With RE5 all over the place I got into an argument with a co-worker and I decdied to post a poll to add some fun to the forum. Too much news coverage will make people forget that games are supposed to be FUN.

I think that zombies that can run are infinately more scarey than zombies that are slow. Think 28 days later vs Night of the living dead. He disagrees and thinks that slow zombies are more scarey. What do you think?

Slow zombies were fun in Dead Rising but I think runners would up the stress and fun level.

Slow moving zombies means I can walk quickly away from them.

Running zombies will never tire and can run full speed, making escape unlikely.

Plus, running zombies would have to be recently dead, since rotting limbs wouldn't be able to support the fast moving undead.

My vote's for zombies that can run.

Ahhhh finally a good topic we can all argue about and all be right :)

Slow zombies have always been more scary than fast zombies...why? Because fast moving zombies sort of "disrupt" the idea that a person is dead. Fast moving zombies are just "rednecks on Meth" to me...they don't sell the idea that the person is a walking corpse trying to eat me....it turns people into the equivelent of wild animals.

A movie where the human race was overrun with tigers or lions wouldn't really scare me much....which is why the "fast zombie" movies tend to leave me cold.

Zombies, as we know them, are supposed to be dead people. Not "Virus infected people"....but dead people that, for some UNKNOWN reason, are alive. And pissed.

Maybe its biblical....maybe its something else....but its left unknown...thats what makes those first three (and maybe the fourth) Romero zombie movies great, they don't explain it away as a virus or whatever.

The thing that slow moving zombies sell is "DREAD".....fast moving zombies dont give you that sense of dread. The best part in a classic zombie flick is when the people running away from the zombies begin to realize..."hey we're getting tired...and they aren't..and look...now there are more of them...and more...and more". Thats scary.

Keep Runnin, you only die tired :D

My vote is for more zombies for the PS3.

Screw FFXIII and all that other crap. X360 has Dead Rising and is getting Left 4 Dead. Let's get some damn zombies on this console, and I don't even count RE5 because I'm not a fan of RE gameplay (I know I know). Nothing would make me happier than to hear that R*'s "exclusive" PS3 game is an open-world apocalyptic zombie franchise.

Regarding the question at hand, definitely slow zombies. The slow inevitable tide is the scary part of zombies, not the surprise attack, etc. In the case of fast zombies they are indistinguishable from enemy soldiers or any other regular foe.

Ahhhh finally a good topic we can all argue about and all be right :)

Slow zombies have always been more scary than fast zombies...why? Because fast moving zombies sort of "disrupt" the idea that a person is dead. Fast moving zombies are just "rednecks on Meth" to me...they don't sell the idea that the person is a walking corpse trying to eat me....it turns people into the equivelent of wild animals.

A movie where the human race was overrun with tigers or lions wouldn't really scare me much....which is why the "fast zombie" movies tend to leave me cold.

Zombies, as we know them, are supposed to be dead people. Not "Virus infected people"....but dead people that, for some UNKNOWN reason, are alive. And pissed.

Maybe its biblical....maybe its something else....but its left unknown...thats what makes those first three (and maybe the fourth) Romero zombie movies great, they don't explain it away as a virus or whatever.

The thing that slow moving zombies sell is "DREAD".....fast moving zombies dont give you that sense of dread. The best part in a classic zombie flick is when the people running away from the zombies begin to realize..."hey we're getting tired...and they aren't..and look...now there are more of them...and more...and more". Thats scary.

Keep Runnin, you only die tired :D

Yep, x2.

I don't really find zombies, themselves, scary - running or walking, doesn't really matter, I don't think. Zombies to me have reached more of a humour status, than a true horror one. What I find frightening, is groups of things coming at me...when I've got limited/weak weaponry. The "zombies" in RE4 were scary because they came at you in large numbers, and you often had to fire your handgun wildly around praying you took them down. They ran a little in RE4...when they saw you they would run at you, but then they'd slow down to a walk about 10 feet from you. If they ran the whole time, RE4 would have been way too hard for me. I barely made it through (on the hardest level) as it was. Running zombies would make the game a lot more challenging, but not necessarily more scary, or fun.

