Hey all,
I figured this was the best place for this...if I'm wrong, mods please move to the appropriate forum...
Fast Zombies: An Opinion
To begin with, let me say that I'm a "Slow Zombie" type guy. My first zombie flick was Dawn of the Dead 78, quickly followed by Night of the Living Dead and Day of the Dead. I have yet to see Land of the Dead, but I did catch Diary of the Dead and look forward to its sequel.
I suppose the first example of the "Fast Zombie" was the Return of the Living Dead films. While I enjoyed them, they were originally done in a rather campy style and were fun for what they were. After all, it gave us the famous catchword of "Brrraaaiiiinnnsss!!!!" that most of us quote at time both appropriate and otherwise.
But I've always preferred the slow, shambling guys. Why is that? I wondered why that was, and if I was just an old zombie fogy…as shambling as my favorite ghouls and equally unwilling to change. Listening to debates on both Library of the Living Dead and Mail order Zombies podcasts, the arguments made me consider each type and its possibilities.
I've heard that "Fast" zombies are scary and (by dint of this) Shamblers aren't. RoTLD zombies were fast, true; but they eat brains and as far as I know their de-brained victims don't get up afterwards as new zombies so they seem to replicate slower than Shamblers. The fast-quickly replicating corpses seem to be epitomized by the zombies in the 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake and the 28 days/weeks/months/centuries later films. I know there's a debate as to whether or not they're actually zombies, but let's assume they are for the moment. I believe that computer games might also feed into this (no pun intended) as slow zombies in a first person shoot-em up are easy kills and so the speed gives them a bit of the edge.
There are arguments as to whether or not zombies could run/can't run but once you accept the concept of the dead getting up to eat you, there's not much you can say about logic/illogic. <G>
Shamblers have numbers on their side, and never give up. They have weak arm/leg strength, but I'd say they must have very strong digits and jaws since ripping living flesh off a bone takes a LOT of strength. They have little to no intellect (Bub and Big Daddy being odd instances*), and move in packs.
So, after considering all the opinions I think I finally put my decaying finger on the reason I like the Shamblers over the Fast Zombies.
Simply put, its that Fast Zombies give humanity an excuse. No matter what you do, you WILL be eaten. Can't outrun them. Can't hide from them very well since Fast assumes climbing ability, right? You're just doomed.
Now, tragic endings are fine, especially in Zombie Apocalypse films. But as Brother D said on MoZ "Movies about Zombies are boring. Movies about people dealing with zombies are interesting." And that's the catch. Whether its Night of the Living Dead, Dawn 78 or Day; the humans COULD have survived if they worked together. If they banded together and resisted the onslaught of the dead. But they didn't. They let greed, self-interest, and all the worst traits of humanity to the fore and so they were killed. Their squabbling led to their part of humanity being zombie chow.
This is better to me because the Shamblers don't give humanity the easy out. Fast zombies feel like a natural disaster to me. You can't survive it anyway so let's wallow in the despair of it all, right? ;)
Anyway, sorry to ramble on like this but I felt that I needed to get it off my chest. After literally years of preferring Romero's Shamblers to Fast Zombies but not knowing really why led me to post the answer as soon as it came to me.
It may not help other Shambler-friendly zombie fans but then again it might.
Stay Awesome!
GG
*= Just so I'm not accused of being a (total) Romero Fanboy, I can't help thinking that "Smart" Shamblers are as much an excuse as Fast Zombies are. Because if your zombie opponents can think, use guns, open doors, ride an elevator, etc. then you're toast!
