Badmovies.org Forum

I've heard a LOT of people bashing the new "Dawn of the Dead" movie, above all other reasons, because the new zombies are faster than the older ones. Can someone please explain to me why slow zombies are supposably better than faster ones?

their not, their just classic. now that 28DL is out, we shall never see the classic zombie.

oh well, fast zombies kick ass

I haven't seen the new Dawn of the Dead yet but I have seen the original and I remember thinking, "Gee it'd be much cooler if the zombies moved a little faster!"

And I enjoyed the fast zombies in 28 Days Later...they definitely kept me on the edge of my seat.

I guess it's just a matter of personal preference.

This post may come across as uppity so I appologize in advance.
Slow zombies are better because zombies are slow. That is the way it is and always has been. Zombies are dead.  Fast just ruins the atmosphere and makes them something else.  Like Ghouls (or diseased freaks).  That being said i did like the new Dawn of the Dead and 28DL was ok.  Speeding them up a little is fine (See Resisdent evil) but making them better than normal humans once dead seems wrong. If you have 40,000 of them you don't need to be fast.  Fast zombies change zombie movies from supense and horror to action.  Not that action is bad.  Bad can't you use vampires or werewolves or Russians instead. (yes i know the cold war is over. sorry just being funny. )

However, I will admit that in  todays modern world fast zombies are pretty much required due to the weapons availible.  Once people know what is going on slow zombies would be mopped up pretty easy.

However even in the new Dawn  with the gun shop, that owner could have killed at least 5,000 with no problem and they could have just walked away.  So it is up to the movie makers to figure out how to make slow zombies dangerous

For me, it's partly a question of what a zombie is. It's a reanimated dead body that is beginning to decay, and if anything, should be working less than optimally. It's scary and dangerous because of its grotesque appearancec, its sheer mindlessness and cannibalistic nature, and because it could be someone you know. The slowness, if used effectively, can add suspense.

That brings me to the next point - that today's horror movies are nothing but action movies with horror themes. I don't know if it's just that the audiences can't appreciate anything that doesn't move like lightning or blow up spectacularly, or that filmmakers don't give them enough credit, but there just aren't that many real horror films made these days. At least nothing scary or suspenseful.

I didn't really think of the infected in 28 Days Later as zombies. They were very much alive, and their disease could follow whatever rules the writer decided. However, when zombies are definitely presented as dead, I have a hard time accepting that they will be faster and stronger than they were when they were alive.

Not to say that there is anything wrong with the new Dawn of the Dead, other than Hollywood's need to fix what ain't broke. It looks interesting, and I want to see it.

On the other hand, why does anyone need fast zombies? You want something undead that is fast and smart, use a vampire. You want something that tears people apart with animal ferocity, use a werewolf. Use people who have been mutated by disease or chemicals or radiation into whatever you need.
Use an alien. Or make up something new.

There's no need to mess around with zombies.



Post Edited (03-22-04 20:15)

Wow, this is the second time in recent memory that somebody has made a similar post while I was composing mine. Maybe this tinfoil helmet isn't blocking my thoughtwaves as well as I thought it would :)

After seeing the remake I think that it's one of those things where you get a lot of quick results but trade it for long-term success.  This movie is scarier than the original because of the fast zombies, but it also makes it less likeable because the zombies are just so damned hard to deal with.  



SPOILER:






This movie was great but depressing.  With Romero you felt like the zombies could be dealt with if everyone kept it together and cooperated.  Here you feel like the situation is hopeless because nobody can kill them all and they don't tire and there are hundreds of them.  This film really bothered me and is still bothering me 2 days after seeing it...but I can't see a sequel doing as well unless they change the tone of the films.  And I don't think that would be good either.   I think with these films you also can't make a lot of the points Romero made about how people ruin their own chances for survival.

Oh you know they'll remake Day of the Dead next and it'll be in the missle silo with super fast zombies.

it may be a few years before they do but you know it's gonna happen!

Not that big a Zombie fan, but i gotta agree with AndyC. His logic is impeccable.
Corse....this is B-movie land...and logic is concitered the "worthless brother in law who won't work, and drinks all your beer " of the family...

I was wondering why my fillings were tingling.

I was wondering why my fillings were tingling.

Bgrade and AndyC both nailed it. I agree with you both in preferring the traditional slow zombies to today's faster zombies for all the reasons you mention. Fast zombies are just a way for the filmmakers to bring something new to the table with zombie movies. While  I do consider 28 DAYS LATER to be a zombie film, I agree that, techically, it isn't. Those baddies aren't truly zombies, but the movie presents an apocalyptic/end-of-the-world scenario that is very much in the same mold as the classic Romero films, which is why I do consider it a worthy film in the genre. I haven't seen the remake of DOTD yet but I'm definitely looking forward to it, fast zombies or not. There's no doubt that fast zombies make things a whole lot more hectic but I think the traditional slow zombies are plenty damn scary and I doubt we've seen the last of them. A skilled filmmaker can make the slow guys plenty horrifying.

Zombies are  lumberers, believe me I know.

(Singing)
"Oh...i'm a zombie lunderjack and i'm o-key. I eat live flesh, and i stalk all day."
( Corus) "He's a zombie lumberjack, and he's ECT"
"I eat your head,i eat your bum, i don't like corn or griiiits."
"I chomp upon your liv-er, and bite your naughy-biiiits."

Lets see the Pythons do this!...actualy, i bet they would....

DEAD ALIVE was basically a Monty Python sketch with zombies in it.

  I think slow zombies are much more "realistic". IF dead people would somehow ever come back, it seems like they would be slow. Fast zombies would be scarier and harder to deal with, however. If you have zombies walk and run, you may as well have them shoot guns, talk, and ride bikes! It ruins the illusion.

I haven't seen the new version yet, but I saw the 10 minute preview on USA. If I hadn't known ahead of time that it was Dawn of the Dead and that they were zombies, I would have thought they were just crazy, infected people.

See its simple.When you see a slower zomie you get the time to see its expressions and hear his wails. He is slow and the guys say "Hey i am safe" But when you actually get trapped you find out how wrong you were. You may asell replace fast zomies with animals inflicted with rabies or something. Heck if you want fast zomies why not go ahead and make hem indestrucble like in 'Return ofthe living dead'

Zombies are not MEANT to be fast, that is a prt of their 'charisma' and i like the original better.

I'm a slow zombie man myself.  I don't mind the fast ones that scream and can outrun you, but the slow ones that moan and howl are just a whole lot creepier.

Brother R

I'm actually writing my own zombie horror story. I include both fast and slow zombies. When I first mention a zombie. They come in two. Next they come in slow groups. Then they get chased ny fast zombies. Then they get attacked by zombie turkeys!!!
; )
 In my own opinion I like slow zombies. They usually create the atmosphere of clasterphobia. Besides what if a fast zombie runs and trips. The world wouldn't have that much a problem then would they.