the plot involves the zombies voting in the WA governors race

So does this mean it does not take place in Pittsburgh? I mean, zombies vote in Pennsylvania, too! It's just that they haven't been caught!

What makes you think Nick Nolte needs a three day bender to look like that?

Hypocrite.

(Sorry for that. I've been hectoring the liberals at Kevin Drum's site. Hard habit to break and all that.)

The fast zombies are so much better. Stop being such a wet-blanket ace. ;) Hehehehe.

As long as they look like gruesome and funereal ..they're zombies. The slow-shamble isn't sacred.

Whoa, better call that pegasus back before it's out of the barn, friend!

Just what kind of monty haul twisted campaign are you running there?

Next thing you'll be saying it's "okay" if spectres are immune to sunlight and "ghouls" don't have to have paralysis touch. You probably like atheist vampires who aren't affected by crosses, too.

"Zombies" who run around like Dash Incredible are fine, I suppose, if that's the way you want it. Just don't call them "zombies." Perhaps zoombies, but not zombies.

I propose a Linnaean cladism for Zombies called "The Zombie Ecosystem".

The basal root of this caldistic tree would be your traditiona Haitian Zombies -- victims of wicked gris-gris cast on them by a Voodoo witch doctor. Then you'd get your "early Hollywood" zombie: basically just a slow not-quite-dead monster who isn't really scary and can't do much of anything and who is really the director's nephew in grey grease-paint. Then you got your "Romero Classic" zombie: slow, shambling, but now devours human brains and has all kinds of cool rotted flesh action. Then you got your "Romero Spinoff" zombie, who is still slow and shambling, but has runnier wounds, chunks'o'flesh falling off, and maybe a small amount of sentience (think "Bud the CHUD" in Chud II). Then you got your "Turbo Zombie/Plague Victim" variant as promulgated in 28 Days Later: these zombies didn't die and come back to life; they're just diseased. They're fast as hell, but still rot and like to eat human brains.

What we need now is a "Super Zombie": a rot-resistant, super-smart, and super-fast variant of the "Turbo Zombie" strain. With other zombies all you gotta do is hole up for a few months while the zombies rot into oblivion (even the fast ones) -- this new zombie would be unstoppable!

I can't believe you are wasting your time classifying zombies, Monty. Who the F*** died and made you the F***ing Charles Darwin of Ace's HMF***ingS Beagle, huh? Tell me that.

Besides, don't you know there's a zombie war on?

Are there any submarines in this movie?

What we need now is a "Super Zombie": a rot-resistant, super-smart, and super-fast variant of the "Turbo Zombie" strain. With other zombies all you gotta do is hole up for a few months while the zombies rot into oblivion (even the fast ones) -- this new zombie would be unstoppable!

We've already got those. They're called "Vampires."

We're talking about Romero here. If I want my zombies filtered through an MTV-generation sensibility, I'll watch the "Dawn" remake.

I like my ghouls like I like my women: slow and easy to avoid.

Pompous:

I rely on my PhD in Zombolgy from the University of Shut the Fuck Up. (Good ol' STFU U. The memories!) If we do not use science to defeat the dread scourge of zombies all that'll be left is -- well, zombies. And what's the point of that? My superior knowledge of Zombie biology and habitat outweighs your profane and badly spelled screed. Be off with you and trouble me not!

And ace -- you make a rookie mistake in equating zombies with vampires. Vampires drink blood, are "undead" (not simply the re-animated dead), and tend to be suave guys with slick haircuts or hot chicks with big pontoons. The salient points of zombification are: flesh-rot and brain-eating, neither of which pertain to vampires.

Both of these creatures are not to be confused with ghouls, which are living creatures who feed upon the dead.

Allah:

I don't understand the preference for the slow/shambling zombie. What's scary about these things? An old lady with a walker can outrun them, and unless you're grotesquely stupid it's easy to sneak up on them and kill them (again). A classic Romero zombie horde could be dispatched quite nicely by one beefy guy with a 20lb sledgehammer. Go up to a zombie, duck the clumsy zombie-grap, and WHOP! with the sledge. Cave in the skull, move to the next zombie, repeat until all zombies are dispatched or they overwhelm you with massed wave attacks. (A good reason to keep a flamethrower or grenade-launcher nearby.)

I think that making zombies comical is a bad move. We want a bit of sadness at their condition -- after all, they didn't ask to be zombies -- but we also need fear and dread. And I just can't dread something that can't outpace an arthritic old lady.

The advantage the slow zombies have over the fast zombies is inexorability. It's no trick to get run down by a ghoul with Olympic-sprinter speed; the sense of dread in a Romero flick comes from the feeling of being surrounded and swallowed up. It also has the advantage of realism insofar as rigor mortis and decomposition are a factor when you're dealing with the undead.

As for making zombies comical, it's a matter of taste. Good luck convincing me that the remake of the "Dawn" is better than the original.

I wouldn't say the remake was better than the original, necessarily.

But the remake was f'n' good.

Actually, I will say it:

As much as I liked the original, the remake was better.

Ving Rhames doing his "angry black man" shtick? Not a single likable character except for Jake Weber, who's actually not all that likable?

I'll stick to the original.

Ving Rhames wasn't really the "angry black man." He was the angry cop guy who wants you to leave him alone.

He wasn't dislikable. His "relationship" with the gun-shop owner across the street was great.

Jake Webber (I assume that's the white leader guy) was great, and so was the young security guard, the little hottie who hooks up with Jake, and the douchebag security guard who becomes heroic at the end.

What's your problem, man? It was a great movie.

I don't know what to tell you, except that I didn't like any of the characters nearly as much as I liked the original "Dawn" crew. I'll grant you that the plotline involving that guy across the street was great, as was the scene where they have to lower the dog into the crowd of zombies. But beyond that? Couldn't care less who ended up dead or not.

Ultimately, I think the cast ended up too big. It's hard enough in these movies to develop characters; throwng ten different people into the mix only complicates matters.

I don't know. Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree.

By the way, the zombie-baby plotline? Embarrassing on every level. Ridiculous.

Once you make zombies fast, they lose all their original potntial as a metaphor for the Soviets.

Loose shit, zombies.

Allah and ace,

I too thought the new "Dawn" was better than the old. I can summarize why in the following points:

1. Johnny Cash singing "A Man Comes Around". That song totally fucking kicked ass and put Cash into the rarefied realm of Zombie C&W Superstars.
2. Way better SFX. I realize that Romero had a limited budget and the technology wasn't as good then, but come on: the 1970's "Dawn" just looks dated and kinda dumb now. The disco-hair on the zombies was pretty bad too.
3. Romero (IMO) drove the "zombies-as-consumers" metaphor into the ground, stomped on it, then dug up the stomped-on remains and shot it with a shotgun. I got it, I got it; zombies are consumers! The new "dawn" was a more straightforward disaster/action flick, which sped the movie up some and made it a more exciting. More of a horror film and less of a 1970's monument to malaise and consumerist angst.
4. As Joe Bob Brentwood might say, the new "Dawn" had chainsaw-fu. You gotta love a zombie movie where a chainsaw comes into play.
5. Jake Webber made a pretty cool protagonist (I won't say "hero" exactly). He's kind of like a more-serious version of Shaun from "Shaun of the Dead" -- an everyday schmoe who nevertheless is able to find the heroic in himself.
6. The subplot with the guy in the gun-shop across the street. That played out pretty damned well.

Romero purism be damned. The new "Dawn" was way better.

The thing I liked the most about the remake was the sense of scale. It really felt as though something big and awful was really happening to the world, not just to some people in a shopping mall.

Just watched the trailer. Dennis Hopper?

Yeah, I'll go see it.

It really felt as though something big and awful was really happening to the world, not just to some people in a shopping mall.

More so than the beginning of the original "Dawn," with that immortal SWAT team/tenement scene?

