Why the fuck shouldn't zombies run?

[Guest El Satanico]

Fast or slow, a singular zombie is scary because it's an animated corpse, but you probably wouldn't be scared in the "omg, I'm gonna die" sense.

 

Groups are when zombies become something to truly fear.

 

 

 

This discussion has taken circular form

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Indeed it has. Though I still say one fast zombie is nothing that me and a hammer couldn't handle, just as one slow zombie is nothing some fancy footwork in the opposite direction couldn't get me away from.

 

Yuna, thank you for being the voice of reason, since I was blinded by my love for the classic zombie films that I grew up on (well, that phrase is a little incorrect, since I'm not even 21, but I've been watching zombie flicks since the ripe young age of 9) that Fishy's constant becking of "one slow zombie isn't as scary as one fast zombie" got me in a position to go elitist.

 

Fishy, I must say that I was scrambling for some points to attack you on, and you did do indeed a fine job of backing SOME of your argument up (though the lack of knowledge in this general area did hurt your game a bit).

 

So...let's sum it up as this:

One slow zombie? Jog away.

One fast zombie? Get ready to fight or run your ass to your car.

Horde of slow zombies? Slowly closing death.

Horde of fast zombies? Fucked before you even know what hit you.

 

That's why I find slow zombies scarier, because they're SLOWLY killing you, making the immense pain stretch out, whereas fast zombies just get you before your brain can even analyze what's going on.

 

So...how about we get to that TSM zombie script?

[Guest El Satanico]

A Fast Zombies vs. Slow Zombies film = box office gold and endless bickering in the horror community.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

This might have been a thread before, but someone mentioned it today at work and I saw it in the horror thread thingy.

 

Why the fuck shouldn't they be running. I don't get why so many people have a problem with it.

 

Its just about sticking to tradition. Next thing you know, they'll be saying vampires don't need to drink blood to live. I hate it when Hollywood changes shit.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Yuna, thank you for being the voice of reason, since I was blinded by my love for the classic zombie films that I grew up on (well, that phrase is a little incorrect, since I'm not even 21, but I've been watching zombie flicks since the ripe young age of 9) that Fishy's constant becking of "one slow zombie isn't as scary as one fast zombie" got me in a position to go elitist.

Nuttin' wrong with blind love, mein freund ^^

 

I can see Fishy's point...and I can see yours, too. I liked his (or her) comparison of the old man with a walker comparison. Give that guy a chainsaw and he's still not scary (hell, probably slow him down even further).

 

A fast zombie *could* be scary, but hell, anything rushing towards you - group or singular - is bound to get an OMG,WTF?! reaction. But I'm not sure if one would be "Fucked before you even [knew] what hit you." It all depends on how fast that undead creature is goin', really.

 

Still, that summary was beautiful.

 

That's why I find slow zombies scarier, because they're SLOWLY killing you, making the immense pain stretch out, whereas fast zombies just get you before your brain can even analyze what's going on.

Wonderful point, too. Although a fast zombie's speed would get slowed down a bit, given that the person is fighting for its life. Which would make the 'fast zombie' example become the 'slow zombie' example.... which makes the argument circular, as someone pointed out.

 

Now, let us draw the argument away from speed. How might a zombie (lets say... average height/weight in life) successfully withstand the fighting/struggling of a live person? As a dead thing, there's no heart to pump the blood, no blood to feed the muscles, no strength, no energy. My anatomical knowledge might be a bit off, but you get the point.

 

Its Dead Thing Walking, with or without rigor mortis, but the dead thing really doesn't have the strength or energy to do much else.

 

My experiece with zombies is, obviously, limited. (The last ones I saw liked to enjoy singing about how reefer killed them.) I'm coming into the debate as an on-looker.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

That's the wonderful thing about zombies, Yuna: for some unknown reason, whatever reanimated them doesn't require bloodflow to the muscles to make them move. They're capable of basic movements (grabbing, lunging, biting, walking, etc.), but not much else, and it's a mystery as to why they're even reanimated.

 

I'll split up the attack plan for a victim into the two types (slow and fast).

 

A slow zombie would shuffle up to its victim, probably from behind while they're focusing on something else (slow zombies are surprisingly intelligent when it comes to a plan of attack, and use guerilla warfare often), and then lunge at them, wrapping its arms around them and taking a chunk of their flesh between their teeth while they screamed in both surprise and pain.

 

A fast zombie would run head-on with its victim, chasing it down before tackling it to the ground, where it would begin ripping at them and biting chunks of flesh off.

 

Slow zombies = guerilla warfare. Fast zombies = blitzkrieg.