The zombies in the original 3 Romero movies shuffled around and on their own were a bit crap.
They were a threat only in large numbers.
Run if you want but eventually you'll HAVE to hole up as there are simply too many of them.
In Night the scares happened because of the tension between the protagonists and the seclusion of the farm house. Having tenacious, slobbering, unstoppable killers pounding on the door no matter how slow they move IS horrifying if there's a multitude.
In Dawn the slow shuffle is even used as a plot device. When Peter and Roger raid the shops, when the quartet head out armed to the teeth with Roger in a wheelbarrow and most obviously the bikers' "professional army" at the climax.
Having dealt with the Dead for so long, the bikers have an arrogance and disregard for zombies as they KNOW that provided they keep agile and alert they are in no danger. Of the bikers killed in the raid only 1 is caught by zombies while free and uninjured (the poncho-wearing guy). The rest were either shot by Peter or stupid enough to check their blood pressure (and this latter victim is either a complete twat or was so used to the dead that he simply got too complacent).
The zombies weren't a threat individually or even in small groups provided you were healthy and quick witted.
In Day the implacable menace was eery and horribly effective as the caves might be vast but the soldiers cannot escape and will eventually be devoured as they cannot get out.
BUT...
Danny Boyle stated that in 28 Days Later he cast a lot of athletes as The Infected as it would be terrifying if an athlete decided to pursue you to the ends of the earth. The idea of running zombies SOUNDS silly but looks horrifying. Having seen Freddy vs Jason yesterday I am probably not alone in stating that the sight of Mr Voorhees strolling amiably after his shrieking victims has become tiresome (and the same for his brother in arms Mr Myers).
In all 3 of the original movies people were brought down because of:
1. Weight of numbers (soldiers in Day, SWAT team in Dawn)
2. They were faced by someone they knew and froze (Mrs Cooper and Barbara in Night, Mrs Miguel in the tenements in Dawn).
3. They were caught unawares (all 3 movies but particuarly Steven and Fran at the airfield in Dawn).
4. Third party influence (Bub shooting Rhodes in Day, Peter shooting Mouse off the sidecar in Dawn, bikers shooting Steven in Dawn).
5. Bad Luck (petrol pump fire in Night, Steven's dangling legs in Dawn, snapped collar on zombie in Day).
The zombies themselves were NOT the threat, it was the way that people reacted to the situation that tore society apart (as shown excellently in Day).
The trailers for Dawn, as Ana sees her neighbours being pursued by the Dead look VERY scary. Shuffling, grunting lumps has been done to death. Does anyone remember just how scary the zombies in the FIRST Return of the Living Dead were?
I personally hope this remake rocks.
They've taken a classic and, like John Carpenter so rightly did with The Thing, decided to give it a whole new identity.
It is not wrong to remake. It is only wrong to not put your heart in it.
I'd like to see a movie where the zombies walk on their hands and bite people's knees.
Speaking of biting people's knees, there's a flick, I think it's called Ankle Biters, that's about midget vampires.
Anybody seen it? Is it any good?
The thing with the Romero zombie is that they are an unstoppable force and will eventually win because the living will run out of ammo, luck, or cooperation.
The newer films just don't have the same sense of impending doom, and therefore aren't as scary.
Burgomaster wrote:
Gee hee hee HA HAHAHA! That's pretty brilliant Burgo!
They should definately be shufflers and in great numbers.
Definately not the small in number speedy types.
I prefer runners. I am one of the few people who thinks that zombies aren't inherantly cool. "Oh, I can't get away from you, lumbering slow thing!"
Runners spice things up.
I feel like the films featuring the runners sacrifice genuine terror for quick shocks.
You can get away from the slow zombies in the short term, but eventually, they will get you. Maybe sooner than you think!
I'm more of Shufflers person, though I have found zombie movies with fast moving zombies to be quite entertaining when done right.
And, a bit more on topic (but only a bit) -
Did you know there's a specific word for the way those NOTLD zombies move? The word is shamble (shables, shabled, shabling).
But, in some movies, shuffle works, too.
I, personally, like both versions for different reasons.
Shabling zombies are scarier. It's just the complete unnaturalness of it - real, living people don't move like that, and it's spooky as hell. Add in the fact that most movies with shabling zombies have whole shambling hordes, any you've got some scary stuff.
Running zombies are better for action-oriented movies. If you're going for horror themed action, shambling zombies just don't work as well as the running kind.
The worst thing that can be done is the combination - like in Resident Evil. Can someone explain why the human zombies could only shamble, but the dog zombies could runn all over hell and back? Please.
I'm split between the two. I like shufflers, but I'd scared off my ass if like in Return of the Living Dead when all the zombies are running at the police blockade (if I remember the scene correctly; haven't seen it in a while). One thing I didn't like about Return, though, is the fact that the zombies were pretty much unstoppable. Even the method of disposal led to even more. That's kinda one-sided. Zombies should be strong and menacing, but a stoppable threat when you use your head and teamwork.
And in ZOMBIE 3 they apparently used karate on occasion, and machetes! Man, those were some active zombies!
I've heard some theory expressed...maybe even here....that the reason they're trying to make everything faster is because all of the younger people's experience is influenced by videogames to the point where they need constact activity on the screen or they just can't accept it.
I think it's a good point that faster is better for action-oriented horror....movies that kind of live in a netherworld between action films and horror.
But none of the newer films...not RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD, EVIL DEAD, or DEAD ALIVE...have any of the terror of the Romero films...well, at least his first two zombie films. DAY OF THE DEAD's problem is that the entire movie shambles.
Very true with Day. Moments of good stuff, followed up with sleep-inducing scenes.
SHufflers and dashers, but no runners. the whole running thing is just pure BS, it makes them more intimidating yes, but not scary. why? because lack of suspence.
with shamblers if someones fights them you know they got a 50/50 chance and it could go either way and it catches your attention.
but the runners, you know they're f**ked from the second.
so yeah in short I hate you all :P
>Can someone explain why the human zombies could only shamble, but the dog
>zombies could runn all over hell and back? Please.
Because dogs don't know how to act. Seriously, how do you get a dog to shamble?
>One thing I didn't like about Return, though, is the fact that the zombies were
>pretty much unstoppable.
If you believe all three Return movies are set in the same universe, then electricity can stop them.
> If you believe all three Return movies are set in the same
> universe, then electricity can stop them.
That's right. I barely remember the second one, except for the Micheal Jackson zombie getting hit with the electricity. Damn, I need to rent 1 and 2 sometime and actually catch up on them.
I prefer the shufflers. Romero did a fine enough job with the Savini-directed Night of the Living Dead remake. Why would a walking corpse be more agile than any living human being? It was scary in 28 Days Later because it was unexpected. It isn't scary any more. Funny - the slow, apathetic zombies still scare the hell out of me, but their faster, more aggressive cousins have lost steam after only one movie.