The Walking Dead

I didn't think last night's episode was as good as the premier. It was good, just seems odd to take an entire episode and devote it to a couple of pretty minor plot points. The story as a whole barely moved forward at all and that seems to be the last thing you would want to do with such an incredibly short 'season'. Hell, it's more of a mini-series really.

One of the reasons Sons of Anarchy works so well is that, because it has 13 episode seasons, they cram a lot of story and action in every episode. It's always moving forward. Last night's Walking Dead had lots of action, but the story just kind of sat there in idle.

To be fair, it was only an hour, compared to the hour and a half series premiere. I'm sure the next episode will be better.

Wolfthulhu wrote:

I didn't think last night's episode was as good as the premier. It was good, just seems odd to take an entire episode and devote it to a couple of pretty minor plot points. The story as a whole barely moved forward at all and that seems to be the last thing you would want to do with such an incredibly short 'season'. Hell, it's more of a mini-series really.

One of the reasons Sons of Anarchy works so well is that, because it has 13 episode seasons, they cram a lot of story and action in every episode. It's always moving forward. Last night's Walking Dead had lots of action, but the story just kind of sat there in idle.

To be fair, it was only an hour, compared to the hour and a half series premiere. I'm sure the next episode will be better.

Again, not saying the episode wasn't good, just that it wasted a lot of time. There are only 6 episodes of this show. Episode one covered the first issue and several pages of the second issue of the comic. That's a pretty ambitious pace and it worked well.

Last night it covered about five pages. Honestly the most logical place to end the season is

Freehold DM wrote:

Wolfthulhu wrote:

I didn't think last night's episode was as good as the premier. It was good, just seems odd to take an entire episode and devote it to a couple of pretty minor plot points. The story as a whole barely moved forward at all and that seems to be the last thing you would want to do with such an incredibly short 'season'. Hell, it's more of a mini-series really.

One of the reasons Sons of Anarchy works so well is that, because it has 13 episode seasons, they cram a lot of story and action in every episode. It's always moving forward. Last night's Walking Dead had lots of action, but the story just kind of sat there in idle.

To be fair, it was only an hour, compared to the hour and a half series premiere. I'm sure the next episode will be better.

Again, not saying the episode wasn't good, just that it wasted a lot of time. There are only 6 episodes of this show. Episode one covered the first issue and several pages of the second issue of the comic. That's a pretty ambitious pace and it worked well.

Last night it covered about five pages. Honestly the most logical place to end the season is ** spoiler omitted ** The first episode was right on pace to hit that mark, the second put it way behind the curve and I'm curious about what will get cut to make up for it.

WHOA! Did not know that. Okay, will definitely be hoping the pace picks up. Also, not reading your spoiler yet, so thanks for spoilerizing.

You know, as contrived as the whole bit with the

Some people have been comparing Racist McDouchebag to Francis, which makes me deeply upset as a Left 4 Dead fan. Francis was a bro. This guy just could not

Predicting Glenn as the most popular character for this adaptation.

But holy @#$% that pre-intro sequence was awkward as hell.

edit-Cybil Bennet from Silent Hill as Andrea?! Yes plz! Two favorite characters from two different mediums being brought together, right there.

I've got lots of thoughts to share here.

I have to disagree with Wolf, as episode one added a ton of dialogue, and we are ultimately doing just fine on pacing. Right now I would expect each season to equate to 1 volume of the comics, but I've heard rumors that they might get pretty far off track sooner or later.

Still, I think the pacing is far from ambitious, when you look at all the full length novels that are converted into 2 hour films. The television medium problem is that without adding some new story elements, they would rip through 8 comics per episode. They are going to have to add lots and lots to stretch it out into 4 more 45 minute episodes.

Without sounding too contradictory, I do agree that more could have been done to advance the story in #2, but we do get some good first impressions of some more main characters.

Even with a bunch of new material, episode 1 felt like it was 99% on task to the original story. Eppi 2 just didn't have as good as a natural blended feeling. The add-ons felt a bit more, well, added on. Minor stuff, I still have great faith in this series.

I felt like they misrepresented the nature of Lori's passion. That's my only big complaint so far.

I believe those new additions are the equivalent of red shirts. Heck, quite a few of the 'main' characters are basically red shirts.

Regarding the pacing, I have a bunch of friends who thought #1 was too slow, and I think episode 2 certainly dialed the action up a notch. I think they're trying to satisfy both the zombie gore and the introspective story audiences.

Also I'm not sure we've seen the last of the dude on the roof. If you were in that situation you would get yourself out of it, even if it meant doing unthinkable things.

Glenn was amazing as far as I'm concerned. Glenn is the role that actor was born to play. He even has all the little facial expression nuances down.

The zombie smell conversation was ridiculous, but no less than it was in the comic. Kirkman was pretty clearly still finding his creative voice in the early issues. For me personally, the comic didn't get really good till about issue 15. From there on it never looks back and quickly becomes the most compelling comic series I have ever read.

Certainly better episodes are in our future.

You know, as contrived as the whole bit with the ** spoiler omitted ** may have been, it was no less delicious for it.

