The fast ones in 28 days later made sense as they weren't undead, they were infected with a modified version of rabies.
If it's reanimated corpses, slow makes sense given the decomposing flesh. The only time fast undead make sense is when they've been reperposed by an alien influence like with Necomorphs or the thing.
I think you can have both even with supernatural reanimation.
Say an exterior force takes hold of the corpse and moves it. In that instance it's not being moved by the bodies own physical properties, but merely the force of whatever spirit has gripped it. Think puppetry or telekinetics.
On the other hand, an interior force would be bound by the bodies limits, like say a soul being forced back into a corpse. In this case, you could have slow and perpetually rotting zombies who are also self aware, which is all the more horrifying.
I prefer it to be realistic. Zombies are slow and shambling because moving tears muscle fibers, and as a dead body, those don't heal themselves. They can only move fast a couple times before falling apart. Which, for a virus/bacteria/mushroom/parasite zombie plague, would make sense for a lunge to reproduce by infecting another host.
So in other words, I like the super slow shambling zombies, that can, once or twice, move very fast, but then fall to pieces, no long chases, you dodge and you're good from that one forever after.
Depends on if the universe sticks to the observational rules the characters witness.
Slow zombies will be there for awhile. Not that scary, but always a background threat, for potentially months, maybe even a year. Slow also means far more quiet. No big footsteps, a bit more stealthy, harder to hear coming unless in large groups.
Fast zombies should in theory be easier to hear coming. They're also usually not zombies. It was a virus in the 28 days/weeks movies. They'll also burn their reserves out faster, unless they can find food. So, many at first, but there will be a lot less of them each and every day as they burn out and starve.
But the whole adenosine triphosphate issue would make neither of them actually be able to move if they're going with a science angle.
Not to mention that most zombie survival movies/comics/whatever don't have people searching for potable water very often. A bigger issue than the zombies.
So, slow if you're looking for more of a character driven story with heart and emotional connections, a sort of family bonding through shared experiences.
Or fast zombies for a more visceral action oriented thing like a movie where every moment to moment is won by being not killed by them until you find a clever macguffin solution.
Personally, I'd go with slow. More options, more zombies. They'll in theory last longer, always a threat, even a minor one. Going out from your safe spot to look through a store could mean the end of you if you are not careful. Even months after the incident that brought them about. If you use all the resources in one area, you can move to another and start from scratch with what you have and repeat what you've learned. Make a new safe zone, find food and water, etc.
Not entirely true, as slow zombies are usually also shambling and dragging either broken legs or simply unable to to lift their knees that far up to begin with. Which is why they are slow.
In a post-zombie world, where most background noises aren't as common, that sound will be easy to pick out. Especially if you are even slightly on guard.
I will forever be annoyed by movies or TV shows where the characters have realistic noise levels and you can hear the loud leaves shuffle and crunch in the Autumn forest...
But if a zombie is walking in said forest, it must be hoovering over the ground because they never make a fucking sound.
Even worse when they point out that the zombies will hear them but somehow they cannot hear the same zombies moving in the same minefield of noises.
Double so because the vast majority of slow zombies are also the "groaning and moaning" kind, but suddenly can just cease that noise to set up an ambush. Despite being shown to be otherwise braindead and acting on reflex or some other low form of thought, they can suddenly manage that.
Oh God you reminded me of a Walking Dead episode where there is a zombie outbreak in a crowded, silent building at night and, I shit you not, a zombie FALLING DOWN THE STAIRS didn't bother a single living meatbag.
In World War Z there's a zombie who is constantly bumping into a wall and it doesn't make one zombie go check on the noise. But someone bumps into a door and the zombies come running. How did they know a person made that sound?
Things like that are why I can't take zombies seriously as a horror genre. It truly only works by lobotomizing people beyond any form of reasonability.
Like slashers also are filled with retarded people, but Jason or Michael Myers are still fucking scary and capable of killing you even if you aren't retarded, whereas zombies (after day 1 when people don't understand the threat) only seem to manage through plot armor.
Slow zombies are one of the worse things to be laid siege by. All they have is numbers and time. And almost all zombie stories are people fortifying themselves in someplace.
As our resident CURE representative, I am outraged and offended that you would so brazenly advocate discriminating against one type of undead in favor of another. Just because one zombie is slower than another doesn't mean it shouldn't have an equal opportunity to consume your brain. If you see a slow zombie, just stop and don't run. It's the least we can do in the name of equity.
