The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Slow Zombies vs. Fast Zombies
Misanthropic
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I have always been a fan of zombie movies. I am fascinated with post-apocalyptic scenarios and intrigued by the implications. I enjoy the scathing critique of modern life that zombie movies offer. And I love watching regular, normal people cope with such a dire situation. Also, shotguns.
I am eagerly anticipating Left4Dead, have been playing Zombie Panic and have contemplated going back through some Resident Evil. But, during all this I have been pondering on one question:
Slow zombies are terrifying in that they are an unstoppable, monolithic force with only one goal: eating your brains. However, they bring up a slew of problems: if zombieism is spread through a bite, slow zombies will spread zombieism far slower than fast zombies. This increases the chance of the zombie uprising being stopped. They are only really dangerous in large numbers. They can't get beyond many obstacles. Easily killed. Less dangerous.
Fast zombies are a more recent incarnation of zombies. They are just as unstoppable as slow zombies, but they are fast, making them much more deadly. This makes the zombie epidemic spread quicker. This also makes the zombie epidemic portrayed in movies much more believable - once people catch on, it is far too late. Whereas slow zombies would still be making their way down from Manitoba (or wherever the plague starts) when people catch on and roll down on their shit. Plus they can launch themselves over gaps, scramble up shit, bust open things. Overall much more deadly and, thus, scary.
But they aren't classic zombies. You miss much of the criticism and reflection inherent in zombie movies when you introduce fast zombies: it becomes more like just any monster movie. Still, not including 28 Days Later which is arguably not a zombie movie, I find the (2005) Dawn of the Dead to be the best zombie movie to date and someone agrees with me.
So, what do you think? Fast or slow zombies?
I am eagerly anticipating Left4Dead, have been playing Zombie Panic and have contemplated going back through some Resident Evil. But, during all this I have been pondering on one question:
Slow zombies or fast zombies?
Slow zombies are terrifying in that they are an unstoppable, monolithic force with only one goal: eating your brains. However, they bring up a slew of problems: if zombieism is spread through a bite, slow zombies will spread zombieism far slower than fast zombies. This increases the chance of the zombie uprising being stopped. They are only really dangerous in large numbers. They can't get beyond many obstacles. Easily killed. Less dangerous.
Fast zombies are a more recent incarnation of zombies. They are just as unstoppable as slow zombies, but they are fast, making them much more deadly. This makes the zombie epidemic spread quicker. This also makes the zombie epidemic portrayed in movies much more believable - once people catch on, it is far too late. Whereas slow zombies would still be making their way down from Manitoba (or wherever the plague starts) when people catch on and roll down on their shit. Plus they can launch themselves over gaps, scramble up shit, bust open things. Overall much more deadly and, thus, scary.
But they aren't classic zombies. You miss much of the criticism and reflection inherent in zombie movies when you introduce fast zombies: it becomes more like just any monster movie. Still, not including 28 Days Later which is arguably not a zombie movie, I find the (2005) Dawn of the Dead to be the best zombie movie to date and someone agrees with me.
So, what do you think? Fast or slow zombies?
Misanthropic on
0
Posts
Slow Zombies > Fast Zombies.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If you're going to have fast zombies then you can only have a few. 28 Days Later zombies would be fucking terrifying if they were real, not to mention that being undead, they could just keep going and going until they tear a muscle and are physically unable to continue.
Post zombie-apocalypse scenarios are always fun to talk about though. I'd be pretty well fucked if it actually happened, given my lack of houses with stairs nearby. I do have an axe though, so I guess I could head a couple of suburbs down the peninsula where there are more of them in search of staircases.
So, the question really is, would you rather be up against a voodoo curse, or a pandemic virus? Personally, I'd rather have to hunt down a witch doctor or two and smash some totems than have to find a cure to a rage-inducing virus devouring humanity.
Of course, if you have slow undead corpse zombies and no discernible cause, then you're pretty much fucked. Because this world has a lot of corpses. And a limited number of pump-action shotguns.
Also slow zombies are worthless simply a ploy on peoples oldest fears of death. In a modern setting I'd say fast "zombies" or virus victims are far scarrier because things like rabies can and do happen.
Unfortunately the decaying sort of zombie has the downside that continued deterioration would eventually result in nigh immobile zombies, but this can easily be taken care of by saying the virus/meteor/voodoo curse/radiation/etc. begins to counteract the decay so they just remain slow and brain-hungry for all eternity, or something.