I dunno, man. When you've got a denouement involving a motorcycle gang, I'd say you're fairly well along towards the apocalypse.

The SWAT scene was pretty cool, but there's only one way to determine which one is better.

I'll have to just rent both of them again. Or just buy the damn things.

Maybe this is all influenced by my man-crush on Ving Rhames...

1. Johnny Cash singing "A Man Comes Around". That song totally fucking kicked ass and put Cash into the rarefied realm of Zombie C&W Superstars.

Totally. The remake could win on this point alone.

By the way, the zombie-baby plotline? Embarrassing on every level. Ridiculous.

Ummm... I didn't hate it the way you did, but it did stink of a Pat O'Brien "let's go crazy this will be so fuckin' hhhhottt" brainstorming session that probably shouldn't have happened.

I didn't hate it. Plenty of good scares, some of which I've already acknowledged. Just didn't like the cast, and I can't believe they followed through on the zombie baby. As soon as you find out Omar Epps's wife is pregnant, you suspect what's coming -- to the point where you start thinking they're going to cross you up, because no one is that obvious.

Except, they are.

Allah:

The "zombie baby" thing in the new "Dawn" was cool, but they didn't pay off -- I agree that having the zombie baby eat its way out of the womb would have been an excellent payoff. In fact, I would have had the zombie critter get away for a time and stalk the survivors through the mall. Seriously: what's creepier than a zombie baby tracking you through an empty mall?

I also thought that the closing videocam montage was pretty cool.

The zombie baby eating its way out would have been cool but too reminiscent of Alien, I think. Having it stalk the people in the mall -- presumably while crawling on all fours -- would have been simply ridiculous, like throwing Chucky from Child's Play into an otherwise serious end-of-times scenario. If you're going to do that, you might as well have Carrot Top make a cameo, too.

Allah, you're bustin my balls on this zombie baby thing. I can't believe you don't see the horror-movie gold here! I admit you have to do it right -- I'm thinking lots of good low-angle POV shots from the zombie-baby-cam, and maybe some quick corner-of-your eye shots of something skittering by in the background. I wouldn't base the whole movie around it (they already did that with "It's Alive"), but it would be a cool effect.

I think the "homicidal infant" genre was forever ruined for me by Pet Sematary -- which I liked, incidentally, but which was certainly one of the most poorly acted movies ever made.

Many of the comments in this thread tolerate, or give the tacit appearance of tolerating, 'running' Zombies. While I believe in free speech, even offensive speech, I do NOT believe it gives one the right to spew irresponsible and hateful notions.

Administrator, please remove such comments and ban the authors.

Thanks you.

In defense of zombie baby, he was the most likable character in the film.

Allah,

The only thing I remember from Pet Sematary was that it had Denise Crosby in it (the original security officer on ST:TNG) and I had massive tumesence for her back then. I was gravely disappointed in the lack of nudity offered in the film. The acting did indeed suck; I've seen straight-to-video crap that was better than that movie. (It's ironic that Steve King himself directed the worst Stephen King movie, though, and oddly enough it was kind of a zombie movie: Maximum Overdrive. Jesus, that movie absolutely blew.)

I'm with Allah, I don't care for the concept of the fast zombie. Part of the scare factor of zombies is that...heck, they're SLOW, it should be EASY to take 'em out -- except for the fact that if you screw up just ONCE, you're done. It's sort of a superiority complex that can come up and bite you on the tail (literally) the second you get careless.

I think having to avoid a bunch of slow-moving zombies is much more frightening than having to outrun a bunch of fast ones. And Allah is right again about the sloth helps keep up the illusion of the zombies being DEAD.

IMO, anyway. I honestly didn't like the original "Dawn" and when I heard about the fast zombies I didn't see the remake. I may rent it the next time I'm at Blockbuster, but I usually buy my DVDs so I don't go there much.

Later,
bbeck

"I think the "homicidal infant" genre was forever ruined for me by Pet Sematary -- which I liked, incidentally."

You can't be serious. That movie was ridiculous -- the classic example of "not as good as the book blah blah blah."

Although admittedly, my perspective is skewed. When I read the original Stephen King novel I had a son the same age as the kid who got run down by the truck and buried in the pet semetary. That book is the only one I have ever read that gave me nightmares.

So by the time I watched the movie, the film version was just a joke.

Look, I'm a bit of a slow-shamble zombie purist myself, but the fact is, we're in a new age, baby. "The kids" demand that their enormous CGI monsters move vision-blurringly fast (and thus appear ridiculous; big things ought to move slowly), and now they want their zombies moving quickly too.

If I had my druthers, I'd go with slow zombies, but I don't. I have to take what "the kids" want. And I guess I don't mind the fast zombies as much as you guys do. It did take some getting used to, but 28 Days Later prepared me for the paradigm shift and the DotD remake confirmed it.

I wouldn't say I'm a fast-zombie man now; I would just say I'm a Zombie renaissance man, comfortable in either era.

I kind of agree with this guy on the old Dawn. I liked it a lot (and probably found it scarier than the reviewer) but really felt the "zombies as consumers" thing took away from the fact that it was supposed to be a HORROR movie.

The new one had fewer lectures, more scares.

It did have the always-annoying Sarah Polley, though, so that was kind of a strike against it.

I'm with Allah, I don't care for the concept of the fast zombie. Part of the scare factor of zombies is that...heck, they're SLOW, it should be EASY to take 'em out -- except for the fact that if you screw up just ONCE, you're done. It's sort of a superiority complex that can come up and bite you on the tail (literally) the second you get careless.

I think having to avoid a bunch of slow-moving zombies is much more frightening than having to outrun a bunch of fast ones. And Allah is right again about the sloth helps keep up the illusion of the zombies being DEAD.

All true. But the thing about the slow zombies is that they're f'n' comical in the beginning and middle of the movies. They are easier to take out one at a time than ninjas in a martial arts movie.

It's only when those Superswarms come that they actually become frightening.

In the fast-zombie movies, they're scary from the get go. None of that laughing as you bash their heads in crap.

In the fast-zombie movies, they're scary from the get go

True. In the remade Dawn, the creepiest part was the beginning of the movie, when the little girl ran into the bedroom and tore out the husband's throat.

Jumped the crap out of me. I saw it coming, but still...

"But the thing about the slow zombies is that they're f'n' comical in the beginning and middle of the movies."

Hey, in "Night of the Living Dead" they were scary from the get-go when Barbara's brother gets taken out in the first 2 minutes of the film.

And I personally like the build-up from silly to scary. But I AM a chick, always complaining about the timing of the climax...

Later,
bbeck

I have to take what "the kids" want.

No, sometimes the kids ain't alright. Sometimes they're little shitheads. Hell, 'the kids' probably want hip-hop zombies Snowboard, half-piping, X-game zombies.

Hey, why not lazer beams from their eyes? Why not wacky time travelin zombies? Would kids like that? Hell yeah! "'Ooooh the lazer beam Zombie skateboarded back through time!!! Radical!!"

Screw that. Zombies WALK!!!! They shamble. Their tendons and joints are all dried up and shit. This is basic zombie physiology! (Maybe a super fresh dead zombie - like, before rigor mortis, but that's it. Maybe.)

Throughout history, no great nation has ever countenanced running zombies. Never. And if the kids want this, I fear for our future.

Ok. Screwed up some of the italics there. So what! Doesn't change the fact zombies can't run!

You can't be serious. That movie was ridiculous -- the classic example of "not as good as the book blah blah blah."

It had its moments. The flashbacks with the invalid sister were solid nightmare material. And I confess that the scene where the father had to euthanize his undead toddler got to me. There was a really good movie lurking in that material; they just didn't have the personnel to pull it off. More's the pity.

I guess I don't mind the fast zombies as much as you guys do. It did take some getting used to, but 28 Days Later prepared me for the paradigm shift and the DotD remake confirmed it.