I'm looking at the "grim" monster scene in RFoM2, with all those stick-like creatures running at you in the streets of Chicago, and while it looks tense, it doesn't really look like it's going to be all that scary. Slowing them down likely wouldn't matter much. The slower menials in RFoM didn't really scare me either.

So I guess after all that I don't really have an answer for you! :p Except to say, it's not really about the zombies. It's 100% more about your weaponry and how much control you have. Going back to RE4 recently, those zombies take A LOT of shots from your first handgun! (That's why I find the opening village scenes the scariest parts of the game.) Camera control and character mobility is also a bit of burden in the game. If you were to plop down your COD4 character (weapons and all), first person, into RE4...I probably wouldn't have sweat too much at all.

Ahhhh finally a good topic we can all argue about and all be right :)

Slow zombies have always been more scary than fast zombies...why? Because fast moving zombies sort of "disrupt" the idea that a person is dead. Fast moving zombies are just "rednecks on Meth" to me...they don't sell the idea that the person is a walking corpse trying to eat me....it turns people into the equivelent of wild animals.

A movie where the human race was overrun with tigers or lions wouldn't really scare me much....which is why the "fast zombie" movies tend to leave me cold.

Zombies, as we know them, are supposed to be dead people. Not "Virus infected people"....but dead people that, for some UNKNOWN reason, are alive. And pissed.

Maybe its biblical....maybe its something else....but its left unknown...thats what makes those first three (and maybe the fourth) Romero zombie movies great, they don't explain it away as a virus or whatever.

The thing that slow moving zombies sell is "DREAD".....fast moving zombies dont give you that sense of dread. The best part in a classic zombie flick is when the people running away from the zombies begin to realize..."hey we're getting tired...and they aren't..and look...now there are more of them...and more...and more". Thats scary.

Keep Runnin, you only die tired :D

I agree with some of your points, but here's the one issue with slow zombies- remember in the 1990 Night of The Living Dead remake, where Barbara says, "We can walk right by them!"- there ya go. and at the movie's climax, she did exactly that. Strolled right by them. How scary is an adversary that you can simply walk by? Slow zombies are only scary in incredible numbers. Otherwise, they're harmless unless one get's his hands on you (The Romero Zombies became increasingly stronger in each flick). But the fast ones...

Remember the tire-change scene in 28 Days later? Now replace the infected with slow zombies. Yeah, not quite so tense now.

Kess's perspective seems to be purely from a gaming standpoint whereas I was coming from a movie standpoint.

From a pure gaming standpoint, it's hard to say. I think a lot depends on the actual design of the levels and the game play. For instance the fast zombies in HL2 were scary in Ravenholme because they moved fast, could get to anywhere Gordon could go, and made those freaky noises. Put them out in the open and they were just some other guys to kill.

With RE5 all over the place I got into an argument with a co-worker and I decdied to post a poll to add some fun to the forum. Too much news coverage will make people forget that games are supposed to be FUN.

I think that zombies that can run are infinately more scarey than zombies that are slow. Think 28 days later vs Night of the living dead. He disagrees and thinks that slow zombies are more scarey. What do you think?

Your premise is flawed, since there hasn't been a Zombie in a RE game since Outbreak:File 2.

Furthermore, George Romero, the creator of the cinematic zombie, has this to say:

What do you think about fast zombies — the kind we see in video games and movies like 28 Days Later?

