PDA

View Full Version : Slow or fast?



boogeyman87
09-19-2004, 05:59 PM
In the new entertainment weekly in their review of resident evil they put down the fact that zombies are back to stumbling around in this movie instead of running after you. What do you guys think is better. Zombies who run or zombies who walk and stumble around?

NeewollaH
09-19-2004, 06:04 PM
SLOW!!! Slow, Plodding Terror lurking is much scarier to me than running panting zombies. It reminds me of 'I Drink Your Blood'...which isn't necessarily bad, but it's not zombie-esque..

SLAB
09-19-2004, 06:11 PM
As long as I like the story I'm being told, I don't care how fast the zombies go.

Romero's stuff isn't really about the zombies anyway, more about the people in a world that's changing, and how they deal with it. The zombies just happen to be there, and there's a lot of 'em.

Slow moving, but overwhelming in their sheer numbers.

With the remake of Dawn, you still had a world going to hell, but packaged up more like an action film. I found myself not really caring as much about the characters, (except for the relationship between the guy at the gun shop, and Ving Rhame's character) but it moved at a good pace, and was real entertaining, and gory.

Rapid moving zombies, always a surefire threat regardless of how many.

Two different methods, two different kinds of films. Both still enjoyable on their own terms.

My 2 cents.

Laow-Z
09-19-2004, 06:15 PM
I'd rathur see them somewhere in between. I don't really like the very slow walkers cause it's too easy to get away even though most don't in movies but walking fast doesn't fit the profile of a zombie. Something like the speed of our Mikey Myers, nice and steady walking pace.

Maxvayne
09-19-2004, 06:59 PM
Slow. It give's the Zombie's so much more visual style as they limp around and stagger. I really only found it appropriate in Return of the Living Dead because it was a creative move at the time and it was part black comedy.

zombie commando
09-19-2004, 07:07 PM
I would rather see them depicted as realistically as possible.

The body does not instantly go into rigor mortis after death, it takes 24 hours, and stifles off after that.......but by that time the muscles begin to really rot, therefore meaning the zombie couldn't run anyways.

So before rigor mortis I want to see that dead bastard be able to haul ass. As time goes on, the zombie hordes get slower.

halo thirty one
09-19-2004, 08:34 PM
i like the slow moving zombies better, but i did enjoy 28 days later and the dawn of the dead remake. i guess if it's a good movie it doesn't really matter. while i haven't seen house of the dead, i heard it was pretty awful and i think it has matrix styled zombies in that one. i don't think i ever want to see that.

Miss Informed
09-19-2004, 10:21 PM
Slow zombies.. They should be movies in a slow apathetic type manner.

King Sly Joker
09-20-2004, 06:41 AM
Slow or fast it dont matter to me.Long as the plot is good...

Blackesteyes
09-20-2004, 11:48 AM
I think somewhere in between would be good, both are scary as hell to me though, i just find the thought of a worldwide zombie epidemic to be terrifying.

Creepingmouth
09-20-2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by zombie commando
I would rather see them depicted as realistically as possible.

The body does not instantly go into rigor mortis after death, it takes 24 hours, and stifles off after that.......but by that time the muscles begin to really rot, therefore meaning the zombie couldn't run anyways.

So before rigor mortis I want to see that dead bastard be able to haul ass. As time goes on, the zombie hordes get slower.

Nice theory

zombie commando
09-20-2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Creepingmouth
Nice theory

It's not a theory, it's a law......a proven law of biology. I've ran many experiements, and they have all produced the same results......

MichaelMyers
09-22-2004, 01:33 PM
Zombies are supposed to be slow. But Dawn Of The Dead was still a great movie nonetheless.

Mr. Bruce
09-23-2004, 06:29 AM
I am split down the middle both of them are great as long as theres a good plot it shall be fun.

King Sly Joker
09-23-2004, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by icparenumber1
I am split down the middle both of them are great as long as theres a good plot it shall be fun.

Exactly what,I said slow or fast it dont matter.Long as the movie is good and there is a plot...

zombie commando
09-23-2004, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by MichaelMyers
Zombies are supposed to be slow. But Dawn Of The Dead was still a great movie nonetheless.

Says who? What made Romero only person in the world with the license to dictate how zombies should act? Truth be told zombies can be anything that fit into this definition........

n 1: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force [syn: zombi, the living dead] 2: (voodooism) a spirit or supernatural force that reanimates a dead body [syn: zombi, zombi spirit, zombie spirit] 3: a god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped especially in West Indies [syn: zombi, snake god] 4: someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic way; "only an automaton wouldn't have noticed" [syn: automaton, zombi] 5: several kinds of rum with fruit juice and usually apricot liqueur [syn: zombi]

Nowhere in that definition does it say they have to be slow. GAR is an awesome horror director, and great at directing zombie flicks, but he is not the end all when it comes to the word on zombies....despite popular belief.

Given my study of anatomy and decay, my prediction of the way zombies would act had they been real is what I view as pretty damn accurate.

MichaelMyers
09-23-2004, 02:25 PM
Dawn of the Dead is the only movie where the zombies are fast.

Maxvayne
09-23-2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by MichaelMyers
Dawn of the Dead is the only movie where the zombies are fast.

No. The Return of the Living Dead movie's have them also.

Scissorhands
09-23-2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Maxvayne
No. The Return of the Living Dead movie's have them also.

And they dance pretty fast in the Thriller video. :)

Creepingmouth
09-23-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Maxvayne
No. The Return of the Living Dead movie's have them also.

and The House of the Dead has them as well...only if you dare to consider that shit a movie.