But Shaun shifted it right back. I concede that fast zombies are better suited for rat-a-tat screamfests, but what I like so much about Shaun and Romero's movies (and the better parts of Pet Sematary) is that they work as drama. The horror becomes incidental to the human conflict. Slow zombies are ideal for that because they're part of the scenery, almost atmospheric: they serve as backdrop to the main events for most of the movie and then can be introduced into the thick of it as necessary. With the fast zombies, it feels like war; with the slow zombies, it feels like fate.

Maybe I'm mixin posts here, but why don't you ever see retarded zombies? You gotta figure those goofy fellers are slower than the rest of us... wouldnt' they be first to go?

Huh. What a nice time to come back to the 'puter.

Okay. . . [knucles cracking]. . . let's dive in.

First off, slow zombies. For the reasons Allah gives above. The best zombie movies aren't about zombies-- they're about survival. It could be on a boat, in the Arctic, wherever-- zombies are an undead force of nature, a catalyst for tension/fear/social commentary.

Taken by themselves, they're not scary. Creepy, sure; scary, no.

One of the reasons the fast zombie is so prevalent these days is because, with few exceptions, zombie films-- and horror films in general-- no longer offer a message. So, if you're not going to bother telling a story worth telling, might as well sex it up for the kids.

Now, sometimes I'm cool with fast zombies. Even though they're not really zombies. Just like the vampires in Blade aren't really vampires because they walk around in the daytime and shit. The moment a vampire is in the sunshine, it's not a vampire. The moment a zombie runs faster than a rotting rigor mortis corpse, it's not a zombie. Fine, whatever, I'll let it go, if the movie is any good.

While I felt that the Dawn of the Dead remake was non-essential, I thought it did some things well, and I enjoyed myself. However, it missed a few things, and badly.

Allah, I'm with Monty: the payoff for the zombie baby is to eat its way out of the womb. A zombie baby simply has no other purpose in life, uh, death. Still, I can't recall a movie that ever had the balls to pull that stunt. Hell, not even Stephen King pulled that stunt in that zombie story in Nightmares & Dreamscapes, with the pregnant woman during the zombie apocalypse.

No matter what happened in Dawn of the Dead, the swanky guy was ridiculous. No one would act like that in that situation. No, really, NO ONE.

Oh, and I love how they establish the film in Wisconsin. . . only to end the film sailing out to an island. Uh, where? In the middle of Lake Michigan? Which, BTW, is a *freshwater* lake, last time I checked-- funny how the characters run out of water anyway.

I did like 24 Days Later, even though it had fast zombies, because it was done so well. It really made it look like London, and all of England, was deserted. So, from a technical standpoint, I was impressed.

But I'm with anyone who says Shaun of the Dead is the best zombie film of the modern era. It's not scary at all, but so what? It obeys the conventions of the film, and uses what are typically cliches to tell a very engaging-- and hilarious-- story. Again, like I said, the best zombie films aren't about zombies. Zombies are the McGuffin.

Vampires teach lessons about emotional hubris ("I want to live forever") and lust. Frankenstein films teach lessons about playing God. Mummy movies teach lessons about going places best left buried. Alien movies teach lessons about fear of the unknown.

Zombie movies teach lessons about unstoppable forces of nature, sweeping movements that we can't understand, and can't control-- we can only hope to make the best of a bad situation. It's like life, only chewier.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Dave, you're supposed to end a post like that with a:
But this is all new to me

Look, all you geeks should know there are different kinds of zombies. There's zombies, and then in the Monster Manual II, there were the fast-and-tough Juju Zombies, as well as the Monster Zombies, and those of you fortunate enough to have played the Ravenloft modules might be familiar with the Strahd Zombies.

There is an amazing diversity of zombies out there. Why do we need to squabble?
The slow, shambling zombies had their day, but now it's time for a change of pace, time to put the spotlight on the undead with a few more hit dice and a little faster movement rate. We shouldn't fear diversity, we should embrace it.

Well, actually in this case we should fear the diversity, and if we were to embrace it, it might eat our brains and transform us into family-murdering soulless horrors, so we probably shouldn't literally embrace the diverse zombies. But we can still celebrate it, by making documentaries like Romero's with alternative viewpoints and by celebrating "take a zombie to work (and let him slay your boss) day".

SD-

The zombie golem, though technically not a zombie itself, should probably be on that list as well.

Fat Kid, I'm sorry, I forgot.

You see, this is all new to me.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

...teach lessons about unstoppable forces of nature, sweeping movements that we can't understand, and can't control...

No. The only lesson to be learned is the hard won truth that Zombies will not remember their loved ones and cannot be trusted to 'search their heart' and remember you. Forget it. Once they're Zombiefied, it's like they don't even wanna know you. All about the brain eating. And forget reason. You cannot reason with a Zombie, bargain with a Zombie. The only thing worth trying to get thorugh a Zombie's head is a pick axe. Believe me, brother. A pick axe.

If there is a second lesson it is that all nations should move to mandatory cremation of the dead. Problem solved right there.

Can't we split the difference and have lumbering zombies? You know, kinda like the Special Olympics 100m dash type running.

And just so we don't start giving the 28 Days Later or the remake of Dawn credit - running zombies were best done in Return of the Living Dead. Hell, what made those zombies even better was that they wouldn't take any of that pussy "shot to the brain kills them" bullshit.

"Send more cops."

Was that Zombie Golem in the module, Megan? I remember them from the Ravenloft: Strahd's Revenge game (which is my favorite game ever, and the zombie golem was really really f'in scary when you first met it--and even afterwards when it would creep up on you and pummel you. Strahd himself was a letdown after all that.)

I wish I had the technical sophisitcation to set up an emulator that could run that on XP, but it's probably good for my 'career' that I don't.

?

Megan is a right-wing lesbien D&D dork?

Is she trying to make life difficult for men?

That was me with the Strahd comment, and I wish I had the technical sophistication to sign my name and spell sophistication right every now and then.

It's funny that brain-eating is so associated with zombies, when of course the romero zombies and most others did no such thing.

It was only those Return of the Living Dead movies that had that particular taste.

Dave:

What's the lesson in werewolf, ghost, monster, and demonic forces horror films?

Really, I'm curious.

Oh, and an example of why the slow zombies are scary: Resident Evil. The scene where the people are being mobbed by the zombies in the "kitchen" and the guy is trying to open the door so they can get out of there. When he finally does get it to open, he turns around and smugly says they're getting out of there. But on the other side of the door is an entire mob of zombies, which grabs the guy and pulls him into the mob.

SD-

I stopped playing around the time Ravenloft came out for the 2nd edition. Never got around to playing 3E (or even reading it, actually). I think I saw the zombie golem in a Monstrous Compendium add-on, or maybe it was in one of the Ravenloft sourcebooks - not sure now. That was at least 10 years ago.

I played Strahd's Possession, I think. Don't remember Strahd's Revenge - was it a sequel?

Ray, you're looking at zombies too closely. You must unlearn what you have learned.

You speak of eating, and not remembering, and all that jazz. Those are only *mechanisms*, like a vampire turning into a bat. But people fear not the bite of the bat-- they're afraid of what comes after the bite, of being undead for millenia.

Sure, zombies spark some primal fear-- nobody wants to be eaten, especially not by your now deceased loved ones.

But again, think of zombies as the McGuffin. Romero certainly did in all his movies, no more so than Dawn of the Dead. Zombies in malls. ZOMBIES IN MALLS.

The symbolism hits you over the head with a hammer, before it tears off your arm in the blood-pressure cuff to eat it.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Ace: In fact, the consenus view now is that Zombies do prefer brains and Romero's were aberrations (perhaps being Pennsyvania dutch Zombies or something. It's unclear). What remains undisputed is that Zombie's cannot run and move at about the same rate as the elderly.

Dave: Zombies are not symbolic. If Zombie's represent any deeper fear of man, it that of being eaten by Zombies.

