eating the livestock

[fartpants]

i just wondered if zombies do eat animals as there is no reference to this in any of the films and i just find it strange that a zed would walk past a horse or a cow and not try to munch on it

[Philly_SWAT]

i just wondered if zombies do eat animals as there is no reference to this in any of the films and i just find it strange that a zed would walk past a horse or a cow and not try to munch on it

In Night, you do see a zed eat some type of insect that was on a tree. There are no horses or cows shown on screen that I recall, therefore we have no evidence of this one way or the other. But the fact that at least one zed eats a bug gives credence to the idea that they would eat livestock.

[fartpants]

i forgot about about the bug, nice one Philly

[sandrock74]

I think most animals can easily evade zombies. Zombies are too slow and uncoordinated to catch animals. Not to mention that a lot of animals could easily kick a zombies ass!
Imagine the hilarity of a zombie who makes the mistake of trying to eat a wolverine! :lol:

[zombiekiller]

In Night, you do see a zed eat some type of insect that was on a tree. There are no horses or cows shown on screen that I recall, therefore we have no evidence of this one way or the other. But the fact that at least one zed eats a bug gives credence to the idea that they would eat livestock.
if you rember in night 90 a zed is seen eating a mouse also.

[blind2d]

I just watched that, and it's funny how the other Zack gets all pissed like, "Hey, I want some too!" Yeah, don't know how they caught it, though...

[Danny]

i dont think they actively do, but it would be much scarier if you think about it, not even your food si safe from them, so you cant start a farm out of the way and just hide in the cellar when a group of em roam through, theyd eat all the cattle so youd starve eventually.


-or, knowing romero, theyd turn on each other whilst yelling "were the monsters!":lol:

[krakenslayer]

Night of the Living Dead - A zombie is seen eating an insect. This is possibly just an experimental bite.

Dawn of the Dead - Dr Millard Rauche: "They feed ONLY on warm human flesh". There was originally scripted a subplot involving a pet shop in the mall, and a surviving puppy that Fran adopts, which is later eaten by zombies. However, this inconsistency is probably precisely the reason the subplot was cut.

Day of the Dead - A major plot thread rests on the fact that the zombies will not eat anything other than human flesh. They reject "beef treats" and all other substitute foods, prompting Dr Logan to use... well, you know the rest.

Land of the Dead - No evidence in this movie one way or the other.

Diary of the Dead - I don't remember anything regarding animals in this movie. Possibly something in TV dialogue about them only eating human flesh, but I haven't seen it enough times yet to remember for sure.

...of the Dead - Set reports that a scene may show zombies eating a dead horse. However, we don't yet know if this is accurate or anything about the context.


I'd say, after evaluating the evidence from Romero's movies, that zombies only crave human flesh. They might attack an animal if provoked or try to take a bite out of curiosity, but their true drive is to consume human meat. To me, this makes them scarier and more mysterious - they are not omnivores, they are purely cannibals.

[blind2d]

They are not cannibals. They only feed on humans, they do not prey on each other. - Eyepatch
So... what do we call them? People-ivores?

[krakenslayer]

They are not cannibals. They only feed on humans, they do not prey on each other. - Eyepatch
So... what do we call them? People-ivores?

Well, that's just semantics. He was trying to distance the concept of the "zombie" from our fellow humans - make them out to be something inhuman and the situation is easier to accept, makes it easier to kill them and deal with the problem of man eating man.

But as Doc Logan said: "They are us. They are essentially the same organism, just functioning less perfectly."

[bassman]

I don't think there's any solid answer in any of Romero's film. Personally, I think they would eat anything that's warm flesh but it's never been shown.

The bug thing in Night has always bothered me. How is that warm flesh? Then again, Romero admits that it was the beginning and he didn't have his rules down on paper yet...

[krakenslayer]

Well, you know, they're hungry and desperate, so they'd probably take a bite of anything that moved just to find out. But one thing that's for sure and has been consistent throughout is that they only actively seek out human flesh.

[SRP76]

I imagine they eat anything that's alive.

If zombies in Day will eat mystery meat of a bucket, why wouldn't they chomp on a cow that's still mooing and walking?

The fact that we never see a cow get attacked means nothing, since we never see a cow, period. Does that mean cows don't exist? Of course not.


All we get to see is a very, very limited view of what's going on, focused on the group of survivors. That doesn't mean that what we get to see is the only thing happening.

[bassman]

If zombies in Day will eat mystery meat of a bucket, why wouldn't they chomp on a cow that's still mooing and walking?



