Romero Hypotheticals

[krakenslayer]

Peter is my hero of ALL the Dead films! I'm currently reading the Dawn of the Dead novelisation. It's rather poorly written (the POV jumps all over the place between characters and the descriptions are a bit lame and cliche), about on par with most quickie novelisations, but it is interesting because it gives some insight into the minds of the characters, what they think about each other, and their backgrounds. It really highlights four things to me: 1. At the beginning, everyone, even Roger, is scared of Peter. In the book, the main reason he starts telling him about his plan to escape is partly just to break Peter's stony silence in the basement. The other characters see him as mysterious, cold and aloof. The movie conveys some of this, I always though that was mostly just the characters' general nervousness at the situation, but the novel really plays on this aspect of his character for the first half of the book. 2. Peter is one cool-headed, tough, unshakable bastard. He never goes into a situation without planning exactly what his moves are going to be, and is only ever caught out when someone else on his side fucks up. He will occasionally take on a dangerous task (such as initially raiding the mall), but not without weighing up all the possible outcomes and strategic options. 3. Peter really, really dislikes Stephen initially, even before the rifle incident. Stephen has a cocky, arrogant streak that is more evident in the novel, and it clashes with Peter's level and cautious personality. Stephen also dislikes Peter because he sees himself in a position of responsibility and power, as the helicopter pilot and the only hope of escape for the group, and he feels that Peter's presence undermines his authority. However, by the second half of the novel, their differences have largely been overcome, and after Roger's death the pair become much closer and trusting. 4. An important point in the story is when Fran asks to learn fly the helicopter, and Peter backs her up, Stephen realises he's expendable just like everyone else and that really hurts his male ego and leads to a lot of the interpersonal problems between him and Fran later in the story.

[Trin]

Hey Kraken, I agree regarding Peter. He's large and in charge and rarely makes a misstep. If I look solely at Peter I want to believe he'd survive. That's also great info regarding the book. Now I'm itching to read it!! What I have a hard time with in the "what-if" scenario is that there was NO ONE around the mall area for months. I'm a mathematician and thus I tend to think in terms of probabilities. It's difficult to accept that Peter could beat the odds that no one else did. Peter had the potential to get bit a couple times in the opening few scenes (prior to arriving at the mall). He didn't, but he could have. Yes, mostly due to his companions. That was just a couple days at most. But take that across several months and the liklihood of his getting bit goes way up. A reasonable blend of perspectives would indicate that Peter survived and ended up in a protected area somewhere, just not near the mall.

[krakenslayer]

What I have a hard time with in the "what-if" scenario is that there was NO ONE around the mall area for months. I'm a mathematician and thus I tend to think in terms of probabilities. It's difficult to accept that Peter could beat the odds that no one else did. If you want to look at it from the point of view of probabilities, you should check out the zombie outbreak simulation software that can be found online. One of the rules of the simulation is that when an uninfected human first comes into contact with a zombie, there is a 60% chance they will be killed and turn into a zombie, but, if they survive, the human's chances of surviving any further encounters increases steadily, representing the survivors overcoming the initial panic and learning how to calmly and efficiently deal with the undead. I think that's a good representation of what would happen in real life. Also, in real life (or at least in movie life, since zombies don't really exist), not everyone has the same chance of being killed. Some people will simply be unable to defend themselves; some will panic or have a breakdown and drop their guard; others will leave themselves open to attack through arrogance, greed, emotional instability, cowardice, superstition, aggression or other human flaws. People prone to the above (a huge majority of the population) have a higher probability of dying and also getting others killed, and are likely to do so within the first few months of the outbreak - thus making up the bulk of the horde. Thus, by a process of natural selection, the minority who are left alive three or four months in (around the end of Dawn) are going to be those who are better equipped to deal with the situation, or at least those who quickly learned how to do so. I think Peter, and to some extent Fran, fall into the latter category. Combine this with the learning experiences they have had, and their survival chances are further improved.

