It is assumed that anyone reading this thread has seen the latest episode of the TV show. If you haven't THEN STOP READING IMMEDIATELY UNLESS YOU'RE THE KIND OF PERSON THAT LIKES TO READ THE LAST PAGE OF A NOVEL FIRST.
However, this is a thread about the TV show. Therefore, any talk of any characters or plot developments in the comic books must be put inside of spoiler tags (when you're making a post there is a button that says 'spoiler' that puts spoiler tags around content you want to hide).
KingCracker wrote:
Itll be great at first..... and more then likely suck around season 2 1/2
I'm reluctantly in agreement with KC here.
I think the series will start strong and then fizzle in the second season,that is unless the writers manage to truly convey the "human element" of the books and strongly focus on developing characters we as an audience can love/hate.
I mean...I love zombies,but I don't believe alot of NOM NOM nOM can carry a series.
You might be in for a treat, then. AMC carries Mad Men and Breaking Bad, two highly-rated and strongly character-driven dramas. I expect Walking Dead will be more of the same.
I actually had the opposite problem with the comic - not enough zombies. Once they got to a certain point in the story -
Spoiler:
(the prison)
- I had to stop reading it because it just turned into a story about a bunch of people yelling at each other. I assume the series will go the same way.
jwoolf wrote:You might be in for a treat, then. AMC carries Mad Men and Breaking Bad, two highly-rated and strongly character-driven dramas. I expect Walking Dead will be more of the same.
I actually had the opposite problem with the comic - not enough zombies. Once they got to a certain point in the story -
Spoiler:
(the prison)
- I had to stop reading it because it just turned into a story about a bunch of people yelling at each other. I assume the series will go the same way.
I actually am a bit hopeful,considering the work AMC has done with Mad Men (haven't seen Breaking Bad),that the necessary balance between character development/interaction/story and "zombie mayhem" will be found.
I suppose We'll have to watch and see...either way,I know I'll be parked expectantly in front of my T.V. for the premier.
jwoolf wrote:You might be in for a treat, then. AMC carries Mad Men and Breaking Bad, two highly-rated and strongly character-driven dramas. I expect Walking Dead will be more of the same.
I actually had the opposite problem with the comic - not enough zombies. Once they got to a certain point in the story -
Spoiler:
(the prison)
- I had to stop reading it because it just turned into a story about a bunch of people yelling at each other. I assume the series will go the same way.
Ill admit you do have a very valid point there. Im utterly hooked on Breaking Bad. And if you just quickly give the in a nutshell version, you wonder how the show can still be going on. Its just so damn good
KingCracker wrote:Im utterly hooked on Breaking Bad. And if you just quickly give the in a nutshell version, you wonder how the show can still be going on. Its just so damn good
Yeah dude. I started to lose a little faith toward the end of the third season, but the last few episodes shook things up. Can't wait for season four.
As for the Walking Dead show, like I said, I wasn't really a big fan of the comic, but I'll definitely give it a shot just because AMC is really good at what they do. When you can watch an interesting, character-driven drama and a Clint Eastwood movie on the same channel, you're in good shape.
jwoolf wrote:You might be in for a treat, then. AMC carries Mad Men and Breaking Bad, two highly-rated and strongly character-driven dramas. I expect Walking Dead will be more of the same.
I actually had the opposite problem with the comic - not enough zombies. Once they got to a certain point in the story -
Spoiler:
(the prison)
- I had to stop reading it because it just turned into a story about a bunch of people yelling at each other. I assume the series will go the same way.
feth dude if that is as far as you got in the comics you're missing a whole lot. What the feth else are you going to focus on when the horde of zombies is a slow moving lot? character development of the zombies?
The series isn't meant to be a "this is our situation, lets go kill some gak" story, it's about characters that have to deal with reality, and like the tag line of the comics "...forced to finally start living...".
Lost and Heroes are both pieces of gak. Lost = might as well just watch Awesome Show Great Job! and laugh.
Sure, but if I wanted to read a story about a bunch of people discovering their innermost selves I'd read a novel. I appreciate that the comic has a little more depth than your average zombie story, but it seemed like the characters were rehashing the same old thing over and over again. I get that it's not meant to be Army of Darkness, and that's why I picked it up in the first place, but it just couldn't hold my interest. And that's cool; it's pretty popular so I'm glad plenty of other people enjoy it. Like I said, I'll definitely give the show a chance.
I have to go a bit OT on this OT thread,but it remains within the "zombie genre" so I'm not straying too far.
Babble aside...for any fan of zombie films,I must HIGHLY recommend " Dead Set".
I caught a couple episodes last night on IFC and I'm hooked.
If "The Walking Dead" is half as good as "Dead Set" I'll be quiet happy.
ghosty wrote:Fitzz, I wholeheartedly agree with you! Damn Dead set was good, but I gotta say, it was pretty violent even more me at times
Yes,it was pretty brutal,but it balanced out nicely with the humor and character development...I finally saw the last instalment yesterday and was thoroughly satisfied...fantastic watch.
I think that there will be alot of "expounding" on the story line. Things will be very different, and deviate from the story as it exists now, so I am looking forward to seeing what is in store.
Mannahnin wrote:They're marathoning it right now. We missed ep 4 Thursday night, and it's starting now!
I DVR'ed all 5 episodes the other night and have since watched them all...3 times .
Honestly "Dead Set" has just catapulted into the top 5 on my "zombie hit parade"...now,if "The Walking Dead" is anywhere near as good..I'll be in flesh eater fan heaven.
Well...not bad for the first episode,but certainly nothing great...I'll give it a C+ with potential for improvement based on what I saw last night.
I quiet like the look of the zombies,well done make up/effects department and the storyline is fairly good...but..
The acting was way OTT at points and completely wooden at others,I'm hoping this is just a case of the actors "finding the rhythm" of their characters.
One of my biggest personal complaints is that all the chaos looked way to organized and clean...hundreds of cars used to represent various "mass exoduses" in various towns and cities all looking as though they were simply driven off the dealers lot and parked in odd ways...not a smashed window or drop of blood to mar they're freshly waxed surfaces...or random toys scattered about for those "dear lord they ate the children" moments...each toy looking fresh out the box...hell even the newspapers blowing down the street looked crisp and clean...call me silly...but the post zombie outbreak world shouldn't look so ...clean.
I thought I saw busted up cars, and the buildings certainly looked trashed. I love end of the world stuff too; original Dawn of the Dead + first two episodes of The Stand FTW!
I thought it was pretty good. After watching Dead Set, and seeing 28 Days Later yet again on Saturday, it was kind of neat to get retro-style slow(er) zombies.
The acting isn't awesome, yet, but as you say, the actors are finding their characters. I do think the clear focus on the characters and the human drama is cool; it puts more weight on the actors' shoulders, but is definitely the key to giving the show the depth needed for an ongoing series.
You know...I've been called that at times..I can't begin to imagine why.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:I thought I saw busted up cars, and the buildings certainly looked trashed. I love end of the world stuff too; original Dawn of the Dead + first two episodes of The Stand FTW!
I thought it was pretty good. After watching Dead Set, and seeing 28 Days Later yet again on Saturday, it was kind of neat to get retro-style slow(er) zombies.
The acting isn't awesome, yet, but as you say, the actors are finding their characters. I do think the clear focus on the characters and the human drama is cool; it puts more weight on the actors' shoulders, but is definitely the key to giving the show the depth needed for an ongoing series.
Yes..there were some damaged/busted up vehicles,but if you noticed most of those were used for "close shots",in most of the wide "look at all the mayhem" shots...the vehicles were for the most part "dealer fresh".
IIRC in one scene the lead character peers into an abandoned car and the interior is absolutely immaculate...even glistening with armour all.
I know it sounds exceedingly picky...but I just felt things appeared to "fresh".
I do enjoy the fact that alot of focus is being placed on characters and they're interactions,as you stated it should definitely lead to some interesting developments and help the overall scope of the show.
I was impressed with the show really. I was surprised at how brutal some of the killings were. Hell Ive seen MOVIES that werent that bad (meant in a good way of course) and I thought the main character was actually going to die when he was under that tank, my wife even said "they cant kill him off yet, hes the main character" lol. Pretty good start I think. I just hope it picks up a little more steam and keeps it up
The fact that many of the cars and props looked new and clean kind of added to it for me. The main character wasn't in a coma for years. This events happen after he is out for a few weeks/months. The idea that things have happened rapidly and very soon to him awakening are interesting. This isn't months or years after an outbreak.
I don't think every car out there would be on fire and exploded in a zombie apocalypse. In fact most would probably be abandoned in a traffic jam and still have the dealer sticker on them if the guy was out for a test drive.
The one thing with zombie apocalypses that gets me though is I really think the military would do a much better job at killing em all. I dunno maybe I'm giving the military too much credit, but seriously.. with the kinda firepower that's out there these days... shambling zombies wouldn't stand a chance. Worse case, just take off and MOAB them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
And that tank looked perfectly fine, why would the crew bother leaving? I'd shut myself inside like the sheriff did and just drive over all the zombies and squish their heads all over the asphalt.
And that tank looked perfectly fine, why would the crew bother leaving? I'd shut myself inside like the sheriff did and just drive over all the zombies and squish their heads all over the asphalt.
Ran out of fuel?
Infected crew member died and then reanimated and scared them out?
Necros wrote:I don't think every car out there would be on fire and exploded in a zombie apocalypse. In fact most would probably be abandoned in a traffic jam and still have the dealer sticker on them if the guy was out for a test drive.
The one thing with zombie apocalypses that gets me though is I really think the military would do a much better job at killing em all. I dunno maybe I'm giving the military too much credit, but seriously.. with the kinda firepower that's out there these days... shambling zombies wouldn't stand a chance. Worse case, just take off and MOAB them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
And that tank looked perfectly fine, why would the crew bother leaving? I'd shut myself inside like the sheriff did and just drive over all the zombies and squish their heads all over the asphalt.
It's not that I believe that every car should have been a burning wreck or drenched in blood.it's just that I prefer a bit less "clean" in my chaos.
As far as Military success in dealing with a hypothetical zombie apocalypse,I'm very sceptical that it could be contained...the military simply doesn't have the numbers/resources to be every place at once.
The difficulty of zombie films is that I really don't support the premise. I don't know about UK et al but "old style zombies" are really easy to take down. Put on some proer motorcylcle leathers and helmet and you're pretty much invulnerable. peop0le don't actually have that great of a bite pressure. Then its Zombie Olympics time.
Frazzled wrote:The difficulty of zombie films is that I really don't support the premise. I don't know about UK et al but "old style zombies" are really easy to take down. Put on some proer motorcylcle leathers and helmet and you're pretty much invulnerable. peop0le don't actually have that great of a bite pressure. Then its Zombie Olympics time.
With most movies, especially horror, you just have to give some in the reality department. I am hoping that this series builds on the first episode in a good way. If they focus on the human drama in a post zombie world and not so much on ZOMG ZOMBIES it may run well for awhile. Simply put, zombies shouldn't be the main selling point for this story.
Necros wrote:The one thing with zombie apocalypses that gets me though is I really think the military would do a much better job at killing em all. I dunno maybe I'm giving the military too much credit, but seriously.. with the kinda firepower that's out there these days... shambling zombies wouldn't stand a chance. Worse case, just take off and MOAB them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Read World War Z, it covers why the military is poorly suited for dealing with zombies at the Battle of Yonkers and in the follow-up when they actually get their stuff together and retake the continent.
Basically, our military has evolved to shock and awe a target and disable them. Neither of these things work against a 'fearless' opponent that cannot be disabled, only killed.
In your example, a MOAB would only kill the zombies that it directly crushed the skulls of. Any that were 'wounded' or chopped up would still be viable and need to be dispatched. Not to mention loss of infrastructure.
And what did work?
Spoiler:
Old fashioned firing lines, discipline, lots of ammunition and the simplest possible rifles
They deal with the problem of the "old Style" Zombie by stating its the numbers that get you...one is easy to kill, two, three...so long as you have the bullets...but who gang "all hopped up and hungry" will give you trouble...
I saw the zombies as being a blend of the two schools of thought...when they saw the cop on horse, they all got moving pretty sharpish after him...but when they are just 'chilling' and walking around, they are fairly sedate. Maybe they are like orks, they feed off each others 'emotions' = more need/hunger, more drive to move quicker...
I enjoyed it...I especially liked to see the anguish in the mans eyes trying to decide to kill his zombie wife. Very well done.
Frazzled wrote:The difficulty of zombie films is that I really don't support the premise. I don't know about UK et al but "old style zombies" are really easy to take down. Put on some proer motorcylcle leathers and helmet and you're pretty much invulnerable. peop0le don't actually have that great of a bite pressure. Then its Zombie Olympics time.
The premise behind zombie films ,IMO,is actually quiet easy to believe...I mean sure they're are quiet a few people,you and myself included that are pretty good with firearms,and who could perhaps formulate "survival plans".
However,I assure you,they're plenty of people out there who would panic and eventually get themselves infected...after that it's a simple matter of numbers and time...even the most well armed and prepared person couldn't remain vigilant forever.
For Example (once again) I'll use my experiences after Hurricane Katrina,there were thousands upon thousands of people simply wandering around,with absolutely zero idea of what to do next simply because the electric teet had gone off and no one was telling them what they should do,now of course there were those who organized and took care of them self and others...but trust me...it was pretty chaotic...and no one was eating each other...and everyone basically knew that "help" would eventually arive.
Now if you took this same sort of situation,and tossed in the hungry dead...on a national level...understanding just how rapidly the system could fall apart is easy.
FITZZ wrote:
Now if you took this same sort of situation,and tossed in the hungry dead...on a national level...understanding just how rapidly the system could fall apart is easy.
One day that occur. And the time for Man will be over. The time for Weinie Legions will have begun.
FITZZ wrote:However,I assure you,they're plenty of people out there who would panic and eventually get themselves infected...
Unfortunately, this would be me. I think Zombieland handled that part the best with rule #1... Fatties will be the first to go.
I also watch those survival shows on Discovery & History Channel, etc.. yet if I was dumped in the middle of the amazon, I'd be poisoned and killed and eaten within about 10 minutes.
