Why Fast Zombies Suck

[Telefrog]

I know, I know... Zombies that run are more visceral, exciting, and immediate. They are the modernization of a classic monster. It's the difference between Lon Chaney Jr. howling with brown-painted cotton balls glued onto his sideburns and The American Werewolf In London. Hell, the Dawn of the Dead remake was all kinds of awesome and Left 4 Dead is currently showing people how sweet badass screaming zombies catapulting into you can be.

Simon Pegg, of Shaun of the Dead, begs to differ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/04/television-simon-pegg-dead-set) and he makes some great points.


I know it is absurd to debate the rules of a reality that does not exist, but this genuinely irks me. You cannot kill a vampire with an MDF stake; werewolves can't fly; zombies do not run. It's a misconception, a bastardisation that diminishes a classic movie monster. The best phantasmagoria uses reality to render the inconceivable conceivable. The speedy zombie seems implausible to me, even within the fantastic realm it inhabits. A biological agent, I'll buy. Some sort of super-virus? Sure, why not. But death? Death is a disability, not a superpower. It's hard to run with a cold, let alone the most debilitating malady of them all.

More significantly, the fast zombie is bereft of poetic subtlety. As monsters from the id, zombies win out over vampires and werewolves when it comes to the title of Most Potent Metaphorical Monster. Where their pointy-toothed cousins are all about sex and bestial savagery, the zombie trumps all by personifying our deepest fear: death. Zombies are our destiny writ large. Slow and steady in their approach, weak, clumsy, often absurd, the zombie relentlessly closes in, unstoppable, intractable.

However (and herein lies the sublime artfulness of the slow zombie), their ineptitude actually makes them avoidable, at least for a while. If you're careful, if you keep your wits about you, you can stave them off, even outstrip them - much as we strive to outstrip death. Drink less, cut out red meat, exercise, practice safe sex; these are our shotguns, our cricket bats, our farmhouses, our shopping malls. However, none of these things fully insulates us from the creeping dread that something so witless, so elemental may yet catch us unawares - the drunk driver, the cancer sleeping in the double helix, the legless ghoul dragging itself through the darkness towards our ankles


Choose your apocalypse! Fast or slow zombies?

[Disgustipated]

Wow. Didn't know Simon Pegg could speak with such eloquence. +3 to him, sir.

Also, I like both. They're both freaky as fuck. Left 4 Dead/28 Days/Weeks Later shows this, while the Dawn of the Dead movies shows why the slow ones are scary as fuck too.

[Sandman]

Flying werewolves? That might be cool....

Slower zombies give humans more of a chance to survive.

[Cit Phil Cit]

So.. did he just hit middle age? There is nothing wrong with slow and fast zombies. They are both equally upsetting.

[ClannerDelta]

I favor slow zombies, but I understand that game devs need the added variety a speedy zombie would add. I also understand that it's easier to make a "scary" movie if you can do a lot cheap startling moments.

[Blue]

I'd suspect that if you're a speedy kind of person (say an Olympian of some merit), there's a decent chance that when the zombie apocalypse comes and you get bitten, you're most likely not going to shamble. If zombies still have some rote memories - like going to the mall, say - I'd bet they can remember how fast they can sprint.

And when that happens, you're gonna get zombie-raped.

[Scaryfaced]

I've got a zombie obsessed friend who argues the that fast zombies just aren't possible within the framework of the zombie storyline. Zombie are reanimated humans that retain only the most basic brain functions. They're only driven forward with their lust for human flesh, a force strong enough to overcome death. After all, the zombie condition is a disease of the bain, evident in the way you kill them. So in essence, zombies don't have the functioning brain compacity to movie quickly. You need motor skills to be able to run and zombies just don't have it anymore. They're barely able to move, let alone run like olympic sprinters. Zombies are also still decomposing, so the futher they are down the path of decomp, the less responsive body parts are. Now this largely based on whether your zombies are the newly deceased or the dead rising from the grave, but you can't run if your legs don't have the muscle mass to carry your weight anymore.

Now, this doesn't apply to the 28 Days Later super virus zombies, obviously. If we're talking traditional zombies, they just plain shouldn't be able to run.
________
Marijuana indica (http://strainindex.com)

[Telefrog]

I think as a concept, I value slow zombies over faster ones because I like the idea of the undead hordes being a plodding unstoppable force. When you die from slow zombies, it's almost always your fault. You got tired. You got careless. You got complacent. Slow zombies are the punishment for humanity's hubris and inability to cooperate. They provide abject lessons for observers to shake their heads and think they would do better.

Fast zombies are better when there's no lesson to be learned. They're great in games and movies because we just want entertainment. Don't bore me with observations on the human condition. Just get with the flesh munching! Fast zombies allow scenarios with urgency and quick, frantic immediacy. You must get the car started now! You need to close the door now!

I like the idea of a zombie apocalypse that starts out with a majority of fast zombies, because the monsters are freshly dead. As decomposition sets in, they get slower and slower, turning into the shambling, rotten legions moaning for food. This allows the frantic craziness of the breakdown of society and then provides opportunites for protagonists to make mistakes later as the hordes get more lethargic.

[rinichanraar]

I've actually read a similar argument by him before (I freakin' love Simon Pegg), and he's absolutely right. He makes the very important point that "zombie" comes partially from the Latin "somnambulist," meaning "sleepwalker," which I've always found to be a good, quick argument against running "zombies."

[violent]

I've had this discussion numerous times with friends. When all the cards are on the table, one cannot argue the accuracy of the slow zombie.

[LongStepMantis]

Flying werewolves? That might be cool....


Until humanity is decimated by winged lycanthropes. We'd be so fucked. :D

I agree with Pegg and his intelligence makes me love him even more...if that's possible. Right now no DVD gets nearly as much playtime in my player as Hot Fuzz does.

