Slow/Fast Zombies Give your true thoughts. [Archive]

TheWalkingDude

07-Sep-2006, 06:12 PM

OK lets set Dawn 04 aside for a min. Because i know that causes a big stir amound some lol. But what are your feelings on fast or slow zombies. I think faster ones gives a movie a whole new and more dangerous effect. Now really, If there is a bunch of zombies moving as slow as in NOTLD how could the world be over run? I understand that alot of people would freak out and wouldnt know what to do but seriously how many would it take to go around beating the snot out of a bunch of slow movers. Its sad to say but i am sure there are plenty of people in the world that would jump at a chance to behead some former teacher or someone else they didnt like that was turned. One crazed postal worker could do alot of damage lol. Driving around in those little postal trucks running over zombies firing there guns out the door. Shoot you can walk away from the slow ones and take beaks where if you got them running after you, your gonna tire out and they will nail ya.

Ok just my oppinion lol Lets hear all the comments lol:|

Adrenochrome

07-Sep-2006, 06:18 PM

Even tho I prefer the slower zeds, I don't get all bent out of shape over the runners. It depends on how they're used.
I can be horrified by both.
If I'm trapped in an old house and a buttload of shamblers are moaning and clawing at the doors and windows, I'm gonna freak.
If I'm in the middle of a parking lot and a buttload of runners are heading my way, I'm gonna freak.
Honestly, I blame it on the Evolution of Movie Making. Movies these days move along at a faster pace than flicks of yester-year.

Maitreya

07-Sep-2006, 06:52 PM

No thank you.

Flying.

Hands down.

TheWalkingDude

07-Sep-2006, 07:19 PM

No thank you.

Flying.

Hands down.

When did flying become a choise lol Still gotta land sometime lol

Andy

07-Sep-2006, 07:19 PM

DVW5150

07-Sep-2006, 08:02 PM

Well , I have to say , when I was viewing Dawn '04 in the theater , I saw the little girl jump , I said, " WHOA!" , 'cause it makes the possibility of escape a little harder. If they move fast, you have less time to re-load, fer christsakes' you would have to use more blunt trauma to stop them. In close quaters combat, theres more of chance of being infected. However , theres' something to be said for the relentless , slow , hoards also . I like both , and a combintion of the two would be interesting.As far as how the disease of these standing dead makes it so, maybe its like a steriod pushing the nerves and muscles to the limit , then you get into the fact that stenches hearts do not beat ...dead means dead , except in movie continiuty.:skull: I like both fast-moving and slow ...:dead:

Maitreya

07-Sep-2006, 08:08 PM

i think they should be fast moving at first, but no faster than they would be as a human (no weird sprinting lol).. then slow down as they've been dead longer and their muscles stiffen and start rotting.. that makes sense to me :)

Yea, I've thought that too...

But you cannot deny that flying is the best.

TheWalkingDude

07-Sep-2006, 08:10 PM

i think they should be fast moving at first, but no faster than they would be as a human (no weird sprinting lol).. then slow down as they've been dead longer and their muscles stiffen and start rotting.. that makes sense to me :)

I think that would be the best way to have a great zombie movie.:D

creepntom

07-Sep-2006, 08:31 PM

for me, it wasn't so much they moved faster as it was they were running marathon speed, something they probably couldn't do before turning.

the zombies in hell of the living dead moved at a decent speed in comparison to the living, which i think Romero's zombies move about the same speed.

the whole running deal reminds me of city of the walking dead(i think that was the name). it had radioactive zombies that could run, used weapons, were hard to kill, etc., but they're faces looked like they had oatmeal on them. great idea, but the director didn't make it work right.

EvilNed

07-Sep-2006, 08:38 PM

I like slow. Fast zombies (and their mutant/infective brethren) are nice for a change, tho. But I still prefer slow.

The slow ones took over the world because for every person that dies, a zombie is born. The running zombies in Dawn 04 made no sense, because they spread by bite only. Yet they managed to infest the entire world within 20 hours. That's just stupid.

