Export thread
Zombies: Fast or Slow Moving?
#1
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
So, I've been playing Dead Rising (borrowed my friend's 360) in anticipation for Dead Rising 2. Zombies have been on my braaaaaains...excuse me, on my mind lately, so here's a question for ya.
Which do you prefer? Fast or slow moving zombies?
Now, I do understand the idea behind fast moving. It makes things more exciting. It's more wham-bam-thank you ma'am action and just ONE zombie is as dangerous as a dozen or hundreds. They've kind of evolved to go along with the faster way we expect things today in the information age. We want things now and we want things fast. And they make for better "AH!" scares.
But here's the thing about the idea of a zombie:
The whole idea of a zombie is not that ONE is hard to defeat. They're slow, plodding, stupid and work on basic instinct. The sheer NUMBER of them is what's supposed to be terrifying. It doesn't matter that you can run away from them, because no matter where you run, there are ALWAYS more. Then, it becomes less about just beating one and more about surviving. How do you survive for months or years at a time when they don't need anything to survive? Like in World War Z, it's a war of atrition: wearing down your enemy until the point that they either surrender or are wiped out.
Making running zombies basically just takes away the fear of inevibility and makes it a useless marathon because there's no way anyone would survive. Besides, the concept of horror isn't just something jumping out of the shadows or something. It's also about the build up, the inevibility that something will get you. If you want something savage, fast moving and wants to eat you, then there are werewolves. If you want something that is more intelligent that wants to eat you, there are vampires. Zombies? Zombies aren't in any rush. They don't need to move fast because sure, you can run, but eventually you'll run out of breath, have to stop to rest, have to stop to eat, and especially have to stop to sleep.
The idea of zombie survival is, sure, you can hold yourself up somewhere. But eventually, you're going to run out of food, water and ammo. Then what? Then you either go out for more with hordes of zombies ready to nibble at your bits...or wait there to die and become another zombie, as well.
(Note: I will admit this, though: I loved the Dawn of the Dead remake, despite the fast moving bastards.)
Which do you prefer? Fast or slow moving zombies?
Now, I do understand the idea behind fast moving. It makes things more exciting. It's more wham-bam-thank you ma'am action and just ONE zombie is as dangerous as a dozen or hundreds. They've kind of evolved to go along with the faster way we expect things today in the information age. We want things now and we want things fast. And they make for better "AH!" scares.
But here's the thing about the idea of a zombie:
The whole idea of a zombie is not that ONE is hard to defeat. They're slow, plodding, stupid and work on basic instinct. The sheer NUMBER of them is what's supposed to be terrifying. It doesn't matter that you can run away from them, because no matter where you run, there are ALWAYS more. Then, it becomes less about just beating one and more about surviving. How do you survive for months or years at a time when they don't need anything to survive? Like in World War Z, it's a war of atrition: wearing down your enemy until the point that they either surrender or are wiped out.
Making running zombies basically just takes away the fear of inevibility and makes it a useless marathon because there's no way anyone would survive. Besides, the concept of horror isn't just something jumping out of the shadows or something. It's also about the build up, the inevibility that something will get you. If you want something savage, fast moving and wants to eat you, then there are werewolves. If you want something that is more intelligent that wants to eat you, there are vampires. Zombies? Zombies aren't in any rush. They don't need to move fast because sure, you can run, but eventually you'll run out of breath, have to stop to rest, have to stop to eat, and especially have to stop to sleep.
The idea of zombie survival is, sure, you can hold yourself up somewhere. But eventually, you're going to run out of food, water and ammo. Then what? Then you either go out for more with hordes of zombies ready to nibble at your bits...or wait there to die and become another zombie, as well.
(Note: I will admit this, though: I loved the Dawn of the Dead remake, despite the fast moving bastards.)
#2
Cajungal
Cajungal
I won't avoid a movie because the zombies run, but there's something much scarier to me about the slow-moving zombies. It's kind of the same thinking for me as any other monster or killer who's walking after you. They know they're going to win, so why hurry? They're going to enjoy a leisurely saunter through the park before ending your life. A lot of modern zombies seem to be more like half-dead victims of a terrible disease than the actual dead, anyway. But they're still cool.
