Just in time for Halloween — what’s the most dangerous monster?

 Posted by on 29 October 2009  Everything Else
Oct 292009
 

Cthulhu_and_R'lyeh

I’m so glad that I stumbled across a list of the 13 most dangerous monsters ever. I won’t give it away, but the list presents from least dangerous to most dangerous, and Cthulhu, above, is only the second-most-dangerous.

Don’t miss the comments, in which the list’s author entertains a few additions to the list and muses about where he would put them (Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, for example). I particularly enjoyed the fact that he spends some time actually thinking and reasoning about the positioning on the list, and didn’t just slap it together. His words on vampires:

Now, here’s the thing about regular vampires:  they’re fucking lame.  They sneak around in the dark and drain blood from people.  They talk a big game, sure, and everyone thinks they’re sexy.  But is sexy going to protect you from the Wolf-Man?  No.  The Wolf-Man is going to tear your god-damn head off. Ordinary vampires are equally vulnerable to sorcerous power, which is why the Mummy, whose physical capabilities are on par with a vampire’s, anyway, would still kick the crap out of a vampire.

Do you understand this, Twilight fans?  Regular vampires are shit.  They can only beat Zombies, Witches, assorted Poltergeists, and Mr. Hyde.  That is BARELY BETTER THAN A REGULAR PERSON.  Shut the fuck up about vampires.

I have nothing to add.

  • http://www.pennywise-books.com/ T. Keith Edmunds

    This article is amazing. The thought put into answering questions after the fact is also impressive.

    • http://www.absurdintellectual.com/ Grant Hamilton

      I agree. At first, I was ready to dismiss the list as the product of another juvenile mind, just playing favourites. But I find that I can’t argue with his logic.

      Of course, some of the placements are fairly arbitrary, and I think that’s because you have to make some assumptions about the actual powers that these monsters have.

      And, he makes the point that he’s comparing ONE shambling zombie vs. ONE Dracula — even though the far more likely scenario is that it would be millions of shambling zombies vs. solitary Dracula. Zombies derive most of their strength from their sheer massive numbers.

      But overall, I found myself nodding my head in agreement far more than I pursed my lips in skepticism.

  • Colin

    A study came out recently – by Canadian researchers, to boot! – concluding that a zombie pandemic would wipe out humanity in short order; more so given the recent trend of “fast moving” zombies as oppposed to the shuffling traditional kind. It was done as a light-hearted way to study how viruses and epidemics move through a society, but they took the same sort of serious approach to a basically looney subject.

    I think zombies are the scariest monsters. They represent a loss of free will, identity and humanity that I feel unsettles people no matter which society or culture they’re in.

  • Colin

    Plus they’re essentially unstoppable! They never quit…as those who read World War Z know.

  • http://www.absurdintellectual.com/ Grant Hamilton

    That’s a very philosophical point about their scariness being a representation of their loss of free will and humanity. I think Romero did an excellent job associating that with how modern society does the same thing (dehumanizing us) in Dawn of the Dead (the original). This was touched on (hilariously) in Shawn of the Dead, too.

    I’m a big fan of zombies movies, and I’ve read both WWZ and the Zombie Survival Handbook. But I think the list author is correct in putting them at the bottom of the list. Yes, hundreds of thousands of shambling zombies is a terrifying notion. But how much MORE terrifying would hundreds of thousands of vampires be?

    (also, he’s going for “dangerous” not necessarily “scary”)

  • http://www.pennywise-books.com/ T. Keith Edmunds

    Colin: I think you are refering to this study: http://www.absurdintellectual.com/2009/08/18/scientific-study-regarding-zombie-outbreak-worrisome/

    Plus, a single zombie is lame. Especially the shuffling, moaning kind.

  • Colin

    I dunno — you can’t kill it bare-handed. Even with a tool, it would be hard. A gun, maybe…if your aim wasn’t so shakey that you’d miss taking out the brain completely.
    And it’s not like you could really sleep easy, either, because they never do! Hard to fall asleep knowing they could burst through the door at any moment and devour you in your slumber; by the time you’d wake up it’d all be over.

    The Globe and Mail has a great feature at the back of its Life section with all sorts of miscellany. One posed the question: Which is more important – food, sex or sleep? Well, you’d cease functioning without sleep in the shortest order…so, yeah, I’d say zombies are way scarier than vampires. Who can be scared of something that can be slain with a tanning booth?

  • http://www.absurdintellectual.com/ Grant Hamilton

    Nah, I don’t agree — the difference is intelligence. Sure, vampires can be killed with (relative) ease, just by staking them, decapitating them, or exposing them to sun. Holy water, I’m not certain about.

    But vampires are intelligent enough to avoid all those threats. Put a giant industrial fan blade between you and a zombie, and it’ll walk right through, killing itself. Zombies can also be stopped by simple barricades.

    A single zombie is just not that threatening, unless you are alone in a room with it, no tools. A single vampire is much more dangerous. Sure 10 zombies is scarier. But 10 vampires is scarier still! And a million zombies (the classic scenario) might be nigh-on terriyfing, but imagine, if you dare, the sheer fright of an army, a million strong, of vampires!

  • Colin

    Vampires are kinda wussy, really. And how many people do you know who have industrial fan blades handy in an emergency moment? Any barricade, even a high wall, would quickly be run over by the hordes of undead, even if they have to stack themselves up to do it. And if we’ve learned anything from the collected filmography of Woody Harrellson, it’s that even clowns aren’t immune from the threat.

    Given the aforementioned study, any zombie infestation would proliferate quickly enough that it would be a huge threat. Vampires? They might sashay at you really quickly, or give you an incredibly suave line but…well, that’s about it. They can’t even go places they’re not invited into! How non-threatening is that?

    Alright, I’m going to go ponder how it is that I’m actually debating something as ridiculous as this, now….

    • http://www.absurdintellectual.com/ Grant Hamilton

      I think this is a fun debate. Two questions:

      How many zombies could a vampire kill before they overwhelmed him? Ten, maybe?

      How many vampires could a zombie kill, before they overwhelmed him? Uh…. zero? Except by accident?

      If you’re arguing that a zombie’s strength is in its numbers and ability to proliferate, then you have to admit that a single vampire is much more dangerous than a single zombie. And vampires *could* proliferate almost as quickly as zombies can, but they are smart enough not to — food supply issues.