Svengoolie

07-Sep-2006, 09:52 PM

I notice that the whole issue of the realism of runners and shamblers has come up again, so here’s my take on the subject. Personally, I think that the runners are more realistic, as they more accurately reflect the type of bodily phenomenon we see in the real world.

Point #1--the Rigor Mortis Issue
According to the most beloved Ernie Kaltenbruener of the Resurrection Funeral Home (21702 East Central, Louisville, Kentucky): “Rigor mortis starts in the brain. And it spreads down through the internal organs and finally settles in the muscles. It loosens up after a while, but it can be broken out…'manually' as they say, by flexing the muscles.”

Bodily movement is achieved by the contraction and relaxation of different muscle groups, working together. If a fresh corpse is reanimated not too long after it initially expires, rigor mortis wouldn’t have the time to effectively cause the stiffness that most fans associate with zombies. And, even if the corpse was in an advanced state of rigor mortis when it revived, it would work itself out of that stiffness in a relatively short time as it moves around on its own accord.

Point #2--the Speed and Strength Issue
It’s a proven scientific fact that people in frenzied psychological states can often do seemingly amazing things physically. Anyone who’s worked in Law Enforcement, Corrections, Health Care, and the Mental Health industries has seen people who look relatively normal become freakishly strong and fast while flipping out. In addition to this strength and speed, some also don’t immediately feel fear or pain while in these states. This has been touched upon in countless genre outings, from Halloween to The Exorcist to “The Incredible Hulk”.

Now, is this strength and speed and toughness coming from deep within? Sort of. Oftentimes people fail to live up to their fullest physical potential not because of physical weakness or inability, but because of psychology. They don’t think they’re that strong or fast, and as a result they’re not. During these states of psychological frenzy, the part of the brain that tells each person that they can’t do something is shut off while the brain enters “fight or flight” mode. And, you don’t even really have to be in a frenzied state to experience this. For example--a lot of times, when lifting weights, a person will feel that they can’t squeeze out that last rep on the bench unless their spotter puts his fingertips on the bar. Now, is the spotter giving the person lifting that weight that much help? Usually not. Just having the spotter there, touching the bar, is enough for the lifter to put the weight up…something he’s doing on his own, but doesn’t think he can without help.

See what I’m getting at here?

Zombies don’t feel pain. They don’t have that little voice inside them telling them they can’t do something. They’re driven by hunger, and hunger alone.

Hence, I think they’d be able to perform to their body’s fullest potential--including great strength and speed…until the corpse deteriorates to the point of mush and falls apart.

Thus--once you put together points 1 and 2, I think that makes a pretty effective case for the runners as being more realistic.

But, I still prefer the shamblers, myself.;)

Maitreya

07-Sep-2006, 10:08 PM

You gotta give that one to him... That was good, a very strong defense on the runner side...

Andy

07-Sep-2006, 10:15 PM

The running zombies in Dawn 04 made no sense, because they spread by bite only. Yet they managed to infest the entire world within 20 hours. That's just stupid.

becuase in dawn 04 you were lead to belieive its a virus being transferred through bodilly fluids (saliva and blood), which is why if you dont get bitten, you dont become a zombie :p

its also more like just most of american in 48 hours, not the world in 20 :p

Svengoolie

07-Sep-2006, 10:21 PM

Thanks, Maitreya....

But, like I said--while I do think the runners are more realistic, and I do enjoy them in flicks...I still prefer the shamblers.

They're what I was born and raised on.;)

EvilNed

07-Sep-2006, 11:44 PM

becuase in dawn 04 you were lead to belieive its a virus being transferred through bodilly fluids (saliva and blood), which is why if you dont get bitten, you dont become a zombie :p

Exactly, it makes no sense.

its also more like just most of american in 48 hours, not the world in 20 :p

No, according to the news broadcast on the DVD, the whole of the US is consumed and infected by the 20 hour mark.

MinionZombie

07-Sep-2006, 11:45 PM

The fastest a zombie should ever move is a swift, almost wafting, shamble - like a baby learning to walk and letting their body get ahead of their legs, so they shamble faster to keep upright...

