Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok,I know there are alot of zombie film fans here on Dakka,and to them,and all ,I pose the question,which brand of zombie do you prefer?and why?
Are you a bigger fan of the slow relentless "Romero" zombies,or do the run you down Zombies of more recent films make you cheer?
For the sake of discusion the "infected" in films such as 28 Days later,Quarintine,etc can be considered "zombies".
And for the record,even though I love all (most) things "zombie",I favor the Romero zombies,the "speedy zombies" seem more like pandering to the "fast,fast, FAST action" at the cost of story that seems to plague (pun intended) most films today.

Slow zombies. If a zombie is fast, it goes against all traditions. Both the old Romero zombies and the even older voodoo/necromancy zombies were slow and shambling, and it's really good too. Those are true undead, reanimated corpses (whether by virus or magic), not people with rabies.

feth you, 28 Days Later.

I think the fast zombies make more sense when you remove the necromancy angle. The slowness being explained by physical decay, and the extension of the necromancer's will over the horde.

That said, I personally favor a mix of the two. It makes sense for pristine zombies to be relatively quick, while older, more decayed examples should be slower.

It also provides a nice element of shock when the shambling zombie horde is suddenly overtaken by the runners.

I was watching Resident Evil last night (I know), and it does zombies quite well. They're fairly slow and shambling, but when they're really close they get motivated and start trying to take a chunk out of people with ferocity.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I was watching Resident Evil last night (I know), and it does zombies quite well. They're fairly slow and shambling, but when they're really close they get motivated and start trying to take a chunk out of people with ferocity.

See,the shamble run dosn't bother me so much,as the excitement of nearby food would (as you said Cheese) motivate a zombie to excert a short burst of speed.
It's when I see zombies doing a hundred yard dash that I shake my head.

When you consider: 1) most of these films are US films; 2) even speedy szombies couldn't be more quick then their original humans; 3) most Americans are are overwieght slow things that can be outrun by a chuhuahua; then slows the way to go.

Thematically I like the idea of both about for fun.

For zombie weekend I want slow. The ".22 LR headshot competition" is much easier that way.

Hmm, I would say the most awesome type of Zombie would be slow and shambling, but also super tough. As in, really tough - it would literally have to be completely dismembered (and probably burned) to stop it fully. I just don’t like the "oh, you shot me once in the head, I am vanquished" type zombie.
I've never seen a movie with anything like that in though (probably because its too harsh on the protagonists - I mean, who wants to have to use RPG to kill a single zombie).

Also, a fast, agile and stealthy (but rare) version would be cool, if a little unsurvivable.


[As for the best 'real' one in films, its the bog standard slow crawler type]

I like slow zombies because you can get away from them. Thats the true horror.

**New Improved Zombies** run you down, for a quick chase thrill and some action blood at the end.

**Zombies! - The Original and the Best** are a remorseless progression. Yes you can outrun them always, but then the numbers are brought into play. The words to describe their assault are unrelenting, inevitable, inescapable. Someday, if not today, they will surround you and they will get you. Besides new zombies normally frenzy kill, the horror of 'am I infected' is more poinient with old zombies as you have time to encounter fall back and notice small bites and scratches.
If your escape is through thornbush you wont know.

Slow zombies, every time.

Slow Zombies are the best. I still have the assault on the farmhouse in Night of the Living Dead as the staple of what good zombies should do.

" They're coming for you Barbara...."

I'd have to say slowpoke, for the same reasons as described by Cheese Elemental and FITZZ

Like em both.
I think 28 days/weeks later did some great fast zombies, while RE does the slow ones justice.

However, I didnt like the "I am Legend"-run head first into the car to push it into the hudson-head smack zombie like things. Those were just ... I dunno

Black Antelope wrote:Hmm, I would say the most awesome type of Zombie would be slow and shambling, but also super tough. As in, really tough - it would literally have to be completely dismembered (and probably burned) to stop it fully. I just don’t like the "oh, you shot me once in the head, I am vanquished" type zombie.
I've never seen a movie with anything like that in though (probably because its too harsh on the protagonists - I mean, who wants to have to use RPG to kill a single zombie).

The zeds in Return of the Living Dead are about that tough, and are fast and smart too.

Slow poke, they are a lot more frightening. Don't even really consider fast zombies as zombies.

