English Zombies run, American Zombies walk....
Seems to be the trend here. (excluding Dawn :P)
Which is scarier though?
they run in zombie land
share
MovieChat Forums > Dead Set (2008) Discussion > English Zombies run, American Zombies wa...
plenty of american zombie flicks have running zombies, and the infected in 28 days later arent zombies.
shareby Island_Of_Ireland (Mon Feb 21 2011 07:30:49)
plenty of american zombie flicks have running zombies, and the infected in 28 days later arent zombies
Even if american zombie flicks have running zombies I think the english started it first I don't remember any emerican flicks with running zombies till 28 day slater, oh btw 28 days later are technically considered as zombies in the modern era of zombies.
plus the english NOR the americans invented the running zombie or the criteria of INFECTION can create zombies
The asians more specifically the japanese created them in the video games eg. resident evil and house of the dead, the west just happens to shamelessly adopted it as the default concept of a zombie apocalypse.
western zomies slow, based on the super natural, the dead rising from the grave, they eat human flesh but usually just brains. They don't usually affect you i.e bite you and you become a zombie they're just a living shell, a reanimated coprse that only want one thing, EAT YOUR BRAINS
video game zomies (created by the japanese) can be slow, can be fast, based on infection i.e science...more specifically someone opened pandora's box, can be affected via tainted blood. share
As a die hard zombie/demon/ Resident evil game fan I can tell you I know all opf this, and they may "technically" be zombies in 28 days kater, but they aren't dead, they are people infected with a virus called rage which makes them very very angry, hardly the same.
shareBoyle himself said in an interview that they aren`t zombies.
"but they aren't dead"
On the other hand, I think you should watch 28 days later once again, they do die and come back. I takes only couple of seconds but they do stop breathing, "wake up" and start chasing the living...
When do they do that? In most of the attacks in that show the people are simply beaten to death (like that lady strapped to the gurney in 28 weeks later who gets her eyeballs jammed into her head), there's very few "deaths" I remember, in 28 weeks later there's a scene with a chick who gets bit on the arm and turns almost immediately). In most of the cases people seem to get "infected" by having blood get on them, either it's vomited on them by an infected person or gets in their eye or something of the sort, which was the only real part I had to suspend disbelief in for that flick, there's no such thing as a virus that works like that, even viruses with the most rapid onset known to man take a few hours to a day to manifest symptoms.
One thing though, if the 28 Days Later things are dead, why are they successfully starved to death at the end of the first flick? If they were already dead, what would eating matter?
--
*+_Charos_+*
"I have often laughed at weaklings
who thought themselves good because
they had no claws."
what would prevent a "dead zombie" from running though? any reason could probably be countered with something no more ridiculous than zombies existing in the first place. doesn't seem like a big deal to lump the 2 types in same category.
besides i bet 9 times out of 10 people call the zombies in 28 days later just out of convenience
"but usually just brains."
Your "usually" = ONLY in Return of the Living Dead and various parodies (The Simpsons etc.).
Actually, I think it was really the Italians with Nightmare City during their zombiefest craze during the 70s/80s.
"Well I didn't expect a kind-of Spanish Inquisition!" - Monty Python
british started the running zombie??? LMFAO hahahah
there are running zomies in return of the living dead, id hardly call them slow walkers!!!!!!
Fenton!! Fenton..Oh Jesus Christ..FENTOOON
pretty sure return of the living dead started the whole running zombies
shareit's to be debated whether "the infected" are zombies or not... I say they are since there is already more than one kind of zombie... brain eating zombies... runners/walkers... and also the REC/Quarantine/28 Days Later kind--> where it is either possession or rabies or whatever.
But in Shaun of The Dead... they walk... so that's a UK walker right there... and the remake of Dawn of The Dead so does count as American, and not to be omitted.
It depends on the writers/director's style. Science would say zombies would soon be falling apart, so any zombie rules are based on the writer's own rules... and whether you want to call them the Infected, zombies, the undead or mutants... it's all fair game since they are fictional. Take witches or vampire folklore, and you will see that the rules are not definitive. Does a witch float if dumped in a lake? do they fly on broomsticks? maybe. Does a vampire need to share it's blood with the victim in order to change them? maybe. Do they sparkle or burn in the sunlight? depends on how sexy the vamp is?---naw that can't be right... because Brad Pitt in Interview with a Vampire should have sparkled in the sunlight then... blasphemy!
