Poll: How do you like your zombies?

Bato

New member
Oct 18, 2009
284
0
0
Fast Zombies are much more terrifying.
Slow zombies can be scary buut they don't move a whole lot, rather vulnerable.

Voodoo zombies are better! Not that scary though, but cool!
 

Alan Gamble

New member
Mar 17, 2010
7
0
0
Zhukov said:
Fast zombies every time.

The slow shambling model utterly fails to frighten me. Why would one feel threatened by a creature that one could escape from at a brisk walk?
Fast zombies on the other hand combine the insatiable relentlessness of their slower cousins with the ability to actually catch you.
Ill second that, 28 Days Later was the first "Zombie" movie i saw that i really loved.
 

JayDig

New member
Jun 28, 2008
142
0
0
Thaius said:
Fast and insane zombies are an excuse. When people aren't good enough to make slow, shuffling zombies scary, they make them faster to make things easier on them. It's very hard to make slow, vulnerable monsters scary. Some people can do it: others change the zombies to cover for their lack of skill. It's sad, really.
Yah. Half of zombie movies are about an initial outbreak that turns into a zombipocalypse. It's hard to show the whole world slowly being overrun in ninety minutes. Romero did it fairly well across four films though.

The zombies from Dawn remake (headshot to kill, super fast, deadly poison bite) would be pretty impossible to survive against, and so the world ends in one day.

Zhukov said:
The slow shambling model utterly fails to frighten me. Why would one feel threatened by a creature that one could escape from at a brisk walk?
Fast zombies on the other hand combine the insatiable relentlessness of their slower cousins with the ability to actually catch you.
World War Z is the answer to how slow zombies would take over the planet. (mostly due to the living)

Also, in the Romero movies ANYONE who dies, whether they are bitten or not, turns into a zombie and the bite poison just kills you. (not sure if this was retconned in the later movies) So all those Rambo Trenchcoaters firing stray bullets everywhere would create more zombies than the zombies.

I really like zombies but maybe more as science fiction(1978) than horror(2004).
 

SteakHeart

New member
Jul 20, 2009
15,098
0
0
Fast, insane, but weak, a la Left 4 Dead. They're terrifying when you're at low health, but with some good weaponry, nothing is more fun to blow away in a cloud of gore.
 

CrashBang

New member
Jun 15, 2009
2,603
0
0
I love 28 Days Later, it's one of my favourite films, buuut I think there's a lot more tension in a film with slowly approaching zombies which want nothing at all except to tear you apart and eat you. When they're frantic it's scary but it's the same scary as every other horror monster. Zombies are unique in their slowness, their danger in numbers and their stupidity which adds a comic effect. Zombies are absolutely classic
 

Tasachan

New member
Jan 28, 2010
461
0
0
Furburt said:
However, a formula I like is that they're fast for the first month or so, then as they decay, they begin to get slower. It makes sense, too.
Oh! I like that. That's going to be my theory from now on.

OT: Depends on situation. If I were to encounter them, I like 'em slow and shambling. In movies? Fast and scary!
 

Arachon

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,521
0
0
Ohno... Zombie threads are making a comeback?

OT: I don't care much for Zombies... Prefer them to be nonexistant.
 

dariuskyne

New member
Oct 28, 2009
178
0
0
Hurr Durr Derp said:
Layz92 said:
Am I really the only one (I always halt after using that phrase but whatever) that is tired of zombies? Why can't we use other undead in movies/games as the main enemy creature? (vampires don't count) Like wights or shades or something similar. I personally wouldn't mind seeing a skeleton horde for a change. So in answer to your question I would prefer my zombies in the form of another monster.
Because of pop culture. Zombies and vampires are more or less accepted as 'mainstream' monsters, but skeletons and mummies and other undead are still very much in the 'pulp' domain.
not so, the mummy has seen plenty of on screen time both in classic and modern film, and does any other americans on here remember a cartoon called "mummies alive!"? skeletons are the unfortunate red-headed stepchild of the undead, they're the weakest, media wise easiest to be rid of with a simple sword slash like in clash of the titans (though how does one really kill a skeleton? other than breaking it to the point of immobility?) and look at ghosts, they've had more screen time and more stories than any other type of undead. another point to make about the infected type "zombie" is that it treads upon the frankenstien monster/reanimator aspect (in the fact that science created them) and the resident evil type zombies and creatures all stemmed from a single virus, which typically kills then will reanimate and mutate dead creatures (and live ones), and not all of the zombies were slow shufflers.
 

