Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 10:38:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Zombies: Shuffling or stampeding?

Started by alan nagsworth, November 07, 2008, 05:15:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

How d'ya like yer zombies, hun?

Running like the clappers
Ambling like, er, the undead?
Dancing to Thriller

alan nagsworth

I reckon this in itself is worthy of a discussion, as it only had a fleeting mention in a few posts of the Dead Set thread.

Personally, I'm siding completely with Simon Pegg. Ignatius_S says he thinks Pegg is being a bit too precious over a supposed tradition that dates back 40 years, but I'm not so sure myself. As Pegg himself illustrates, it's just one of the unwritten rules of horror. I abhor seeing a vampire horror where someone whips out a cross and the vampire rears its head and snarls, "You didn't really think that would work, did you?" I'm sure I've seen this particular example before and I don't know if it was a half-spoof or not, but it's just a quick example.

In fact, what Ignatius_S (sorry to pick on you old sport) said is totally opposite to what I feel; Rather than view the zombie 'rules' as dated and open to new ideas, (having been established over 40 years ago) I feel that the tradition is if anything too young to be tampered with. Vampires and werewolves are the fiction of some 150 years, (and then some, I'd imagine) and that sort of stuff is carved in stone. You don't fuck with those guidelines, you just mould your fiction around them and hope for the best. The same should definitely apply to zombie fiction.

Looking back, I damn near hero-worshipped Dead Set when I was watching it, but the scene where you see a zombie hurtling down the street after Kelly's boyfriend was the most awkward moment. It was the dawning of realisation for me. I'm really jumpy and I've come to love being scared witless by something bursting from a cupboard with a thirst for blood, so I enjoyed the moments in Dead Set where such an occurence took place, but with the confinement and winding corridors of a television studio, I definitely think Dead Set could have been done with slow-moving zombies, bar a few scenes in which it tied in with the plot.

As I say, I love moments of horror which make you jump, but they are nothing in comparison to the slow suspense of a shuffling, moaning zombie. There's a scene in Zombie Flesh Eaters where a woman locks herself in a cupboard to escape a zombie, and the impending doom of it banging on the door slowly is more than enough to unnerve me completely. As it happens, in this particular scene you don't even see the zombie except for its hand when it eventually breaks through the door. If that's not masterful film-making, I don't know what is. Sometimes in horror, the greatest moments are derived from what you don't see, as opposed to what you do. Conserve it, keep it simple, most of the time it works really well. Rosemary's Baby is a shining example.

Anyway I'm trailing off, my point is there are a few scenes in Dead Set which could have been done a little more tastefully, and for me these scenes all include running zombies. What do you think?

Deadman97

They can be both.

I'm of the opinion that in the early stages of infection/death the corpse would be physically capable of running, screaming and giving it the fast havoc. This condition is very much a temporary one, as some hours later rigor mortis and then decomposition would set in and muscles would start to contact and waste, giving us the mouldy, shambling, unkempt mess we all know and love.

jutl

Quote from: alan nagsworth on November 07, 2008, 05:15:49 AMI'm sure I've seen this particular example before and I don't know if it was a half-spoof or not, but it's just a quick example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEmFKEN8kUQ&feature=related

at 3 minutes in spoken by

Spoiler alert
Alfie Bass' Jewish vampire.
[close]

#3
I agree with deadman, definetely both

Stampeding zombies usually are ones who have contracted a virus, like in 28 days later

Traditional shuffling zombies operate from a mysterious voodoo curse

both types are flawed

wherearethespoons

I think that whoever makes a zombie film should have zombies do whatever he (or she, women make films now apparently - I can't think of any) wants. If he wants them skiing or playing tennis then, quite frankly he's an idiot but it is his choice to be an idiot.

mothman

On this subject, I have absolutely no opinion. I've tried, and can see the merits of both camps' arguments, but I couldn't choose between them. Must be something to do with my general disinterest in the zombie genre. Ironically, it reminds me of discussions on whether I'd prefer to be buried or cremated - I don't care, it makes no difference to me whatosever.

wherearethespoons

Quote from: mothman on November 07, 2008, 10:51:27 AM
On this subject, I have absolutely no opinion. I've tried, and can see the merits of both camps' arguments, but I couldn't choose between them. Must be something to do with my general disinterest in the zombie genre. Ironically, it reminds me of discussions on whether I'd prefer to be buried or cremated - I don't care, it makes no difference to me whatosever.

There's more chance of reanimation if you're buried. Choose buried.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: Deadman97 on November 07, 2008, 06:29:50 AM
I'm of the opinion that in the early stages of infection/death the corpse would be physically capable of running, screaming and giving it the fast havoc. This condition is very much a temporary one, as some hours later rigor mortis and then decomposition would set in and muscles would start to contact and waste, giving us the mouldy, shambling, unkempt mess we all know and love.
Or conversely, you could go with the Resident Evil remake idea of the running being part of a secondary mutation. That way everyone starts getting complacent about the zombies and then get caught off guard.

thugler

Definately shambling. Just look at the quality of scares in films where they shamble. 28 days later is crap as soon as they get the military base, and 28 weeks later is just crap.

