'Un-Deadliest Warrior?' Battle show pits zombies vs. vampires
The wits and powers of vampires are pitted against unrelenting, ravenous zombies on Wednesday's "Deadliest Warrior."
September 13th, 2011
02:33 PM ET

'Un-Deadliest Warrior?' Battle show pits zombies vs. vampires

In a nightmare throwdown between the fantasy world's two undead superstars,  Max Brooks knows how it would go down.

"For all of a vampire's physical characteristics, they’re still human beings psychologically," he said. "They still fear. They still doubt.  Zombies don't."

Steve Niles is sure, too.

"My call to arms was  'braaaaaaains' - that's one thing vampires have that zombies do not," he said.  "Vampires, unlike zombies, are very capable of coordinating and pulling off strategies."

Of course, they may both be a little biased. Brooks is the author of  "World War Z," the zombie apocalypse novel currently being made into a movie starring Brad Pitt. And Niles burst onto the horror scene with "30 Days of Night," graphic novels that put a band of unrelenting (and definitely non-sparkling) vampires in an Alaska town where night never seems to end.

Thanks to "Deadliest Warrior," Spike's combat simulation show, we'll find out who's right.

The show, which pits history's most famous warriors against each other to decide through a battery of tests who's ... well ... deadliest, is taking its first shot at a fantasy battle in a season-finale episode airing Wednesday (9 p.m. ET).

In addition to ballistics and medical tests, and a souped-up computer algorithm based on video-game artificial intelligence, the show typically relies on military and history experts to advocate for the opposing sides in matchups between, say, Genghis Khan's Mongols and Hannibal's army.

For this one, Brooks and Niles were called in as the expert advocates. And just because the combatants are fictional doesn't mean the debate was any less heated.

"We did good trash talk," Brooks said. "I'm praying they leave some of that stuff on the DVD."

Niles concurs. "Things got really heated between me and Max sometimes," he said. "Of course, once the cameras were off, we were cracking up."

The brilliance of the episode, both authors say, is that it will be a high-tech, televised version of the sort of arguments horror and fantasy geeks have all the time.

"I would do a whole show of settling nerd arguments," Niles said. " 'Highlander' against Luke Skywalker - you name it. Now, with these simulations, they have a way to measure it."

But first, since this is fantasy, there had to be ground rules. Both sides agreed they'd be studying George Romero's iconic, slow-moving zombies, not the lightning-quick mutations from stories like "28 Days Later." And unlike Niles' fictional vamps (who also made it to the big screen in 2007), these have a working, and vulnerable, heart to go along with the typical fire and sunlight difficulties. (Garlic and crosses are out, though).

Then there are the tests. A strongman hammers a pressure-sensitive pad to help determine whether vampire claws have enough force to crack a zombie skull. A martial artist slashes slowed-down zombies to show how many a hyper-fast vampire could take out before being swarmed. Tactics, personality and the spread patterns of infectious diseases all got due consideration.

"It almost felt like working on war plans in the Pentagon," Brooks said. "We considered every option, and not just the physical. We went into depth about psychology, about how vampires are the science-fiction equivalent of small-unit guerilla troops."

But while the science may be real, this is no biology lecture. Niles says there will be plenty to enjoy for "Deadliest Warrior" fans who howl in delight at the sound of the words "ballistic gel torso."

"If they think the tests on a normal 'Deadliest Warrior' are bloody - that's nothing," he said. "Wait until we see how long it takes three zombies to tear the heart out of a vampire."

From left, Max Brooks, Matt Mogk, Scott Bowen and Steve Niles discuss zombie/vampire fighting strategy as evidenced by the ballistic gel torso.

While the show has already been recorded, neither Brooks nor Niles knows who won. The advocates record two scenes - one celebrating victory, the other embracing (or, more likely, refusing to accept) defeat. They'll learn the results spit out by Slitherin Software's combat simulator like everyone else when the show airs.

There will no doubt be the typical post-result debate about the computer's ruling. But, after the dust has settled and the fake blood has all been mopped up, maybe there will be some room for reconciliation.

After all, Niles is working on adapting "Remains," a zombie apocalypse story he wrote, for Chiller TV. And Brooks says he just finished writing a new short story - about a band of vampires which - get this - fights zombies.

"Deadliest Warrior" airs Wednesday at 9 p.m. ET on Spike. The vampires vs. zombies battle will be the second part of a two-hour, live episode that will also pit the British military's Ghurkas against the French Foreign Legion.

Posted by
Filed under: Fandom
soundoff (118 Responses)
  1. Cody

    you still have to think he got the infected flesh and blood into him cause him to turn adding one to the zombies side 😉

    September 16, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  2. Bubba

    Reminds me of the comic LAST BLOOD where the vampires have to defend the last humans against the zombies or die themselves for lack of blood.