[Trin]

Good discussion. Good points. There are really two perspectives. From one vantage point you can argue things like whether a person is inclined to survive, has the skills, tools, environment, friends, etc. The zombie simulator is likely good at predicting given this vantage point. And Peter probably gets into the 99th percentile of who would survive. From another vantage point you can look at the state of the world a few months into the outbreak and reverse engineer the liklihood of survival to an individual. If Peter was in the 99th percentile of people equipped for survival he still likely dies when only 1 out of 10,000 survive. There is a real breakdown bringing the two vantage points together - this is where the movies ask us to suspend disbelief. There are likely enough survivors like Peter in the world to keep an outbreak from ever becoming significant. But where's the fun in that? To believe the movie we must accept that the Peter's of the world are getting killed even though individually it's hard to see how. I like your argument about human flaws. But I would counter that your argument doesn't completely hold up in the face of the movies. First, the biker gang was full of human flaws and yet they outlived the masses. I think this makes some sense because their lack of ethics and complete self-serving nature allowed them to do some things others would not. Second, human virtues can get you killed too. Peter was (to an extent) self-sacrificing, as any good hero is. He wouldn't let a person die while he stood by. And that could contribute to his demise.

[krakenslayer]

Good discussion. Good points. There are really two perspectives. From one vantage point you can argue things like whether a person is inclined to survive, has the skills, tools, environment, friends, etc. The zombie simulator is likely good at predicting given this vantage point. And Peter probably gets into the 99th percentile of who would survive. From another vantage point you can look at the state of the world a few months into the outbreak and reverse engineer the liklihood of survival to an individual. If Peter was in the 99th percentile of people equipped for survival he still likely dies when only 1 out of 10,000 survive. There is a real breakdown bringing the two vantage points together - this is where the movies ask us to suspend disbelief. There are likely enough survivors like Peter in the world to keep an outbreak from ever becoming significant. But where's the fun in that? To believe the movie we must accept that the Peter's of the world are getting killed even though individually it's hard to see how. I like your argument about human flaws. But I would counter that your argument doesn't completely hold up in the face of the movies. First, the biker gang was full of human flaws and yet they outlived the masses. I think this makes some sense because their lack of ethics and complete self-serving nature allowed them to do some things others would not. Second, human virtues can get you killed too. Peter was (to an extent) self-sacrificing, as any good hero is. He wouldn't let a person die while he stood by. And that could contribute to his demise. Good points, good points. Here're my thoughts: There are some additional factors that the zombie simulator does not allow for, primarily because it assumes that as the zombies' numbers grow, then chances of any one individual coming into contact with a zombie must also rise proportionately. This fails to take into account some major aspects of human behaviour, namely that long-term survivors will most likely do everything they can to limit their contact with the undead by a) migration, b) fortification and c) extermination. Firstly, in relation to point A, those remaining have likely observed enough of zombie behaviour to know that they will congregate in areas of population. By this time government control has broken down, so there is nobody cramming people into rescue stations or forcibly evacuating people, the survivors can do what they want, and go wherever the zombies are not. So either by continually moving around (like the bikers) or moving to areas that are isolated and/or inaccessible by foot (e.g. northern Canada, the Rocky Mountains), they can evade contact with large hordes altogether. Not only will these survivors have become more competent zombie-killers, they will have reduced their chances of any encounters with the creatures to levels that are far, far below those of average survivors in cities during the initial outbreak, thus multiplying their chances of survival. With regards to point B and C, as we have seen in the films, one of the first things survivors tend to do is barricade themselves in somewhere. A process of elimination must apply to any human safehouses, with the least effective ones (both in terms of physical structure and human management) being knocked out first. Therefore, those remaining a few months in, once stalemate has more or less set in and the mass killing have eased off, are already succeeding in protecting their inhabitants from the (more or less) maximum number of zombies they will ever have to. Provided they are able to scavenge enough food (if not, then they're not likely to make it this far), the survivors are likely to turn their minds to the problem of the hordes outside their walls, and figuring out the best ways to safely wipe them out, or at least distract them from gathering around their base. As far as how the Peters of the world are dying. Well, first of all, we don't know that they are, really. Some of them might already be kicking back on islands on the Great Lakes, or hunting deer in the Rockies. On the other hand, Peter was lucky because not only did he have the correct mindset, but he also had a means to escape the city (helicopter). Plus, if you look at all the times his life was put in jeopardy, it was usually someone else's fault for either being dumb or trying to throw their weight around (i.e. Roger or Stephen), so maybe the Peter's of the world are being killed by the stupidity of others? Now it's just him and Fran, and provided the birth goes by without too many hitches, and they can get to a safe location, I can see them surviving. You make a very good point regarding human flaws. Maybe that is an area where suspension of disbelief must come into it - in his fictional world, Romero is trying to make a statement about human nature, and those who get cocky or power-hungry usually get their comeuppance, while those who are self-sacrificing and exhibit the traits Romero would like to see survive, are more often rewarded with survival (or at least our sympathy). The bloody dice of reality do not have this moral bias, but I think the core message - stay cool, work together, don't be a dick - is an important one for survival even in our world.