I've always disagreed with the concept of running zombies simply because I don't think they would have nearly the motor skills necessary to run. Maybe they could try to run, but they would just fall down almost immediately.

[rinichanraar]

Until humanity is decimated by winged lycanthropes. We'd be so fucked. :D

I agree with Pegg and his intelligence makes me love him even more...if that's possible. Right now no DVD gets nearly as much playtime in my player as Hot Fuzz does.

Funny since it's Shaun of the Dead for me. :)

[shunoshi]

My favored type of zombie is described perfectly by Max Brooks in the Zombie Survival Guide. The zombie will have many of the same attributes it had in life. The only thing that will get in the way is decomposition or physical damage of some sort. They may be able to move quickly at first, but sooner or later they will probably injure themselves in some manner since they don't have the cognitive function to "be careful" and probably don't have the motor skills to stay upright. Running does take quite a bit of coordination.

The only thing that I don't like about some versions of zombies is when they're given cognitive reasoning. This takes away from one of the things that makes zombies so scary, their mindless persistance. If you barricade a door and a zombie knows you're inside it will beat on it until it gets though. The only thing to make him stop is a prospect of other food or getting killed.

The idea of an enemy with ultimate resolve, with no need for rest or food, and eternally relentless is what makes a mob of zombies frightening. The second you give them the capability to think, that resolve and relentless nature disappears as they "try different tactics".

/rant

Sorry about that...this was about zombie speed and I felt the need to rant. :o

[Spectre-7]

I've got a zombie obsessed friend who argues the that fast zombies just aren't possible within the framework of the zombie storyline. Zombie are reanimated humans that retain only the most basic brain functions. They're only driven forward with their lust for human flesh, a force strong enough to overcome death. After all, the zombie condition is a disease of the bain, evident in the way you kill them. So in essence, zombies don't have the functioning brain compacity to movie quickly. You need motor skills to be able to run and zombies just don't have it anymore. They're barely able to move, let alone run like olympic sprinters. Zombies are also still decomposing, so the futher they are down the path of decomp, the less responsive body parts are. Now this largely based on whether your zombies are the newly deceased or the dead rising from the grave, but you can't run if your legs don't have the muscle mass to carry your weight anymore.

My problem with this theory is that the act of walking is incredibly difficult all on its own. In order to accomplish bipedal locomotion, the rather precise coordination of a huge number of muscles is required... we humans just make it look easy. If the zombie didn't have quite good motor skills already, it wouldn't be able to shamble, let alone walk, at all.

However, once you've got walking down, running isn't any great leap of skill (IMO).

I've actually read a similar argument by him before (I freakin' love Simon Pegg), and he's absolutely right. He makes the very important point that "zombie" comes partially from the Latin "somnambulist," meaning "sleepwalker," which I've always found to be a good, quick argument against running "zombies."

That's an interesting folk etymology, but lexicographers seem to have different theories about the origin of the word.

OTOH, most of the lexicographers I've sampled aren't quite in agreement with each other, either.

Origin:
1810–20; appar. < Kongo or Kimbundu nzambi god

Caribbean French and English Creole, from Kimbundu -zumbi, ghost, departed spirit.

1871, of W. African origin (cf. Kikongo zumbi "fetish;" Kimbundu nzambi "god"), originally the name of a snake god, later with meaning "reanimated corpse" in voodoo cult. But perhaps also from Louisiana creole word meaning "phantom, ghost," from Sp. sombra "shade, ghost." Sense "slow-witted person" is recorded from 1936.

[Cit Phil Cit]

I don't see any issue it is entirely fiction. Trying to elaborate on slow and fast zombies in regards to why and why not is completely subjective; they don't exist, so reviewing the mechanics of movement in relation to being fast or slow is not going to find any definitive answer - without drawing up the usual round of zombie questions (energy, sight, hearing, decomp, etc).

Both are entertaining, should I find myself in a WWZ situation, I would prefer only slow ones.

[LongStepMantis]

Funny since it's Shaun of the Dead for me. :)

It used to be mine as well. It switched over to Hot Fuzz eventually though.
I can't get enough of Pegg and Frost, those 2 are just epic. :D

[Scaryfaced]

I find slow zombies to have better horror elements to them as well. Slow zombies naturally build suspense, especially as they start to congregate and turn into a slow, shambling wall of death. As a fully functional survivor, you'd probably figure you can always run. The real horror of the situation sets in when you figure out that it doesn't matter how fast you are. They keep coming, their numbers keep growing and eventually, your going to get caught. You've got to sleep some time. Even when you think your safe, you'll probably end up surrounded by morning. The fact that you can avoid it just makes the suspense build. It isn't like you can actually survive the zombie apocolypse. For all your effort, at a certain point, you'll eventually learn that there's no hope and dispair sets in.

I find that to be a much stronger element of horror than the quick scares and frantic situations.
________
Gay fetish (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/622/fetish/videos/1)

[Adam Blue]

Yes, zombies should never run. The DotD remake was enjoyable, but totally not a zombie movie. Just a demon one.

And I'm trying to like L4D.

[shunoshi]

However, once you've got walking down, running isn't any great leap of skill (IMO).

See, this isn't really true. Infants are a perfect example. At some point they learn to walk, but their motor skills are lacking the necessary timing to master it. That's why they stumble around, not unlike zombies. Even after being able to walk decently, how many times have you seen a toddler take off into a run only to faceplant in about 3-4 steps? Zombies, being unable to learn, never develop the skill to walk without shambling, so they definitely shouldn't be running.

Just my $.02 on it.

[Dukefrukem]

Yes, zombies should never run. The DotD remake was enjoyable, but totally not a zombie movie. Just a demon one.

And I'm trying to like L4D.

28 Days Later came before Dawn of the Dead.

[LongStepMantis]

28 Days Later came before Dawn of the Dead.

Point of note, Return of the Living Dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_Living_Dead) came before 28 Days Later by about 15 years. That was the first running zombie movie I can recall.