Donnie Darko
09-24-2004, 03:41 AM
im a big fan of the Romero zombies, which use slow sneakiness and power of numbers to get theyre prey, and they seem to do better than the fast zombies as far as body counts go.

fast zombies can be effective, but not as effective if you ass me.

zombie commando
09-24-2004, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by project2501

fast zombies can be effective, but not as effective if you ass me.

Trust me, I will never ass you.:p

totempoll
09-26-2004, 04:31 PM
much creepier slow!

MichaelMyers
09-27-2004, 11:59 AM
Yeah they are better slow.

Creepingmouth
09-27-2004, 01:35 PM
movie based on suspence: slow zombies
movie based on action: fast zombie
kick ass movie:both kind of zombies

zombie commando
09-27-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Creepingmouth
movie based on suspence: slow zombies
movie based on action: fast zombie
kick ass movie:both kind of zombies

Here's a poster that smells what the ZC is licking. However the fact that the zombies of the GAR universe is symbolic on several levels, so I don't really want to see a mix of fast and slow zombies in his movies. I want the zombies to be fast for a specific purpose beyond simply being scarier. In other words I want their speed to represent something..........

Creepingmouth
09-28-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by zombie commando
Here's a poster that smells what the ZC is licking.

and is it a good thing? :p

zombie commando
09-28-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Creepingmouth
and is it a good thing? :p
Absolutely.

Kara Strode
09-28-2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Creepingmouth
movie based on suspence: slow zombies
movie based on action: fast zombie
kick ass movie:both kind of zombies

good call

Chomp_on_this
09-30-2004, 08:09 PM
Yea that shit that ZC and CM sound good to me...LoL

Just this topic has been pounded to death...meh.

It's Neal
09-30-2004, 09:18 PM
I like them fast. Its freakier when they are litterally right behind you and they cant out run them. To me stumbling and slow is just cheesey and out of date. Especially when they groan as they are doing it IMO.

Silverpsycho
10-02-2004, 02:21 PM
Definitely slow shambling, creeping living dead! Because it kind of says "Don't you living worry...we'll get you no matter what!"...slow is just suspenseful and more entertaining to me :D

SpawnOfEvil
11-17-2004, 06:30 AM
I like both kinds but I lean more towards fast zombies. They get your heart pumping when they chase you. The survivors have to move faster when they're being hunted. It makes you think(if you were in their shoes) "Holy shit these bastards are gonna fuckin get me I gotta act fast!"

Slow zombies are cool but you don't have to be on such an alert. You can survive with a single shot 4-10 shotgun against those. Against fast zombies you have to make sure everything's good. Your gun has to be at least semi-automatic and you gotta be on your toes. Anyone agree with me here?

Creepingmouth
11-17-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by SpawnOfEvil
Slow zombies are cool but you don't have to be on such an alert.

don't underestimate slow zombies,you could face a horrible death :p

zombie commando
11-17-2004, 03:42 PM
I've been thinking.....fast zombies are initially a cool idea, but I really don't want to see them in too many other movies. It would be like watching Myers suddenly take off in a sprint. Sure it's more dangerous, but that isn't the point. It's a slow, creeping, ugly death that is truly horrific. When zombies start running around, it ceases to be a horror movie. It becomes an action flick. So keep the zombies slow. Makes more sense, and it is creepier and meaningfull on so many levels.

Oliver
11-18-2004, 09:42 AM
I like both very much. What I like about fast zombies is that they can't be stopped. No military is going to be able to contain so many zombies and they'll be over run. Plus, it spreads faster. For and end of the world film, fast zombies really do the trick for me. The re-make of Dawn of the Dead was fantastic. And there was something great about the idea of going outside the safety of the mall or gun store out of the question. Then of course the scene in the 2 reinforced buses worked far better with fast zombies than it ever could have worked with the slow ones.

I like slow zombies though because they take their time to spread. This enables our civilisation to break down from a psychological point of view. People won't be so scared by a slow zombie coming towards them at first and if its a family member they'll rush over to it to help and march straight to their doom. And its always great to see the survivors in these films attempt to run past them. Also, with a slow zombie outbreak you'll get pockets of survivors everywhere (really, its not that hard to survive against these type of zombies) and that'll enable the clashes of these survivors. The motor cycle gang looting the mall is just one of the scenarios that can come about as a result of this.

But frankly, I'd sooner continue to see films being made with both kinds of zombie in them.

Robert Beaudoin
12-29-2004, 02:30 AM
As long as it's a good zombie film, it don't matter how fast they go. ;)

theoutfieldguy
12-29-2004, 06:05 PM
Not slow as hell that it would be unbelieveable for them to catch up.But not as fast as those bastards in DOTD2004.That was a little bit too fast for half dead zombies.

atomic dog
01-02-2005, 07:54 PM
i just picked up return of the living dead trilogy and i'm watching it now. the zombies in this first flick moved at a regular human pace even running. so this is different thatn the zlow ones of NOTLD and DOTD2004.


what do people think of this pace?

Icebreaker_8605
01-02-2005, 09:58 PM
I like both, but I'm more for the slow zombies. Slow brings anticipation and fright, making it creepy.

theoutfieldguy
01-02-2005, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Icebreaker_8605
I'm more for the slow zombies. Slow brings anticipation and fright, making it creepy.

Exactly.Just compare the difference between the zombies of the original DOTD and DOTD2004.That says it all.

T1000416
01-03-2005, 06:29 PM
SLLLOOOWWW!!! Rigor Mortis keeps Zombies from running.

They can't freakin run!

SLAB
01-03-2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by T1000416
SLLLOOOWWW!!! Rigor Mortis keeps Zombies from running.

They can't freakin run!

They can do whatever the writers want, it's up to us whether we think they did it well. ;) :)

T1000416
01-03-2005, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by The Slab
They can do whatever the writers want, it's up to us whether we think they did it well. ;) :)

Yeah, that is true.

atomic dog
01-03-2005, 07:26 PM
but eating brains makes the pain of rigor mortis go away.

