This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Zombies
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
I thought it was a little ridiculous that nobody noticed the zombies didn't go after sick people. You'd think it would be fairly apparent at the very start of the outbreak, especially in hospitals and such.
If I was being attacked by tireless, painless berserker freaks, I wouldn't notice who they attacked or not, tbqfh.
Post by
Adamsm
I enjoyed the book a lot, but I also really liked the movie. It makes sense to do "fast" zombies, imo. The media is saturated with "slow" braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains zombies, while fast zombies (outside of video games) is mostly limited to 28 Days Later. It made for more interesting action scenes as well. Instead of having to just hold out against tons of zombies, it turned the scenes into adrenaline fueled races (which I enjoyed). I still hate fast 'dead' zombies; if the infected is racing around while still alive I can understand but once they die, they should be shambling since they'd lose a lot. Also, I find that more 'horrifying' in the context of the movie; the slow endless stalk compared to the sprint where there is no 'tension' to the scene, since if the person isn't fast enough, they are lunch. At least with the shamblers, you have no idea if they are still coming or not; did they give up? Did someone else get their attention?
As for the movie itself...it still should have been named something else.
Post by
Monday
I still hate fast 'dead' zombies; if the infected is racing around while still alive I can understand but once they die, they should be shambling since they'd lose a lot.
Well, in this specific instance they were alive. And it can be done well, like in Dead Space or Afraid of Monsters.
Also, I find that more 'horrifying' in the context of the movie; the slow endless stalk compared to the sprint where there is no 'tension' to the scene, since if the person isn't fast enough, they are lunch.
I find it to be the opposite. Someone might be fast, but what if they trip or take a wrong turn? Being chased is a very widespread fear among humans, and many zombie movies play it very well.
At least with the shamblers, you have no idea if they are still coming or not; did they give up? Did someone else get their attention?
And I get this. IMO, they're two different types of movies. I don't particularly like one over the other. As long as they're done well, they can both be quite good.
Post by
Gone
I thought it was a little ridiculous that nobody noticed the zombies didn't go after sick people. You'd think it would be fairly apparent at the very start of the outbreak, especially in hospitals and such.
If I was being attacked by tireless, painless berserker freaks, I wouldn't notice who they attacked or not, tbqfh.
Yea but there would be hundreds of thousands of people in America alone being completely ignored by the zombies. It should have been apparent fairly quick that there was a pattern.
Post by
Monday
I thought it was a little ridiculous that nobody noticed the zombies didn't go after sick people. You'd think it would be fairly apparent at the very start of the outbreak, especially in hospitals and such.
If I was being attacked by tireless, painless berserker freaks, I wouldn't notice who they attacked or not, tbqfh.
Yea but there would be hundreds of thousands of people in America alone being completely ignored by the zombies. It should have been apparent fairly quick that there was a pattern.
Yeah, they discovered it fairly quickly. The movie's plot, if you piece it together, takes place over the course of like a week (unless I forgot about any major time gap besides the one where he wakes up in the medical center).
IMO, that's an acceptable amount of time to discover the weakness of tireless berserker freaks trying to eat your face off.
Post by
Gone
Speaking of which, did the zombies actually eat people in that movie? I don't remember actually seeing it. That's sort of my other big complaint about the movie, that it was PG13. IMO zombie movies should be rated R so that we can enjoy the genre in all its bloody goodness.
I don't mean to give the wrong impression btw. I liked the movie, just didn't think it was up to par with the novels.
Post by
Skreeran
Speaking of which, did the zombies actually eat people in that movie? I don't remember actually seeing it. That's sort of my other big complaint about the movie, that it was PG13. IMO zombie movies should be rated R so that we can enjoy the genre in all its bloody goodness.
I don't mean to give the wrong impression btw. I liked the movie, just didn't think it was up to par with the novels.No, they only bit people to infect them, that's why they didn't bite people who were sick or disabled and couldn't spread the disease.
Honestly, it's super dumb, because viruses aren't capable of making decisions like that. And Max Brooks' zombies specifically ate people until their digestive systems ruptured.
Post by
Adamsm
Course, Brook's Zeds are virus based, and seen in both Survival Guide and WWZ, they go for living humans over any other form of meat...which still makes no sense; since they aren't getting anything from it as far anyone could tell. But in the name of zombies, you have to ignore some things lol.