[Dukefrukem]

Point of note, Return of the Living Dead came before 28 Days Later by about ~20 years. That was the first running zombie movie I can recall.

But not all of them ran. It was a just a few.

[shunoshi]

I just realized how awesomely nerdy it is that we can have a serious debate about zombie aesthetics and physiology.

[LongStepMantis]

But not all of them ran. It was a just a few.

I recall an entire mob of them running full sprint at a riot control squad of cops.
And by mob, I mean easily 100+. So I would at least say most of them could.

The trailer seems to support this:
wylpeAXYcBQ
I think the only one that doesn't run is the mostly decomposed tar-like zombie. But they just cheat. You can only kill them by burning their entire body, they use tools and can think, and they can also speak.

[ClannerDelta]

I just realized how awesomely nerdy it is that we can have a serious debate about zombie aesthetics and physiology.

The internet is the most magnificent of man's inventions, is it not?

[shunoshi]

The internet is the most magnificent of man's inventions, is it not?

Well, that and zombies. :D

[Scaryfaced]

I just realized how awesomely nerdy it is that we can have a serious debate about zombie aesthetics and physiology.

Isn't it great? We need a psychologist to tell us what parts of the brain controls hunger, desire and motor functions, me thinks. It would make alot of sense if both motor functions and hunger are close together for them to still retain a decent amount of motor skills. They're obviously lacking in reason, speech and most other basic brain functions. If they're in seperate parts of the brain, it's easier to guess that they'd retain a comparable amount of motor skills as speech and reason, a.k.a. not very much.
________
Digital vaporizer (http://digitalvaporizers.info)

[Widgetcraft]

I've got a zombie obsessed friend who argues the that fast zombies just aren't possible within the framework of the zombie storyline. Zombie are reanimated humans that retain only the most basic brain functions. They're only driven forward with their lust for human flesh, a force strong enough to overcome death. After all, the zombie condition is a disease of the bain, evident in the way you kill them. So in essence, zombies don't have the functioning brain compacity to movie quickly. You need motor skills to be able to run and zombies just don't have it anymore. They're barely able to move, let alone run like olympic sprinters. Zombies are also still decomposing, so the futher they are down the path of decomp, the less responsive body parts are. Now this largely based on whether your zombies are the newly deceased or the dead rising from the grave, but you can't run if your legs don't have the muscle mass to carry your weight anymore.

Now, this doesn't apply to the 28 Days Later super virus zombies, obviously. If we're talking traditional zombies, they just plain shouldn't be able to run.

Yeah, this all sounds real good unless the "basic functions" that they retain include running. Or to fight off decomposition to some extent.

As for this:

More significantly, the fast zombie is bereft of poetic subtlety.

This is the lamest argument in favor of slow zombies. The reason directors moved away from slow zombies is because, as a threat, they are pretty fucking low. I'd rather be standing in front of a thousand slow zombies, unarmed, than in front of Jason Voorhees with a shotgun. Hell, dozens upon dozens of slow zombies are less of a threat than just one regular guy. Night of the Living Dead is basically a joke, as at any point in time, the characters could have run right past all of the zombies. Hell, run is an exaggeration, they could speed-walk past all of the zombies.

Even games that are based entirely around slow zombies (Resident Evil and Dead Rising come to mind) the developers have to toss in more serious threats to add any difficulty to the game at all.

[Scaryfaced]

I can't believe I'm actually doing this, but I'm currently maping out brain functions and how they relate to zombies. I'm no expert, but the internet is a splendiferous place indeed. Can anyone come up with a list of functions a zombie would traditionally have? Obviously we have vision, basic motor functions, and hunger. If we want to go by George Romero's rules, they might also retain a little former memory of their previous lives. Anything else I'm missing?
________
Nevada Marijuana Dispensary (http://nevada.dispensaries.org/)

[Scaryfaced]

After some quick research, it looks like zombies completely lack frontal brain functions, from the Frontal and Temporal lobes. They seem to also display symptoms of a damaged brain stem. This leaves you with the Priental and Occipital lobes and the Cerebellum.

Priental = visual attention, touch and goal direction
Occipital = Vision
Cerebellum = Coordinationof movement, balance and equilibrium

The brainstem is responsible for things like swallowing and digestion, but also breathing, temperature and sleep. So I'd say it's damaged but still functional.

SO! What's all this crap mean? Well it seems that theoretically, it's possible that zombies would be able to run. However, damage to the frontal lobe can result in a lack of complex motor functions or paralysis. A damaged temporal lobe can result in overtly violent behavior as well. So basically, I just did alot of research that tells me that both shambling and running zombies seem possible on a case by case basis.
________
Make A Vaporizer (http://howtomakeavaporizer.info/)

[JayVe]

We need a psychologist to tell us what parts of the brain controls hunger, desire and motor functions, me thinks. It would make alot of sense if both motor functions and hunger are close together for them to still retain a decent amount of motor skills. They're obviously lacking in reason, speech and most other basic brain functions. If they're in seperate parts of the brain, it's easier to guess that they'd retain a comparable amount of motor skills as speech and reason, a.k.a. not very much.

Lower, reptile-like brain functions usually occur at the base of the brain where it meets the spinal cord. Higher brain functions such as reasoning and problem-solving typically occur in the 'meatier' parts of the brain, higher than the old parts.

I'm no psychologist, but I play one on TV.

[5y1v4r]

Point of note, Return of the Living Dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_Living_Dead) came before 28 Days Later by about 15 years. That was the first running zombie movie I can recall.
The problem is that the 28 days later "zombies" weren't actually the same as classical zombies in that they weren't actually dead, they were infected with that virus.... so I wouldn't use 28 days later as a zombie physiology example.