SLAB
01-03-2005, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by atomic dog
but eating brains makes the pain of rigor mortis go away.

That's only for the zombies that run a la the "Return" movies. ;) :p

The Romero ones will eat whatever you've got. :D

atomic dog
01-03-2005, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by The Slab

The Romero ones will eat whatever you've got. :D as do the fulci ones too

Blackesteyes
01-05-2005, 02:23 AM
Funny how the majority of people go "uuuuuhhhhrrrr brains" whenever zombies are mentioned despite the fact the very few films actually have zombies doing that, i cant think of any other than the "Return" films at least.

Mr. Bruce
01-05-2005, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by King Sly Joker
Exactly what,I said slow or fast it dont matter.Long as the movie is good and there is a plot... Well I did not read your fucking post. Excuse the fucking shit out of me.

Loomis 91
01-07-2005, 02:27 PM
I don't like it when their really slow or really, really fast; somewhere in between would be good.

bloody_pumpkin
04-22-2005, 04:38 PM
I like slow moving zombies, It makes it more terrifying because the characters underestimate them, especially roger in dawn of the dead, and all of sudden he had a zombie bitting on his arm and on his leg. I didn't like the running zombies that they used for dawn of the dead remake, it was a good movie but I don't like running zombies, it gives it all away, plus they're dead and rotting, they are not supposed to be running; they're supposed to be slow.

zombie commando
04-26-2005, 05:40 AM
Slow moving zombies lend themselves more easily to symbolic interpretation.

DarthMyers
04-26-2005, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by zombie commando
I would rather see them depicted as realistically as possible.

The body does not instantly go into rigor mortis after death, it takes 24 hours, and stifles off after that.......but by that time the muscles begin to really rot, therefore meaning the zombie couldn't run anyways.

So before rigor mortis I want to see that dead bastard be able to haul ass. As time goes on, the zombie hordes get slower.

I remember reading this explaination of yours in another thread. It makes alot of sense. I agree.

zombie commando
04-28-2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by DarthMyers
I remember reading this explaination of yours in another thread. It makes alot of sense. I agree. Well, great minds think alike Darth.

afraid2fall
04-29-2005, 03:00 PM
I voted IT DOESNT MATTER..IT'S ZOMBIE'S..LOL

Darkseid
05-02-2005, 02:56 AM
I can get along with both but fast is where the fear is. I'd rather have 10 of Romero's zombies limping at me instead of 10 sprinting at me like a bat out of hell.

slasherfan
05-05-2005, 10:22 PM
I like the walking zombies, but I thought the ones in the '04 Dawn of the Dead were great. But like most people, I don't think it matters as long as the movie has a good plot.

zombie commando
05-06-2005, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by slasherfan
I like the walking zombies, but I thought the ones in the '04 Dawn of the Dead were great. But like most people, I don't think it matters as long as the movie has a good plot. Smart man.

TheShape2005
05-07-2005, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by zombie commando
Smart man.

I like the Zombies walking much better then running! all tho in dawn of the dead that was a whole new element and really was creepy at some points! if the story is good and the zombies act right then I will be happy with it!! I liked them walking by far more then running anyday!

Nightmareman88
05-24-2005, 04:14 AM
I prefer Slow zombies but It doesnīt effect me from watching like DOTD 2004

myers2004
05-24-2005, 10:20 AM
i also agree that slower is better when it comes to zombies. the fast ones do have a scary idea to it but id rather see the old realistic one that are slow. house of the dead was just way to much like the matrix stuff. return movies were just pure comedy but the first was the best of them. the romero ones were all great and zombie was also good. just didnt like the crappy ones after that one.

DarknessBDJM
05-24-2005, 01:48 PM
Slow is creepier, the ones that can move like humans are more challenging and make the movie more tense in action scenes.
I think both can be about even though, it's just that the more human like zombies haven't been used as effectively creepy. I think the zombies in Mutant were sort of half way between both, and were used to great effect.

Creepingmouth
05-26-2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by atomic dog
as do the fulci ones too

I guess in Paura nella Cittā dei Morti Viventi zombies used to crash people's skulls with their bare hands and eat their brains,but I saw that movie long time ago and I could be wrong

DarknessBDJM
05-29-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by bloody_pumpkin
I didn't like the running zombies that they used for dawn of the dead remake, it was a good movie but I don't like running zombies, it gives it all away, plus they're dead and rotting, they are not supposed to be running; they're supposed to be slow.

Well, if they're dead and rotting, they shouldn't be moving at all.

Now even if they were 'ressurected' they shouldn't be able to see, smell, chew, hear, use their arms, legs, and torso. And in Bub and Land of the dead's case, not be able to think either.

I think slow or fast, either way it's pretty damn improbable, enough so that you shouldn't care about the science of it all.

Chomp_on_this
05-29-2005, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by DarknessBDJM
Now even if they were 'ressurected' they shouldn't be able to see, smell, chew, hear, use their arms, legs, and torso. And in Bub and Land of the dead's case, not be able to think either.

Why not? The brain is the sole re-animated organ allowing the dead to function... doesn't the brain control those things?


Originally posted by DarknessBDJM
I think slow or fast, either way it's pretty damn improbable, enough so that you shouldn't care about the science of it all.

1. Slow seems more probable than anything. Remember only the UNBURIED dead are able to resurrect. In that case, various motor functions would still insue, but they would be minimal.

2. Its a movie.

slasherfan
05-29-2005, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Chomp_on_this
2. Its a movie.

LMFAO. That's exactly what I wanted to say. :D

Mr.Garrett81
05-30-2005, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by zombie commando
I would rather see them depicted as realistically as possible.