Was it mystery meat, though? I thought it was made pretty obvious that it was meat from the newly dead soldiers. So it's still kind of warm and what not..

[krakenslayer]

I imagine they eat anything that's alive.

If zombies in Day will eat mystery meat of a bucket, why wouldn't they chomp on a cow that's still mooing and walking?

The fact that we never see a cow get attacked means nothing, since we never see a cow, period. Does that mean cows don't exist? Of course not.


All we get to see is a very, very limited view of what's going on, focused on the group of survivors. That doesn't mean that what we get to see is the only thing happening.

Imagine what you want, but it is stated over and over and over in both Dawn and Day of the Dead that they don't eat anything but human meat.

As for the canned meat in Day...

Dr Fisher: (about the canned meat) It's something called "Beef Treats" that the army supplies us with so generously. They won't touch it.

Much later...
Bub is eating unidentified meat from a bucket.

Billy: What is that? Is that...
Sarah: (horrified) Oh God, no! It can't be, it can't be...

I'm surprised you didn't realise this, because it's a really important to whole plot of the movie.

[SRP76]

Imagine what you want, but it is stated over and over and over in both Dawn and Day of the Dead that they don't eat anything but human meat.




Where?


Was it mystery meat, though? I thought it was made pretty obvious that it was meat from the newly dead soldiers. So it's still kind of warm and what not..


Just because the viewer knows what's in Bub's bucket doesn't mean he does. All he sees is Logan bring in a pail from parts unknown.

[bassman]

Just because the viewer knows what's in Bub's bucket doesn't mean he does. All he sees is Logan bring in a pail from parts unknown.


I know that, i'm just saying that he probably ate that because it was fresh meat. I got the impression that Logan had JUST cut it off of the soldier. Which is why the soldier is right by the door in the freezer when Logan is gunned down. I don't think he would've reacted the same with the beef treats or a t bone steak...

[krakenslayer]

Where?


Dawn of the Dead -
Dr Millard Rauche: "They feed ONLY on warm human flesh"

Day of the Dead -
The whole "Beef Treats"/dead soldiers debacle that formed a major impetus for the breakdown at the end.

I'm sure there are numerous other times where this is pointed out, but I can't remember off-hand. But that's enough evidence for me anyway, I see strong suggestions for "human only" and pretty much noting against, I see no reason to doubt that Romero was trying to establish this as part of the mythology.



Just because the viewer knows what's in Bub's bucket doesn't mean he does. All he sees is Logan bring in a pail from parts unknown.

So Dr Logan was cutting up those dead soldiers and feeding them to Bub because he was just... mean? Of course not! He needed to reward the zombies for good behaviour but couldn't find anything else they would eat - they knew by taste/smell that it wasn't human - this was his whole motivation for using the dead soldiers. This is, in turn the reason Rhodes goes haywire and everyone dies.

[LoneCrusader]

I don't think zombies have the ability to taste. I mean, do they? They can barely feel at all. Seems hard to imagine that their taste buds would still be sharp. I don't think they'd know the difference between warm bloody beef in a bucket or warm human flesh in a bucket. And when the scientists on the TV say they only go after warm human flesh, how would they know? That's only what they've seen them go after.

I don't think the scientists at that point had time to conduct experiments on them. And plus, we learn so many things from species of animals and such that already exist. Imagine all the things the scientists didn't know/could learn about zombies, which was a relatively new "species".

IMO, I think they'd eat a cow if they saw it. But I think they get more aroused/excited at the sight of humans.

[bassman]

God I hope they don't taste what they eat. Those intestines are probably pretty ripe...

[krakenslayer]

I don't think zombies have the ability to taste. I mean, do they? They can barely feel at all. Seems hard to imagine that their taste buds would still be sharp. I don't think they'd know the difference between warm bloody beef in a bucket or warm human flesh in a bucket. And when the scientists on the TV say they only go after warm human flesh, how would they know? That's only what they've seen them go after.

I don't think the scientists at that point had time to conduct experiments on them. And plus, we learn so many things from species of animals and such that already exist. Imagine all the things the scientists didn't know/could learn about zombies, which was a relatively new "species".

IMO, I think they'd eat a cow if they saw it. But I think they get more aroused/excited at the sight of humans.

:rolleyes:

Let me say it again...

THE ZOMBIES WOULD NOT EAT ANIMAL MEAT IN DAY OF THE DEAD, THEY WOULD ONLY EAT HUMAN MEAT, THEREIN LIES THE WHOLE CRUX OF THE PLOT!!!!

Loud enough? :lol:

[LoneCrusader]

:rolleyes:

Let me say it again...