Does any corpse become a zombie or does it need to be bitten?--depends on the universe in which the story is based.. may be through a contagious bite or it may be the toxins in the air. Was it a asteroid or was it a new disease like rabies? or was it God starting the Apocalypse? every story is different.
So people continue to deny that 28 days later infected are not zombies. Yes they were confirmed by Danny Boyle that they are not zombies, and in the movie they starve to death. Well if they can do that then they can surely dehydrate. And they definitely would not be alive too long especially with all of their saliva and blood being puked out constantly. So if we're being logical then they'd be dead before they starve to "death".
shareThe zombies in Shaun of the Dead are slow movers.
shareFolks, not to take anything away from Danny Boyle's entertaining (and admittedly scary) effort, this argument about 28 Days Later starting the trend of running zombies is a bit inaccurate.
There's an awesomely terrible (but fun) zombie film called Return of the Living Dead that came out in 1985 that has running zombies. What's worse, you can't kill them, even with a shot to the brain. This movie terrified the hell out of me as a kid, even though it's laughably bad at times and is really more of a dark comedy that doesn't take itself seriously. If you're a fan of zombie movies, you should check it out. Be warned - the acting is awful at times, but the effects are good and it's genuinely pretty scary at points.
I think I read somewhere that the producer (possibly Dan O'Bannon, of Alien fame?) worked on NOTLD with George Romero, and they parted ways thereafter. Due to some legal wrangling, the producer of this series got to keep "living dead" in his titles and Romero had to use only "dead," hence "Dawn of the Dead" and "Day of the Dead." Whereas the other guy got to keep making Living Dead sequels which got progressively worse as they went on.
Or something like that. I'm too lazy to look it up. Anyway, cheers!
Jesus, it's explained IN 28 Days Later, they're not zombies. Zombies are dead. There's a lot of thick people out there who refuse to listen to logic.
And to the above poster, Return of the Living Dead is indeed a lot of fun. I forgot they were runners, I haven't seen it in years.
if someone asks you "hey what's that movie about?" referring to 28 Days Later, would you call it:
a) a rage virus movie
b) an infection movie
c) a logical zombie movie
d) a zombie movie
i can't believe this is debated so much by so many people
That only means people generalize the movie as a zombie film to save time, it doesn't mean they're "technically" zombies or zombies in any other way. You shoot them in the chest and they die, you don't let them eat any food and they die, and they're not actually died, so they're not zombies.
shareYour definition is kind of flawed, because zombies actually are "a person who has been almost-killed, and then later raised from the almost-dead by a voodoo priest, to be used as slave labour for the rest of their miserable life. Zombies can move, eat, hear and speak, but they have no memory and no insight into their condition." (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/12/09/1260445.htm.)
share[deleted]
That isn't quite accurate...there's a few meanings for the term "zombie", my dictionary also lists
2.
Informal .
a.
a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless, or seemingly rote; automaton.
b.
an eccentric or peculiar person.
Automaton and seemingly rote (or in this case, ACTUALLY rote) would fit what the infected in 28 Days Later were pretty well, people who wander around and react only to one basic drive and do so over and over again ad infinitum until they literally die doing it...a Zombie is also a tasty drink with citrus and Rum and is also a snake god.
--
*+_Charos_+*
"I have often laughed at weaklings
thought themselves good because they
had no claws."
There's an awesomely terrible (but fun) zombie film called Return of the Living Dead that came out in 1985 that has running zombies.
Night of the Living Dead (1968) had a zombie that chased after Barbara in her car as it rolled down hill. Granted he wasn't a marathon runner but he was spry enough to do more than the typical stagger.
And the NotLD zombies were capable of using tools. That same zombie picked up a stone and tried smashing in the car window. And Sarah, the daughter of the Coopers (the couple down in the basement), after she became a zombie, she picked up a trowel and hacked her mother at least a dozen times with it before chowing down on her.
--
The chain of command is what I go get & beat you with to show you who's in command. share
28 Days does not have zombies but from one end it fits the bill of being a zombie movie. It has everything a typical zombie movie would have except for the fact that it doesn't really have zombies but infected people.
shareThey arnt zombies, they are infected.
shareAnyways I'm fairly the sure the British didn't INVENT running zombies. Hard to find a movie other than "Return of the Living Dead".
