Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
Which do you think is better? Do you prefer the shambling masses of the Romero movies, or the sprinting undead found in the new Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later (Yes, I know the "Infected" aren't technically zombies, but they might as well be)?
I'd have to say that I prefer the fast zombies. They run. They chase. They're scary as Hell. And some of them even vomit blood on you (score another one for "28"). When one has spotted you, you know... It's ON. Being hotly pursued by the ravenous armies instills me with a sense of dread and terror. They're simply more exciting.
I've been accused of being part of the "MTV Generation" for preferring the more swift of zombie ilk. It's not that at all. I can take slow pacing. I can appreciate the foreboding nature of watching death slowly stalk towards you. I don't need balls-out action in order to be frightened.
The problem is this: I just watched George Romero's "Dead" trilogy and laughed. Granted, there were a few spooks and disturbing scenes. But I spent more time thinking about how retarded the zombies (and the survivors were). They moved at such slow paces that I could probably run circles around them all day. Shaun of the Dead illustrated their relative safety when they managed to take the time to bitch about going to the shed, spend five minutes hurling records at them, then finally go to the shed, grab some weapons, walk up to the zombies, and then hit them over the heads. Hell, keep a relatively good distance from the zombies and you could leisurely pop their heads open with a rifle in no rush. I noticed that most of the deaths in these kinds of films were due to survivor stupidity rather than any direct threat from the zombies.
I don't mean to knock these films. They served their time and place in film history, and they probably were scary in those days. But times have changed. We tend to expect films nowadays to be a bit more reasonable. Slow zombies, IMO, just aren't cutting it any more.
And yes, I know Resident Evil had slow zombies. And I thought that film was stupid.
I've heard detailed explanations as to why the zombies should walk or are unable to run. Some crap about rigor mortis, the fact that they would burn up too much of their own muscle tissue, etc... But you know what? I couldn't care. I'm not watching a film about zombie anatomy. I want to see humanoid creatures chasing, eating, and infecting the surrounding populace. They're fabricated monsters, and these are films. I'm looking for entertainment. If you feel like being old-skool and sticking with slow zombies because that's what's been established, then I think you're sacrificing quality.
I'd have to say that I prefer the fast zombies. They run. They chase. They're scary as Hell. And some of them even vomit blood on you (score another one for "28"). When one has spotted you, you know... It's ON. Being hotly pursued by the ravenous armies instills me with a sense of dread and terror. They're simply more exciting.
I've been accused of being part of the "MTV Generation" for preferring the more swift of zombie ilk. It's not that at all. I can take slow pacing. I can appreciate the foreboding nature of watching death slowly stalk towards you. I don't need balls-out action in order to be frightened.
The problem is this: I just watched George Romero's "Dead" trilogy and laughed. Granted, there were a few spooks and disturbing scenes. But I spent more time thinking about how retarded the zombies (and the survivors were). They moved at such slow paces that I could probably run circles around them all day. Shaun of the Dead illustrated their relative safety when they managed to take the time to bitch about going to the shed, spend five minutes hurling records at them, then finally go to the shed, grab some weapons, walk up to the zombies, and then hit them over the heads. Hell, keep a relatively good distance from the zombies and you could leisurely pop their heads open with a rifle in no rush. I noticed that most of the deaths in these kinds of films were due to survivor stupidity rather than any direct threat from the zombies.
I don't mean to knock these films. They served their time and place in film history, and they probably were scary in those days. But times have changed. We tend to expect films nowadays to be a bit more reasonable. Slow zombies, IMO, just aren't cutting it any more.
And yes, I know Resident Evil had slow zombies. And I thought that film was stupid.
I've heard detailed explanations as to why the zombies should walk or are unable to run. Some crap about rigor mortis, the fact that they would burn up too much of their own muscle tissue, etc... But you know what? I couldn't care. I'm not watching a film about zombie anatomy. I want to see humanoid creatures chasing, eating, and infecting the surrounding populace. They're fabricated monsters, and these are films. I'm looking for entertainment. If you feel like being old-skool and sticking with slow zombies because that's what's been established, then I think you're sacrificing quality.
