It seems there are two types of zombies Hollywood shows us.

1. A zombie that walks really slow and swings it's arms around untill it gets you.

2. A crazy wild zombie that runs really fast and lunges at you like an ape.

It would be easy to kill slow zombies, but fast ones I'd be afraid of. What do you think would human zombies be fast like the zombies in "I am legend" or slow and dumb?

[edit on 29-3-2009 by SuperSlovak]

It seems there are two types of zombies Hollywood shows us.

That's hollywood, don't look to hollywood for examples.

But to answer your question, the zombies from "I Am Legend" seem the most plausible.

I guess...

Sprinters or Shamblers? I'd say it depends on the zombie's state of decomposition.

Personally, I'd rather take on a group of Shamblers than a single Sprinter. Though, I'd still be killed and eaten.

Now for my inane content!

Those newly reanimated would likely be able to sprint like in Dawn of the Dead ('04), until rigor mortis set in. After a while, they'd start shambling around like Romero's zombies.

Though, I am often told that rigor mortis eventually dissipates. So perhaps some of the Shamblers would pick up some speed and articulation (but not much, being dead and all)?

Sprinters are frightening in that they can move quickly, and are loud, but in theory would "burn out" faster since the muscle's energy would be spent quickly and unable to replenish; all that running would break down the muscles in the legs, unable to build back up even when at rest. After a few chases, that strong, fast zombie becomes weaker and slower.

But Shamblers, even in large numbers, could be quiet enough to sneak up on a person. The rule above holds true for Shamblers as well, only they might last longer, since they work at a slower pace. Of course, some Shamblers are so badly decomposed, it doesn't matter how strong they were in life.

The environment plays a part as well in decomposition, just like any other corpse. A zombie in a hot and humid region would rot faster than one in a cold and arid climate.

In my opinion, concerning movies like I Am Legend, 28 Days Later (and sequel), and Quarantine, they are not zombies. Good movies, yes, but not zombies. (You have to die and reanimate to become a zombie, and none of the victims in those movies do that, if I recall correctly.)

Just my 2¢, whatever it's worth.

EDIT: Concerning the zombie's intelligence, I suppose that would depend on the condition of their brain as they decompose. I believe the zombie would become more and more brain damaged as they decomposed.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by FreddyAuratus]

Zombies in 28 days/weeks later definitely die before reanimating into the zombie forms. Yeah I'd definitely like to get a good headstart on a few of those poke along zombies then one of the fast ones.

No, they don't.

Second line.

Mod Edit: Saying "second line" doesn't make it any less off a 1-liner!

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Gemwolf]

You are talking movies and television and you believe that bad acting and directing are going to give you accurate imformation about the living dead?If you continue in this vein (pun intended) you will find this thread in Below Top Secret.....

FFS - why are you seriously [ ? ] discussing the characteristics of a ` creature ` there is zero evidence off , nay flies in the face of medical science ????

the only REMOTELY plausible ` zombies ` are the haitian voodoo slaves - which were NEVER ever dead - just poisoned to put them in a reversible coma - then awakened on a further cocktail that maide them ideal slaves - with no free will

even so - the effectivness / scope / incidence of hiatian voodo zombies has been GREATLY exadurated

i think zombies would be like normal people only stinky and green.
and their skin would fall off. unless they were really old in which the would be skeletons and not zombies.

I tried to resist doing this........i really did. Zombies would have to be real slow, they are all "dead" tired. They have no blood flow so they are also "brain dead". They have no electrical, pneumonic or hydrodraulic systems to propel the body and fire the nerve synapses that cause the muscles to move. Lubrication would be a necessity as the tissues would dry and flake, the friction of movement would cause them to catch on fire and they would self destruct. The first historical mention of zombies is mentioned in the new testament Matthew chapter 27 50 ¶ Jesus, when he had cried again with aa loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the aveil of the temple was brent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did cquake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the agraves were opened; and many bbodies of the csaints dwhich slept earose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the aholy city, and appeared unto many.
There is no mention of what happened to the zombies after that.

I always feared the slow shambling zombies the most for some reason. At least in my nightmares this is the case. But I have to agree, I don't think there is any scientific basis for the existense of zombies. Unless God gets pissed off at us!

Yeah, I agree with what someone said previously.
It all depends on their state of decomposition.

Sprinters would be terrifying, more so then the shamblers. I mean with the shambling ones you have time to think -- unless your careless. But, the sprinters is an entirely different scenario...obviously.

Shamblers - start bobbing and weaving

Sprinters - hope you can outrun the person next to you so they hopefully stop when they catch him hahha.

Do sprinters get winded? ...if not... its gameover for pretty much everyone.

Get this man,i didn't believe in zombies till i thought about Lazarus from the bible,he got brought back to life right?

Well the stereotype zombies are really retarded, walk slowly, and eat humans, or practically anything that's made out of flesh.

The fast running zombies trend I think started in 28 days later (which wasn't a hollywood movie), and then later in the Resident Evil 4 and 5 games...

[edit on 30-3-2009 by ZikhaN]

Originally posted by degenerate oto
Zombies in 28 days/weeks later definitely die before reanimating into the zombie forms. Yeah I'd definitely like to get a good headstart on a few of those poke along zombies then one of the fast ones.

I think they definitely do not die first, in those movies.
The carriers like little Andy and his mum don't die, yet they are fully infectious.
It doesn't look to me like people die, as they develop the signs of infection...They just look like they are getting into a real bad mood, with maybe a splitting headache...

The Infected in 28 Days Later (and sequel) are not zombies.

The Rage virus is akin to Rabies on steroids (think Quarantine's Super-Rabies, but add bleeding eyes and vomiting blood). The mother found in the sequel is very much alive while she's a carrier, and later transmits the virus to her husband. He doesn't die at all as he succumbs to infection.

The Infected are still alive, as they can starve to death and can be gunned down like a normal person.

Note how zombies require a bullet to the head to be brought down.

Another example, in I Am Legend, is after Neville's dog fights with the Dark-Seeker dogs. When Neville's dog starts showing symptoms of infection, he euthanizes the dog. So, too, with the Dark-Seekers, they do not die and reanimate.

EDIT: If I recall correctly, in Omega Man and The Last Man on Earth, the Dark-Seekers were more like vampires.

Stupid emo-goth-punks and their hemophagia...

[edit on 2-4-2009 by FreddyAuratus]

Since Zombies don't actually exist outside of the Hollywood mythos, and since I'm a much bigger fan of the 'classic' slow-and-stupid model, I'm going to have to go with that one.