I wouldn't mind being rich enough to build a fully stocked compound in the middle of nowhere, with electrified 20' fences all around it, solar power and my own private & independent water and sewer stuff. And sentry guns too. Oh and a moat. No one has moats anymore...
The problem I have with zombies is the initial spread. Most sources put bite -> zombie at ~24 hours.
Given that zombies tend to (from what we see) mostly kill a victim and eat/rip them apart before moving onto another victim (the "I don't need to be fast, I just need to be faster than you" defense), from an initial zombie to even a moderately sized outbreak would take quite a while and a lot of luck. Especially if we are talking about the traditional shuffle/fast walk/jog type zombies.
Though if I were plotting to zombify the world, I would put infected meat/matter in lots of products - get a sizable initial pool of zombies that way rather than unleash a few "live" zombies on some unsuspecting town. Gets you a widespread, hard to combat distribution, an unknown initial vector and a potentially large number of initial zombies.
FITZZ wrote:However,I assure you,they're plenty of people out there who would panic and eventually get themselves infected...
Unfortunately, this would be me. I think Zombieland handled that part the best with rule #1... Fatties will be the first to go.
I also watch those survival shows on Discovery & History Channel, etc.. yet if I was dumped in the middle of the amazon, I'd be poisoned and killed and eaten within about 10 minutes.
I wouldn't mind being rich enough to build a fully stocked compound in the middle of nowhere, with electrified 20' fences all around it, solar power and my own private & independent water and sewer stuff. And sentry guns too. Oh and a moat. No one has moats anymore...
Meh not that point. Think of it like the end of the original Night of the Living Dead. Redneck posses clearing up the outbreak, easier than doctors doing it.
But we're sidetracking the thread-my apology.
SilverMK2 wrote:The problem I have with zombies is the initial spread. Most sources put bite -> zombie at ~24 hours.
Given that zombies tend to (from what we see) mostly kill a victim and eat/rip them apart before moving onto another victim (the "I don't need to be fast, I just need to be faster than you" defense), from an initial zombie to even a moderately sized outbreak would take quite a while and a lot of luck. Especially if we are talking about the traditional shuffle/fast walk/jog type zombies.
Though if I were plotting to zombify the world, I would put infected meat/matter in lots of products - get a sizable initial pool of zombies that way rather than unleash a few "live" zombies on some unsuspecting town. Gets you a widespread, hard to combat distribution, an unknown initial vector and a potentially large number of initial zombies.
Well, it depends on the sources you going on as to the speed/rate of infection/reanimation...but for the most part (Using most popular zombie lore) a victim of a bite reanimates between 5 to 10 minutes after dying,so while a Pearson who is bitten on say..the arm may take 24 hours or so to die,he will reanimate shortly after death.
And of course some one who dies quickly (gets their throat torn out) will be back up and munching fairly rapidly.
So from a geometrical perspective,spread of infection could rapidly become overwhelming,for example...person A infects his family,they move on to infect the neighbors and so on...some people run to the hospital..were they die and infect others,some simply run off and die...only to eventually get up and go for a snack,police are called in to investigate...some are bitten...and so on and so on in hundreds of cities and towns...
And if you factor in the Romero mythos that you don't even have to be bitten to reanimate...the virus spreads even faster.
FITZZ wrote:Well, it depends on the sources you going on as to the speed/rate of infection/reanimation...but for the most part (Using most popular zombie lore) a victim of a bite reanimates between 5 to 10 minutes after dying,so while a Pearson who is bitten on say..the arm may take 24 hours or so to die,he will reanimate shortly after death.
And of course some one who dies quickly (gets their throat torn out) will be back up and munching fairly rapidly.
See, I tend to go with the "you have to be alive long enough for the virus to get a foothold in the brain before you can reanimate" school of zombies. It is that I was basing my rate of progression on. Most people are who are encountered will be killed and eaten by zombies before the virus can take hold.
So from a geometrical perspective,spread of infection could rapidly become overwhelming,for example...person A infects his family,they move on to infect the neighbors and so on...some people run to the hospital..were they die and infect others,some simply run off and die...only to eventually get up and go for a snack,police are called in to investigate...some are bitten...and so on and so on in hundreds of cities and towns...
Of course, this infection rate (where people do not really have to be alive for the virus to take hold - where infection is almost instantaneous/the virus can infiltrate recently dead cells to bring about reanimation) would be seriously fast. You could have potentially hundreds of zombies in the first hours of an outbreak.
And if you factor in the Romero mythos that you don't even have to be bitten to reanimate...the virus spreads even faster.
Added to which you can get zombies popping up "behind your own lines" if people suicide or die in accidents - a very dangerous thing.
FITZZ wrote:Well, it depends on the sources you going on as to the speed/rate of infection/reanimation...but for the most part (Using most popular zombie lore) a victim of a bite reanimates between 5 to 10 minutes after dying,so while a Pearson who is bitten on say..the arm may take 24 hours or so to die,he will reanimate shortly after death.
And of course some one who dies quickly (gets their throat torn out) will be back up and munching fairly rapidly.
See, I tend to go with the "you have to be alive long enough for the virus to get a foothold in the brain before you can reanimate" school of zombies. It is that I was basing my rate of progression on. Most people are who are encountered will be killed and eaten by zombies before the virus can take hold.
So from a geometrical perspective,spread of infection could rapidly become overwhelming,for example...person A infects his family,they move on to infect the neighbors and so on...some people run to the hospital..were they die and infect others,some simply run off and die...only to eventually get up and go for a snack,police are called in to investigate...some are bitten...and so on and so on in hundreds of cities and towns...
Of course, this infection rate (where people do not really have to be alive for the virus to take hold - where infection is almost instantaneous/the virus can infiltrate recently dead cells to bring about reanimation) would be seriously fast. You could have potentially hundreds of zombies in the first hours of an outbreak.
And if you factor in the Romero mythos that you don't even have to be bitten to reanimate...the virus spreads even faster.
Added to which you can get zombies popping up "behind your own lines" if people suicide or die in accidents - a very dangerous thing.
Exactly how Romero explained how rapidly his dead were spreading,not only did the bite spread the infection and cause death...but anyone who died,regardless of reason..so long as the brain was intact,got back up and killed.
So,for example ..you have the SWAT team in the opening of the original Dawn of the Dead shooting people down...well,those people all get back up with a really bad case of the munchies..even though they've never been bitten.
Well, I suppose that initial zombie outbreaks *could* feature an airborne component with a fairly low percentage of infection to help the zombies get over the hump as it were in terms of critical mass.
As for The Walking Dead, I liked the show. I hope it doesn't devolve into a "Lost" type experience where the humans are busier bickering and getting caught up in love triangles than surviving.
It would be interesting to see flashbacks of how the various protagonists survived/reacted to the initial outbreak
If you just finished polishing off 2 racks of ribs and a bunch of potato skins, then suddenly had a heart attack and died and came back a zombie... would you be hungry for brains right off the bat? Or would you be too full for a while?
Necros wrote:If you just finished polishing off 2 racks of ribs and a bunch of potato skins, then suddenly had a heart attack and died and came back a zombie... would you be hungry for brains right off the bat? Or would you be too full for a while?
Oh great, now I'm going to be up all night trying to figure that out.
shuffling around awkwardly and groaning works up an appetite pretty quickly I hear. Feel free to think of any suitably sexual innuendo based on that statement - I'm going to go get ribs.
Necros wrote:If you just finished polishing off 2 racks of ribs and a bunch of potato skins, then suddenly had a heart attack and died and came back a zombie... would you be hungry for brains right off the bat? Or would you be too full for a while?
Well, I'm not really certain about the "Braaains" zombies as I absolutely loathe most of those films and the whole "brain eating zombie" genre..however..
In the film "Day of the Dead",the character of Dr. "Frankenstein" Logan,after removing a zombies stomach,goes on to hypothesize that zombies don't eat us for nourishment,but rather operate on some "deep instinct."
So to answer your question (at least from that perspective) even if you had eaten a huge filling meal and then had a heart attack and reanimated,you'd still attack and feed on the living right off the bat.
But what if they ate loads? Like, 4 racks of ribs two dozen potato skins AND a litre of beer. Surely, surely they'd be a bit put off by munching down on some poor sod.
ghosty wrote:But what if they ate loads? Like, 4 racks of ribs two dozen potato skins AND a litre of beer. Surely, surely they'd be a bit put off by munching down on some poor sod.
Wouldn't matter...even if you had spent the past five hours gorging yourself at an all you can eat buffet...even if you had reached the point that you couldn't possibly stomach even one wafer thin mint...if you died at that moment and reanimated..you'd leap (well as much as any zombie can leap) from your table and devour the waiters face.
Surely though, if governed by the Monty Python laws, surely if said zombie whom before being a zombie couldn't even have one wafer thin mint, surely eating a waiter would cause him to explode :?
ghosty wrote:Surely though, if governed by the Monty Python laws, surely if said zombie whom before being a zombie couldn't even have one wafer thin mint, surely eating a waiter would cause him to explode :?
Well...perhaps you have a point,but even after the zombie exploded...it would still attempt to bite/eat any who ventured near...assuming it's head was intact.
On a Python related side note...if John Cleese were to become a zombie...would he have a silly shamble??
ghosty wrote:Surely though, if governed by the Monty Python laws, surely if said zombie whom before being a zombie couldn't even have one wafer thin mint, surely eating a waiter would cause him to explode :?
You seem to forget that having an exploded stomach doesn't really matter to a zombie
Though it would cause them some postural problems as the abdominal muscles stabilise the torso.
My problem with people always thinking the military would crush the zombies is thus
Yes they have the means to blow the gak out of zombies. The problem is, they will ALSO be taking in casualties from the zombies attacking people. So wounded and ready to turn, they will potentially have a gak load of soon to be zombies in their safe zones, as well as fighting them out in the warzone. And seriously if a real life zombie outbreak happened, they wouldnt be prepared for something like that. All those wounded and bitten people would then turn, and lash out and bite/wound others inside. It would spread like wild fire in the safe zones.
Thats where the whole zombie thing gets its strengths. Sure they are slow (talking old school of course) but they are pretty much with out number, and they spread faster then a cold. So even after a short time frame the small well equipped military forces would be over run with thousands of zombies. That would be crushing just with the amount of bodies.
SilverMK2 wrote:I also doubt whether the UK has 65+ odd million bullets on hand if the worst case happened and most of the UK population became infected.
I have no doubt as to whether the US has 250+ million bullets (as we all know the US likes blowing the crap out of things ).
250MM bullets, thats just a good afternoon shooting.
ON the positive, its my understanding there are exactly 2.7878689 cricket bats per person in the UK. As Shawn of the Dead has shown us, no Brit need fear the Zombiepocalypse once equipped with a right proper cricket bat.
Frazzled wrote:ON the positive, its my understanding there are exactly 2.7878689 cricket bats per person in the UK. As Shawn of the Dead has shown us, no Brit need fear the Zombiepocalypse once equipped with a right proper cricket bat.
The sad thing is that the majority of them will be cheap cricket bats that break after a couple of skulls. I've broken at least 2 bats playing cricket (one really cheap bat and one cheap-ish bat). And that was just hitting a cricket ball
Plus most people don't treat their bats properly - oiling and tempering them before use, etc.
No wonder we don't have an Empire any more *tears barely restrained*
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
As for The Walking Dead, I liked the show. I hope it doesn't devolve into a "Lost" type experience where the humans are busier bickering and getting caught up in love triangles than surviving.
I doubt it will turn into Lost, but you realize that the core zombie genre (and most great zombie movies) is actually more about the human interaction and how human's handle the zombies, than the zombies themselves, right?
The question of zombie outbreaks comes up with my friends every now and then. Maybe years ago there might have been more of a problem but I feel that these days, with so much zombie fiction out there, I think the zombies wouldn't get far. The initial wave would no doubt take a few, but all it would take would be a news story or two, and people would be like "hey just like the movies, shoot them in the head, no problem."
After reading the first part of the comic, and watching the first episode of the show I think that this is a fairly realistic portrayal of what could happen during a zombie apocalypse. I look forward to both watching and reading more.
Because they filmed it in Atlanta, it was both eerie and awesome that I recognized the locations.
I'm only half way through the first episode (I apparently have a much lower threshold to horror than I used to ) but it is pretty good.
It is interesting trying to figure out what kind of zombies these are.
Spoiler:
The little girl zombie at the start picked up a cuddly animal, so they obviously recognise certain things... the zombies locked in the hospital didn't just bull charge against the doors when they noticed the policeman standing outside, they just tried to reach through the gap in the chained doors, etc...
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm only half way through the first episode (I apparently have a much lower threshold to horror than I used to ) but it is pretty good.
It is interesting trying to figure out what kind of zombies these are.
Spoiler:
The little girl zombie at the start picked up a cuddly animal, so they obviously recognise certain things... the zombies locked in the hospital didn't just bull charge against the doors when they noticed the policeman standing outside, they just tried to reach through the gap in the chained doors, etc...
They seem to be similar to Romero zombies,particularly the ones depicted in "Day of the Dead" and to a lesser degree "Land of the Dead",in which zombies were shown to retain some memories/skills from when they had been alive.
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm only half way through the first episode (I apparently have a much lower threshold to horror than I used to ) but it is pretty good.
It is interesting trying to figure out what kind of zombies these are.
Spoiler:
The little girl zombie at the start picked up a cuddly animal, so they obviously recognise certain things... the zombies locked in the hospital didn't just bull charge against the doors when they noticed the policeman standing outside, they just tried to reach through the gap in the chained doors, etc...
They seem to be similar to Romero zombies,particularly the ones depicted in "Day of the Dead" and to a lesser degree "Land of the Dead",in which zombies were shown to retain some memories/skills from when they had been alive.
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm only half way through the first episode (I apparently have a much lower threshold to horror than I used to ) but it is pretty good.
It is interesting trying to figure out what kind of zombies these are.
Spoiler:
The little girl zombie at the start picked up a cuddly animal, so they obviously recognise certain things... the zombies locked in the hospital didn't just bull charge against the doors when they noticed the policeman standing outside, they just tried to reach through the gap in the chained doors, etc...