I still wish 'Brad Pitt Running'(I refuse to call it it's true name :P) never got the right to the name..oh well, maybe they'll go for an alternate name and turn the real WWZ into a mockumentary about the decade of the zombie war and we can see all of the real good stuff. I'd love to see Yonkers or the Underwater stuff done right.
Post by
Skreeran
I could barely tell it was Brad Pitt and not Hannah Montana's dad.
Post by
Adamsm
Billy Ray would have been better...made it campy rather then trying to be 'real'.
Post by
Maurvyn
Course, Brook's Zeds are virus based, and seen in both Survival Guide and WWZ, they go for living humans over any other form of meat...which still makes no sense; since they aren't getting anything from it as far anyone could tell. But in the name of zombies, you have to ignore some things lol.
I still wish 'Brad Pitt Running'(I refuse to call it it's true name :P) never got the right to the name..oh well, maybe they'll go for an alternate name and turn the real WWZ into a mockumentary about the decade of the zombie war and we can see all of the real good stuff. I'd love to see Yonkers or the Underwater stuff done right.
I would really like that. There were some great stories that could translate well to the screen.
The "Brad Pitt is the HERO, dammit!" movie was a travesty.
There have been cases of viruses affecting really specific behaviors. It isn't necessarily unrealistic that a virus would increase cannibalistic tendencies to a destructive degree.
It is however, highly unrealistic that a virus empowers a dead corpse with ambulatory powers and allows it to ignore all other physical effects such as cold, heat, high pressure, dehydration, and decay.
Of all the zombie iterations, the Rage from 28 days is medically the most realistic that I have seen, but even it had some questionable properties.
Post by
Skreeran
Of all the zombie iterations, the Rage from 28 days is medically the most realistic that I have seen, but even it had some questionable properties.Biggest red flag for me was how fast they turned. Nothing infects that fast. It should have been a day or two for incubation, then fever, followed by behavioral changes and then the uncontrollable rage. Something like
this.
Rabies is basically the real life zombie virus in animals after all.
Post by
Adamsm
Of all the zombie iterations, the Rage from 28 days is medically the most realistic that I have seen, but even it had some questionable properties.Biggest red flag for me was how fast they turned. Nothing infects that fast. It should have been a day or two for incubation, then fever, followed by behavioral changes and then the uncontrollable rage. Something like
this.
Rabies is basically the real life zombie virus in animals after all.
Course, it was a movie virus....and honestly, the Ragers of 28 Days/Weeks Later were driven insane by it; the fact that they were eating people was more that they were too 'dumb' to figure out how to eat packaged things. They made that fairly clear in the comics where the Ragers are about killing and not eating.
Post by
Skreeran
Of all the zombie iterations, the Rage from 28 days is medically the most realistic that I have seen, but even it had some questionable properties.Biggest red flag for me was how fast they turned. Nothing infects that fast. It should have been a day or two for incubation, then fever, followed by behavioral changes and then the uncontrollable rage. Something like
this.
Rabies is basically the real life zombie virus in animals after all.
Course, it was a movie virus....and honestly, the Ragers of 28 Days/Weeks Later were driven insane by it; the fact that they were eating people was more that they were too 'dumb' to figure out how to eat packaged things. They made that fairly clear in the comics where the Ragers are about killing and not eating.I'm just saying: Diseases are terrifying, even if they don't turn people into zombies in ten seconds. Why can't someone make a realistic epidemic movie like Contagion that features a disease that turns people crazy and violent?
The Last of Us was really strong scientifically, but if I remember correctly it was still too fast, just because they needed that scene where everything goes to %^&*, and that requires people to be going from infected to infector really quickly.
Edit: Though looking on the wiki seems to indicate that it takes 1-2 days for Stage 1 of infection to take hold, and that it was initially spread to humans through crops, so it may be that thousands of humans in the intro were all infected by consuming infected plants days earlier, and that's why there are so many infected. If that's the case, then The Last of Us gets two thumbs up for realism from me. b(~_^)d
Post by
Adamsm
Ive read a few zombie books where it does take time for the infection to run it's full course. Even read one, can't remember it's name now, but they had a two stage infection: Stage one the infectee was alive but steadily growing more and more berserk as time went past, so towards the end they were just mindless killing machines...and then stage two hit once they died; they'd reanimate at that point.
I like how Walking Dead does it myself. You get bit or have zombie germs affect you, you sicken and die in a few hours as the fever tears you apart. You die suddenly, you reanimate within 5 minutes or so...but that makes sense, since every single person in the WD world is already infected by the virus.