Some people have been comparing Racist McDouchebag to Francis, which makes me deeply upset as a Left 4 Dead fan. Francis was a bro. This guy just could not ** spoiler omitted **

Predicting Glenn as the most popular character for this adaptation.

But holy @#$% that pre-intro sequence was awkward as hell.

edit-Cybil Bennet from Silent Hill as Andrea?! Yes plz! Two favorite characters from two different mediums being brought together, right there.

Agreed. Francis was the man.

SILENT HILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

Mikaze wrote:

You know, as contrived as the whole bit with the ** spoiler omitted ** may have been, it was no less delicious for it.

Some people have been comparing Racist McDouchebag to Francis, which makes me deeply upset as a Left 4 Dead fan. Francis was a bro. This guy just could not ** spoiler omitted **

Predicting Glenn as the most popular character for this adaptation.

But holy @#$% that pre-intro sequence was awkward as hell.

edit-Cybil Bennet from Silent Hill as Andrea?! Yes plz! Two favorite characters from two different mediums being brought together, right there.

Agreed. Francis was the man.

SILENT HILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!

Haven't played L4D, but I've seen enough youtube videos to know that Francis rocks.

This racist redneck was just annoying. But unless you see him die on screen or his shambling corpse, he's still alive. Don't forget the tool bag that got knocked over had a hacksaw in it. A hacksaw they went out of their way to mention at least twice that I remember.

my problem is they've added character that I worry are intentionally the obvious a$#!#~*.

for the record, I don't know if there is a trope or something related to this, the obvious a+~@#~& is what I've always called it, but the obvious a#@*&+# is a guy with an obvious reason to dislike him. He could be trigger happy, a racist, a pessimist, think he'd make a better leader, a misogynist, etc. but it's established early and its something that makes him okay to die to the audience. Lots of times the obvious a%#%@&$ will have a redemption or noble sacrifice before he dies to redeem the character and make his death more poignant, but his flaw has already established him in your mind as someone who is okay to die.

The fear I have is that we'll see the obvious a***+~#s die, but that the nice popular characters live even if they reach the point in the novels where they would have been killed instead an obvious a%$++#! is there to take their place and die instead. While the story could still be effective, overuse of obvious a+*#~~*s to die instead of the nice nice characters (like the sisters) will take away from the story IMO.

We've already established one obvious a*@~~%%, and the previews showed that his brother is still in the camp, which means odds are that we have two obvious a#+%$+%s already. I'm willing to bet that if I'm right we'll have them die at different episodes, at least one of the brothers will come around and make a noble sacrifice before dying.

my problem is they've added character that I worry are intentionally the obvious a~&&##~.

for the record, I don't know if there is a trope or something related to this, the obvious a~&&##~ is what I've always called it, but the obvious a~&&##~ is a guy with an obvious reason to dislike him. He could be trigger happy, a racist, a pessimist, think he'd make a better leader, a misogynist, etc. but it's established early and its something that makes him okay to die to the audience. Lots of times the obvious a~&&##~ will have a redemption or noble sacrifice before he dies to redeem the character and make his death more poignant, but his flaw has already established him in your mind as someone who is okay to die.

The fear I have is that we'll see the obvious a~&&##~s die, but that the nice popular characters live even if they reach the point in the novels where they would have been killed instead an obvious a~&&##~ is there to take their place and die instead. While the story could still be effective, overuse of obvious a~&&##~s to die instead of the nice nice characters (like the sisters) will take away from the story IMO.

We've already established one obvious a~&&##~, and the previews showed that his brother is still in the camp, which means odds are that we have two obvious a~&&##~s already. I'm willing to bet that if I'm right we'll have them die at different episodes, at least one of the brothers will come around and make a noble sacrifice before dying.

My guess is that it will be the younger "obvious a~&&##~", as you so eloquently put it, that will be redeemed to nobly sacrifice himself. The first one is so far gone that yeah I agree it will be the "waste of time" story to go back and save him, but get something for the effort, the GUNS.

I like pretty much everything Michael Rooker has ever done. He does play a great A^%$#^&e, in verything, from this to Mallrats to Slither to Henry.

I’m kinda curios how they’re going to handle the zombies climbing fences once

Predicting Glenn as the most popular character for this adaptation.
there.

God I hope not. I thought he was terrible. His acting felt worse than a SyFy Saturday night movie actor. His lines, were they straight from the comic book? It has been a long time since I read volume 1 of this series. Too much I can only hope he meets an early demise.

So the wife, does this guy really wanna save her? So far she has not been too endearing. Lets hope his son is worth saving.

...The fear I have is that we'll see the obvious a%@%**@s die, but that the nice popular characters live even if they reach the point in the novels where they would have been killed instead an obvious a%@%**@ is there to take their place and die instead. While the story could still be effective, overuse of obvious a%@%**@s to die instead of the nice nice characters (like the sisters) will take away from the story IMO...

OFF TOPIC:

This was just about the only redeeming quality of the film Hostel. In 99% of horror films, the sweet-innocent lives and the a+*@$$!, morally-deficient die early and gruesomely; and that's all nice for allegory and commentary and all that.

