What kind of zombies you like?

[Dr GonZo]

I like both fast and slow zombies, but I think that fast zombies are more menace creatures or living dead...

[Zombreach]

I'm torn, I like the fast zombies in movies--scarier because it would be almost impossible to escape them-- but I also like the slow zombies--more probable and if they were real, I would at least have a chance. SO, I guess I like both, but since I grew up with the slow zombies, I will have to lean a little to their side as my favorite. :)

[DarthJoe8]

Shamblers for me!! :drinking: and why would you mention Fulci?? I can't stand his crap...:puke:

[Dr GonZo]

Shamblers for me!! :drinking: and why would you mention Fulci?? I can't stand his crap...:puke:


It's hard to watch Fulci's movies...but you must admit to him that he is gore king. His movies don't have great plot, acting is :poo: and I don't like his movies as I like Romero's....but on his own way he made great zombies (I didn't like them beacuse I preferred clasic zombies) and great gore scenes in

"Zombie 2" - you got great beginning (if you seen "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things" (1973) and the end of that movie... "Zombie 2" is like sequel to this movie), then you got gore scene with the eye and shark vs. zombie...and Mia Farrow naked sister Tisa Farrow; music is great

"The Beyond" - you have good music, spider gore scene, great headshot and great end (plot is stupid and actors is bad)

"City of Living Dead" - you have scene with machine and head, scene of vomiting intestinal...but whole movie is bad and this is worst of this little trilogy of his

[ZombiesAteMyDog]

slow.... SLOW .... SLOW ..... SLOW !!!!

I prefer slow zombies, but thats not to say fast zombies dont have their place

*presses the button on his analogy machine*

its like hamburgers, I love hamburgers , its hard to beat a good old fashioned plain hamburger, the way I have been eating them for 29 years. however, sometimes I want something different, and I will get a spicy jalapeno burger with pepper jack cheese, its spicy, its new, its exciting, its different - but it is not something I would want a steady diet of or to eat it every day. I might get 1 or 2 jalapeno burgers out of every 10 hamburgers I eat.

and that is the way runners should be used, the shamblers are the old trust worthy favorites that we have all loved for years, now every once and a while you want to spice it up and want something different throw in a movie or 2 with runners , but at the end of the day I am always going to come back to the good old fashioned slow as hell shamblers.

its also worth nothing that with runners it seems they are only true zombies somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 - 60% of the time and the rest they are infected or rage "zombies" like 28 days later, if their were more examples of actual undead zombies that were runners I might view them more favorably , dawn 04 got runners right.

:drinking:

[dead and loving it]

The best zombies are slow, stupid and numerous. :scare:

[Eknytz]

Fast zombies as they seem more of a threat.

-EDIT BTW you posted this thread in wrong section of the forum.

[zombie surfer]

I ain't bothered, zombies are zombies fast or slow. I quite like Fulci films, sure they are stupid & have bad acting but as Dr GonZo said they have great gore.

[Zombie_215]

I like a mixture of both runners and shamblers.

[Thing]

Hare Krishna ones... :lol:
http://gamesnet.vo.llnwd.net/o1/faction/inline/66153-9.jpg

[retro zombie killer]

Shamblers for me! Runners don't make sense because their dead and rotting! They would fall apart if they started running like they were in DOTD '04! Not to say you couldn't have some of the fresher ones moving quickly but Runners are a bit out there for me! I have to go with the slow pokes!!!

[neoanderson9318]

Shamblers for me! Runners don't make sense because their dead and rotting! They would fall apart if they started running like they were in DOTD '04! Not to say you couldn't have some of the fresher ones moving quickly but Runners are a bit out there for me! I have to go with the slow pokes!!!
That is true, but think more along the lines of 28 Days/Weeks Later. Although not technically zombies, they are pretty close.

I don't really care about whether they are fast or slow, they're still zombies. :)

[zombiekilling101]

I dont have a problem with runners.. espically when the movie is done well. I just love seeing a survivor trying to run away by an ever advancing horde. Good shit.

[Creeping Death]

I believe I have said this before, but Oh well, I'll repeat it:

Fast zombies make for a better action/scary movie. Runners are able to create a real feeling of the situation being FUBAR, therefore making the movie frightening. :scare:

Slow Zombies make for a better zombie movie. They truly give the feeling that there are dead-****s walking around trying to eat you. Plus, its more suspensful, because you never know when they're going to strike. :evil:

I vote for slow, but fast are still cool.

[Tennessee Zombie]

I favor the slow zombies.