Well, I took a big swipe at them in this film: There’s a running gag in the movie that dead things don’t move fast. Partially, it’s a matter of taste. I remember Christopher Lee’s mummy movies where there was this big old lumbering thing that was just walking towards you and you could blow it full of holes but it would keep coming. And in the original Halloween, Michael Meyers never ran, he just sort of calmly walked across the lawn or across the room. To me, that’s scarier: this inexorable thing coming at you and you can’t figure out how to stop it. Aside from that, I do have rules in my head of what’s logical and what’s not. I don’t think zombies can run. Their ankles would snap! And they haven’t yet taken out memberships to Curves.
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/02/george_a_romero_explains_why_f.html

SO there you have it, the answer is slow. Anything else isn't a zombie, from the father of zombies himself.

I agree with some of your points, but here's the one issue with slow zombies- remember in the 1990 Night of The Living Dead remake, where Barbara says, "We can walk right by them!"- there ya go. and at the movie's climax, she did exactly that. Strolled right by them. How scary is an adversary that you can simply walk by? Slow zombies are only scary in incredible numbers. Otherwise, they're harmless unless one get's his hands on you (The Romero Zombies became increasingly stronger in each flick). But the fast ones...

Remember the tire-change scene in 28 Days later? Now replace the infected with slow zombies. Yeah, not quite so tense now.

Two things, one...thank you for mentioning the 1990 remake by Tom Savini, its a great zombie flick that is often overlooked and one of the great examples of why I think slow zombies rule. They look outside..there's a few zombies there..."look at how slow they are, we can walk right by them". True..but then then look out..there are a few more..then...there are hundreds...soon, thousands, tens of thousands. Eventually even the house walls itself will fall to their numbers due to weight alone. Man...creepy :D

So you're running out of time for you to "make your escape"....thats one point of tension..do you stay...or go....if you stay, will you be safe? For how long? What if supplies run out? If you go..where do you go thats better..? Clock ticking...more zombies coming. More tension. Now, if you run, there are thousands of zombies following you. Thousands more you are sure to encounter along the way. Where do you rest? When do you sleep? What if your vehicle runs out of fuel....what if there are no defensable positions where you wind up..run out of supplies...what if you get stuck somewhere, and so on and so on :)

Thats the moneyshot...the dread..the slow buildup of dread....

NOW....yes, 28days later I enjoyed...why? Dunno, because they made it work. They changed the genere up enough that it turned the "infected" into less zombies trying to eat you, than crazed people trying to kill you like a rabid animal.....almost like the "quasi-vampires" from I AM Legend (another story in a similar vein, only with vampires...in the book anyhow). And that tire change scene worked great.......in fact that whole movie worked...but to me, those aren't zombies....its just different.

They made the zombies really only come out at night....thats one thing, they also made them fast and almost unstoppable...thats another thing.

But for some reason the zombies in the REMAKE of Dawn of the Dead just didn't do it for me...they looked more like a bouncing RAVE crowd than "zombies"......its an ok movie, but it really doesn't work for me as a zombie flick. Its like...."If they are DEAD they are supposed to move like corpses...if they are INFECTED with some disease..well then all bets are off, have em grow extra limbs...get acne...run up walls". I liked the 28 days later scenes where the infected are so crazed they keep running even when they are burning up, engulfed in fire...they dont react to pain, they run face first into walls....etc. The zombies in Dawn seemed to behave more like humans....dunno. I even thought 28 Weeks later was ok....

Diary of the Dead is probably the worst zombie movie I've ever seen to date.....its awful on so many levels, mostly because Romeo seems to have lost his grasp of subtlty...

Furthermore, George Romero, the creator of the cinematic zombie, has this to say:


http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/02/george_a_romero_explains_why_f.html

SO there you have it, the answer is slow. Anything else isn't a zombie, from the father of zombies himself.
Romero contradicts himself, then. It's logical that zombies can't run (which I agree with, actually), but, to him it's also logical that Zombies can:

- be strong enough split a man's arm in two, eviscerate a live human, tear a person's head off, and smash through doors, barricades, windows, etc.
-Use tools and weapons
-communicate

All things zombies did in Romero movies.

I'm just sayin', anything that can't catch me, isn't scarin' me. Especially if I can walk right by it.

