is genuinely critical? In the 

next section, I will be analyzing a new zombie comedy—Santa Clarita Diet, a Netflix Original 

that began in 2017—to try to determine whether it fits the trend of previous zombie 

comedies.

MY ARGUMENT 

 Unlike Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead, Santa Clarita Diet takes a different approach 

to the zombie comedy. For example, one of the main characters is a zombie, but it doesn’t 

seem as though an apocalypse has occurred (yet, at least). I will be looking for instances 

where the show seems to follow in the steps of the previous zombie comedies and where it 

deviates from them.

 Santa Clarita Diet is a story about a family who lives in the suburbs. The main 

characters are Sheila, Joel, and Abby Hammond. Sheila and Joel are married forty-something 

real estate agents, and Abby is their fifteen-year-old daughter. In their neighborhood, they 

live at the end of a cul-de-sac and are sandwiched between the family of vigilant LA Sheriff 

Dan, and the family of Rick, a police officer from Santa Monica. Dan and Rick have a not-

so-playful relationship, and the Hammonds watch as they constantly bicker about their 

respective organizations. These three families comprise the main characters of the series. 

The first episode sets the audience up for the rest of the season by showing Sheila’s descent 

into an odd sickness that eventually kills her. Almost as soon as she is dead, she comes back 

to life with a few differences.

 Zombie Sheila is definitely dead: her heart does not beat. However, she does eat. At 

the beginning, she eats raw beef, but after she has a taste of fresh humans, she can’t seem to 

go back. In addition, it is established that she doesn’t feel pain anymore, and injuries prove 

that she has merely black sludge crawling through her veins. However, the physical side 

effects of her zombie state are just the beginning.

 Before being zombified, Sheila is a little timid about life. She says to herself, “Am I 

bold? No, I am not . . .  I want to be 20% bolder. No, more, 80%. No, that’s too much” (“So 

Then a Bat or a Monkey” 00:01:28-00:01:30). The zombie Sheila of the rest of the season is at 

least 80% bolder. Joel notices immediately that “[i]t’s not just a physical thing, she’s acting 

different” (“So Then a Bat or a Monkey” 00:12:50-00:12:54). At the beginning of the episode, 

it is noted that Sheila is a fan of romanticism and is not incredibly sexual. Zombie Sheila is

very sexually demanding and especially requires oral sex from Joel twice. In addition, she



104

pursues spontaneous decisions, such as buying a Range Rover and going out drinking with 

her friends. It is interesting that Sheila can no longer feel pain but seems sensitive to 

enjoyment instead.

 At the end of Episode One, Sheila gets sexually harassed by a co-worker named Gary. 

She repeats her lack of interest in him time after time. Eventually she pretends to give in, 

saying sarcastically, “Your unwillingness to take no for an answer has made me feel sexy and 

desirable” (“So then a Bat or a Monkey” 00:26:00-00:26:15). Sheila goes to lick Gary’s fingers. 

Of course, she bites down instead, starting an intense gorefest full of streaming blood and 

death. The upbeat music in the background of Sheila’s mealtime just lends to the 

atmosphere of vengeance. Her murder of Gary does not feel like murder; it feels like a 

powerful move of revenge for his harassment. That is one of the questions the show 

repeatedly asks its audience: is it okay to kill someone if it seems like it is justified? Sheila’s 

main source of food throughout the show is criminals from wanted lists. Sheila and Joel get 

the information about her victims from their neighbor Dan, who thinks that it is Joel who is 

carrying out the murders. Dan tries to blackmail Sheila and Joel into killing people who are 

not actually criminals. Therefore, he eventually also meets a grisly end at Sheila’s teeth.

 The basis of the show revolves around two goals: getting a meal for Sheila and 

finding a possible cure for her condition. There are subplots aplenty, including Sheila’s 

physical deterioration, Dan’s blackmailing of Joel, and Abby coming to terms with the 

death and undeath of her mother. In addition, we see Eric, Dan’s stepson, helping the 

Hammonds understand Sheila’s condition through pop culture knowledge of zombies. Eric 

grows throughout the series as a character—but not as a love interest of Abby’s, although 

they are the same age. It is refreshing to see a girl and boy just being friends and growing 

individually in a television show.

 Undoubtedly, the set-up of Santa Clarita Diet is quite different from previous zombie 

comedies, as there is one glaring absence: the apocalypse. Zombieland is a complete 

apocalypse, with no remnant of structured civilization surviving. While Shaun of the Dead 

results in the world returning to a world almost identical to the one at the beginning, it also 

involves an apocalypse. In Santa Clarita Diet, the apocalypse is absolutely missing (though 

admittedly there is a potential for one if the series continues). In this story, we have zombie 

Sheila and another unfortunate person named Loki who Sheila tries and fails to eat, but the 

zombie plague hasn’t spread past those two. Additionally, nobody has tried to kill Sheila yet: 

is it possible that the apocalypse was what necessitated brutality against zombies in the two 

previously discussed zombie comedies?