THE ZOMBIES WOULD NOT EAT ANIMAL MEAT IN DAY OF THE DEAD, THEY WOULD ONLY EAT HUMAN MEAT, THEREIN LIES THE WHOLE CRUX OF THE PLOT!!!!

Loud enough? :lol:


think they can really tell the difference between warm cow guts and warm human guts if they saw it?

[Philly_SWAT]

Just because the viewer knows what's in Bub's bucket doesn't mean he does. All he sees is Logan bring in a pail from parts unknown.
Yeah, for all Bub knew, the pail originated in the hometown of the "Masked Assasin"... :lol:


Dawn of the Dead -
Dr Millard Rauche: "They feed ONLY on warm human flesh"
You must take the context of this comment. Dr. Millard was specifically differentiating between them eating humans and each other. He was not making a comment one way or the other about animals. The idea is that the zeds do not have "warm flesh", hence they do not attack each other.


I'm sure there are numerous other times where this is pointed out, but I can't remember off-hand. But that's enough evidence for me anyway, I see strong suggestions for "human only" and pretty much noting against, I see no reason to doubt that Romero was trying to establish this as part of the mythology.
I say any "human only" evidence that you quoted was about the "warmth" of the meat, not the type. In Night a zed eats a bug, in Night 90, one eats a mouse.

So Dr Logan was cutting up those dead soldiers and feeding them to Bub because he was just... mean? Of course not! He needed to reward the zombies for good behaviour but couldn't find anything else they would eat - they knew by taste/smell that it wasn't human - this was his whole motivation for using the dead soldiers. This is, in turn the reason Rhodes goes haywire and everyone dies.
I think they knew by taste/smell/whatever that it wasnt "warm" or "fresh". Canned meat is definitely way different than fresh, even to us among the living.



I don't think the scientists at that point had time to conduct experiments on them. And plus, we learn so many things from species of animals and such that already exist. Imagine all the things the scientists didn't know/could learn about zombies, which was a relatively new "species".

IMO, I think they'd eat a cow if they saw it. But I think they get more aroused/excited at the sight of humans.
Agreed. We are not offered any suggestion that "scientists" have done any proper experimentation/studying techniques at all. If any, we can see chaos reigning.


THE ZOMBIES WOULD NOT EAT ANIMAL MEAT IN DAY OF THE DEAD, THEY WOULD ONLY EAT HUMAN MEAT, THEREIN LIES THE WHOLE CRUX OF THE PLOT!!!!
The crux is that they would only eat warm/fresh meat, is what I take from it. There was no warm meat to be had, except from the humans.


think they can really tell the difference between warm cow guts and warm human guts if they saw it?'
I wouldnt think so. Could any of us tell if we went to a fine restaurant, and they had a good chef prepare a quality meal with lots of spices, sauces, etc, and it was really human meat we were eating? I doubt it.

[krakenslayer]

The crux is that they would only eat warm/fresh meat, is what I take from it. There was no warm meat to be had, except from the humans.


They didn't have a microwave in the bunker?

Or rats for that matter?

[Philly_SWAT]

They didn't have a microwave in the bunker?


LOL, I dont think the zeds would use a microwave! :)
But even if they could, I dont think microwaves old meat would taste like fresh meat.

[krakenslayer]

OH OH! AND!!

...at the start of Land of the Dead:

Riley (on radio): Find anything?
Mouse (leaving an abandoned store): I wouldn't touch the fish...

It would appear from this line and from the condition of the shops that the zombies have not been tempted to eat the meat in the stores.

[Thorn]

I hate to agree with Kraken again because it will inflate his ego but...

According to the original Dawn of the Dead script, and Professor Millard Rauche they consume only warm human flesh. They will not eat cold dead meat. If a human were to heat it in a way to mimic recently killed victims then maybe... but I never saw this explored.

In all the movies Zombies will generally not consume non-human meat. They might try other forms of food like the bug and the rat. We see this clearly in Day of the Dead, when the scientists try and fail to feed them "beef treats", and in the original Day script where alligator meat is also rejected.

Also the gator that is walking out the bank in Day is left alone, it is not a zombie gator it is just a gator and they do not bother it. If they wanted to eat it they could. Now you might argue it is cold blooded but it's temperature fluctuates based on environment. I dare say it looked like a warm day to me.

No I think they want to eat humans, will experiment with other creatures out of "curiosity", or primal hunger but only human flesh will do.

Just my thoughts.