I like the metaphorical connotations of slow zombies and I think they make more sense physiologically, fast ones are good enough for games though, I mean, nobody going through Ravenholme in HL2 is gonna stop and ponder the realisticness of the fast zombies as they're frantically trying to stay alive ^_^

[pronounconnoun]

The first time I saw 28 Days Later I wasn't impressed and I hated it when people called it a zombie movie. Zombies are dead and the whole point of the movie was to wait 28 days until the infected died of starvation. Zombies do not die so easily.

I think the fast zombie phenomena has to do with the need to make horror less personal and more shocking. A good comparison is the slasher genre if you map out its lifespan from Psycho to Hostel. The earlier films were more thought provoking and suspenseful, where the newer films emphasize gore over plot or suspense.

The idea behind the original Night of the Living Dead was the fact that our friends, family, and neighbors were now the monsters. A zombie that becomes stronger, faster, and growls like an animal takes away its human characteristics and it becomes a monster. Yes, it is more exciting, but it lacks the subtle creepiness that you get from a slow zombie. A fast zombie doesn't give you the time to sympathize with it.

[frederec]

I recall an entire mob of them running full sprint at a riot control squad of cops.
And by mob, I mean easily 100+. So I would at least say most of them could.

I think the only one that doesn't run is the mostly decomposed tar-like zombie. But they just cheat. You can only kill them by burning their entire body, they use tools and can think, and they can also speak.

The thing to remember about Return of the Living Dead is it's sometimes considered parallel zombie cannon to the George Romero movies, because John Russo, who wrote Return of the Living Dead, also co-wrote the original Night of the Living Dead. My understanding was that George Romero continued his movies with the slow, now standard type zombies, while the Return of the Living Dead movies went with the fast ones, and they just agreed to take the mythology in different directions.

And you may talk shit about them being cognizant in this movie, but Return of the Living Dead gave us the cry of "Brains...brains!" This was the movie that introduced the idea that zombies aren't cannibals, they eat your brains. It also had a couple of cool moments where a zombie would get on a radio and go "Send more cops." "Send more paramedics."

[Adam Blue]

28 Days Later came before Dawn of the Dead.

I don't like comedy zombie films and I don't count 28 days later as a zombie film.

[LongStepMantis]

And you may talk shit about them being cognizant in this movie, but Return of the Living Dead gave us the cry of "Brains...brains!" This was the movie that introduced the idea that zombies aren't cannibals, they eat your brains. It also had a couple of cool moments where a zombie would get on a radio and go "Send more cops." "Send more paramedics."

I said they cheat. Nowhere did I imply it was stupid for them to do so.
Running zombies capable of thought and reasoning, that also have no weakness short of destroying their entire body...all of humanity would be extinct overnight. ;)

While I enjoyed the "send more cops/paramedics" parts, this part wins in my mind (NSFW) He uses tools, and forget "BRAINS!"...he wants "MORE BRAINS!"
wV1FKU9Oihw

[frederec]

I said they cheat. Nowhere did I imply it was stupid for them to do so.
Running zombies capable of thought and reasoning, that also have no weakness short of destroying their entire body...all of humanity would be extinct overnight. ;)


Sure. But when I first saw this movie as a kid (which must have been edited, I didn't remember nudity from the first time I saw it), THAT'S what scared me so much. It was impossible to stop them. If you chopped them up, they kept coming. If you burned them, it got in the clouds and the rain made more zombies. Now I see how campy that movie is, but when I was a kid, the utter hopelessness of the ending, and knowing that everyone's fucked got to me.

[Bingley Joe]

As far as I figure it, rigor mortis and decomposition are two very key factors affecting the mobility of a zombie.

Rigor mortis in particular would make it nearly impossible for a zombie to manage anything more than a stiff shamble for about four days from about 6-hours after they first change.

After about three days their limbs would begin to loosen up, and could possibly move more quickly.. but this would only be possible because their muscle fibers would be literally decomposing, not because their muscle tissue would be in any way viable (since they have no functioning metabolic processes, their body is not able to produce the ATP needed to cause their muscles to relax from a contracted state).

In actuality, a zombie should only have a "life-span" equal to the amount of time it would take for human flesh to decompose in whatever environment they were found in. In certain conditions (say very warm, humid climates), it would probably only take a couple of days for whatever muscle and skin tissue they possessed to completely slough off of their bones, rendering them pretty harmless (albeit extremely nasty).

[shunoshi]

I said they cheat. Nowhere did I imply it was stupid for them to do so.
Running zombies capable of thought and reasoning, that also have no weakness short of destroying their entire body...all of humanity would be extinct overnight. ;)

While I enjoyed the "send more cops/paramedics" parts, this part wins in my mind (NSFW) He uses tools, and forget "BRAINS!"...he wants "MORE BRAINS!"
wV1FKU9Oihw

Hahaha, I forgot how much I love that movie. :D

(which must have been edited, I didn't remember nudity from the first time I saw it)

That chick with the short hair runs around naked for literally 1/3 of the entire movie.

[frederec]

Hahaha, I forgot how much I love that movie. :D



That chick with the short hair runs around naked for literally 1/3 of the entire movie.

I know. I just watched it again a couple of weeks ago. The last time I watched it was fifteen or more years ago, so I could be misremembering, but I really don't remember seeing the nudity. At that age, I think it would have made an impression on me. Which is why I now believe I must have seen an edited version.

[LongStepMantis]

Sure. But when I first saw this movie as a kid (which must have been edited, I didn't remember nudity from the first time I saw it), THAT'S what scared me so much. It was impossible to stop them. If you chopped them up, they kept coming. If you burned them, it got in the clouds and the rain made more zombies. Now I see how campy that movie is, but when I was a kid, the utter hopelessness of the ending, and knowing that everyone's fucked got to me.

The end solution did end up releasing the chemical into the environment...however
Let's say that one nuke didn't destroy the chemical agent in the all-consuming nuclear blast...somehow. So it reanimates more corpses. Nuke it again. Then nuke it again, then...nuke it again. Even if the agent somehow survives, there would no corpses left to infect by then. :D

As far as the punk nude lady...yeah, that was weird.