#3
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Yeah, it's not that I entirely mind the idea. I loved how they used the idea of runners in 28 Weeks Later (no spoilers, but during the "sniper" scene about 2/3's of the way through the movie).
#4
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I think the fast or slow argument entirely misses the point of Zombies in movies and literature as a metaphor/personification of Death. The entire point is that you CAN'T escape them, because they are infinite and unending. A Zombie is Death given form: You can run from it or fight it, but defeating it only delays the inevitable. They aren't a foe you can overcome, but a force of nature that WILL claim you and that you WILL become a part of in the end... so it's doesn't matter if they are fast or slow, because they will win in the end anyway.
#5
Timmus
* I don't always say that.
Timmus
I was going to say the same albeit not quite as articulately. I they are a metaphor not just for death but for the living as well. The shopping zombies are biting a depiction of mindless consumerism. This idea is taken even farther for the running zombies and might reflect the growing concern some segments of society has about our effects on the planet. Running zombies want to consume everything they can as fast a they can and are unconcerned that they are contributing to the destruction of the world. I enjoy both kinds. "Changing zombies for changing times," is what I always say. *I think the fast or slow argument entirely misses the point of Zombies in movies and literature as a metaphor/personification of Death. The entire point is that you CAN'T escape them, because they are infinite and unending. A Zombie is Death given form: You can run from it or fight it, but defeating it only delays the inevitable. They aren't a foe you can overcome, but a force of nature that WILL claim you and that you WILL become a part of in the end... so it's doesn't matter if they are fast or slow, because they will win in the end anyway.
* I don't always say that.
#6
phil
phil
Honestly either work for me. Slow zombies are creepy as hell, but as someone who gets winded easily fast zombies also scare the hell out of me.
To me, how good a zombie movie is depends more on the actions of the survivors and how serious the film makers decide to take it. In 28 days/weeks later and the new dawn of the dead the film makers treat it with enough seriousness* to maintain a level of creepiness and suspense that made those movies good.
The new Day of the Dead remake with Nick Cannon (2nd time I've mentioned this movie today. I feel sick.) was horrible not because the zombies ran but because there was a zombie that abducted people better than Batman, Solid Snake and Sam Fisher combined, because at one point a normal saw tied to a broom stick was used to decapitate several zombies and the highlight was seeing the hit chick's ass kinda sorta.
* admittedly, some movies had a more serious tone than others.
To me, how good a zombie movie is depends more on the actions of the survivors and how serious the film makers decide to take it. In 28 days/weeks later and the new dawn of the dead the film makers treat it with enough seriousness* to maintain a level of creepiness and suspense that made those movies good.
The new Day of the Dead remake with Nick Cannon (2nd time I've mentioned this movie today. I feel sick.) was horrible not because the zombies ran but because there was a zombie that abducted people better than Batman, Solid Snake and Sam Fisher combined, because at one point a normal saw tied to a broom stick was used to decapitate several zombies and the highlight was seeing the hit chick's ass kinda sorta.
* admittedly, some movies had a more serious tone than others.
#7
Soliloquy
I was going to say the same thing as you, only use the word "eloquently" instead of "articulately."
Soliloquy
I was going to say the same albeit not quite as articulately. I they are a metaphor not just for death but for the living as well. The shopping zombies are biting a depiction of mindless consumerism. This idea is taken even farther for the running zombies and might reflect the growing concern some segments of society has about our effects on the planet. Running zombies want to consume everything they can as fast a they can and are unconcerned that they are contributing to the destruction of the world. I enjoy both kinds. "Changing zombies for changing times," is what I always say.[/QUOTE]I think the fast or slow argument entirely misses the point of Zombies in movies and literature as a metaphor/personification of Death. The entire point is that you CAN'T escape them, because they are infinite and unending. A Zombie is Death given form: You can run from it or fight it, but defeating it only delays the inevitable. They aren't a foe you can overcome, but a force of nature that WILL claim you and that you WILL become a part of in the end... so it's doesn't matter if they are fast or slow, because they will win in the end anyway.