Romero contradicts himself, then. It's logical that zombies can't run (which I agree with, actually), but, to him it's also logical that Zombies can:

- be strong enough split a man's arm in two, eviscerate a live human, tear a person's head off, and smash through doors, barricades, windows, etc.
-Use tools and weapons
-communicate

All things zombies did in Romero movies.

I'm just sayin', anything that can't catch me, isn't scarin' me. Especially if I can walk right by it.

Read World War Z, you'll understand why they're so scary. People get clumsy because of the fact they think these slow, clumsy things are only a moderate threat. they let their gaurd down, and then the fun begins!

:)

As for the others.

Zombies brains are what makes zombies, some memories remain intact in the frontal lobes that haven't been lobotomized. Not all zombies appear to be able to recall memories, but most can be trained to use simple tools.

Noone every really explained how Zombie metabolism works, but we do know it's not through any form of aerobic metabolism. Muscles are working on some sort of energy transport that we don't understand, so it's not past the real of possibility that biologically they're using some sort of endorphin, or adrenaline. Chimps can rip limbs from the body, and humans have been know to have superhero strength in certain situations (such as lifting cars).

they could always communicate, that's why they keep coming, and coming, and coming. they attract each other.

It's all about context, but I voted for the slow ones. For one, it gives the impression that they are undead, but technically barely alive. It's as if they can hardly do anything except two things.... barely move and eat your brains. This direct simplicity for their existence is the scary part.

Fast zombies give the impression that they are fully alive but insane people (thus the virus angle from 28 Days and Resident Evil series). They seem more like real people who just want to kill, so there's less of a mystery behind their function. I like that the RE series has added the mutant factor to the story line (i.e. pop their heads and a tentacle grows out). It keeps things on a weirded level that way.

Slow zombies are just more creepy IMHO, but in a game (like a movie) it's about context. To make slow zombies scary to the hero/victim, they have to have their mobility neutered and their field of view limited.

For the first few RE games, this was accomplished through poor movement controls (FPS-like in a 3rd person game with NO strafing allowed), and beautiful but unhelpful static camera angles as you entered a new room. That artificially added tension to the game, but at the time (PlayStation One days) I like many others was too absorbed into the titles to complain much. RE 1 was genuinely creepy to me.

I think fast zombies are fine in the games today, but one thing I liked about the slow ones is that they provided an extra level of contrast between them and any fast bosses that would come at you. At least more than ever you have to deal with swarms of zombies, and that in itself is pretty cool.

Which zombie is scarier? Zombies that can run. NO Doubt !!!

True Zombies (Back from the dead) cannot (should not) run. Infected (Disease/Virus) people can.

Edit: After posting then reading the other rresponses it looks like we are mostley on the same page.

Zombies brains are what makes zombies, some memories remain intact in the frontal lobes that haven't been lobotomized. Not all zombies appear to be able to recall memories, but most can be trained to use simple tools.
But, brain death is brain death. If a zombie can have enough brain functions to use cognitive reasoning and simple logic, then running wouldn't be out of the question, especially given your explanation below:


Noone every really explained how Zombie metabolism works, but we do know it's not through any form of aerobic metabolism. Muscles are working on some sort of energy transport that we don't understand, so it's not past the real of possibility that biologically they're using some sort of endorphin, or adrenaline. Chimps can rip limbs from the body, and humans have been know to have superhero strength in certain situations (such as lifting cars).
See, that makes running zombies perfectly logical.

I mean, 1,000 slow zombies with incredible strength shuffling towards me is scary enough to drive me insane. But there's that small chance of survival, because I can run. Or hop in will Smith's GT500 from I am Legend and speed on by. Man that was a sweet car.

But 1,000 zombies with incredible strength running towards me? I would just make sure I saved one grenade for myself.

Zombie that can only walk = scared like seeing a bear in your general area in the woods.

Zombie that can run = scared like seeing a great white charging at you in the ocean.