[Trin]

I really cannot see any way that the zombies would go after livestock. If the zombies were okay eating livestock then people would've figured that out quickly enough. It would not have gone unnoticed. The entire strategy would've changed. You just toss a pile of meat in the road and when all the zombies converge on it you blow them away.

The biker gang, for example, had been surviving on the road for months. Surely they would've seen about every zombie behavior out there. If the zombies could be distracted with a cow then the obvious way to invade the mall is to drop a couple cows off in the parking lot and when the zombies go after them you walk right up to the mall and go in.

So I'm just not buying the whole livestock thing. The mere fact that we never see it happen isn't enough. If it were going on then the landscape of the entire movie would've been different.

I mean, how stupid would it be if GAR puts a group of people in his next movie who use cattle to lure the zombies away from the people? It would diminish the credibility and intellect of all the previous movies if the solution to the problem were that simple.

[krakenslayer]

YES!!! Now that I have Thorn and Trin in my "ZOMBIES FOR HUMAN FLESH ONLY" campaign I am unstoppable!! UNSTOPPABLE!!!!

:elol::elol:

[Thorn]

YES!!! Now that I have Thorn and Trin in my "ZOMBIES FOR HUMAN FLESH ONLY" campaign I am unstoppable!! UNSTOPPABLE!!!!

:elol::elol:


LOL.

That is a great point too Trin, you would figure that a bunch of cattle ranchers would drive a whole heard of steer through town to distract the zombies and as they fall on them to consume them the ranchers pick them off. It would have totally changed the movies.

[sandrock74]

Zombies eat people. Its not a point to argue about.
It was specifically stated (in Dawn) that ONLY humans and "higher order primates" were affected by whatever was happening.
It all seems cut and dry to me.

[Philly_SWAT]

OH OH! AND!!

...at the start of Land of the Dead:

Riley (on radio): Find anything?
Mouse (leaving an abandoned store): I wouldn't touch the fish...

It would appear from this line and from the condition of the shops that the zombies have not been tempted to eat the meat in the stores.
That has no bearing on my point. Meat in the stores would not mimic "warm" flesh.




Also the gator that is walking out the bank in Day is left alone, it is not a zombie gator it is just a gator and they do not bother it. If they wanted to eat it they could. Now you might argue it is cold blooded but it's temperature fluctuates based on environment. I dare say it looked like a warm day to me.


I understand your point here. However, I dont think it is valid, at least not to the "zombie wouldnt eat livestock" question. As you yourself stated, the gator is cold blooded, so even on a hot day, it wouldnt mimic warm mammal flesh.


I really cannot see any way that the zombies would go after livestock. If the zombies were okay eating livestock then people would've figured that out quickly enough. It would not have gone unnoticed. The entire strategy would've changed. You just toss a pile of meat in the road and when all the zombies converge on it you blow them away.
A "pile of meat in the road" would not be adequate. You would need a live animal, or animals. So you are talking about moving livestock into an open, non fenced in area (so the zeds could get to it) and some means of keeping the animals from running off. All of this while ignoring your plans for shelter, aquiring supplies, etc. Getting zombies to converge to "blow them away" is not a difficult task to being with. As we see, zombies will converge all the time. If your goal was to get a zombie convergence to kill them, there would be much easier ways than herding/controlling livestock. Just go stand out in the field, the zeds will come to you.


The biker gang, for example, had been surviving on the road for months. Surely they would've seen about every zombie behavior out there. If the zombies could be distracted with a cow then the obvious way to invade the mall is to drop a couple cows off in the parking lot and when the zombies go after them you walk right up to the mall and go in.
Two points. One - I think we could all agree that based on the idiotic behavior of the bikers, they have been surviving by sheer luck, not brainpower. Two - how do you suggest they transport these cows...in the cycle sidecar?


So I'm just not buying the whole livestock thing. The mere fact that we never see it happen isn't enough. If it were going on then the landscape of the entire movie would've been different.
I am sure there are many things that we dont see in the movies. That doesnt mean they arent happening. We never see any character take a shit, but I am sure that they are.


I mean, how stupid would it be if GAR puts a group of people in his next movie who use cattle to lure the zombies away from the people? It would diminish the credibility and intellect of all the previous movies if the solution to the problem were that simple.
It would in fact be stupid, mainly because it would not make any sense. If it were a fact that zeds would indeed eat cows, it does not follow that it is some kind of good idea for humans to try to herd cattle for the zeds to eat. I dont think that anyone was making the case (at least, I wasnt) that zeds eating livestock would solve the problem of them wanting to eat humans as well. And it would not be any kind of simple exercise to begin with. The planning and implementation of a huge effort such as this would take a large amount of time and manpower. As we see in the movies, there is much disagreement about the cause, possible solutions, what to do, etc. Co-operation fails between small groups of people with similar original goals. How could any large scale operation have any chance of success? Plus, distribution of goods would totally collapse, so its not like there would be food just laying around for people to easily get. Any survivors, scared and starving, would be more likely to kill and animal they saw in order to eat it themselves, not want to give it to the enemy. People were refusing to follow orders to "give up their dead", even when presented with overwhelming evidence that something very weird was going on. You think they would give up their food any easier?