I was going to say the same thing as you, only use the word "eloquently" instead of "articulately."
#8
Timmus
I was going to say the same thing as you, only use the word "eloquently" instead of "articulately."[/QUOTE]
1. Trying to use a collegey word to sound smart on a webforum. I plead guilty.
2. Misusing said collegy word. I plead guilty.
I am humbled and graciously acknowledge and accept your correction. Now if you will excuse me I need to put on some zombie makeup, sprint to the bathroom, lock the door, and verbally abuse myself in a zombie voice until I have achieved penance.
Timmus
I was going to say the same albeit not quite as articulately. I they are a metaphor not just for death but for the living as well. The shopping zombies are biting a depiction of mindless consumerism. This idea is taken even farther for the running zombies and might reflect the growing concern some segments of society has about our effects on the planet. Running zombies want to consume everything they can as fast a they can and are unconcerned that they are contributing to the destruction of the world. I enjoy both kinds. "Changing zombies for changing times," is what I always say.[/QUOTE]I think the fast or slow argument entirely misses the point of Zombies in movies and literature as a metaphor/personification of Death. The entire point is that you CAN'T escape them, because they are infinite and unending. A Zombie is Death given form: You can run from it or fight it, but defeating it only delays the inevitable. They aren't a foe you can overcome, but a force of nature that WILL claim you and that you WILL become a part of in the end... so it's doesn't matter if they are fast or slow, because they will win in the end anyway.
I was going to say the same thing as you, only use the word "eloquently" instead of "articulately."[/QUOTE]
1. Trying to use a collegey word to sound smart on a webforum. I plead guilty.
2. Misusing said collegy word. I plead guilty.
I am humbled and graciously acknowledge and accept your correction. Now if you will excuse me I need to put on some zombie makeup, sprint to the bathroom, lock the door, and verbally abuse myself in a zombie voice until I have achieved penance.
#9
Shawn
Shawn
The fast moving zombie is scarier in my opinion. Even watching classics like Night of the Living Dead it seemed like such an idiot move to stay in one place and let the zombies mob you, when you could just take a brisk walk and keep them behind you. People that die in a slow moving zombie apocolypse aren't really the ones we want around to contribute to the gene pool anyway.
But when you throw a running zombie into the mix, everything changes. It really is a challenge to survive. When they hurtle towards you with no need to stop you're going to have to find shelter quickly.
Besides. I think that it only makes sense that the traditional movie zombie would have to be fast if it were to be realistic. No matter what type of zombie film you watch (be it slow or fast zombies) tradition seems to dictate that the zombies will pull you apart like you're made of cloth. If we were really that fragile, wrestling would be a sport I'd find a lot of interest in.
But let's say that zombies have possibly an overacting adrenaline gland that is pumping out massive amounts of chemicals (especially when prey is in sight), which causes them to perform feats of inhuman strength such as tearing apart another human being. Wouldn't it make sense that the same energy boost could be directed to the muscles in their legs to help them chase someone down?
But when you throw a running zombie into the mix, everything changes. It really is a challenge to survive. When they hurtle towards you with no need to stop you're going to have to find shelter quickly.
Besides. I think that it only makes sense that the traditional movie zombie would have to be fast if it were to be realistic. No matter what type of zombie film you watch (be it slow or fast zombies) tradition seems to dictate that the zombies will pull you apart like you're made of cloth. If we were really that fragile, wrestling would be a sport I'd find a lot of interest in.
But let's say that zombies have possibly an overacting adrenaline gland that is pumping out massive amounts of chemicals (especially when prey is in sight), which causes them to perform feats of inhuman strength such as tearing apart another human being. Wouldn't it make sense that the same energy boost could be directed to the muscles in their legs to help them chase someone down?
#10
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Micheal Jackson was a fast moving Zombie... not scary.