[tombofsoldier]

I favor slow zombies, but I understand that game devs need the added variety a speedy zombie would add. I also understand that it's easier to make a "scary" movie if you can do a lot cheap startling moments.

But I don't like horror movies like that. It feels cheap and by the end I'm numb and don't care about the characters so I think it's funny when they die. I want to watch something like The Myst (well except for the end) or Insomnia. Something about a slow, creeping paranoia and madness seems cooler to me. This is all just personal opinion though, most things don't actually scare me so what I look for is atmospheric games, movies, ect. I'd rather have Half Life 2's creepy wailing zombies than zooming fast zombies like in the Dawn of the Dead remake.

Do have to admit I liked 28 Days Later though, mainly because it was weird and badass more than anything being scary about it.

[Ravenlock]

I'll throw my hat into the ring for "slow zombies". I definitely prefer the type of scary provided by a creeping, inevitable demise than the "OMG SHIT JUMP" shock value of a generic rushing monster that comes out of the dark.

The thing about slow zombies is they're unique from other traditional monster types. Slow zombies don't rush at you. Slow zombies don't hide or lure you into a trap. Slow zombies are stupid, brutish, weak, single-purpose foes who you are unquestionably superior to... but there are just too many of them, and they will keep on coming, and you will lose.

Inevitability is a very specific kind of fear & dread. Once zombies are running / leaping / wallclimbing acrobats, they become indistinguishable from every other type of Hollywood monster menace. Not that they aren't still scary - I mean, Jesus, the leapers in Half Life 2 definitely peaked my scare-o-meter - but it's a different kind of fear, and one I don't find as interesting or entertaining.

That said, I still very much want to play Left 4 Dead, if only because that sort of co-op sounds totally awesome.

[ClannerDelta]

But I don't like horror movies like that. It feels cheap and by the end I'm numb and don't care about the characters so I think it's funny when they die.

I agree, I did call it cheap as well. It's a simple way to scare almost anyone. Basically, if a 6 year old can pull off the same effect as a "scary movie" then I'm of the opinion the creator of the movie failed miserably.

[Mastergeo7]

I like them both to be honest.

Just think about something, slow zombies with survivors full of guns it's not so terrifying anymore ;)

[Widgetcraft]

The first time I saw 28 Days Later I wasn't impressed and I hated it when people called it a zombie movie. Zombies are dead and the whole point of the movie was to wait 28 days until the infected died of starvation. Zombies do not die so easily.

I think the fast zombie phenomena has to do with the need to make horror less personal and more shocking. A good comparison is the slasher genre if you map out its lifespan from Psycho to Hostel. The earlier films were more thought provoking and suspenseful, where the newer films emphasize gore over plot or suspense.

The idea behind the original Night of the Living Dead was the fact that our friends, family, and neighbors were now the monsters. A zombie that becomes stronger, faster, and growls like an animal takes away its human characteristics and it becomes a monster. Yes, it is more exciting, but it lacks the subtle creepiness that you get from a slow zombie. A fast zombie doesn't give you the time to sympathize with it.

Nearly all zombies, which aren't of mystical origin, are infected with something.

[muddi900]

Fuck slow zombies. How can anyone concieve an apocalypse which is caused by such slow creatures. They are like standing there for 500 hours. Bomb them and get rid of them, simple.

28 Days Later is the only zombie movie that matters!

I see an internet meme emerging.

EDIT: Slow moving zombies aren't creepy or scary, they're just boring.

[Re3x]

Faster ones would suck. There are enough already to pin you in when they are slow.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Fast zombies are much more terrifying than slow zombies.

[Widgetcraft]

Faster ones would suck. There are enough already to pin you in when they are slow.

Does it matter? You can literally shove them over with a gentle push; they'll tumble down like dominos. Slow zombies are virtually no threat to anyone with half a brain and a somewhat functioning body. I guess if you're an invalid of some kind, slow zombies could be a problem for you; for me, they'd basically be a minor inconvenience for a month or two.

[opsin]

Yea, it all depends. It's very difficult to make an effectively dread-filled thing,in any medium, with slow zombies. You get a growing sense of panic when they come en masse, but mostly the people who perish do so because they're thick as pig shit (mostly referencing Dawn of the Dead here).

That doesn't mean I wouldn't say I typically prefer shambling zombies. Dawn of the Dead is one of my favourites, but then it's not a horror movie. It's a socio-political treatise. Something like Dead Set I really enjoyed, and 28 Days Later, but relied upon fast zombies to try and scare the shit out of people. OK, they're mostly startling situaions, as Yahtzee mentions with Dead Space, but if you can effectively ramp up the tension in your usual horror movie manner, then throw in the startle, it is effective.

So, it depends... What I'd love to see though, is a game ala L4D, that used slow zombies. I know there's Dead Rising (lots of Dead Somethings here...), but it wasn't very good. If the rumour about Liberty City going all zombified was true, it could have been awesome. Though gibbing would be necessary. And chainsaws.

Oh, and interestingly, while Dawn of the Dead was socio-political rather than straight horror, and Pegg mentions that indeed they lifted that legend of zombie lore, Dead Set was also more socio-political than anything else in my eyes, but did horror more effectively than Shaun of the Dead. I'm not saying it's better or anything, I love Shaun of the Dead, but I think it's a bit harsh of Pegg to dismiss it to any degree for not lifting the DotD lore, when in fact it sort of does, by attacking TV and media culture in a world of zombies.
I will begrudgingly admit however, I was expecting slow zombies in Dead Set. And was at first disappointed they weren't. But... I don't really mind. It would be interesting to see how it would have been the other way, but it's not just a straight switch job, you'd have to rewrite quite a lot of it.