In Hostel (and in the Warhammer novels, from a literary point of view), the innocent ones die first because of the wonderfully-realistic combination of their own naivete and the devious run-faster-than-the-fat-guy-so-the-bear-eats-him mentality of their less than honorable friends. In Hostel, the last man standing is the one who would have died first, traditionally.

I'm happy if TWD follows this darker, more realistic bent.

lastknightleft wrote:

...The fear I have is that we'll see the obvious a%@%**@s die, but that the nice popular characters live even if they reach the point in the novels where they would have been killed instead an obvious a%@%**@ is there to take their place and die instead. While the story could still be effective, overuse of obvious a%@%**@s to die instead of the nice nice characters (like the sisters) will take away from the story IMO...

OFF TOPIC:

This was just about the only redeeming quality of the film Hostel. In 99% of horror films, the sweet-innocent lives and the a#!%&@~, morally-deficient die early and gruesomely; and that's all nice for allegory and commentary and all that.

In Hostel (and in the Warhammer novels, from a literary point of view), the innocent ones die first because of the wonderfully-realistic combination of their own naivete and the devious run-faster-than-the-fat-guy-so-the-bear-eats-him mentality of their less than honorable friends. In Hostel, the last man standing is the one who would have died first, traditionally.

I'm happy if TWD follows this darker, more realistic bent.

As long as it sticks fairly close to the comics, it follows an even more realistic track. Anyone can die. Nice guy and a*#$!#* alike. (With certain current exceptions, but I've posted my long-term predictions on that up thread.)

This racist redneck was just annoying. But unless you see him die on screen or his shambling corpse, he's still alive. Don't forget the tool bag that got knocked over had a hacksaw in it. A hacksaw they went out of their way to mention at least twice that I remember. ** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

When I wrote that last week, I briefly entertained the thought of

Enjoyed the rest of the episode though, I liked the scene between Lori and Shane. It explained some things I was having trouble figuring out and will tie in well with later events.

Thanks to everyone for using spoilers for those of us who haven't read the graphic novels. So far I am extemely impressed with the production quality of the show and the strength of the story. My wife and I are completely hooked!

wolf, I think they went with what you alluded to in your spoiler because of the

Edit: Yeah I think that was the writers reasoning. Makes sense unless you think about it for longer than a half of a second.

wolf, I think they went with what you alluded to in your spoiler because of the ** spoiler omitted **

Edit: Yeah I think that was the writers reasoning. Makes sense unless you think about it for longer than a half of a second.

What got to me was the lack of gore,

TheWhiteknife wrote:

wolf, I think they went with what you alluded to in your spoiler because of the ** spoiler omitted **

Edit: Yeah I think that was the writers reasoning. Makes sense unless you think about it for longer than a half of a second.

What got to me was the lack of gore, ** spoiler omitted **

Wolfthulu

lastknightleft

@ lastknightleft. Ive never read the comics. I wish I had. That being said, I like that the show seems to be focusing on the breakdown of society and civilization just as much as they focus on the undead. If they really focus in on that aspect, I would expect that just about every character is going to seem to be an @#$!*&le after a few more episodes without any social mores restricting them. Good stuff. A bit cheesy at times, yes, but overall, good stuff.

Edit: Show reminds me alot of the book "World War Z"

@ lastknightleft. Ive never read the comics. I wish I had. That being said, I like that the show seems to be focusing on the breakdown of society and civilization just as much as they focus on the undead. If they really focus in on that aspect, I would expect that just about every character is going to seem to be an @#$!*&le after a few more episodes without any social mores restricting them. Good stuff. A bit cheesy at times, yes, but overall, good stuff.

Truer than you know. Even the good guys in the comics have their 'dark corners' and do things that are less than admirable in polite society. I hope much of that makes the translation to TV.

Edit: Show reminds me alot of the book "World War Z"

Robert Kirkman, the series creator and writer, told Max Brooks that 'He couldn't read WWZ until he was done with The Walking Dead, so he would never read it'. (One of his goals with the comics was to make 'the zombie movie that never ends'.)

for the record, I don't know if there is a trope or something related to this, the obvious a@!&@!# is what I've always called it, but the obvious a@!&@!# is a guy with an obvious reason to dislike him. He could be trigger happy, a racist, a pessimist, think he'd make a better leader, a misogynist, etc. but it's established early and its something that makes him okay to die to the audience. Lots of times the obvious a@!&@!# will have a redemption or noble sacrifice before he dies to redeem the character and make his death more poignant, but his flaw has already established him in your mind as someone who is okay to die.

Based on this theory, I'm f*~#ed if Paizo turns out to be a horror movie...

Okay, I admit, I'm not up to date on my zombie fiction, but am I the only one who finds it ridiculous that zombies could ever be a credible threat to humans with fireams, tanks, and missiles? They're stupid, slow, lack ranged attacks, and are only effective in large numbers (where, conveniently, you can mow them down with automatic weapons - you may not hit them all in the head, but you'll further limit their mobility and can easily pick them off as they lie on the ground writhing around).

I suppose in theory you could run out of ammunition, but I find it unlikely that the U.S. army does not have enough bullets to kill every single man, woman, and child on the planet, and that's not including missles or other weapons that take out a lot of people at once.

