which zombie's do you like better

[pablo_super1!]

so which zombies do you like better Zack snyders fast ones or George A Romero's slow ones

I personally Like Snyders better but here's this thing

Romero said his zombies are slow becuase they're dead people and if your dead your muscles wouldn't go as fast

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i217/Pablo_topo/NOTD.jpg

and snyder said his zombies are fast because since they're dead they won't get tired as easily

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i217/Pablo_topo/DOTD.jpg

so who's theory do you support Snyder's or Romero's

[LordSimen]

I like both, I don't have quite an affinity to both. Personally, I think a mix of both would be an interesting option. You have fresh Zombies run while the older, more decomposed zombies moving slower. I would imagine if you were just turned then you'd still have your muscles.

So I'll go with both are good for different purposes but I would like to see people try a mix of both for once.

[LaRock]

Slow zombies = not scary to me. Every "slow-zombie" flick has idiots holing up in some building. Just stay on the run and you'll never get caught!

Even though the theory doesn't make much sense, fast zombies are much more effective to me. Infected, walking dead, etc...just make 'em speedy.

[zombievictim]

Fuck Snyder's zombies. Thats the main reason that the Dawn remake isn't as good as it could have been because the zombies were horrible. Romero's on the other hand ARE the ORIGINAL zombies. He created them. There are NO other zombies. I won't get into all the specifics because I have in so many threads that I'm done going over it but plain and simple: Romero's TRUE zombies for the win.

PS. FUCK SNYDER's ZOMBIES

[Bonham]

Slow zombies aren't scary. I'll take the fast guys in a movie any day.

[teenkiller]

Call me your stereotypical fanboy if you must but I went with Romero on both accounts. There's just something about fighting a whole legion of zombies slowly lumbering towards you that is so kickass! Plus, being dead and decomposing, rigormortis and whatnot, I agree that they probably wouldn't be moving so fast. Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

[Jig Saw 123]

Slow zombies suck. Thats why 28 Days Later was so scary...

[jeo4]

It doesn't matter if they are slow or fast if you have enough of them attacking. I'm picking Romeros zombies.

[Le_Big_Mac]

I don't really believe either theory makes sense since they are pretty much just undead cannibalistic people with no higher brain functions. Physical attributes shouldn't be affected the way I see it. However, I suppose Romero's makes a bit more sense.

I also prefer Romero's zombies. 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later, which obviously inspired Snyder, were scarier than any of Romero's Dead films because of their "zombies." However, with Snyder's essentially same monstrosities, it just wasn't scary to me. More decisively, I liked Romero's zombies more because their utter stupidity only added to the satire of American mallrat culture, even though they were half as terrifying. Also, the Dead series had some kickass zombie kills that could only be pulled off because the victims were so slow and unwary.

[Cronos]

Romero, for both

[God of War]

Being a fan of zombie movies for more than 20 years. I have decided that ALL zombies are scary. Both fast and slow. Why? Fast zombies run you down, and tire you out. like in 28 Days later They are relentless and always starving for the fresh meat of the living. What do slow zombies crave? The same thing exactly. Their ultimate goal is the consumption of the living human race. Right, now I have made myself clear on that point.

Slow zombies may be slow, but they never give up. If you were shot and only able to limp it the fuck out of a zombie infested town with people who had to carry your ass all the way. You had better pray that the slow wandering zombies are SLOW. Or else, your're fucked. So to me, slow zombies are just as scary. To me, fast zombies are new age.

But to answer the question. While I do prefer the slow original zombies of Romero. The fast zombies are great too.

On a side note. The crimson zombie in the Resident Evil gaming series was the first fast zombie. If anyone has played the game, they will recall this. I got trapped in the basement with one of these fuckers chasing me. And it was actualy pacing me. I had barely enough time to stop and turn aim and shot his head off. Fast zombies are indeed SCARY.

[SpongeBod]

Originally posted by God of War

On a side note. The crimson zombie in the Resident Evil gaming series was the first fast zombie.
Return of the Living Dead zombies were the first fast ones, and they talked too. "Braaaaains"
If you haven't seen it yet GoW, I highly recommend it.

I agree with you though, I like both.

[Pulp_Joker]

Romero all the way.

[Kings-Rook1]

Originally posted by Pulp_Joker
Romero all the way.

To me it’s the hordes of undead and the bleak apocalyptic end of the world feel that makes a good zombie pic. Doesn’t really matter if they run, crawl or waltz, but the classic slow Romero stagger is always fun.

