On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces.
It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it.
Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic.
The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area.
To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it.
Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable.
TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives.
This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival.
Riiiighttt..... The amount of lives you take away in order to kill the infected would be astronomically higher than those killed by the zombies.
Not true. The only way this would be ineffective is if it is an airborn disease.
You close off the populated area, you try to evacuate as many as you can while setting them up in quarintine for an estimated time (generally 5x longer than it usually takes to mutate/change) and when the virus begins to manifest worse and worse in that populated area and you can't safely evacuate the civilians you lock it down and blow the city. What is the other option? Wait till it spreads? I'd rather kill 100,000 then lose a few billion and that is if I had to be one of that 100,000.
You should really actually read World War Z, they cover this exact situation at one point, if I remember right. It doesn't end well for those making the decision.
No matter how a book goes what other choice is there? I don't see how this is any error whatsoever. Sure they might face political reprecussions but the fact is if you can contain the outbreak quickly and effectively and it IS NOT air born then it should be a task of quick clean. The issue is trying to save lives, not exterminate the virus. Get the virus, fuck the lives. Better we anhilate 5 billion of the 7 billion then let all humanity go exinct and im only really talking about a few hundred thousand.
I think it could be ok, as long as you pretend it only has the same name as a certain zombie book through pure coincidence. If there's any reason it sucks, it'll be because of the kid and wife.
The trailer didn't really intrigue me that much honestly. Looks like too much action, which makes me feel like it would be short on character development. Also, I prefer zombie stories that follow a small group of characters trying to survive rather than military involvement and large operations. Guess I'll just have to wait and see what the reviews say when it comes out, but right now my hopes aren't high.
I have the book sitting at home, I need to get around to reading that too. Even though it sounds like it's supposed to be a lot different than the what this movie looks like
For me, the book started off very strong. I really enjoyed the ethnographic form of it (especially as an academic). It helped create the impression of seeing a world post-zombie apocalypse through a very realistic perspective. Not realism in terms of looking real, but real in terms of being sort of mundane and banal, the basic ways that people survive in communities. Towards the end I lost interest however. For me the researcher's commentary on how the world fell apart was very interesting and fun to read, but the commentary on how the world got put back together wasn't as much fun.
On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces.
It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it.
Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic.
The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area.
To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it.
Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable.
TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives.
This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival.
Riiiighttt..... The amount of lives you take away in order to kill the infected would be astronomically higher than those killed by the zombies.
Not true. The only way this would be ineffective is if it is an airborn disease.
You close off the populated area, you try to evacuate as many as you can while setting them up in quarintine for an estimated time (generally 5x longer than it usually takes to mutate/change) and when the virus begins to manifest worse and worse in that populated area and you can't safely evacuate the civilians you lock it down and blow the city. What is the other option? Wait till it spreads? I'd rather kill 100,000 then lose a few billion and that is if I had to be one of that 100,000.
TL general throws a fit at every bit of violence-against-citizens bit of news, imagine the public reaction to something like this. You also can't quickly evacuate civilians, people that need to be thoroughly medically screened to identify if they might be bearing an infection - who knows how long it can lie dormant or how it spreads? More importantly, during that time panic may already be beginning, because evacuations are not a small matter.
Uggghhhh, this looks nothing like max brooks' style of Zombie, I haven't read WWZ but i have read the survival guide, and this is not like anything he described in there. It looks like 2012 mixed with zombies, except with less destruction porn, so basically, it look like shit
Yeah that's exactly how you have to look at it. If you want a movie to be like the book you're going to be disappointed 100% of the time. I'm sure the movie will be okay and maybe it'll be good. Not great like the book but it'll probably be hard to make something really terrible with such a fertile source to draw from.
That's modern cinema. Come out with a great movie once every 5 years, remake great movies or rip off books the rest of the time.
On November 10 2012 06:01 D10 wrote: Still, do you agree with me that even Max Brooks zombies would be easily eliminated by whatever remained for lets say.. the US military forces.
