Fast or Slow?

[Deleted]

The subject came up while my brother has on 28 Days Later for some reason, and I thought I'd run a poll - how do you like your zombies?

Fast for me. That's mostly because, though, the only thing with zombies I've particularly cared for it Resident Evil 4. Not technically zombies admittedly so they avoid the usual complaints with the fast ones, but close enough for it to get me to like the dynamic.

[Young Game]

Dead zombies.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Slow/average speed if they're a re-animated corpse due to the rigor mortis, fast if it's some kind of virus.

["The Rated XXX Superstar" Jed]

Slow zombies give them a bit of a sympathetic aspect. Plus it just makes sense.

[bibboid]

Slow enough that I get a chance to reload occasionally.

[Klutch]

Slow zombies. I hate fast zombies they the scary ones.

[Deleted]

Nonexistent zombies. I feel like the whole Resident Evil series would be a thousand times better if it were nothing but Hunters, Lickers, Bandersnatches and Tyrants.

Or they made an area where you had to fight ten Neptunes. With a toilet plunger.

[Lick Ness Monster]

Neither - bring back the Haitian voodoo zombies (Serpent and the Rainbow), which IMO were WAY creepier.

[rapidfire187]

In terms of scariness I'd have to say fast zombies.

In terms of sheer entertainment I'd say slow zombies. They're much easier to shoot and you've got to be a complete dumb ass to get caught by one. They're only dangerous in groups, and still fairly easy to defeat.

[HMARK Center]

Slow for me. If a zombie is supposed to be dead-but-moving, then slow is the only speed that makes any sense.

Also, slow zombies have a greater chance of creating a swarm, a situation that's scary even if its just composed entirely of regular human beings. It's the building sense of dread: a single zombie doesn't seem so bad but then suddenly there's two more...ten more...fifty...one hundred...on and on and on until it's an army, slowly and gradually swelling.

Fast is a terrible thought, of course, no denying that, but as was said before, dead zombies wouldn't be fast, that's more a virus story. Even those are kind of odd to me, though, since beings that are perpetually fast moving should also fall apart rather quickly due to all the chemicals that involves the body using. They come off as too invincible in a lot of flicks.

[aka Cthulhu]

Other: Monster Girls. Yeah!


Really, though, slow ones are my choice. For the same reasons as HMark, more or less. Fast ones... well, if they're some sort of Frankenstein's monster, then yeah...

[freshrapidlinks]

I like both the slow and fast zombies but not very fast also.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Slow; reanimated corpses shouldn't run. Plus they're creepier that way.

[mrrotten]

Jan 7, 2011 20:39:58 GMT -5 rapidfire187 said:

In terms of scariness I'd have to say fast zombies.

In terms of sheer entertainment I'd say slow zombies. They're much easier to shoot and you've got to be a complete dumb ass to get caught by one. They're only dangerous in groups, and still fairly easy to defeat.

That's pretty my answer. Though I do like Thomas Rigby's answer too. All I really have to say about this topic is:

BBBBRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[smellslikeoksoda]

Its only the recently deceased that turn to zombies. The change happens within 23 hours. I recommend The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks. Its basicly a.military survival guide but focused on zombies. I have a copy on my phone so I can be prepared for the upcoming zombie apocalypse

[Celgress]

Slow zombies, after all they're dead they're all messed up.