[Jig Saw 123]

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t252/silvergray1358/28%20Days%20Later/005.jpg


http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t252/silvergray1358/28%20Days%20Later/006.jpg

[RandalGraves]

Snyders Zombies

[ListersParanoia]

If you dissect the premise too much you're left with massive holes in the story BUT I think the slower zombies are a bit more "realistic" as retarded as that sounds. The main thing to remember is that they're supposed to be DEAD, so I think stiff and clumbsy rigormortis movements are appropriate. I wouldn't mind the dead moving at maybe regular speed but why the Hell would they all of the sudden posess "superhuman" speed and agility which seems to be prevailant in recent remakes. Booking it wildly across a field or through a mall parking lot Hell bend on eating the living, It doesn't make sense. The limbs, tendons, muscles etc would have become weakened and decayed making basic movement extremely difficult even for the FRESHEST of the undead. I think the biggest fear that spikes from these movies isn't necessarily being chased down, it's more the idea of having no place to go...being trapped and surrounded with a bunch of jackasses with little or no useful skills and even if you were able to get an escape plan together....what's the point? The shear number of them prevents any real escape. I think that's the major issue Romero was trying to make with the Dead flicks. Sure the fast dead are much more frightening and provide a much bigger sense of "you're completely screwed" in the film but to me it seems a bit silly. I'm also unclear as to why the classic moans has been replaced with "demonic hissing" and these kind of weird boogey man squeaks....I dunno, that's just me.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by zombievictim
Fuck Snyder's zombies.
PS. FUCK SNYDER's ZOMBIES


Indeed.

[I Am Legend]

Any zombie film is fun for this zombie fan, but I gotta with Romero's slow zombies. While they are less imposing than the steriod-enhanced ones, there's still somethng very creepy about seeing dozens of dead slowly coming at you.

That said, if zombies ever come to life, I hope they are like the ones in Romero's films, because the quick ones would be able to wipe us out in no time. :mad:

[sarah1980]

Originally posted by Jig Saw 123
Slow zombies suck. Thats why 28 Days Later was so scary...

[Dorrito the Imp]

Well, in answering the question, you have to examine what you want out of your zombies, in terms of how they effect plot, emotional response (fear, duh), and whatever thematic elements. Different kinds of zombies serve different purposes. If you really want to debate what a "true" zombie is, I say that generally what comes to mind to most people will be the lurching partially-decomposed moaning masses of corpses seen in a Romero film. But I don't see why "purists" complain when a film features a fast moving undead human as its monster. If you don't think that counts as a zombie, then don't call it one. Usually the film itself doesn't even call them zombies. If a horror movie monster reminds you of a similar movie monster, you can't criticize it when it has some different characteristics. What too many people do with this question is get into a symantic debate- arguing about the word "zombie." If you ask me, arguments about words themselves are inherently stupid, almost always.

The real debate here is "which kind of zombie 'works' better in a film?," and to judge how well something works, you have to identify its job. Fast zombies present a more immediate individual threat, which means faster, usually more intense scares and generally a faster-paced storyline. The threat of slow-moving zombies lies in their power in numbers, as ever-growing and inescapable masses of cold, ruthless, unstoppable undead (and on the individual level, slow stalking). This usually means a slow suspensful storyline, and I think leaves more room for developing social themes. Overall, I think I find myself having more respect and appreciation for films with slow zombies, while having a more viscerally intense and frightening viewing experince with fast zombies. That's a generalization, though. The truth is, a zombie is just an element of the story, and wether it's slow or fast, what really matters is how the writer/filmmaker/whoever uses it to do what they want to do with their film, and to judge fast or slow zombies fairly, you have to do it on a film by film basis.

[martyds761]

Romero on both.

[GeneralZod81]

Romero. Period.

[Inglorious]

Romero, no contest. Along with his theory as you put it. He's the originator of the great 'mass of zombies' movies!

[Shockwave]

I loved the faster moving ones from Dawn 04 better myself.

Really however, it always should be a mix. The slower ones wouldnt been dead for a long time, while the fresh dead would probably be able to hobble or sprint pretty quick.

[Superplasmatron]

fuck both of them my favorite zombies are Italian zombies.

[jbar1026]

i like the slow zombies movies they tend to be more charactar driven. slow so the victims have time to think and statagize. more of a storm on the horizen then an in your face scary.

i like fast zombies because they build tension better like the first ten mins of 28 week later my heart was pounding like i was running from that mob of zombies

a mixture of the two would make an interesting movie. imagine the surprize on the victims face when he finds out that only half the zombies move at a snails pace when hes in the middle of something like refueling the car

that said dawn of the dead is my fav zombie movie so i guess Romero wins imo

[ChickFlick]

I think the fast zombies are scarier, IMO. My favs being in the Dawn remake..

[Cermond]

Both can work but with running ones there's are risk that the pace and style of the movie developes into too.. music video style you know, but they work pretty good in high speed action like Dawn Remake.

I still prefer the classic walking zombies, don't know quite why.

[howboutno]

Straight up...if you were in one of those situations which one would you want to deal with? All I'm saying is that I think I can out run Romero's zombies...thats my story and i'm sticking to it...

but since i really don't have to worry about this sceanario...Snyder's zombies are pretty bad ass...and the fact that they are fast adds to story...