It's all explained quite well in the books, I thought this too before reading it.
Basically the infection spreads realistically, most of the world doesn't even believe the virus exists until it's relatively widespread, and even then the government tries to cover it up to stop mass panic.
The issue with "fighting" the zombies is that there really isn't anything to fight. You're fighting ghosts and tiny infections. It'd be a logistical nightmare, having to inspect all potentially infected people. Brooks also explains through placebo drugs, fake infections, organ transplants, and the natural delay between bite and full blown infection, it's very difficult to fully eradicate the virus even in a localized area.
To have a large scale military battle, it would mean the outbreak has already reached a point where it is taking over a large percentage of the country. In Brooks' universe the issue is not that our weapons couldn't kill the zombies, obviously fighter jets and nukes can kill zombies. It's that you can't properly distinguish infected from uninfected. The manpower required to do this as well as to redistribute the US to a wartime economy/production (think of all the accountants, lawyers, etc who are useless in a zombie war) make the country entirely unprepared for it.
Imagine if a zombie outbreak happened today, a lot of people would simply not believe it's occurring until they saw actual evidence of it. Misinformation, denial, etc would be much more likely than everyone boarding up their homes and buying weapons. Nobody would believe it, and the way its portrayed in WWZ the book makes it quite believable.
TLDR; You're never going to find a place to nuke because most of the time, a city is 20% infected and the 80% healthy humans are running for their lives.
This is exactly why you must eradicate the non-infected and infected of an area. There is no "pick and choose" after a point, you must do what you must do to insure humanities survival.
Riiiighttt..... The amount of lives you take away in order to kill the infected would be astronomically higher than those killed by the zombies.
Not true. The only way this would be ineffective is if it is an airborn disease.
You close off the populated area, you try to evacuate as many as you can while setting them up in quarintine for an estimated time (generally 5x longer than it usually takes to mutate/change) and when the virus begins to manifest worse and worse in that populated area and you can't safely evacuate the civilians you lock it down and blow the city. What is the other option? Wait till it spreads? I'd rather kill 100,000 then lose a few billion and that is if I had to be one of that 100,000.
You should really actually read World War Z, they cover this exact situation at one point, if I remember right. It doesn't end well for those making the decision.
No matter how a book goes what other choice is there? I don't see how this is any error whatsoever. Sure they might face political reprecussions but the fact is if you can contain the outbreak quickly and effectively and it IS NOT air born then it should be a task of quick clean. The issue is trying to save lives, not exterminate the virus. Get the virus, fuck the lives. Better we anhilate 5 billion of the 7 billion then let all humanity go exinct and im only really talking about a few hundred thousand.
Again, that would do nothing but cause civil unrest and possibly a war. Plus the fact that containment is never 100% fool proof. You have bribes running, smugglers, people who get transplants and show no symptoms whatsoever. By the time you identify how exactly the disease spreads, it's infested in 90% of the nations highest populated areas. Then you start bombing the cities? Aside from the site of the initial impact, you wouldn't do much to the zombies except make them irradiated piles of walking flesh eating undead, and those of us who have played Fallout know how much more dangerous those ass holes are than normal walking flesh eating undead. So by dropping a bomb, you've successfully established civil unrest, failed to contain the disease 100%, made your enemy more dangerous to the rest of the nation, and wiped out an innocent population that could potentially serve to reclaim the nation later down the line. Well done.
Not a big fan of fast zombies. At all. I have yet to see a film where I thought the slower, impending, and impersonal doom wouldn't have been far better then the cheap flight or fight scare tactics.
Night of the Dead and Last Man on Earth (technically not zombies, but a pretty good pre-cursor to Romero's) are a couple that get it. Most everything else loses the chilling atmosphere and the feeling of inevitable defeat and replaces it with gore and action.
(Never read the book- this is just a general hate for fast "zombies.")
Yet another great book turned into brainless entertainment for the plebs. Also fast romero style zombies are lame they should be slow, numerous and deceptively sneaky.