Which do you think are inherently scarier, zombies or vampires?

1. 77

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Which do you think are inherently scarier, zombies or vampires?

   replyreport
2. 93

   Cre8torposted 11 years ago

   Vampires...hands down. Zombies are stereotypically slow and dumb and in turn, it's usually the slow and dumb that get their brains eaten. Vampires on the other hand don't always stand out in a crowd, can fly, have superior strength and speed, shape shifting ability, can only be killed by certain things and the whole mind control, trance thing is a pretty sweet power. With that said, I'd rather be gotten by a vampire than a zombie. A bite on the neck with severe loss of blood would quickly cause lightheadedness thus leaving me "high" while getting this fatal hickey and still having the chance to live an altered life. Zombies though...bashing my head in to eat my brains would suck and knowing that my last thoughts would be "I'm slow and dumb!" isn't how I want to go.

   replyreport
3. 93

   FatFreddysCatposted 11 years ago

   Zombies. They're mindless, so they can't be reasoned with. They generally travel in huge hordes and (depending on which movie you watch) they're fast!!

   replyreport
4. 61

   RSFreerposted 11 years ago

   Tough question. Both are certainly scary in their own right. Vampires are cunning, have the ability to blend, are immortal, and extremely powerful and fast. Zombies often horde together, presenting overwhelming odds, are strong in their own right as they do not possess any concept of pain or fear, and feast on the entirety of their victims rather than just their blood. In order to break the tie, I would have to agree with a fellow responder: the prospect of becoming a zombie seems much more terrifying to me than becoming a vampire. Though vampires are slaves to their blood-thirst, they at least have will and a concept of self. They can choose what course their life takes after infection. Zombies are mindless slaves to whatever turns them, and as such they wander the earth as ever-hungry automatons. This, to me, makes zombies far scarier.

   replyreport
5. 70

   jennzieposted 11 years ago

   I think vampires would be scarier, but I think that is due mostly to the fact that zombies are often portrayed as slow and dim-witted. However, there are other movies that show them being pretty quick and at times somewhat intelligent.. so I guess it would depend.

   replyreport
6. 76

   JohnGreasyGamerposted 11 years ago

   Well, it all depends on what kind of zombie/vampire. If it's a Romero zombie, then obviously them - it's a fact, no doubt about it. When the dead can bash through a coffin, not to mention whenever they kill they have a new member in their ranks, nobody stands a chance. OK, so there's the select few.
   
   As for vampires, yeah they're scary. I won't lie that they've been lovie-dovied up (not referring to Twilight, I'm sick of those "jokes") and they're just generally insulting in Anime and such. So all in all, vampires are scary but beatable. Zombies - well, there's only two outcomes: we're all zombies, or we're all food.
   
   PS: Follow your questions if you're going to ask them, OP.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      nanderson500posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I would have to go with vampires because they are much more intelligent. Zombies are mindless and (usually) slow-moving. One individual vampire is far more formidable than one individual zombie.

      replyreport
7. 86

   Dallas Matierposted 11 years ago

   Vampires can be terrifying, when they're allowed to be - but, there's a pretty big difference between the 'monster' vampire, and the tragic/romantic figure vampire. For the 'monster' vampire, you can have all the real-world horror of a particularly nasty sociopath, but with the addition of supernatural powers. But, with the tragic/romantic vampire, you just tend to have a lot of angst.
   
   Zombies are like an unstoppable force of nature. If they're the slow and dumb sort, they might not be dangerous as long as you're careful. But, then, a flood isn't particularly dangerous, unless you get trapped. And, a bush fire isn't dangerous until you realise you've been cut-off. Zombies are dangerous in the same way.
   
   Personally, I'd lean more toward zombies, though. Many of the scenes from horror movies that have most clearly stuck in my head as being particularly uncomfortable have tended to involve clearly terrified people realising that they're trapped, and lots and lots of grasping hands.

   replyreport
8. 79

   Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago

   The Vampire seems to have an allure to it. If you are attacked by a vampire you, in most versions of the myth, become one of them. When the Zombies attack youa lso become one of them. But, there is a distict difference in that as a Vampire you are, for all practical purposes, still YOU. The Zombie simple becomes part of the horde...Borged if you will. To me, being lost to a collective and losing the essence of who I am is a far worse fear than becoming a virtual immortal. So I would, given the choice, choose to be attacked by a Vampire.

   replyreport
9. 69

   Rebecca2904posted 11 years ago

   Because they don't exist then I think it all depends on the individual's understanding of what a zombie and a vampire is. For me, a zombie is a bit slow and stupid and just wants to eat your brain. A vampire is quicker, stronger, more intelligent and it's able to outsmart and seduce a human, which is where the danger lies, I think - with a zombie, you know what you're up against but vampires can trick you.
   (I should point out that I'm getting my information from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which I was obsessed with when I was younger, not Twilight - vampires do NOT sparkle.)
   
   So, for me, vampires are definitely scarier.

   replyreport