GARRETT



105

GARRETT

 At first glance, Santa Clarita Diet seems posed to be disappointingly conservative in 

regard to politics surrounding class, race, and gender, as the main characters are middle 

class and white. However, I found in my analyses that though Santa Clarita Diet’s premise is 

not so different from those of Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead, the way it handles issues of 

politics is wildly different. For example, Sheila is often the center of attention in the show, 

and her displays of strength and power could leave Joel feeling less “manly.” Nevertheless, 

while it is often discussed that Joel is not a fan of the murders that Sheila commits, he 

proves himself committed to his relationship with Sheila. He never gets angry at her for her 

condition, but, rather, he works to understand it. He reaches out to scientists to try to find a 

cure for her, but when it seems impossible for her to return to her old self, he decides that he 

loves her enough to accept her for who she is.

 In terms of race, although people of color are not the main characters, they are not 

invisible. The Hammonds’ neighbors are people of color. Rick is a black man, and his wife 

Alondra is Asian-American. In fact, most of the characters in the show beyond the 

Hammonds are people of color. Just like in Zombieland, there is no outright discussion of 

race; however in Santa Clarita Diet, people of color play important roles and are visible.

Santa Clarita Diet is successful in being a funny show that deals with important issues of 

morality. In addition, it poses a new and interesting perspective in the zombie genre. What 

does it mean to have a zombie with no apocalypse? It changes the circumstance dramatically 

and lets us consider what it means to slaughter zombies. Eric even asks the Hammonds, “I 

mean, we’re the real so-called zombies, aren’t we? Consuming everything we want without 

regard for consequences?” (“So Then a Bat or a Monkey” 00:16:00-00:16:15). Santa Clarita Diet 

allows for some critique of society without the plot getting dragged down or becoming too 

serious.

CONCLUSION 

 It is possible for zombie comedies to successfully critique society while still being 

funny. In the past, even though zombie comedies criticized the unquestioned conventions 

of zombie movies, they also displayed their potential for presenting lazy, sexist, and racist 

caricatures of life. However, if zombie comedies are utilized to be genuinely critical of both 

zombie movies and negative societal trends, they could be powerful tools. Maybe that hasn’t 

happened yet, but Santa Clarita Diet is a good indicator of a possible motion in this direction. 

Hopefully in the upcoming years the success of Santa Clarita Diet will bring positive changes 

to the genre of zombie comedies.



106

WORKS CITED 

Boluk, Stephanie, and Wylie Lenz. “Infection, Media, and Capitalism: From Early Modern

 Plagues to Postmodern Zombies.” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies, vol. 10,   

 no. 2, 2010, pp. 126–147. doi:10.1353/jem.2011.0001.

Berger, James. After the End: Representations of Post-Apocalypse. Univ. of Minnesota Press,

  1999.

Bishop, Kyle William. “Vacationing in Zombieland: The Classical Functions of the Modern

 Zombie Comedy.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol. 22, no. 1, 1 Jan. 2011, pp.   

 24-38. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/24352425ref=searchgateway:d878c659   

 046f9671d20f5060cd01d2e4.

Cady, Kathryn A., and Thomas Oates. “Family Splatters: Rescuing Heteronormativity from  

 the Zombie Apocalypse.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 39, no. 3, Feb.   

 2016, pp. 308–325. doi:10.1080/07491409.2016.1194935.

Christopher, David. “Zombieland and the Inversion of the Subaltern Zombie.” Horror 

 Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, Spring 2016, pp. 111–124. doi: 10.1386/host.7.1.111_1.

Eitzen, Dirk. “The Nature of Film Comedy, or Why Is Shaun of the Dead Funny?” 

 Projections, vol. 6, no. 2, Jan. 2012, pp. 1–17. doi:10.3167/proj.2012.060202.

Fleischer, Ruben, director. Zombieland. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2010.

Fojas, Camilla. Zombies, Migrants, and Queers: Race and Crisis Capitalism in Pop Culture. 

 University of Illinois Press, 2017.

Fresco, Victor, creator. Santa Clarita Diet. Garfield Clove Productions and Kapital

  Entertainment, 2017.

“So Then a Monkey or a Bat.” Santa Clarita Diet, season 1, episode 1, Netflix Original, April  

 8, 2018. Netflix, https://www.netflix.com/watch/80119335?trackId=13752289&tctx  

 =0%2C 0%2C8 08dfd74-2e6d-4a28-8c80-7b7af77d708a-14984115%2C%2C

Kelly, Nicholas M. “Zombies Go to the Amusement Park: Entertainment, Violence, and the  

 21st Century Zombie in Zombieland and Left 4 Dead 2.” Iowa Journal of Cultural   

 Studies, vol. 14, Spring 2013, pp. 83-105. Digital Commons, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/ijcs/ 

 ijcs14-08.htm. 

GARRETT



107

GARRETT

Wright, Edgar, director. Shaun of the Dead. Universal Pictures, 2004.

Payne, Rodger. “Laughing off a Zombie Apocalypse: The Value of Comedic and Satirical

  Narratives.” International Studies Perspective, vol. 18, no. 2, 1 May 2017, pp. 211–224.