The old ways are indeed the best. Sure you can outrun them, but there's nowhere to run to because they're an unending horde that will always show up wherever it is you manage to flee to.
Which is my biggest issue. I'd argue that horror media in general, especially franchises, are the most inconsistent, especially with monster capabilities/limitations.
And I will say, internal consistency can be a hard thing to achieve the longer a franchise goes on, but that's part of the charm of the franchise: the limitations which should breed creativity, not lazy ad hoc inconsistencies.
i prefer slow zombies but with massive amounts of them something like the old wwz book not that trash movie i think the game that did it best had to be dead rising for it even if the remake sadly went woke
If it’s actual zombies, I want them to be slow, perhaps fast when first infected, but speed capabilities decrease exponentially. If it’s a zombie proxy (think necromorph and similar types where it’s undead flesh powered by magic/technology/unknown energy) then you can have them be as fast as you want.
On a side note I had a zombie apocalypse idea where in a near future everyone carries nanobots for health telemetry. Part of the standard diagnostic procedure is biting on a medical instrument to pass the bot data to the cloud. Somehow the bots get a malware update that is spread by bodily fluid contact and controls the bodies of the infected to move toward and bite any other nanobot carrying person.
"He causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one may buy or sell, except he who has the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name"
Revelations 13: 16-17
I could see the anti nanobot users using the Mark of the Beast argument.
I feel like fast zombies would burn themselves out quicker. My zombie apocalypse plan starts with stealing a plush sailboat and riding out the initial die off in the middle of the bay.
If it's supernatural or spore related like "The Last of Us" I'm going the sea nomad/polite pirate route.
My write-around for this is nuclear powered zombies. A mitochondria mutation allows cells to be powered by radioactive material, perhaps from nuclear fallout.
It's really interesting, the book I Am Legend where most of the zombie tropes are from was ina short story collection. It's the big one, but not the scariest. Also, it was about vampires.
They moved fast and slow, but a lot of it was mental not reality. They thought they were evil things from legends, so they acted like them.
So, I like the mentality of how it happens, whether they move fast or slow doesn't seem to matter as much.
In the Vincent Price movie "The Last Man on Earth", which is an adaptation of "I Am Legend", the vampires are very much like zombies. They mostly are slow moving and lumbering. It's their taunting that really affects Neville.
You are right, the zombies are never the true existential threat.
You should see Omega Man. That was some insane weirdness.
I prefer the Wil Smith version.
My wife loves watching Walking Dead, but there's a point where I don't want to imagine humanity that way. In the same way, I don't want to imagine the Purge, even though I saw a lot of it during the George Floyd riots.
During a history class, there was a discussion about Soviet war strategies and zombies. There would be 10 men in a building, and each one could take down a thousand enemies, so the soviets sent 11,000. Human Waves in the Korean war. They had to create machine guns that could continue firing for long periods of time because they just kept coming, and using their own comrades as walls to run up.
Zombies themselves are just the next orc. I don't really fear them. I fear the Morgoth that sends them, or the Saladeen that inspires them.
I've seen The Omega Man. I enjoy it but it has the weakest ending. I don't understand why his girlfriend turned on him. It's not like the infected people became mindless. They make the family and go out of their way to show they are all choosing to follow, is it Mathius? The one henchman even defies him. But the girl gets fully infected and is instantly zombified and brainwashed?
One of the tragedies of the 20th century is how little people really appreciate the scope of The Korean War. The Chinese almost overnight sent in 300,000 people. Or at one point South Korea was almost completely overrun. Even today most people aren't aware that the Korean War isn't technically a done deal.
Much better. And so very different that I can't really see how they call the movie an adaptation of it. It's like they bought the rights, then threw out all the content and wrote a new zombie story using a few of the same names.
Would make sense. You know hillbillies are not sweating the Zeds. In the Romero movies they were moping up dead people so effectively they were playing games with the dead.
Shamblers can be a real threat only if you get surrounded by a horde or if the character makes a stupid mistake.
That's enough for a season or two of The Walking Dead. The farm scene at the end of season 2 - even Hershel's infinite shotgun couldn't make a dent in their numbers.
But there's only a certain number of mistakes before it gets comical.
Slow is dread. Slow is inevitability. Slow creeps inexorably toward you, constantly and unceasingly until it finally finds your hiding place, breaks down your walls and takes your safety away from you.
Fast is crass jump scares. It's not horror, it's just trying to elicit a reaction.
Slow every time.
If you want fast undead, use vampires or ghosts. They have a different vibe that isn't broken by speed.
