Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I didn't really think that was any kind of foreshadowing. I thought they were just there so Gareth could wax poetic about the current state of the world. They were literally scenery for that scene.

I think I agree with the walker ambush plan anting up being an intentional red herring.

Its also weird we never saw the result of the tainted meat thing...

 Compel wrote:
I think I agree with the walker ambush plan anting up being an intentional red herring.

Its also weird we never saw the result of the tainted meat thing...

The assumption is that the meat was safe once cooked.

But there are many important and unanswered questions about the virus (or virii) in both mediums.

 gorgon wrote:
The assumption is that the meat was safe once cooked.

But there are many important and unanswered questions about the virus (or virii) in both mediums.

Well we already know the answer to THIS at least.

EVERYONE is already infected. The "virus" simply remains dormant until a person dies, at which point it takes over and reanimates the corpse. Eating "tainted meat" cannot infect you , because you are already infected. Eating rotting meat would still carry the usual health risks of other viruses and bacteria however, which may end up killing you anyway.

But I doubt Bob's flesh was "tainted" enough to kill anyone that ate it (cooked). The infection (of normal bacteria and viruses transmitted by the bite of a walker's rotting mouth, not the "Zombie virus" itself) may not spread far enough through Bob's body to reach his legs yet. And even if it did, it probably wasn't yet concentrated enough to be a health risk to anyone that ate the flesh. If The Hunters had ate him a day later when the infection was well developed, or after he'd died, and his body had had time to rot and the bacteria multiply, then it would be more dangerous.

Point is, I think eating Bob at that moment in time was relatively safe. As long as they didn't eat his shoulder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I think I agree with the walker ambush plan anting up being an intentional red herring.

Its also weird we never saw the result of the tainted meat thing...

Spoiler:

We never see the outcome in the comics either.

We had actually discussed with our little group at work that we all hoped they'd tie them up and let them turn, which would be more cruel than using the machete with red handle...

I'd have amputated and cauterized their hands then released them. Let them try to survive as the defenseless Prey in a world full of Hunters (zombies)

Er, OK?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
The assumption is that the meat was safe once cooked.

But there are many important and unanswered questions about the virus (or virii) in both mediums.

Well we already know the answer to THIS at least.

EVERYONE is already infected. The "virus" simply remains dormant until a person dies, at which point it takes over and reanimates the corpse. Eating "tainted meat" cannot infect you , because you are already infected. Eating rotting meat would still carry the usual health risks of other viruses and bacteria however, which may end up killing you anyway.

But I doubt Bob's flesh was "tainted" enough to kill anyone that ate it (cooked). The infection (of normal bacteria and viruses transmitted by the bite of a walker's rotting mouth, not the "Zombie virus" itself) may not spread far enough through Bob's body to reach his legs yet. And even if it did, it probably wasn't yet concentrated enough to be a health risk to anyone that ate the flesh. If The Hunters had ate him a day later when the infection was well developed, or after he'd died, and his body had had time to rot and the bacteria multiply, then it would be more dangerous.

Point is, I think eating Bob at that moment in time was relatively safe. As long as they didn't eat his shoulder.

I don't necessarily agree with that.

A zombie bite is, no matter how small, is enough to kill a person. To me, that says that there is something different about the "zombie virus" when transmitted from a zombie if only a bit could do it. I think it is fair to assume that if you eat the meat of a zombie bite victim, the outcome could be the same as a bite.

I concede that cooking it might affect the whether or not you would turn, but we haven't really seen anything that says otherwise.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
The assumption is that the meat was safe once cooked.

But there are many important and unanswered questions about the virus (or virii) in both mediums.

Well we already know the answer to THIS at least.

EVERYONE is already infected. The "virus" simply remains dormant until a person dies, at which point it takes over and reanimates the corpse. Eating "tainted meat" cannot infect you , because you are already infected. Eating rotting meat would still carry the usual health risks of other viruses and bacteria however, which may end up killing you anyway.

But I doubt Bob's flesh was "tainted" enough to kill anyone that ate it (cooked). The infection (of normal bacteria and viruses transmitted by the bite of a walker's rotting mouth, not the "Zombie virus" itself) may not spread far enough through Bob's body to reach his legs yet. And even if it did, it probably wasn't yet concentrated enough to be a health risk to anyone that ate the flesh. If The Hunters had ate him a day later when the infection was well developed, or after he'd died, and his body had had time to rot and the bacteria multiply, then it would be more dangerous.