    September 14, 2011 at 10:36 am |
  3. Lemeep

    Everyone, in general, agrees that zombies decay.

    Everyone agrees, in general, vampires are immortal. They need blood but it isn't 100% required for them to continue being immortal.

    Vampire can burry themselves in a mine shaft under piles of rock, well out of detection of any zombie. Wait 200 years, and crawl back out.

    Zombies don't typically go looking for brains in the ocean.

    Vampires can typically survive off animal blood, or lets say, the blood of fish? Sharks? Anything?

    Even if, lets say 200 years wasn't long enough, Fine, sleep for a million years. Life always restarts on earth because of water, wait for new creatures to show up, and tada! instant food source.

    Vampire doesn't even have to fight and it can win just by being immortal.

    Most horror movies with zombies if the humans survive, it is considered a win and happy ending.

    September 14, 2011 at 3:10 am |
  4. GGG

    Shouldn't they also be assuming that the vampire is starving? After all, if most humans are now zombies, there's not really a lot of fresh, living blood to go around.

    September 14, 2011 at 2:24 am |
  5. prometheus

    I gotta wave the 'shenanigans' flag on this one. They are sticking to the 1968 George Romero version of Zombies. So should they also stick to the 1968 version of Vampires? There was no lore about super quick vampires in 1968 that I know of...nor did they work/prey in a social 'pack'.

    September 14, 2011 at 1:18 am |
  6. Northshore Samurai

    If you want the truth about a Zombie Apocolypse, I respectfully submit this for your preusal:


    Arigato and Sayonara

    September 14, 2011 at 12:19 am |
  7. Demonfeed

    How can you pit a slow moving corpse against a fast moving corpse? That is like seeing if a fat kid can take on a tiger. Zombies wouldn't be dangerous except in a horde, and even then... Wait, this is stupid.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:25 pm |
    • you really should Google "ROCKBAND RockRecord"

      you really should Google "ROCKBAND RockRecord"

      September 13, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
  8. Anna

    A) Can a vampire get infected to become an ultimate zombie if bitten by said zombie? B) can a Zombie turn to a Vampire if bitten? If so, does it still want brains?

    September 13, 2011 at 10:47 pm |
  9. Eye'm watching you O_O

    Wizards and Witches FTW! AVADA KEDAVRA!!!

    September 13, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
  10. THX

    Vampires have no living brains so the zombies wouldn't notice them any more than they would another walking dead thing. Zombies have no living blood for the vampire to bother with. In a battle I think they'd meet, shrug and wander off to find human beings to prey on. Even if they did fight, they'd both end up as vambies (or zompires) since both would infect each other. Zombies with fangs and an intense craving for bloody brains. Fun!

    September 13, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
    • Afan

      Zombies win. Realistically, it'd end up being a war of attrition(decades or possibly centuries long). vampires will eventually run out of a source of blood whether it be human or animal. Romero's zombies do not need to feed to survive(Day of the dead-1985) the only possible way the Vampires would winout is if they could feed off of zombies without being infected. Otherwise Zombies win it, or the vamps just die from (eventual)starvation

      September 13, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
      • Ian Michael Gumby


        Romero's zombies are slow and are taken out by head shots once the people know what they are up against and how to stop them.

        Vampires are fast and are capable of at least getting off the ground. Zombies are also not the sharpest tools in the shed. As long as the Vampires use hit and run tactics they can continue to take out the zombies with low risk to casualties.

        Of course if you can infect a vampire, who knows and all bets are off.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:40 pm |
  11. Yossarian

    Four dollars and 37 cents says the zombies and vampires annihilate each other leaving the werewolves free to take over.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
    • Rick

      We have a winner!

      September 14, 2011 at 3:15 am |
      • Crizalyn

        I'm a little consufed at how they claim you're picking up supplies and stuff, but seems pretty amusing! If I'm just running around the block, would it fit with the story line or just sound crazy? hah

        December 19, 2012 at 11:45 am |
  12. ruemorgue

    A good show that is running out of *combatants*. The first season was great. The second season was good. The third season ... TBD.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
  13. Omar

    The key to this fight will actually lie in whether the zombie bite can either infect or in some way incapacitate the vampires. The infection that zombies have is not your everyday day virus, so even with all the vamps immunities this virus might get through and affect them somehow. If it can even inhibit the vamps for a second it will be all the time the zombies need to horde them.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
  14. Omar

    If it's going to be an even number of combatants they either have to let in zombies that are more comprabale to vampires or let in more zombies. In my opinion, it's not a fair matchup and there's no intrigue without this. One thing that they are good at in this show is having good matchups.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
  15. Omar

    I don't know how many of you actually watch this show, but what they usually do is a 5 vs 5. So, if your telling me that, that's the way it's going to be and we're going to have original slow moving zombies against magic wielding vampires, then why watch the show? It would definitely be vampires, that goes without saying.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
    • kdub

      Suposedly it's going to be something like 60-something zombies to 8 vamps is what I heard. Again, I can only imagine this going the Zombies way if the Vamps are succeptable to Zombie bites, cuz then it could get ugly fast for the fanged bloodsuckers.

