A Case for Fast Zombies

This doesn't have much to do with THE WALKING DEAD, but it's fun regardless:

http://my.spill.hollywood.com/profiles/blogs/a-case-for-fast-zombies

Comments

  • edited June 2013
    Totally agree with this - Purists need to grow up...
  • edited June 2013
    For me, the scariest aspect of a zombie apocalypse is hope, or more accurately, the loss of it. Fast zombies eliminate all hope right from the get go being relentless and faster. Slow zombies keep the hope alive for so much longer, because more people can escape, only for the hope to slowly wither away, as their numbers grow. That's why I prefer slow zombies, it's not that I don't like fast zombies, they just don't scare me, (except in well timed jump scares).
  • edited June 2013
    i just fundamentally disagree with the point that fast zombies make a more realistic apocalypse, i agree that they are more likely to cause an actual apocalypse but i don't believe people would survive it, everybody including people who are immune (L4D) would be killed and that makes any story with survivors set in a zombie apocalypse less realistic.

    also the point that they aren't really zombies is not about a dictionary definition, it is about the core characteristics that make a zombie, and one of them is being slow, the point is that how many new special abilities can you add to a zombie before it is no longer a zombie? if zombies could fly would they still be zombies? (not in my opinion) would they still be zombies if they had telekinesis? (not in my opinion) so if zombies can run and jump are they still zombies? (not in my opinion)

    they can still be some kind of ghoul and they are definitely similar to zombies but they aren't zombies, they are just something very similar, and that doesn't mean once they lose pure zombie status they suck, it just means they are just no longer zombies.
  • edited June 2013
    I agree with the video. Fast zombies are zombies too!
  • edited June 2013
    Zombies are undead, giving them the ability to run make them less like zombies (my opinion) the slowness makes them unnatural, inhuman, they may be slow and less of a threat but they are still dangerous, there strong, they will stop at nothing to sink there teeth into your flesh and tear people to shreds until there is nothing left to feast on. In packs or groups they are unstoppable, they surround there 'meals' and hammer there defences until they find a way in. The way there limbs have been removed, there organs torn out and there stomachs ripped open makes them look sickening, do you think a zombie with broken legs should run when slowness suits it's movement. In my eyes zombies are better slow than fast and now I have finally finished ranting.
  • edited June 2013
    I get a "Network not launched error" when clicking the link, but i assume it's a video arguing about fast zombies in media. So with that.....
    PotatoCat wrote: »
    For me, the scariest aspect of a zombie apocalypse is hope, or more accurately, the loss of it. Fast zombies eliminate all hope right from the get go being relentless and faster. Slow zombies keep the hope alive for so much longer, because more people can escape, only for the hope to slowly wither away, as their numbers grow. That's why I prefer slow zombies, it's not that I don't like fast zombies, they just don't scare me, (except in well timed jump scares).

    I completely agree. To me, fast zombies seem to fit a more fast-paced, action-oriented style, there's no time to breathe. I prefer slow zombies because it's like a war of attrition, and you can see how it slowly begins to crack the survivors.
  • edited June 2013
    Zombies are undead...

    Vampires are undead, and they can run...
  • edited June 2013
    The Law wrote: »
    Vampires are undead, and they can run...

    Zombies are usually marionettes in corpse form. It doesn't make sense that a rotting, decaying body would run in that case.
  • edited June 2013
    The Law wrote: »
    Vampires are undead, and they can run...

    To be fair Vampires are demonically posessed undead and are capable of changing form and controlling nature, some animals, and vampires of their creation - zombies don't really do this.

    Vampires don't usually run, instead turning into a bat, a wolf, or a cloud of 'smoke'
  • edited June 2013
    Zombies can be undead, witchcraft, viral (28 Days), parasitic (Half-Life) or toxic (Night of the Living Dead).
  • edited June 2013
    Mornai wrote: »
    I get a "Network not launched error" when clicking the link

    Try this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikjRxrdJLeA
  • edited July 2013
    Zombies should NEVER run,ever. i blame 28 days later or whatever it was called ,and no purists do not need to grow up,it just makes sense,the dead are decaying,their flesh is rotten,the have all sorts of problems,you would not want it to be unrealistic and have them sprinting like usain Bolt lol George Romero mastererd how zombies are,all Robert Kirkman is doing is following in the footsteps of how they should behave.
  • edited July 2013
    Clemmy1 wrote: »
    Zombies should NEVER run, ever... you would not want it to be unrealistic...

    You're talking about Realism in a Zombie Apocalypse Story...

    http://cdn7.steveseay.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/social-anxiety.jpg
  • edited July 2013
    The Law wrote: »
    You're talking about Realism in a Zombie Apocalypse Story...

    http://cdn7.steveseay.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/social-anxiety.jpg

    Every genre needs its realism, or semi-realism, otherwise it becomes stupid. Just because something is fiction it still needs ground rules. You don't see westerns where they watch TV or Medieval movies where they use kevlar vests? Its all fiction but it needs to be fairly realistic to the viewer or it becomes daft, unless its intentionally daft.
  • edited July 2013
    MickH wrote: »
    Every genre needs its realism, or semi-realism, otherwise it becomes stupid. Just because something is fiction it still needs ground rules. You don't see westerns where they watch TV or Medieval movies where they use kevlar vests? Its all fiction but it needs to be fairly realistic to the viewer or it becomes daft, unless its intentionally daft.