Point is, I think eating Bob at that moment in time was relatively safe. As long as they didn't eat his shoulder.

I don't necessarily agree with that.

A zombie bite is, no matter how small, is enough to kill a person. To me, that says that there is something different about the "zombie virus" when transmitted from a zombie if only a bit could do it. I think it is fair to assume that if you eat the meat of a zombie bite victim, the outcome could be the same as a bite.

I concede that cooking it might affect the whether or not you would turn, but we haven't really seen anything that says otherwise.

No, you're wrong. Its been directly addressed in the show, in the comics and by the creators.

In the Walking Dead universe the Zombie "Virus" (We don't even know if it is a virus, it could be a parasite or anything, as Dr Jenner said in Season 1) is not what kills a victim of a Zombie bite, there is nothing special about a bite. People cannot be "infected" with the virus via a bite, because EVERYONE is already infected. The disease itself spread throughout the human population, or was something already present in humans which mutated, before the zombie outbreak began.

What kills the victim of the bite is the infections and fevers that result from the extreme concentrations of viruses, bacteria and/or parasites present in the rotting flesh and mouths of zombies. The sort of stuff which is very dangerous when transmitted directly into the blood stream of a patient, but less dangerous when eaten.

Does that mean I think people can safely eat Zombies? No. They've been decomposing for weeks, months and years, and all the nasty bacteria, viruses and parasites present will be extremely concentrated in all the flesh and tissues throughout the entire body. No amount of cooking will make rotten meat safe to eat.

But a freshly bitten and still living victim, who hasn't died and began to decompose? The bacterial and viral infections caused by the bite may not yet have spread throughout the entire body. Thats why a bite victim can have the limb amputated and still survive if its done quickly enough - the (mundane real world) bacterial and viral infection(s) are still localized to the area of the wound.

The Hunters kidnapped Bob and ate his leg roughly half a day after he was bitten. At the time, Bob was still strong enough to move under his own power, and he hadn't yet developed a fever. That implies the infection(s) hadn't spread throughout his entire body. Therefore eating his leg (an extremity and the furthest limb from the wound) at that time was relatively safe. But eating the corrupted flesh directly adjacent to his wound, or waiting 24-48 hours after he was bitten and developed a fever? That would have been more dangerous, because the infection has already progressed and spread throughout the shoulder/ entire body.

So, Bob's shoulder, and maybe parts of his torso and arms were "tainted meat" but not his legs. Not yet anyway. When he was on his death bed the next morning, yes/




http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Zombies#Infection

Infection

As previously stated, the zombie pathogen itself is not lethal, and zombie "infection" occurs due to high concentrations of antibiotic-resistant bacteria found in zombies, especially in their mouths. In the Walking Dead universe, every human being on the planet is believed to be infected, suggesting the disease is airborne or waterborne. Any time a human dies they will reanimate, bitten or not, unless their brain is destroyed. It is unknown if getting blood or saliva from zombies into human mouths will cause infection, but it is known that any contact zombie fluids make with open wounds, and possibly a human's eyes, will spread their lethal bacteria throughout the host's body.


In response to:

"Negan recently has his guys dirty up weapons in zombie gore for infection attacks. I'm curious if this works due to "Phillip" kissing a zombie and Tyreese and other characters getting bloody all over their face, but nobody changing. This also made me question Dale's "tainted meat" logic back during the Fear the Hunters arc."

Are you explaining that stuff soon or is Negan unaware of that method probably doing no harm? In other words, can zombie blood or spit change you after apparently having no effect on characters previously?

"The weapons would create an open wound, and getting that material in an open wound and have contact in that way would be bad news. Kissing a zombie, getting stuff on you... not so much. It's more like direct contact with the blood stream. Make sense?"[7]

Bites

Zombie bites are not necessarily fatal because of the zombie pathogen, but rather the unsanitary nature of their mouths due to diet and decomposition. Scratches cause similar infections for similar reasons.