      September 14, 2011 at 2:38 am |
  16. Steph

    Matt Mogk from the Zombie Research is also going to be on this episode for team zombie – can't wait, he's hot!

    September 13, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
  17. GnatB

    so instead of last seasons 1 on 1, or this seasons 5 on 5...
    Is it gonna be 500 on 1? 'Cause zombies (the slow kind) are grunts, pawns. Roadkill. They're basically humans who feel no pain, have no intelligence and only know hunger... in advanced decomp. Only thing they have going for them is numbers and infection...

    And since vampires are already dead with no beating hearts, that whole infection thing isn't much of a worry...

    September 13, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
  18. DanP

    Vampires. Hands down. Normal humans fight back zombies all the time. Vampires, assuming they aren't ravenous, brain-dead, animals like wild-vampires or something, have the body strength and brain power... I think only a very specific type of zombie could take out only a very specific type of vampire, and it would be a wussy vampire at that, and there would have to be LOTS of zombies...

    September 13, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
  19. Kevin Meares

    Depends. If we're talking about real vampires (well relatively speaking) like you see in Stoker's Dracula, Butcher's Dresden Files or folklore then the vampires are going to clean house (sunlight doesn't kill them (read Stoker's novel sunlight was made up by the movie Nostferatu), strength of 20 men, ability to turn into wolf, bat or mist (lets see a zombie eat the brains of a cloud of fog), etc). If we're talking whiny emos pretending to be vampires (Rice's Lestat, Meyer's Edward) then the zombies are going to feast on emo brains. Note I am well aware of the fact vampires don't exist. I mean real only in the sense that they fit the folkloric and traditional sense of a vampire instead of being some third rate hack's failures (vampires DON'T sparkle).

    September 13, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • B

      You are completely right!!

      September 13, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • residentston

      I love both zombies and vampires and this episode should be pretty cool, but Kevin Lestat was powerful as hell, especially after he drank of ancient vampires his maker Marius and The Queen herself, he was like a demigod, he would destroy a million zombies by himself in the daylight. Read the books dude.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
    • Omar

      I know what your saying but it recent pop culture vampires haven't had these powers you speak of. Nowadays vampires can even be killed by a human who knows what he's doing. Look at the vampires in Blade, those guys are cannon fodder.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
      • DanP

        Yeah...Blade vampires, and (forgive the dated reference but thanks to Netflix, is it ever really far away?) Buffy vampires are HORRIBLE....and yet, I still think one of them could take a few zombies any day. What do zombies have besides not feeling pain, and continuing to come? I don't know guys...

        September 13, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
    • Erebusd13

      The zombies have the one advantage in that as mindless, infectious cannibals they may very well end up destroying the food supply of both vamps and zombies...and since zombies are too stupid to notice that there is nothing left to eat they could be considered the winners in such a scenario. A vampire cursed with a hunger it can no longer satisfy (and if you're going with Stoker that would also entail some debilitating effects as well) and the intellect to understand its predicament would be in a sorry state indeed.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
  20. T3chsupport

    Hmm, that's an interesting one.
    Zombies don't have living blood, so a vampire isn't going to give a crap.
    Vampires, likewise, classically don't have living blood or flesh, and zombies don't tend to go for dead things... depending on what you're reading/watching (some stories have people feeding zombies fresh meat, and if a zombie takes a limb and munches on it after they kill the victim, doesn't that meat count as dead, though fresh?). Vampires wouldn't be fresh dead though.

    Both can be destroyed by removing the head.
    Only one can be destroyed by a body blow, such as a stake to the heart.
    However, I think you have to remove the head of a vampire if that's your method of dispatch, instead of simply destroying the brain as you can do for zombies.
    So 0/0 there....
    But that score could be affected by accounting for the ease of dispatch in either manner.
    It would be harder to remove the head or stab the heart of a vampire, because they are usually superhuman. Faster, sharper senses.
    The classic zombie, you just have to be quick enough to stab them in the head with something while they shamble around.
    +1 for vampires.

    Each can live indefinitely.
    Vampires can regenerate damage.
    Zombies cannot, and can be immobilized for the rest of their unnatural life.
    +1 for vampires again.

    Vampires can't usually go out in the sun, and have to hide from it. They are highly vulnerable during this time.
    Zombies are tireless, and don't even feel pain, so there's never a time you can let your guard down in a zombie scenario. They can be anywhere, anytime, for all time.

