The Zombie Group! discussion
Runner vs. Shamblers
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Holden
(new)
Oct 12, 2011 01:46PM
I know there is a general debate within zombie fandom about a preference of runners versus shamblers. I'd like to hear what every one around here thinks; what they prefer and why.
reply
|
flag
Obviously the runners are way scarier cause they're just as fast (or faster) then you so you can't just out run them. I think runners make for a more interesting story because its harder on the characters. From a formation point of view runners also make more sense. The zombies are trying to infect as many humans as possible so why would they slow to a shamble as soon as they became undead. Obviously as they decompose and/or lose body parts they become slower. Whats more interesting is when authors incorporate both into their books and how they explain each.
In a Forest of Hands and Teeth runners are formed when there are very few other zombies around because they are better equipped to infect others and perpetuate the zombie species while the shamblers form when there are already a mob of zombies around and its not as important to move fast cause the people will be overrun simple by the amount of them.
In Zombie Apocalypse: Redemption, I actually address the issue of running or shambling. Newly formed zombies are fast because they haven't decayed yet.Once decay starts setting in, they become slower.
I actually like both. Each has their own special uniqueness. The combination of the two different sets working together is awesome because the faster ones can plan attacks and play hunter, while the rest of the horde can overwhelm.
i prefer the shamblers. but you know, when it comes down to it, both end up catching survivors. at least with the shamblers there's a better chance of escape.
I like J.L.'s solution. I think both types have their purpose, and as a reader/viewer, I think it adds an element of surprise.
I personally believe that runners are a bit of a cop-out by the movie makers to make it more scary. Zombies are so awesome because its kind of your own fault for getting caught by one. Really the only time you ever get bit by a zombie, one of three things has happened:
1. you weren't paying attention
2. you did something stupid
3. you locked yourself someplace and they found you and gathered around (which seems like a combo of 1 and 2).
It seems to me, that all three are avoidable. If you play it smart, you should theoretically be able to survive. Its what makes zombies different from other monsters/horror movies. Monsters, you stand no chance. If Freddy/Jason are chasing you, you can get lucky and survive, but its generally up to luck. Smarts play into it definitely, but not nearly to the extent that they do with zombies. If ever any of these situations took place in real life, I'd definitely prefer zombies, especially the stumbling kind.
I completely agree about shamblers being easy to evade. That's why I (a human) feel insulted when a book/film uses shamblers. It's like they are saying they had to slow down and "dumb down" the zombies so humans can be successful evading them.
I Agree with Alexandra about The Forest of Hands and Teeth. But also i think that when you "dumb down" zombies it makes sense. Because Zombies are brainless. When they die and become undead they cant think so its like they have to figure out how to walk again.
Personally I agree with Dan. Runner's are scary, but only in the sense that they have become near inescapable monsters. It's no longer this dark reflection of us. I find shamblers way more scary because the fear there is more a subtle psychological fear than it is a in your face gore fest. I think that deeper fear works much better in literature by the way, I have rarely if ever gotten a chill reading a zombie lit with only runners but frequently get it from shamblers. This isn't the best analogy but it's kind of like what kind of horror movie scares you more, movies like those Saw flicks which are pretty much just gore/torture fests, or movies where you rarely even see the monster and their is much less gore?
I think let the zombies do whatever the hell they want to do! This is actually a pet peeve of mine, with people like Simon Pegg dismissing anything with running zombies, because, "real" zombies couldn't do that.Whatever the virus/magic/chemical reaction is that causes people to reanimate from the DEAD - surely it could allow them to also run, talk, play the trombone?
I'm happy with all zombies great and small. They all have a purpose in literature and film - as several people have already pointed out.
I agree with Holden. I think in a way the slow zombies are scarier because eventually you become out numbered and run out of options. How long could you survive holed up somewhere when a horde of zombies can just wait for a moment's opening and their only goal is to eat you. They don't sleep, they don't distract, they have no other needs. They are just a constant threat making the running kind of unnecessary. That's not saying that I don't enjoy the over the top gore movies with high body count. But if you really want to terrify me, there needs to be something left to the imagination.
I was intrigued by David Moody's take on the whole thing in the Autumn series. It was definitely refreshing to see their whole evolution from relatively harmless, to increasingly cognitive and dangerous by the 3rd book. was it just me, or are the zombies in the second season of The Walking Dead faster this year? Not as crazy fast as 28 Days later or Dawn of the Dead, but some of them could definitely run in the premiere.