It should be noted that zombie saliva and scratches are not guaranteed to kill, as both Tyreese and the Governor have come into contact with both and were unaffected. The deep, fatal infections left by zombie bites can potentially be avoided if the bite is on an appendage, which then must be amputated immediately after the bite. However, this does not always work, and bites on main parts of the body, or on veins or arteries, and always fatal.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
What kills the victim of the bite is the infections and fevers that result from the extreme concentrations of viruses, bacteria and/or parasites present in the rotting flesh and mouths of zombies. The sort of stuff which is very dangerous when transmitted directly into the blood stream of a patient, but less dangerous when eaten.

Anyone who's watched the show or read the book knows that everyone's infected. You don't need to keep repeating that point.

The point that we're making and that *you're ignoring* is that whatever's in a zombie bite kills people extremely quickly, apparently without any possibility of recovery, and is lethal even in very small amounts.

That suggests something a little greater than your average nasties found in decomposing flesh. And note that a brand new zombie's bite is apparently equally lethal, even though it isn't a mass of rotted flesh yet.

Now, it may be a case of Kirkman sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH" when people try to bring up the science of it, much like he apparently did with the magical virus at the prison in the show and how it was cured. But people aren't wrong to say that it doesn't quite add up.

 gorgon wrote:

Now, it may be a case of Kirkman sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH" when people try to bring up the science of it, much like he apparently did with the magical virus at the prison in the show and how it was cured. But people aren't wrong to say that it doesn't quite add up.

Ha!

Exactly!

I think there's quite a bit of (Kirkman sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH") going on in the Walking Dead, but, what are we to do?

Then the Occam's Razor answer is that its merely a plot hole caused by artistic licence, due to Kirkman exaggerating the lethality of real world pathogen infections. Its a leap in logic to assume that there is something special in a zombie bite when that idea's been directly contradicted by the show, the comics and the creator himself.

And note that a brand new zombie's bite is apparently equally lethal, even though it isn't a mass of rotted flesh yet.

Do you know of any specific examples? Ones where a person was bitten by a freshly turned (within hours) non-decomposed zombie and wasn't immediately torn to shreds but died of a fever?

The only one I can remember off the top of my head is Andrea, but she received a deep bite wound to the neck (and possibly severed arteries) that was bleeding out, and everyone just assumed there was no possibility of a cure. No attempt to cure it was made, they skipped straight to the assisted suicide / euthanasia. So Andrea doesn't count.

Anyway, we will likely soon learn more about how zombies in general work in TWD universe because in the current comic book Arc...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Now, it may be a case of Kirkman sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH" when people try to bring up the science of it, much like he apparently did with the magical virus at the prison in the show and how it was cured. But people aren't wrong to say that it doesn't quite add up.

Ha!

Exactly!

I think there's quite a bit of (Kirkman sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH") going on in the Walking Dead, but, what are we to do?

Suspend your disbelief and stop agonising over the biological mechanism of a Zombie bite.

its gotta be something in the saliva glands, to explain why only bits do it, but not anything from the zombies flesh/guts/ect

also, lots of suspension of disbelief, its zombies after all... not science fact.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


No, you're wrong.

Here we go...

Its been directly addressed in the show, in the comics and by the creators.

I'm not worried about the comics, and it hasn't really been addressed on the show

In the Walking Dead universe the Zombie "Virus" (We don't even know if it is a virus, it could be a parasite or anything, as Dr Jenner said in Season 1) is not what kills a victim of a Zombie bite, there is nothing special about a bite. People cannot be "infected" with the virus via a bite, because EVERYONE is already infected. The disease itself spread throughout the human population, or was something already present in humans which mutated, before the zombie outbreak began.

What kills the victim of the bite is the infections and fevers that result from the extreme concentrations of viruses, bacteria and/or parasites present in the rotting flesh and mouths of zombies. The sort of stuff which is very dangerous when transmitted directly into the blood stream of a patient, but less dangerous when eaten.

Yes, we all know that the zombie virus is in everyone already. However, if there is nothing special about the bite, how is the smallest bite still fatal? To me, that says there is something special about the bite.

Does that mean I think people can safely eat Zombies? No. They've been decomposing for weeks, months and years, and all the nasty bacteria, viruses and parasites present will be extremely concentrated in all the flesh and tissues throughout the entire body. No amount of cooking will make rotten meat safe to eat.

Not all of the zombies in the show fit that criteria.