#11
Bowielee
I was going to say the same thing as you, only use the word "eloquently" instead of "articulately."[/QUOTE]
1. Trying to use a collegey word to sound smart on a webforum. I plead guilty.
2. Misusing said collegy word. I plead guilty.
I am humbled and graciously acknowledge and accept your correction. Now if you will excuse me I need to put on some zombie makeup, sprint to the bathroom, lock the door, and verbally abuse myself in a zombie voice until I have achieved penance.[/QUOTE]
Technically, what you said could have been correct. If you meant that If you had tried to make the same post it would have been not written well at all, then you used the word correctly.
Bowielee
I was going to say the same albeit not quite as articulately. I they are a metaphor not just for death but for the living as well. The shopping zombies are biting a depiction of mindless consumerism. This idea is taken even farther for the running zombies and might reflect the growing concern some segments of society has about our effects on the planet. Running zombies want to consume everything they can as fast a they can and are unconcerned that they are contributing to the destruction of the world. I enjoy both kinds. "Changing zombies for changing times," is what I always say.[/QUOTE]I think the fast or slow argument entirely misses the point of Zombies in movies and literature as a metaphor/personification of Death. The entire point is that you CAN'T escape them, because they are infinite and unending. A Zombie is Death given form: You can run from it or fight it, but defeating it only delays the inevitable. They aren't a foe you can overcome, but a force of nature that WILL claim you and that you WILL become a part of in the end... so it's doesn't matter if they are fast or slow, because they will win in the end anyway.
I was going to say the same thing as you, only use the word "eloquently" instead of "articulately."[/QUOTE]
1. Trying to use a collegey word to sound smart on a webforum. I plead guilty.
2. Misusing said collegy word. I plead guilty.
I am humbled and graciously acknowledge and accept your correction. Now if you will excuse me I need to put on some zombie makeup, sprint to the bathroom, lock the door, and verbally abuse myself in a zombie voice until I have achieved penance.[/QUOTE]
Technically, what you said could have been correct. If you meant that If you had tried to make the same post it would have been not written well at all, then you used the word correctly.
#12
Gryfter
Gryfter
I am a traditionalist and I prefer the slow moving variety in my movies and TV (seriously looking forward to the Walking Dead series being developed for AMC), but that said I think I prefer the fast moving variety in games as it ups the excitement and difficulty. I am looking at you Left 4 Dead (and L4D2 to a lesser extent).
#13
Iaculus
Iaculus
Fullmetal Alchemist's cyclops soldiers are a very effective use of fast zombies.
I mean, I've been watching the last few Brotherhood episodes, and JESUSFUCKINGCHRISTTHEYARETERRIFYING.
I mean, I've been watching the last few Brotherhood episodes, and JESUSFUCKINGCHRISTTHEYARETERRIFYING.
#14
Cajungal
Cajungal
Whaaaaaaaat?I am a traditionalist and I prefer the slow moving variety in my movies and TV (seriously looking forward to the Walking Dead series being developed for AMC)
#15
Calleja
Calleja
The only movie I've been ok having fast zombies is Zombieland. All other fast-zombie movies make me nerd rage. (28 days/weeks later don't count cause they're not really zombies)
#16
Garbledina
Garbledina
I like slow zombies over fast zombies, but it's not like I reject fast zombies out of hand, or anything.
#17
phil
And 28 ___ later counts.
phil
Everything makes you nerdrage.The only movie I've been ok having fast zombies is Zombieland. All other fast-zombie movies make me nerd rage. (28 days/weeks later don't count cause they're not really zombies)
And 28 ___ later counts.
#18
Calleja
And 28 ___ later counts.[/QUOTE]
Good point.
And no, they don't count, the movies may be in the same genre but the creatures in 28 are just raging humans who eventually die of starvation, while zombies are by definition undead. Not living anymore, not starving, reanimated corpses.
Calleja
Everything makes you nerdrage.The only movie I've been ok having fast zombies is Zombieland. All other fast-zombie movies make me nerd rage. (28 days/weeks later don't count cause they're not really zombies)
And 28 ___ later counts.[/QUOTE]
Good point.