They seem to be similar to Romero zombies,particularly the ones depicted in "Day of the Dead" and to a lesser degree "Land of the Dead",in which zombies were shown to retain some memories/skills from when they had been alive.
Like the zombie trying to use the door handle.
Exactly,she retained the rudimentary knowledge that the door handle opened doors,as well as the knowledge that the house had been hers...or at least where she and her family had been hiding out.
I think if that really could happen, they would retain some type of reflex or strong memory of some kind. That stuff gets embedded into your brain that as I said, its a reflex or something along those lines. Weather or not a zombie would actually KNOW what its doing is another topic
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
As for The Walking Dead, I liked the show. I hope it doesn't devolve into a "Lost" type experience where the humans are busier bickering and getting caught up in love triangles than surviving.
I doubt it will turn into Lost, but you realize that the core zombie genre (and most great zombie movies) is actually more about the human interaction and how human's handle the zombies, than the zombies themselves, right?
Yes, I do realize that - I guess what I was trying to say was that I hope we continue to get the story. I'm curious as to how the outbreak started, what's being done (if anything) to combat it, and are there safe zones? I actually have a great amount of faith in AMC as after Mad Men they can practically do no wrong.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
As for The Walking Dead, I liked the show. I hope it doesn't devolve into a "Lost" type experience where the humans are busier bickering and getting caught up in love triangles than surviving.
I doubt it will turn into Lost, but you realize that the core zombie genre (and most great zombie movies) is actually more about the human interaction and how human's handle the zombies, than the zombies themselves, right?
Yes, I do realize that - I guess what I was trying to say was that I hope we continue to get the story. I'm curious as to how the outbreak started, what's being done (if anything) to combat it, and are there safe zones? I actually have a great amount of faith in AMC as after Mad Men they can practically do no wrong.
I own every issue and it doesn't really have flashbacks (so nothing about how the outbreak started - I just assume its a natural disease). As for safe zones an whatnot; well I won't ruin it for you.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
As for The Walking Dead, I liked the show. I hope it doesn't devolve into a "Lost" type experience where the humans are busier bickering and getting caught up in love triangles than surviving.
I doubt it will turn into Lost, but you realize that the core zombie genre (and most great zombie movies) is actually more about the human interaction and how human's handle the zombies, than the zombies themselves, right?
Yes, I do realize that - I guess what I was trying to say was that I hope we continue to get the story. I'm curious as to how the outbreak started, what's being done (if anything) to combat it, and are there safe zones? I actually have a great amount of faith in AMC as after Mad Men they can practically do no wrong.
I own every issue and it doesn't really have flashbacks (so nothing about how the outbreak started - I just assume its a natural disease). As for safe zones an whatnot; well I won't ruin it for you.
I wonder how "true" to the comics AMC plans to be,I imagine they will use the books as reference framework/basic plotting...but I assume they will deviate from time to time...
I do belive that at some point there will be "flash back" sequences in the series if for no other reason than to satisfy the curiosity of the viewers.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
As for The Walking Dead, I liked the show. I hope it doesn't devolve into a "Lost" type experience where the humans are busier bickering and getting caught up in love triangles than surviving.
I doubt it will turn into Lost, but you realize that the core zombie genre (and most great zombie movies) is actually more about the human interaction and how human's handle the zombies, than the zombies themselves, right?
Yes, I do realize that - I guess what I was trying to say was that I hope we continue to get the story. I'm curious as to how the outbreak started, what's being done (if anything) to combat it, and are there safe zones? I actually have a great amount of faith in AMC as after Mad Men they can practically do no wrong.
I own every issue and it doesn't really have flashbacks (so nothing about how the outbreak started - I just assume its a natural disease). As for safe zones an whatnot; well I won't ruin it for you.
I wonder how "true" to the comics AMC plans to be,I imagine they will use the books as reference framework/basic plotting...but I assume they will deviate from time to time...
I do belive that at some point there will be "flash back" sequences in the series if for no other reason than to satisfy the curiosity of the viewers.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
As for The Walking Dead, I liked the show. I hope it doesn't devolve into a "Lost" type experience where the humans are busier bickering and getting caught up in love triangles than surviving.
I doubt it will turn into Lost, but you realize that the core zombie genre (and most great zombie movies) is actually more about the human interaction and how human's handle the zombies, than the zombies themselves, right?
Yes, I do realize that - I guess what I was trying to say was that I hope we continue to get the story. I'm curious as to how the outbreak started, what's being done (if anything) to combat it, and are there safe zones? I actually have a great amount of faith in AMC as after Mad Men they can practically do no wrong.
I own every issue and it doesn't really have flashbacks (so nothing about how the outbreak started - I just assume its a natural disease). As for safe zones an whatnot; well I won't ruin it for you.
I wonder how "true" to the comics AMC plans to be,I imagine they will use the books as reference framework/basic plotting...but I assume they will deviate from time to time...
I do belive that at some point there will be "flash back" sequences in the series if for no other reason than to satisfy the curiosity of the viewers.
The production team (in collaboration with the comics team) has stated there will be similarities between the two but that they will be different. Some characters from the comic won't be in the show and the show will also have a few original characters. They want the show to be it's own entity and not just a carbon copy of the comics. Partially for artistic reasons and partially because they are very different mediums.
How are zombies going to get a horse? They can run like mothers and a kicking horse will kick your arse hardcore.
Besides I thought zombies were after people? If generic mammals we need to get a cctv of the lion den at the local zoo, this could be good (but make some very very fat lions).
Frazzled wrote:How are zombies going to get a horse? They can run like mothers and a kicking horse will kick your arse hardcore.
Besides I thought zombies were after people? If generic mammals we need to get a cctv of the lion den at the local zoo, this could be good (but make some very very fat lions).
Well...in TWD the horse panics,topples over and is basically swarmed by a huge hoard of walkers.
In the other example of zombies munching a horse that I saw ( Romero's "Survival of the Dead"),one of the protagonist is attempting to get the undead to eat something other than people,blah,blah,blah,the zombies end up eating his Daughters (who is now a zombie) horse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I was really reluctant to watch this and be disappointed.
As I respect FITZZ's opinion on this subject, I will now give it a try.
Appreciate it MR,and as I posted earlier in the thread,give Dead Set a look as well.
Well horsies get scared, so presumably if the horse was out of its preferred environment (like say, I dunno, a city for example) and got surrounded, it'd get munched down pretty fast.
And yus, Lion vs zombie would make for some pretty grrreat action!
ghosty wrote:Well horsies get scared, so presumably if the horse was out of its preferred environment (like say, I dunno, a city for example) and got surrounded, it'd get munched down pretty fast.
And yus, Lion vs zombie would make for some pretty grrreat action!
If you said zombie vs killer shark however....
I've actually seen that as well...in an old Fulci zombie flick..a zombie at the bottom of the ocean goes one on one with a shark...neither wins.
ghosty wrote:Of course, if you wanna play Cheesy shark film game, Beat this!
I giggled.
You definitely win with that ghosty,in fact the only film that I can think of of the top of my head that comes close to the awfulness of "megalodon" is an old Roger Corman film called "Up from the Depths"...but I can't really count it because the "shark" isn't really a "Shark".
I live by Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide. Essential reading for the Zombie apocalypse. According to that Zombies only attack humans.
TWD zombies vary only in two ways: they'll eat horses and a normal person can be a carrier for the virus, still rising from the dead despite not being biten by a zombie.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I live by Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide. Essential reading for the Zombie apocalypse. According to that Zombies only attack humans.
If you read the second book (World War Z) - Max Brooks' zombies will actually eat any animals. It is just many are too fast for them to catch. It mentions instances where zombies will dig pits while attempting to catch animals such as rabits which have underground burrows.
I also dislike his survival guide and WWZ for being too "American" in their outlook. They do not really give many tips which would benefit people living in a nation without guns. It also leaves out many ways in which you can lure zombies away from where you are hiding, etc. WWZ also mentioned the UK using "fortified motorways" several times in relation to the successful campaign against the zombies in the UK but gives no indication as to what they were or how they worked which, given how MB makes them out to have been a fantastic idea, is somewhat annoying.
@snurl - most sources (excluding Resident Evil) seem to suggest that the virus only affects humans.
I wish I could agree :( I mean, she's attractive and all but she doesn't do it for me.. nor do any of those anorexically-thin actresses. I like gals that aren't afraid to have a little meat on their bones.
Yeah, I got pissed they just took down a horse. I've lived around them all my life, and in thats situation i'm willing to bet the horse would go schizo and take out a couple of zombies at least.
Loved the first episode though, especialy the very end.
snurl wrote:So.....theoretically speaking....if the zombies get into the zoo and bite the elephants - will there be zombie elephants walking around?
No, only humans can carry the virus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I live by Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide. Essential reading for the Zombie apocalypse. According to that Zombies only attack humans.
If you read the second book (World War Z) - Max Brooks' zombies will actually eat any animals. It is just many are too fast for them to catch. It mentions instances where zombies will dig pits while attempting to catch animals such as rabits which have underground burrows.
I also dislike his survival guide and WWZ for being too "American" in their outlook. They do not really give many tips which would benefit people living in a nation without guns. It also leaves out many ways in which you can lure zombies away from where you are hiding, etc. WWZ also mentioned the UK using "fortified motorways" several times in relation to the successful campaign against the zombies in the UK but gives no indication as to what they were or how they worked which, given how MB makes them out to have been a fantastic idea, is somewhat annoying.
@snurl - most sources (excluding Resident Evil) seem to suggest that the virus only affects humans.
What are you talking about? If anything the survival guide strongly recommends not using guns period. Even hammers and shovels are stressed as being more useful.
snurl wrote:So.....theoretically speaking....if the zombies get into the zoo and bite the elephants - will there be zombie elephants walking around?
No, only humans can carry the virus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I live by Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide. Essential reading for the Zombie apocalypse. According to that Zombies only attack humans.
If you read the second book (World War Z) - Max Brooks' zombies will actually eat any animals. It is just many are too fast for them to catch. It mentions instances where zombies will dig pits while attempting to catch animals such as rabits which have underground burrows.
I also dislike his survival guide and WWZ for being too "American" in their outlook. They do not really give many tips which would benefit people living in a nation without guns. It also leaves out many ways in which you can lure zombies away from where you are hiding, etc. WWZ also mentioned the UK using "fortified motorways" several times in relation to the successful campaign against the zombies in the UK but gives no indication as to what they were or how they worked which, given how MB makes them out to have been a fantastic idea, is somewhat annoying.
@snurl - most sources (excluding Resident Evil) seem to suggest that the virus only affects humans.
What are you talking about? If anything the survival guide strongly recommends not using guns period. Even hammers and shovels are stressed as being more useful.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:What are you talking about? If anything the survival guide strongly recommends not using guns period. Even hammers and shovels are stressed as being more useful.
Aside from many points during the guide where firearms are mentioned
Yes, the guide suggests that other weapons are great for silently killing zombies, but throughout the book it has a very American-centric viewpoint which does not lend itself to survival in places such as Europe which are very densely populated and lack significant numbers of firearms.
So you're a hand to hand specialist now, thus increasing the likelihood one of the buggers is going to bite you? Just get in a car, preferable a double dooley with big bumpers. You'll never worry about a zombie again.
The survival guide which I will stress now, was a fun bit of fiction, annoyed me a lot. It didn't say enough about what to do if you didn't own a gun, which has been previously stated, but it was really uppity about what type of weapon you had. It said ideally you needed some sort of glaive polearm found exclusively in china or somesuch.
"Noo, you cant use a morning star ( I dunno how you would find one in the first place) because swinging it will tire you out, and you'll die horribly as a consequence..."
Automatically Appended Next Post: And zombie elephants can happen!
So you're a hand to hand specialist now, thus increasing the likelihood one of the buggers is going to bite you? Just get in a car, preferable a double dooley with big bumpers. You'll never worry about a zombie again.
Also guns have finite ammo.
Only in canada.
Fighting a Zombie is not a Kung Fu movie. Zombies move at a "shambling" pace and are quite slow. Hence you can just go ahead and hit them in the head with a hammer. The main thing that's stressed is to stay calm and keep you wits about you..
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the American centric view. The top two zombie killing weapons are The Katana Blade and the Shoalin Spade. Last place on the list was the M-16.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Fighting a Zombie is not a Kung Fu movie. Zombies move at a "shambling" pace and are quite slow. Hence you can just go ahead and hit them in the head with a hammer. The main thing that's stressed is to stay calm and keep you wits about you..
And throughout the book it suggests that you keep zombies as far away from you as possible as the closer they get the less calm your are and the harder it is to keep your wits. It suggests that at whatever range you feel comfortable shooting a head sized target at, halve that distance when under the stress of a zombie attack.
As for the American centric view. The top two zombie killing weapons are The Katana Blade and the Shoalin Spade. Last place on the list was the M-16.
I'm not going to argue this too hard, as you yourself have a more American view of the world than I do (I would imagine, as you live in America's hat), not to mention we are discussing a work of fiction on a fictional topic The top rated weapons were indeed non-American in origin. However, and here I speak as someone who has lived on 3 continents and visited countries in a further 2 - a lot of the less general advice in the book is not all that practical if you don't have guns and lots of ammunition
However, as I say, it is a fictional work about fictional things
I understand Silvers point,even though the survival guide does encourage the use of weapons other than firearms,and indeed points out that several are preferable to firearms...it does operate from the premise that one can simply pick and chose from an array of pistols,riffles and such as well...which while very true here in the good ole U.S of A,isn't the case for our brothers and sisters across the pond.
So you're a hand to hand specialist now, thus increasing the likelihood one of the buggers is going to bite you? Just get in a car, preferable a double dooley with big bumpers. You'll never worry about a zombie again.
Also guns have finite ammo.
Only in canada.
Fighting a Zombie is not a Kung Fu movie. Zombies move at a "shambling" pace and are quite slow. Hence you can just go ahead and hit them in the head with a hammer. The main thing that's stressed is to stay calm and keep you wits about you..
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the American centric view. The top two zombie killing weapons are The Katana Blade and the Shoalin Spade. Last place on the list was the M-16.
Again, this tome of idiocy gives amazingly bad advice.