NF--

I'm certainly entering the realm of dime-store pop psychology here (or, as some would call it, a "Degree from Harvard"), but I would venture the following:

Werewolves are easy-- man's fight against being just an animal, controlled only by his most base instincts.

Ghost stories are usually cautionary tales-- lead a good life, treat people well, or else you'll be haunted (or haunt in turn). With the exception of Casper, most ghosts are pretty disturbed, having either met a violent end, or done violence themselves during their lifetime. That's why so many ghost stories revolve around achieveving some sense of closure for the restless spirit.

Monsters are aliens on Earth-- fear of the unknown, or the "other."

Demonic forces are obvious-- pray to God. God exists, and ergo, the devil does too. So don't fuck with him.

Again, these are all just theories. It's not like I took a class in this or anything (I just watched way too many horror flicks growing up).

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Megan-- Strahd's Possession. That's what it was. Ah, memories. The game was a little buggy but it really did induce dread and terror--the music really helped.

And I never saw the second edition D&D stuff--I'm Old Skool, dawg.

No symbolism, eh?

Well, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a cigar is Bob Dole's cock.

I'm just sayin'.

One of the reasons the fast zombie is so prevalent these days is because, with few exceptions, zombie films-- and horror films in general-- no longer offer a message.

Precisely, Dave. Romero's going for a heavy-duty message with this new one, but what that message is isn't exactly clear. For years he's been talking it up as a metaphor for how society deals with homelessness, but since 9/11 he's made some noises about it being an allegory for isolationism in the face of terrorism. Here's the plot summary; judge for yourself. Smells like standard liberal class consciousness to me.

I liked the first two-thirds of 28 Days Later but thought it went off the rails at the end. Such an imaginative beginning, only to end up as a damsel-in-distress caper. Actually, I thought Shaun suffered a little towards the end, too: it holds up much better than 28 Days, but that scene at the pub goes on for way too long. And seems to get longer every time I watch it.

As for zombie baby chewing his way out -- what next? Do we have Sigourney Weaver make a cameo at the end and shoot him out of an airlock?

SD -

My favorite part was the brand new (at the time) paper doll inventory. I know, I know, very girly of me, but dressing up my little mannequins was so much fun! Ultima VII: Serpent Isle was great for that as well, a few years later.

This has got to be among the most fascinating threads I've ever read, anywhere.

Ace should consider keeping it at the top o' the blog until the film's released. Because, zombies! Who knew.

Romero is one of my favored directors. Of all time.

I haven't yet read the whole thread so overlook this if someone's already made this point..but the sick folks in "28 Days Later" (I liked the film, just saying, there were a lot of sick people IN that film) weren't, technically, "zombies," but sick. Infected.

Infected with rage. Not zombies, not yet dead but infected. There IS a difference now that we're discussing the particulars about zombies.

The Infected, sick folks in that film had a remarkable body language that works far better on film while the slow shuffling zombies...seemed impotent as to causing harm unless you fell down on the lawn or got stuck in a group of them without escape.

Also, Romero doesn't use (hasn't yet) the same filmmaking processes as was used in "28 Days," so Romero's zombiefications aren't depicted as having such extreme jerking around as The Infected. Also, zombies don't throw up blood, so there's always that.

I never really thought of 28 Days Later as a zombie film. The dudes weren't dead, just diseased with rage. Hence the curiosity over whether they could starve to death.

Sure, there were many homages to Romero, but I thought of it like Aliens or Mad Max filtered through Romero.

No, ace, Romero's zombies ate brains. I am thinking that he set the pace for what zombies did and didn't do, since all zombies afterward have had that "must have brains" thing going on.

They ate brains, thus, zombies. (Oh, wait, let me try the Rosie thing...).

They
ate brains,
thus,
zombies.

Zombies ate
brains,
thus,
zombies
bad.

Zombies
in the yard,
brains, mine,
need them, really need them,
zombies want them,
no way,
no brains today.

Bad,
bad zombies.

I'm with Allah, the slow zombie is like a huge slow moving wave of death, from which you can never escape. They never tire, never sleep, you have to be on guard 24/7. While they are slow, and give you a good chance of surviving a one on one, the problem is that even one bite will put you in the land of the dead.

How many times did your bigger sibling have a booger on his finger, and how hard did you fight him off from rubbing it in your face? One touch and you are booger faced for life.

Now imagine he was trying to run boogers all over your face any time of day or night, you never know when its coming, but you might just wake up boogified.

I don't remember Romero's zombies eating brains. I don't doubt that in one scene or another they may have eaten a brain, but they were flesh-eaters. The big gross-out scene in NotLD featured them eating muscle and internal organs. Nary a brain in sight.

They had no special need to eat brains. That was from the non-Romero parody (sort of) Return of the Living Dead movies.

OT, but the guy in From Beyond ate a brain. Then again, he wasn't dead. He was just afflicted with a resonated pineal gland.

Fear of being "infected" plays a big part in these zombie things. It's about a fear of losing your will, of getting bitten and turning into this thing that cannot be reasoned with and turns on the rest of humanity. Becomes one of Them, with no hope of redemption. The infection is what being a zombie is all about.

It doesn't matter if you're fast or slow, biologically alive or dead, bleeding from open sores or dressed in a nice pair of birkenstocks and clutching a Striesand album to your chest, you're a zombie if some fearsome force has ripped everything that is good and human out of you and turned you into a mindless thing that seeks to pass the infection on to others.

Use that as a metaphor for consumers or whatever the hell you want, but that's the core of the zombie.

That said, slow ones are creepier. Because it's not one zombie that will get you, it's when the zombies gang up and start a group blog that you're screwed.

Okay, Ace brought up From Beyond. That's it, I'm going to bed.

If I stay up any longer, I'm liable to turn this thread into a "Why the hell hasn't anyone made a good H.P. Lovecraft movie yet?" rant.

Trust me, that would be most. . . unpleasant.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Condi Rice Zombies Are Soooo Hot when there's a retarded [rug-muncher] war on to break the filibuster in the Senate, but they can be killed (again) with a well-aimed coke bottle to the noggin; however, my zombone is rather contemplative, and not as large as the udder on W's "cow". I'm trying not to panic, though I know that there's a war on and I'm stuck in prehistoric Islington, sitting on Eddy's chesterfield and waiting for the bus (which will not arrive for another 2,000,000 years).

Ah, fuck it - now I've been gob-smacked by the zombies.

I can't believe you can't say les bian -women in comfortable shoes?

ace:

"Night of the Living Dead" was Romero's first zombie film (1968 I think it was released), from whence the other (later) version (a remake) by another filmmaker and producer was released, "Return of the Living Dead."

Romero's zombies, however, always ate brains...if they could catch someone. The point was that they'd eat you if they caught you, starting with the brains...

See: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063350/

I'm just surprised that a certain person hasn't chimed in about how the zombie menace is a Zionist plot, a way to make tax cuts for the rich work out (to the detriment of ordinary Americans, who'd be eaten by the zombies, of course), or a ploy to pay off debt contorlled by devious Asian bankers.

Or, well, it could be a combination of all three. Those neocons are crafty, after all.

Don't be ridiculous, Sean M. these zombies have had their brains turned to liquid, just like Terri Schiavo did. I have the scan right here: (link). That's why we had to kill her. She may have been a zombie.

Zombies don't feel any pain. You can just keep blasting away at them for hours and they keep on coming like dumb stupid relentless beasts. Even with nothing left to stand on, they'll keep crawling around in a pathetic yet horrifying frenzy of hatred.

They do not recognize the Right to Life and mindlessly attack those who do.

Their natural allegiances and loyalties have been erased and they will gladly attack and destroy a longtime ally--or anything intelligent.

Sexual relations are impossible, since the zombification process has caused their twigs and berries to shrivel up and their consuming hatred for the living has replaced normal procreative urges.

They smell bad and communicate in barks, grunts, and moans rather than through reasoned discourse. They have no self-awareness, however, and find it difficult to be subtle or intelligently plan an attack.