    Vampires are intelligent.
    Zombies are not.

    In the right circumstances, you might not know that someone is a vampire. They have stealth.
    You might not be able to immediately tell if someone was recently bitten, but you can always tell if someone is a zombie.

    Vampire problems rarely escalate into a full pandemic. Non vampires always outnumber vampires.
    Zombie hordes grow exponentially, until almost everyone is dead. For each they kill, their numbers grow.

    If there was a zombie outbreak, vampires would have a vested interest in removing them, as they are competition for their resources.
    Zombies wouldn't care about vampires, or competition, they'd still be after human flesh.

    And I guess it has to be said...
    Vampires are sexy.
    Zombies are most certainly not.

    There are more, but the moral of the story is that vampires would win.
    ... but zombies are still cooler.

    September 13, 2011 at 7:50 pm |
    • Omar

      I have two movies for you and with these zombie portrayals you have to recalculate everything. Resident Evil series and especially I am Legend. Please tell me that that vampires would win easy now.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
      • B

        The zombies in Resident Evil weren't all that powerful it was the other abominations that were nasty and they weren't zombies by any stretch of the word.

        September 13, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
      • Dex

        I am legend? The remake of the Omega man? They didn't seem like zombies or vampires to me just infected people.

        September 13, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
      • T3chsupport

        Resident Evil... after a time, they started mutating and whatnot, and those things could be pretty freaky, but I don't think vampires would let it get that far.

        I Am Legend, was based on a book, and in that book, the 'zombies', were actually some sort of vampires. I'm going to give it away here, and say that they were also intelligent. The reason He Was Legend was because he was murdering their families in their sleep like the bogeyman in the day. So much cooler than the movie.

        September 13, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
      • Brick

        Well actually nothing would change to that effect. If you read about Vampires you will learn that they have been attributed with the power to create and control zombies/ghouls and werewolves. However that varies from story to story. But an outbreak of zombies wouldnt effect vampires because of the physical abilities they possess. Even without blood they are immortal and have super strength and speed and also metaphysically powers: shapeshifting, hypnosis and tele-kenesis. I would say with the speed alone of a vampire it could kill hundreds of zombies without being detected.

        I really just showed my nerdy site. I need to watch some football! lol

        September 13, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
    • Dex

      Vampires Sparkle, Zombies don't.

      Zombie insta-win.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
      • Omar

        I am Legend creatures were zombies. They had an allergy to sunlight but it definitely wasn't deadly to them like it is for vampires. They didn't have any fangs, didn't drink blood but ate flesh and infected others turning them into more creatures. Those sound like zombies to me. Besides, it was a virus that created them. What more of a zombie definition do you want?

        September 13, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
      • T3chsupport

        Those aren't vampires, those are vegetarian emo kids in body glitter.

        September 13, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
    • Chris

      Okay, rebuttal time:

      Assuming normal zombie/vampire scenario, there are always billions of zombies and vampires are exceedingly rare. Right there the zombies come away with a point, because enough quantity will always beat quality. Ask the Marines that fought the Chinese in Korea.
      1/0 Zombies

      Vampires can regenerate damage, but zombies are invulnerable except for their brain. You can knock a vampire down by shooting him, but a zombie keeps coming. So a vampire in hand-to-hand combat with a horde of zombies is not going to come out on top. We all know what happens when the horde reaches you.
      2/0 Zombies

      Zombies don't have to care about vampires: all things with brains are equal prey in their minds. To them, a vampire is just a more dangerous human. They will always be hunting the vampires as well as humans.
      3/0 Zombies

      And since you threw in that random thing about sexiness, I will repeat: One billion zombies, maybe a hundred vampires.

      Zombies WIN, 4-0.

      Although, if we're talking 1 zombie versus 1 vampire, well yeah, vampire all the way. But zombies' ultimate strength lies in numbers.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
      • GnatB

        Uhm, zombies are as vulnerable as the average decaying corpse. i.e. VERY vulnerable. They just don't feel pain. you can still knock off their arm with a good swing of a baseball bat. They just wouldn't flinch.

        September 13, 2011 at 9:06 pm |
      • T3chsupport

        A horde of zombies, maybe... but why would a vampire get into a hand-to-hand scuffle with a zombie otherwise? Back to speed and hightened senses. People survive zombie apocalypses, just not many of them. Vampires would be survivors.

        The brain eating zombie is a stereotype, but no one really uses it anymore except in references to a couple of old movies. Most of them don't go for the brain at all, they just want living flesh of some sort. A brain would also be incredibly hard to get to for a throng of zombies, all fighting over it... clawing at bone that isn't going to give without something more substantial than poorly aimed pawing and gnawing. They can eat someone's face off, but they aren't going to get to a brain before a corpse reanimates. Brain eating zombies are illogical... (lol!). Plus, most of them go for the arms and body. If they don't eat each others' brains, or the brains of other dead animals, there's no reason to assume they'd go for an undead vampire brain.