Everyone knows Zombies are slow until they get into range. Hitting them with a hammer is very close biting range. Meanwhile a simple .22 long rifle round, best used for squirrels, is easily applicable from the top of Robot Lincoln or failing a lack of robot Lincolns, and ice cream truck. Why an ice cream truck you ask? Because nobody, not even zombies, would expect anything bad happening when the ice cream man comes. Ice Cream Ice Cream!
For more fun filled entertainment. Get a pick up truck. Get you a hand supply of bats and two by fours. have someone drive maybe 15-20 miles and hour. have another person in the back. Swing for the fences baby.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Fighting a Zombie is not a Kung Fu movie. Zombies move at a "shambling" pace and are quite slow. Hence you can just go ahead and hit them in the head with a hammer. The main thing that's stressed is to stay calm and keep you wits about you..
And throughout the book it suggests that you keep zombies as far away from you as possible as the closer they get the less calm your are and the harder it is to keep your wits. It suggests that at whatever range you feel comfortable shooting a head sized target at, halve that distance when under the stress of a zombie attack.
As for the American centric view. The top two zombie killing weapons are The Katana Blade and the Shoalin Spade. Last place on the list was the M-16.
I'm not going to argue this too hard, as you yourself have a more American view of the world than I do (I would imagine, as you live in America's hat), not to mention we are discussing a work of fiction on a fictional topic The top rated weapons were indeed non-American in origin. However, and here I speak as someone who has lived on 3 continents and visited countries in a further 2 - a lot of the less general advice in the book is not all that practical if you don't have guns and lots of ammunition
However, as I say, it is a fictional work about fictional things
In America's hat we generally don't have guns either but if you recall the premeire long range anit-zombie weapon was the AK-47. Definately not all-american.
So you're a hand to hand specialist now, thus increasing the likelihood one of the buggers is going to bite you? Just get in a car, preferable a double dooley with big bumpers. You'll never worry about a zombie again.
Also guns have finite ammo.
Only in canada.
Fighting a Zombie is not a Kung Fu movie. Zombies move at a "shambling" pace and are quite slow. Hence you can just go ahead and hit them in the head with a hammer. The main thing that's stressed is to stay calm and keep you wits about you..
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the American centric view. The top two zombie killing weapons are The Katana Blade and the Shoalin Spade. Last place on the list was the M-16.
Again, this tome of idiocy gives amazingly bad advice.
Everyone knows Zombies are slow until they get into range. Hitting them with a hammer is very close biting range. Meanwhile a simple .22 long rifle round, best used for squirrels, is easily applicable from the top of Robot Lincoln or failing a lack of robot Lincolns, and ice cream truck. Why an ice cream truck you ask? Because nobody, not even zombies, would expect anything bad happening when the ice cream man comes. Ice Cream Ice Cream!
For more fun filled entertainment. Get a pick up truck. Get you a hand supply of bats and two by fours. have someone drive maybe 15-20 miles and hour. have another person in the back. Swing for the fences baby.
This is Zombie apocalypse SURVIVAL guide. If there's 6 billion zombies a .22 calibre rifle is useless. You only kill zombies as a last resort or if there in your way. It how to survive for decades not for how to retake Zombie New York.
Seriously it's a great book. Hilarious as the entire thing is comical but done in a deadpan style.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:[In America's hat we generally don't have guns either but if you recall the premeire long range anit-zombie weapon was the AK-47. Definately not all-american.
Erm... there are actually quite a few guns in Canada.
As of 2000 AD:
Low Range Estimates
2,400,000 firearms owners
7,200,000 firearms
Medium Range Estimates
3,100,000 firearms owners
9,000,000 firearms
High Range Estimates
3,800,000 firearms owners
11,000,000 firearms
SOURCE: Memorandum of Agreement Respecting the Federal-Provincial Financial Agreement Addressing the Administration of the Firearms Act and Regulations Between The Government of Canada and The Government of the Province of Ontario – APPENDIX ‘A’ SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS, DISCUSSION PAPER (Version #2a) Overview, Analysis & Development of a Baseline Model, Operations Transition Planning, Canadian Firearms Centre, May 19, 1998. NOTE: This Agreement with Ontario was signed by Justice Minister Anne McLellan on December 2, 1999 and by Ontario Solicitor General David Tsubouchi on September 14, 2000
And the AK is noted primarily because it is so reliable. You can do pretty much anything to it and it will keep on working. I am not expert, but I also believe that it uses ammunition that is easy to get.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:[In America's hat we generally don't have guns either but if you recall the premeire long range anit-zombie weapon was the AK-47. Definately not all-american.
Erm... there are actually quite a few guns in Canada.
As of 2000 AD:
Low Range Estimates
2,400,000 firearms owners
7,200,000 firearms
Medium Range Estimates
3,100,000 firearms owners
9,000,000 firearms
High Range Estimates
3,800,000 firearms owners
11,000,000 firearms
pfff, buddy that's nothing. You proved my point.
there are over 300 MILLION guns in America. Enough for every man, woman and child!
Plus those Canadian numbers are mostly bolt action hunting rifles. In America it could be annything from a 9mm handgun to an assualt rifle.
Automatically Appended Next Post: argh, quote mis-fire.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:pfff, buddy that's nothing. You proved my point.
At the higher range, that is 1 for every 3 people. Compare that to the UK where there are roughly 1 gun per 20 people (estimated), most of which are shotguns hidden away on farms, and where the majority of guns are owned by a very limited number of people (ie one person will own several guns) and the quantity of ammunition is significantly lower per weapon.
there are over 300 MILLION guns in America. Enough for every man, woman and child!
Plus those Canadian numbers are mostly bolt action hunting rifles. In America it could be annything from a 9mm handgun to an assualt rifle.
And what is the most desirable weapon to kill zombies? Something that you can't waste ammo with, and that is accurate at long ranges
Plus I would imagine that many Americans would flee north and bring their guns to you
KamikazeCanuck wrote:pfff, buddy that's nothing. You proved my point.
At the higher range, that is 1 for every 3 people. Compare that to the UK where there are roughly 1 gun per 20 people (estimated), most of which are shotguns hidden away on farms, and where the majority of guns are owned by a very limited number of people (ie one person will own several guns) and the quantity of ammunition is significantly lower per weapon.
there are over 300 MILLION guns in America. Enough for every man, woman and child!
Plus those Canadian numbers are mostly bolt action hunting rifles. In America it could be annything from a 9mm handgun to an assualt rifle.
And what is the most desirable weapon to kill zombies? Something that you can't waste ammo with, and that is accurate at long ranges
Plus I would imagine that many Americans would flee north and bring their guns to you
I didn't say Canada had a lower gun ratio than the UK. You live on an island and don't share a border with gun country. You see we have a deal: we ship Marijuana south and they ship guns and crack cocaine north - then everyone's happy.
IIRC the primary riffle encouraged by The Zombie Survival Guide was the Rugger Mini-14...not the AK-47.
Slightly off...Pages 46 and 47 list " The semiautomatic riffle"..as "the superior zombie killer" and goes on to list the M1 Garand,M1 Carbine,Rugger Mini-14 and Mini 30 and the Chinese Type 56 ( aversion of the SKS) as the preferred weapons.
Dont get me wrong, when those shufflers come Ill have my fair share of "do yea feel lucky" on hand. But as for silence, Im going to be using a compound bow. They are VERy quiet, easily strong enough to take out a zombie, can be used at long SAFE ranges, And if Im lucky, I can recover the arrow.
Also, when it comes to arguing about guns, its silly to bring America into it. If you dont like the low gun count in your country, then move out of it. Our borders are pretty easy to get through, just ask our southern neighbors
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Connor McKane wrote:..."Plus those Canadian numbers are mostly bolt action hunting rifles. In America it could be annything from a 9mm handgun to an assualt rifle."
Hey! You looked in my closet! Peeper!
in the closet? Pfff, how Californian of you, under the pillow is getting there
KingCracker wrote:Also, when it comes to arguing about guns, its silly to bring America into it. If you dont like the low gun count in your country, then move out of it. Our borders are pretty easy to get through, just ask our southern neighbors
Yes, because availability of guns is the primary thing I look for in a country to live
Besides which, we are not complaining about there "not being enough guns", we are complaining that the ZSG was too gun/American focused
This is Zombie apocalypse SURVIVAL guide. If there's 6 billion zombies a .22 calibre rifle is useless. You only kill zombies as a last resort or if there in your way. It how to survive for decades not for how to retake Zombie New York.
Seriously it's a great book. Hilarious as the entire thing is comical but done in a deadpan style.
Son, you've never been to a Texas afternoon shootout. 6bn rounds-no problem!
Besides, as noted, just be in the family vehicle. while you reload the little woman drives normally, be bopping along to her favorite radio station or squalking on the cellphone. Hundreds of pedestrians, er zombies yea zombies won't have a chance. And thats NOW...
Can't believe she hit my car in the ing driveway...
KingCracker wrote:Also, when it comes to arguing about guns, its silly to bring America into it. If you dont like the low gun count in your country, then move out of it. Our borders are pretty easy to get through, just ask our southern neighbors
Yes, because availability of guns is the primary thing I look for in a country to live
Besides which, we are not complaining about there "not being enough guns", we are complaining that the ZSG was too gun/American focused
You mean people dont look for that when moving some place new?
This is Zombie apocalypse SURVIVAL guide. If there's 6 billion zombies a .22 calibre rifle is useless. You only kill zombies as a last resort or if there in your way. It how to survive for decades not for how to retake Zombie New York.
Seriously it's a great book. Hilarious as the entire thing is comical but done in a deadpan style.
Son, you've never been to a Texas afternoon shootout. 6bn rounds-no problem!
Besides, as noted, just be in the family vehicle. while you reload the little woman drives normally, be bopping along to her favorite radio station or squalking on the cellphone. Hundreds of pedestrians, er zombies yea zombies won't have a chance. And thats NOW...
Can't believe she hit my car in the ing driveway...
Oh, I fully expect Texas to be the last bastion of humanity in the Zombie Apocalypse. According to the ZSG people have been dealing with zombies since the Roman empire. So the framers probably put the second ammendment in there not to keep the British out of their face but for the inevitable Zombie Apocalypse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:
KingCracker wrote:Also, when it comes to arguing about guns, its silly to bring America into it. If you dont like the low gun count in your country, then move out of it. Our borders are pretty easy to get through, just ask our southern neighbors
Yes, because availability of guns is the primary thing I look for in a country to live
Besides which, we are not complaining about there "not being enough guns", we are complaining that the ZSG was too gun/American focused
Ya, generally when the commonwealth folks talk about how Americans have enough guns to arm their babies with M-16s it wasn't meant as a compliment.
Hey you non Americans can say what you want, but when the proverbial gak hits the fan, we all know where youll come for your post apocalyptic weapons needs. Remember my Canadian friends, I live in the giant mitten (Michigan if your slowed and lost that one in translation) and Ill be glad to serve all your boomstick needs
We can caulk that up as the first sales pitch for arms dealers in the future
So you're a hand to hand specialist now, thus increasing the likelihood one of the buggers is going to bite you? Just get in a car, preferable a double dooley with big bumpers. You'll never worry about a zombie again.
Also guns have finite ammo.
Only in canada.
Fighting a Zombie is not a Kung Fu movie. Zombies move at a "shambling" pace and are quite slow. Hence you can just go ahead and hit them in the head with a hammer. The main thing that's stressed is to stay calm and keep you wits about you..
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the American centric view. The top two zombie killing weapons are The Katana Blade and the Shoalin Spade. Last place on the list was the M-16.
Again, this tome of idiocy gives amazingly bad advice.
Everyone knows Zombies are slow until they get into range. Hitting them with a hammer is very close biting range. Meanwhile a simple .22 long rifle round, best used for squirrels, is easily applicable from the top of Robot Lincoln or failing a lack of robot Lincolns, and ice cream truck. Why an ice cream truck you ask? Because nobody, not even zombies, would expect anything bad happening when the ice cream man comes. Ice Cream Ice Cream!
For more fun filled entertainment. Get a pick up truck. Get you a hand supply of bats and two by fours. have someone drive maybe 15-20 miles and hour. have another person in the back. Swing for the fences baby.
Plus you can spring the sexual deviants that often come with the ice cream trucks on the zombies
Frazzled wrote: Son, you've never been to a Texas afternoon shootout. 6bn rounds-no problem!
Plus considering all of the freaking amazing Texas gunmen out there, I don't even really need a weapon! Good thing I live in Texas. Yeah it's Austin, but there's still gun shops galore.
I do like the idea of a pick-up truck with people in the back wielding baseball bats, though.
Did I mention that my barber has a gun shop/range attached to his shop? I used to go in there (before I shaved my head all the time) to get a cut, and then look at some artillery. Sometimes I even spent some cash and fired a few guns he had at the shop....... thats why I love America people.
As long as he doesnt somehow figure out how to load/fire it into a wave of zombies, Im sure itll be a tense moment or two. Unless he just waits them out
My guess (watching in tomoz) Will be in some cliche'd moment, a survivor will temporarily distract them/shoot some of them so he can make a brake for somewhere, only to get lost, only to find help in the most unlikely of forms. This helper will probs be of some ethnic minority, simply cos they don't want a group of survivors (which im sure there will be) to be completely made of angry white southerners.
KingCracker wrote:As long as he doesnt somehow figure out how to load/fire it into a wave of zombies, Im sure itll be a tense moment or two. Unless he just waits them out
Waiting for zombies to go away never works.. ,just look at both versions of Dawn of the Dead...those zeds hung around the outside of the mall for weeks..of course it's not like they have anyplace else to go.
@ ghosty...I Digz...and I definitely think your on the right track concerning the "great tank escape."
ghosty wrote:My guess (watching in tomoz) Will be in some cliche'd moment, a survivor will temporarily distract them/shoot some of them so he can make a brake for somewhere, only to get lost, only to find help in the most unlikely of forms. This helper will probs be of some ethnic minority, simply cos they don't want a group of survivors (which im sure there will be) to be completely made of angry white southerners.
Choo dig?
Is it alright that I read that with a super deep Shaft/Black guy voice? I think I even heard some Wakacha wakacha wakacha guitar thing in the background too
FITZZ - Hey I know its never smart to try and wait them out, but I mentioned it only because the guy he met earlier in the show mentioned something about waiting it out and they will go away.