[SRP76]

If you want to look at it from the point of view of probabilities, you should check out the zombie outbreak simulation software that can be found online. One of the rules of the simulation is that when an uninfected human first comes into contact with a zombie, there is a 60% chance they will be killed and turn into a zombie, but, if they survive, the human's chances of surviving any further encounters increases steadily, representing the survivors overcoming the initial panic and learning how to calmly and efficiently deal with the undead. I think that's a good representation of what would happen in real life. Hold on. The most important part of this outbreak simulator is this: how does it assume the thing starts? Is it based off one single zombie randomly placed somewhere, or is it based off the idea of all corpses, everywhere, worldwide, getting up all at the same time?

[Wyldwraith]

Love counter-factual debates of survival fiction, - Like many, I tend to focus on Dawn, largely because it's the most detailed example of individuals with a plan working together to implement that plan despite the obstacle posed by the undead. I'm also in the camp that believes the Peters of the world are not in fact dying. They're the ones acting as nuclei for the successful enclaves of survivors that spring up. Night:...it's really difficult to play "What if?" with NotLD, because of the abundance of lethal errors made by the survivors. The decision to try and hold the ground floor via barricading pretty much predetermined the course of events. The only major counter-factual opportunity here is if Barbara had succeeded in persuading Ben that an escape on foot was much less dangerous than staying in the house. Had that happened, there are a variety of possible outcomes. The next-most critical decision, assuming she failed to persuade Ben as she did in the movie, was whether to go into the basement or attic before or even during the beginning of the mass-breach by the zombies. Survival is the likely outcome had they withdrawn. Not much more one could say. Day has limited What If options for the obvious reason. By the time of the opening credits the vast majority of outcomes good for the survivors no longer existed. Due to the interpersonal conflict in the research base there are a large variety of other ways for disaster to have found them. Chances were very low that those who did escape would chance upon a safe haven with their limited fuel. The same argument could be made for the end of Land, but at least Dead Reckoning does double duty as secure shelter, even when not in motion. The more interesting hypothetical scenarios to me are the general fan-created ones for me. The movies are weighed down by built-in factors against the odds of human survival. Either civilization has already failed to contain the infection and 99.5% of humanity is dead, or the protagonists have been denied effective survival resources. That's one of the things that makes Dawn fascinating IMO. The fact that the survivors have unquestionably secure shelter for much of the movie is a novel departure from the usual. I don't think it's fair to say that all the what-ifs and hypotheticals have been exhausted. It's just that we tend to focus on immediate reactions to discovery of the zombie crisis, or go the other way and take the extremely long view. Everything in between tends to get glossed over. Just my opinion. Interested to see where this latest thread goes.