Or a zombie can shamble faster if going downhill, so they've got gravity working for them.

Why zombies should be slow - their brains are essentially reset to almost zero, so they have to re-learn how to use their bodies ... you know what it's like when you're completely bladdered, so how the fudge is a fresh zombie with no recollection of their mall-bound lives going to be able to sprint off after you? And of course, even after learning that a mall is a good place to go, or what a book might be and then ultimately leading your kin to go and raise some heck in a building still doesn't mean you've mastered your body to the point of running - which is a demanding physical feat ... hell, plenty of humans can't even run! :lol:

It all comes down to mind/body communication and capability for me, nuff said, and in the immortal words of Zombie Man himself...

"Zombies can't f*cking run, end of story!" - and the dude's a friggin' zombie himself!

Click here to watch "I Am Zombie Man", by me, MZ... (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=2925)

Chakobsa

08-Sep-2006, 12:38 AM

Thanks, Maitreya....

But, like I said--while I do think the runners are more realistic, and I do enjoy them in flicks...I still prefer the shamblers.

They're what I was born and raised on.;)

I think that Svengoolie has probably said all that you can say on this topic.
There are sound physiological reasons why the runners are scary, human beings and probably most other animals experience something called pain, yeah, I know it's not very nice but it stops us from damaging ourselves too badly.
Lack of pain due to nerve damage is what leads to the disfiguring injuries you see in those unfortunate enough to suffer from Hansons disease (leprosy).
The musculature (sp?) of the human body is very powerful, remember, our design is best suited to chasing down game in Africa.Our genes know that the creatures that carry them have to be strong and smart but not reckless.
Pain tells us to stop before we damage the body. The dead don't care, they'll keep going 'till your barricade fails or you machete their heads off or they eat you.
Shamblers are scary 'cause in the event of an outbreak human folly and our crowded planet would equal a dismal future for any survivors. Slow and steady wins the race.
I think that the aggregate damage to the race would be the same, though with runners the eventual prevailing condition of zombie domination of most of the earth would occur a wee bit faster.
Btw, I prefer shamblers.:D

Svengoolie

08-Sep-2006, 12:52 AM

First, to my new buddy, Ned:

Exactly, it makes no sense.

Why does that not make sense? The almost exact same thing is featured in the GAR mythos--if a person is bitten by a zombie, that person will die and become one themselves.

The only difference here is that a concrete, scientific-type explaination is given for the plague in Dawn 04, as opposed to GAR's unknown catalyst.

Why zombies should be slow - their brains are essentially reset to almost zero, so they have to re-learn how to use their bodies ... you know what it's like when you're completely bladdered, so how the fudge is a fresh zombie with no recollection of their mall-bound lives going to be able to sprint off after you? And of course, even after learning that a mall is a good place to go, or what a book might be and then ultimately leading your kin to go and raise some heck in a building still doesn't mean you've mastered your body to the point of running - which is a demanding physical feat ... hell, plenty of humans can't even run!

While I see where you're trying to go with that, I've gotta disagree.

By your rationale, zombies really shouldn't be able to even walk right away--they'd have to crawl around like babies until they learned to walk again.

If basic motor skills remain, then that includes running. Even a toddler with Down Syndrome that can walk can also run.

Danny

08-Sep-2006, 03:04 AM

cmon you know fast ones would be mutch scarier in reality, but who cares either way, be it fast, slow, palnt/parasite zombies or even.....*sigh*.....flying....:rolleyes: ts all zombie films and its all good man!:thumbsup:

jim102016

08-Sep-2006, 03:55 AM

Call me a wet blanket, or a burning bag of poop on an old man's door step in the middle of the night....but I just don't like running zombies. When I first saw that little girl in Dawn 04' in the theater, I about crapped myself! Before that, I had even considered them as able to sprint or jump....because they are dead! But, hell, they are up and around after all...but in my mind I think they should be slow, weak and the real threat should come as they grow in numbers. Perhaps the movie should have concentrated on putting some of them on the next American team going to the Olympic Games.