Take the tank that's featured early on (and, as an aside, do tanks seriously have unlocked, easily openable access points in the bottom, because that seems like a serious f!&!ing design flaw) - how the hell did the zombies manage to slow down, much less stop that thing. Did the guy inside get bored? Did he run out of gas because there wasn't sufficient supplyline support?

And why only one tank? Don't those things, you know, travel in g%!&~!n packs because they're so good at killing s##&, particularly in large numbers?

I get suspension of disbelief, but I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on how an army of unarmed and stupid creatures could ever pose a threat to organized and militarized humans. The only advantages zombies seem to have are that they don't go down from lethal non-head wounds (though, again, those wounds will often incapacitate them) and that they can pop up behind enemy lines (which would be more relevant if they actually had a way to attack behind enemy lines - they're best bet is that someone dies, becomes a zombie, and is not caught/defeated before setting up a wave of infections. If only there were a simple way to keep such potential zombies in check like, oh, I don't know, guards at the doors, or key cards, or security cameras or any of the tens of thousands of way we currently keep intelligent, armed humans out of secure facilities).

Edit: Hmmm...maybe they are a sufficient threat to take out the weaker points in the infrastructure - a few small towns here and there, a neighborhood, etc. Suddenly, you can't get the fuel, food, etc. you need to support your military, and the zombies win. I guess. Still seems lame. Or, if all of the recently dead arise at once (instead of needing to be infected to become a zombie), I suppose that could do it - they'd attack before you even had a chance to set up your defenses. But don't we, as a civlization, not typically store a large number of dead bodies in sensitive places?

Oh, and the "dude in a coma wakes up to zombie-pocalypse" trope is, and always has been, stupid. It was the weakest element of 28 days later, and I barely made it through the first volume of the Walking Dead graphic novel when I saw it being reused. If there is a weak point in the dead body storage infrastructure of the U.S., it's hospitals, where dead bodies are produced and stored in larger numbers than anywhere else. The first thing humans should do when they realize that dead people come back as zombies is either (a) secure patients in critical condition in a place where they can't do damage should they become zombies or (b) kill them just to be safe.

Conversely, once the humans lose control of the hospital, the zombies are going to go room to room eating all that yummy meat just lying around. Like coma patients.

Finally, I'm no doctor, but I'm under the impression that humans die within a few days of not getting any more food and water. How long do IV bags last? Was someone there, pumping nutrients and water into Rick Grimes in the day or so before civlization fell? Didn't they have anything better to do than keep a potential zombie nearby?

Okay, I'm done. I'm really enjoying the show, I just have some pet peeves.

Edit: Hmmm...maybe they are a sufficient threat to take out the weaker points in the infrastructure - a few small towns here and there, a neighborhood, etc. Suddenly, you can't get the fuel, food, etc. you need to support your military, and the zombies win. I guess. Still seems lame. Or, if all of the recently dead arise at once (instead of needing to be infected to become a zombie), I suppose that could do it - they'd attack before you even had a chance to set up your defenses. But don't we, as a civlization, not typically store a large number of dead bodies in sensitive places?

Essentially you answered your own question here. Our infrastructure is capable of AMAZING things, but it has significant weak points- just walk down 4th ave and aroundabouts 31st around 3 to 4 in the AM in manhattan and you'll see that the clothing and fashion industry is HEAVILY reliant on people walking stuff down the street a few blocks. I would imagine it's the same thing with the food industry as well as the army- lightly armored(not necessarily lightly armed) convoys could be taken out by enough zombies, and this happening almost everywhere at once would be a nightmare. Also, keep in mind that there IS an infection vector- you can't keep G.I. Joe wounded and fighting, you have to kill him the instant he's bit or scratched. Also, the zombies only go down with headshots; I think there was evidence on a few other zombies that they tried using larger caliber weapons on them and seriously hampered their ambulatory capabilities, but they were still alive and able to pass infection on, even if it was the last thing they did.

lastknightleft wrote:

for the record, I don't know if there is a trope or something related to this, the obvious a@!&@!# is what I've always called it, but the obvious a@!&@!# is a guy with an obvious reason to dislike him. He could be trigger happy, a racist, a pessimist, think he'd make a better leader, a misogynist, etc. but it's established early and its something that makes him okay to die to the audience. Lots of times the obvious a@!&@!# will have a redemption or noble sacrifice before he dies to redeem the character and make his death more poignant, but his flaw has already established him in your mind as someone who is okay to die.

Based on this theory, I'm f&*#ed if Paizo turns out to be a horror movie...

Hey, it's okay. Your death will be poignant.

Okay, I admit, I'm not up to date on my zombie fiction, but am I the only one who finds it ridiculous that zombies could ever be a credible threat to humans with fireams, tanks, and missiles? They're stupid, slow, lack ranged attacks, and are only effective in large numbers (where, conveniently, you can mow them down with automatic weapons - you may not hit them all in the head, but you'll further limit their mobility and can easily pick them off as they lie on the ground writhing around).

I suppose in theory you could run out of ammunition, but I find it unlikely that the U.S. army does not have enough bullets to kill every single man, woman, and child on the planet, and that's not including missles or other weapons that take out a lot of people at once.