[Wasson_]

claymation zombies are the best.
6d-tNXxTRBA

actually, I think this illustrates what makes the classic true zombie much more awesome. The slower pace lends them and their victims to a much more gruesome demise...otherwise it's just a lot of shooting and running and snarling...as Dawn of the Dead demonstrated.

[Scaryfaced]

Does it matter? You can literally shove them over with a gentle push; they'll tumble down like dominos. Slow zombies are virtually no threat to anyone with half a brain and a somewhat functioning body. I guess if you're an invalid of some kind, slow zombies could be a problem for you; for me, they'd basically be a minor inconvenience for a month or two.

If you were living out in Death Valley, I could totally see your point. If your in a wide open field and theres a single, limping zombie coming at you, you'd be a frickin idiot to get caught. That really isn't the point of slow zombies, though. When as much as a single bite can turn you, your life becomes a game of cat and mouse.

The thing about zombies is they tend to amass near any area with a good number of survivors. If you live in a city, suburb, or pretty much anywhere with a decent sized population, your probably going to get caught, one way or another. Shoot 'em in the head, you'll eventually run out of ammo. Run away and your eventually get tired. Slow zombies build a natural sense of hopelessness among the survivors. You can keep fighting back, or running away, but it's only a matter of time. Fast zombies might as well be any other monster you've ever seen.

Land of the Dead was a pretty good example of what happens to a group of people with guns. It...well, it didn't go so well.
________
Milf Tube (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/28/milf/videos/1)

[Xerxes]

I like both. I wrote a blurb where they kind of went from rabid fast zombies to the slow decaying zombies. No hulk zombies though.

[frederec]

Fuck slow zombies. How can anyone concieve an apocalypse which is caused by such slow creatures. They are like standing there for 500 hours. Bomb them and get rid of them, simple.


Well, in Day of the Triffids they had to give the killer plants a fighting chance by making the ENTIRE WORLD BLIND. So, that's one way to conceive of an apocalypse with slow creatures. Silly, but it got the job done.

[Kelegacy]

Slow zombies. They don't kill you because of their speed, they do because of their numbers and relentlessness.

Fast zombies just aren't as scary for some reason. There seems to be little dread for me. Though they can be used well in some films, like 28 days later.

[Lint of Death]

claymation zombies are the best.

Well, that was the most disturbingly disgusting claymation I've ever seen. D:

Also, I agree about the horror-superiority of slow zombies. And, wow, Simon Pegg's quote about "the cancer sleeping in the double helix," that is such a poetic line.

[Jeffool]

This is the lamest argument in favor of slow zombies. The reason directors moved away from slow zombies is because, as a threat, they are pretty fucking low. I'd rather be standing in front of a thousand slow zombies, unarmed, than in front of Jason Voorhees with a shotgun. Hell, dozens upon dozens of slow zombies are less of a threat than just one regular guy. Night of the Living Dead is basically a joke, as at any point in time, the characters could have run right past all of the zombies. Hell, run is an exaggeration, they could speed-walk past all of the zombies.

Even games that are based entirely around slow zombies (Resident Evil and Dead Rising come to mind) the developers have to toss in more serious threats to add any difficulty to the game at all.Video games (and a large chunk of movies) that feature zombies are as emotionally deep as an ice tray, and I see making the zombies a larger threat as a cheap way to drama.I think the fast zombie phenomena has to do with the need to make horror less personal and more shocking.Absolutely. Point in case:EDIT: Slow moving zombies aren't creepy or scary, they're just boring.Like Heretic Machine (Peri, I'll never not call you that!) you act like the zombies are supposed the be the main stars of the story. I don't understand any appeal in that type of story at all. I don't want my zombies to be Jason Voorhees, constantly chasing the main characters and regularly having to be fought. I want them to be an all-permeating force that surrounds the characters as a backdrop of death.

I look at something like Hitchcock's Lifeboat (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037017/), a bunch of people on a lifeboat during WII in the middle of the ocean... And it has the exact same things I want in a "zombie film." It has a cast of (not as defined a I would like, given when it was made,) characters that have to stand together physically, even if they're divided morally, if they want to survive. They have to work together if they want to overcome the death looming over them (the ocean,) or else they'll all die. It's that situation, and the character's actions, that make the movies grand. It shouldn't be about the height of the ocean waves, or the speed the zombies walk, and I see higher activity in the background as a cheap and fake way to attempt to increase dramatic tension when in reality it only serves to drown out the good part, the story of humanity that I came to see.

[Spigot]

...You act like the zombies are supposed the be the main stars of the story. I don't understand any appeal in that type of story at all. Exactly. The Walking Dead illustrates why slow zombies are so terrifying. It's not the zombies that are the danger. It's the survivors.

If we're talking about which we'd rather live through, I just know that I do not want to live through an infestation of Brian Keene's City Of The Dead-style zombies, which, admittedly, is more of a demonic infestation than true zombies.

I'm an equal opportunity zombie lover though. I like the slow ones. I like the fast ones. I'd rather be around during a slow zombie uprising though.

[Shrinn]

Each type of zombie serves their own purpose. Fast zombies are scary as shit, but less logical with the whole rotting dead still being so limber thing.

[Lint of Death]

Hey! Night of the Living Dead is an amazing film! I first saw it from start to end just a couple years ago, on the big screen, and it was scary as Hell and tense throughout.

Also, it's worth noting that even in that film the zombies aren't necessarily slow. The first one in the whole movie is rather fast.

[Khrymsyn]

I like both fast zombies and slow zombies, but I think the purpose between the two is very different...

Fast Zombies are about scaring you with the "terrifying baddie". They are about run and gun, the monster is obvious. If it's chasing you, shoot it. There's no thinking, only reacting.

Slow Zombies are about scaring you with the "other survivors" or a sense of dread. The biggest threat is other survivors and your own inattentiveness. It's of making the mistake. It's like playing a game of "simon says" or "memory", where a mistake means death. It's an inevitable wall of death that you get to look at, and think about, and mull over.