And no, they don't count, the movies may be in the same genre but the creatures in 28 are just raging humans who eventually die of starvation, while zombies are by definition undead. Not living anymore, not starving, reanimated corpses.
#19
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
Whichever interpretation of this non-existent creature best fits the metaphors, themes, and ideas a movie or work of fiction is trying express is the one I prefer.
#20
Calleja
Calleja
See? That RIGHT THERE is what Shego is talking about.
I'm just sayin', I don't mind and I love you oodles and oodles, but that's what she meant me thinks.
I'm just sayin', I don't mind and I love you oodles and oodles, but that's what she meant me thinks.
#21
Steven Soderburgin
Steven Soderburgin
what are you talking about, shego hasn't posted in this thread.
#22
GasBandit
GasBandit
I like both kinds of zombies... slow, shambling undead ones and fast, living "mutated rabies infection" ones. I think I like them both better than regular people. They don't say nearly as many stupid things, they are always honest and hardworking, trying to achieve their (un)life's ambition.
#23
Calleja
Calleja
See? How can you not love GB? He's funnier than the lot o' ya!
#24
Silver Jelly
Silver Jelly
Get your science out of my monsters!The fast moving zombie is scarier in my opinion. Even watching classics like Night of the Living Dead it seemed like such an idiot move to stay in one place and let the zombies mob you, when you could just take a brisk walk and keep them behind you. People that die in a slow moving zombie apocolypse aren't really the ones we want around to contribute to the gene pool anyway.
But when you throw a running zombie into the mix, everything changes. It really is a challenge to survive. When they hurtle towards you with no need to stop you're going to have to find shelter quickly.
Besides. I think that it only makes sense that the traditional movie zombie would have to be fast if it were to be realistic. No matter what type of zombie film you watch (be it slow or fast zombies) tradition seems to dictate that the zombies will pull you apart like you're made of cloth. If we were really that fragile, wrestling would be a sport I'd find a lot of interest in.
But let's say that zombies have possibly an overacting adrenaline gland that is pumping out massive amounts of chemicals (especially when prey is in sight), which causes them to perform feats of inhuman strength such as tearing apart another human being. Wouldn't it make sense that the same energy boost could be directed to the muscles in their legs to help them chase someone down?
#25
Gryfter
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/01/20/amc-orders-pilot-for-the-walking-dead-tv-series/
Gryfter
Whaaaaaaaat?[/QUOTE]I am a traditionalist and I prefer the slow moving variety in my movies and TV (seriously looking forward to the Walking Dead series being developed for AMC)
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/01/20/amc-orders-pilot-for-the-walking-dead-tv-series/
#26
Cajungal
Cajungal
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, delicious news.
#27
Gryfter
Gryfter
Most definitely. I've only read the first 5 or so trades of WD, but it is awesomely dark and wonderfully zombie-ridden. Can't wait to see what the series does with it.
#28
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I think it's almost getting too dark these days. The survivors have had very few real lasting triumphs, but they always lose much more than they gain in the end. It's gotten really predictable as a result, as now we know the SECOND something goes right for them, it's going to kill at least one of them.Most definitely. I've only read the first 5 or so trades of WD, but it is awesomely dark and wonderfully zombie-ridden. Can't wait to see what the series does with it.
#29
Jay
Jay
This depends entirely how much ammo I have available to me.
#30
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
Fast zombies and sparkling vampires.
That ain't right.
That ain't right.
#31
IronBrig4
IronBrig4
I like the slow zombies because they're relentless. Their bodies are falling apart and they might not even have stomachs anymore, but that doesn't stop them from shuffling or crawling towards living flesh. I could never get the hang of fast zombies because they're not SUPPOSED to be fast and coordinated. Rigor mortis and rotting or damaged tissue simply cannot support a running corpse like that.
#32
Bowielee
Now, Ninja Mcundead guy, I can see why people have a problem swallowing that one.