I thought the episode was pretty dank. I'm not a horror aficionado like some and I scare fairly easy so the show is still kinda intense. I really like the series so far, and I'm not a big TV watcher so that's saying something. : )
Just finished watching the 1st episode (had to watch it in about 18 parts over several days as I kept on having to pay attention to my wife ) - have to say I am reasonably impressed so far.
A few things:
Spoiler:
I could see the main character's wife "shacking up" with someone else a mile away. Since when are tents in a wood adequate defence against hordes of undead?
Just waiting for the next episode to appear on the internet to download *shakes fist at America getting it on TV ages before the merry ol' England*
SilverMK2 wrote:Just finished watching the 1st episode (had to watch it in about 18 parts over several days as I kept on having to pay attention to my wife ) - have to say I am reasonably impressed so far.
A few things:
Spoiler:
I could see the main character's wife "shacking up" with someone else a mile away. Since when are tents in a wood adequate defence against hordes of undead?
Just waiting for the next episode to appear on the internet to download *shakes fist at America getting it on TV ages before the merry ol' England*
@ Silver.
Spoiler:
I've asked myself the same question,especially after last nights episode...the survivors appear to be camping...not avoiding hordes of flesh eaters...hell,their only "security" is an old man with some binoculars standing on top of a RV trailer.
Another thing that's been puzzling me...how is it that Ricks wife and his old partner believe he's dead?...did they check the hospital?...I mean,Rick was in a coma..it's not like they had no idea where to find him when the outbreak started..I mean,what sort of wife says "Oh,the zombies are rising...well let's go...no we won't go by the hospital to see if my husbands still alive...even though he's been laying in bed in a coma for weeks..let's just go..he's dead ..yup...died already...get in the truck."
I got the idea that his partner & wife had a thing going long before the zombies took over. Like in the very beginning they were talking about women troubles and stuff, but his partner didn't seem to care that much.
Judging by the previews they're all gonna meet up in the next episode.
Necros wrote:I got the idea that his partner & wife had a thing going long before the zombies took over. Like in the very beginning they were talking about women troubles and stuff, but his partner didn't seem to care that much.
Judging by the previews they're all gonna meet up in the next episode.
I had the same sort of idea...that or as Ahtman said his buddy lied to her,it just seems unlikely that,if she were committed to her husband that she'd just bail on him.
SilverMK2 wrote:
Just waiting for the next episode to appear on the internet to download *shakes fist at America getting it on TV ages before the merry ol' England*
FX channel is showing it in the UK this week (think it was FX) saw an advert for it last night, hell it wasn't even me who decided to watch it, my wife immediately said she wanted to see it if it was a series.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:FX channel is showing it in the UK this week (think it was FX) saw an advert for it last night, hell it wasn't even me who decided to watch it, my wife immediately said she wanted to see it if it was a series.
I don't think I get that one - I only have the standard digital freeview. Luckily it is ready for download now
Was kinda disapointed with Episode 2. Totally strayed from the comic and yes they actually stole from Saun of The Dead. Problem is Saun of the Dead is a comedy.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Was kinda disapointed with Episode 2. Totally strayed from the comic
I am shocked. Just shocked. They should have had the comic creators and the development team say it was going to be different from the start. Oh wait, they have been saying that. In fact it was in the thread earlier. It isn't meant to be a carbon copy of the comic, and shouldn't be. If you read the comic and the TV show was exactly the same, there would be no surprises.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Was kinda disapointed with Episode 2. Totally strayed from the comic
I am shocked. Just shocked. They should have had the comic creators and the development team say it was going to be different from the start. Oh wait, they have been saying that. In fact it was in the thread earlier. It isn't meant to be a carbon copy of the comic, and shouldn't be. If you read the comic and the TV show was exactly the same, there would be no surprises.
I was dissapointed because of the part of my comment you cut out.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Was kinda disapointed with Episode 2. Totally strayed from the comic
I am shocked. Just shocked. They should have had the comic creators and the development team say it was going to be different from the start. Oh wait, they have been saying that. In fact it was in the thread earlier. It isn't meant to be a carbon copy of the comic, and shouldn't be. If you read the comic and the TV show was exactly the same, there would be no surprises.
I was dissapointed because of the part of my comment you cut out.
Besides being a personal insult, which is a no no, the rest of your statement still doesn't change a thing. You are complaining that it isn't like the comic when, since the announcement of the show, they have said that the comic and the tv show are/were supposed to be two different experiences, albeit with some similarities. Therefore complaining that something that is supposed to be different is actually different, is a bit silly.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:No, I'm saying borrowing a comedic scene from Shaun of the dead is a bad idea for a Drama.
You cut up my post to make your own point.
Maybe those were the words you should of used, as that still has nothing to do with what you did say, which was that it wasn't 'true to the comic'. I also don't know if you don't know this either, so I will point it out: similar situations do not mean that two things are exactly alike. Shaun of the Dead had them just acct like they were zombies to get past some zombies. In this show they covered themselves in rotting flesh and organs to mask their scent. You could do either scene as serious or funny. I didn't find that part in The Walking Dead to be played for humor at all. If you didn't care for it that is fine, but that doesn't mean that your reasons are very good, or that no one is going to notice that they are poorly thought out.
Necros wrote:Been a while since I saw Shaun of the dead so whatever reference they made, I totally missed...
There was no real reference to Shaun of the Dead, just something that is somewhat reminiscent of it, superficially.
I liked the second episode, though Ill admit the zombie perfume was a bit of a "oh dear" moment for me. Im just glad they are going back in there next week. I want to see what they do to save that racist fella
FITZZ wrote: I can't believe I didn't catch that Greg Nicotero was doing the zombie make up/effects for the series.
I should have known ...
Dunno who that is, but I have to say Im impressed with the look of the zombies.
Greg Nicotero is one of the founders of KNB EFX,and an apprentice of Horror make-up master Tom Savini.
He's done the make up FX for a gak load of films, including work on both George A. Romero's "Day of the Dead" and "Land of the Dead".
KingCracker wrote:I liked the second episode, though Ill admit the zombie perfume was a bit of a "oh dear" moment for me. Im just glad they are going back in there next week. I want to see what they do to save that racist fella
My gf has a passing knowledge of the comic and thinks that when/if they get back to try and save him that he'll be gone, but they'll find a piece of him. He'll later be reintroduced as another character with a much greater antagonistic role later in the series.
KingCracker wrote:I liked the second episode, though Ill admit the zombie perfume was a bit of a "oh dear" moment for me. Im just glad they are going back in there next week. I want to see what they do to save that racist fella
My gf has a passing knowledge of the comic and thinks that when/if they get back to try and save him that he'll be gone, but they'll find a piece of him. He'll later be reintroduced as another character with a much greater antagonistic role later in the series.
Spoiler:
Basically she thinks he'll be the Governor.
I was thinking the same thing but I hope they don't go that way.
Spoiler:
Can't see how that guy can become the leader of an entire community. Plus his brother is with the group too apparently. I think he's just going to be his own character for the show.
There are certain things I was told about the character that makes me think that it won't end up going in that direction. However, since it's already been said that there will be differences between the show and comic it leaves a reasonable doubt.
Needless to say, there is more then one way to make your way to the top of the social ladder and being a "nice guy" or "smart" isn't a prerequisite.
One of the staff at my FLGS will be handing me the first episode today. It's not screening over here yet and I'd rather not wait ages for it to start on Showcase.
Cheese Elemental wrote:One of the staff at my FLGS will be handing me the first episode today. It's not screening over here yet and I'd rather not wait ages for it to start on Showcase.
I'll actually be quite interested to know what your opinon of the episode is Cheese,as I recall we've had a few interesting zombie discussions in the past.
I think that they are still preserving the basic theme of the comic even though they are not following it scene by scene. My friends and I have discussed the deviations and came to the conclusion that the series would be too short if they followed it scene by scene.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:so far each episode has been 1 comic. So on average that's enough for at least 75 episodes.
The first episode followed the "spirit" of the comic. The second not so much.
Well, it would stand to reason that the first episode would attempt to capture the "spirit" of the comic,especially since the producers are aware of the existing fan base for the comic.
It's been stated that,with the series,the plan is to use the comic as a template,but to weave in there own ideas and stories...how well that will work out remains to be seen.
On a side note...episode three airs tonight,and I have to say I'm looking forward to it.
Show is awesome, although the relationships get FETHING ANNOYING AND SOAP OPERA-Y at times. The parts with the zombies are awesome though. Guts is my favorite episode so far. I hope there is more zombie violence like that soon, because "LEave it to the frogs" or whatever the episode was called sucked for the most part.
I thought the third episode (Tell it to the Frogs) was pretty good,more of a "bridge" episode,but still nicely done.
I was a bit surprised to see Norman Reedus (Boondock Saints 1 &2) appearing as Daryl Dixon ( brother of the red neck left chained on the roof),and am hoping he and Michael Rookers character don't get killed off to soon.
Overall I'm really enjoying the series so far and find my self (for the first time in quite a while) actually looking forward to a television program.
Finally saw these first episodes. they were interesting but meh. The personal drama at the camp is already getting old. GC noted in episode 2 when the guts guys are swiinnging through the bad guys "why don't they just shoot them?" "They don't have any guns." "Why? Thats stupid." Thats my girl!
I think Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead may have ruined all serious zombie films for me. I keep expecting some urban middle class Brits to leap out from an alley to the rifts of early 80s rock music with golf clubs and kricket bats and start going to town.
I liked the 3rd episode.. But I noticed in the previews they said there's just 3 episodes left... so the whole season is 6 episodes? Don't think you can count that as a season.. more like a mini series that takes too long.
I'm sure Michael Rooker will be back, with a vengeance. Always liked that guy for some reason, but he always plays side characters that are aholes.
Necros wrote:I liked the 3rd episode.. But I noticed in the previews they said there's just 3 episodes left... so the whole season is 6 episodes? Don't think you can count that as a season.. more like a mini series that takes too long.
I'm sure Michael Rooker will be back, with a vengeance. Always liked that guy for some reason, but he always plays side characters that are aholes.
First part, Im guessing its so short simply because it started a bit late in the season. I was a bit let down that its so short as well, but hey, if they have enough viewers you KNOW they will have mega budget for the 2nd season.
And I too like Micheal Rooker, I think its his voice. And he seems very believable as an Ahole. Hell he might be an Ahole for all I know, I just know he plays a good one
I thought the 3rd was pretty good as well. It answered a few questions, and raised more. Ive been wondering about the dudes wife getting it on with his partner, and now it makes sense. But now I want to know WHY his partner told her that. Im hoping he was just to scared to go into the hospital and just kind of winged it. But my wife thinks hes just a "slutty man"
Next week Im looking forward too as well. Really curious to see when Micheal Rooker comes back too, you know that guy has done flipped his lid
I thought the 3rd episode was excellent. That was an example of how the show can deviate completely from the comic and be good.
As for those getting bored with the human drama well then you probably won' like the show. In The Walking Dead zombies actually are irrelevant for months at a time. It's more about how humanity can survive after civilization has been destroyed and the evil that men do without the rule of law to control them. Which I prefer because people just getting eaten by Zombies for like 70 episodes in a row would get boring and stupid.
Anyways, yes season one is only scheduled for 6 episodes. AMC was a bit skittish about the IP because:
A) It's a comic book
B) It's a comic book about friggin Zombies
However ratings have been excellent so hopefully they'll renew especially since episode 3 restored my faith in the show.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:As for those getting bored with the human drama well then you probably won' like the show. In The Walking Dead zombies actually are irrelevant for months at a time. It's more about how humanity can survive after civilization has been destroyed and the evil that men do without the rule of law to control them. Which I prefer because people just getting eaten by Zombies for like 70 episodes in a row would get boring and stupid.
On the flip side heavy human drama in a Zombie TV series is... er... ok.
Spoiler:
Why exactly is he going back again? Thats stupid. Why not just get a car, and drive back to the other guy's house? "Hey like, we're here and there's a spot in the mountains we're hanging out at. On second thought the zombies are coming so you might stay put. "
And why exactly does almost no one have firearms? I mean come on, isn't this set in Georgia? Even the squirrels are armed there.
Frazzled wrote:On the flip side heavy human drama in a Zombie TV series is... er... ok.
Spoiler:
Why exactly is he going back again? Thats stupid. Why not just get a car, and drive back to the other guy's house? "Hey like, we're here and there's a spot in the mountains we're hanging out at. On second thought the zombies are coming so you might stay put. "
And why exactly does almost no one have firearms? I mean come on, isn't this set in Georgia? Even the squirrels are armed there.
That's just the kind of man Rick is: an idealist.
Spoiler:
Don't worry he'll change...a lot. The zombie wasteland we'll change everyone to be much more......pragmatic for lack of a better term.
Guns are everywhere, just about knowing where they are. Most people with guns in their closet are now zombies. So it didn't help them out much.
Spoiler:
Once again, don't worry they'll become ridiculously heavily armed as time goes on. We're talking hardcore military hardware here.
Its not idealism its stupidity. Its much more tactically prudent to just get a car and go get the guy or warn him. By the time the guy gets to the city within radio range he's a NOMNOMNOM target.
One of the things the show seems to be presenting so far is that Shane is more concerned with group survival in the face of society's collapse and at this point is shown as kind of a jerk, where Rick is holding on to the pre-zombie apocalypse morality and codes. Risking four peoples lives to save a jackass when they may be last settlement for all the know. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but they seem to be working on that dynamic.
Not spoilers:
It be awesome if the show surprised everyone and Shane got turned into a Zombie and leads a Zombie to take out the last human outpost. NOMNOMNOM.
I fugure the funny Asian guy is toast. I figure the guy who dropped the key will lose his life trying to save the redneck or maybe eaten by redneck.
Why is the guy who dropped the key even going back? I'd say you deserve the NOMNOMNOM time you er, and dance a little jig saying it.
Its not idealism its stupidity. Its much more tactically prudent to just get a car and go get the guy or warn him. By the time the guy gets to the city within radio range he's a NOMNOMNOM target.