Take the tank that's featured early on (and, as an aside, do tanks seriously have unlocked, easily openable access points in the bottom, because that seems like a serious f@!@ing design flaw) - how the hell did the zombies manage to slow down, much less stop that thing. Did the guy inside get bored? Did he run out of gas because there wasn't sufficient supplyline support?

And why only one tank? Don't those things, you know, travel in g$***@n packs because they're so good at killing s#%#, particularly in large numbers?

I get suspension of disbelief, but I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on how an army of unarmed and stupid creatures could ever pose a threat to organized and militarized humans.

Short answer: Read World War Z. :P

Long answer: Most people wouldn't be organized or act in concert. People would not understand what was happening (assuming the "world" in question did not have zombie fiction :P) Even the military would not fully understand the threat in time.

While individual tanks, etc., might be effectively invulnerable, supply lines would collapse. Communications would be interrupted. Instead of an organized fighting force, you'd end up with pockets of disorganized survivors. In short, chaos would do us in as much as the zombies.

Oh, and the "dude in a coma wakes up to zombie-pocalypse" trope is, and always has been, stupid. It was the weakest element of 28 days later, and I barely made it through the first volume of the Walking Dead graphic novel when I saw it being reused. If there is a weak point in the dead body storage infrastructure of the U.S., it's hospitals, where dead bodies are produced and stored in larger numbers than anywhere else. The first thing humans should do when they realize that dead people come back as zombies is either (a) secure patients in critical condition in a place where they can't do damage should they become zombies or (b) kill them just to be safe.

Conversely, once the humans lose control of the hospital, the zombies are going to go room to room eating all that yummy meat just lying around. Like coma patients.

Finally, I'm no doctor, but I'm under the impression that humans die within a few days of not getting any more food and water. How long do IV bags last? Was someone there, pumping nutrients and water into Rick Grimes in the day or so before civlization fell? Didn't they have anything better to do than keep a potential zombie nearby?

Okay, I'm done. I'm really enjoying the show, I just have some pet peeves.

I always thought it wasn't necessarily the people who were already dead coming back, but people who were infected spreading the virus by attacking others.

Man, friggen lawyers. Always over-analyzing stuff. ;-P

Most modern zombie apocalypse fiction assumes a rapid, nearly overnight spread of infestation. Really it's the only way to overcome some of the issues you mention. Honestly though, the best books don't really deal with it. Good zombie fiction isn't about how or why it happened. It happened and now they out number us, that's all that matters. The story is about what happens next.

As for Rick's time in the hospital, in the comic I always had the impression of only a few days from gunshot to waking. The TV show certainly made it 'feel' longer. A slow drip IV bag might last a day or two (total speculation, I'm no doctor either). And being in a coma may reduce the amount of fluid needed by the body making him less likely to dehydrate. Food is less of an issue, lack of water will kill you long before that. So, maybe he could have survived without care for a week?

Zombies were never a credible threat even if they did exist. :)

here's why

For the record I'm not saying my concern with the obvious a%$@!$* issue is legitimate, just that it's a worry, we'll know if it's legitimate when people actually start dying, so far we have a death toll amongst the group of 0. It's not a problem if the nice people drop off with at least a rate of 1 in 3 deaths, but if people only die after becoming the obvious a+!!+$+, or redshirts, then it's a problem, and that's my worry, I haven't said it will happen, just that I'm worried we may get one "nice" person death a season to 5-6 people who die the episode they're introduced, or obvious a$@~~##s.

Thanks for humoring my rant. I guess the surprise factor needs to be taken into account; we're so oversaturated in zombie fiction, that what seems obvious to us wouldn't be obvious to those without such stories. That's also helpful with regards to how long Rick was unconcious.

Without too many spoilers, does the comic ever delve into the source of the zombies or the details of how they overtook humanity so quickly? I don't necessarily mind that element being glossed over because it's not essential to the story (I'm one of those who liked Children of Men despite the basic premise never being explained or fully resolved), but I'm just curious if there's greater depth to the origin story.

Thanks for humoring my rant. I guess the surprise factor needs to be taken into account; we're so oversaturated in zombie fiction, that what seems obvious to us wouldn't be obvious to those without such stories. That's also helpful with regards to how long Rick was unconcious.

Without too many spoilers, does the comic ever delve into the source of the zombies or the details of how they overtook humanity so quickly? I don't necessarily mind that element being glossed over because it's not essential to the story (I'm one of those who liked Children of Men despite the basic premise never being explained or fully resolved), but I'm just curious if there's greater depth to the origin story.

Children of Men. GREAT movie. Would also like to know the origin.

Things to remember: you have to sleep sometime, not all zombies are slow and stupid (i.e. zombieland), and can be far more dangerous if you don't realize there's an outbreak of zombie plague (i.e. shawn of the dead).

Bonus points if it is an airborne virus causing the problems (i.e. I Am Legend) or rats. And lets not even go into the realm of science not-so-fiction (a genetically engineered super virus, a tiny computer/machine that crawls it way into your head through your ear and plugs into your nervous system, an inbred parasite that disables logical thought while still leaving motor control and basic survival instinct intact and then released into our food supply).