Though, I think theres a bit of room for middle ground. Rather than amazingly fast zombies, how about walking speed ones? Although then I suppose you lose the scariest aspects of each type.

Still Not George

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on November 07, 2008, 10:56:07 AM
Or conversely, you could go with the Resident Evil remake idea of the running being part of a secondary mutation. That way everyone starts getting complacent about the zombies and then get caught off guard.
Hunter/Licker-esquely? Sounds pretty awesome...

Santa's Boyfriend

28 Days Later is a fantastic film, but they technically aren't zombies, so I'm perfectly happy about that one.  Aside from that, Shuffling.  Much scarier, if easier to get away from.

biggytitbo

Zombies are human beings and they're as different when they're decaying carcass as they are when they're alive!  fast, slow, stupid, clever, chinese, not chinese.

You even get bare lady zombies phwwooaarr.

wherearethespoons

Quote from: biggytitbo on November 07, 2008, 11:55:17 AM
You even get bare lady zombies phwwooaarr.

Spoiler alert
[close]


But surely the reanimation thing (or whatever the fuck happens to make zombies) could potentially give them all that same property that makes them all the same (i.e. run fast or move slow etc).

Brigadier Pompous

Slow zombies.  Anything else just isn't right!

Binky

I like the idea of zombies being influenced by the injuries they have received and how recently they died. An ancient corpse risen from the dead might stumble along at a snail's pace and a newly killed corpse with a broken spine might walk a little wonkily; but those just bitten without other injuries would find themselves becoming speedier zombies that would eventually slow due to the natural decay of their flesh.

An infinite variety of zombies makes for a more interesting world.

OG Mudbone

Might as well repost what I said on the Dead Set thread, because that's still my view on the issue:

Pegg makes a very good case, especially with the "boo!"/creaking floorboards analogy, but for various reasons I'm more partial to the fast ones. Mainly it's because I saw 28 Days Later before I saw any of Romero's films or Shaun of the Dead, so my first ever experience with "zombies" were the running, screeching ones, and they freaked me right out.

I have since seen a lot more zombie films and can appreciate both. They are each very effective in their own way but in my view the fast ones were better suited Dead Set. One could even argue that, as Pegg says, the faster ones' popularity suggest a society where everything is "quicker" and attention spans are lower, which would fit very nicely into a satire about reality TV.

----

In addition to the above, I think that today horror films are generally a much more brutal, visceral experience than they were even a decade ago. Faster zombies suit that style of filmmaking more than the more traditional variety. The whole MTV revolution probably has a lot to do with it, but I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing. I saw the remake of Dawn of the Dead before I saw the original, and I see the two as completely different entities that can exist side-by-side without any problem.

Quote from: alan nagsworth on November 07, 2008, 05:15:49 AM
I abhor seeing a vampire horror where someone whips out a cross and the vampire rears its head and snarls, "You didn't really think that would work, did you?" I'm sure I've seen this particular example before and I don't know if it was a half-spoof or not, but it's just a quick example.

Isn't there a scene like that in one of the Blade films? Actually in a way they modernised vampires in much the same way 28 Days Later et al modernised zombies. I don't consider the "rules" of various fictional monsters to be sacrosanct, so if someone can reinvent them in a good way, let them.

bill hicks

Shuffling Zombies aren't scary. If even my let-himself-go fat frame can outrun it then it is nothing to worry about.

It's the same reason Grizzly Bears are terrifying monsters out of a nightmare. If they were just massive and hard to kill and could tear you to pieces with very little effort, BUT were slow as fuck I would find them mildly alarming as creatures but always be aware that I could just follow my natural cowardly instincts and peg it.

However the fact that they are lethal killers who are 8' tall AND can run at 25 miles an hour means that if I were in Grizzly country nearing the end of bear season then I'd always make sure to keep a bullet back for myself in case of emergencies.

With shuffling Zombies just find somewhere with access to food and strong defences and you're good to go. Need to go out for something? Wait until the threat clears and run where you need to get to. Fast Zombies are always a threat and therefore much more terrifying. One of the cunts can have you, a bunch of them virtually a death sentence.

jaydee81

Quote from: bill hicks on November 07, 2008, 02:35:26 PM
With shuffling Zombies just find somewhere with access to food and strong defences and you're good to go.