The whole idea about being able to 'infect' the entire U.S. in 20 hours is complete nonsense. I remember from the original Dawn, the doctor on tv in the very beginning in Fran's studio (I can not recall his name right now) says something to the effect of "you have not listened to us for the past three weeks..." Even 48 hours is off the mark in a modern society where instant communication dominates and covers our every move. Word would spread of this fairly easily. Of course, despite the upgrade in technology from 1978...the same problem would exist in either decade...getting people to believe that the DEAD ARE RISING! Who the hell trusts the media anyway?

While we're on this topic, something else popped into my mind. If the dead in Dawn 04' are faster and stronger (and apparently able to jump) why couldn't they break into the mall on their own? As I recall, the security staff simply locked the doors...as opposed to Roger and Peter placing 18-wheelers in front of the doors so the zombies couldn't get enough leverage to cause any damage in the original movie. I went to the mall the other night; it definitely wasn't Fort Knox....

Kaos

08-Sep-2006, 04:08 AM

First, to my new buddy, Ned:

The only difference here is that a concrete, scientific-type explaination is given for the plague in Dawn 04, as opposed to GAR's unknown catalyst.

To be fair it isn't the only difference. I think what he was getting at was in the original series if you die from say bleeding to death from a gunshot wound, you would become a zombie. If you were bitten, you would most certainly die and by simply being dead, you would rise as a zombie.

The unknown catalyst is a pretty cool thing as far as I'm concerned.

Both make "sense" as far as the dead rising to devour the living goes. :)

Svengoolie

08-Sep-2006, 04:35 AM

To be fair it isn't the only difference. I think what he was getting at was in the original series if you die from say bleeding to death from a gunshot wound, you would become a zombie. If you were bitten, you would most certainly die and by simply being dead, you would rise as a zombie.

Oh, I know that, bro. That's why I threw that "almost" in there.;)

The unknown catalyst is a pretty cool thing as far as I'm concerned.

Both make "sense" as far as the dead rising to devour the living goes.

Agreed on both points.

I prefer the "no explanation" angle myself.:D

Danny

08-Sep-2006, 04:49 AM

Agreed on both points.

I prefer the "no explanation" angle myself.:D

same here man same here only 28 days later should explain "its a virus" sotryline, oh and resident evil.

TheWalkingDude

08-Sep-2006, 06:05 AM

All views and points well made.:cool:

ngm231

08-Sep-2006, 06:35 AM

F*** runners

placebo

08-Sep-2006, 07:04 AM

"Zombies can't f*cking run, end of story!"
Obviously it isn't the "end of story".
And why should it be? Because zombie man says so?
Who cares what he says?

I say zombies CAN run, and I think that's pretty logical as has been pointed out.
It is actually the idea that they CANT run that's illogical, and somehow based on personal emotion or something.

It's only those who are closed minded who approach the situation as you are.
Why does it bother you this much that others see things differently?

I'll never understand why some have to appoint themselves the authority behind zombies, and totally reject any ideas that stray from their own.
I'm willing to bet that the same patterns that create this phenomenon here, exist in other parts of your life and subsequently cause problems there too.
Were you a bossy toddler? The type that wouldn't play a game unless it was your idea?
Tell the truth...
I mean it all makes sense when I look at your sig, at your status of "king of the undead", the whole "I am zombie man"-watch it NOW thing and HPOTD FAQ-read it, bitches.
You might be a really decent guy, but here you remind me of a spoiled child.

MinionZombie

08-Sep-2006, 01:38 PM

Placebo, I suggest you get off your high horse and realise I'm merely stating my own opinion, which last time I checked, I'm allowed to do. I talk in jest, and was quoting a little film I made that the users liked, to illustrate my own personal opinion.

I suggest you back off with the attitude.

placebo

08-Sep-2006, 01:50 PM

NO!!! You aren't allowed to state your opinion!

You're only allowed to state MINE!!!

I'm just gettin your goat man.
No disrspect intended.