Post by
Skreeran
I like how Walking Dead does it myself. You get bit or have zombie germs affect you, you sicken and die in a few hours as the fever tears you apart. You die suddenly, you reanimate within 5 minutes or so...but that makes sense, since every single person in the WD world is already infected by the virus.Yeah, the science isn't super strong in that one. I mean, besides the reanimation, obviously, I have to raise an eyebrow at the idea of everyone already being infected with the virus and not showing any symptoms, while people who are bitten get "infected" and die quickly. Just doesn't make sense.
I actually liked to interpret it more like The Night of the Living Dead, where they didn't try to explain it as a virus or anything, they just had anyone who died come back to life. Less pseudo-science. I mean, I get that it's for plot reasons, but I'd prefer less explanation and more focus on the plot than a weak attempt at an explanation that leaves me confused and skeptical and breaks my immersion.
But that's just because I'm weird and have to analyze everything I see. I can't tell you how many movie have been completely ruined for me because they're portrayed realistically and yet have some small detail that it's realistically possible and then completely yank me out of the story.
Post by
Adamsm
Well...it's never been confirmed what it is, just that every single person on the planet(as far as we know) is infected by it. The virus term is mainly thrown around by the fan community.
Though, there were attempts to figure out the Night virus, one of which was that it may have been caused by radiation from the satellite that was detonated in the atmosphere by the military.
Post by
Maurvyn
But that's just because I'm weird and have to analyze everything I see. I can't tell you how many movie have been completely ruined for me because they're portrayed realistically and yet have some small detail that it's realistically possible and then completely yank me out of the story.
I know the feels. I am an analytical chemist and and manage a laboratory.
Then I try to watch a film or a TV show where they are supposed to be running "tests".
Ugh. I'd shudder every time they'd push buttons and make instant DNA matching tests. That Bones show is the worst. I think I broke my "suspension of disbelief" gland when they aired that show.
sigh.
WWZ initially had me hooked for the realism. It tended toward several days at least of incubation. It remained in the tissue, and was actually transmitted through the organ transplants. It started out as if it could have been a legit infectious agent.
But then Brooks went and got all weird about the zeds not being affected by freezing or deep sea pressures. It was a major let down.
Regardless of the science, though, I really enjoy the story behind TWD.
Now there's the spin-off coming, totally unrelated to the comic. Hopefully it does justice to the original.
Post by
Skreeran
I know the feels. I am an analytical chemist and and manage a laboratory.
Then I try to watch a film or a TV show where they are supposed to be running "tests".
Ugh. I'd shudder every time they'd push buttons and make instant DNA matching tests. That Bones show is the worst. I think I broke my "suspension of disbelief" gland when they aired that show.
sigh.
Yeah, I'm not a chemist, but Bones bothered me too. My girlfriend tried to get me to watch it, and as soon as I realized that they were going to use that stupid hologram machine every single episode I couldn't watch it anymore.
WWZ initially had me hooked for the realism. It tended toward several days at least of incubation. It remained in the tissue, and was actually transmitted through the organ transplants. It started out as if it could have been a legit infectious agent.
But then Brooks went and got all weird about the zeds not being affected by freezing or deep sea pressures. It was a major let down.I read the Zombie Survival Guide first, actually, and I had to take a log break early on in the book when he claimed that humans only use 10% of their brain.
And then yeah. You can actually look earlier as early as page 2 of this thread, and I've raised all sorts of objections to the science of zombies (mainly Brooks', because he had the most "science"). Where does their energy come from if they don't eat, respire, or have a functioning circulatory system?
Regardless of the science, though, I really enjoy the story behind TWD.
Now there's the spin-off coming, totally unrelated to the comic. Hopefully it does justice to the original.Yea, me too. I preferred the games most, out of all the different media in the franchise. But again, the reason I can just sit down and enjoy the story is because they deliberately hide the science from my crazy analytical brain.
Post by
Monday
But that's just because I'm weird and have to analyze everything I see. I can't tell you how many movie have been completely ruined for me because they're portrayed realistically and yet have some small detail that it's realistically possible and then completely yank me out of the story.
I know the feels. I am an analytical chemist and and manage a laboratory.
Then I try to watch a film or a TV show where they are supposed to be running "tests".
Ugh. I'd shudder every time they'd push buttons and make instant DNA matching tests. That Bones show is the worst. I think I broke my "suspension of disbelief" gland when they aired that show.
sigh.
I know this feeling. Every time I watch a show that's supposed to have high tech "hacking," it always ends up like
this
.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.