    Was only joking, mate... :D

    And regarding realism, it makes no sense that you become a Zombie upon death even when you weren't bitten...
  • edited July 2013
    The Law wrote: »
    Was only joking, mate... :D

    And regarding realism, it makes no sense that you become a Zombie upon death even when you weren't bitten...

    Airborne-transmitted infection that is dormant until host dies or until given an adrenaline-like boost from another infected individual. Easy.

    I'm fine with "infected" people running, as in people whose bodies are still technically alive, but actual zombies should never run. They should slow and worn out, like an actual corpse.
  • edited July 2013
    Mornai wrote: »
    Airborne-transmitted infection that is dormant until host dies or until given an adrenaline-like boost from another infected individual. Easy.

    I'm fine with "infected" people running, as in people whose bodies are still technically alive, but actual zombies should never run. They should slow and worn out, like an actual corpse.

    So Kirkman's Zombies are not real Zombies, then - they are Infected...

    By the way, I think that Airborne-thing is only stated in the show (which I don't watch)...

    Also referring to the bite as a boost is inaccurate - the bite kills you because a zombie's bodily fluids are diseased...

    "Easy".
  • edited July 2013
    The Law wrote: »
    So Kirkman's Zombies are not real Zombies, then - they are Infected...

    By the way, I think that Airborne-thing is only stated in the show (which I don't watch)...

    Also referring to the bite as a boost is inaccurate - the bite kills you because a zombie's bodily fluids are diseased...

    "Easy".

    They would be zombies, as the body is just an empty shell that the "infection"(a word i used for simplicity's sake) takes control of after death.

    Where does it say that's why a bite kills you? I've read the comics up to issue 107(and the letter hacks) and don't recall such a thing ever being mentioned. Unless that's the show, which i don't watch.

    Of course it's not a set in stone thing and likely never will be, but it is certainly easy to bring enough realism into it to make it enjoyable, and that's all the genre needs.
  • edited July 2013
    Mornai wrote: »
    Where does it say that's why a bite kills you? I've read the comics up to issue 107(and the letter hacks) and don't recall such a thing ever being mentioned. Unless that's the show, which i don't watch...

    This is what the Wiki says:

    '"Walker" zombie bites do not kill because of the zombie pathogen, but rather the unsanitary nature of their mouths due to diet and decomposition. Scratches causing similar infections for similar reasons. Their mouths and saliva often contain several septic factors, specifically the bacteria: E. coli, Staphylococcus sp., Providencia sp., Proteus morgani, P. mirabilis, and multocida. The rapid growth of these bacteria tends to cause extremely virulent strains that are highly resistant to antibiotics, and most often lethal...'

    That said, the Wiki isn't infallible, but it does make sense. The only problem with the theory is that someone who has immediately turned wouldn't be diseased enough to infect others...

    Kirkman said this:
    'The rule is: WHATEVER it is that causes the zombies, is something everyone already has. If you stub your toe, get an infection and die, you turn into a zombie, UNLESS your brain is damaged. If someone shoots you in the head and you die, you're dead. A zombie bite kills you because of infection, or blood loss, not because of the zombie "virus."'

    And also, if the infection takes control of the body after death, then they would be parasitic zombies - again, not "Real" Zombies...

    For your viewing pleasure: http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Zombies
  • edited July 2013
    The Law wrote: »
    You're talking about Realism in a Zombie Apocalypse Story...

    http://cdn7.steveseay.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/social-anxiety.jpg


    im guessing either youve just played 'The Last of Us' or youve just seen 'World War z' :D im sure the makers and producers of both wanted running zombies for more action in the film as slow dim witted zombies would be no fun and less scary to a modern day film goer or casual gamer,and if you remember in NOTLD the famous graveyard zombie tries his best to run,so give Romero's zombies some credit ;)
  • edited July 2013
    Clemmy1 wrote: »
    im guessing either youve just played 'The Last of Us' or youve just seen 'World War z' :D im sure the makers and producers of both wanted running zombies for more action in the film as slow dim witted zombies would be no fun and less scary to a modern day film goer or casual gamer,and if you remember in NOTLD the famous graveyard zombie tries his best to run,so give Romero's zombies some credit ;)

    I don't own a PS3 or The Last of Us...
    I haven't seen World War Z either (and don't want to)...
    I'm not a "Casual Gamer" and I like older films...

    LOL!

    Prejudice is a bitch, isn't it... :D
  • edited July 2013
    The Law wrote: »
    I don't own a PS3 or The Last of Us...
    I haven't seen World War Z either (and don't want to)...
    I'm not a "Casual Gamer" and I like older films...

    LOL!

    Prejudice is a bitch, isn't it... :D

    LOL stereotype :P
This discussion has been closed.