Zombies were never a credible threat even if they did exist. :)

here's why

For the record I'm not saying my concern with the obvious a*@!#%~ issue is legitimate, just that it's a worry, we'll know if it's legitimate when people actually start dying, so far we have a death toll amongst the group of 0. It's not a problem if the nice people drop off with at least a rate of 1 in 3 deaths, but if people only die after becoming the obvious a*@!#%~, or redshirts, then it's a problem, and that's my worry, I haven't said it will happen, just that I'm worried we may get one "nice" person death a season to 5-6 people who die the episode they're introduced, or obvious a*@!#%~s.

FHDM attempts to counter zombie link!!!

7- The best counter to this is that the zombie apocalypse doesn't have to last that long. Damage to infrastructure is whats really going to hurt our civilization here, not necessarily the zombies coming together to march for civil rights or elect a zombie president(Sorry Aberzombie). Even if it lasts less than a week(how long does it take for a body to truly break down?), the sheer amount of damage done by zombies(not even counting the damage done by MAD-happy humans) would be enough to push us back a few ages with respect to sustainable technology. And who says that the disease doesn't make the jump, like it did in your favorite movie and mine, Resident Evil Apocalypse? Zombie may make for great eating in the short term, but then wolves and bears have to deal with zombie versions of themselves. Which would be problematic for everyone.

6- Interesting point, but yet again, the apocalypse doesn't have to last that long. Wet heat might be a vector for the disease if it's airborne, dry, hot places might be humanity's last refuge, however.

5- The best one so far, but it ignores the fact that zombies travel in packs and may just hunker together to preserve warmth, even if it is by accident. Frozen places may become humanity's last refuge as well, depending. Again, apocalypse doesn't have to last that long.

4- Indeed it is, but it also depends on what kind of biting we're talking about. It is one bite, one zombie, or a systemic infection? This objection, moreso than others, depends entirely on what kind of virus we're talking about, and if we are facing something other than zombie humans. Birds would be the most horrifying thing I could think of.

3- Once again, the zombie apocalypse doesn't have to last that long. Sure, they can't heal, but they don't have to- they just have to spread the disease to someone healthy enough to spread it along to someone else, etc.

2- An excellent point, and perhaps the best one overall. I could see the zombie apocalypse screwing over some areas and leaving others relatively zombie free.

1- This is actually a problem, but not necessarily for the zombies. The downfall of civilization as we know it would result in a lot of scared people who would probably take issue with you shooting a loved one because you *think* they might be infected, and they would probably defend their interests quite bloodily. Old scores would be settled. People would become less interested in day to day pleasantries and more in survival. Furthermore, the people with guns would probably be the only ones who could hunt, and I could see some people who don't hunt regularly not being okay with that and wanting some of that precious, non-infected meat they bring back with them to camp every now and again. I think people would start shooting each other the instant they ran out of zombies to shoot, especially if we couldn't get on the internet or had working cell phones to see what was going on in the rest of the world.

Zombies were never a credible threat even if they did exist. :)

here's why

Yea... well ...

I prefer this Cracked article. ;)

Sebastian, the short answer to your question about how zombies could overrun a modern, mechanized army is that most people in our modern, mechanized society are soft. Intellectually, physically, and (worst of all) psychologically weak. Generally speaking, they lack the presence of mind to properly process emergency events (of any kind), and they lack the will to kill when necessary...and that's just with regard to total strangers. When you get into a situation where a family member is turned, it becomes easy to see how a zombie plague could spread so quickly.(Honestly, for just a moment, picture yourself leveling a shotgun at your mother's face and pulling the trigger. Think REAL hard about it.)

You may be thinking at this point that what I've said wouldn't apply to the military, but keep in mind that for domestic defense, the largest burden would fall upon "part-time" soldiers in the form of Reservists and Guardsmen (who, in the midst of all the chaos, will be mobilized piecemeal, at best), who will suffer from the same maladies mentioned above. Also, the total size of the US military is just under 2.5 million, and a rather large portion of those numbers are spread out across the globe (remember that the US maintains a military presence in over 170 countries at the present time). With a total US population of ~300 million, it isn't beyond the realm of reason to envision the military being outnumbered several thousand (or more) to one, odds that no army could hope to overcome.

Something else to consider is the fact that our army relies on its logistics and communications to a much greater degree than it relies on its rifles. Without a reliable supply chain to ensure ammunition, food and medical equipment, our army (just like any other) grinds to a halt. As Sun Tzu said, "An army without its baggage train is lost, without its bases of supply, it is lost."

There's more, but this was supposed to be a "short" answer...sorry.

lastknightleft wrote:

Zombies were never a credible threat even if they did exist. :)

here's why

Yea... well ...

I prefer this Cracked article to yours. ;)

Secretly? Really? Not me. I openly and loudly pray every single day for a zombie apocalypse. The only thing that could be better than a zombie apocalypse would be a zombie apocalypse caused by the returning Anunaki.

Sebastian, the short answer to your question about how zombies could overrun a modern, mechanized army is that most people in our modern, mechanized society are soft. Intellectually, physically, and (worst of all) psychologically weak. Generally speaking, they lack the presence of mind to properly process emergency events (of any kind), and they lack the will to kill when necessary.

