Why do people say that slow zombies are scarier than fast ones? Having something that wants to devour you sprint full speed at you instead of just shambling will always be scarier.
Also, the dawn of the dead remake is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.
Other urls found in this thread:
The only way slow zombies are scarier is because I'm going to live long enough to have to suffer instead of getting ripped apart Day 01.
the point of what made slow zombies scary is that they are not moving like people. but they are not stopping, and they will overwhelm you. if they run like people, they are more human and not as creepy
The dawn of the dead remake is one of the best zombie movie ever.
Romero was a hack, the only good movie he made was Day of the Dead.
>the dawn of the dead remake is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.
It's usually considered an excellent remake, many ppl think it's better than Romero's original.
It's scarier to turn into a slow zombie
>bunker drama is the only good Romero movie
Day of the Dead was "good" yes
>bunker
why are chuds so obsessed with us bros?
Running corpses make no sense, if they want running 'zombies' just make them mutants or vampires dunno. Yeah I know it's pet peeve but it botters me
I just watched Day of the Dead. It's fucking AWFUL.
Dawn of the Dead is much better and the only good one of his zombie movies.
Is it really? I was under the assumption that people hated it
It isn't the zombies themselves so much as slow zombies (should) motivate the director to focus more on a creeping sense of dread and nihilistic inevitability to their thread, which can benefit a horror movie over the most chaotic, action-packed horror of the fast zombies.
That said, it can be very limiting too, since for slow zombies to work, you really need to put your protagonists in a sort of siege situation or otherwise contrive to have them in positions they can't flee from, otherwise the slow zombies just become comically unthreatening. Looking at you 'The Walking Dead'.
Slow zombies benefit when they're coming for a character who has no way out and you have the prolonged terror of this hideous, slow death drawn out as the embodiment of death shuffles methodically and inevitably towards them.
I think part of the appeal for slow zombies is also a degree of wish-fufillment; people like to imagine plans for zombie apocalypses and it is almost always for slow zombies. Because realistically, without contrived plot devices, they're hilariously easy for even the most unprepared and unathletic people to imagine evading. If they can sprint, 99% of the population who don't have access to government bunkers protected by SF personnel, are fucked.
This is a Zack Snyder film, written by James Gunn.
This is a fucked up fact.
>many ppl think it's better than Romero's original
Yeah, I do. I know a lot of criticism has been levelled as a supposed lack of 'social commentary' in the remake but if you rewatch the original, there isn't really a whole lot more in that.
The pacing and overall quality of the acting in the remake is significantly better.
It's actually the movie who rekindled interest for the zombie subgenre, and its Johnny Cash/news segments intro is deservedly famous. I think it's an excellent movie.
One of its qualities is being DEVOID of Romero's often heavyhanded social commentary.
Tldr cuck
b-but i spent hours composing that post!
Alri if you want autism let's go with the autism my friend. I'd say fast zombies would be much lesss dangerous IRL once you factor in decomposition, our joints already deteriorate with age but let's say a healthy 20 year old guy turns into a fast zombie.
In a matter of days his legs would simply break, there's no fucking way it wouldn't happen, so if you bunkered in properly your house for a couple of months tops (maybe 3 weeks would be enough depending on your area) you'd be absolutely fine, only surrounded by crawling zombies. I'm not even thinking about how delicate our feet are btw, fast zombies would be a fucking joke in real life, I have no doubt about this. Maybe in a movie you could make an in-universe explanation to make them regenerate, some sort of sleep thing, but it wouldn't really be believable in a "realistic" scenario.
Dawn '78 is the filmic definition of comfy.
Dawn remake is the filmic definition of edgy.
>Original movie opens with a SWAT team in a zombie-infested building taking the opportunity to execute minorities because apparently there weren't enough zombies already/they felt they had too much ammo
Ok George, we get it, 'The Man' = Bad.
Most fast zombie movies have magic non-deterioration as well as magic reanimation so your plan wouldn't work. Even the 28 Days "zombies" managed to somehow survive for weeks without water, food or shelter and they weren't even ded
Wait a second didn't the monsters in 28 Days die after a couple of weeks with no food?
Anyway yeah non decomposing fast zombies would be a real threat, if I had to come up with a plan to turn my house into a fortress I wouldn't know where to begin. Still, I'd probably just off myself, with slow zombies I'd be arrogant enough to think I could survive them and that's definitely more scary than a peaceful sunset
Slow zombies are scarier because they're less human while still resembling a human. An army of rotting corpses shambling towards a house is much more scary than a bunch of "infected" dudes with red eyes running around.
Fast or slow isn't what makes zombies scary or not.
It's whether they're smart or dumb. I'll take fast stupid zombies over slower ones, if the later still can keep a human level intellegence and make plans, work in groups, ect. AKA Return of The Living Dead situation.
Day of the Dead sucked major ass, you're just a boomer holding onto the past. Dawn of the Dead (2004) was much better.
I'm also a boomer
DUMMIES! DUMMIES!
>fuck yeah bro 15 characters EXTREME
>they play a Disturbed song?! I'm down with the sickness too
>hahaha jokes important in my horror movies
I've never hated a movie more than this movie
>It's actually the movie who rekindled interest for the zombie subgenre, and its Johnny Cash/news segments intro is deservedly famous.
Makes sense. Last good one before it imho was like Brain dead/ Dead Alive, and that was +10 years older.
The only movie I can think of that benefited from having fast zombies is Train to Busan.
What is 28 days later
>Day of the Dead sucked major ass
Oh come on this is just not true, it's not "scary" but it's a great movie and one of the best in the zombie genre.
t. non nostalgic boomer
The Original Dawn was more lighthearted than the remake. It has a flat out pie fight with zombies in it and a goofy ass ending that has you laughing as you leave.
Indestructible return of the living dead zombies EASILY beat all other movie zombies, and Return of the living dead 3 has better gore and makeup than any zombie flick I ever saw. There is something horrifying about being aware that you're zombie and being in constant pain that is only alleviated by eating brains.
Those scenes could happen in a movie right now most would not blink an eye (because it's realistic) and a certain segment would be on here 24/7 cheering it. Just because a movie dared to speak up about it, doesn't make it wrong on what it depicts.
youtube.com
The SWAT guy in this is a pure poltard. There's been plenty of recent videos showing people like this in law enforcement to this day. I don't doubt at all this would happen in a zombie apocalypse.
Remember when zombies used to moan and wail? I miss that.
fast zombies are just too retarded to take seriously so they're less scary
I knew I was forgetting something.
Running zombies make sense for initial infected. Which is usual the best part of a zombie movie, the initial outbreak.