Now we're talking dead people who are moving. Not alive people infected. So let's not talk THAT other movie with the NUMBER in the title. lol
There's a movie, "NIGHTMARE CITY" 1980, but they are more infected deformed creatures who run. They're not the dead who come back to kill the living. But they're fast as all heck. So if you count this then the ITALIANS created fast movie zombies. Sorry UK...
in answer to the OP question which is scarier, running zombies definitely...we have all been conditioned if confronted with a walking zombie you simply walk faster or turn and fight and due to its shuffling nature you'd more than likly win, with walking zombies the dread comes when theres a hored of them. with running zombies its always a 50/50 encounter whether you live or end up passing through the bowls of a zombie.
i contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
There's no question "fast" zombies are much more terrifying and truthfully, fast zombies would always win. I do however believe fast zombies violate the tenents of the genre. They first appeared in 28 days later (though technically they were not zombie but living people infected with a virus that made them crazy and violent) - that was followed by the remake of Dawn of the dead, which had the fast zombies.
BUT HONESTLY, there would not be much chance of winning against them. There is at least a chance against the slow ones.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common!!!" Dorothy Parker
In the original Dawn Of the Dead, there is a scene where two zombie children run. And, in another George Romero movie, but I don't remember what or where, or anything. Not to mention Brooker said why his zombies ran--budgetary restraints, differentiation, and the fact that the entire country had to be wiped out before anyone knew what happened. The rate of infection wouldn't have been NEARLY as fast if you were a slow zombie.
Not to mention that the slow locomotion of Romero's zombies was attributed to shoddy ankles and rigor mortis, or something along those lines.
Here's where I have my beef at, though--
28 Days Later was the infection of the Rage virus, I understand that. Dawn Of the Dead was the reanimation of the dead, but not EXCLUSIVELY from a bite, because you could die and reanimate or get bitten, die, and reanimate (and they often called it the infected area, so assuming you cut off that limb you might live, but I don't think they ever explored that...I don't really remember).
In more recent movies (and Dead Set, for example), it's [from what we've seen] exclusively person to person, via infected bites, or scrapes, or whatever. That's more of a combination between the two.
So you shouldn't be comparing them at all. Zombies don't have to be slow. It doesn't have to be exclusively /anything/.
Well yeah but running zombies are actually thrilling.
With Romero's snails you have to stoop in to stupid *beep* like ninja zombies, survivors with a tunnel vision and extreme retardation on the hunted.
What clichés? Thats a word the wannabe critics use when they want to whinge.share
Slow zombies...not that I dislike fast ones by any means, particularly if someone finds a creative way to do it (like making them "infected" rather than dead), but I've found the main distinction is in the mood of the film. In movies with slow zombies the horror tends to come from within, the people in the house or mall or whatever become complacent or so focused on their own interpersonal crap they wind up getting themselves killed...it's a more slow, creeping terror that's brilliant for social commentary, a more "classic" kind of horror feeling. The fast zombies don't have that really, the fact that they're fast tends to make the movie more, well, "fast"...it turns a horror film into something more akin to a gore-ridden action film, tends to rely more on "jump" scares ("bus" scares we used to call them, from that "Cat People" movie). That's totally cool mind you, I have no issue with a good fast-paced action movie at all...the remake of Dawn of the Dead for example, or 28 Days Later (ignoring the whole "zombie" debate), Dead Set and so on are all awesome movies or shows, they just aren't really "scary" in the same way.
I remember creeping downstairs on Halloween when I was 7 or so after my parents had gone to bed and watching Night of the Living Dead and being unable to sleep for a couple days afterwards, even now when I watch it I can get "creeped out" remembering how it felt watching it as a kid...I don't really get that from fast zombies, I can like it in the same way I love to watch an intense and gory action movie like "The Raid" or the more recent "Rambo" movie (which was really surprisingly gory, I didn't expect to see people getting their guts literally ripped out and such in a Rambo flick), but it's not really "horror" in the way I think of it...
--
*+_Charos_+*
"I have often laughed at weaklings
who thought themselves good because
they had no claws."