How can anyone possibly argue that a slow zombie is scarier? lol. I think, for the same reasons that Headrusch says slow zombies are SCARIER, that slow zombies are more zombie-like (as we have come to know them), but from a strictly "scared" standpoint, as Tenkaipalm points out, if it can't catch me, I'm not scared. Think "Shawn of the Dead."

Things that mean you harm that are as fast, or faster than you are much much scarier, IMO. It means that any little mistake you make means game over, or, if it's alot faster than you, it probably won't matter what you do.

BTW, I'm thinking from the hypothetical situation of zombies being real and me seeing one in real life. Not in a game.

It's all about context, but I voted for the slow ones. For one, it gives the impression that they are undead, but technically barely alive. It's as if they can hardly do anything except two things.... barely move and eat your brains. This direct simplicity for their existence is the scary part.

Fast zombies give the impression that they are fully alive but insane people (thus the virus angle from 28 Days and Resident Evil series). They seem more like real people who just want to kill, so there's less of a mystery behind their function. I like that the RE series has added the mutant factor to the story line (i.e. pop their heads and a tentacle grows out). It keeps things on a weirded level that way.

Slow zombies are just more creepy IMHO, but in a game (like a movie) it's about context. To make slow zombies scary to the hero/victim, they have to have their mobility neutered and their field of view limited.

For the first few RE games, this was accomplished through poor movement controls (FPS-like in a 3rd person game with NO strafing allowed), and beautiful but unhelpful static camera angles as you entered a new room. That artificially added tension to the game, but at the time (PlayStation One days) I like many others was too absorbed into the titles to complain much. RE 1 was genuinely creepy to me.

I think fast zombies are fine in the games today, but one thing I liked about the slow ones is that they provided an extra level of contrast between them and any fast bosses that would come at you. At least more than ever you have to deal with swarms of zombies, and that in itself is pretty cool.Good points about context. Slow zombies can definitely be scarier in certain situations, such as being closed in on by slow moving zombies coming from all sides, or being trapped with a slow moving zombie closing in. The slow moving zombies are probably *more* scary in those situations because you have a longer period of time to hold onto hope and for the fear to really set in. Whereas if you saw fast moving zombies when in those situations, you would probably give up any hope almost immediately and there's no real chance for fear to set in.

I mean the above to apply to a hypothetical real life situation AND video game situation.

Strictly talking about video games, developers/game writers can easily create these perfect contexts where slow moving zombies are scarier, and in fact, I DO like it better if they do, because, as I mentioned, it gives time for the fear to really set in, and also for you to potentially find a way out. If they continually set you up with fast moving zombies that are hard, if not impossible to escape from, it can get frustrating and boring instead of scary and intense.

So, in summary, for a real life hypothetical situation, fast zombies = scarier, for a video game that uses preset contexts with slow zombies, slow zombies = scarier.

Zombie that can only walk = scared like seeing a bear in your general area in the woods.
Zombie that can run = scared like seeing a great white charging at you in the ocean.
How can anyone possibly argue that a slow zombie is scarier? :)

Hit the nail on the head. From a pure fear of death instead of fear of the unknown standpoint. :p

Or maybe I am confusing FEAR with adrenaline? Playing a game like Left for dead would get my adrenaline pumping, while playing Resident Evil 1 or Silent Hill gets my fear of the unknown going. Humm 30 seconds of Zombie chash madness and you are dead or days of being held up knowing you are going to die? The later is scarier.

I voted for the slow ones.

I don't really find zombies, themselves, scary - running or walking, doesn't really matter, I don't think. Zombies to me have reached more of a humour status, than a true horror one. What I find frightening, is groups of things coming at me...when I've got limited/weak weaponry. The "zombies" in RE4 were scary because they came at you in large numbers, and you often had to fire your handgun wildly around praying you took them down. They ran a little in RE4...when they saw you they would run at you, but then they'd slow down to a walk about 10 feet from you. If they ran the whole time, RE4 would have been way too hard for me. I barely made it through (on the hardest level) as it was. Running zombies would make the game a lot more challenging, but not necessarily more scary, or fun.