[Shipwreck]

I like the type of Zombies that bring you cake. A Zombie walks up to you and you are like, "OMG! A ZOMBIE!" and he hands you a slice of cake. Then you think, "that was pretty cool of that Zombie to give you some yummy cake." And you don't want to be rude, so you offer to share the cake. And you know what? Not only do you have some cake, but you make a new friend too. Then after you share a moment and finish the cake. you shoot him in the head. Because after all..... he is a Zombie.

[SWAT Zombie]

lol nice one, shipwreck.

I was disappointed when i saw the DOTD'04 trailer and the zombies were running, but after seeing the movie i was born again. i prefer the runners now. far more menacing, i think. i do still like the slow ones but i have to say if they're too slow it seems a bit silly. taking 2 minutes to shamble 3 feet needs to go. i think a sorta quick limp is preferable. i'm also over the blank, vacant staring ones. i want to see a look of demonic savagery on a zombies face, whether fast or slow. and i HATE it when characters casually push their way through a horde of them, like outside the pub in 'shaun of the dead'. that makes the zombies seem not very dangerous at all. he should have been dragged down and torn to shreds.

[Rufus_Cane]

The rules for survival change so much with fast vs. slow that I really can't bring myself to choose a preference.

Fast zombies make more terrifying films (a la 28 days later - and yes i call them zombies now) and undoubtably helped with the reintroduction of zombies into the mainstream that seemed to happen in the early noughties.

But slow zombies are, I find, much more unnerving. When someone comes a cropper to slow zombies it's more often than not due to a lapse in concentration and the idea of a world where constant vigilance and forward planning is needed just to survive provides a more cerebral horror.

I used to be firmly on the slow zombie bandwagon, and they're still the ones that i dream about (nightmare about?) but I feel a bit like I'm being swept away by the tide of fast ones.

In the end I think i prefer slow zombies, but I don't hold any prejudices. I don't see a trailer and think 'oh boo, fast zombies'. I think the key point is that now I know what to expect from each.

[Rufus_Cane]

Oh and one more thing. I can't help but laugh when people argue that zombies can't be fast because they're dead and the muscles are dried up/they'd fall apart/rigor mortis. We're talking about walking corpses here! It's very selective to bring science in to explain why they shouldn't run and totally ignore that it also dictates that they shouldn't even move at all. I don't think that just because moving slowly is closer to not moving at all than moving quickly is that it is the most likely. Both of these situations are equally fictional :)

Rant over, forgiveness please.

[Jimmy]

Either one would work, the runners would get shot first then the shamblers I could use my target skills and pick off.

EDIT: With the kind of technology, bio/viral agents, and science we have these days I wouldn't rule out that some day "a" government might just comeup with something of the sort. I'm not saying it's probable but I believe it could someday be a possibility. I mean, what better weapon than a weapon that will infect the enemy and those people would go around infecting everyone else? Then when the outbreak has done what it was intended to do they nuke the place killing all of the infected.




Except a few...

[SWAT Zombie]

With the kind of technology, bio/viral agents, and science we have these days I wouldn't rule out that some day "a" government might just comeup with something of the sort. I'm not saying it's probable but I believe it could someday be a possibility. I mean, what better weapon than a weapon that will infect the enemy and those people would go around infecting everyone else? Then when the outbreak has done what it was intended to do they nuke the place killing all of the infected.
Except a few...

if ya gonna nuke a place why go to the trouble of spreading an infection in the first place? but that aside, i agree that there could possibly be something that causes a plague thats similar to a zombie outbreak. not necessarily dead people without heartbeats, that are decomposing but still walking around, but something like '28 days/weeks later'. they're still alive but their brains are affected in a way that makes them mindlessly violent. the problem i have with that tho is that they'd be just as likely to attack each other as non-infected. and since the non-infected would most likely be smart enough to hide, the infected would be stomping around looking for a fight and would run into each other. the problem would be nasty but if survivors could just hang tight for a while, the 'zombies' would fix most of the problem themselves. of course having said all that, something like that i think would still potentially be an effective way to take out the enemy. anthrax makes people sick and die, something like this would at least get the population running around, killing each other, spreading the contagion and thinning the numbers.

[charleslovesbrains]

slow zombies take the cake for being realistic, but since the subject is undead flesh-eaters, there's room for creativity. Fast zombies do so much more for the scare factor, but slow zombies are just so creepy...

[Dogg Thang]

Zombies are zombies. To me, that equals slow.

In my opinion, the justification that fast zombies are scarier because they are more deadly is false logic. If fast zombies are more dangerous, just think about how much more dangerous they would be if they could fly or turn invisible. Or had guns. Or, the most deadly type of zombie of all - those with nukes and disintegration rays shooting out their eyes.