        I know, it's a point that's hard to concede. I didn't want to, but that's how it stacked. It sucks, because zombies are the better horror monster any day. So to ease the pain of obvious defeat, I have a little gem for you- and it's free. And online. Adrian's Undead Diary. Google it, start at the beginning. Epic addicting zombie story.

        September 13, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
      • Chris

        ... and zombies have two arms, and there's probably another one behind you if you're fighting one with a baseball bat. You have to aim for the head. You could blast a hole through the middle of one with a shotgun and he's going to keep coming. Zombie wins that one, hands down. (yes, pun intended)

        September 13, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
      • Chris

        T3chsupport... thanks for the tip, I'll check it out

        September 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm |
  21. Omar Nunez

    I think their is some confusuion of what a zombie actually is. Traditionally, a zombie is a mindless undead creature. Portrayals of the original creatures are best described in voodoo magic as practicioners turned corpses into zombies. With the definiton, there is no way that this being could kill a vampire. However, now we have modernized the zombie and instead of magic creating them we have slowly shifted to the viral or epidemic creation method. Because of this huge change we can no longer say that a zombie is still only limited to the slow minded creatures controlled by voodoo. Basically, what I'm getting at is that scientifically we can create a WAY bigger abomination than what any voodo has ever made. Many different possiblities.

    September 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
    • B

      yeah the "modernized" zombies would give them more possiblities but bringing in science kind of ruins it. But if you want to throw that into the mix then use the vampires from the Underworld movies. They put that same twist on vampires and they would still beat out any zombie horde because now you've got vampires using automatic weapons and thier "elders" are vastly more powerful then any zombie. In the end the vampires would win again, though it might be a closer fight.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
      • Omar

        Hey, I'm not the one ruining it. I think all the zombies of the modern age have been created by some type of virus, so science is at the forefront for zombies. All it takes is a better viral strand to make an unstoppble zombie. Vampires are and always will be mystical creatures. We all know who the strongest is (Dracula), so after him things start to dilute themselves.

        September 13, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
  22. John

    What type of Vampires are we talking about here? If we're talking about Buffy Vampires, then yeah the Zombies (Slow Night of the Living dead types?) could possibly corner one and set it's lair on fire. If we're talking about Lestat at the height of his powers, it doesn't matter what type of Zombies we're talking about because he could wipe out the every military one the planet by himself...

    He can fly. He actually fought and killed a Zombie (or was it a deranged Vampire?) when he was relatively weak and newly created. He can set FIRE to people and things by glancing at them. He can move so fast in all directions you will never catch him. He is telepathic. The sun can no longer kill him. He learned how to invade other peoples bodies and posses them from the Body Thief. He's stronger than 20 or 30 zombies (or more). I'm sure I'm forgetting things. He can't be trifled with (except by the few ancients who survived past the Queen of the Damned). Zombies got no chance.

    September 13, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
    • Omar Nunez

      But you talking about a portrayal of one very strong vampire. What I hope is that a lot of research has been done in the show and a fair potrayal can be made of each. Really, most vampires don't have these powers that you described so they shouldn't be in the show.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
      • B

        Ah but that's not giving the vampires thier fair shake. You want to give zombies intelligence and make them faster and stronger but take that same thing away from vampires. Sounds a tad bit lobsided if you ask me. The best way to have a fair fight is to use the "traditional" vampires and zombies and go with that. You give each side equal numbers and vampires would win hands down...

        September 13, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
  23. Confused

    Sooooo this is a funny one. I mean if a vampire bites a zombie don't they both become Vampire zombies? Similarly, if a zombie bites a vampire, they both become Vampire zombies..........how do they "win"? We either have a chicken inside an egg or an egg inside a chicken on this one folks.......change the channel.....click

    September 13, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
  24. Godzilla

    Argrrrrrrrrrr! When is it my turn? I think I can handle the zombies and vampires in one big fire breath, while at the same time stop out the werewolves. And I am really kinda cute 😉 Arigato !

    September 13, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
  25. D

    Ha, zombies or vampires? Both FAIL!
    If you want a REAL undead warrior, nothing beats a Lich!

    September 13, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • B

      DUDE you are so right!!! Nothing beats an undead wizard!! In fact a lich would just take control of both the zombies and vampires and add them to his own army!!! Now there's a Legion of the Dead!

      September 13, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
      • Thatonethere

        That's unfair! What can take out a lich? Not a whole hell of alot. A lich would naturally take control of the zombies and vampires like you said. It's just an unfair battle if you throw a lich into the mix cause there is never a group of holy warriors when you need them.