I get annoyed when people get so opinionated about the running zombie thing.
I just think it's stupid how people are so dead set against it, I just don't see the logic.
Ahh, well.

EvilNed

08-Sep-2006, 02:28 PM

First, to my new buddy, Ned:

Why does that not make sense? The almost exact same thing is featured in the GAR mythos--if a person is bitten by a zombie, that person will die and become one themselves.

The only difference here is that a concrete, scientific-type explaination is given for the plague in Dawn 04, as opposed to GAR's unknown catalyst.

Yes, but what's silly is how fast the zombies spread in Dawn, infesting the entire world within 20 hours. If everyone who died became a zombie, this would be fairly logical. But when it only transfers by bite, it's nigh impossible!

Svengoolie

08-Sep-2006, 03:46 PM

Yes, but what's silly is how fast the zombies spread in Dawn, infesting the entire world within 20 hours. If everyone who died became a zombie, this would be fairly logical. But when it only transfers by bite, it's nigh impossible!

Yes and no, bro.

You're assuming that the 20 hour window is based on the initial release of the virus--as if that within 20 hours of one person being infected, the virus spread throughout the world. You're also assuming that they knew what was going on right away, and were able to pinpoint the plague's exact origins.

While they were able to determine that it was a virus, they never knew how it was created, who created it, or how it was initially leaked.

What if it was leaked on purpose at several points on the globe, like in 12 Monkeys? Or, what if it was going on for quite a bit of time before they knew exactly what they were dealing with...and by then it was too late?

Personally, I'd go with number two--I liked how in the very beginning of the flick, you had that guy up in IT, Solomon Edward, who was bitten on the hand in a bar fight but had become infected with something serious and unknown. I could just see scenarios like that going on for hours, maybe even days...before the **** really hit the fan and the outbreaks became so widespread. It starts out first as simple violent crime that rises at an alarming rate, leading to massive civil unrest...and all the while, it's not known that the cause is this virus--until it's already too late.

In a way, there's just as little explanation behind the plague in the Dawn remake as there was in the GAR mythos. They know about as much about what's going on in the remake as they did in the original....and that ignorance is just showcased in different ways.

EvilNed

08-Sep-2006, 04:17 PM

Watch the news footage on the extras. While it doesn't say "20 hours since infection", it's pretty clear that the infection grabs ahold of the united states and the world instantly and in less than 20 hours turns it upside down. It can't spread that fast. Night impossible.

I'm not saying that makes it a worse movie. I'm just saying that the script should never at all brought in the "Bites Turn Only" theory, because it's so flawed.

Dommm

08-Sep-2006, 04:28 PM

I dont think it matters wethere they move slow or fast, just as scary to fingd either biting into your ass. And as far as the infection spreading in 20 hours, I suppose it would depend on how many orignally infected as the spread of the virus would increase at multiplier rates. hmmm... I wonder if anyone survives somthing like this happening in reality I wander who would be proven right.

Svengoolie

08-Sep-2006, 04:33 PM

Watch the news footage on the extras. While it doesn't say "20 hours since infection", it's pretty clear that the infection grabs ahold of the united states and the world instantly and in less than 20 hours turns it upside down. It can't spread that fast. Night impossible.

Thanks for just flatly ignoring every valid point I made, Ned.;) :D

hseiken

08-Sep-2006, 04:59 PM

Fast moving zombies aren't a problem except when they do things like smash windows and such with an angry expression. The fast moving zombies of d'04 gave an "I'M ANGRY AND I'M GONNA EAT YOU!" kind of vibe, when in actuality, the idea of a zombie is emotionless instincts to eat. Both fast and slow zombies chase their food, but really the fast zombies seemed to have some kind of intelligence when they started running, which was a bit annoying. Granted, they didn't have a lot, but they showed a lot more intellect than those of GAR's old stenches.