But a freshly bitten and still living victim, who hasn't died and began to decompose? The bacterial and viral infections caused by the bite may not yet have spread throughout the entire body. Thats why a bite victim can have the limb amputated and still survive if its done quickly enough - the (mundane real world) bacterial and viral infection(s) are still localized to the area of the wound.

The limb has to be taken immediately for it to work. See below.

The Hunters kidnapped Bob and ate his leg roughly half a day after he was bitten. At the time, Bob was still strong enough to move under his own power, and he hadn't yet developed a fever. That implies the infection(s) hadn't spread throughout his entire body. Therefore eating his leg (an extremity and the furthest limb from the wound) at that time was relatively safe. But eating the corrupted flesh directly adjacent to his wound, or waiting 24-48 hours after he was bitten and developed a fever? That would have been more dangerous, because the infection has already progressed and spread throughout the shoulder/ entire body.

So, Bob's shoulder, and maybe parts of his torso and arms were "tainted meat" but not his legs. Not yet anyway. When he was on his death bed the next morning, yes/

Since you said the person dies from "extreme concentrations of the virus in the blood from the bite," Bob was tainted meat fairly quickly; it takes only one minute for your blood to completely circulate through your body.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you're wrong; I just don't think there has been enough information revealed about how the entire process works.

So I think it is silly to sit here and tell each other that we are wrong because there is no definite answer yet.

It's the zombie virus that kills you when you're bitten by a zombie. Basically the virus has two modes. Dormant and Active, it's dormant in the living and active in the dead. If you're infected with the active version you will die. The idea that other microbes in the zombie kill you through some kind of turbo-sepsis is impossible because if the corpse had that kind of bacterial load it would decompose completely in a few days. Then there would be no Zombies.

That's why Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide is the best thought out book on zombies. He explains that the Zombie virus actually kills all other microbes as well thereby preventing decomposition. So zombies can last like 7 years in moderate temperatures.

Also, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you're wrong;

I am sitting here, and saying that the author himself says that you are wrong.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Also, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you're wrong; I just don't think there has been enough information revealed about how the entire process works.

So I think it is silly to sit here and tell each other that we are wrong because there is no definite answer yet.

There won't be.

Letter Hacks wrote:#8
Kirkman establishes that he is never going to provide a rational explanation for how the outbreak occurs. He thinks any explanation would disrupt the normalness, and border "science fiction". He is more interested in what happens post-outbreak than what had happened leading up to it.
#9
It is reaffirmed by Kirkman that he will not explain the origin of the plague.
#10
It is once again stated that the origin of the plague will never ever be revealed.
#36
Kirkman doesn't plan on ever writing what caused the apocalypse.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
It's the zombie virus that kills you when you're bitten by a zombie. Basically the virus has two modes. Dormant and Active, it's dormant in the living and active in the dead. If you're infected with the active version you will die. The idea that other microbes in the zombie kill you through some kind of turbo-sepsis is impossible because if the corpse had that kind of bacterial load it would decompose completely in a few days. Then there would be no Zombies.

That's why Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide is the best thought out book on zombies. He explains that the Zombie virus actually kills all other microbes as well thereby preventing decomposition. So zombies can last like 7 years in moderate temperatures.

No.

It's the zombie virus that kills you when you're bitten by a zombie

In other media, maybe. Not in TWD.

However these things work in other media is irrelevant to how it works in TWD universe. That "Zombie Survival Guide" is not an authority for TWD, a franchise in which the author has explicitly contradicted it and declared that his version of Zombies works differently. In fact, I don't see how it can be considered an authority in any franchise, as well thought out and logical as it sounds. Zombies are fictional. Every author does their own thing. there is no canonical Zombie "virus", so you can't say with authority that "This is how the virus works in all franchises". It might work that way in one franchise, but not in another (TWD).

Admittedly, your contribution (two forms - dormant and active) is a very logical theory and it makes more sense than "normal bacteria is what kills you after a bite, not the zombie virus itself". But you are flat out contradicted by the author himself - hes not interested in defining how things work because he doesn't want to delve into Science Fiction. His official canonical stance, is that the Zombie "virus" In his TWD Universe is not what kills the victim of a bite, its the normal bacteria and viruses transmitted.

Short of Kirkman changing his mind and retconning the series, your opinion is wrong and not backed up by evidence from TWD universe. Until then, its just a fan theory.

The only logical explanation is that this is simply a plot hole, with an author who has no interest in addressing it.