Oh, don't get me wrong, no way I would do it. I think its totally stupid too and it didn't happen in the comic but I'm not upset about it because it's still in line with Rick (and Glenn's) character (at this point of their lives).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:One of the things the show seems to be presenting so far is that Shane is more concerned with group survival in the face of society's collapse and at this point is shown as kind of a jerk, where Rick is holding on to the pre-zombie apocalypse morality and codes. Risking four peoples lives to save a jackass when they may be last settlement for all the know. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but they seem to be working on that dynamic.
Absolutely, but from Rick's point of view he just woke up yesterday. He's literally got that "sucker who was born yesterday" kinda thing going right now. Everyone else has a month headstart learning the lessons of Zombieland.
I suspect next episode will be about 45 minutes of pure zombie carnage.
This show is great so far, I'm loving all of the dynamics in it. Plus it looks like the fellowship is going to run into a gang so that should also be interesting!
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I suspect one of the racist brothers will kill the Black guy. That's not a spoiler cuz those guys are new characters.
I've mulled that over a bit myself,and I wonder if the situation will play out that way,of course Daryl will want revenge for his brother being left on the roof,but I'm expecting some sort of twist .
So is it supposed to be even slightly ambiguous as to if "crazy redneck" was eaten by zombies or if he actually sawed off own hand and is running loose?
I need to go rewatch the end for clarity as I was sort of distracted when I watched it...
CT GAMER wrote:So is it supposed to be even slightly ambiguous as to if "crazy redneck" was eaten by zombies or if he actually sawed off own hand and is running loose?
I need to go rewatch the end for clarity as I was sort of distracted when I watched it...
I'm fairly certain that the shows producers wouldn't have bothered with getting Micheal Rooker to play the part of "the crazy redneck" if they planed on killing him off after just a single episode,I'm fairly sure he'll be popping back up again...and most likely he'll be slightly perturbed about having to chop his hand off to escape being eaten.
Just caught up on episodes 2 and 3. Still keeping me interested, though I think some of the worst dynamics in the show are between the main character, his wife and the other cop... just not feeling it.
So, if Merl's brother shot that mexican guy in the butt with an arrow, wouldn't it be the same arrow he's pulling out of zombies' heads after he kills em, and thus, infect said mexican guy?
Necros wrote:So, if Merl's brother shot that mexican guy in the butt with an arrow, wouldn't it be the same arrow he's pulling out of zombies' heads after he kills em, and thus, infect said mexican guy?
Ooh potential jumping the shark moment. And thus the second to last vestige of humanity is wiped out...
I was wondering just how he was going to ensure they were clean before he shot what they were all going to next eat... (hehe... just realised they could have Mexican food RE the above comments ).
Have to say that the zombies are behaving quite strangely compared to what I have seen in other films, which is a good thing in some ways I suppose, but it is somewhat throwing me off sometimes.
SilverMK2 wrote:I was wondering just how he was going to ensure they were clean before he shot what they were all going to next eat... (hehe... just realised they could have Mexican food RE the above comments ).
Have to say that the zombies are behaving quite strangely compared to what I have seen in other films, which is a good thing in some ways I suppose, but it is somewhat throwing me off sometimes.
Frazzled wrote:how are they acting that is throwing you off?
It is hard to pin it down... usually it is when they are focussing on a zombie close up...
Spoiler:
such in the first episode when there was (form memory) a kind of long haired male zombie in the bus the main character rode past on his horse. He featured several times in close ups of the zombie crowd and looked like he had quite a lot of brains (no pun intended), which to my mind does not fit with how zombies behave... he looked almost quizical.
In the same way...
Spoiler:
there have been several times where the zombies show a reaction other than indifference and "I'm going to eat you" - a certain overacting to convey what they are doing perhaps? (such as when the main character and the Chinese guy are walking through the crowd covered in gore and various zombies sniff at them - some almost give a zombie wink and a nod to fellow zombies, while when the rain starts to wash off the gore, some of the zombies are almost looking at each other going "Hey, are these guys food?!?
Not sure if you will get the same impression from watching it and I'm not saying that it is spoiling things for me... just they are different zombies to what we usually see. As mentioned in the begining of the thread:
Spoiler:
various zombies use tools - rocks etc to smash things up, the black dude's zombie-wife in the first episode tries to open the door. The zombies also seem to exhibit some limited emotions - interest, anger, etc
Frazzled wrote:how are they acting that is throwing you off?
It is hard to pin it down... usually it is when they are focussing on a zombie close up...
Spoiler:
such in the first episode when there was (form memory) a kind of long haired male zombie in the bus the main character rode past on his horse. He featured several times in close ups of the zombie crowd and looked like he had quite a lot of brains (no pun intended), which to my mind does not fit with how zombies behave... he looked almost quizical.
In the same way...
Spoiler:
there have been several times where the zombies show a reaction other than indifference and "I'm going to eat you" - a certain overacting to convey what they are doing perhaps? (such as when the main character and the Chinese guy are walking through the crowd covered in gore and various zombies sniff at them - some almost give a zombie wink and a nod to fellow zombies, while when the rain starts to wash off the gore, some of the zombies are almost looking at each other going "Hey, are these guys food?!?
Not sure if you will get the same impression from watching it and I'm not saying that it is spoiling things for me... just they are different zombies to what we usually see. As mentioned in the begining of the thread:
Spoiler:
various zombies use tools - rocks etc to smash things up, the black dude's zombie-wife in the first episode tries to open the door. The zombies also seem to exhibit some limited emotions - interest, anger, etc
Many of the behavioral patterns you've cited have been exhibited in previous zombie lore/films,both George Romero's Day & Land of the Dead feature zombies with very similar behavior.
@ Necros.
I had the same thought concerning the crossbow bolts Daryl is using,and the strong possibility of him contaminating/infecting both the game he hunts and the Mexican guy he shot in the butt.
FITZZ wrote: Many of the behavioral patterns you've cited have been exhibited in previous zombie lore/films,both George Romero's Day & Land of the Dead feature zombies with very similar behavior.
You see, I've obviously been to a different school of zombies to you
Interesting question, why the sudden massed Zombie attack? Also, if they are dead, why do they need to eat? If they still needs to eat, besides physics and deterioration due to bacteria -aka rotting- isn't that another reason its a waiting game until the zombies re-keel over?
Interesting question, why the sudden massed Zombie attack? Also, if they are dead, why do they need to eat? If they still needs to eat, besides physics and deterioration due to bacteria -aka rotting- isn't that another reason its a waiting game until the zombies re-keel over?
Again,I'm using examples from other zombie films to put forth theories concerning the zombies here...but, In a scene in Day of the Dead (the 1985 version,not the crap remake),Dr.Logan,after removing a zombies stomach,goes on to hypothesize that zombies do not eat for nourishment,but rather out of instinct.
He also goes on to discuss that decomposition will eventually ( 7 to 10 years) render most zombies immobile.
Interesting question, why the sudden massed Zombie attack? Also, if they are dead, why do they need to eat? If they still needs to eat, besides physics and deterioration due to bacteria -aka rotting- isn't that another reason its a waiting game until the zombies re-keel over?
Again,I'm using examples from other zombie films to put forth theories concerning the zombies here...but, In a scene in Day of the Dead (the 1985 version,not the crap remake),Dr.Logan,after removing a zombies stomach,goes on to hypothesize that zombies do not eat for nourishment,but rather out of instinct.
That is a whole other kettle of fish or can of worms there Frazzled
There are lots of different types of zombie it is hard to answer. However, this handy chart gives a brief overview of traits common to zombies from different media.
Interesting question, why the sudden massed Zombie attack? Also, if they are dead, why do they need to eat? If they still needs to eat, besides physics and deterioration due to bacteria -aka rotting- isn't that another reason its a waiting game until the zombies re-keel over?
Zombies don't need to eat. The "eat" and "hunt" instincts are the only thing left in their brain. If given the chance a zombie will eat until its stomach explodes (because they can't digest) and then continue to eat. In fact if the food falls out of the hole where its abdominal cavity used to eat it'll re-eat it!
...I've come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no topic that you can't somehow apply to wiener dogs...
@ Silver,some interesting reading in the links,but it would seem to me that the zombies in TWD are more or less following the Romero/Brooks templates with some slight variations.
7-10 years to decompose? I know we all eat a lot of preservatives but that seems pretty long to me. Don't bodies decompose a lot faster? or is that because little critters eat us, but they don't like to eat zombies?
Necros wrote:7-10 years to decompose? I know we all eat a lot of preservatives but that seems pretty long to me. Don't bodies decompose a lot faster? or is that because little critters eat us, but they don't like to eat zombies?
Supposedly the "little critters" that eat us after we die don't eat zombies in the same way,also IIRC there is some canon about the virus slowing rate of decomposition.
Ya, I think it takes about a year to decomposes. Basically because the zombie loses its tissue differation and becomes a gelatenous goo....and i guess they goo takes longer to decompose. Think old gravy that eats brains.
Did a quick bit of "research" on zombie decomposition.
According to "The Zombie Survival Guide" pages 10-11...
" The average zombie life span-how long it can function before completely rotting away-is estimated at between three and five years."
This is attributed to the "fact" that the majority of organisms (microscopic and otherwise) that would normally aid in rapid decomposition,reject consumption of infected flesh/organs.
It is also noted that zombie decomposition varies from environment to environment,for example-a zombie in the wet/tropical area of the Louisiana bayous would decompose at a more rapid rate than a zombie in cooler/dryer climates.
FITZZ wrote: Did a quick bit of "research" on zombie decomposition.
According to "The Zombie Survival Guide" pages 10-11...
" The average zombie life span-how long it can function before completely rotting away-is estimated at between three and five years."
This is attributed to the "fact" that the majority of organisms (microscopic and otherwise) that would normally aid in rapid decomposition,reject consumption of infected flesh/organs.
It is also noted that zombie decomposition varies from environment to environment,for example-a zombie in the wet/tropical area of the Louisiana bayous would decompose at a more rapid rate than a zombie in cooler/dryer climates.
So thats not really based on anything other than that book. Ok. I go back to my original statement. Its a waiting game. Whats the decomposition time for eyes and potential the sense of smell (mind you the human sense of smell is craptacular and is only a threat within a few feet)?
FITZZ wrote: Did a quick bit of "research" on zombie decomposition.
According to "The Zombie Survival Guide" pages 10-11...
" The average zombie life span-how long it can function before completely rotting away-is estimated at between three and five years."
This is attributed to the "fact" that the majority of organisms (microscopic and otherwise) that would normally aid in rapid decomposition,reject consumption of infected flesh/organs.
It is also noted that zombie decomposition varies from environment to environment,for example-a zombie in the wet/tropical area of the Louisiana bayous would decompose at a more rapid rate than a zombie in cooler/dryer climates.
So thats not really based on anything other than that book. Ok. I go back to my original statement. Its a waiting game. Whats the decomposition time for eyes and potential the sense of smell (mind you the human sense of smell is craptacular and is only a threat within a few feet)?
That's based on The Book : the zombie bible. It is a waiting game to some point but not everyone became a zombie at the same time as patient zero. New zombies continue to made everyday.
FITZZ wrote: Did a quick bit of "research" on zombie decomposition.
According to "The Zombie Survival Guide" pages 10-11...
" The average zombie life span-how long it can function before completely rotting away-is estimated at between three and five years."
This is attributed to the "fact" that the majority of organisms (microscopic and otherwise) that would normally aid in rapid decomposition,reject consumption of infected flesh/organs.
It is also noted that zombie decomposition varies from environment to environment,for example-a zombie in the wet/tropical area of the Louisiana bayous would decompose at a more rapid rate than a zombie in cooler/dryer climates.
So thats not really based on anything other than that book. Ok. I go back to my original statement. Its a waiting game. Whats the decomposition time for eyes and potential the sense of smell (mind you the human sense of smell is craptacular and is only a threat within a few feet)?
That's based on The Book : the zombie bible. It is a waiting game to some point but not everyone became a zombie at the same time as patient zero. New zombies continue to made everyday.
Not in Texas. Its an olympic sport interesting side question, can a human bite actually puncture skin? It'd be kind of embarrassing if thats a no...
lol, you really should read the The Zombie Survival guide it'll answer every question you've ever had about zombies. Basically because a zombie doesn't have pain receptors or a nervous system it can acheive momentary bouts of strength greater than what it's host could. It's hard to explain but an action than might completely destroy muscle fibre makes no difference to a zombie. In this way zombies can get through many barricades that seem impervious to humans. however, this actually decompses a zombie faster than anything else.
FITZZ wrote: Did a quick bit of "research" on zombie decomposition.
According to "The Zombie Survival Guide" pages 10-11...
" The average zombie life span-how long it can function before completely rotting away-is estimated at between three and five years."
This is attributed to the "fact" that the majority of organisms (microscopic and otherwise) that would normally aid in rapid decomposition,reject consumption of infected flesh/organs.
It is also noted that zombie decomposition varies from environment to environment,for example-a zombie in the wet/tropical area of the Louisiana bayous would decompose at a more rapid rate than a zombie in cooler/dryer climates.
So thats not really based on anything other than that book. Ok. I go back to my original statement. Its a waiting game. Whats the decomposition time for eyes and potential the sense of smell (mind you the human sense of smell is craptacular and is only a threat within a few feet)?
Again,according to TZG,a zombies eyesight is apparently no better or worse than a living humans,and due to slowed decomposition,does not particular effect their "hunting" capabilities.
Concerning other senses,it is hypothesized that hearing and sense of smell are much better than the living,in that zombies are able to hunt/fight/locate prey in absolute darkness.
Your original statement,in that it's a matter of playing the waiting game,is true in the "Brooks/Wylde" type zombies in that,without direct infection,isolated humans could hide out until all zombies simply fell apart,however,in the Romero "world" this tactic would be less successful as anyone (regardless of reason) who dies- reanimates.
FITZZ wrote: Did a quick bit of "research" on zombie decomposition.
According to "The Zombie Survival Guide" pages 10-11...
" The average zombie life span-how long it can function before completely rotting away-is estimated at between three and five years."
This is attributed to the "fact" that the majority of organisms (microscopic and otherwise) that would normally aid in rapid decomposition,reject consumption of infected flesh/organs.