I'm looking at the "grim" monster scene in RFoM2, with all those stick-like creatures running at you in the streets of Chicago, and while it looks tense, it doesn't really look like it's going to be all that scary. Slowing them down likely wouldn't matter much. The slower menials in RFoM didn't really scare me either.

So I guess after all that I don't really have an answer for you! :p Except to say, it's not really about the zombies. It's 100% more about your weaponry and how much control you have. Going back to RE4 recently, those zombies take A LOT of shots from your first handgun! (That's why I find the opening village scenes the scariest parts of the game.) Camera control and character mobility is also a bit of burden in the game. If you were to plop down your COD4 character (weapons and all), first person, into RE4...I probably wouldn't have sweat too much at all.


what about your zombie ps3, kess? :D the yellow light might indicate it's alive but in essence it's dead, right?:p:p:D

28 days, 28 weeks and dawn of the dead ftw.

can you guess which way i voted? lol.

of course, the rage infected aren't technically zombies, but still.

Two things, one...thank you for mentioning the 1990 remake by Tom Savini, its a great zombie flick that is often overlooked and one of the great examples of why I think slow zombies rule. They look outside..there's a few zombies there..."look at how slow they are, we can walk right by them". True..but then then look out..there are a few more..then...there are hundreds...soon, thousands, tens of thousands. Eventually even the house walls itself will fall to their numbers due to weight alone. Man...creepy :D



I think thats the problem though. I mean how long was that movie? 2 hours? How long between there being 10 zombies and there being 10,000 zombies? Werent they in a farm house away from anything? Zombies attract each other when they find humans, but if the humans are constantly moving the zombies are constantly not able to get in large groups. In real life it takes time to walk, slowly, somewhere. By the time that zombie get to my house from 10 miles away....Im not there.

You guys are all missing the point of slow zombies anyways. It's a critique on humanity more then scary zombies themselves.

Anyways, again, Go read World War Z (http://www.amazon.com/World-War-Z-History-Zombie/dp/0307346609)

It's light harded, but it's great zombie literature. It's also a movie slated for 2010.

The slow zombies tend to pick off the weak ones at the end of the pack, or the trapped ones within a zone. Their sheer numbers, and the inability of humans to let go and face a new reality, is the scary part.

Fast zombies are nothing more then the boogyman running around trying to get you.

Zombies attract each other when they find humans, but if the humans are constantly moving the zombies are constantly not able to get in large groups. In real life it takes time to walk, slowly, somewhere. By the time that zombie get to my house from 10 miles away....Im not there.

But the problem is that zombies create more zombies exponentially. What happens when an outbreak hits NYC, and millions of refuges are trying to get out of the city, while millions of zombies are following them, all the while carriers and infected are hiding their wounds among the refugees?

Good Luck!

P.S. Where you going to go? North where they'll freeze, but where there's no way to support millions of refuges? The middle of a Forrest? Not too many people have the survival sills to last out there, and if a few zombie find you, good luck! they're calling in reinforcements!

Romero's Night movie was just the start of the epidemic, and really shows you everything that humans did wrong. the zombies were frightening because of their behavior and appearance, but wern't much harm, that much is true. psychology killed the cat in that movie, the humans panicked instead of just walking out the door and working together.

Then, because of Human errors, they're much more dangerous in the latter movies once they took hold of the States.

But the problem is that zombies create more zombies exponentially. What happens when an outbreak hits NYC, and millions of refuges are trying to get out of the city, while millions of zombies are following them, all the while carriers and infected are hiding their wounds among the refugees?



I wasnt asleep the whole first two weeks zombies starting coming around. They arent everywhere...they had to start somewhere. If they started on the west coast It would be a while before they got to me in Omaha Ne. By the time they did, we'd be prepared. I think you're working with the context that its already like a year down the road and zombies have already won...Im talking about the first few days.

btw how do you kill a zombie?