In conclusion: Gruuuh, gahh. Mmmmrrr....unhhh; BRAINS! MUST HAVE BRAINS! I NEED BRAINS! MRAHHH!

I just wanted to say that "zoombie" is now my favorite word in the English language.

Thank you, poster pretending to be Garry Gygax. You have brought joy into my life.

Bob Doles Cock here, and let me tell you:

I am no cigar! You wont't see me getting all soggy and limp from a little saliva. At least not for another 3 hours and 55 minutes.

Zombies: Can't stand them. Always shuffling around looking for handouts. Bob Dole's Cock says the only good zombie is a Dead zombie. And to make the undead dead for good, you have to do what I do: Shoot 'em in the Face!

Enuf with the stereotypes.

We "fast" zombies are here and loud--get used to it!

I'm a person!

When we eat brains, we polish them off with a nice chianti.

P.S. "Zoombie" is a gobsmackingly vile epithet typical of the nascent Ratzinger kulturklampf. But what do you expect of a religion that still performs exorcisms on our demonic brothers and sisters from hell.

Riddle me this: What's the difference between a Bob Dole's cock and a slow moving zombie?

Answer: Viagra and the zombie doesn't want his own head eaten.

I think we're missing out on the classic oddball zombie genre - zombies from outer space. Booyah, old B&W movies for the win.

But for this debate - turbo zombies, simply because its pathetic that a bunch of slow zombies can get anyone. There should be turbo-powered despair in zombie movies as people are rapidly "turned" instead of the retards who can't run, or can't aim at a slow moving targets. Those people deserve zombification, and I never really liked them anyway.

I've slept on it and thought about the retro/turbo zombie conundrum. I realize that the "retro" folks just don't understand zombies and their motivations.

A zombie is a re-animated chunk of dead human tissue. They are in many ways like sharks: their only purpose is to shamble around (or sprint around), and eat brains, and (maybe) to make little zombies. That's it. Zombies are not interested in debate or rodomontade; they're not looking to improve their quality of life or delve into the deep metaphysical questions of the day. They want to track down living humans, crack open their skulls, and feast on the brains within.

Stay with me now. Given that brain-eating imperative, how is a shambling-type zombie ever to feed? Natural selection would demand that most zombies rot into nothingness without ever getting to feed because they're too frigging slow to catch their prey! Thus only fast zombies would thrive and survive (and maybe procreate).

It's the classic biological conundrum known in biology as the "arms race". Predator/prey relationships are defined this way -- both sides are in a constant "race" in terms of strength, speed, camouflage, etc.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Suck on that one, you retro-zombie-loving philistines!

Doesn't Dave at GR work with Zoombies at the Pentagon?

Actually, all human beings and zombies used to move at approximately the same rate, but only slow human beings were caught by the undead. This capture in fact being the way zombies reproduced, it was inevitable that zombies became slower and slower (i.e., new zombies inevitably had slow genes). The human herd, in contrast, was thinned to become faster and faster.

Symbolically, zombies represent old age, death, decay, the ravaging of time. We fear becoming that way ourselves. If zombies could move quickly, they wouldn't work this way, plus we might want to be one.

A big disadvantage to becoming a zombie is the slow movement. Otherwise, what's really the downside, eh? People would be lining up to have their brains eaten.

Well come on, if we're going to start thinking practically here, then other than chasing down dinner, where do zombies need to go in a hurry?

Zombies aren't slow, they're just pacing themselves.

Later,
bbeck

To add to Monty's reference to natural selection, can someone answer this. Most zombies are killed by a blow to the head, by brain damage, right? So if zombies are always eating brains, how do new zombies form? I understand that just a bite will turn a human, but eventually everyone is gonna have there brains eaten, then no more zombies.

One at a time --

Slow v. fast

Romero made a distinction. Kid zombies were fast as fuck, adult slow, lumbering hordes. I think a compromise can be brokered, which is a mix. It is every bit as ridiculous to have every zombie run a 4.4 40 as it is to have them all mummies. Mix it up. You get what you get.

Brains

Brains are from the spoof zombi movies with Clu Gulager. Real zombies do not smell brains and crave brains. They want flesh.

New v. Old Dawn of the Dead

New. By far. Not a flawless film, but the opening terrorizing of Sarah Polley, the revelation of the speed, the first killer being little Molly Neckmuncher, and the smart showing of the massive scale of the disaster - not to mention the Man in Black - it's all good. The old was a fine pic, but Romero did hammer heavy on the tone. And I thought the cast of the new film was far superior to the old. The hero was offbeat, and more importantly, the asshole security guard actually achieved a redemption. The new one had more laughs as well.

Zombie baby

It was not Omar Epps' baby, it was the dude from Clockers. And it was stupid, but to have the baby eat its way out or worse, scramble around the mall like some skittering threat to your ankles. Ridiculous. They tried it, it failed, and then they shot it. Good.

I'm a slow zombie man myself, just think it has the implacable, unstoppable force-of-nature vibe to it. Fast zombies are just bipedal man-eating cougars.

Dave@GR brings up the Lake Michigan/Island thing. I have no personal experience of Lake Michigan, but I do have personal experience of Lake Erie. Lake Erie is technically "freshwater", but I'm pretty sure it is actually 2/5s water, 3/5s general nastiness. I would not drink out of Lake Erie, zombies or no zombies.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if drinking straight from the lake caused zombiehood.

I'm going to vote for the fast zombies. I loved the new DotD and if you get into the extras it mentions that the zombies move fast when they are fresh and then slow down as they decay. They actually had three different levels of makeup for the zombies to represent the different levels of decay and speed.

Agree with the slow zombies comment. The sense of dread and impending doom of a slowly advancing, moaning zombie mass is, to me, scarier, than some quick monster chasing you.

Unless if it's zombie dogs. Or it's Nemesis, but hopefully by that point you have body armor and the rocket launcher.

You've all turned me around on the zombie baby thing. I guess it wouldn't have worked having the thing scuttle around. Still, I insist that the "eating its way out of the womb" thing was a terrible missed opportunity.

I will also note that the purists are technically correct: zombies eat human flesh generally, not just brains. But surely we must accept that the zombie mythos requires brain-eating as a sine qua non of zombification -- a zombie who doesn't eat brains is like a day without sunshine. Might as well just have some sad-ass ghouls running around noshing into people if no brain-eating is involved.

Actually, true zombie purists will probably want to watch The Serpent and the Rainbow which is the only modern movie about traditional Haitian zombies that I can think of offhand.

Serpent zombies are just undead. They don't eat the pink. They're one step below Stephen Wright or Carlton your Doorman. So I'm not sure they're relevant to this discussion.

Still, I insist that the "eating its way out of the womb" thing was a terrible missed opportunity.

No, I must respectfully disagree with Monty and the advocates of this passed-on scene.

What exactly would a fetus use to chew with? It doesn't even have its muscles developed yet, either. I know, it's a freakin' zombie movie, it doesn' HAVE to make sense, but there has to be SOME logic to the premise for an illusion to be maintained.

Also, if they made it burst out of the lady's abdomen, it would be far too reminiscent of the Alien series and "It's Alive." "The Fly" also had a bizarre birth scene, as have many other films. And I think the scene would have been really GROSS instead of scary.

I don't know, maybe if you had a "slow boil" type thing happening with it, if the pregnant woman was experiencing pain, a little at first, and then more, and then the bleeding from the womb, and folks knowing what was happening but really not being able to do anything about it (or is THAT what they DID do? Like I said, I haven't seen it), then that would have been creepy.

Later,
bbeck

Sigh.

bbeck and Allah have ended my delusions of a zombie baby. bbeck is quite right to point out that as an infant has no teeth, it cannot chew its way out of the womb. And no, it won't wash to say that zombificaiton can elicit morphological changes in both child and mother -- remember that the baby was nearly full term before the mother got zombified, so the baby would have had very little time for major morphological changes (apart from rotten skin and icky eyes). Also, the zombie baby would be doomed from the start -- with no teeth, it would be unable to eat at all since Mom is obviously not going to be breastfeeding.