Cue the horror movie where everyone is running away, and one guy adjusts his glasses, and notes "technically, because they're going for the abdomen first, and moving at a mid-jog pace, these are ghasts, not zomb- AURGH!"
As with others here, I do think they make more sense than fast zombies. But, even without that, slow zombies are better for stories. Anything you want to do with fast zombies there's almost certainly some other setting-appropriate monster that can be subbed in. Shamblers, on the other hand, are one of the only traditional things out there that can fill the "slow moving horde of death that is more a force of nature than a bunch of monsters" role. Even just a couple shamblers showing up is almost like a warning of a storm approaching, whereas a couple fast zombies (from a story beat PoV) is not that different than a few orcs showing up as scouts of the orc army.
Both have their place. I don't think slow works in film, unless it is filmed specifically to mimic comic panels with small vignettes timeskipping to capture the relentless and infinite hordes. Because there is never immediacy to the threat.
I liked the 28 days zombies because it wasn't just the speed but also the 1 drop of blood and 10 seconds to turn that kept the tension permanent. At least until they had to throw in the obligatory "White man is the real monster" 2nd half.
Fast zombies are just shock horror. Now that the idea is normalized it's only used by writers and directors who have no confidence in their ability to write fear in any way besides "This says a lot about society" and "Jumpscare".
Slow shamblers are the only real zombie, anything else is a pathetic imitation. The idea is that they are supposed to be legion and can hide anywhere, silently and indefinitely. Overwhelming but individually not that threatening. A crawling inevitable apocalypse that is glacial but present. It creates a looming threat and a greater sense of doom.
Runners are fucking lame shit for the ADHD addled children of today that can't sit down and watch a story that takes longer than 10 seconds between action scenes before they need to hop on tick tock ( this also applies to gamers who need constant action over narrative quality ).
Recently watched both Night of the Living Dead movies (original/remake) back to back with a loved one. I appreciated the slowness. It changes the horror so that it comes from the dawning reality of the zombie's existence, and the fear of facing death of family or lovers, and of course, body horror.
Fast zombies turn it into a "how long can I hold my breath while the character is underwater" type horror. How fast can I run? Oh heck there's no way I'd run that fast for that long!
The latter is not my preferred type of horror. I don't compete with (relate enough to?) characters as they go through those physical challenges. I relate to the cerebral horror of a situation.
"Realism" aside, slow zombies never appear to be threatening. The sense of danger from the rage virus zombies in 28DL feels deserved and genuine. Walking Dead has teenagers killing zombies with kitchen knives, it just doesn't feel compelling when the zombies only pose a token threat.
Only if you catch it early. If an infection starts in, or gets to, a city...you're not only going to have massive numbers to deal with, but you no longer have an advanced society anymore; everything falls apart pretty much immediately.
The fast ones in 28 days later made sense as they weren't undead, they were infected with a modified version of rabies.
If it's reanimated corpses, slow makes sense given the decomposing flesh. The only time fast undead make sense is when they've been reperposed by an alien influence like with Necomorphs or the thing.
Fast undead make sense when there is magic as well. A necromancer and raise a horse just as easy as a knight.
A magical setting should have both, with the power of the necromancer determining the speed of what he reanimates.
I think you can have both even with supernatural reanimation.
Say an exterior force takes hold of the corpse and moves it. In that instance it's not being moved by the bodies own physical properties, but merely the force of whatever spirit has gripped it. Think puppetry or telekinetics.
On the other hand, an interior force would be bound by the bodies limits, like say a soul being forced back into a corpse. In this case, you could have slow and perpetually rotting zombies who are also self aware, which is all the more horrifying.
Dawn of the Dead remake had fast zombies and horde. One of the better remakes. I prefer horde.
28 Weeks intro with Robert Carlye was pure adrenaline.
I prefer it to be realistic. Zombies are slow and shambling because moving tears muscle fibers, and as a dead body, those don't heal themselves. They can only move fast a couple times before falling apart. Which, for a virus/bacteria/mushroom/parasite zombie plague, would make sense for a lunge to reproduce by infecting another host.
So in other words, I like the super slow shambling zombies, that can, once or twice, move very fast, but then fall to pieces, no long chases, you dodge and you're good from that one forever after.
Agreed. I've always liked this approach as well.
I think this should be how it works
IMO: Slow. With an explanation.
Depends on if the universe sticks to the observational rules the characters witness.
Slow zombies will be there for awhile. Not that scary, but always a background threat, for potentially months, maybe even a year. Slow also means far more quiet. No big footsteps, a bit more stealthy, harder to hear coming unless in large groups.