But that's the thing... any good shuffling zombie movie always has this situation, but the films always comment on the fact of how hard it is to just sit there and not descend into arguing with each other and letting the slow tide in.
The fact that they're slow and yet when you're surrounded by them, there's nothing you can do, makes them pretty ace.
I'm not saying fast ones are shit... it just seems stupid to write off the shuffling ones.

wherearethespoons

Quote from: jaydee81 on November 07, 2008, 02:41:30 PM
But that's the thing... any good shuffling zombie movie always has this situation, but the films always comment on the fact of how hard it is to just sit there and not descend into arguing with each other and letting the slow tide in.

You could always throw the ones you're arguing with to the zombies. Or eat them.

Quote from: jaydee81 on November 07, 2008, 02:41:30 PM
The fact that they're slow and yet when you're surrounded by them, there's nothing you can do, makes them pretty ace.
I'm not saying fast ones are shit... it just seems stupid to write off the shuffling ones.

Only a maniac would do that.

NoSleep

Quote from: alan nagsworth on November 07, 2008, 05:15:49 AM
I abhor seeing a vampire horror where someone whips out a cross and the vampire rears its head and snarls, "You didn't really think that would work, did you?"

I would prefer that that it worked for one person but not for another, dependent on their actual belief in the symbol of the cross. Likewise holy water: it depends on who blessed it. And what symbols or devices work for non-christians? Are atheists totally fucked in the magical world of vampires?

VegaLA

Good thread Nags.

Shambling Zombies, of course. Its how George created 'em and how Fulci nailed it home. All the best Zombie films have them shuffling around, 'Dawn', 'Zombie Flesh Eaters', 'The Beyond' and i'll even mention 'Resident Evil' since it was the first Zombie film to start this new cycle and it was great seeing them back on the big screen. All the fast moving zombies are in crud like the 'Dawn' remake, '28 Days later' and the sequel. That said 'Dead set' was great, I really enjoyed it but I like my Zombies slow, gives you that feeling of confidence when you try to work around them but get trapped in a situation where you are surrounded by loads of the hungry corpses then you are screwed.

I also like them rising from the grave, maggots falling out of their eye sockets, rotting flesh hanging from their torso ugly too, but you don't see too many of those Zombies nowadays do you ?

Brigadier Pompous

Quote from: bill hicks on November 07, 2008, 02:35:26 PMFast Zombies are always a threat and therefore much more terrifying. One of the cunts can have you, a bunch of them virtually a death sentence.

This is the reason that they don't work as well though!  It becomes very hard to come up with plausible situations where the cast don't just get ripped apart by the zombies in about 5 seconds flat, which leads to directors trying to obscure this by lots of quick cuts and editing, making a deeply irritating viewing experience.  Case in point: 28 days later, good at the start with the deserted london + godspeed soundtrack, rubbish at the end with turbo-charged zombies.

Nik Drou

Here's how I see it.

With fast zombies, there's no real poignancy you can draw from the collapse of society.  You throw in an overwhelming, insurmountable (not to mention absurd) threat like that and what do you think is going to happen?  It doesn't tell us an awful lot about ourselves, other than that we largely like to avoid dying and/or getting mauled.

With slow zombies, the collapse of society has more weight, as its primarily down to humanity being unable to get it's shit together and sort this problem out.  The central point to those Romero movies (which, though trite nowadays, puts them above conventional zombie fare) seems to be that it's not zombies, but humans that are the real threat.  Patrick in Dead Set may be a cunt, but he's still not nearly as dangerous as any of the zombies.  This makes any subtext about people becoming homicidal and/or cunts in a situation like that fall rather flat.  In Day of the Dead, I'd much rather have to deal with Bub than Captain Rhodes. 

The very first scene in Dawn of the Dead is a TV interview where everything's going to pot.  Everybody's bickering and no-one knows what's going on.  The interviewee, who in fact provides the best course of action in dealing with the menace, is jeered and made fun of by the people off-camera.  It's an unnerving scene and there isn't a single zombie in sight.  The end of civilisation, of which this is a snapshot, is depicted as being agonisingly slow, full of pettyness and squabbling on the way down.  This to me is far richer than it's remake, where we're practically wiped out in all but a couple of hours. 

I'd also concur that it's easier to suspend disbelief with slower zombies (although I would say that the infected in 28 Days Later are the most plausible of the bunch.....but then they arent really zombies, so nyyear) as if the dead were to somehow reanimate, surely they'd barely be able to move, let alone go for a jog.  I also prefer the low moaning to the inhuman screeching of fast zombies as...well...where does the noise come from?  I know the whole thing is a leap into fantasy, but the less logical hurdles you need to jump, the better.

Oh, also I feel they have their cake and eat it with the scares, with otherwise mindless extroverted creatures somehow becoming stealth and popping into frame from nowhere.  Slow zombies are dumb, but ubiquitous and easy to overlook.  You'd probably survive, but only by having a weapon handy and being on your guard.  It's just a more subtle and relatable threat.