I must bow to logic and admit that, alas, zombie babies simply do not work.

It's not unheard of for babies to be born with teeth, Monty.

That said, pregnancy and birth are gross enough without bringing zombification and cannibalism into the whole freakin' mess. And since newborn infants look absolutely horrifying anyway - tiny wrinkly old men with deformed limbs, bloated, misshapen heads, and swollen features - zombifying them seems to be akin to painting the lily, albeit in a much more putrid way.

I see the Zombie issue as another fault line in the right. Fast Zombie libertarians v Slow Zombie conservatives. Zombies unfettered by history or tradition v. tried and true, historically proven Zombies?

Where's Sully stand on the Zombie issue?

I think I have an answer to the retro/turbo zombie question: maybe it's both. Maybe zombies are like wasp or bee colonies and fall into different castes. You have the turbos who are the hunter killers who bring victims back to the colony, while you have your average "worker" who is just the usual shambolic zombie doing a workaday zombie job. But this implies a zombie "queen", and it looks like Romero may have gone this route in Land of the Dead: in the preview, we see some kind of zombie ringleader heading up the zombie horde.

And megan: the zombie baby issue may crop up again if it turns out that zombies can breed. Then we can get the uber-cool turbo zombie baby with stomach-chewing action!

There is a subtle genius in the way the zombie baby scene is done. As bbeck and Monty mention, the zombie baby is a helpless entity in and of itself but it still manages to cause the death of two of the main characters. Genius I say.

Also, the only truly heroic character in the movie is CJ. He knows that helping the other characters will lead to his death, going so far as to state it openly on the rooftop, but eventually helps the protaginists anyway. And what happens? It turns out he was right and he dies saving the others. It has been said that true heroes are afraid like everyone else but continue to get the job done in spite of that fear. That is what we have in the character of CJ.

I can't speak for the erudite, fantabulous Mr. Sullivan, but zombies are all leaving the Republican Party in droves since it's been shanghaied by the religious conservatives.

We're all moving at top speed for the next 2 to 12 turns toward the Libertarian Party, just as though a first level cleric had successfully turned us.

To Metrosexual Zombie:

Don't let the screen door hit ya where Beelzebub split ya!

loved the new DotD and if you get into the extras it mentions that the zombies move fast when they are fresh and then slow down as they decay.

Damn, I was going to guess that.

The "Stage 3" zombies at the end of the film did not appear to have world class speed. They appeared to be retro as far as that goes.

So that is a good answer for Allah-- fast zombies are fresh zombies.

And, by the way, rigor mortis only lasts for less than 24 hours. Don't you watch CSI, Allah?

Monty, if I were a zombie, I'd be afraid to breed. I mean, look at em, skin flappin, ears danglin, something fallin off damn near everywhere. I'd be too nervous about losing Mr. Happy.

Hey, my penis isn't resplendent, it's gone!

If it makes a difference, I know for a fact that Rob Zombie is slower than an Ice Cream truck.

Monty, if I were a zombie, I'd be afraid to breed.

No, you wouldn't. Don't you see? Zombies don't get scared. They don't get happy, they don't get sad, they don't feel much except hunger for tasty human chitlins. However, as Romero et. al. have demonstrated, some zombies occasionally show flashes of their old humanity -- a connection to an old gathering place (the mall), for example. Low-level brain functions are clearly present, and it is in this area of the brain that the sexual urge resides.

There must be some way for zombies to perpetuate themselves beyond the usual method of "turning" live people into zombies. That's an upper-bound to how far that kind of procreation can go because pretty soon your supply of fresh humans runs out and then the zombies themselves would die out. No food supply = no zombies.

So in order for zombies to survive long enough to periodically lay waste to the earth, they have to have a way to continue through the "lean times" when movie makers focus on soft-core porn and cop movies. This must involve some kind of procreation. It's only a theory, but I and my colleagues at the American Zombology Institute think we are on to something here.

I don't know, Monty. I'm not a guy, but I don't think a desire to keep one's wanker from falling off would require real high brain functions.

Later,
bbeck

Do any of the Romero movies touch on how the zombie plague got started in the first place? In the zombie things I have seen, it was a virus. So, it could lay dormant for awhile, and then reemerge. A zombie wasn't an independent organism that would need to reproduce sexually, but more of an affliction

bbeck: Zombies just don't care. They don't fear the future or regret the past. They live for the moment. I'm just thinking that if you as a guy zombie are wondering how you're going to get that bastard with the shotgun out of that shack over there without getting your head blown off, and all of a sudden this reasonably-cute zombie chick shambles over, then the limbic system will simply overrule your hunger for human chitlins. The zombie chick is close; the bastard with shotgun is far away and hard to get to. You're hungry, but you're also kinda horny. No contest. Hot zombie love!

brak: There's some dissent as to whether the "disease" theory holds water as a propagation scheme. Any disease that virulent and contagious would have trouble propagating very far before it blew itself out (think of Ebola -- most people die before they can spread it because it is so virulent). Therefore, you'd probably need to have a zombie-virus carrier who is immune; maybe dogs or parrots or something. Still, the carrier would have to be something that doesn't come into contact with humans all the time, or you'd be getting zombie outbreaks all the time instead of just whenever someone needs to make a cheap horror flick.

LOL@ Monty.

Well, as much as I enjoy pondering the, um, ups and downs of hot zombie love on my Wednesday mornings, I think it best to leave it to the expert/s.

Later,
bbeck

Well, you're right Monty, I hadn't considered that, although I think bbeck makes a good point there... I know there's darn little higher brain activity going on where my wanker is concerned.

The best thing about the new 'Dawn' was that it pissed off Romero enough to get him to finally make another zombie flick. His original trilogy are among my all time favorite moves, irregardless of genre.

That does not mean that I did not like the new Dawn or 28 days later, because I thought they were very good. However, I hope this new fast zombie meme dies a quick death. Zombies. Are. Slow.

So that is a good answer for Allah-- fast zombies are fresh zombies.

And, by the way, rigor mortis only lasts for less than 24 hours. Don't you watch CSI, Allah?

If rigor mortis lasts for 24 hours, then the freshest zombies obviously shouldn't be fast. They should barely be able to move at all.

After 24 hours, they'd get some movement back but they'd also be further along in decomposition. How much stress can those rapidly disintegrating leg muscles handle? And for how long?

Or does zombification arrest the process?

I'm guessing that the virus retards the disintegration process. It some how restores the zombie to a semblance of life, moving but dead, so rigor wouldn't set in. The body decays slower because at least some of the electrical impulses are still traveling through the body. The "turbo charging" occurs because the body is now free of any pain response or fatigue, the undead can go flatout until the body fails it.

well, rigor takes like 8 hours to set in, and then it passes.

so there would be fast-slow-fast again fresh zombies.

Assuming that zombification doesn't arrest rigor mortis, which it probably does.

Allow me to quote from a seminal work at the Zombie Institute, Zombie Physiology and Pathology by Dr. Yanken Yur Chayne:

It is clear from recovered specimens that the process of zombification involves three systems: the nueral, the limbic, and the vascular systems. If a human is exposed to the pathogen -- whether by exposure to a toxin, gas, or via the bite of a zombie -- the related zombie "virus" is introduced into the human bloodstream and causes the human immune processes to fail, notably those having to do with white blood cells and lymphocite production. This inevitably leads to death by massive infection.

However, the moment of brain death causes the virus to react violently to preserve itself -- the neural pathways in the brainstem and cerebullum are re-forged and the human host regains the ability to function autonomically. However, higher-brain functions which reside in the frontal and parietal lobes (language, impulse control, pain modulation) are nearly absent.

