I just don’t understand what the fuss is over running zombies.  Being a huge zombiephile, I have no problem with it.  Other zombie enthusiasts, however, are indignant about cut and run corpses.  It’s like peeing on a picture of Jesus or burning the American flag, except worse.  I recall the commotion when the remake of Dawn of the Dead was released into theaters.  Why is that we can complain about the tired slasher genre, bemoan unoriginal movie monsters, and yet when a zombie film dares verge from the standard, people are all up in arms?  Zombies that run?  How dare they!  Why don’t the filmmakers just spit in George Romero’s face while they’re at it?  After all, he is considered the granddaddy of zombies.  So, does that mean his vision for the undead is the be all, end all of zombiedom?  I wouldn’t go that far.

I liked the remake of Dawn of the Dead.  I know a lot of zombie purists despised the movies for the changes that were made but I’m not that uptight about it.  I am a fervent lover of zombies and zombie films and yes, I am a big fan of Romero’s films and respect what he has done for the zombie genre, but I do not look to them as my zombie Bible.  And I suppose because I am not such a hardcore Romero zealot, I can sit back and enjoy the remake for what it was, a good, fast-paced zombie flick, without being greatly offended by the differences.

When comparing Dawn of the Dead ’78 and Dawn of the Dead ’04, there are several changes made to the remake that make the overall tone different from the original.  In Romero’s films, it is widely understood that anyone who dies in any way will come back as a zombie but it is made clear in the remake that only being bitten by a zombie will turn you into an undead flesh eater.  The remake also sported a larger cast, which provided more victims but less character development.  This was another gripe of fans of the original and while I can understand the importance of character development, I don’t think this was that kind of film.  While the original was a dark, slow burning character piece, the remake was a straight up action flick.  Low on character, high on adrenaline.  And I was okay with that.  Adding to the heart-racing feel of the remake was the biggest change made and that was, of course, the running zombies.  For me, I actually enjoyed seeing the zombies shrieking and darting after their human targets.  It cranked up the tension and propelled the action set pieces to “edge of your seat” status.  It also provided for a very different feel for the movie, which I felt was a welcomed change.  As previously mentioned, the original slowly built up to its gore packed finale but the pace of the remake was consistently quick.   I found it refreshing.  But, if I can be frank, almost anything involving zombies satisfies me, whether they be mindless splatter fests or psychological portraits of people pulled into a hell on earth.  I’m not hard to please.

Yes, this movie was a remake but it should have been labeled as a re-imagining instead.  While it retains the same basic plot, the characters, the situations and yes, the zombies, are all so different that it would be the equivalent to comparing apples and oranges.  Sure, they’re both fruit but tasty in their own ways.  In fact, I’d say that the remake even improves upon the original in some ways.  First of all, the zombies actually look like decaying corpses and not just perturbed people dipped in gray paint.  Also, the blood looks like actual blood and not an explosion of florescent cake icing every time a zombie is shot in the head.  And speaking of headshots, the special effects in the remake are far superior to the over the top gore of the original.  Dawn of the Dead ‘78 was creepy, yes, but incredible campy as well.  Dawn of the Dead ‘04 maintained a more realistic and messier portrayal of the zombie apocalypse, a version that I found more true to life and thus, scarier.  Yet, these changes have failed to persuade the opinions of the diehard cult of Romero.  There’s this huge stance on following the mold that he carved out with his trilogy but upon further inspection, Romero’s mold is a bit muddled.