[SRP76]

The Day scenario in the original post wouldn't affect anything. If Cooper lived, the ever-pathethic Miguel would still be there. The ever-pathetic Miguel would therefore still fuck up at the zombie corral, leading to his getting his ever-pathetic self bitten. The ever-pathetic Miguel would then still end up dragging his ever-pathetic ass out of bed, and letting a zillion zombies into the complex. Game over, just like what happened. As long as the ever-pathetic Miguel exists, humanity is doomed.

[Danny]

isnt that a bit harsh?, the whole movies about stress and how different people cope with it. you got the protagonist who suppresses it, but her dreams are wracked with the same fear and turmoil muigel vocalised. Muigel was afraid and acted irrationally in that way. frankenstein coped by trying to recreate a warped and bizarre father son existence. The names escape me but you got the radio guy who drinks to cope, the lead antagonist who gets angry that he finally has the power, but in actuality is as powerless as the rest, and in his stress induced rage he lashes out how he does. The other two sort of become subhuman and just prowl around like jackals, again there trying to cope by falling back into this pack mentality. This isnt just me right?, i thought this was pretty much the theme of the movie, there all in the same situation, exactly the same. Theres no way to control the dead, they all no it, the worlds gone, there status, education, experience, rank none of it means anything other than the leftovers of a now dead species trying to play at being human, whilst trying to deny that very fact and they each break down in there own way. come to think of it this is the 3rd film in a row where the black guys the only rational voice of reason that keeps a level head, i know romeros said the race thing is just readin too much into it but now i think about it i reckon theres something to it, intentional or not.

[SRP76]

isnt that a bit harsh?, the whole movies about stress and how different people cope with it. I don't think it's harsh. Miguel was a fuckup, and he pretty much signed everyone's death warrant when he let the zombies in. And we never had even one scene with Rhodes and Miguel together, so we can't blame any of Miguel's actions on Rhodes. He would have done the same things whether Cooper was still alive or not. And once all those zombies are let in, there's no way to survive. Cooper wouldn't have made a difference.

[Slain]

What I wonder about is the lack sex drive the characters in Dawn and Land display. I don't recall Rodger or Peter once talking about exploring the area around the mall to look for women of their own. The soldiers at the underground base in Land seem relatively content harassing the lone chick at their base, and I don't recall them talking about deserting Rhodes' ass to go search for female companionship. If the zombie inducing agent also decreased people's sex drive, I think they should have mentioned it in the movie or something.

[krakenslayer]

Hold on. The most important part of this outbreak simulator is this: how does it assume the thing starts? Is it based off one single zombie randomly placed somewhere, or is it based off the idea of all corpses, everywhere, worldwide, getting up all at the same time? Well, the zombie simulator simulates single zombie starting off in a small area with many humans. This, in and of itself, is not totally inaccurate because even with every single unburied corpse in the country getting up, there is like likely to be, initially, only a very small number (maybe as few as one in some areas) in any given square mile of landscape. The simulator doesn't attempt to model an entire world, only a little self contained area. You are right, however, that it does not truly represent behaviour in a Romerian zombie outbreak. These issues have already been discussed by Trin and myself but probably the main one in relation to your point is the problem that the simulated area IS self-contained - humans can not migrate elsewhere and zombies cannot wander in from elsewhere. Also, in the simulator humans do not die of natural causes or kill each other, so cannot turn into zombie by that route, and it does not model human behaviour in trying to avoid, escape or actively exterminate zombies. So yeah, taken as a whole there are all kinds of problems in using the simulator as a model for the outbreak in GAR's films, but that wasn't really what I was trying to do; I was using one aspect of the game to illustrate one single point - that humans will get better at surviving zombie encounters as time goes on.

