Shamblers vs Runners?

[Micah Ackerman]

So I'm sure that this has been re-hashed on this board a zillion times, but I posted on my blog about the differences and my preference between Romero's zombies or the runners/super zombies that are so trendy.

http://micahackerman.weebly.com/blog.html


You can post on my blog, but it would also be really cool if we had the discussion in this thread.

Thanks
Micah Ackerman

[JonOfTheShred]

So I'm sure that this has been re-hashed on this board a zillion times, but I posted on my blog about the differences and my preference between Romero's zombies or the runners/super zombies that are so trendy.

http://micahackerman.weebly.com/blog.html


You can post on my blog, but it would also be really cool if we had the discussion in this thread.

Thanks
Micah Ackerman

Being a Romero influenced website, I doubt anyone here will prefer the runners.

In a real life scenario, I would much prefer dealing with shamblers. It would suck to have to run all the time, there would be no adventure it'd just be constant peril and cardio. There's more strategy in fighting shamblers, so at least you have a chance. Runners, by default, would be a scarier scenario in real life in that the odds would be much less in your favor.

However, in the context of movies, video games, and books, shamblers are scarier and far more entertaining. Shamblers are more unsettling, layered (not just scary and aggressive, but tragic and creepy), offer more tension and atmosphere, with slow builds that grow in tension up. Slow zombies all around are far more effective as a tool of fiction, and while I understand the draw of runners when used right, usually they're just used as a crutch for an inability to craft tense and atmospheric scenes. Runners can be done right, but it doesn't happen often. (Left 4 Dead being the only example I can think of off the top of my head.)

Runners cheapen zombie lore like a jump scare getting interrupted by a wet fart.

[rongravy]

Yeah, I don't mind runners in movies if it is properly, and plausibly explained. But were it to actually happen, we'd all be toast. So, shamblers it is for me.
And were I to get cornered and chomped, it'd be my own damned fault.
I do hate when rotted corpses, that should be impeded in movement by their predicament, run like a cheetah. I like to think of it all in way that at least functions under most of reality's rules. Barring the fact that they shouldn't be reanimating anyway...

[Legion2213]

The irony is, that although everybody (including myself) prefers shamblers, the only way the world would be properly overrun so fast would be by the likes of 28 Days/Dawn 04/WWZ Movie fast movers, they attack with speed and ferocity...a few shamblers could be bested by a granny with walking stick, unless they are waiting around to be headshot by anybody with a marginal skill with firearms.

[shootemindehead]

About 150.000 to 200.000 people die each day and coupled with people turning from bites, scratches etc a formidable army of undead would be created in no time at all. So shamblers or runners, the undead army will expand very quickly unless serious measures are taken, from the very beginning.

But, yeh, an army of run about dead would lead to a quicker and more total collapse, no doubt.

But they're still a stupid idea.

[krisvds]

On paper runners should be scarier, on film it just doesn't work that way.
In the hands of a crafty filmmaker the shambler becomes a tool to create dread, suspense, tension. Runners often end up in boring action fests with little or no atmosphere. The Dawn remake and WWZ being the worst offenders.

[AcesandEights]

On paper runners should be scarier, on film it just doesn't work that way.
In the hands of a crafty filmmaker the shambler becomes a tool to create dread, suspense, tension. Runners often end up in boring action fests with little or no atmosphere.
^ Perfectly encapsulates the major issues.

[Micah Ackerman]

Yeah I think it depends on the filmaker, if you're using zombies as just an excuse to get rid of a bunch of people then it probably doesn't matter, but I like the shamblers for that overall feeling of dread. The slowly coming biting machine just seems more realistic. If you've been through an incident that will kill you chances are you aren't in any shape to run and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Micah

[JonOfTheShred]

Runners often end up in boring action fests with little or no atmosphere. The Dawn remake and WWZ being the worst offenders.

I agree with WWZ, it might literally be the worst movie I've ever seen. It was so paint-by-numbers it hurt my brain. I also am on the fence about 28 Days Later. Some of it works, but a lot of it is awful. I always start watching it with interest, and then as the movie progresses I quickly dislike the movie more and more. 28 Weeks Later was a better film, I thought, but I haven't seen it in years, not sure if I'd enjoy it at this point.

I like the Dawn remake for some reason. Maybe since I was only 16 when it got released and I went in with an unbiased opinion, it didn't rub me the wrong way. I wasn't comparing it to the original at all at the time. I actually still really enjoy Dawn '04 to this day. I think the whole first 15 minutes, shit hitting the fan part is great. The zombies are properly fucked up looking. There IS a lot of hopeless, dreadful atmosphere, in between the campy humor (which also reminded me of old school flicks.) Marcellus Wallace is a nice touch. Sure, the raptor shrieks are annoying, but at least there was effort and film-making talent put into this film. Even if I hated Dawn '04 I would never put it in the same category as WWZ. Dawn '04 had love put into it, people seemed like legitimate fans of the original and although you could say they were "cashing in" on the name recognition of Romero's original, you could tell everyone was having fun. The effort really shows if you can get past it's flaws. WWZ on the other hand feels 100% cash grab, and every aspect of the film failed completely. It's like they didn't even read the book, or actively disliked it. You didn't get the vibe of "Filmmakers that grew up with a movie re-imagining one of their childhood favorites" with WWZ, it was more of a "Let's teabag Max Brooks and profit off his book with a loose adaptation that bears zero resemblance."

WWZ is to Dawn '04 as Dawn '04 is to Dawn '78.

- - - Updated - - -


The irony is, that although everybody (including myself) prefers shamblers, the only way the world would be properly overrun so fast would be by the likes of 28 Days/Dawn 04/WWZ Movie fast movers, they attack with speed and ferocity...a few shamblers could be bested by a granny with walking stick, unless they are waiting around to be headshot by anybody with a marginal skill with firearms.

I think the reason the zombie apocalypse always works in the movies despite the shamblers being so slow is that no one has prior knowledge of zombies. In most zombie fiction, there is no zombie fiction. They have no idea what's happening. Most of the time they need to teach themselves to go for headshots.