It has been observed in most zombies that the flesh is often purulent and necrotic. It was at first assumed that this was due to the natural processes of decay, but the zombie otherwise shows no signs of decomposition -- there is no bloating from the gases of decay, no separation of cutaneous skin from the musculature, and no separation of musculature or ligaments from bone.

We have found that the so-called "zombie virus" renders its host particularly susceptible to various forms of necrotizing bacteria (necrotizing fasciitis) and other soft-tissue infections. This causes the "rotting" effect in many zombies and can often lead to complete dissolution of the soft-tissue in some specimens.

Zombies are not decomposing, they're simply suffering from a really bad case of gas gangrene. And not all of them suffer from it to the same degree (and some don't get it at all.)

So there.

The "turbo charging" occurs because the body is now free of any pain response or fatigue, the undead can go flatout until the body fails it.

Then why eat brains? I mean, its not like they are regenerating or need calories, right?
Keep in mind I know nothing about zombies, I'm a vampire fan.

But maybe the infecton theory makes more sense; a specie of snail will become infected with a fluke that causes it to climb to the top of whatever vegetation it is on. Then itwill gesticulate wildly as its horns pulsate bright colors (the fluke actually goes into the horns and causes this effect).

This is a show for passing birds, who will eat the baited snail and thus initiate the next lifecycle of the fluke.

So the infection could very well be driving the zombie.

lauraw, so this could be a zombie pick-up line?

hey, does this look infected to you?

might work for them. never worked for me though, I can tell you that.

Some of the zombies in the original Dawn do appear throughout the film, which takes place over the course of several weeks/months. So it would seem that zombification does in fact arrest the decomposition process.

And yet, their skin decays. If "necrotizing bacteria" were to blame, wouldn't they also eat through the skin and into the muscle? I.e., wouldn't you end up with practically the same result as decomposition?

All in all, I think the slow zombies are more realistic.

wouldn't you end up with practically the same result as decomposition?

Soft-tissue necrotizing bacterium often only attack cutaneous (skin) and collagen (binding) cells, not muscle cells. So even though you'd get the oogy open wounds, the underlying musculature would still be mostly fine (unless it were actually gangrenous, which is of course possible -- but it would vary from zombie to zombie).

Slow zombies are antithetical to their own natures -- they predate on humans, thus they must be able to secure their prey by guile, strength, or speed. Zombies (as we all know) have neither guile nor much strength (per individual), so speed is really the only way to secure their prey. I suspect that the "zombie virus" also enlarges or "charges" the adrenal glands, resulting in super-production of adrenalin during periods when the zombie is hunting. This kind of zombie is not fast *all the time* -- it's usual state is the aimless, vegetative shuffle -- but it can put on amazing bursts of speed when the need arises to do so.

[reviewing thread]

...

Okay. Um... look, just what the fucking hell is wrong with you freakazoids, exactly? I mean, Jesus, it's like - oh, never mind. Never mind. Carry on.

Keep in mind I know nothing about zombies, I'm a vampire fan.

Awww, 90% of vampires are cheesy Eurotrash dissipated-aristocratic metrosexual pussyboys.

Only 1 in 10 vampire movies gets them right.

Fright Night, Lost Boys... they're animalistic/demonic predators, and nasty ones, and I'm sick of them being portrayed all charming and romantic with little poofy shirtsleeves like they were 19th Century fuckin Adam Ants.

Amen on the vampire-as-puss line. Carpenter did a decent vampire (crappy movie) where they get into a hotel and just start slicing, dicing and drinking. Near Dark had some decent vampires as well, but for the most part, they look and act like homos in a Gitano commercial.

little poofy shirtsleeves like they were 19th Century fuckin Adam Ants.

Amen to that brother. I would also add Near Dark to that list of vampire movies. Lance Henrikson as a vampire is off the chain.

Great minds, hey Hoke?

Slow zombies are antithetical to their own natures -- they predate on humans, thus they must be able to secure their prey by guile, strength, or speed.

Evolutionary arguments don't work here. Zombies didn't evolve over millions of years through countless progressive adaptations to their environment; they sprang up one day when a space probe brought back some strange radiation from Venus. You're essentially saying that zombies must be fast because that's the only way they could survive over time -- when in fact, it would be more accurate to say that because zombies aren't fast, it's unlikely that they'll survive over time.

In fact, the end of Night of the Living Dead suggests that the zombie problem is already under control -- at least out in the sticks -- within a day or two after the whole thing started. Nonsurvival of the unfittest, baby.

ace, ditto on the vampire-as-eurotrash thing. Still, you gotta admit that the vampire in Nosferatu was pretty boss. Max Schreck owns Bela Lugosi's effeminate Hungarian ass.

Salem's Lot, Baby. The old one with David Soul and Bonnie Bedelia (schwing!) Holds up surprisingly well, even with the baby blue king vampire.

strange radiation from Venus

Oh, sure, there you go blaming Venus again. Every time there's a zombie outbreak, the so-called eggheads blame it on radiation from Venus.

When you will admit that the problem is insufficiently sanitized hotel toilet seats!?! It's the darkest secret of the hospitality industry, but I know the truth. Those little paper sashes are a filthy lie!

it seems odd to me that all this discussion takes place over the physical possibility of zombies. I mean, shit, even if the dead could resume consciousness, they'd have to transport oxygen to muscle cels to even resume mobility. Without oxygen, the mitochondria cannot function to contract muscle cells, 'virus" or no.

The reason this is significant is that the red blood cells break down after death, and the internal organs decompose, meaning the new red blood cells cannot be produced. One is assuming that the breakdown in teh immune system that allows for necrotizing fascitisof the skin is the same that decomposes the internal organs. Sure, a zombie might have a day of runiing around, but it would get gradually slower as the hours ticked by and less and less oxygen could be carried to the muscle cells.

So fast "zoombies" could exist, but not be sustained. And as they slowed, they's be weakened The faster, stronger "fresh" zombies would resort to eating their own (indeed, why no "zombie cannibalism" in the movies---parts is parts).

The zombie mythos simply could not be sustained absent cannibalism, and that is something never witnessed.

I call shenanigans

In an interview Romero says that NotLD was just the beginning, while they seem to have the outbrake under control in the countryside the cities and civilization in general are going to hell in a hand basket. We see the same thing at the beginning of the new DotD. The sheriff on TV seemingly cleaning up the town and warning the audience about twitchers.

Fast or slow, zombies have the upper hand in cities. Once they have dominated the cities, vast hordes can spread out and eventually inundate the lone small outposts of humanity. That is the true horror of zombies. They are the end of the world.

Or some such nonsense like that.

Dead on, Brass.

Salem's Lot is an interesting choice. Good vampires who go through an almost-zombified (Serpent and the Rainbow zombified) process before getting to blood-sucking. They're tired, sick, dead and then - boom! Tapping at your window and popping out of coffins.

Yeah, the old convention of Stoker's Dracula is observed in Salem's Lot (the book and the movie) in that it takes several nights for a living person to become a vampire, with the same vampire returning over and over and the victim helplessly letting it have its way. It has a sexual association, that of being taken against one's will, and also of being slowly eaten alive. And the vampires retain enough humanity to seek out and devour their loved ones; since the victim has to allow the vampire entry/permission to feed, the loved ones are the easiest prey. Messes with the head a bit more since it's deliberate, as opposed to a loved one becoming a mindless zombie and attacking you indiscriminately.

Speaking of Eurotrash... how's this? (warning: a bit slow to load)

Worst Case Scenario

My real beef with Zombie flicks is their number. I just don't think there are that many fresh dead at any one time. In NotLD, where did all those fresh dead come from to surround the ocuntry house? Graves? Bullshit. Those things oculdn't dig themselves out of a sandbox, let alone a coffin and six feet of dirt.