The outbreak seems to me the only real question of 'realistic fantasy' as far as slow vs. fast. Here's how I see it:

Slow zombies...they probably attacked their relatives or people just passing by who didn't really notice them. They probably looked like they were in shock and stumbling around after a horrific accident. Obviously, the casual person would be inclined to run up to them to help them out, or at least ask if they need a doctor or something. While the unwitting helper is trying to communicate with the zombie, the zombie would obviously take the free meal. The good simeritin (sp?) would then run off, freaked out (but possible not before pushing the attacking zombie down or something) then proceed to put a bandaid or whatever on their wound. Obviously, they'd die, probably in the company of their family and friends, come back and, if news reports had not been shown just yet or if it was a breaking story outlining a "isolated incident", they'd probably get bit too. This kind of outbreak could happen as fast as a dead person gets back up (or rather how long it takes for them to die then 'un-die'). Completely plausible.

Fast zombies...obviously, this is a no brainer. It would probably end up looking like a bunch of random muggings with people being bitten by 'crazed lunatics'. Since the zombies would be chasing down victims, this would be the most likely scenario...it would look like a really strange crime spree. And since the fast zombies are somehow slightly more intelligent (and stronger, I might add), it could almost seem like a riot breaks out, what with vandalism by the zombies trying to get some warm meat.

In essence, though, I think the fast zombie outbreak falls apart when you think about the fact that they're trying to get food. The fast zombies can easily overpower someone, especially an injured/bitten someone. Zombies aren't known to stop eating unless their food gets away. Thus, they'd probably actually get to eat a vast majority of their victims, past the point where the resulting zombie of the attack is nothing more than a blinking head attatched to an immobile skeleton. The slow zombies allow ample time opportunity (given there aren't too many of them) to retreat and thus turn, spreading the disease like aids through the 80's porn industry.

Personally, the fast zombies didn't really seem to have personality to them, or the sadness...they were just scary. I really like watching slow zombies try to relive their previous life. D'04 didn't really have much of that, just interesting looking zombies that you could kind of guess what they were previously.

Now what about zombie spit? Or zombie bloodsplat into someone's mouth?

placebo

08-Sep-2006, 09:15 PM

My how society has changed since the 70's, no?

I think both Dawn flicks were interesting as far as social commentary is concerned.

It seems obvious that there are just 2 parties here, one loves the old shamblers with undying devotion, the other has an appreciation for both.

I like both, but since I'm not a Romero purist, nor do I have the shamblers close to my heart, I'm partial to the runners.
Gives the situation more of a desperate air to it.

But I also think that the "original" (read as NOT in regard to the remake as reference) worked perfectly for the vision according to Romero.
And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Romeros vision was brilliant. For the remake to be a direct port, would cheapen the original.
I'd think everyone could appreciate that.
However, they are 2 totally different films, and concepts from the original don't work for the remake and vice versa.
Everyone would be much more at ease if people stopped comparing the 2 to each other.
Only similarity is the name, and it is what it is.
The rights holder from the original had every right to use the name as he saw fit. Just because some aren't comfortable with that doesn't change copyright law! Deal with it.

With that being said, the debate over shamblers vs runners is a totally valid debate. Our opinions are just that, our opinions.

wiltsu16

08-Sep-2006, 10:29 PM

Well my opinion is that i like more walking zombies than running...

But it would be good if in some upcoming movie the zombies would run first few days after the infection because they arent even rotten then, but after week they would walk because they start to rot, now most of here thinks "But if they run first and then starts to walk, they wouldnt be so dangerous anymore" well... week after the infection there is millions and billions of those zombie so its more dangerous

Craig

09-Sep-2006, 12:25 AM

I think, since zombies (as we speak of them) are fictionaly creatures, they can be interpreted how the director/writer/artist wants them to be, obviously keeping within boundaries. But because the flesh eating infected zombie is a fairly recent concept, more recent than the monsters of ancient legend doesn't mean it can't be interpreted differently.

Many fictionaly creatures, orcs, ogres, trolls are changed to fit writers'/directors'/artists' own ideas and setting but are all drawn from original concept (orcs from LotR especially). So, in conclusion I think runners, shamblers and even flyers are all fine ideas as long as it keeps within the boundaries of the zombie (namely being dead/hypnotised/infected).

