I will wholehearedly admit that I liked the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead a lot, because of the gore, the violence and the whole suspense of the film because of the monsters running after you. However I was and still am a little bit skeptical as to the plausibility of RUNNING zombies. It just seems a liitle too awkward for reanimated dead bodies to stand up, come back to life, and then run after you like Jesus Christ. All of the original zombie flicks by George Romero and others portrayed the undead as slow, wobbling, drooling monsters (as they should be), and no running whatsoever. Am I wrong for liking the new 2004 remake because I like the added suspense of zombies running after their dinner? I still rank the original zombie flicks as reigning supreme, though. Always and forever!
__________________
“Dreams shape the world."
Last edited by Impediment on Dec 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 PM
No, they shouldn't. It takes away one of the greatest qualities of the zombies, something that is seemingly harmless suddenly becoming a massive threat, despite the fact that they can barely move. There's just something far more creepy and genuine about stumbling zombies.
Not only that, but it would be impossible for zombies to run, seeing as they're muscles would be suffereing from rigamortis.
Running zombies only worked in Return of the Living Dead, because it was meant to be a silly movie.
Backfire has a point that there is something "far more creepy and genuine" about the "classic" zombie stride, with rigor mortis and all. I had totally forgot about the "Return of the Living Dead" series, and how it was meant to be silly (I love you so much, Sarah! Now let me eat your brain!!!) and non-traditional. I admit it is cool to see this new type of zombie on screen, but I think the traditional is far more effective.
__________________
“Dreams shape the world."
Last edited by Impediment on Jun 29th, 2005 at 09:14 PM
Gender: Female Location: Somewhere between Hell and insanity
No. I like the slow-moving zombies. They're more fun.
__________________ I'm fine, Drew, I seem to have lost my battery pack somewhere in the area of my buttocks. It's okay, my pack is halfway up my ass... -Colin Mochrie
Gender: Unspecified Location: Watching You Right Now
True Zombies should be slowed by rigamortis, I agree. However in the case of a movie such as 28 days later where the creatures are for a virus inflicted human, running is exeptable.
i don't mind the running zombies either but here's a few things:
zombies shouldn't be able to run due to rigamortis...
"real" zombies are people brought back to wander the earth by means of walking....
walking makes zombies appear far more creepy...
fast moving zombies aren't fair..they run like olympian sprinters and don't get tired....
__________________ "damn jinzin, you're a real trooper, you provde fact after fact and pages and pages of proof and these wanton miscreants just keep at it"~MERC
i don't think it's more scary......slower zombies are definitely more creepy in that sense...but running zombies are much more immediately threatening...
__________________ "damn jinzin, you're a real trooper, you provde fact after fact and pages and pages of proof and these wanton miscreants just keep at it"~MERC
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Hmmm...zombies coming out of the grave should not run it ruins the concept of the film. Humans that get bitten by a zombie seems okay. But I don't expected them to be able to run a marathon or be capable of Athletic feats. It makes sense that infected zombies maybe more agile and faster than dead zombies coming out of the ground. And just like humans, zombies come in different sizes...big, tall, short, and also stupid. So you might expect certain similar traits between humans and zombies.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 29th, 2005 06:47 PM
"damn jinzin, you're a real trooper, you provde fact after fact and pages and pages of proof and these wanton miscreants just keep at it"~MERC