Zombies are Undead. They are slow and unstoppable. That is just how they are.

Oral History of World War Z handles the slow zombie and its numbers the best. If you're a zombie fan and have not read this, shame on you.

Dan O'Bannon handled fast zombies the best. It has never been done as well, since.

For me, give me the slow ones.

Even Romero's tend to frenzy and get a bit more active when in close proximity to food. The dreaded 'zombie lunge' and the zombie 'lying in ambush' are both traits of Romero's zombies. The great thing about Romero's vision is you can outrun them, but you can never outrun them.

Black Antelope wrote:Hmm, I would say the most awesome type of Zombie would be slow and shambling, but also super tough. As in, really tough - it would literally have to be completely dismembered (and probably burned) to stop it fully. I just don’t like the "oh, you shot me once in the head, I am vanquished" type zombie.
I've never seen a movie with anything like that in though (probably because its too harsh on the protagonists - I mean, who wants to have to use RPG to kill a single zombie).

I think you may be missing the point Romero was trying to make. There is a definitive scene that illustrates this in the original Night of the Living Dead. Ben bashes one in the head and kicks it off the porch/stoop. The camera zooms in to the zombie's shirt to see it kicked off the porch/stoop. As it falls and collapses the frame shows four more zombies ready to take its place. The point: You will never have enough ammo or endurance to kill every zombie that is trying to get you. You can run, you can hide and you can fight but it will never, ever be enough. All five of his movies illustrate this point. Four of them sequentially.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Slow zombies. If a zombie is fast, it goes against all traditions. Both the old Romero zombies and the even older voodoo/necromancy zombies were slow and shambling, and it's really good too. Those are true undead, reanimated corpses (whether by virus or magic), not people with rabies.

feth you, 28 Days Later.

I think you missed the idea of of 28 Days Later. The film deconstructed zombies, it allowed them human levels of speed, as well as very human levels of resilience. In doing so it kept its zombies closer to humans. This brought back the most fundamental horror of the genre - the mindless hordes starving for your flesh were very recently people and you're going to have to kill them to survive.


I voted for both, because each depends on the kind of zombie story you're telling. 28 Days Later wouldn't have worked with slow zombies, it would have been dreadful. But in Romero's films the point is that the zombies aren't immediately threatening, they're slow and stupid and fairly ineffectual. In the end it isn't the zombies but the infighting among the survivors that's most dangerous, and that theme would be diminished if they were fast, deadly zombies.

It depends on the type of movie you're making.

Slow zombies. So many topics about this on the Dead Rising board on Gamefaqs. The result from most of them where that either one means that you're probably dead and that there would be no way to survive only to delay death.

Lots of plans in those topics as well
Basically you want to be away from everything that's an animal because of the chance of cross contamination. Slow zombies are one thing slow zombie bears are another.

Also being dead stops the flow of blood severly limiting movement by limiting oxygen flow to the body and brain. Zombies, if in very good contition, would only be fast and smart for a short ammount of time before being slow like the normal ones.

Flachzange wrote:However, I didnt like the "I am Legend"-run head first into the car to push it into the hudson-head smack zombie like things. Those were just ... I dunno

those werent zombies.
according to the book they were more akin to vampires.

Slow Zombies all the way. The more we saturate popular media with slow zombies, the more like it is that zombies will think that they are supposed to be slow.

Seriously though I think that Slow zombies are better. It puts more pressure on humans to not be a total idiot. I always think back to Dawn of the Dead when the biker dude stops to check his blood pressure. This is all on him. He could have waited till they got the all-clear, but nooooo he had to do it right then. Since he is a total idiot what happens? Yep, his flesh and brain is consumed in a bloody fashion.

Speedy zombies just seem too powerful. I know it's all fictional (till 2012 at least), but they are resilient, can infect humans, and can only be killed with damage to the brain. Granted they probably couldn't open a door, but who needs doors when you have 400+ zombies?

usernamesareannoying wrote:

Flachzange wrote:However, I didnt like the "I am Legend"-run head first into the car to push it into the hudson-head smack zombie like things. Those were just ... I dunno

those werent zombies.
according to the book they were more akin to vampires.

Please please don't ever compare that book to that movie. Despite the title, they are very much apples and oranges (or apples to Kool Aid if you get my meaning).