Danny

09-Sep-2006, 05:37 AM

*claps politely* and you would think criags good post would be the end of it....:shifty:

EvilNed

09-Sep-2006, 09:59 AM

Thanks for just flatly ignoring every valid point I made, Ned.;) :D

I'm sorry, I have one of those "ignore valid arguments" features. Makes arguments so much easier! ;)

TheWalkingDude

09-Sep-2006, 04:48 PM

Well liked all the comments from everyone. I think we got it all covered lol.:clown:

Danny

10-Sep-2006, 03:06 AM

but ,like the enigizer bunny, this will keep going on and on...:bored:

TheWalkingDude

10-Sep-2006, 04:05 AM

and on and on and on and on and on and on and on lmao:sneaky:

but ,like the enigizer bunny, this will keep going on and on...:bored:ANd on and on and on and on and on and on and on

Danny

10-Sep-2006, 08:12 AM

EXACTAMUNDO!

topics like this and "what would you do if the dead really rose from there graves" seem to start up once a month, its inevitable .....

...and on and on and on and on......:D

GMAN

10-Sep-2006, 03:26 PM

IMO they should start off fast (but not quite as fast as in dawn 04) and gradually get slower as they decay more.

mst3k

10-Sep-2006, 05:08 PM

I would much rather have the slow ones that the running ones. ask yourself this question: Right now, how fast and far could you run?

Angry312

10-Sep-2006, 06:43 PM

If you've got track stars zombies, the infection seems a likely thing to circle the globe. If they're shambling critters, you can imagine them using sheer numbers to generate their effectiveness, overpowering any emplacement and breaking down walls to get to their choice of food.

I dig on the fast, but I don't really buy into the 'virus' concept. A virus is a very, very sensitive organism and a dead body is nothing close to a safe harbor for something that fragile. I do like the generic Romero "They just get up, so deal with it" alot better than the viral concept.

If I want to groove to a virus movie, I watch '28 Days Later' or something like that. Keep it unexplained, the shamblers can shamble for their fans but I will groove on the sprinters. Gives me the willies, trying to outrun the undead equivalent of the asshats I knew in high school.

:evil: Angry312: "... Breakfast Club vs. the Undead. Grasp this concept." :evil:

BUTCHYPIE

11-Sep-2006, 12:14 AM

Thought you guys might enjoy seeing George Romero commenting on this question of fast vs. slow zombies. I shot footage of him at Dragon*Con; click the screengrab below. By the way, that's Tony Todd, the actor who played Candyman, that chimes in next to George:

http://media.revver.com/broadcast/59232/video.mov/2554

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/garyadams_cnla/GR_screengrab.jpg (http://media.revver.com/broadcast/59232/video.mov/2554)

Fulcifan91

11-Sep-2006, 12:47 AM

I prefer the slow ones. I understand that faster ones are "scarier." But there is a line. I mean, robots with unlimited ammo and guns that could teleport would be even scarier, but its rediculous. I am firmly in the slow zombie side, but i am not too much botherd by runners.

kortick

11-Sep-2006, 08:40 PM

in the new Diary Movie people have read a
line from GAR where he has one charecter say to the other
who is playing a mummy
"how many times do i have to tell you?
Dead things don't move that fast! You're a corpse
for christs sakes! If you try to run that fast your
ankles are gonna snap off!"
this is GARs backhanded jab at the dawn remake
and it shows where he stands

where you guys stand is up to you
I stand with Romero

Lord_Galvatron

16-Sep-2006, 06:42 AM

where you guys stand is up to you
I stand with Romero

Is this like that Civil War thing? Y'know... Captain America or Iron Man?

If that's the case, I'm with Romero! :D

In a more serious note, running zombies is not a bad concept. It's kinda terrifying seeng a guy fatter than Jabba the Hutt doing the 100 meter sprint in 3 seconds to bite your ass off. You must look like a twinkie to him.

Fat Zombie Dude: "Hey! Where's the creme filling!"