Alexis wrote: "I was intrigued by David Moody's take on the whole thing in the Autumn series. It was definitely refreshing to see their whole evolution from relatively harmless, to increasingly cognitive and dang..."There was the scene at the end of last season in 'Guts' when they try to sneak past the horde and end up running. I recall some of the zombies being a little faster. In S2E1 there was a marked difference between the "pack" shambling down the highway and the runners in the woods though.
The strangest thing to me about the premier were the three zombies in the church. We've seen an instance of a zombie "resting" in a car, but this was new. Clearly it was the preacher and a church lady. Were we seeing some sort of primal memory of their former self that would cause them to sit there in repose?
Alexis wrote: "was it just me, or are the zombies in the second season of The Walking Dead faster this year? Not as crazy fast as 28 Days later or Dawn of the Dead, but some of them could definitely run in the premiere. "Like Donald I did notice a slight speed increase toward the end of season 1, but there was a marked increase in season 2.
Personally I hope they don't get much faster, I don't want weekly episodes of 28 days later....
Ok, glad it wasn't only me who noticed it! It seems to me that they are as about as fast as a regular old human would be. For me, the runners are more monster-ish than zombie, but I am kind of enjoying the middle ground of the Walking Dead ones.
Donald wrote: "Alexis wrote: "I was intrigued by David Moody's take on the whole thing in the Autumn series. It was definitely refreshing to see their whole evolution from relatively harmless, to increasingly cog..."I wondered about the church scene too! It was actually a little creepy. I haven't read the graphic novels, so I guess I'm a little in the dark about the zombie development/characteristics.
I haven't read them either. I figured I would read them when the show is over.The only other scenes that strikes me as similar goes back to S1E1 when Rick is taken in by the man and his son, and the man's wife is one of the shamblers out in the street and she approaches the house and tries the door. To me it seemed like she knew it was familiar.
There is also bicycle girl. After seeing the webisodes, I was left wondering if when we found her she was headed in the direction of her kids, but there wasn't any real indication of that.
hmm, I've only gotten through half the webisodes, so I guess I'll have to get on that. What is everybody's take on zombies retaining a piece of themselves in their new undead life? For instance in the new Day of the Dead (with Ving Rames and Mena Suvari), they kept their vegetarian friend who had turned into a zombie, but he refused to attack anyone because he didn't believe in eating meat (and also had a thing for Mena's character). Does this personality retention add or detract from the story?
I prefer minor retention in the serious stories. The creepy church lady was good enough. If you have too much retention then it detracts from the dehumanization / social commentary aspect, and then it becomes something else. Some examples of this include the movie 'Dylan Dog' (an odd movie) in which zombies retain ALL of their personality, 'Sean of the Dead' they retain some, and even'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' had examples of personality retention.
I agree, not a fan of the personality retention. Also not a fan of the intelligence retention in something like Land of the Dead...I guess it's kind of interesting to compare the idea psychologically: independently, we exude our specific personality traits, but get people into a large anonymous group, then the "groupthink" concept takes control. For instance the shamblers aren't too intimidating on their own, and only really become dangerous in larger groups.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1789129/me...interesting penguin zombie thing. also, another take on the runners/shamblers.
Just F.I.Y. for those watching Walking Dead who haven't read the comics: they are only roughly following the events of the comics. They are more or less staying true to the plot and events but flushing it out a lot. Season one only covers a few issues of the comics, but about 80% of the show could be described as "original" material written for the t.v. show.
Oh yes, I have read the general synopsis of the graphic novels versus the show thus far. I'm glad it is different, as they are obviously two different mediums, and sometimes novels (graphic or other) don't translate as well into film or TV. Although I must say that I feel a little in the dark about the "Governor", who I know we will meet this season. I just finished the new Walking Dead book.
I know this thread has kind of gotten sidetracked, but I guess that is the nature of the internet... @Alexis: how do you know the Governor will be introduced? I kind of figured they might skip over him. At the very least at the pace they have been going I thought it would take till at least next season.
you know, I SWEAR I read an announcement online about who would play the Governor, but I can't seem to find the article anymore. I could absolutely be wrong.
Holy hell that was funny! I would totally be that pudgy zombie calling BS on all that non-shambler shenanigans. Thanks for the link Ruby!