        September 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
      • B

        True it would be an unfair battle if you threw in a lich. But that's the point! Though I think a Death Knight would still give a lich a run for his money.

        September 13, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
      • GnatB

        Depends on if you know where the liches phylactery is. (and can get to it). Take out the Phylactery = dead liche.

        September 13, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
    • B

      Wait how about a Death Knight? They are pretty powerful as well... I still think a lich would win though.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
  26. Yeauhhuh

    Stupi d, very very stup id.

    September 13, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
  27. B

    While Zombies are in essence mindless undead animated by whatever be it a virus or other means vampires have more to them. Also let's not forget the salent abilities they are sometime said to have. Zombies wouldn't be much of a challenge to a vampire that can say fly or have innate magical powers. In fact in some cases vampires are able to control lesser forms of undead like zombies. Also even if zombies are able to run fast and are fairly strong they are still limited in how much strength they have. Not to mention vampires get stronger with age and zombies get weaker since they are actively decaying. A thousand year old vampire could likely swipe the floor with a legion of zombies since they jsut wouldn't be strong enough to do any real damage. Of course against a freshly turned vamp the zombies would have the advantage. Its really how you look at it and what powers you decide to give or take away from vampires. The only thing zombies have going for them is numbers but since vampires are also already dead they can't be turned into a zombie...

    September 13, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • Omar Nunez

      This is all subject to interpetation my friend. The only thing you can say for sure about vampires is that thier fast and strong. The most recent portayals of vampires don't have them having any real significant magical abilities (at least nothing that would really be any good against a zombie). I've seen vampires portrayed in many different levels of power from weak to very strong. If you want to add in all the ridiculous powers that vampires have been said to have then you also have to add in all the ridiculous weaknesses. They can't just have all the good.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
      • B

        True but most of those weaknesses wouldn't be any help to the zombies. One thing that most try to hold true is that vampires gain power as they age. So yeah you could say those "weak" vampires are just not old enough yet. Not to mention as a vampire ages he can withstand those weaknesses better. Add that all up and it pretty much spells the end for the shambling mounds of mindless flesh of a zombie horde. If you go back to the two "original" stories about zombies and vampires. Vampires would win hands down. The two I'm speaking of are Dracula and Night of the Living Dead.

        September 13, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • Omar

      Well any zombie against Dracula goes without saying, but I know they wouldn't be wasting their time with this show if they weren't pitting a vampire representation against a comparable zombie.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
      • DanP

        Zombies would never be able to take advantage of vampire weaknesses. Zombie's rolling with stakes? Holy water?

        Unless of course a horde of zombies, for some reason other then devouring, find a sleeping vampire during the day...but even then...

        September 13, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
  28. Brasil2010

    Zombies are cannon fodder. All you need to do is whack them in the head and they are permanently gonzo. Vampires only real enemy is sunlight (forget the cross and wooden stake....that's Bela Lugosi vampira). In fact I think zombies are actually an Islamic fanatic concoction as they too are enamoured with decapitation. Now Legend zombies....that's another thing....smart and lethal.

    September 13, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
    • B

      I have not seen that movie but the definition of a zombie is mindless undead. No higher brain functions at all. So these undead from that movie should be characterized as a different form of undead. Perhaps a Ghoul or Ghast but not a zombie...

      September 13, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
      • Omar Nunez

        I mean, it would take some pretty strong vampires to kill the zombies from Legend.

        September 13, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
      • Brasil2010

        Come to think about it, those were mutants...undead transformed by viral infection. "Run of the mill" zombies like "Shaun of the dead" are fairly simple to deal with. First they move excruciatingly slow hence quick feet confuse them and a solid frying pan whack to the head would finish them off. If my recollection of vampires is accurate, they are very fast. They would run rings around the zombies and with their sharp nails rip their heads off. Vampires would regard the zombies as competitors for their human prey and like the animal kingdom they would "kill" them off 🙂

        September 13, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
    • Omar Nunez

      That's what I'm talking about, "Legend Zombies". I don't think it would take some pretty strong vampires to kill those guys.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
      • B

        I'm going to have to check that movie out but they don't sound like zombies to me. There are a number of types of undead and zombies and skeletons are pretty much the bottom of the barrel. Like I said Zombies are mindless so if they have any intelligence then technically they are zombies but something else. I'm still sticking with the Ghoul theory myself but I'll watch the movie.

        September 13, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
  29. FangBanger69

    . Vamps Vz. Zombs...It's like Republicans vs. Democrats

    September 13, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
  30. Hellsing Fan

    If we were talking about Hellsing vampires then the Zombies would be screwed.