The thing is that with running zombies is good for a quick (no pun intended) scare. You see 'em running to you and you don't even have time to say "Oh my G--*" before they bite you two or three times and you're a zombie in 20 seconds flat.

Now for the slow moving ones, it's got to be more terrifying 'cause you have time to digest what's happening to you when you're trapped and twenty of them will shamble towards you. Fear will grip you as you lose your sanity. Each second they come closer. "Slowly" could be a minute or two away. Enough time to go mad when there is no escape.

Scary. :eek:

HLS

16-Sep-2006, 01:57 PM

I am with andy, they should start as fast moviers but slow as time passes and they rot. In my opion by the time Land took place they should have been in such a bad state that they wouyld not be a threat. But that is just my opinion.

If I was a movie maker I would not have drawn out the zombie plague as long as in the romero movies. I would have had the corpses rot at a normal pace and then after a few months life would be safe for the survivors to start with normal lives again and rebuilding society.

Khardis

16-Sep-2006, 04:05 PM

A freshly killed person who is reanimated should be able to move faster and maybe even run if they are nothing but motorized instinct. However as time passes and rigormortis begins to set in, they should slow down considerably.

Graebel

16-Sep-2006, 04:45 PM

Yes.....but when do they grow wings?:elol:

Brubaker

17-Sep-2006, 05:41 PM

The whole idea about being able to 'infect' the entire U.S. in 20 hours is complete nonsense. I remember from the original Dawn, the doctor on tv in the very beginning in Fran's studio (I can not recall his name right now) says something to the effect of "you have not listened to us for the past three weeks..." Even 48 hours is off the mark in a modern society where instant communication dominates and covers our every move. Word would spread of this fairly easily. Of course, despite the upgrade in technology from 1978...the same problem would exist in either decade...getting people to believe that the DEAD ARE RISING! Who the hell trusts the media anyway?

I would assume that the news broadcast on the dvd suggesting 20 hours had passed was to show that zombies were in every part of the U.S. I don't expect it was meant to imply that the entire country was taken over.

20 hours seems reasonable for zombies to be in every part of the U.S., at least for that movie. I say it because the characters go to sleep and wake up a few hours later to find the girl at their door and the entire neighborhood swarming with zombies.

I wonder how come we never saw that other security guard return as a zombie, seeing that it is obvious he would. With that said, I wonder what happened to that news reporter on the bonus features, Savini's and Foree's characters or that schmuck in the middle of nowhere making a survival video. It is safe to assume Reiniger's character was wiped out since he was running things at the Fort (Pastor? spelling.....) which was eventually taken over.

The only people likely to survive the type of environment in Snyder's movie would be security guards (or armed civilians) locked in a mall or gun nuts like Andy. As quickly as people were turning and as fast as the street filled up outside the mall, it was like hitting fast forward.

jim102016

17-Sep-2006, 06:29 PM

The speed and strength of the zombies themselves would have affected the time frame of how long it took the U.S. to become infected. The remake was obviously faster. In less than days, they are in the shopping mall. The running zombies spread faster across the country because they can't be resisted as easily. And of course, and the victims didn't have much of a chance to be warned. Considering this, one might think 20 hours is a good estimate for infecting the U.S. or total defeat. In my opinion, its way too quick for either. Surely, that amount would give some big cities one hell of a problem but not the whole country. It would take a few days.

In the original, where the zombies are just staggernig bags of rotten flesh, officials seem to refuse to want to listen to or take appropriate steps to contain the situation. Three weeks into the problem, we see police are concentrating their efforts more on raiding inner city housing projects that are blockaded by militants. Tv stations were debating, cops were walking off the job, country folks were organzing with the National Guard to form killing squads, etc. Rioger and the gang see all this before they reach the mall.

One thing I notice when I compare the original Dawn to the remake is the pace of the movie. The remake seems like its in one hell of a hurry. I have yet to compare the actual running times of the movies, Dawn 78' didn't seem like such a damned rush, it was more paced if you get what I'm saying. Perhaps this can be attributed to the speed of the zombies themselves. Just my opinion, but I think they did more damage than they realized by making them stronger in death than in life.