So, my vote is 'fast zombies which become slow zombies' as the winning zombie one-two punch. I consider it (in most cases) to be the logical progression, as well as good narrative style.
List of countries that have higher rate of gun ownership then the country I am living in:
United States
Yemen
Luckily I'm safe here. :P
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
And they did a myth thing on zombies v swords, so my replica katana won't save me either.
Means neck snapping and hammers. Seriously UK people, we are boned.
Fast Zombies also don't lend themselves to long terms survival. The only reason the new Dawn of the Dead hapenned at all is because these hordes of zombies were inexplicably absent by the back door to the mall and too stupid to smash the glass to the doors.
The other thing with fast zombies is that you don't have time to look at them, feel the overwhelming sadness and pain of seeing a loved one lurch towards you, almost as if for an embrace but knowing they only want your flesh.
But then again fast zombies would instantly deal with America's obesity problem.
Anyway I grew up with slow zombies, so they hold more sentimentality to me.
Also I'm on a fucking zombie binge right now. Playing Dead Rising, reading World War Z then finding the audiobook version with Alan FUCKING Alda and now I'm listening to that.
In general the plausibility of any zombie epidemic movie is pretty bad because of how hardcore and effective, at least in the United States, the CDC is. 28 Days Later did an impressive job how it could be quite plausible in a relatively isolated place like the UK, and part of it has to do with fast zombies. Lot harder to stop waves of fast zombies before they descend upon you than waves of slow ones.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
All of the strength and speed of a zombie -- none of the weaknesses.
Actually taking this into account Australia might be the safest place to be. I mean, everyone already thinks that everything here is trying to kill us anyway.
Zombie kangaroos, crocodiles and spiders aren't that much more scary I guess.
Or soft flesh.
Basically, fast zombies will tear you to pieces in seconds and you die.
Slow zombies occasionally grab you and chow down but most of the time they bite you, you pull away and then get to spend the next hours or days knowing you're going to turn into one of those things.
I think what makes shamblers exciting is how weak they are on their own. They're slow, stupid, and not particularly fast. And yet they represent an unstoppable if slow moving destructive force, like california sliding into the ocean or even a cancer taking many years to kill a patient. It's slow, unfeeling, and unstoppable.
I've actually given this a lot of thought.
Zombies are slow, shambling, and generally unmotivated. What else fits this bill? Depressed people!
I forgot where I read it, somewhere online, but that there is a small link between cholesterol levels and certain types of depression. Basically when the body takes in a large amount of cholesterol there is a small jump in mood.
Ok? Now factor in this;
Animal brains(especially human brains) tend to be compossed of alot of cholesterol heavy material.
So, my theory is that zombies are nothing more than depressed monsters that are looking for a way to cure their ailments. That's why they are usually depicted as going after brains.
Of course, this doesn't work for fast zombies. But I refute that fast zombies are actually zombies in the traditional sense.
Oh sure, Quid.
Blame the victim.
In the World War Z story the infection is spread
That said just because of the prevalence of the zombie genre alone any 'real world' zombie outbreak would be pretty easily handled I would think.
Fast zombies are more plausible when it comes to spreading an epidemic, but slow zombies are more plausible when it comes to surviving an outbreak.
Why not medium speed zombies? Not running top speed at all times 28 Days Later, but maybe a jog. So you can outrun them short distances, but not for very long.
I figure it's not their speed that makes it scary, it's that fatigue never sets in. Sprinting for a mile chasing a horseback rider or vehicle seems both scary and inhuman.
I like slow zombies like the kind you see in the Resident Evil games. Slower zombies make you think you have a chance and then you're overwhelmed the next minute.
Again, dead nerves, no pain, no aching muscles, no way to dissuade. 'em zombies can run marathons afore them legs fall off.!
Usual justification is some sort of super-plague that is causing the body to burn itself up at an incredible pace. I reject pseudo-scientific explanations for zombies though, they never make any fucking sense. Movies where the zombie apocalypse is an unknown, potentially supernatural phenomena tend to be more believable. Because, like I said on coughing; nature tends towards efficacy. Closest thing nature gives us to "zombie plague" is rabies; and that's really, really, really far from zombies.
I don't think they're super fast or super strong. They're motivated!
Well in dead fast zombies one can assume a mutagen of some sort altered the body . Like Crimson heads in REmake or Headcrap sprinters.
In living fast Zombies they probably have exstensibve psychosis and brain damage causing them to have things like constant adrenaline flow and hormonal imbalance making them push past bodily limits.