The body does not instantly go into rigor mortis after death, it takes 24 hours, and stifles off after that.......but by that time the muscles begin to really rot, therefore meaning the zombie couldn't run anyways.

So before rigor mortis I want to see that dead bastard be able to haul ass. As time goes on, the zombie hordes get slower.

I like that a lot. But I personally like to see zombies hauling ass to tear you flesh apart. Faster is scarier. I wasn't scared of slow zombies becasue they are two esay to get away from. Faster zombies can jump upon you at any second at anytime. Kind of like that part in 28 days later when the main character is in his old house.

boogeygirl
05-30-2005, 08:53 AM
i think it depends on the movie,i mean 28 days had great zombies,but they fitted the movie,i couldnt think of NOTLD having fast zombies,but i personally prefer slower,theyre scarier.

Chomp_on_this
05-30-2005, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by boogeygirl
i think it depends on the movie,i mean 28 days had great zombies,but they fitted the movie,i couldnt think of NOTLD having fast zombies,but i personally prefer slower,theyre scarier.

The only thing is, the "infected" in 28 Days Later were not technically zombies. So them being able to run, was more probable than anything running in a Romero-style zombie film.

Creepingmouth
05-30-2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by boogeygirl
i think it depends on the movie,i mean 28 days had great zombies

I highly suggest you to see that movie again: those were not zombies but common human beings affected by a new form of rabies.
So they were 100% still alive

Nightmareman88
05-30-2005, 12:05 PM
yeah the people in 28 days where not zombies they where effected by a virus called "Rage" wich is way the went so nutt

The "zombies" in 28 days are actully anti-zombies

1.they donīt eat anything at all

2. the are running(not sure if it counts)

3. the infection takes more then 20 seconds for someone to turn in to a "zombie, insted in other films it takes mostly 3 days ore some hours

4. They donīt like daylight wich other zombies doesnīt care if it is day ore night

boogeygirl
05-30-2005, 09:22 PM
yes,but i still consider 28 days a zombie movie,you sure they dont eat anything in it? i mean its been a long while since i saw it last... and i do remember that they are infected cos the subtitles had the most stupid word for them

Nightmareman88
05-30-2005, 09:34 PM
No they donīt eat anything at all they do bit there victims but thats only to spread the infection they also spits there blod at there victims to get them infected

zombie commando
05-31-2005, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Chomp_on_this
The only thing is, the "infected" in 28 Days Later were not technically zombies. So them being able to run, was more probable than anything running in a Romero-style zombie film. Well, they weren't Romero-esque zombies....but they still fit into the dictionary definition of zombie. Before Romero came around what defined someone to be a zombie was very flexable.

Creepingmouth
05-31-2005, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by zombie commando
Well, they weren't Romero-esque zombies....but they still fit into the dictionary definition of zombie. Before Romero came around what defined someone to be a zombie was very flexable.

so is it possible to call "zombie" someone who never died?

zombie commando
05-31-2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Creepingmouth
so is it possible to call "zombie" someone who never died? Yes.

Creepingmouth
06-01-2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by zombie commando
Yes.

can we say Demoni is a zombie movie too then?

zombie commando
06-02-2005, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Creepingmouth
can we say Demoni is a zombie movie too then? Weren't they technically transforming into demons?

Creepingmouth
06-02-2005, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by zombie commando
Weren't they technically transforming into demons?

yes but weren't the people in 28 Days Later transforming only into rabid people?
If 28 Days Later is a zombie movie why Demoni is not?
to be specific :what's the most correct definition of "zombie"?

zombie commando
06-03-2005, 02:38 PM
zombie
n 1: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a
supernatural force [syn: zombi, the living dead]
2: (voodooism) a spirit or supernatural force that reanimates a
dead body [syn: zombi, zombi spirit, zombie spirit]
3: a god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped
especially in West Indies [syn: zombi, snake god]
4: someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic
way; "only an automaton wouldn't have noticed" [syn: automaton,
zombi]
5: several kinds of rum with fruit juice and usually apricot
liqueur [syn: zombi]

Creepingmouth
06-03-2005, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by zombie commando
zombie
n 1: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a
supernatural force [syn: zombi, the living dead]
2: (voodooism) a spirit or supernatural force that reanimates a
dead body [syn: zombi, zombi spirit, zombie spirit]
3: a god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped
especially in West Indies [syn: zombi, snake god]
4: someone who acts or responds in a mechanical or apathetic
way; "only an automaton wouldn't have noticed" [syn: automaton,
zombi]
5: several kinds of rum with fruit juice and usually apricot
liqueur [syn: zombi]


the 5th category is the best.

the people in 28 Days Later belong to the 4th category,right?
but don't come under the same definition the people in Demoni?
can't be a person a demon and a zombie at the same time?

I know I'm keeping on asking but i'm interested about that topic

zombie commando
06-03-2005, 02:50 PM
Sure, they could be both. I really wouldn't worry too much about the classification.....it's just a movie mate!

Creepingmouth
06-03-2005, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by zombie commando
Sure, they could be both. I really wouldn't worry too much about the classification.....it's just a movie mate!

I know:it's useless being too schematic about horror movies but some day ago I had a discussion with a friend about that and i wanted to ask it to an expert

Nightmareman88
06-04-2005, 12:37 AM
I think we sould call the people in 28DL "Infecteds":)

Creepingmouth
06-04-2005, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Nightmareman88
I think we sould call the people in 28DL "Infecteds":)

aren't zombies infected as well?

complete
06-04-2005, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by zombie commando
I would rather see them depicted as realistically as possible.

The body does not instantly go into rigor mortis after death, it takes 24 hours, and stifles off after that.......but by that time the muscles begin to really rot, therefore meaning the zombie couldn't run anyways.