It is also noted that zombie decomposition varies from environment to environment,for example-a zombie in the wet/tropical area of the Louisiana bayous would decompose at a more rapid rate than a zombie in cooler/dryer climates.
So thats not really based on anything other than that book. Ok. I go back to my original statement. Its a waiting game. Whats the decomposition time for eyes and potential the sense of smell (mind you the human sense of smell is craptacular and is only a threat within a few feet)?
Again,according to TZG,a zombies eyesight is apparently no better or worse than a living humans,and due to slowed decomposition,does not particular effect their "hunting" capabilities.
Concerning other senses,it is hypothesized that hearing and sense of smell are much better than the living,in that zombies are able to hunt/fight/locate prey in absolute darkness.
Your original statement,in that it's a matter of playing the waiting game,is true in the "Brooks/Wylde" type zombies in that,without direct infection,isolated humans could hide out until all zombies simply fell apart,however,in the Romero "world" this tactic would be less successful as anyone (regardless of reason) who dies- reanimates.
Thats no biggie. Just revert to the Central European tradition of cutting off their heads before you bury them. If its good enough for Moldavia its good enough for me.
So movie and life wise, they decompose quickly, have eyesight, smell, strength of normal human, at least until decomposition starts (in case noted not going with the zombie survival guide book thanks). How are these guys supposed to have wiped out the world again?
Clearly zombies are barely an issue, its the walking living, with their veneer removed, that are much more of a threat, Somalia worldwide. I wonder how long that would take.
Yes. A human bite can puncture skin. Not too difficult, in fact.
If you're a mindless eating machine with no sense of morals to keep you from using every ounce of strength your jaw can muster, I'd think it would only be that much easier.
I'm enjoying the show tremendously, and I'm happy to hear about the 13 show extension. I hope they stay at an hour or (preferably) bump the new episodes to an hour and a half, like the series premier was. : )
I'm enjoying some of the changes (like the use of smell). I liked taht they were getting sniffed while sneaking through the "geek" horde. It was like they could smell the underlying human smell on them, but were being fooled by the zombie guts.
As an aside, does anyone know where *I* can get my very own zombie-hand necklace? I hear it's all the rage in the post-zombie-apocalypitc world. lol
I am NOT happy about the ladder climbing and tool usage, though (smashing the windows with rocks). It takes too much thought process to do those things.
Yep, the hallmark of good Zombie fiction isn't the horrors perpetrated by the Zombies but by humans. In the Zombie apocalypse people are revealed to be the true monsters.
MagickalMemories wrote:Yes. A human bite can puncture skin. Not too difficult, in fact.
If you're a mindless eating machine with no sense of morals to keep you from using every ounce of strength your jaw can muster, I'd think it would only be that much easier.
Has my wife been facebooking about me again?
Spoiler:
I realized last night when they were having the big discussion about the gun bag, they probably should have went back to the tank and taken the machine guns (assuming they couldn't get the tank to work).
Yep, the hallmark of good Zombie fiction isn't the horrors perpetrated by the Zombies but by humans. In the Zombie apocalypse people are revelaed to be the true monsters.
Exactly...even in the best of situations,it's extremely difficult to get ten people to agree on/cooperate with anything (just look at YMDC)...
Now,factor in a crisis situation,limited resources,all the electronic bells and whistles gone..no definite plans and a growing horde of dead cannibals and humans in general are bound to become less than cooperative and friendly.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yeesh? A .50 cal? Wouldn't want to be lugging that around. Is it even detachable?
While the .50 cal would be detachable (with the proper tools),dragging it along would be,IMO a waste of time...seeing as that a .50 eats up a whole load of ammo quickly,and...while perhaps "fun",would certainly not be an optimal weapon for zombie disposal.
1000 rounds of ammo expended in two minutes (or less) resulting in alot of shot up zombies,but very few head shots,plus making enough noise to alert ever zombie in a ten mile or better area of your presence just seems like a bad idea.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yeesh? A .50 cal? Wouldn't want to be lugging that around. Is it even detachable?
.308 coax machine gun.
1 x .50-caliber (12.7 mm) M2HB heavy machine gun
2 x 7.62 mm (.308) M240 machine guns (1 pintle-mounted, 1 coaxial)
FITZZ wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yeesh? A .50 cal? Wouldn't want to be lugging that around. Is it even detachable?
That bigger or smaller?
While the .50 cal would be detachable (with the proper tools),dragging it along would be,IMO a waste of time...seeing as that a .50 eats up a whole load of ammo quickly,and...while perhaps "fun",would certainly not be an optimal weapon for zombie disposal.
1000 rounds of ammo expended in two minutes (or less) resulting in alot of shot up zombies,but very few head shots,plus making enough noise to alert ever zombie in a ten mile or better area of your presence just seems like a bad idea.
Pretty sure its out of ammo anyway. If the gunner had ammo he'd still be alive IMO.
ep, the hallmark of good Zombie fiction isn't the horrors perpetrated by the Zombies but by humans. In the Zombie apocalypse people are revealed to be the true monsters.
SO why not just make it an a normal apoc story. Some people want to see people get ripped apart by zombies. if i was to watch people be dicks to each other i'd watch C span
In some ways TWD could have been about any apocalypse, nuclear war for example.
however, zombies just add an extra layer of awesomeness.
TWD is very much in the spirit of Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. In the opening scene a mother wakes up to find up daughter attack her and then rip out her husbands throat. That kind of disturbing craziness you can only get with zombies.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:In some ways TWD could have been about any apocalypse, nuclear war for example.
however, zombies just add an extra layer of awesomeness.
TWD is very much in the spirit of Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. In the opening scene a mother wakes up to find up daughter attack her and then rip out her husbands throat. That kind of disturbing craziness you can only get with zombies.
Whole heartedly agree,Zombies make every Apocalypse better.
Incidentally,In Snyder's remake of Dawn of the Dead,the little girl (Vivian IIRC),who attacks Anna and her husband at the beginning of the film,is not their Daughter,in the previous scene,when Anna is arriving home from her shift at the hospital and is seen talking with the little girl,she ask the child "How's your Mom?"...
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I see. I'm retroactively less traumatized now.
...Well,in retrospect the fact that the child is not they're child doesn't detract from the overall effectiveness of the scene,personally I quite enjoy the whole pre credit montage of the "World falling apart" at the beginning of the film...the scene with the Ambulance always gets me.
Anyways, I'm starting to like Daryl (the one the crossbow). He's a capable zombie killer and fairly smart. Has better temawork skills than his brother too.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:In some ways TWD could have been about any apocalypse, nuclear war for example.
however, zombies just add an extra layer of awesomeness.
TWD is very much in the spirit of Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. In the opening scene a mother wakes up to find up daughter attack her and then rip out her husbands throat. That kind of disturbing craziness you can only get with zombies.
I don't know, I don't necessarily buy that zombie movies are about the human situation. Most zombie films I've watched were gnerally about the zombies with some human interaction to break it up. Except for the comedies of course and the mother of them all... White Zombie buahahahah.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Anyways, I'm starting to like Daryl (the one the crossbow). He's a capable zombie killer and fairly smart. Has better temawork skills than his brother too.
Yeah, he is definitely someone you want on your side when the s#!t hits the fan...
My Missus brought up an interesting thought last night...
[spoiler] She is of the opinion that Meryl (the Redneck who was left chained to the roof) was responsible for the zombie attack on the survivors camp,as she sees it,Meryl stole the van and then proceeded to pied piper some zombies back to the camp as revenge for being abandoned on the roof and having to saw off his hand to escape...[spoiler]
FITZZ wrote: My Missus brought up an interesting thought last night...
Spoiler:
She is of the opinion that Meryl (the Redneck who was left chained to the roof) was responsible for the zombie attack on the survivors camp,as she sees it,Meryl stole the van and then proceeded to pied piper some zombies back to the camp as revenge for being abandoned on the roof and having to saw off his hand to escape...
...sounds feasible to me.
Not really feeling that one. He strikes me as more of a head on kind of guy. Plus, from the looks of him when we see him just before he "escapes" it looks like he has been sitting out in the sun for a while, which to me implies that he would not have had the time to conduct such a scheme.
Also:
Spoiler:
the chain to the stairwell is still locked in place. Not entirely sure how he would have got down quickly any other way (especially with one hand). Also wondering where the hell all the blood was on the roof from when he cut through several major arteries and veins without very much in the way of things to stop the blood...
Edit: not to mention all the zombies down in the store and on the streets.
Though the other party didn't seem to meet any resistance coming in, which means the zombies must have been drawn off somewhere, as they were swarming the building and surrounding streets previously.
FITZZ wrote: My Missus brought up an interesting thought last night...
Spoiler:
She is of the opinion that Meryl (the Redneck who was left chained to the roof) was responsible for the zombie attack on the survivors camp,as she sees it,Meryl stole the van and then proceeded to pied piper some zombies back to the camp as revenge for being abandoned on the roof and having to saw off his hand to escape...
...sounds feasible to me.
Not really feeling that one. He strikes me as more of a head on kind of guy. Plus, from the looks of him when we see him just before he "escapes" it looks like he has been sitting out in the sun for a while, which to me implies that he would not have had the time to conduct such a scheme.
Also:
Spoiler:
the chain to the stairwell is still locked in place. Not entirely sure how he would have got down quickly any other way (especially with one hand). Also wondering where the hell all the blood was on the roof from when he cut through several major arteries and veins without very much in the way of things to stop the blood...
Edit: not to mention all the zombies down in the store and on the streets.
Though the other party didn't seem to meet any resistance coming in, which means the zombies must have been drawn off somewhere, as they were swarming the building and surrounding streets previously.
IIRC...
spoiler:[/spoiler] When Meryl's brother and the rest of the group arrived and find that he's severed his hand and escaped,Daryl comments that he must have used his belt as a tourniquet,.."Explaining" how he didn't just bleed out on the roof..and of course we later see that he cauterized the stump using a heated burger press...suspension of disbelief..yes. ..but workable...as for getting off the roof..I believe they showed a fire escape ladder on the side of the building which he used to climb down...[spoiler]
When Meryl's brother and the rest of the group arrived and find that he's severed his hand and escaped,Daryl comments that he must have used his belt as a tourniquet,.."Explaining" how he didn't just bleed out on the roof..and of course we later see that he cauterized the stump using a heated burger press...suspension of disbelief..yes. ..but workable...as for getting off the roof..I believe they showed a fire escape ladder on the side of the building which he used to climb down...
I understand him using the belt... I've not seen anything about presses yet though (is that in ep 4?).
When Meryl's brother and the rest of the group arrived and find that he's severed his hand and escaped,Daryl comments that he must have used his belt as a tourniquet,.."Explaining" how he didn't just bleed out on the roof..and of course we later see that he cauterized the stump using a heated burger press...suspension of disbelief..yes. ..but workable...as for getting off the roof..I believe they showed a fire escape ladder on the side of the building which he used to climb down...
I understand him using the belt... I've not seen anything about presses yet though (is that in ep 4?).
Spoiler:
Yes,when the group is searching for Meryl,they "track" his escape from the rooftop,as they follow the blood trail they come upon an oven and find a hamburger press with bits of burnt flesh on it,leading them to hypothesize that Meryl has cauterized his wound.
...Not really sure if that counts as a "spoiler"..but *shrug*
Spoiler:
The group then goes on to discover that Meryl has destroyed two zombies and exited through a side window,apparently escaping to the closed in alleyway bellow...from that point he apparently steals the groups van,and it is discussed among them that he is most likely on his way back to the camp..and very angry to boot...this is why my Missus speculated that Meryl,in some fashion led the zombies back to the camp.
Not saying I necessarily agree with her,but I do entertain the idea as possible.
FITZZ wrote: My Missus brought up an interesting thought last night...
[spoiler] She is of the opinion that Meryl (the Redneck who was left chained to the roof) was responsible for the zombie attack on the survivors camp,as she sees it,Meryl stole the van and then proceeded to pied piper some zombies back to the camp as revenge for being abandoned on the roof and having to saw off his hand to escape...[spoiler]
ghosty wrote:Im not so sure, dear Fitzz. The previous episode had the whole bit about the zombies leaving the city, and eating dear.
I assumed that the dead just stumbled in on them.
Poor Amy!
I agree that that too is a possibility dear ghosty.
...and yes,poor,poor Amy.
Spoiler:
The following day would have been her Birthday..I'm sure her sister will be quite the wreck for the next episode.
Spoiler:
pretty sure the next episode is them going to be dealing with zombie Amy and other zombified members of the group. Wasn't the Mexican guy bit but not killed too? He's got to be put down.
ghosty wrote:Im not so sure, dear Fitzz. The previous episode had the whole bit about the zombies leaving the city, and eating dear.
I assumed that the dead just stumbled in on them.
Poor Amy!
I agree that that too is a possibility dear ghosty.
...and yes,poor,poor Amy.
Spoiler:
The following day would have been her Birthday..I'm sure her sister will be quite the wreck for the next episode.
Spoiler:
pretty sure the next episode is them going to be dealing with zombie Amy and other zombified members of the group. Wasn't the Mexican guy bit but not killed too? He's got to be put down.
Spoiler:
Yes,I believe your correct concerning zombie Amy...not sure about the Mexican guy,I know a Mexican woman is dragged to the ground in the scene...also..I believe Jim (the guy who was digging all the holes) is going to have been secretly bitten as well.
I dunno, I got the idea that when the guy was like "I remember why I was diggin' them holes" they're just gonna bury their dead before they become undead and then move on
Just seen episode 4 - have to apologise to Fitzz -
Spoiler:
at the time he posted his thoughts on the attack on the camp, I didn't know episode 4 had already aired, so I was going on the "attack" in episode 3 where the single zombie made it through to the camp.
Having now watched episode 4, I think his conclusions are probably correct.
After watching tonight's I have to say they are likely taking it in completely different direction from the comic, and it is not just filler.
Spoiler:
they went to the freaking cdc. and there's a guy like Desmond from lost there, and he's the only one left. and he's going on about how this is a worldwide epidemic.
I haven't read past the second part of the first volume of the comic, but it seemed like a very cool story so far. I understand why they added things to stretch it out, but i'm not exactly sure why they diverted so much from the original.