You guys are all missing the point of slow zombies anyways. It's a critique on humanity more then scary zombies themselves.

Anyways, again, Go read World War Z (http://www.amazon.com/World-War-Z-History-Zombie/dp/0307346609)

It's light harded, but it's great zombie literature. It's also a movie slated for 2010.

The slow zombies tend to pick off the weak ones at the end of the pack, or the trapped ones within a zone. Their sheer numbers, and the inability of humans to let go and face a new reality, is the scary part.

Fast zombies are nothing more then the boogyman running around trying to get you.



But the problem is that zombies create more zombies exponentially. What happens when an outbreak hits NYC, and millions of refuges are trying to get out of the city, while millions of zombies are following them, all the while carriers and infected are hiding their wounds among the refugees?

Good Luck!

P.S. Where you going to go? North where they'll freeze, but where there's no way to support millions of refuges? The middle of a Forrest? Not too many people have the survival sills to last out there, and if a few zombie find you, good luck! they're calling in reinforcements!

Romero's Night movie was just the start of the epidemic, and really shows you everything that humans did wrong. the zombies were frightening because of their behavior and appearance, but wern't much harm, that much is true. psychology killed the cat in that movie, the humans panicked instead of just walking out the door and working together.

Then, because of Human errors, they're much more dangerous in the latter movies once they took hold of the States.So are you saying that you are more scared by one million zombies that are slow, than by one million zombies that can run as fast as you?

So are you saying that you are more scared by one million zombies that are slow, than by one million zombies that can run as fast as you?

I think people are using "sense of impending doom" as their definition of scarey if they vote for slow. I think people are using "instant fear for your life, knowing you're going to die...soon" for people that vote for fast.

You guys are all missing the point of slow zombies anyways. It's a critique on humanity more then scary zombies themselves.

Oh, I understand that. The underlying commentary in every Romero zombie movie was that the living themselves were the biggest danger to their survival, not the zombies. In every movie, The living wall themselves in a place they think is safe, (Farmhouse, Mall, Underground Bunker, Fortified city), and they end up succumbing to a massive zombie attack (the best part of every Romero zombie movie) in the end because they couldn't work together.

Which I think reinforces the point about fast zombies being scarier- if the slow zombies weren't the real danger to the humans how scary could they possibly be?

I'll put it like this- If placed in a Zombie apocalypse scenario, which would you rather be confronted with?

btw how do you kill a zombie?
Headshots, man... it's all about the headshots.

fast zombies can get to you and start eating your brains quicker=more scary

what about your zombie ps3, kess? :D the yellow light might indicate it's alive but in essence it's dead, right?:p:p:D

But oh how you can laugh now, my comical friend-o! Just remember zombism has a tendency of spreading. That little yellow light may have have sucked out my brain first, and rendered me mostly useless and crazed, but I have a feeling we both have launch 60s...and you have about 2500 more hours of Warhawk than I do...and well...I hope you have your psychiatric health coverage topped up, cuz you might just be needing it soon! So go ahead and laugh while you can! Ho Ha Ho. (Keeping in mind that my shiny new 60 is scheduled to show up at my front door tomorrow afternoon!)

I just hope your wife is as good on the phone with customer service people as mine was! :p

I think people are using "sense of impending doom" as their definition of scarey if they vote for slow. I think people are using "instant fear for your life, knowing you're going to die...soon" for people that vote for fast.I think you hit the nail on the head.

It all depends on how you define "scary."

I think "Shawn of the Dead" shows how non-scary slow moving zombies can be, lol. I'm thinking about the backyard scene when they find the "drunk girl" and laughing out loud.

Well it depends on the context. I think slow zombies are scarier in movies because it builds up the tension better. They are more likely to pop out from that next corner and drape their rotting carcass all over you when they move slow. Zombies that can run like Olympic sprinters have no need to be behind that next corner.

If zombies were real. Fast zombies would be oh so much more scary.