I have to disagree with you. The US Military (and I"m sure most others around the world) can kill with extreme efficiency and are trained to do so quite well. Weak is not a term I would use to describe them, in any sense.

Sieglord wrote:

Sebastian, the short answer to your question about how zombies could overrun a modern, mechanized army is that most people in our modern, mechanized society are soft. Intellectually, physically, and (worst of all) psychologically weak. Generally speaking, they lack the presence of mind to properly process emergency events (of any kind), and they lack the will to kill when necessary.

I have to disagree with you. The US Military (and I"m sure most others around the world) can kill with extreme efficiency and are trained to do so quite well. Weak is not a term I would use to describe them, in any sense.

"You may be thinking at this point that what I've said wouldn't apply to the military, but keep in mind that for domestic defense, the largest burden would fall upon "part-time" soldiers in the form of Reservists and Guardsmen..."

One comment on the numbers. According to the powers of google and lazy fact checking, there are 98m cows in the U.S.

Now, cows are less invulnerable than zombies, but they're probably about as smart as a zombie, and just about as capable of using tools. They're larger than humans, so what they lack in offensive zombie-ness, they make up for in mass. I'd say they could inflict about as much damage as a zombie if they got really pissed off.

The military could totally take 98 angry million cows. I'd think even a small operating unit of the military could take out 98 million angry cows. You don't need parity on numbers, you don't even need to get close enough to see dear old Mom's face. Just a few missiles or gunships, and it's game over.

Now, this isn't to say s!@% couldn't get really bad. Once the military gets turned on, they're likely going to take the position that it's better to destroy the cities and everyone (living and undead) inside rather than risk getting overrun. But between all the armed forces based in heavily fortified (and virtually impenetrable as far as zombies are concerned) bases and naval units, there'd still be a lot of firepower on the board. From there, it's just a matter of making tactical runs to secure strategic resources.

Civilization wouldn't be wiped out by zombies. It might take a sucker punch, and get knocked on its ass for a round or two, but our military technology is more than sufficient to keep a toehold, expand that toehold, and take back the earth. We might not have any cities, the population might go down by 90%, and...well...when you put it like that, civlization as we know it would be wiped out.

But we'd totally whup the zombies' asses. It'd take 3-5 weeks, max.

Zombies were never a credible threat even if they did exist. :)

here's why

The problem with that article is that it assumes that only people who are bitten become zombies. In Romero's zombpocolypse and others

Civilization wouldn't be wiped out by zombies. It might take a sucker punch, and get knocked on its ass for a round or two, but our military technology is more than sufficient to keep a toehold, expand that toehold, and take back the earth. We might not have any cities, the population might go down by 90%, and...well...when you put it like that, civlization as we know it would be wiped out.

But we'd totally whup the zombies' asses. It'd take 3-5 weeks, max.

Not sure that I agree that 90% of humanity dying in 3-5 weeks is "whuppin ass".

Sebastian wrote:

Civilization wouldn't be wiped out by zombies. It might take a sucker punch, and get knocked on its ass for a round or two, but our military technology is more than sufficient to keep a toehold, expand that toehold, and take back the earth. We might not have any cities, the population might go down by 90%, and...well...when you put it like that, civlization as we know it would be wiped out.

But we'd totally whup the zombies' asses. It'd take 3-5 weeks, max.

Not sure that I agree that 90% of humanity dying in 3-5 weeks is "whuppin ass".

To paraphrase the Matrix Reloaded: There are levels of "whuppin' ass" that we are prepared to accept.

Classic Romero zombies are a different kettle of fish. There's no way we'd survive that s~@@. Zombie butterflies, zombie plants, head shots don't kill - heck, nuking them didn't even work.

Prince That Howls wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

Civilization wouldn't be wiped out by zombies. It might take a sucker punch, and get knocked on its ass for a round or two, but our military technology is more than sufficient to keep a toehold, expand that toehold, and take back the earth. We might not have any cities, the population might go down by 90%, and...well...when you put it like that, civlization as we know it would be wiped out.

But we'd totally whup the zombies' asses. It'd take 3-5 weeks, max.

Not sure that I agree that 90% of humanity dying in 3-5 weeks is "whuppin ass".

To paraphrase the Matrix Reloaded: There are levels of "whuppin' ass" that we are prepared to accept.

Classic Romero zombies are a different kettle of fish. There's no way we'd survive that s%*@. Zombie butterflies, zombie plants, head shots don't kill - heck, nuking them didn't even work.

I think you're confusing Romero zombies with Return of the Living dead. You can put down a Romero zombie, but every single person who dies from anything but a destroyed brain is going to stand back up and try to nom on the living.

Sebastian wrote:

Prince That Howls wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

Civilization wouldn't be wiped out by zombies. It might take a sucker punch, and get knocked on its ass for a round or two, but our military technology is more than sufficient to keep a toehold, expand that toehold, and take back the earth. We might not have any cities, the population might go down by 90%, and...well...when you put it like that, civlization as we know it would be wiped out.

But we'd totally whup the zombies' asses. It'd take 3-5 weeks, max.

Not sure that I agree that 90% of humanity dying in 3-5 weeks is "whuppin ass".