Spoiler:
I'm wondering if Carl is still going to shoot Shane. I mean right now we haven't really seen the children learn how to shoot, and even though we've seen the set up for Shane to think about shooting Rick, they've already left the camp. Carl shooting Shane because he tried to attack Rick was the most poignant part of the first volume of the comic. They may be able to redeem it if Lori shoots Shane.
CDC guy is a nut and tries to infect one or all of them with the Zombie bug. This leads to the season cliffhanger.
You know so far following Captain Cop Boy is pretty much 0-2. Time for Wicker Man to the Zombie Gods!
Also
Spoiler:
Captain Cop Boy likes to point that pistol doesn't he? If I were crossbow redneck man I'd seriously think about shoving that up his ass, or just leaving. These guys are all still moving Zombie Pizza.
As an avid reader of the comic series i have to say how much i LOVE the TV series, the only thing that stuck out to me as being different is the way...
Spoiler:
jim gets bit. In the comic i think it matched more with the mindset of his character. After that night attack when all the zombies were dead he would not stop hitting one in the head with a bat screaming something like "YOU KILLED MY KID! YOU KILLED MY WIFE! YOU KILLED MY FAMILY! I HATE ALL OF YOU!" and the rest of the people were like "uhhh Jim? ..your hurt." and he looks down and hes missing a HUGE chunk of his forearm and hes like "just a scratch" so far thats the ONLY thing i miss.
oh and in regards of the show not being good later on?
Spoiler:
I liked the comic story in the beginning a lot bu i REALLY loved it when the Winter story arch and the Prison story arch go through. probably my favorite points of the story. If they stick to the book like they have, it'll be great
If the title of the thread says there's spoilers, why do we need spoiler tags?
Because not everyone watches the program at the same time?
For example I am about a week behind everyone else. I like to read up with what everyone else is talking about re the episode that I am on, but don't want to read about the next one by accident. You can generally tell when people are talking about the next episode and skip over the spoiler text.
Also means that I can read people's general impressions of the show without reading anything that gives away what actually happens.
CDC guy is a nut and tries to infect one or all of them with the Zombie bug. This leads to the season cliffhanger.
You know so far following Captain Cop Boy is pretty much 0-2. Time for Wicker Man to the Zombie Gods!
Also
Spoiler:
Captain Cop Boy likes to point that pistol doesn't he? If I were crossbow redneck man I'd seriously think about shoving that up his ass, or just leaving. These guys are all still moving Zombie Pizza.
I agree...
Spoiler:
If you recall,the CDC scientist was seriously disturbed about the loss of the TS-13 samples,to the point of contemplating suicide,and with the revelation that the zombie plague is indeed global,I'm expecting a "For the good of all mankind",attempt to get some of the survivors to "volunteer" as new test subjects.
Also.
Spoiler:
Rick "Captain cop boy" is obviously having a great deal of trouble grasping the fact that the "old world" is gone,hence his adherence to his previous "moral code" ie: preventing Daryl from killing Jim when he'd discovered he's been bitten.
I'm expecting some pretty big confrontational cliffhangers in the next episode between Rick and Shane.
Well, last night was the season finally and I have to say I liked it quite a bit,overall I'm definitely looking forward to season two.
Spoiler:
Was a bit surprised at the destruction of the CDC,and the dynamics of the relationship between some of the characters left alot of unanswered questions.
The attempted assault of Ricks wife by Shane is sure to lead to some tense moments in the next season,and I'm also very interested in how/if the writers are going to attempt to reintroduce certain characters,since the main group seems to be heading away from Atlanta.
I liked the very short backstory, liked the doc actually, and that two of them were going to 'stay behind.' They definitely are going to need some new people as their group is dwindling. We need some red shirts...stat!
I liked how redneck brother #2 takes the head completely off the zombie with the axe. And who says Vikings are dead!
Holy Hollywood!. That's the episode were they decide screw the source material let's add in a Mad Scientists, a ticking clock and a Goverment building with a self-destruct sequence Boo-Yaa!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: It was an ok episode I guess its just the book had such a more powerful finale that required much less stereotypical hollywood sfx.
Seriously don't click if you haven't read book:
Spoiler:
Carl is supposed to kill Shane. wtf? Why couldn't they have just done that. That's all I wanted out of this whole season.
Except when he spent half the episode bashing it against the sealed door in the CDC underground lab...for a minute I really thought he was going to bury it in the Docs head.
As for "red shirts"..
Spoiler:
Well,Morgan and his son are still "out there someplace" and so is Merle (big bad one handed red neck),as are all the "Vatos" from episode four..so there is a pool of existing characters to go to,plus I'm sure more will be introduced in the next season,so the body count can only get bigger.
I'm also wondering if we'll see a May/December romance bloom between Dale and Andrea..or if his refusal to let her stay at the CDC and get flash fried was more "Fatherly".
I don't really see it as Hollywood that Carl didn't kill Shane...it's just pacing in the series, many viewers haven't read the comics...so there is a need to build up tensions and reasons for Shane to be killed,his attempted rape of Ricks wife went a long way in doing that for the second season,and as his character further devolves the confrontation your looking for becomes more likely.
I don't really see it as Hollywood that Carl didn't kill Shane...it's just pacing in the series, many viewers haven't read the comics...so there is a need to build up tensions and reasons for Shane to be killed,his attempted rape of Ricks wife went a long way in doing that for the second season,and as his character further devolves the confrontation your looking for becomes more likely.
The building with the ticking clock that Explodes is hollywood. Which is fine I was just saying the real low-effects finale is mroe powerful.
Spoiler:
I told you not to click that spoiler FITZZ! You just couldn't resist could you?
I don't really see it as Hollywood that Carl didn't kill Shane...it's just pacing in the series, many viewers haven't read the comics...so there is a need to build up tensions and reasons for Shane to be killed,his attempted rape of Ricks wife went a long way in doing that for the second season,and as his character further devolves the confrontation your looking for becomes more likely.
Also
Spoiler:
Carl's character hasn't been developed to the point where him up and killing Shane would be appropriate to the TV version of the story. We get the impression that he's still very much a child and hasn't really come to grips with the realities of the world as it is, let alone the love triangle that is his parenting project. And to expand on what FITZZ says, the tension in the group hasn't reached the level where Shane dying by either Rick, Carl, or even Lori's hands is a necessary catharsis. The timing isn't right yet. We've just lost two of the party, the CDC just blew up, and the group is back on the road. The action has to die down for an episode or two, and the business with Shane in the basement of the CDC needs some time to ferment and pressurize before that plot comes to fruition.
As the programs producers noted,the comic is a template for the show,but not a script and that the show would deviate from time to time,but attempt to stay true to the overall "feel" of the comics.
So the need for allowing characters time to evolve in the show is essential to the story (and ratings),and the occasional implementation of "Hollywood" devices is to be expected given that the producers are attempting to reach a broader audiance.
I don't really see it as Hollywood that Carl didn't kill Shane...it's just pacing in the series, many viewers haven't read the comics...so there is a need to build up tensions and reasons for Shane to be killed,his attempted rape of Ricks wife went a long way in doing that for the second season,and as his character further devolves the confrontation your looking for becomes more likely.
Also
Spoiler:
Carl's character hasn't been developed to the point where him up and killing Shane would be appropriate to the TV version of the story. We get the impression that he's still very much a child and hasn't really come to grips with the realities of the world as it is, let alone the love triangle that is his parenting project. And to expand on what FITZZ says, the tension in the group hasn't reached the level where Shane dying by either Rick, Carl, or even Lori's hands is a necessary catharsis. The timing isn't right yet. We've just lost two of the party, the CDC just blew up, and the group is back on the road. The action has to die down for an episode or two, and the business with Shane in the basement of the CDC needs some time to ferment and pressurize before that plot comes to fruition.
Yes but they could have done some character developement for Carl in the ultra-slowpaced episode 5.
Look I'm know I'm coming off as one of those people who always says "The book is better" but I'm not. The thing is, it is in this case. I'm pretty fair-handed about these kind of things. I like the LOTR movies better than the books and there's even parts of The Watchmen movie I like better (although overall the book is much better in that case too.)
Sticking with The Watchmen example I prefer the "Dr. Manhatten threatens world" ending to the Book's "Squid-monster of doom" which if they put in the movie would make the movie like 2 hours longer. Both endings work well for their respective mediums.
I'm afraid that TWD is needlessly changing things. There's nothing overly comic-bookey about TWD so heavy change is not needed. i.e. no yellow spandex That Wolverine jokes about in X-Men 1.
The best example I can think of is one of my favorite movies: Sin City. They kept it the same panel for panel and the movie was better for it.
Anyways, rambling a bit there but the point I'm trying to make is I'm pro intelligent adaptation! Change suff to improve it not for the sake of changing it.
Necros wrote:I liked it. At the very very end, did it sound like a helicopter was flying by or was that my imagination?
Kinda wondering where they go from here. Hope they film it quick before the kids get all Harrypotterfied.
If you recall..
Spoiler:
Rick did see a helicopter in episode one,so it's entirely possible that one was observing the destruction of the CDC at the end of the finally,I'm certain the origins/significance of the helicopter will be revealed in the next season...I'm guessing survivors from Fort Benning (sp?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:
hemingway wrote:
FITZZ wrote: @ Kamikaze..
Spoiler:
I don't really see it as Hollywood that Carl didn't kill Shane...it's just pacing in the series, many viewers haven't read the comics...so there is a need to build up tensions and reasons for Shane to be killed,his attempted rape of Ricks wife went a long way in doing that for the second season,and as his character further devolves the confrontation your looking for becomes more likely.
Also
Spoiler:
Carl's character hasn't been developed to the point where him up and killing Shane would be appropriate to the TV version of the story. We get the impression that he's still very much a child and hasn't really come to grips with the realities of the world as it is, let alone the love triangle that is his parenting project. And to expand on what FITZZ says, the tension in the group hasn't reached the level where Shane dying by either Rick, Carl, or even Lori's hands is a necessary catharsis. The timing isn't right yet. We've just lost two of the party, the CDC just blew up, and the group is back on the road. The action has to die down for an episode or two, and the business with Shane in the basement of the CDC needs some time to ferment and pressurize before that plot comes to fruition.
Yes but they could have done some character developement for Carl in the ultra-slowpaced episode 5.
Look I'm know I'm coming off as one of those people who always says "The book is better" but I'm not. The thing is, it is in this case. I'm pretty fair-handed about these kind of things. I like the LOTR movies better than the books and there's even parts of The Watchmen movie I like better (although overall the book is much better in that case too.)
Sticking with The Watchmen example I prefer the "Dr. Manhatten threatens world" ending to the Book's "Squid-monster of doom" which if they put in the movie would make the movie like 2 hours longer. Both endings work well for their respective mediums.
I'm afraid that TWD is needlessly changing things. There's nothing overly comic-bookey about TWD so heavy change is not needed. i.e. no yellow spandex That Wolverine jokes about in X-Men 1.
The best example I can think of is one of my favorite movies: Sin City. They kept it the same panel for panel and the movie was better for it.
Anyways, rambling a bit there but the point I'm trying to make is I'm pro intelligent adaptation! Change suff to improve it not for the sake of changing it.
I get where your coming from man,and your examples concerning Sin City are good ones (as are your ones concerning Watchmen...which I personally liked alot).
I guess what I was trying to get at is that TWD is a series and not simply a one off movie,so drawing in an "non core" audience and having people tune in for that next episode is something the producers will try to do,so the slower character/story development and " more Hollywoodish" additions,make sense in that light.
If you get what I mean.
Yes, its just TWD is also a series. In fact so far each episode has equaled one comic. I'm saying that sticking closer to the original script would attract more viewers anyway because its a better story. Once again I'm judging each scene on its own merrit.
Anyways, the debut and finale breaking all kinds of viewship records so they're doing fine obviously. That's a good sign for darker comic series adaptations.
However, I heard a rumor that they're fired the entire writing staff....not sure what to make of that.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yes, its just TWD is also a series. In fact so far each episode has equaled one comic. I'm saying that sticking closer to the original script would attract more viewers anyway because its a better story. Once again I'm judging each scene on its own merrit.
Anyways, the debut and finale breaking all kinds of viewship records so they're doing fine obviously. That's a good sign for darker comic series adaptations.
However, I heard a rumor that they're fired the entire wrinting staff....not sure what to make of that.
Hmm,hadn't heard anything concerning writers being fired...I'll have to look into that.
I have to wholeheartedly agree with you concerning the future of "darker comic" series adaptations,in that capacity TWD has indeed been groundbreaking.
My comic book guy is a die hard Preacher fan. He wants HBO to do that and sees TWD as the show that opens the flood gates to everything. Judging by the ratings it will be.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:My comic book guy is a die hard Preacher fan. He wants HBO to do that and sees TWD as the show that opens the flood gates to everything. Judging by the ratings it will be.
What I find extremely amazing on a personal level is that several years ago I got into a debate with some of my friends concerning the potential success of a T.V. series based around a zombie apocalypse (though we were not discussing the TWD comics...just a series in general).
Every single one of my buddies said "There's no way you'll ever see a series about zombies..there's just no market for it."
Yeah, i would say setting a cable ratings record shows there's a market for Zombies.
Not to bring up the reviled Twilight but did you notice Vampires and Zombies are everywhere this past couple years?
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Yeah, i would say setting a cable ratings record shows there's a market for Zombies.
Not to bring up the reviled Twilight but did you notice Vampires and Zombies are everywhere this past couple years?
People just love.....dead people...
Indeed I have noticed that,and while I'm not a fan of the Twilight films,I can't really complain that "darker" subject matter is no longer "taboo".
Plus I really can't see zombies receiving the same treatment vampires have...I can't imagine "romanticizing" a walking corpse who's sole intent is to pull your insides out and eat them.
Incidentally,it was George Romero's film "Day of the Dead" that first got me thinking about a television series based around survivors of a zombie apocalypse,the movie was quite good,IMO, but I had thought that it would have been cool to see more about the fall of humanity and the interactions between the characters in the underground bunker.
I wholeheartedly agree and the last five minutes of the final episode...my god,phenomenal. 
ing driveway...
,just look at both versions of Dawn of the Dead...those zeds hung around the outside of the mall for weeks..of course it's not like they have anyplace else to go. 