Freshly dead? No way. The living vastly, vastly outnumber the dead - at least those with flesh on their bones and above ground. Go to the morgue. How many dead there? (and how do they get out of the metal filing cabinet things?) How many in funeral homes? Not that many. Mabybe those few got the element of surprise, get the jump on the living, and create a few more, but nowhere near enough to pose even the slightest threat to the living. No mobs anyway. And without mobs, Zombies ain't no threat. Frankly, the whole Zombie threat has been blown out of proportion.

Another thing I notice is the relative paucity of shotguns in zombie flick. A simple review of shotgun suicides displays graphic evidence of the 12 gauge's ability to decapitate from close range.

One shot(shell), one kill.

That's a lot of dead zombies, even with a pump gun.

I can see freshly dead stacking big right quick. First wave - one zombie takes a few chomps on 6 or 7 people. Is subdued. The people go home, get sick, are tended to by family members, and then they die. In seconds, that zombie is up and feasting and the whole family. Then you got 4, who rush out of the house on a summer night and start chompiing. Hospitals clutter with the sick, and then zombies start in around there, and soon, the cities are a mess, with mini-explosions of zombie-chomping everywhere.

The zombie scenario breaks down pretty quickly once you start analyzing it too closely. When you argue fast vs. slow zombies and you get into the physiology you run into the fact that dead people can't really move around. When you assume that most of the zombies (by the time the whole thing gets rolling) were killed by other zombies, how do you account for the fact that they're so intact when the reason zombies kill people is to eat them? Part of the fascination with the zombie plague is the fact that you can't tell for sure how it started or how it will end. It's not necessary to explain how eating the flesh of the living sustains them, it's enough that it does.

Cities? No way. Fortresses of the living protected by shotgun toting cops. Cars everywhere to slam into those things.

Man, open the papers. Any givin day, the people who are dying are the elderly. Hospitals and hospices are gonna be the hot zones, but elderly zombies are no threat. Maybe they get a nurse or two, but only fat, slow ones. Frankly a hospice Zombie poses the same threat as the living elderly - who, frankly, are the ones we should be drawingup plans against. ( Don't wait til they got the numbers and it's too late. Act now.)

Zombies are all soma and no pneuma: they are all body and appetite, no soul or even intelligence. Their horror is in the fact that the vessel of the soul has been turned into a remorseless, decaying beast. The Hollywood Mummy is just a zombie wrapped in bandages, and Frankenstein's monster is a zombie with a higher-functioning brain.

The key to a zombie is that they have no character. That's why people prefer the slow zombie to the fast one: slow zombies are only frightening in hordes, a remorseless faceless pressing mass. Zombies in that scenario are not monsters but rather forces of nature, like earthquakes or tsunamis.

Fast zombies, on the other hand, are truly scary monsters, something straight from the human id: a flesh-eating animal in twisted human form. And fast zombies don't attack in hordes -- they have direction and purpose.

Slow zombies are better metaphors; fast zombies are better monsters.

Fast zombies are definitely scarier in the short term, I'll give you that, Monty. That scene in DotD in the parking garage when we hear the running zombies and see their shadows really hit a nerve with me, I was feeling the "Oh Shit ..." moment right along with the characters, which rarely happens with horror movies. Fast zombies trigger terror/panic rather than creeping dread. They also make the quick spread of the plague more believable.

This is possibly a thread for the Webbies' nomination. Definitely a keeper, and possibly should be published as some sort of online compendium of all thing Zombie. Ace, your readers are frighteningly informed...

But, since no one has said, "Don't you know there's a war going on?" I'll throw a bone to that old dog.

What can we say, zombies capture the imagination.

Joan:

I'm just glad my divorce was finalized already. I can just see my ex's divorce attorney presenting this thread as evidence at our divorce case:

Lawyer: "Your honor, my client's spouse is clearly a demented individual and has an inordinate and unhealthy interest in the undead flesh eating monsters known as zombies. In light of this unsavory fact, we propose that my client get everything including this sickos clothe's and shoes. Leave him only one pair of torn underwear and see how well he likes zombies then."

Judge: "So ordered. Strip down and hand your duds to your ex, you sick bastard. Now get your zombie-loving ass out of my sight."

Me: "Romero rules! You're out of order! This whole trial is out of order! It's a travesty!"

It gives me the shivers, it does. And yet my fondness for zombies continues unabated....

I keep wanting to compare "zoombies" to tornadoes, and your garden-variety zombies to hurricanes. Tornadoes have a stultifyin' effect on your knees and mind, rendering you panicky and flustered and, well, dead if you're not prepared to meet the threat.

Hurricanes have time to work on your psyche, to use Allah's term, in inexhorable slow motion. They build on you like a scene from Key Largo. Incessant, relentless, mindless and seemingly malevolent. And like hurricanes, it's hard to hate zombies for what they are. This takes away a key element of human survival and causes many to be lured into the slow zombie's sights. The pathos of the zombie's fate creates deadly sympathy, a crucial conceit of the zombie genre.

Since no one has put this link up I'll go ahead and do it.

http://www.zombiehunters.org/

Monty,

"I'm just glad my divorce was finalized already"

"Dad, you just shot zombie Flanders!"

"He was a zombie?"

hob:

Hah! That's one of my fave Simpsons episodes. I also like the part where he takes out the Edgar Winter Group. ("Take that, you pasty-faced freaks!")

"Fright Night, Lost Boys... they're animalistic/demonic predators, and nasty ones, and I'm sick of them being portrayed all charming and romantic with little poofy shirtsleeves like they were 19th Century fuckin Adam Ants."

So sayeth the unshaven D&D dork. You know, a little style, a new pair of shoes, maybe running a rake through your hair, wouldn't fucking kill you.

"...for the most part, they look and act like homos in a Gitano commercial."

Yeah, yeah yeah. Still Love Them.

(single tear rolls down cheek)

*tunes a tiny violin*

We hear the strains of tiny strings playing beautiful, sad music...then softly whispered lyrics...

Threeeaaad Killerrrrrr
Threeeaaad killerrrrrrr
Aaaaaaaaa...

I don't know whether to laugh at laura's post or feel shame that I'm still trolling the thread. Damn, it's sad to see it die.

I hated to see this zombie thread go....

*Sniff*

Well, I know this party's over, but I thought I'd toss in this flash I found tonight for the hell of it.

Appropriate and sort of an easter egg for those who revisit dead threads. (yes it is sad that I do this sort of thing late at night on a dead thread with nothing stirring on the site. Screw you. What are you doing reading comments of a long dead thread for anyway, loser?)

u know, i think that "turbo-zombies" make sence more than slow ones. allow me to explain.

1. zombies dont get tired or feel pain, thus can push them selves 110% more than a human

2. if zombies didnt need to breathe or use there blood or any organs etc... then destroying the brain should not even phase them. what would it be conected to that makes them so dependant on it? NOTHING! there for the must not be made through a viral infection. maybe a voodoo lord or somthing like that. in wich case they are like puppets, so the will travle as fast as Mr. voodoo wants.

3. if in some random case it was through a viral infection, then they would be like the "zombies" in 28 days later, wich are not true re-animated cropes' but, well... people with a strain of virus similar to rabies. they are not dead and dont come back from the dead. the are very much alive, hevily brain damaged, but still alive. they are so badly damaged that the ignore pain just so they can bite you good.
because they are alive i dont see why the could not run. maybe not quite as well seeing as how they have no sensation in there feet and i sure it would take some getting used to but they would adapt. after all, its only human to adapt.
plus a scenario like 28days later it just has a more real feel to it.not likly, but more of a chance than ur dead granny gettin up for one last good bite. dead things CAN NOT MOVE!

4. if they were dead than they would last 2 seconds (not realy more like 24-48 hours) because of the fact that they are roting! and the day to day use of there bodies would cause the muscules to waste away even more. its caled lactic acid my friends.

in conclusion turbo-zombies make more sense than "the living dead".

dont get me wrong, me loves me zombie flicks, but this fourm was turbo v.s. retro right? plus i just wanted to make a point