Fast zombies should in theory be easier to hear coming. They're also usually not zombies. It was a virus in the 28 days/weeks movies. They'll also burn their reserves out faster, unless they can find food. So, many at first, but there will be a lot less of them each and every day as they burn out and starve.
But the whole adenosine triphosphate issue would make neither of them actually be able to move if they're going with a science angle.
Not to mention that most zombie survival movies/comics/whatever don't have people searching for potable water very often. A bigger issue than the zombies.
So, slow if you're looking for more of a character driven story with heart and emotional connections, a sort of family bonding through shared experiences.
Or fast zombies for a more visceral action oriented thing like a movie where every moment to moment is won by being not killed by them until you find a clever macguffin solution.
Personally, I'd go with slow. More options, more zombies. They'll in theory last longer, always a threat, even a minor one. Going out from your safe spot to look through a store could mean the end of you if you are not careful. Even months after the incident that brought them about. If you use all the resources in one area, you can move to another and start from scratch with what you have and repeat what you've learned. Make a new safe zone, find food and water, etc.
Not entirely true, as slow zombies are usually also shambling and dragging either broken legs or simply unable to to lift their knees that far up to begin with. Which is why they are slow.
In a post-zombie world, where most background noises aren't as common, that sound will be easy to pick out. Especially if you are even slightly on guard.
I will forever be annoyed by movies or TV shows where the characters have realistic noise levels and you can hear the loud leaves shuffle and crunch in the Autumn forest...
But if a zombie is walking in said forest, it must be hoovering over the ground because they never make a fucking sound.
Even worse when they point out that the zombies will hear them but somehow they cannot hear the same zombies moving in the same minefield of noises.
Double so because the vast majority of slow zombies are also the "groaning and moaning" kind, but suddenly can just cease that noise to set up an ambush. Despite being shown to be otherwise braindead and acting on reflex or some other low form of thought, they can suddenly manage that.
Oh God you reminded me of a Walking Dead episode where there is a zombie outbreak in a crowded, silent building at night and, I shit you not, a zombie FALLING DOWN THE STAIRS didn't bother a single living meatbag.
In World War Z there's a zombie who is constantly bumping into a wall and it doesn't make one zombie go check on the noise. But someone bumps into a door and the zombies come running. How did they know a person made that sound?
And if you disguize yourself as a zombie, the zombies can't hear you either. You can even speak next to them. But not scream.
Funny how that works.
Things like that are why I can't take zombies seriously as a horror genre. It truly only works by lobotomizing people beyond any form of reasonability.
Like slashers also are filled with retarded people, but Jason or Michael Myers are still fucking scary and capable of killing you even if you aren't retarded, whereas zombies (after day 1 when people don't understand the threat) only seem to manage through plot armor.
Zombies only make sounds when dramatically appropriate. So many movies have ridiculous zombie jump scares and reveals that make zero sense.
Slow zombies are one of the worse things to be laid siege by. All they have is numbers and time. And almost all zombie stories are people fortifying themselves in someplace.
As our resident CURE representative, I am outraged and offended that you would so brazenly advocate discriminating against one type of undead in favor of another. Just because one zombie is slower than another doesn't mean it shouldn't have an equal opportunity to consume your brain. If you see a slow zombie, just stop and don't run. It's the least we can do in the name of equity.
No discrimination happening here, they all get treated the same way..
That's not equitable treatment. We need to be inclusive of our slow-moving zombies.
Great more rules from our resident DIE officer.
I prefer the classics, so slow.
The old ways are indeed the best. Sure you can outrun them, but there's nowhere to run to because they're an unending horde that will always show up wherever it is you manage to flee to.
I generally prefer slow zombies, but consistency is more important.
Zombie media is incredibly inconsistent
Which is my biggest issue. I'd argue that horror media in general, especially franchises, are the most inconsistent, especially with monster capabilities/limitations.
And I will say, internal consistency can be a hard thing to achieve the longer a franchise goes on, but that's part of the charm of the franchise: the limitations which should breed creativity, not lazy ad hoc inconsistencies.
i prefer slow zombies but with massive amounts of them something like the old wwz book not that trash movie i think the game that did it best had to be dead rising for it even if the remake sadly went woke
If it’s actual zombies, I want them to be slow, perhaps fast when first infected, but speed capabilities decrease exponentially. If it’s a zombie proxy (think necromorph and similar types where it’s undead flesh powered by magic/technology/unknown energy) then you can have them be as fast as you want.
