RULES FOR ZOMBIES

I want to know what YOU think a Zombie should be. What is a proper zombie (for you)? What is a proper zombie movie (for you?).

Fast zombies or slow zombies?

Zombies by Proxy or actual undead?

Scientifically Reanimated or Magically Reanimated?

Dumb Zombies or Smart Zombies?

Super-Strong Zombies or Weak Zombies?

Barrels made by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Comets that doom shopping malls?

Slow. Actual undead. Magically reanimated. Dumb and weak. Comets.
This to me is the classic zombie. But not going to lie the zombies that will run for you full tilt are scary AF.

__________________
Did you know that in the 1980s movie PREDATOR the titular character was not originally portrayed by Kevin Peter Hall. It was in fact Jean-Claude Van Damme donning a much more insect inspired full body suit before he left the production which then led to the recasting and redesigning of the famous hunter.

Right, different types of fear. The fast zombie is a shock. The slow zombie is dread (sure, he's slow, but there are millions just like him and they're everywhere, so running is futile--the slow zombie reveals the futility of running). I also prefer slow zombies--the idea is more insidious.

I feel like a zombie outbreak where the zombies can only walk would fail pretty quickly. They would need to run to have any chance at producing an apocalypse.

Shambling, reanimated dead, scientifically explained, dumb and weak.
I am not really worried about the cause.

I prefer mine to serenade us about our futility in evading them:


We're not unreasonable
I mean, no one's gonna eat your eyes
(All we wanna do is eat your brains)
We're at an impasse here
Maybe we should compromise
If you open up the doors
We'll all come inside and eat your brains
I don't want to nitpick, Tom, but is this really your plan?
Spend your whole life locked inside a mall?
Maybe that's okay for now, but someday you'll be out of food and guns
Then you'll have to make the call
I'm not surprised to see you haven't thought it through enough
You never had the head for all that bigger-picture stuff
But, Tom, that's what I do
And I plan on eating you slowly

Slow Zombies



If scientific, I want Zombies-by-Proxy. These are the only zombie that really make sense in a scientific framework. Talking about an actual undead zombie that is "scientific," is like asking for a scientific account fairies. In this category, I prefer The Last of Us or 28 Days Later.



If actual undead, I want my zombies to defy scientific explanation. Our heroes are forced to conclude that there just isn't anymore room in hell.


Weak zombies. They're the shuffling dead, not the Incredible Hulk. They're not stronger than they were when they were alive and they're a bit weaker than they were when they were alive.

Prior to George Romero's Night of the Living Dead (1968), zombies were associated primarily with Voodoo.
They were reanimated dead, but they were resurrected and controlled by a Voodoo practitioner, and usually used to carry out tasks - if this were at all based in reality, then it's more than likely that Voodoo priests or priestesses would have kept zombies around to wash their car, weed the garden, mow lawns or run errands to the market.

One issue I've always had with the kind of zombies that need to be shot or stabbed through the brain to kill them is the issue of trapped zombies.

I don't know how many episodes of The Walking Dead showed zombies that had been trapped for months or years (in a trailer, warehouse, in a well, under a lake, were without a body for mobility, etc.) who were still active.

Logic dictates that since these zombies had no access to food (flesh) or water (in most cases) or even air (in a couple cases) their brains would have quickly decomposed.

My contention is even zombies need the essentials to keep their brains functioning at some level: air, water, and food in that order of necessity, (Why? because it's been established that injuring the brain causes their "death", so something is keeping their brain functioning, albeit at a rudimentary level, even though they are dead).

Zombies trapped would have their brains decomposing (just like with any corpse) without regular access to air, water and food (the same things that keep a living brain functioning). After months, their skulls would just be empty vessels as their brains would rot away - which, you have to admit, would be much more final than a simple bullet or knife hole into the brain.

I contend that any trapped zombies would be "dead" zombies.

Right, but if our Zombies are supernatural, then this condition does not apply.



And this is why I want Zombies-by-Proxy (which would degrade as you insist they would) of the story is scientifically logical. OR I want supernatural undead (because "undead" ain't a thing in nature).

Zombies are much like drugs or porn... initially they're exciting, but soon one becomes bored with them and needs an ever greater "fix" to find zombies interesting.

So, easily-outrun, slow zombies become as fast as average people... then even faster, approaching superhuman levels. Mindless zombies begin working together in packs or start to get smart or can be used as soldiers, or learn to speak, or even have relationships. They go from groups of stumbling goofballs across the hillsides to enraged, CGI hordes that use each other's bodies to scale great walls. Human zombies are expanded to animal zombies... ultimately there will have to be insect zombies (as zombie-ism can be spread by mosquito bites from living-dead mosquitoes)!

This is the reason there are such variety of zombies in entertainment media... the early "stumblers" got old real fast.

Here's a question: we know the "rule" is that if a zombie bites you, you die and turn into a zombie yourself.
But what if you bite a zombie or consume zombie flesh? Will you similarly contract the "disease"?

Probably. It would be like eating the flesh of someone with AIDS. You contract the virus by contact with the blood.

This is not a zombie problem, but a familiarity problem. It's not like something particular like drugs or porn, per se, but the universal problem that anything can become commonplace.



The problem of the commonplace lies at the paradox of "the movie sequel." The audience demands "Do it again!" but also cries "Don't bore us with what we've already seen!" What other option is there for the hack writer but to turn the volume up to 11? More chases, bigger explosions, faster zombies, etc.?

The Walking Dead did just fine with those slow stumbling "walkers." It's not that stumblers got old, but that genre hacks are genre hacks. A good idea for a horror movie has to something more than "Let's do a zombie flick."

Thus the Alien III conundrum...
One alien was great in Alien (1979), but to top it you need a whole bunch of aliens in Aliens (1986), but then to go back to just one alien again in Alien III (1992)? It just doesn't work.

I think the rules for zombies are very similar to the rules for radicals.

Don't bring rationality into a Zombie fight.

"Alien" zombies would be a blast.

paging Roland Emmerich...

They should make a zombie dinosaur movie.
Killing them wouldn't be easy because you could shoot them in the head all day, but with brains the size of walnuts, you'd have to know exactly wear to aim while they're moving AND be a master marksman!