Nouw

New member
Mar 18, 2009
15,615
0
0
I like my zombies slow. That way, without the firearms training, killing them is easier.

And! You can lawn mower them too,

Or Kick Arse In The Name Of The Lord!

A nice view of slow zombies trying to rip your head off is a bit more calming.

Then again,

 

Criquefreak

New member
Mar 19, 2010
220
0
0
Sometimes the classics are just better. Sure, the fast zombies seem more threatening but they're higher priority targets that way. It's kind of like Ebola, works too fast to really become apocalyptic. Slow zombies on the other hand won't burn out, will get mistakenly ignored until they're too many to fight against, and get to bring the added shame to their victims of a slow-moving swarm killing them through their own mistakes rather than being properly trounced by a superior foe.

It seems all too often that a lot of horror's trying to go the route of the aggressive scare rather than the dramatically built-up scare. People often tend to be more frightened of the uncertain, being able to let their imaginations slowly change it into a worse scenario than it is. Sure, there's a bit of a let down when the object of terror is confronted, but at least it's still able to be frightening instead of just annoying and aggravating.

In any case, whether fast or slow, I just want those brain-eating hooligans off my lawn.
 

CaptainCrunch

Imp-imation Department
Jul 21, 2008
711
0
0
Zombies, like other horror sub-genres, have undergone a paradigm shift in recent years to keep up with the attention span of the public. While I believe fast zombies do provide a significant, up-front "oh shit, we're screwed" moment, it's really no worse than any other apocalyptic scenario. A tsunami/earthquake/black hole/asteroid would wipe us out just about as fast as a fast-spreading plague of flesh eating creatures.

Shamblers aren't just old-school; they're practical, suspenseful, and ultimately provide the sense of impending doom that can't be matched by fast zombies. With shamblers, there is a tinge of hope that you can survive for a while to see the world die around you. It is that hope that keeps survivors going, ultimately wasting their time and energy, only to be eaten at their weakest moment. It is in these moments that we derive the very nature of human existence - in the screams of the asshole that you once hated, begging you to run for your life; in the moment of desperation between a horde ramming through a barricade and the chambering of the last round you have, as you decide which head to put it in.

I like my shamblers. Yes, I do.
 

Daffy F

New member
Apr 17, 2009
1,713
0
0
I've always thought slow zombies were more scary anyways. The slow buildup of zombies as they slowly advance in near silence. What could be more scary than that?
 

Leitmotif

New member
Feb 24, 2010
14
0
0
Shaun of the Dead would have been impossible with fast crazed zombies.

The great thing about slow zombies is that while they are a threat, it's more of an inescapable inexorable presence than an action-heavy scene stealing wild focus. Puts the focus more on how the characters handle the situation, rather than just how they deal with aggressors.
 

jackknife402

New member
Aug 25, 2008
319
0
0
well they've run actual scientific tests to figure out which kind of scenario humanity would have the possibility to survive. We could survive the slow zombies, though idiots will die(who's sad about that?) But in the likely chase of "infected" then we're screwed more ways than the underage bombshell at a rap concert.

My pick is slow.
 

Pete Oddly

New member
Nov 19, 2009
224
0
0
Slow and shambling is a thing of the past (unless your are the genius Romero). Slow zombies just aren't scary.
 

Delta 3 Actual

New member
Feb 6, 2009
89
0
0
I like fast and insane. The slow ones just aren't scary. And they make no sense, if they can only walk and we can run, operate vehicles, and can fire weapons, how do they even kill people to begin with?