Both have thier place. I think as long as the movie itself is done well, I don't care much about if it's a fast or slow zombie.

[Telefrog]

Fast Zombies are about scaring you with the "terrifying baddie". They are about run and gun, the monster is obvious. If it's chasing you, shoot it. There's no thinking, only reacting.

Slow Zombies are about scaring you with the "other survivors" or a sense of dread. The biggest threat is other survivors and your own inattentiveness. It's of making the mistake. It's like playing a game of "simon says" or "memory", where a mistake means death. It's an inevitable wall of death that you get to look at, and think about, and mull over.

Exactly. To me, fast zombies mean a monster movie, whereas slow zombies are the same as a disaster flick. The zombies are an environmental hazard. It's a literary device to make a group of people unite and try to survive all the while being undone by their very human natures.

Hardly anyone dies in a slow zombie movie because the shambling, clumsy undead caught them on their own. People die because they stop paying attention, do something stupid, or let their personal conflicts take precedence.

[Mr. Murphy]

This thread was a sweet read. I prefer slow zombies and fast infected. Like in Stephen King's 'Cell' and '28 Days Later', or even Resident Evil 4. Infected are not technically undead, but they all get called zombies for ease of classification.

Funny since it's Shaun of the Dead for me. :)

It used to be mine as well. It switched over to Hot Fuzz eventually though.
I can't get enough of Pegg and Frost, those 2 are just epic. :D

The movies are great, but I can't stop watching Spaced (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0019MFY3Q/bookstorenow53-20). My girlfriend and I run through both seasons like, once a month.

I think the first or second episode contains a scene where Pegg is playing Resident Evil 2.

[Spectre-7]

I appreciate Pegg's perspective on the shambling zombie of old, but I'd gladly trade its poetic subtlety for the stark and horrific reality of its faster cousin, the sprinter. Where a legion of shamblers is a potent metaphor for the creeping, relentless march of death, the sprinter represents a wholly different brand of fear. He plays on our latent fear of mankind itself, the fear of the riot, the angry mob and the panicked stampede.

I was born and raised in the suburban sprawl, surrounded on all sides by major cities, with throngs of people everywhere around me at all times of day. This place is a waking sea of living beings endlessly churning through their daily routines, counting well into the millions and stretching to the horizon, with the cold promise of tens of millions more waiting beyond.

Population centers continue to thrive and swell, squeezing out the wilderness that once separated them, and for most this has become a source of comfort and complacency. The sprinter asks us to re-evaluate that.

The sprinter asks you a very simple question: What if these animals that surround you weren't so civilized? What if they were suddenly turned into feral beasts that want nothing more than to rend you apart and devour your still warm remains? Just what if?

Essentially, the sprinter is the realization of just how terrible and dangerous your fellow man could actually be. Emptied of all recognizable feeling, stripped of compassion, fear or pain, the sprinter still remains nothing at heart but a stock, standard Homo sapiens. It's your next door neighbor, your boss and the cute clerk at the grocery store all transformed into slobbering Cujos.

I don't know about you, but that scares the piss out of me.

Don't get me wrong; I love the classic stumbling zombie. He's become a main staple of our mythology, and will forever hold a warm place in my heart. For absolute chills and paranoia, though, I much prefer the newer, faster breed.

[Lint of Death]

Actually, I thought of a case where fast 'zombies' worked great: I Am Legend with Will Smith. The darksiders seem to want nothing more than to murder everyone. Even though their leader is clearly intelligent, this makes the scene wherein Will Smith's character attempts to negotiate or make peace all the more terrifying and disheartening.

[LongStepMantis]

If we're talking movie terms, I find slow, shambling zombies to be more of a lurking horror. A such, they are more frightening to me. It's as if they are one slow-march collective entity, and it wants to fucking eat you. Fast zombies are more shock and awe, ignoring the suspense and psychological terror in favor of "IMA DIE!" scares.

Now if we're talking theoretical zombie outbreak in real life...only an idiot would think slow zombies are scarier. A running zombie outbreak would decimate civilization in record time.

[Lint of Death]

If we're talking movie terms, I find slow, shambling zombies to be more of a lurking horror. A such, they are more frightening to me. It's as if they are one slow-march collective entity, and it wants to fucking eat you. Fast zombies are more shock and awe, ignoring the suspense and psychological terror in favor of "IMA DIE!" scares.

Now if we're talking theoretical zombie outbreak in real life...only an idiot would think slow zombies are scarier. A running zombie outbreak would decimate civilization in record time.

Zombie Usain Bolt? YOU HEARD IT HEAR FIRST AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa

[Karak]

If we're talking movie terms, I find slow, shambling zombies to be more of a lurking horror. A such, they are more frightening to me. It's as if they are one slow-march collective entity, and it wants to fucking eat you. Fast zombies are more shock and awe, ignoring the suspense and psychological terror in favor of "IMA DIE!" scares.

Now if we're talking theoretical zombie outbreak in real life...only an idiot would think slow zombies are scarier. A running zombie outbreak would decimate civilization in record time.

That's the thing.
For me Slow zombies are about the supernatural and a heavy feeling of menace. And I love that.
Fast zombies are just an illness and awesomely scary like moving rabies. And that is also amazing.
But for me they are two distinct problems or bad guys.

[Ravenlock]

While I chimed in in favor of the slow zombie earlier in the thread and I stand by my reasons, I would like to applaud Spectre-7 for giving a brilliant defense of the psychological impact behind sprinters.

Bravo, sir. Very well written. I can't disagree with anything you said.

[ClannerDelta]

Spectre-7 that's a very good sentiment. Might also be why fast zombies never appealed to me.