Also, we shouldn't call it a "virus". We flat out do not know what the disease is, as stated by Dr Jenner in the TV Show and by Kirkman himself

Letter Hacks wrote:
#41
Kirkman confirms the rule that everyone has the same infection (of unknown origin) that causes zombies. Unless your brain is damaged, however way someone dies, they end up a zombie. A zombie bite kills due to infection or blood loss, not because of the zombie virus.

http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Letter_Hacks

What Kirkman says is inconsistent with what we watch on TV. People have died from bites that in no way have caused excessive blood loss.

I'm not saying we will ever find out the truth and neither are you, so stop telling everyone they are wrong.

The only thing we have is "fan theories" and at this point, I'll consider anything to be a plausible theory.

Ya well he should have read it because even in the show they have used antibiotics to cure other infections.

Thats why they call this sort of thing a plot hole...

Isn't the spin-off supposed to based on some guy who gets bitten but doesn't turn?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Now, it may be a case of Kirkman sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH" when people try to bring up the science of it, much like he apparently did with the magical virus at the prison in the show and how it was cured. But people aren't wrong to say that it doesn't quite add up.

Ha!

Exactly!

I think there's quite a bit of (Kirkman sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH") going on in the Walking Dead, but, what are we to do?

Suspend your disbelief and stop agonising over the biological mechanism of a Zombie bite.

I'm hardly agonizing over anything here - and I know this is The Internet and all, but, maybe dial down the hyperbole a bit?

Thanks!

 Alpharius wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Now, it may be a case of Kirkman sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH" when people try to bring up the science of it, much like he apparently did with the magical virus at the prison in the show and how it was cured. But people aren't wrong to say that it doesn't quite add up.

Ha!

Exactly!

I think there's quite a bit of (Kirkman sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH") going on in the Walking Dead, but, what are we to do?

Suspend your disbelief and stop agonising over the biological mechanism of a Zombie bite.

I'm hardly agonizing over anything here - and I know this is The Internet and all, but, maybe dial down the hyperbole a bit?

Thanks!

Sorry, I didn't mean you were agonizing. I was referring to Scooty and Kamikaze. Should have written "Suspend OUR disbelief".

You know a Sci Fi show has really hit it big when people are arguing about the nuances of it's fake science on the internet.

Congrats, Walking Dead!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Sorry, I didn't mean you were agonizing. I was referring to Scooty and Kamikaze. Should have written "Suspend OUR disbelief".

Which is odd, because all I've said is that there is no one answer to how the zombies work, nor do I really care about how it works. I'm entertained just by pondering about it and I think not knowing is fun.

Yet you've just told everyone should suspend our disbelief, but also we are all wrong even though there is no conclusive proof one way or the other. Then you have gone to great length to explain how there is no answer with a bunch of self-contradictory excerpts from a wiki (that only has to do with the comic, not the show), but at the same time you're right and everyone else is wrong. So who cares?

Let's just enjoy talking about a show we all like watching!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Sorry, I didn't mean you were agonizing. I was referring to Scooty and Kamikaze. Should have written "Suspend OUR disbelief".

Which is odd, because all I've said is that there is no one answer to how the zombies work, nor do I really care about how it works. I'm entertained just by pondering about it and I think not knowing is fun.

Yet you've just told everyone should suspend our disbelief, but also we are all wrong even though there is no conclusive proof one way or the other. Then you have gone to great length to explain how there is no answer with a bunch of self-contradictory excerpts from a wiki (that only has to do with the comic, not the show), but at the same time you're right and everyone else is wrong. So who cares?

Let's just enjoy talking about a show we all like watching!

We're approaching it from opposite perspectives.

I place more emphasis on what the author himself says about his work, and concluded that these issues are simply trivial plotholes in a series that is about inter personal relationships and character development in a post apocalyptic setting, not Science Fiction. Short of the author changing his mind and retconning the series to insert a detailed explanation of the biological mechanisms of zombie bites, I will stick to the conclusion that its just a plot hole.

You've decided that the author's work doesn't make sense and so you're trying to explain away the plot holes with Science Fiction, when thats really not what the show is about.

I respect your opinion, and I really like that "The virus has two forms: dormant and active" theory (which I've not heard of before). In any other Zombie story / franchise, it would make sense and work, but TWD is not about that. Its not Science Fiction. Trying to explain these plot holes with hypothetical science is turning TWD into something that its not.