Through multiple viewings of the Dead trilogy and some research, I’ve come to the conclusion that the films are riddled with inconsistencies.  While watching Night of the Living Dead on AMC this past Halloween, I was reminded that a few of the zombies used weapons.  The zombie we first see in the film smashes a car window with a brick or a rock of some kind.  Later on, another zombie busts the headlight of a car.  Zombies using weapons seems to be ignored in the original Dawn and then picked back up again in the original Day of the Dead.  And even then, it’s only the one zombie, Bub, and he’s a special case because he’s been trained.  In Night and Dawn, the undead are scared of fire and light yet this zombie repellent is never used again in any of the other films.  In Night, zombies will eat anything from humans to animals to insects, something that is contradicted in Dawn when it is mentioned that zombies will only eat human flesh.  Also, and this is a minor quibble, in Night is made clear that anyone who dies in any way will come back as a zombie.  While this rule isn’t ignored or changed throughout the rest of the trilogy, it does appear that the only ones to turn into zombies are those that have been bitten, which might lead to some confusion as to how zombies are definitively made.  And if you want to count it, you have the abysmal Land of the Dead, in which zombies have evolved to the point where they can plan attacks and be led by a big bad black zombie.  You could excuse these minor changes throughout the trilogy as simple zombie evolution but if that’s the case, we have to go back to Night with the zombies using weapons.  If that were the case, then the timeline of Night would have to take place somewhere between Day of the Dead and Land of the Dead when all this supposed zombie evolution is happening.  We’d also have to ignore the whole fire and light and zombie diet.  And if you’re going to rationalize it like that, things start to get too convoluted to be enjoyable anymore.  Where’s the line between zombie growth and goofs?  And for Romero himself, zombie rules don’t seem to be as important as the human element in his films.  He’s not concerned with what zombies eat or how they came to be as much as he’s concerned with conveying the evils of racial profiling or consumerism.  I’m just left wondering why zombie purists are so vehement that other filmmakers follow Romero’s rules when he isn’t even concerned with consistency.

My guess is because most people miss the point.  Romero’s films aren’t so much about zombies vs. people as they are about people vs. people.  As much as Romero is worshipped and relentlessly copied, I’d venture to say he wouldn’t be too pleased with placing himself in the same category as all the other zombie films that have come after him.  Most zombie films are pretty much mindless and gore oriented while Romero tries to infuse some social commentary into his work.  If people are going to feel the influence of his films, maybe they should look beyond the logistics of what constitutes a zombie and try to find the deeper meaning behind the moaning.

Personally, I don’t have a preference when it comes to zombie speed.  They both have their good points and I think it really depends on your mood.  From a viewing standpoint, if you want your tension Tantric style, slow zombies are the way to go.  For the zombies who shamble, it’s the claustrophobia that gets to you.  You can take out a handful of the undead but once a large gathering of ghouls have you cornered, you’re in for a slow, agonizing death.  Just imagine tons of hands fondling your femurs and gouging out your gallbladder.  You have enough time to let the dread set in, to let the dread build in your brain like a tumor, to count the seconds of your borrowed time until enough of them have collected themselves into a giant swarm of shuffling death.  But, if you’re looking for instant gratification, pop in a movie where the undead dash to their prey.  While we think of slow zombies in large numbers, it only takes one fast zombie to take you down.  That thought is just as chilling as a slow swarm.  With fast zombies, you have no time to think, no time to contemplate your next move, only time to run.  Although fast zombies are more entertaining, if a zombie outbreak should ever happen, I hope they’ll be the slow moving, dimwitted kind because, well, I can’t run that fast and the thought of being torn apart like caribou isn’t exactly the way I want to run down the curtain.

I think these slow zombie fanatics just need to ease on up.  Sure, Romero is a legend and his films will remain as classics but his loosely established zombie rules shouldn’t be the basis by which every future zombie film should be made.  If people really want to follow in Romero’s footsteps, they should revolutionize the genre just like he did.  They should make films that reflect the times, just like he did.  And who knows, maybe the fast moving zombies are a reflection of our generation’s ever-increasing lethargy.  Look what happens when you’re fat and lazy.  You’ll be the first to be eaten.  Like it or not, people are starting to recognize and reject the paint-by-numbers formula of zombie movies and things are beginning to change.  And the rabid shuffle lovers are just going to have to deal.  The fact of the matter is people don’t like to accept change, especially when that change conflicts with well established rules or procedures.  But, after all, rules were made to be broken, especially when it comes to improving upon out-of-date diagrams and designs.  And really, what are they aiming to accomplish?  People are trying to maintain a canon where there was none in the first place. Stagnant stories of these lifeless, limping gluttons are starting to get old.  It’s been done to death, so to speak.  When it comes to zombie movies, we need a revolution.  We need some fresh meat.  And for me, running zombies is the first sprint in the right direction.

Written By Brannon Jackson