I like both. It was great to see the running zombies in the remake of Dawn. But I also like the walking zombies.

Basically, as it's fiction, I guess it doesn't really matter. I mean, realistically, the brain doesn't function whatsoever when you've passed on. No primal instincts. So, what's to say that the muscles in zombie's die off? The virus passed through could keep certain areas in tact. And as Dawn remake is different to the original, there are different rules & law on the way zombies work.

Again, I like both. Some films work better with slow zombies, others work better with fast. And it'd be cool to see them able to run, then slow downa s time passes:D That's what I liked about the Dawn remake, it should them rotting gradually. They weren't just instantly rotting corpses.

Nightmareman88
06-04-2005, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by Creepingmouth
aren't zombies infected as well?


no there dead LOL!

Creepingmouth
06-04-2005, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by Nightmareman88
no there dead LOL!

in some movies they're dead brought back to life by some kind of virus which infects them.That's why a zombie's bite infects you causing your death and your "return" so zombies are infected as well.

ZomBrad
09-04-2005, 05:55 PM
I find the walking so creepy!! I didn't mind the running in DOTD 2004..........idk, IMO Romero's vision is better............altho, running zombies are better than no zombies.....I saw the trailer for Resident Evil 5.....looks like they're gonna have some running zombies....which is ALOT better than the spanierds from RE4......it's just not Resident Evil without zombies! Sure they were zombie-esque.....but they were too smart, and they talked...............yeah, that sucks, lol

So, in conclusion....I favor the slow ones over the fast ones........but still, any sort of zombie, whether it be, Romero's or DOTD2004's, is better than no zombies at all!

DREAMASTER
11-01-2005, 01:38 PM
I loved the running zombies in Dawn 2004. It makes things more frightning coz if u don't want to die and become a zombie u better run for your like or they will catch u.

Superman
11-26-2005, 08:04 PM
I vote fast. I loved the Dawn of the Dead re-make. I thought it was very wel done and enjoyed when I first saw them run. It was totally unexpected.

Laow-Z
11-26-2005, 08:28 PM
I'm somewhere in the middle. Slow isn't too exciting, no way someone should be caught with them doing a slow crawl but then i don't like them running either, doesn't fit the zombie stereo-type as we knew it. Somewhere in the middle of Night of the Living Dead and 28 Days Later is ok.

PhantomPhart
11-26-2005, 09:06 PM
I don't really care for fast ones. I wouldn't mind people who hadn't been dead long having a little more speed but not sprinting like Ben Johnson.

Bucky-lives
11-30-2005, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by PhantomPhart
I don't really care for fast ones. I wouldn't mind people who hadn't been dead long having a little more speed but not sprinting like Ben Johnson. I doubt they'd be on the juice like he was though lol

Slow ones are what i prefer to see myself. But if someone is just bitten and turns into a zombie they should have more speed so i agree with you and Laow-Z
on that.

WhiteZombie
12-03-2005, 08:31 AM
though runnners are a shit load more scary its hard to decide. i like the idea that if they were recently bitten then they can run because there body hasint begun rotting yet, but as time goes on if there not killed by then, there bodys begin to rot and they become slower untill they can only walk.

kaley
12-14-2005, 03:52 AM
deifnately walking....any killer is scarier walking

Lonnie_Elamb
02-02-2006, 09:23 PM
I enjoy both. I believe I like the slower zombies in bigger numbers more. At first it seems like you can always outsmart them, but with them being so slow and stupid, people tend to underestimate them and leave their guard down a bit, and that's when it's over for them. The fast zombies are defenitly more of a threat, but I do like the old fashion, slow zombies more.

Audrey Myers
02-17-2006, 09:48 PM
Here goes my opinion...

Walking zombies: They're scary but slow. The good thing about this is that it gives the prey enough time to get out of where he/she is.

Running Zombies: It's a good idea to also have running zombies because its more of excitement. It's like when you're watching Dawn of the Dead(2004) and the zombies enter to small and they're all scattering, you know your saying to yourself.."Run biatch, ruuuun!!".

But in the other hand look at Land of the Dead.. Most of the zombies in that movie walk. I found it rather boring. The other thing I also found rather odd if the zombies having human senses and humans letting the zombies go because they think they're lookin' for a home. I don't think they're looking for a phone I think they're looking for fresh meet.:cool:

3pidemiC
02-17-2006, 09:54 PM
Running zombies are for Action movies. Walking zombies are for GOOD movies. Hardy har.

But Walking zombies really are better. They make everything more tense. Kind of like a slow death taking over the world. It's nice. Keep'em slow!

Audrey Myers
02-17-2006, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by 3pidemiC
Running zombies are for Action movies. Walking zombies are for GOOD movies. Hardy har.

But Walking zombies really are better. They make everything more tense. Kind of like a slow death taking over the world. It's nice. Keep'em slow!
But I don't get it. How could slow zombies get to running humans? I love slow zombies when they get ahold of people but it's kinda hard to see a slow thing like from Return of the Living Dead(original) killing running humans.:p

SassyLassy
04-08-2006, 11:28 PM
I never thought the slow zombies were scary at all, but the ones in 28 Days Later were really terrifying. Fast zombies get my vote!

3pidemiC
04-09-2006, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Audrey Myers
But I don't get it. How could slow zombies get to running humans? I love slow zombies when they get ahold of people but it's kinda hard to see a slow thing like from Return of the Living Dead(original) killing running humans.:p

If there is an overwhelming amount, they can trap you. Just watch some movies like the original Dawn or Day of the Dead. Those movies are actually nerve-recking because of the slow moving zombies overwhelming their victims.

Nightmareman88
04-09-2006, 05:28 AM
For me, I go for runners. But thats only for ROTLD and ROLTD only.