I live in Fairbanks, Alaska. The population of the city and the surrounding bureau is estimated at 87,000 people. The bureau I speak of is roughly 7,000 square miles. Which makes it larger than Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware. So you can imagine it's not particularly packed. I can look in every direction and see a forest.

So I don't really have to ever fear the mob, the panicked masses. It's more frightening to me that I might wake up one morning and my lone, isolated house might be surrounded by an unrelenting horde of decomposing cannibals.

[alienmastermind]

I am under the impression that freshly dead ones move fast or with some basic deftness. Overall, Zombies can lunge when close enough, but don't move 'fast'. And 28 Days Later, while brilliant, wasn't about zombies. It was about sickos, which were also explored in Planet Terror!

[Jeffool]

Well assuming you're talking about rigor mortis, (via wiki:) "Rigor mortis begins to manifest after about 3 hours after death, and lasts about 72 hours." So after that three-day point we're back to quick zombies until they deteriorate to a point that makes movement uneasy.

But then again, I'm of the mindset that just being dead makes movement pretty fucking uneasy. ;)

[ClannerDelta]

But then again, I'm of the mindset that just being dead makes movement pretty fucking uneasy. ;)

Sir, I feel it was irresponsible for you to make this statement. I would like, nay, demand that you provide studies and statistics to prove that it's "uneasy" to move as a corpse.

[Jeffool]

Actually studies HAVE been done. Watch any corpse; they barely move at all, and they only make burping, farting, and groaning noises. Hell, post-rigor mortis I've never heard of one moving at all! :D

[VerseD]

I agree with Pegg -- slow zombies are better. Zombies as a foe of humanity were never about fast action and chasing. That's the realm of Jason and werewolves and that hick with the chainsaw.

Zombies are terrifying because they are relentless, and there are so many of them. It's like in the end of Terminator, where the robot crawls around but they just can't stop him, except there are millions of hungry zombies and only a few survivors with a few clips of ammo.

Zombies are modern humans reduced to base animal instincts. They stumble around in eternal lethargy and only care about food and going to the mall. That's why Shaun of the Dead, the original Dawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later worked so well, because they were social commentaries as well as brilliant horror films.

When you reduce zombies to just scary monsters (and the faster the scarier), you lose that genre-defining aspect.

I'd suspect that if you're a speedy kind of person (say an Olympian of some merit), there's a decent chance that when the zombie apocalypse comes and you get bitten, you're most likely not going to shamble. If zombies still have some rote memories - like going to the mall, say - I'd bet they can remember how fast they can sprint.

Not after rigor mortis sets in. There's always a few minutes/hours between death and zombification, and that's the physical explanation for zombie speed.

[yeti]

Actually, I thought of a case where fast 'zombies' worked great: I Am Legend with Will Smith. The darksiders seem to want nothing more than to murder everyone. Even though their leader is clearly intelligent, this makes the scene wherein Will Smith's character attempts to negotiate or make peace all the more terrifying and disheartening.

I beieve they were Vampires, in both the movie and the book, although not quite traditional.

I like and enjoy all types of zombies, though good, slow moving zombie movies have been somewhat scarce recently.

[OUX]

Not after rigor mortis sets in. There's always a few minutes/hours between death and zombification, and that's the physical explanation for zombie speed.

That and the lack of higher brain functions. Get an Olympic runner piss drunk and see how fast he runs.:D

EDIT: Of course the only Olympic runner that is going to get caught by zombies is this chick.
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08dafxweUlaGT/340x.jpg

[ShivaX]

The only problem I've ever had with slow zombies is believing they could actually have vast numbers. Like others have said, the only way they can really get you is if you're stupid. If theres only a handful of them in any given area its hard to buy that they'll somehow overwhelm entire populations and become the shambling horde we always see.

I don't mind fast zombies and actually kind of like the idea that they start out fast and as they decay become slow. It makes the whole zombie apocalypse more plausible since they would spread extremely quickly and then become the horde as they slowed down. I also don't mind the whole "not undead" zombie situation ala 28 Days Later.

Mostly I just enjoy zombies and don't really care if they're fast or slow so long as they are there.

[Scaryfaced]

The only problem I've ever had with slow zombies is believing they could actually have vast numbers. Like others have said, the only way they can really get you is if you're stupid. If theres only a handful of them in any given area its hard to buy that they'll somehow overwhelm entire populations and become the shambling horde we always see.

I think your expecting the public to know a little too much about zombies. While us nerds are boarding up our homes and collecting a small arsenal, the majority of the public would be clueless as to what's going on. They'd wander up to zombies, asking if they needed medical attention. "Hey buddy, you look like you could use a hand...OH GOD HES EATING MY HAND!"

I fully expect the majority would be overwhelmed by the few infected before they know what hit them. Most wouldn't take the time to put a bullet in the brain of an average person who gets bit. It's only us wackos who will know what to do.
________
Michigan Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (http://michigan.dispensaries.org/)

[rinichanraar]

The movies are great, but I can't stop watching Spaced (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0019MFY3Q/bookstorenow53-20). My girlfriend and I run through both seasons like, once a month.

I think the first or second episode contains a scene where Pegg is playing Resident Evil 2.

Oh, yeah, I absolutely love Spaced. When there wasn't a US DVD release yet, I bought the UK version even though I didn't have a region-free DVD player at the time aside from my computer. Then, when the US DVD was released, I had to get that, too.

Okay, let's face it. I'll eat up anything that involves Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg.

[Jeffool]

I actually saw Shaugn of the Dead at Comicon 2004 before I knew anything about the guys. They did Q&A after the film and when a fan asked about a US DVD release of Spaced I started taking notes. "These guys are going to be big. No doubt." To this day my cousin and brother pick on me because I came back from SDCC with so many "In San Diego..." stories. :D

[JayVe]

Personally, I don't care WHY or HOW fast zombies suck, since I always prefer a nice, long, slow zombie suck.





;)

[yeti]

Are you doing the sucking or the zombie?

:P