This whole discussion reminds me of Mass Effect 3 and The Indoctrination Theory. Fans didn't like the official canon ending as written by the creators, so came up with all these convoluted arguments to explain how the ending was wrong and Shepherd was really indoctrinated and it was all a dream and didn't really happen; ignoring the fact that the creators publicly insisted that there was no secret meaning to it. (and I must admit I was one of them for a while ).

You're talking yourself into circles. TWD isn't science fiction? Really? Hell, it's science fiction that the zombies' bites could even work as Kirkman describes, for the reasons we've listed.

The point is about creating a "willing suspension of disbelief"...not going around telling people to "just suspend your disbelief already." The material needs to enable it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

We're approaching it from opposite perspectives.

I place more emphasis on what the author himself says about his work, and concluded that these issues are simply trivial plotholes in a series that is about inter personal relationships and character development in a post apocalyptic setting, not Science Fiction. Short of the author changing his mind and retconning the series to insert a detailed explanation of the biological mechanisms of zombie bites, I will stick to the conclusion that its just a plot hole.

You've decided that the author's work doesn't make sense and so you're trying to explain away the plot holes with Science Fiction, when thats really not what the show is about.

I respect your opinion, and I really like that "The virus has two forms: dormant and active" theory (which I've not heard of before). In any other Zombie story / franchise, it would make sense and work, but TWD is not about that. Its not Science Fiction. Trying to explain these plot holes with hypothetical science is turning TWD into something that its not.


This whole discussion reminds me of Mass Effect 3 and The Indoctrination Theory. Fans didn't like the official canon ending as written by the creators, so came up with all these convoluted arguments to explain how the ending was wrong and Shepherd was really indoctrinated and it was all a dream and didn't really happen; ignoring the fact that the creators publicly insisted that there was no secret meaning to it. (and I must admit I was one of them for a while ).

The main issue here is this:

What Kirkman says about the comic =/= What we watch on TV (This is important because I've made it quite clear that I am talking about the show only)

You keep bringing up the comic and what Kirkman says about it and that's fine, but at the end of the day, the show and the comic are two completely different animals and as far I as I'm concerned, they exist in different realities. For the last page, a couple of us have been bouncing ideas around about the "how and why" of the zombies and you've told everyone they are wrong and that you are right, while at the same time that no one should worry about it because it's a plot hole. Keep in mind, I'm not saying any one theory is right or not and I fully understand that it is a question that will never be answered (and I've said that I enjoy it that way). I'm not trying to explain anything away... it's just a fun topic to talk about.

By the way, it's zombie fiction, so of course it needs suspension of disbelief (unless zombies are real and I haven't heard about them yet! )... I think we all understand that here.

 gorgon wrote:
You're talking yourself into circles. TWD isn't science fiction? Really? Hell, it's science fiction that the zombies' bites could even work as Kirkman describes, for the reasons we've listed.

The point is about creating a "willing suspension of disbelief"...not going around telling people to "just suspend your disbelief already." The material needs to enable it.

Wait, is TWD science fiction? I wouldn't consider it that, horror sure, but sci-fi? The show is set (presumably) in the modern era with little to no emphasis on science or technological issues. The only real sci-fi elements were maybe the CDC episodes in season 1, and the current plot line of Eugene's super weapon in D.C. I guess I don't really see much of sci-fi to consider the show part of that genre. YMMV.

Indeed - lets face it how do Zombies even have the bitting strength to get through the skin - especially when decompossed

Need the T-Virus

Or how are their skulls so soft like jelly, when if their bones are that soft they would collapse as they stand under their own weight, or fall apart as they crawl. Even ignoring how weak a human's bite force is, their teeth would fall out of their gums as they try to bite anything. Even a non-rotting human can't bite like they do in the show.

But....you really can't argue when zombies are involved, because everything involved with them is controlled by the Rule of Cool, and nothing more.

Otherwise, the troupe would likely all by dying of massive infections after being in the water (and ingesting it through all the openings in their bodies!) under the food bank. I mean, look at people swimming and getting sick with E.Coli after some unknown cows crap somewhere upstream.

I don't know why they had to jump into a zombie pit anyway. That seemed like the worst possible way to deal with that situation.