While otherwise I enjoy Walkers just as much.

michael =TERROR
04-14-2006, 01:53 PM
The only running zombies I have ever liked has been rotld, I dont think zombies are suposed to be scary all their joints should be frozen up.

Bennett Tramer
04-30-2006, 07:14 PM
walking of course their zombies and that means some of them have been dead a long time so i don't think that they would be able to run in the first place

Crow
05-19-2006, 10:06 PM
doesnt matter to me. ill pretty much watch any zombie movie whether they run or not

pacotaco83
08-16-2006, 09:11 PM
Fast zombies make it scarier because there is no way in hell you can get away.

Rich
08-17-2006, 01:11 AM
SLOW!!! Slow, Plodding Terror lurking is much scarier to me than running panting zombies. It reminds me of 'I Drink Your Blood'...which isn't necessarily bad, but it's not zombie-esque..

This guy knows what he is talking about. Zombies that run ARE NOT ZOMBIES, they are other creatures. They are living dead, but not zombies.

George Romero set the rules in Night of the Living Dead (not the first zombie film, but the measuring stick of the genre). They are slow moving. They are dead. They are all messed up. They eat flesh. Those things in the new Dawn of the Dead were not zombies. They were living dead creatures. Zombies do not run and keep up with speeding vehicles.

Return of the Living Dead does not count because it is not a serious movie, it is a spoof.

AJ*
08-17-2006, 03:42 AM
It depends on the situation. If the setting is more out in the open I would like to see the fast zombies. If you have a lot of room to maneuver it pretty much neutralizes the threat of the slow zombies.

If the setting is more of an enclosed area then I prefer slow zombies.

Slasher Villain
09-03-2006, 07:08 AM
Personally I prefer running zombies

Muse
09-03-2006, 11:49 AM
SLOW!!!!!! As George A. Romero (i think) stated, "if your a corpse, you dont run, your just a corpse!"
and i agree... Just cos you've come back to life doesn't mean your human!! Zombies are slow because thats what a zombie is! A zombie than runs isn't a zombie, what is it? i dont know, but it sure as hell aint a zombie!!! Zombies have always been slow and jus cos a couple of movies changed that, doesn't mean whats been told for so long should be different!!!

SLOW SLOW SLOW ZOMBIES!!! For now and forever.. always slow ;)

Clark Kent
09-03-2006, 11:56 AM
I'll watch a zombie movie wether if they're fast or slow, but I prefer running zombies. Even though people say "zombies aren't made to run", I still think they're more entertaining. I don't like them to be too slow because they're easy to get away from(hence, DOTD). But DOTD was still a great film.

Hallow's Eve
09-26-2006, 01:26 AM
I prefer the slow, shambling zombies, it just makes more sense, because I think if someone just came out of the grave, they wouldn't be moving around that much. Plus it's just creepier that way. It was a cool and different idea to have them run though. But look at a movie like "house of the dead" when they are jumping around like spider-man, they had an awful amount of energy for someone that just came out of the ground.

mr32
12-17-2006, 01:51 PM
I like both running zombie are the scarier cause you cant get away from them, just think if they did come back to live as running zombie we wouldnt have a chance. I rather a have the slow zombies they are just empty shells.

Count_Sarge
11-06-2008, 09:57 PM
I personally, would like to see a zed film where you start with runners(not to the extend of Dawn '04 though) that maybe move fast for two weeks to a month or so. Then maybe as time goes on the first wave zombies begin to slow down. So by the time they slow down their numbers make up for their physical limitations. Err....Well thats how I think of it.:nodsmile:

FTL
11-06-2008, 10:03 PM
hmmmm slow, I like it slow.

HoozKook
01-07-2009, 08:34 AM
Walking Zombies, Because they're the classic zombies and I would rather be up against them in a real zombie holocaust

Captain Mal
01-07-2009, 11:07 AM
Slow, for the love of God, slow. Fast zombies should not be called zombies they should be called something else. HATE fast zombies.

Khan
01-07-2009, 11:10 AM
Walking zombies, as that is what Romero did in his Dead films.

Twisted Sister
01-08-2009, 06:56 PM
Funny seeing you in here, Jer ;)

I find the slow ones more terrifying. Eerier. More time to get scared. Classic.

screamer88
01-14-2009, 11:07 PM
i like the running zombies b/c then youre yelling at the tv for the people to run faster, lol. but really, im a zombie movie freak! ill watch any :)

Rich
01-15-2009, 12:59 AM
George A. Romero is the sayer of the law with zombies. As a matter of fact, his films are the only zombie films that really exist to me. With Romero says they walk, then they walk, and the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

A zombie is a dead rotting thing. It's foot will fall off if it runs.

Squeeze-Wax
01-16-2009, 06:48 PM
A fast zombie just doesn't make sense to me. Zombies seem like they are just barely alive to me. I don't understand how they would have the strength to run.

Pasabi
01-16-2009, 08:22 PM
I was expecting this to be a question about sex when I saw it on the main board. Sort of like JMB's signature of "What's the difference between a Ferrari and a erection?"

Anyways I pick the slow walk to nothingwhereville.

Dead Mechanic
01-18-2009, 02:11 PM
Slow! I don't like my zombies with Usain Bolt speed.

MM2DYLAN
01-20-2009, 01:07 PM
I like the running, actually. It's a lot scarier in a real-life situation.

jbyrd123
01-20-2009, 01:57 PM
I like the slow movers, but I'll watch both cause I love Zombie movies.

Khan
01-20-2009, 02:06 PM
I like the running, actually. It's a lot scarier in a real-life situation.

You do know that there they wouldn't always be running in a "real-life" situation, right?

It isn't possible due to medical and scientific factors.