That doesn't mean 'fast zombie' films aren't entertaining in their own right.  They just tend to be more visceral, intense stories about how survival comes at the expense of all else.  It's really a whole other kind of story altogether, but not one that I think makes full use of the zombie premise. 

Glebe

Shuffling is creepier (although not as threatening). I mean, the modern coked-up ASBO super-zombie, while being a change from the classic Romero...it just doesn't feel like someone back from the dead. In the early Resident Evil games, it's wonderfully creepy when you hear the zombies shuffling and moaning off screen.

NoSleep

Quote from: Nik Drou on November 07, 2008, 08:52:01 PMI also prefer the low moaning to the inhuman screeching of fast zombies as...well...where does the noise come from?

After all, they don't even need to breath - or communicate. Come to think of it... why do they need to eat?

I remember you explaining your argument for slow zombies up on CaB Radio and being in agreement that, certainly in the Romero films, any failure on the part of humans to overcome the problem is entirely their own doing.

kidsick5000

I think fast zombies are fine to start with. If you're recently undead, the body will still be quite limber. But after a day or so, you're going to seize up. Then as rotting advances, less abillity and bits dropping off.

Thats why I think that if you can hold out, a zombie plague would be, if not over, certainly managable in about a week.

samadriel

Quote from: NoSleep on November 07, 2008, 03:16:04 PM
I would prefer that that it worked for one person but not for another, dependent on their actual belief in the symbol of the cross. Likewise holy water: it depends on who blessed it. And what symbols or devices work for non-christians? Are atheists totally fucked in the magical world of vampires?
In Doctor Who, a Soviet soldier did it with his faith in socialism!

BUT THIS ISN'T DOCTOR WHO.  THE RATIONAL ARE FUCKED IN THE FACE OF THE VAMPIRE ONSLAUGHT.

Quote from: VegaLA on November 07, 2008, 04:03:33 PM
Good thread Nags.

Shambling Zombies, of course. Its how George created 'em
The Haitians, surely?

VegaLA

Quote from: samadriel on November 08, 2008, 12:05:02 AM

The Haitians, surely?

Heh, but only for cheap labour !
Zombies date back in films to as far back as 1932 (White zombie ?) but these were pussy easily manipulated ghouls that indulged in the occasional murder by strangling, George gave 'em teeth !!

NoSleep

Quote from: VegaLA on November 08, 2008, 01:49:26 AM
Heh, but only for cheap labour !
Zombies date back in films to as far back as 1932 (White zombie ?) but these were pussy easily manipulated ghouls that indulged in the occasional murder by strangling, George gave 'em teeth !!

The truth is - George Romero's living dead are zombie-like. Those easily manipulated ghouls are real zombies.

alan nagsworth

Some good posts in here, it's certainly an interesting discussion.

I had a lengthy chat with my flatmate about this earlier, after showing him Pegg's article, and we reached a conclusion amongst ourselves. It's all about the generations and what films they see first. My flatmate argued that if the youth of today watched the original Dawn Of The Dead before the remake, they would still laugh it off as much as if they watched them in the opposite order, but I think this is wrong to an extent. I'm not one to make vague generalisations about people younger than myself and the culture they are subject to, and I think the premise alone of Dawn Of The Dead is enough to get a lot of people interested.

The remake is a fucking travesty, the zombies don't just run, they're triathlete maniacs. This, for me, is not a fresh perspective. This is the epitome of desperately trying to appeal to ver kidz, and it fails monumentally. Had it been an entirely new film with running zombies, I might have enjoyed it, but it shat all over Romero's legacy and up with this I will not put. This is perhaps why I liked Dead Set so much, it's removed entirely from Dawn Of The Dead except for, whether Brooker cares to admit it or keep acting like a cunt, the social satire it embiggens.

That said, the threat of a running zombie is much too immediate. You know you're fucked straight away. Shuffling zombies make people think they have the upper hand, and that's where people get cocky and fuck up. Again referring to Dawn Of The Dead, where Peter gets all smarmy with his skills of jumping in and out of a lorry, and gets himself bitten. This leads me to a point Nik Frou made above:
Quote from: Nik Drou on November 07, 2008, 08:52:01 PM
The central point to those Romero movies (which, though trite nowadays, puts them above conventional zombie fare) seems to be that it's not zombies, but humans that are the real threat.

Hmm that might not actually tie in with what I'm saying, but my point is: Our arrogance is our own undoing. They might not know it yet, but the shufflers have the upper hand from the start. And that's where the suspense builds from.

I don't quite know where I'm going with this right now, so I'll wait for someone to quote my post and build some counter-points or just reinforce what I'm trying to say. I'm tired.

Quote from: biggytitbo on November 07, 2008, 11:55:17 AM
You even get bare lady zombies phwwooaarr.

Ha yes! I watched Night Of The Living Dead earlier, and I did chuckle at the butt-nekkid zombie. Nice rotted peach.