[Trin]

Logan caused the demise in Day, not Miguel. The group might have coped with Miguel's bite had Logan's little secret not been exposed. They coped with other military deaths to that point without losing it. Cooper was a force of stability in the group as evidenced by how quickly the situation deteriorated after his death. There's nothing to say the group couldn't have continued on indefinitely with Cooper as the leader. As for Peter and the zombie simulator - I still am not convinced of people like Peter surviving. I agree they would last longer than most. They might set up small shelters here and there and weather the initial storm. Some of those would surely turn into Fiddler's Greens. Looking at a couple weeks or a month or two, yes, I agree, they'd survive. But Dawn was an 8 month period. Merely beating off a hundred zombies and blocking the doors isn't going to cut it for that kind of survival time. Lack of electricity, sanitation, clean water, food, gasoline, medicine, etc. would get you eventually. You cannot manage disease, vermin, parasites, stress with an M-16. The mall was great for a while. But even the Dawn crew realized the mall was not the answer.

[darth los]

It was the answer but not a cure all. They could have stayed at the mall indefinitely but what caused their malaise there was no cure for. They felt isolated and empty. The world was at an end. To quote Logan: Where will you go? Were there any places better than the mall? Of course not, it just also happened to be a big shiny target for looters but they had the right idea. Wherever they went they would have faced atleast the same problems only they would not have been as comfortable.

[sandrock74]

The Day scenario in the original post wouldn't affect anything. If Cooper lived, the ever-pathethic Miguel would still be there. The ever-pathetic Miguel would therefore still fuck up at the zombie corral, leading to his getting his ever-pathetic self bitten. The ever-pathetic Miguel would then still end up dragging his ever-pathetic ass out of bed, and letting a zillion zombies into the complex. Game over, just like what happened. As long as the ever-pathetic Miguel exists, humanity is doomed. Word! I don't think it's harsh. Miguel was a fuckup, and he pretty much signed everyone's death warrant when he let the zombies in. And we never had even one scene with Rhodes and Miguel together, so we can't blame any of Miguel's actions on Rhodes. He would have done the same things whether Cooper was still alive or not. And once all those zombies are let in, there's no way to survive. Cooper wouldn't have made a difference. Keep preaching, brother! What I wonder about is the lack sex drive the characters in Dawn and Land display. I don't recall Rodger or Peter once talking about exploring the area around the mall to look for women of their own. The soldiers at the underground base in Land seem relatively content harassing the lone chick at their base, and I don't recall them talking about deserting Rhodes' ass to go search for female companionship. If the zombie inducing agent also decreased people's sex drive, I think they should have mentioned it in the movie or something. I don't know...this seems foolish to me. I mean, if I was always having to worry about being made a snack to a mass of zombies, getting laid would be very low on my totem pole of important things to me! Besides, some of the characters, like Rickles, wore wedding rings, so they may have been clinging to the hope that they would see their spouses/familes again. So, chasing poon tang pie wouldn't be high on their list of priorities either. Looking at a couple weeks or a month or two, yes, I agree, they'd survive. But Dawn was an 8 month period. Merely beating off a hundred zombies and blocking the doors isn't going to cut it for that kind of survival time. Lack of electricity, sanitation, clean water, food, gasoline, medicine, etc. would get you eventually. You cannot manage disease, vermin, parasites, stress with an M-16. The mall was great for a while. But even the Dawn crew realized the mall was not the answer. Very true. I was thinking of this the other day when I was at the drawing board. I always envisioned Dawn as taking place (roughly) from Halloween to early March. Two bits of evidence in the movie would support this theory: 1. the lack of leaves on trees and 2. Frans belly. Basically, the "fantastic four" made their break from Philly, found the mall and barricaded it in late October - early November. They holed up there for the winter (which we didn't see on screen, because we were being shown their reactions to being cooped up and isolated...already a natural reaction to winter). Then, around early March, Fran was noticably bigger and there were still no leaves on the trees AND Fran put a heavier coat on prior to leaving, implying it was still chilly outside....so not yet spring. The gang was lucky to find a comfortable place to shack up for the winter. Hell, with heat, food, indoor plumbing and fresh clothes all at their disposal, they were in a MUCH better position than pretty much any other survivors out there! Still, I think that they would have been hard pressed to stay there thru the summer. Eventually, something beyond their control would have happened to make them loose power or something. In short, the mall was a great short term solution, it should not have been meant to be a permanent one.