You are Zombie Squad member, so I would expect you to know this. ;)

MM2DYLAN
01-20-2009, 02:45 PM
Screw medical and scientific factors. I just like the head-explosions when bullet meets skull.

Khan
01-20-2009, 02:54 PM
That can happen with shamblers too.

A newly turned zombie would have some mobility, but one that is months turned wouldn't have that dexterity.

The Zombie Survival Guide says so.

Count_Sarge
01-20-2009, 05:40 PM
The Zombie Survival Guide says so.

I like the Zombie Survival Guide for entertainment but, there are many flaws in it.

For instance, for close quarters combat, the author goes on to say how good the Katana is for close combat, and in other ways displays his ignorance of swords.



Also, I prefer Romero's zombie rules to Brooks. In the Zombie Survival Guide it just says that zombies retain nothing of their former selfs. Well, they do in Romero's films. They have memories, they can figure some stuff out. They're still dumber than the dumbest ape, but hey what of it! Right? right?:confused:

Khan
01-20-2009, 06:34 PM
Many of the basic principles, such as zombies not being able to run, are presented in it.

Of course Romero's zombies are king, but the no running part is backed up on Brook's book.

Twisted Sister
01-21-2009, 06:19 AM
How many copies should I mail out Jer? ;)

The Squad deals with them daily. What we say goes. End of story.

jbyrd123
01-21-2009, 06:46 AM
Zombies that run are alot harder to deal with, they basically render weapons in effective, by the time one is killed the others are right on top of you.

Khan
01-21-2009, 06:59 AM
How many copies should I mail out Jer? ;)

The Squad deals with them daily. What we say goes. End of story.

Every ZS member who doesn't have it should get one. :D


Zombies that run are alot harder to deal with, they basically render weapons in effective, by the time one is killed the others are right on top of you.

The same can go for slow ones too.

Rich
02-06-2009, 11:23 AM
Screw medical and scientific factors. I just like the head-explosions when bullet meets skull

The original Dawn of the Dead probably has the greatest head explosion on film, and that zombie was just standing there.

TouchMe4Money
03-11-2009, 01:09 AM
Stylistically, the slower the zombies- the better the movie! Not that Return of the Living Dead wasn't fun. But that should have been just about the only movie to ever feature fast running zombies! I thought the zombies / infected in 28 Days Later looked stupid for a long time in the movie, but thankfully the movie was so good that it still worked, somehow. But those are the only 2 movies I can think of where running zombies didn't hurt the movie. Every other movie now does it and damn I'm sick and tired of seeing it. It's not intense and it doesn't scare me. It makes me think I'm at a really bad football game ( like... any football game :p ).

The Frightmaster
03-29-2009, 06:21 PM
I think I originally voted for fast zombies, but after watching some of Romero's films I also like walking zombies.

In my opinion it would be much more terrifying if a zombie was running after me, then slowly walking after me. It would be much easier for me to get away if the zombie(s) were walking. But when it comes down to it I like both, so it doesn't really matter. I think the zombies that walk work well in the movies they're in and the ones that run work well for the ones they're in. The pace of the original Dawn of the Dead is slow, so the slow zombies work well. The pace of the remake is much faster, so the fast zombies work well in that movie.

Lord Thurisaz
03-29-2009, 06:23 PM
I like both zombies. Return of the living Dead uses both slow and fast zombies, and it works. Especially when the fast zombies bombard people and/or tackle them. :roflmao:

HalloweeN63
03-29-2009, 06:23 PM
I like it slow at first, then about mid-way through, I like it fast.

Torgo
03-29-2009, 06:25 PM
I PREFER slow Romero zombies, but I don't mind fast ones. I actually think running zombies can be terrifying, too. They add a sense of urgency to a sequence that the slow zombies don't.

Khan
03-29-2009, 06:26 PM
I like both zombies. Return of the living Dead uses both slow and fast zombies, and it works. Especially when the fast zombies bombard people and/or tackle them. :roflmao:

The ROTLD zombies are something I do enjoy, and it works well for that particular series.

Lord Thurisaz
03-29-2009, 06:39 PM
The ROTLD zombies are something I do enjoy, and it works well for that particular series.

Definitely! And seeing Zombie Jason was fucking priceless! Didn't they have someone else do a cameo in the first or second films? I am referring to horror movie references, by the way.

Ispitonmygrave
05-21-2009, 07:46 AM
SIMPLE SOLUTION:

Wouldn't it be logical for the Zombie's speed and movement to solely depend on the deterioration of their bodies?

EX: Burried 1902 - Slow, sluggish,etc

Burried 1984 - More flexible and faster (body is still somewhat intact).

TheThirdHalf
05-21-2009, 08:43 AM
SIMPLE SOLUTION:

Wouldn't it be logical for the Zombie's speed and movement to solely depend on the deterioration of their bodies?

EX: Burried 1902 - Slow, sluggish,etc

Burried 1984 - More flexible and faster (body is still somewhat intact).

I think the remake of DOTD addressed that, in that the older the zombies got, the worse they looked, but I see what you're saying, and from a medical viewpoint, it makes sense. Joints don't quite work right without cartilage haha

TouchMe4Money
05-21-2009, 11:49 AM
I still say - sense has nothing to do with it. It's all about style. I guess filmmakers today think running zombies are scarier. Well, if running fast is a sign of strength, perhaps the zombies should just be capable of stronger feats, as such. Ala- The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue. No running zombie has ever been scarier than the zombies in that film.

At the end of the day, my biggest problem with running zombies (and the super-strong zombies of Manchester Morgue) is that the filmmakers seem to take an awful lot of liberties with this ability. As soon as they just show one zombie who can do what Romero's zombies could not, they're all Olympic athletes (I noticed this plagues Lamberto Bava's Demons films as well). When do they ever slow down? They're capable of too much. The movie is less interesting when they run and can do whatever the filmmakers want them to do.