On a side note I had a zombie apocalypse idea where in a near future everyone carries nanobots for health telemetry. Part of the standard diagnostic procedure is biting on a medical instrument to pass the bot data to the cloud. Somehow the bots get a malware update that is spread by bodily fluid contact and controls the bodies of the infected to move toward and bite any other nanobot carrying person.
Revelations 13: 16-17
I could see the anti nanobot users using the Mark of the Beast argument.
I feel like fast zombies would burn themselves out quicker. My zombie apocalypse plan starts with stealing a plush sailboat and riding out the initial die off in the middle of the bay.
If it's supernatural or spore related like "The Last of Us" I'm going the sea nomad/polite pirate route.
My write-around for this is nuclear powered zombies. A mitochondria mutation allows cells to be powered by radioactive material, perhaps from nuclear fallout.
It's really interesting, the book I Am Legend where most of the zombie tropes are from was ina short story collection. It's the big one, but not the scariest. Also, it was about vampires.
They moved fast and slow, but a lot of it was mental not reality. They thought they were evil things from legends, so they acted like them.
So, I like the mentality of how it happens, whether they move fast or slow doesn't seem to matter as much.
In the Vincent Price movie "The Last Man on Earth", which is an adaptation of "I Am Legend", the vampires are very much like zombies. They mostly are slow moving and lumbering. It's their taunting that really affects Neville.
You are right, the zombies are never the true existential threat.
You should see Omega Man. That was some insane weirdness.
I prefer the Wil Smith version.
My wife loves watching Walking Dead, but there's a point where I don't want to imagine humanity that way. In the same way, I don't want to imagine the Purge, even though I saw a lot of it during the George Floyd riots.
During a history class, there was a discussion about Soviet war strategies and zombies. There would be 10 men in a building, and each one could take down a thousand enemies, so the soviets sent 11,000. Human Waves in the Korean war. They had to create machine guns that could continue firing for long periods of time because they just kept coming, and using their own comrades as walls to run up.
Zombies themselves are just the next orc. I don't really fear them. I fear the Morgoth that sends them, or the Saladeen that inspires them.
And now I want to see a zombie movie featuring a quad .50 halftrack mowing down a swarm.
A military vs the undead movie would be awesome.
That's what World War Z would have been if they used the story in the book.
Someone is salty they didn't get the Battle of Yonkers....and it's me.
Yes, plus the push to take it all back.
I've seen The Omega Man. I enjoy it but it has the weakest ending. I don't understand why his girlfriend turned on him. It's not like the infected people became mindless. They make the family and go out of their way to show they are all choosing to follow, is it Mathius? The one henchman even defies him. But the girl gets fully infected and is instantly zombified and brainwashed?
One of the tragedies of the 20th century is how little people really appreciate the scope of The Korean War. The Chinese almost overnight sent in 300,000 people. Or at one point South Korea was almost completely overrun. Even today most people aren't aware that the Korean War isn't technically a done deal.
The Admiral at the time said the war wouldn't be over till China is taken over, but he was released from duty.
I prefer the slow ones because I could get away from them.
But the fast ones will wear themselves out a bit quicker and so will be a problem for less time.
All done while I'm in the Winchester of course.
If you done a bit of acting you can just moan and suffle around pretending to be dead
I am, sadly, that Irish fella who gets pulled out the window.
He should have listened to his girlfriend's advice.
That man simped himself to death
Yup, I'm much more him as Barnard from Black Books though, so I'll drink away my regrets.
Slow ones but I did like World War Z. Need to read it
The book has normal slow zombies. It's a fun read, by the way. Recomended.
I have it in my mountain of books to read. Look forward to it
Be prepared for a totally different experience from the movie. The audio book is really good.
I’ve heard the book was better
I liked it more. But they are vastly different stories.
Much better. And so very different that I can't really see how they call the movie an adaptation of it. It's like they bought the rights, then threw out all the content and wrote a new zombie story using a few of the same names.
I wonder if there's an urban/rural divide on this.
Would make sense. You know hillbillies are not sweating the Zeds. In the Romero movies they were moping up dead people so effectively they were playing games with the dead.
Hot and dual wielding SMGs of course.
Fast. There's no other conceivable reason that zombies could be a threat otherwise.
Shamblers can be a real threat only if you get surrounded by a horde or if the character makes a stupid mistake.
That's enough for a season or two of The Walking Dead. The farm scene at the end of season 2 - even Hershel's infinite shotgun couldn't make a dent in their numbers.