Bowielee
This is actually addressed to an extent in the remake of Dawn of the Dead. The zombies do slow down as the movie progresses, though not enough to be "realistic". The reason the zombies can sprint and such at the beginning of the film is because they just turned into zombies and there's no reason they shouldn't move as fast as a regular person.I like the slow zombies because they're relentless. Their bodies are falling apart and they might not even have stomachs anymore, but that doesn't stop them from shuffling or crawling towards living flesh. I could never get the hang of fast zombies because they're not SUPPOSED to be fast and coordinated. Rigor mortis and rotting or damaged tissue simply cannot support a running corpse like that.
Now, Ninja Mcundead guy, I can see why people have a problem swallowing that one.
#33
Chazwozel
The zombie's in Zombieland aren't zombies either. They're people infected with 'mad cow' disease.
---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------
HAHAHA! The lack of ATP production at all prevents any and all muscle movement. Which is why it's stupid to establish any sort of zombie preference base on anatomy and physiology. And therefore, by the fact that dead things don't move around and are a complete affront to the laws of thermodynamics if they do, movie makers can do whatever the fuck they want with zombies to to fit the plot of their movies.
Chazwozel
The only movie I've been ok having fast zombies is Zombieland. All other fast-zombie movies make me nerd rage. (28 days/weeks later don't count cause they're not really zombies)
The zombie's in Zombieland aren't zombies either. They're people infected with 'mad cow' disease.
---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------
I like the slow zombies because they're relentless. Their bodies are falling apart and they might not even have stomachs anymore, but that doesn't stop them from shuffling or crawling towards living flesh. I could never get the hang of fast zombies because they're not SUPPOSED to be fast and coordinated. Rigor mortis and rotting or damaged tissue simply cannot support a running corpse like that.
HAHAHA! The lack of ATP production at all prevents any and all muscle movement. Which is why it's stupid to establish any sort of zombie preference base on anatomy and physiology. And therefore, by the fact that dead things don't move around and are a complete affront to the laws of thermodynamics if they do, movie makers can do whatever the fuck they want with zombies to to fit the plot of their movies.
#34
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
I really really liked 28 Days Later, but I every time I think zombies, I think slow movers.
#35
Shawn
The zombie's in Zombieland aren't zombies either. They're people infected with 'mad cow' disease.[/quote]
If you want to get technical there are no Zombies in Night of the Living Dead either as zombie was a word used to classify a living person under a particular voodoo spell (toxins) that made them appear dead enough to fool others.
But I like to think that the term "zombie" has evolved into any human (living or dead) that displays a mindless pursuit of cannibalism that is spreadable like a disease and gives him amazing resistance to bodily damage. While not "dead", I would still classify Resident evil, Zombieland, 28 days later as zombie media.
Shawn
The only movie I've been ok having fast zombies is Zombieland. All other fast-zombie movies make me nerd rage. (28 days/weeks later don't count cause they're not really zombies)
The zombie's in Zombieland aren't zombies either. They're people infected with 'mad cow' disease.[/quote]
If you want to get technical there are no Zombies in Night of the Living Dead either as zombie was a word used to classify a living person under a particular voodoo spell (toxins) that made them appear dead enough to fool others.
But I like to think that the term "zombie" has evolved into any human (living or dead) that displays a mindless pursuit of cannibalism that is spreadable like a disease and gives him amazing resistance to bodily damage. While not "dead", I would still classify Resident evil, Zombieland, 28 days later as zombie media.
#36
Matt²
Matt²
Slow of course.. after all, they are fighting rigor mortis.
#37
Element 117
Yeah. Zombie movies did nothing to scare me as easily as this did.
Element 117
Yeah. Zombie movies did nothing to scare me as easily as this did.
#38
figmentPez
The idea of headcrabs as weapons of biological terror is very creepy.
figmentPez
Slow and fast zombies, the [strike]best[/strike] [strike]worst[/strike] scariest of both worlds!Yeah. Zombie movies did nothing to scare me as easily as this did.
The idea of headcrabs as weapons of biological terror is very creepy.