Although in the book I Am Legend they are referred to as Vampires and share many similarities to both mythical Vampires and Romero zombies, it is important to note that George Romero has always said Night of the Living Dead was heavily influenced by that book and Vincent Price movie of the same title.

The movie version I Am Legend they were just more CGI rubbish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Slow zombies. If a zombie is fast, it goes against all traditions. Both the old Romero zombies and the even older voodoo/necromancy zombies were slow and shambling, and it's really good too. Those are true undead, reanimated corpses (whether by virus or magic), not people with rabies.

feth you, 28 Days Later.

I think you missed the idea of of 28 Days Later. The film deconstructed zombies, it allowed them human levels of speed, as well as very human levels of resilience. In doing so it kept its zombies closer to humans. This brought back the most fundamental horror of the genre - the mindless hordes starving for your flesh were very recently people and you're going to have to kill them to survive.


I voted for both, because each depends on the kind of zombie story you're telling. 28 Days Later wouldn't have worked with slow zombies, it would have been dreadful. But in Romero's films the point is that the zombies aren't immediately threatening, they're slow and stupid and fairly ineffectual. In the end it isn't the zombies but the infighting among the survivors that's most dangerous, and that theme would be diminished if they were fast, deadly zombies.

It depends on the type of movie you're making.

Nice! Well put.

Frazzled wrote:
For zombie weekend I want slow. The ".22 LR headshot competition" is much easier that way.

BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!




Or if you want to up the bid......

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/gun_inventory/inventory/lehi/military_arms/623648_tgg38sp_leh.jsp?categoryId=SEARCH_gl

Best part is, anyone can own it cause its not class 3. Enjoy!

jp400 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
For zombie weekend I want slow. The ".22 LR headshot competition" is much easier that way.

BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!




Or if you want to up the bid......

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/gun_inventory/inventory/lehi/military_arms/623648_tgg38sp_leh.jsp?categoryId=SEARCH_gl

Best part is, anyone can own it cause its not class 3. Enjoy!

Cool. I saw it in the catalog, but didn't think it really worked. Ideal for slow zombie infestation or squirrel attack.

Yeah I didnt either, then by buddy traded for one and put some 10/22 drum mags on it and went to town on some backyard targets. Now I really really want one.

Just think how cool it would be to put an electric crank on it at say 1,000 rpm. )

That would be cool. altghough just a larger crank would work and give you an extra sense of satisfaction. Thats important.

Just realized we should add a Western competition to ZombieFest 2009. A little period piece action with a Colt Peacemaker, double barreled scatter gun, Remington rolling block 50cal, maybe even a derringer quick draw from the garter for the ladies. Excellent.

Schaweeet!

Ive been meaning to whip out the ol 30-30 lever action for the last few weeks.

This would be perfect!

GoFenris wrote:he movie version I Am Legend they were just more CGI rubbish.

gotta agree with you there... they were pretty bad.

im a fan of both...
i loved 28 days/weeks later and the resident evil series.
i even enjoy the one where they live in an underground army complex somewhere in florida.
i love that one cause its kind of funny... living in florida id love to see a place that you can go that deep under ground without scuba gear.

OK...I voted slow zombies...but I guess I'm just old school.


Noghing scarier than seing 5 teenagers actually get away from the slow zombies only to have them catch up to them when they are sleeping.


GG

Gotta go with both, according to the zombie survival guide, the virus captures the brain and uses it to send electrical impulses without oxygen, it just needs some nutrients found in human flesh.

So it is possible to have both. I don't like the idea of a stealthy zombie though, it just doesn't work(at least intentionally).

I think that the older movies were great, but the nazi zombies in CoD are one of the best representations of a good mix. You have some slow, some that retain enough memory to goose step, and some fast(with rigid flailing arms).

I prefer a sort of hybrid that you find in something like Dead Rising. The zombies are slow and shuffly, but then when they get close to you they sprint and at night they walk like normal humans.

My opinion is that zombies should have strength but not agility.

Thus, they should have the ability to move quickly on account of the strength of their legs, but they should start to trip over themselves if they try to keep running after someone. More of a quick leaping or charging ability than actual running.

Also, the things in the movie version of I Am Legend were ghouls.

Slow.......Fast............Im the guy with the gun!