But there's only a certain number of mistakes before it gets comical.
Slow is dread. Slow is inevitability. Slow creeps inexorably toward you, constantly and unceasingly until it finally finds your hiding place, breaks down your walls and takes your safety away from you.
Fast is crass jump scares. It's not horror, it's just trying to elicit a reaction.
Slow every time.
If you want fast undead, use vampires or ghosts. They have a different vibe that isn't broken by speed.
Cue the horror movie where everyone is running away, and one guy adjusts his glasses, and notes "technically, because they're going for the abdomen first, and moving at a mid-jog pace, these are ghasts, not zomb- AURGH!"
The DnD nerd in me wanted to point out that ghasts are a subtype of ghoul, not zombies lol.
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnerd
I won't deny it.
Look if we're separating our lichs from our zombies, what are we even doing out here
slow zombies do make more sense, but then again
you startled the witch
shit still give me goosebumps
Slow zombies for sure.
As with others here, I do think they make more sense than fast zombies. But, even without that, slow zombies are better for stories. Anything you want to do with fast zombies there's almost certainly some other setting-appropriate monster that can be subbed in. Shamblers, on the other hand, are one of the only traditional things out there that can fill the "slow moving horde of death that is more a force of nature than a bunch of monsters" role. Even just a couple shamblers showing up is almost like a warning of a storm approaching, whereas a couple fast zombies (from a story beat PoV) is not that different than a few orcs showing up as scouts of the orc army.
Both have their place. I don't think slow works in film, unless it is filmed specifically to mimic comic panels with small vignettes timeskipping to capture the relentless and infinite hordes. Because there is never immediacy to the threat.
I liked the 28 days zombies because it wasn't just the speed but also the 1 drop of blood and 10 seconds to turn that kept the tension permanent. At least until they had to throw in the obligatory "White man is the real monster" 2nd half.
Slow
...prefer the ones that buy me dinner first...
...I have a fucked up sense of humor...😞
That sounds like a fast zombie to me. They are the freshest, in both senses of the word.
Fresh being slang for sexual aggressiveness but also they are the less decayed ones
I laughed
Fast zombies are just shock horror. Now that the idea is normalized it's only used by writers and directors who have no confidence in their ability to write fear in any way besides "This says a lot about society" and "Jumpscare".
But can they dance?
That probably is the more pertinent question
Heh. I got worried there for a second, thought the significance of zombies was that they were the October surprise.
The worst part of a zombie apocalypse is when 95% of the population is technically dead then democrats can't lose.
Harris' zombies sit on the back of a pickup side saddle claiming how much women love them
Slow shamblers are the only real zombie, anything else is a pathetic imitation. The idea is that they are supposed to be legion and can hide anywhere, silently and indefinitely. Overwhelming but individually not that threatening. A crawling inevitable apocalypse that is glacial but present. It creates a looming threat and a greater sense of doom.
Runners are fucking lame shit for the ADHD addled children of today that can't sit down and watch a story that takes longer than 10 seconds between action scenes before they need to hop on tick tock ( this also applies to gamers who need constant action over narrative quality ).
Recently watched both Night of the Living Dead movies (original/remake) back to back with a loved one. I appreciated the slowness. It changes the horror so that it comes from the dawning reality of the zombie's existence, and the fear of facing death of family or lovers, and of course, body horror.
Fast zombies turn it into a "how long can I hold my breath while the character is underwater" type horror. How fast can I run? Oh heck there's no way I'd run that fast for that long!
The latter is not my preferred type of horror. I don't compete with (relate enough to?) characters as they go through those physical challenges. I relate to the cerebral horror of a situation.
Fast zombies are devastating and simply massacre everyone who isn't hunkered down, well-armed, athletic or in good health.
Slow gives granny a fighting chance
Slow in the day, fast sprinters at night.
I like them fast.
"Realism" aside, slow zombies never appear to be threatening. The sense of danger from the rage virus zombies in 28DL feels deserved and genuine. Walking Dead has teenagers killing zombies with kitchen knives, it just doesn't feel compelling when the zombies only pose a token threat.
Fast ones make more sense, slow ones cannot be a threat in an advanced society.
The threat to slow shamblers is meant to be their unending number.
It's more of the lack of humanity in the zombies themselves, and how it saps your humanity killing them causes.
Only if you catch it early. If an infection starts in, or gets to, a city...you're not only going to have massive numbers to deal with, but you no longer have an advanced society anymore; everything falls apart pretty much immediately.