OK, so we first had slow zombies, now we have fast zombies. Where does the evolutionary trend take us next?

My vote is for cyborg ninja-pirate zombies that use kung-fu to take down their victims. And maybe have them dabble in the mystic arts with electric blasts from their finger tips, and nanotechnology for laser eye beams from their partially metallic skulls.

Mark my words: that's what's coming next.

My friend has this book on how to survive a zombie attack.

I believe the title was: The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead
(http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Survival-Guide-Complete-Protection/dp/1400049628******pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216229577&sr=8-1)

He told me that, apparently, zombies have problems with stairs.

OK, so we first had slow zombies, now we have fast zombies. Where does the evolutionary trend take us next?

My vote is for cyborg ninja-pirate zombies that use kung-fu to take down their victims. And maybe have them dabble in the mystic arts with electric blasts from their finger tips, and nanotechnology for laser eye beams from their partially metallic skulls.

Mark my words: that's what's coming next.

Well we already has Jason in space. What was that, Friday the 13th X?

But oh how you can laugh now, my comical friend-o! Just remember zombism has a tendency of spreading. That little yellow light may have have sucked out my brain first, and rendered me mostly useless and crazed, but I have a feeling we both have launch 60s...and you have about 2500 more hours of Warhawk than I do...and well...I hope you have your psychiatric health coverage topped up, cuz you might just be needing it soon! So go ahead and laugh while you can! Ho Ha Ho. (Keeping in mind that my shiny new 60 is scheduled to show up at my front door tomorrow afternoon!)

I just hope your wife is as good on the phone with customer service people as mine was! :p

you got your wife to call???:eek::eek::eek:

are you sure she didn't just dial "time and weather" and pretend she was talking to a sony rep? :p:D

Couple of comments. I think World War Z is being turned into a movie.

Another good zombie book to read is Day by Day Armageddon.

Fast Zombies I dont find scary because fast zombies dont give you time to "be scared"....and fast zombies are the same as an armed mob or a bunch of crazies or...a pack of dogs...I mean, everything that is dangerous in life seems to be fast. Its rare when something slow and lumbering can kill you.

PPSS: Zombies dont eat brains, Zombies eat people....Return of the Dead started the brains thing. If I were a zombie, I'd go after boobs first.

And Land of the Dead would have been about 10 times a better movie if the zombies had sort of just figured out how to do things on their own. having one zombie as a ringleader was just too contrived and predictible....especially when every time he shouted "MMAMRRRAAWWWRRRRRRR!" I had to bust out laughing.

eg: If he had just kept being a gas station attendent...and he had suddenly learned to make his way toward the city..ok, I'm buying that. But a zombie that shows compassion to other zombies by killing them, and who teaches other zombies to use the tools they have there......WTF was Romero thinking...then the zombies were literally just like a bunch of slow, stupid people. :P EPIC FAIL! (tho I consdier the movie to be fun to watch....and like at least where he was going with it). Plus the Dead Reckoning rig reminded me of the Landmaster from DAMNATION ALLEY........man can I take this tread in any more directions? :D

I think you hit the nail on the head.

It all depends on how you define "scary."

I think "Shawn of the Dead" shows how non-scary slow moving zombies can be, lol. I'm thinking about the backyard scene when they find the "drunk girl" and laughing out loud.

Then again, we all know how that movie ended. Poor Ed!

Then again, we all know how that movie ended. Poor Ed!

Eternally stuck in the shed, playing video games in a mindless state.

How many Ed's do we have in this forum? :D

PPSS: Zombies dont eat brains, Zombies eat people....Return of the Dead started the brains thing. If I were a zombie, I'd go after boobs first.
:D

NOM! NOM! NOM!

:D:D

I think World War Z is being turned into a movie.

You are correct, sir. Great book, can't wait for the movie to bring all of it's fantastic scenes and sad moments to life (I loved the story about the pilot who got guided out of the woods by radio).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816711/