    September 13, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • B

      I agree since those vampires get more powerful with age and have special abilities.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
  31. Omar Nunez

    The best zombies I've seen are the ones' in "I am Legend". I think those are just as strong and fast as vampires (maybe more) and are relentless. Also if you remember those zombies were actually smart; they sent their killer dogs after Will Smith instead of attacking him directly. Another posibility are any of the zombie beings from the "Resident Evil" series. They would kick some vampire ass, too. Just depends on the interpertations of each.

    September 13, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • Mike

      What's odd is that in the book, they are vampires. The movie never really specifies, but they do seem much more like zombies. Either way, I do agree, they were the most badass zombie/vampires in any movie yet...

      September 13, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
      • Omar

        Even though the did not like the sunlight I don't believe they were vampires. It's more like they were allergic to the light than it actually being deadly to them. They had no fangs, didn't drink blood, but ate flesh. Those were zombies my friend.

        September 13, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
  32. Vlad Tepes

    Seriously? These two posers are just one-hit wonders. "30 Days" was pretty much a Twilight Zone one-line pitch with no character and "World War Z" is unreadable. Niles writes captions for good art; he can't write worth a damn. Check out his "Dawn of the Dead" "adaptation" where he just transcribes the script. Max Brooks wouldn't be where he is if not for his dad.

    September 13, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • T3chsupport

      Yes, it's unreadable, that's why it was a New York Times Best Seller, because everyone was just looking at the pictures.

      You saying it is unreadable says more about you than it does the book.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
      • Vlad Tepes

        I'm actually hurt. I agree with everything else you said on this thread and I find it hard to believe that someone of your thorough knowledge of the zombie genre and obvious fan cred would fall for a transparent piece of mainstream marketing like Brooks' book.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
      • T3chsupport

        I've read it, it was a decent book. It wasn't what I could call a real 'novel' though, and I can see how many people wouldn't really get a grasp on it. They were short stories, written in different dialects from different points of view from people all over the world. This gave it difficulty with immersion into the story, I'll certainly give you that as a large negative point for it. I'm not usually one that goes for short stories myself, but this worked well for me for what it was – the world overview big picture of a world-wide zombie apocalypse, instead of just a localized survival story like most of them are. I liked the stories for the most part, but I am hoping the movie is better.

        But it still wasn't unreadable. That's being rather unfair.

        September 14, 2011 at 10:23 am |
  33. joe

    more hard hitting news from CNN: Your Worldwide Leader in Fluff.

    September 13, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
  34. Rob

    but what if the zombies gang up on the first vampire and are able to turn the vampire. With five regular zombies and one vampire zombie, I think they win!

    September 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  35. mike hunt

    although i like zombies better, a vampires speed and strength could easially rip the head off a zombie w/out getting bit, ending the battle right quick. the real question is, how deadly would a zombie vampire be?!!!

    September 13, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
    • Brasil2010

      New character Mr Hunt (always wanted to hear your name paged at an airport but would probably only work in a non english speaking country)....a Zompire or perhaps a Vambie.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
      • GnatB

        Nah, a Vambie is a blood sucking undead deer.

        September 13, 2011 at 8:49 pm |
  36. Righton

    Unicorns would totally destroy both. They're glitter would protect them from everything.

    September 13, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
  37. Billy Bob Billy BillyBob Bill

    Since when are zombies weak? They might be slow in mind and body, but they are not weak. Can a vampire burst through a steel gate? I'm not so sure.... But a horde of zombies can easily knock one down with time. Another point, who here can tell me that the small amount of vampires (1,000 maximum) could take on the billions of the zombie population. One more point, zombies don't EVER falter. They are determined, if even 100 die its nothing compared to the billions left. Vampires make mistakes just like any human. They would not have a chance against zombies.

    September 13, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Brasil2010

      I seem to recall they just milled around glass shopping centre doors.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
    • GnatB

      except deadliest warrior has always been (well, all the ones I've seen) even teams. Sure, a billion zombies could take out 1,000 vamps... but even numbers? Zombies = toast.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
  38. ThoughtProcess

    Wait... If they fought in the middle of the day? Zombies win of course. They don't even need to fight as the Vampires will be on fire and dead already from the daylight. Though, as someone else already noted, I don't see why either would bother fighting each other as Zombies don't have the blood Vampires want and Vampires have no flesh of the living Zombies usually crave.

    September 13, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
  39. ThoughtProcess

    If you're talking toe-to-toe, Vampires have the brains and can fly so they win. But if you're talking which could end the entire world? Definitely Zombies and Zombie-likes. Vampires don't spread their "gift" all often in any book, movie or game whereas every single person bit by a zombie becomes one real quick and entire countries are wiped out within... well... 28 days or so.

    September 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  40. Jonny awesome

    Well the "Dawn of the Dead" zombies learned things. Like realizing they could walk underwater and the use of a jackhammer. But usually Deadliest Warrior puts 5 on 5 at the end and the zombies really wouldnt stand a chance if that were the case.