The first paragraph is an answer to the hopeless situation described by the 2nd.

xBabyBoo666x
05-22-2009, 12:35 PM
I prefer the slow walking /stumbling zombies . For some reason to me at least they seem a lot scarier that way although a fast moving zombie ain't that far behind on the creepyness level .

SlasherBoi
06-27-2009, 12:42 PM
I agree with MichaelMyers..Zombies are supposed to be slow, right?! Well thats my answer..Walking Zombies! Much more freakier and Zombie like that way.

clarrissathetee
07-11-2009, 08:09 PM
I prefer the dawn of the dead remake zombies above all other zombies, they were the most realistic and scary in my view

Count_Sarge
07-13-2009, 04:42 PM
they were the most realistic


Youīve seen real zombies before then?:):confused::worried::bigeyes:

JOeKER
08-23-2009, 07:48 AM
I prefer running zombies I suppose. It makes the movie more intense that way.

Coming_For_You
08-29-2009, 05:35 AM
I chose either/or, because, fast or slow, they're zombies, and brains will get eaten regardless.

spindrift68
08-29-2009, 02:21 PM
Walking zombies all the way.

I'll admit that running zombies are effective though.

Coming_For_You
09-02-2009, 01:27 PM
The runners are scary as hell.

Noctir
09-16-2009, 08:13 AM
I prefer the slow ones, especially since this is how most of them had been presented to me since childhood. Somehow, it makes more sense as well (yeah, the logic of reanimated corpses). With that being said, when I watched the 'remake' of Dawn of the Dead (hated it) the fast-moving zombies really threw me off and made them seem more dangerous. Still, I'll take the slow, mindless ones any day.

SuperDave
09-25-2009, 07:23 PM
There is room in my heart for fast zombies and slow zombies. Thanks to Return of the Living Dead, there's even room for talking zombies :D

El Rooto
11-23-2009, 04:42 PM
End zombie discrimination

Zombies are zombies.

Bearscubsfan87
11-23-2009, 08:58 PM
Personally, I prefer the classic Dawn of the Dead Romero style zombie. With that said, I have no problem with some of the newer running zombies either. I just prefer the walking.

oltrelamorte
11-24-2009, 03:01 AM
I prefer the slow-moving shamblers but I don't mind the running zombies from the Dawn remake or the ROTLD films.

Scarface
05-20-2010, 09:39 PM
I prefer my zombies to move like how I make love. Jerky and spastic.

I find the slow-moving zombies more nightmarish and, ultimately, more frightening. Though I don't mind runners, since they can be scary as well. Just not as scary, imo.

blacksymbiote
07-18-2011, 10:31 PM
I like both. Running ones are scarier but walking ones are also fun to watch.

MyersCult81
11-06-2012, 07:06 PM
The old school walking zombie! I'm really glad that "Walking Dead" chose that direction. Awesome show by the way!

Keru
11-09-2012, 10:48 AM
I think any type of zombie would be scary as hell, but the idea of groups of newly infected just charging after me is freaking terrifying.

Roswell
11-09-2012, 11:58 AM
I can't imagine 28 Days Later with Romero's lumbering zombies, just like I can't imagine Dawn Of The Dead with the quick paced infected (Okay, that's a lie. See the remake.) Both have their merits to be honest. The fast moving zombies are like a tornado. They come at you at a frightening pace, giving you only seconds to react. The slow moving zombies are more like a flood that slowly builds and builds until you're completely surrounded with no way out. Both are different yet terrifying in their own way.

The Devils Eyes
11-10-2012, 04:49 PM
Runners are scarier. And that is always good in a horror film. The only way walkers work is if you are in confined spaces. If you are in an open field they lose their scare factor and are just silly, not to mention easy to get away from. But with runners, you're screwed everywhere you go, so I have to go with them.

Thorni52
11-10-2012, 04:54 PM
There's room for both to exist in the movie world. Dawn of the Dead (1978) is my favorite horror film of all time, aside from Halloween. The zombies in it are awesome along with the ones from the Original NOTLD. I also really appreciated the runners in 28 Days Later. That movie actually probably scared me more then the "walkers" ever could, but like I said, Dawn and Night remain my favorite Zombie films.

TheShape'78
11-10-2012, 05:08 PM
If we're talking decaying corpse zombies and not just infected people, then I prefer them to be slow. I mean, just from a logical standpoint (I know we're talking about walking dead, but bear with me), it's a decaying body; muscles aren't going to be able to take the kind of abuse that running causes.
Now, if we're talking about merely infected peoples (i.e 28 Days/Weeks Later), then running is fine and, when mixed with their ferocity, is quite terrifying.

Just my 2 cents, like it or love it.

-mitch-

ENTERPRISE
12-23-2012, 08:58 PM
As long as their zombies, I don't really care.

I like Romero's slow zombies from Dawn/Day of the Dead. They're slow and easy to get around but if they come in hordes, you better be agile or heavily armed.

Fast zombies - such as ones from 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead '04 - are difficult to deal with because of their incredible speed, which makes them harder to escape from. If you happen to run into a good amount...well, you're fucked. haha

Either way, I'm a zombie fan. I prefer runners for the action, but there's nothing wrong with a good ol' character developing, slow zombie movie. :D

Snoopygirl68
04-24-2013, 02:36 PM
I prefer slow zombies. There's something about a slow shuffling zombie. You could easily outrun them unless you ran into a herd of them.

Kitty
09-11-2013, 12:19 AM
I've gone for the walking variety as they're obviously slower, I can make a run for it cos I don't want my ass chewed by a fast mover.