Completely misses the point though, doesn't it? And, to me, fast zombies are in that same group as the death-ray zombies.

That's not to say I can't enjoy movies with fast zombies but, to me, they're not part of the same group and don't come with the same things I love about actual zombies. That's why I appreciated the different influences in 28 Days Later and the fact that they weren't actually zombies. They were a different thing.

To me, one of the most creepy things about zombies is that they seem so harmless. They're almost a joke. They look ridiculous. And yet, let your guard down for just a moment and you'll join them. Romero totally created that, understood it and portrayed it beautifully, especially in Dawn of the Dead.

What's more, they come with a real sense of sadness. They are people, not monsters. They're dead, and deadly. But somewhere in there is the memory of who they were, and they were all somebody's family once.

That carries much more depth than 'scary because they're harder to outrun'.

[Steve P]

To me, one of the most creepy things about zombies is that they seem so harmless. They're almost a joke. They look ridiculous. And yet, let your guard down for just a moment and you'll join them...

What's more, they come with a real sense of sadness. They are people, not monsters. They're dead, and deadly. But somewhere in there is the memory of who they were, and they were all somebody's family once.

That carries much more depth than 'scary because they're harder to outrun'.

Completely agree. With no pathos there's no emotional clout.

[SWAT Zombie]

Zombies are zombies. To me, that equals slow.


zombies, like vampires and werewolves, can have variations in their particular mythos. some movies have vampires killed instantly by sunlight, some they are just weakened; some werewolves only change under a full moon, some can control their transformation. zombies can be the same. some shamble, some run, some moan, some shriek, some yell "brains", some are mindless, some retain some intelligence and then some get covered in seaweed and are played by ted danson. i totally agree with what you say about the slow ones being creepy, but i really like how we're seeing some variety these days, just to keep it a bit more fresh. even tho i don't think i'd get much into a movie where zombies used nukes or shot lasers out of their eyes, i'm personally not comfortable saying that zombies can't do that if a scriptwriter decides to do it. doesn't mean i'll watch it tho. but i think the traditional shamblers will always have a place in the genre.
the other thing is, the term zombie is a voodoo term, and if i remember correctly, they were just slaves to the priest who 'revived' them. they didn't rot and didn't eat people. and if there is any truth at all to the myth, i'd say they were very much alive with heartbeats. probably drugged or so massively superstitious they were too afraid of the priest to do anything but be their mindless slave. so who's to say what a true zombie is. i'm not saying you're wrong, i felt that way for years. i loved rotld but i always preferred the shamblers. dawn04 just really did it for me and added a new element of intensity to the genre.

EDIT: also i'm a big fan of action movies so i kinda get into cheap thrills.

[Lowrie Productions]

I prefer slow moving ghouls, visually more creepier

but in saying that the fast ones like from DOTD (remake) are cool and good for the action scenes :)

if zombies were real i guess i would rather go up against the slow moving zombies, more chance of surviving

Dan, Yonkers Vet.

[Jarl]

SWAT Zombie, it's the former. What the voodoo priests do is they give their victim a mixture of neurotoxins, human remains and other various ingredients that change depending on the priest; however, they always have blowfish poison and human remains as part of the mix. Once administered, the mix gives the victim a deathlike-coma, with even the pulse becoming near invisible. Once they person is buried, a voodoo priest will come by at night and dig up the body, and convince the now braindead person that they are their slave. And there you go, one real life zombie.

[Lowrie Productions]

SWAT Zombie, it's the former. What the voodoo priests do is they give their victim a mixture of neurotoxins

damn.....i used all my neurotoxins on the girl i followed home last night, now i've missed my chance at making a zombie

:loon:

[SavageK2]

I'm torn, I like the fast zombies in movies--scarier because it would be almost impossible to escape them-- but I also like the slow zombies--more probable and if they were real, I would at least have a chance.

Same here. In the movies give me the no hope shit scary fast ones, in reality the slow menacing when in masses type.

[secretcog]

In film... I like the fast zombie aka Sprinters. They scare the crap out of the viewer. But in reality... if I had to face off with a Zed I'd prefer them slow and shambeling!

[Catalyst]

I appreciate both. If they where real I would rather face slow ones. And I also understand that many times the fast zombies are actually infected rather than living dead. Fast is scary, but there's nothing like that shambling figure moaning at you.

[AZombieAttack]

I went with slow but IMO, given organic tissue and decay, I'd have to say they may start out as fast in bursts, but would very quickly slow down.