To paraphrase the Matrix Reloaded: There are levels of "whuppin' ass" that we are prepared to accept.

Classic Romero zombies are a different kettle of fish. There's no way we'd survive that s%*@. Zombie butterflies, zombie plants, head shots don't kill - heck, nuking them didn't even work.

I think you're confusing Romero zombies with Return of the Living dead. You can put down a Romero zombie, but every single person who dies from anything but a destroyed brain is going to stand back up and try to nom on the living.

Ah, you're right. I always get fooled by the title and think Return of the Living Dead is a Romero zombie movie. Is there a distinction between the Walking Dead zombies and the Romero zombies? I thought they were basically the same.

Ah, you're right. I always get fooled by the title and think Return of the Living Dead is a Romero zombie movie. Is there a distinction between the Walking Dead zombies and the Romero zombies? I thought they were basically the same.

I think the Walking Dead zombie's bite kills you quicker than a Romero zombie bite. That's about all I can think of off the top of my head. Of course in both settings the living are more dangerous than the dead for the survivors.

Sebastian, again I ask you: How palatable is the thought of shooting your mother in the face? Or your father? Your siblings? Children?

The issue is not what the military could do, it's what the normal, average citizen could do. The zombies are not an invasion force, they don't establish beachheads, conduct raids, conquer territory, exploit resources, or do any of the things that a military is prepared to deal with. They don't retreat or fall back when their formations start taking casualties, they can't be "pinned down", and suppressive fire is a waste of ammo in this case

If there is a zombie apocalypse (and if it even remotely resembles any part of the fiction), this will be the scene: You will come home, or wake up, or whatever, and your loved one will be acting strangely (they won't really look any different; as the ZA is just beginning, the zombies won't be showing any decay at this point). When you try to get closer to see what is wrong, you will be attacked. By someone you've known your entire life, the last person on earth you would ever expect to harm you...and the last person on earth you could ever bring yourself to harm. We can safely leave up in the air the outcome of that scenario; maybe you survive, maybe you don't. The point is that that same scene will be replayed in millions of homes, schools, apartments and workplaces throughout the country...all at the same time.

And your cow example fails for one simple reason: Cows don't look like us. They don't wear the faces of our friends, families, and neighbors. We don't look at a cow as being human, or as ever having been human. No matter how much we like to eat them, or how cute some people think they are, we've never had much regard for their lives in any sense. Aside from all of that, if 98 million cows banded together to seek out and devour the flesh of humans, our military WOULD be very hard pressed to turn back the mooing tide. An M-16A2 holds 30 rounds in it's magazine, and the American infantryman goes into combat with 6 spare magazines, for a grand total of 210 bullets (in the interests of thoroughness, we can go ahead and factor in the two automatic rifles per squad, 1000-1500 belted rounds that will go FAST). Once those rounds are expended, if immediate resupply is not forthcoming, that squad is nothing more than zombies-to-be waiting for the teeth. (An M-16 without ammunition doesn't even make a decent club)

And gunships, planes, bombers, and all those other nifty toys that we use to fight our wars with won't even be an issue, as most of the personnel needed to operate, maintain, refuel, re-arm, and repair those devices will be among the hordes of zombies wailing for your brain-meat.

Our tanks will be useless. The M-1 Abrams tanks uses a gas turbine engine that gets three gallons to the mile. I didn't accidentally switch that around...an M-1 must literally consume three gallons of gasoline (high octane racing-type gasoline, at that) in order to travel one single, solitary mile.

Artillery will be equally irrelevant, unless the people commanding the guns don't mind bringing the steel rain down on the heads of their own people...don't kid yourself, the zombie apocalypse fighting will be up close and VERY personal.

More people should read World War Z, methinks> Military might be more hard pressed than you might think. Ignoring the afore-mentioned psychological impact of killing loved-ones, In most ZA scenarios, the only way to kill the undead is by head-shots. Thermobaric weapons? nigh-useless. Heavy Artillery? Makes for harder to notice (albeit slow moving) ground zombies that gnaw on your lower legs as you unsuspectingly walk by them. Snipers? Most modern military forces teach to go for core shots, why? Because the head is such a small target. So snipers will have to disregard years of training and try to hit a much smaller target than normal. Supplies will hard to get as most roads will be jammed with traffic. Or I could be totally wrong and the military uses area 51 as ZA training facility and we whup ass. Either way, its an interesting thought excercise, and I highly recommend World War Z.

Edit: I just want to add (and I think this might be where the walking dead is going with this)that in a ZA, the zombies arent the main threat, its other humans, unbound from society's mores and laws. (Bioshock, anyone?)

So, I finally got to watch some of this show, after missing the first two episodes while I was on travel and working. Watched the first 2 parts On Demand last night and this morning. I'll likely get around to the 3 episode tonight.

I've found it to be entertaining, although I can see elements ripped from other shows (the 28 Days movie, some of the Romero flicks, that Dawn of the Dead remake). Also, some of the characters and plot points seem pretty generic and caricature-ish. I do like that they seem to be avoiding mentioning the word zombie.

Still, overall, I find myself enjoying it and looking forward to more.

GO WALKERS!!!