    September 13, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Vulcan85

      actually that was the 2005 movie "Land of the Dead"

      September 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
      • Jonny awesome

        I hang my head in shame

        September 13, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
      • Sweetenedtea

        True, but the zombies of the 2004 remake of "Dawn of the Dead" were even deadlier - they were fast and vicious. Frankly, I'll take my chances with jackhammer zombie (or assault rifle zombie in same movie) over terrifyingly fast Dawn of the Dead remake zombie any day of the week.

        September 14, 2011 at 3:16 am |
  41. HamsterDancer

    Whichever one wins they will pretty much be in control of the world. If I had a choice of who wins I'd vote vampires. At least you can have a conversation with them.

    September 13, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  42. jude

    easy vampires since they are dead zombies wont bother

    September 13, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  43. HamsterDancer

    My goodness aren't we in a bad mood. Hey, this show is just the continuation of every bar conversation ever made. Vampires and zombies too nerdy for you? Feel better if they were arguing about what football team is better or who's the best boxer?

    September 13, 2011 at 5:20 pm |

    Vampires would tear the zombies apart. the only chance a zombie would have is if it stumbled upon a vampire in the day time. vampires are too fast and strong and will never tire, zombies major advantage is their unrelenting will to continue to pursue and their vast numbers, neither would be sufficient to trap a vampire in a horde. zombies best chance to win the conflict would be to turn all humans so the vampires starve. vampires are dead zombies would not chase or bother them. vampires would kill zombies to preserve their food source...

    September 13, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  45. Meredith "Knows more about horror than you" Anonymous

    Doesn't anyone else see the GLARING issue that zombies crave LIVING flesh, posing no threat to UNDEAD vampires? I mean, hello!? Amateurs.

    September 13, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • Meredith "Knows more about horror than you" Anonymous

      Now Vampires VS Werewolves– There's a competition. (PS I love zombies, but they lose big time against other supernatural/preternatural creatures.)

      September 13, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
      • NOT MY CHAIR


        September 13, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
      • Meredith "Knows more about horror than you" Anonymous


        September 13, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
      • miss tang

        You make a very good point. Also, though both vampires and zombies are dead and therefor "walking meat," vampires are more aware and have more intelligence. Zombies, on the other hand, feel no pain. In most lore thus far though, vampires are able to heal rather miraculously back to the state they were in physically at the time they were turned. I think both types of being are supernaturally strong, so that to me is a wash and they are evenly matched there. I think it would come down to numbers and strategy.

        September 13, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • douggross

      Yeah ... they had to stipulate certain things to make it work. For my money, it comes down to whether the vampires would get over their egos enough to get together early and stamp it out. Early on, they'd have the upper hand. The longer it goes, the more zombies there are to potentially stumble upon you while you sleep and the fewer non-infected humans there are to feed on.

      September 13, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • Anonymous

      It's true that zombies wouldn't want to eat vampires, but to say they pose no threat is awfully reductionist. What about turning the vampires' food supply into an undead horde? That's a fairly major threat.

      September 13, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
  46. C

    I'm a huge zombie fan and have been since I was a kid so it kinda pains me to say it but a vampire would win unless its up against a large group of zomibes. Zombies are to slow and weak whereas vampire are fast and strong.


    They state they are using the slow zombies of the George A. Romero films. Also, I'm guessing you're refering to the 2004 remake of "Dawn of the Dead" where they ran but fyi the original 1978 "Dawn of the Dead" featured slow moving zombies.

    September 13, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  47. Dianafails

    why are we making such a big deal out of this???

    September 13, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • Meredith "Knows more about horror than you" Anonymous

      If you have to ask, you shouldn't be commenting on this article. Go read about politics. Or baking. I'll bet you like to bake, don't you?

      September 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
      • Brasil2010

        Diana failed cooking class.

        September 13, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • f-yo-vampire

      because zombies are awesome!!!!!!

      September 13, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
      • miss tang

        Vampires are sexy 😉

        September 13, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • Brasil2010

      "WE" are the undead from the blogosphere and not to be trifald with.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
  48. douggross

    Per Max and Steve, it's slow, George Romero-style zombies.

    September 13, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
  49. KajinPL

    Well what version of zombies do they mean I wonder? If it's the "Dawn of the Dead" version of zombies then I can see competition.

    September 13, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
    • Sweetenedtea

      They specify slow zombies in the article. Fast zombies are much more dangerous, of course, but I suppose they wanted to to the classical route. Which, of course, means the vampires don't have the dreaded emo shield that keeps keeps away all rational beings but allows mindless horny hordes to slip through...and if those girls can slip through, so can zombies.

      September 14, 2011 at 3:21 am |