[darth los]

Just a quick interjection. IMO, there is no way of knowing whether that gator was zombified or not. There is only a 2 second clip of it after all and i don't see how anyone can tell either way.




:cool:

[Trin]

Two - how do you suggest they transport these cows...in the cycle sidecar?
Don't be ridiculous. People move cows every day. It doesn't require a college degree. Or even a high school diploma. And to suggest that the bikers were ALL stupid is quite clearly erroneous. They never would've survived by sheer luck if we are to believe that the rest of the free world perished. They had to have some people doing the thinking.


I am sure there are many things that we dont see in the movies. That doesnt mean they arent happening. We never see any character take a shit, but I am sure that they are.True. For example, we never see the bikers with livestock trucks, but that doesn't mean they don't have them. For all we know they have a semi-mobile base of operations that moves every once in a while and what we saw was just the scavenger group collecting supplies for a bigger enclave. Given the way things shaped up between Dawn and Land that's a theory that is supported by the movies.

However, where your statement fails is that some things are just going to be too important to the events of the world to have gone unnoticed by our little band of survivors and to be left off-camera. For example, we never saw military jets flying overhead during the later months of their stay in the mall. Does that mean it didn't happen? YES!! It does mean that. We can assume that it never happened because it would've been too important to the plot to just omit.

Similarly, I believe that if zombies were attracted to animals it would've been discovered almost immediately and that would've made the news. We would've seen it, heard about it, or Romero would've injected it somehow. The fact that we didn't see it or hear about it DOES mean it didn't happen.

[Philly_SWAT]

Don't be ridiculous. People move cows every day. It doesn't require a college degree. Or even a high school diploma. And to suggest that the bikers were ALL stupid is quite clearly erroneous. They never would've survived by sheer luck if we are to believe that the rest of the free world perished. They had to have some people doing the thinking.I dont think we are to believe that the rest of the free world has perished (at least not during the events in Dawn). There would be plenty of people still alive scattered throughout the country. However, it seems pretty clear that the power structure of society has broken down.

I wasnt suggesting it took a diploma in order to move cows. Any more than you are suggesting that it requires a diploma in order to be in a biker gang. Even if there were individuals in the gang that it might not be accurate to describe as personally stupid, the actions of the gang as a whole were very stupid. Did it appear to you that they had any type of plan once gaining entry into the mall? They run around grabbing stuff. They hit the zeds with pies and seltzer water. They stick their arms in blood pressure machines with zombies all about. Their actions show no sign at all of having any intelligent design to them. You certainly dont need a high school diploma, or even a GED for that matter, to run around blindly with little regard for your own personal safety, much less the safety of the group as a whole.



However, where your statement fails is that some things are just going to be too important to the events of the world to have gone unnoticed by our little band of survivors and to be left off-camera. For example, we never saw military jets flying overhead during the later months of their stay in the mall. Does that mean it didn't happen? YES!! It does mean that. We can assume that it never happened because it would've been too important to the plot to just omit.
Certainly you cant be serious here. Dawn of the Dead is much longer than the average movie, coming in at over 2 hours. Even then, how much stuff do you think you can squeeze on-screen in 2 hours? Not much, especially if you are developing characters and following a central story. I'm not sure if you are saying that military jets or zeds eating animals would have been "too important to the plot to just omit", but either way, I say either one of them would be totally unimportant to the plot. Neither had anything to do with what the characters whose stories we are following are doing, therefore it is unimportant to the plot. In "The Bridges of Madison County" we are never shown the President of the United States, nor is any mention of him made. Are we to assume that in the context of that movie that there is no President of the United States? I dont think so.


Similarly, I believe that if zombies were attracted to animals it would've been discovered almost immediately and that would've made the news. We would've seen it, heard about it, or Romero would've injected it somehow. The fact that we didn't see it or hear about it DOES mean it didn't happen.
Why would Romero inject it if it were totally unimportant to the stories he was telling? I have already stated that it is not some kind of brilliant plan to try to feed the undead animals, or use animals to encourage them to congregate in one area. If they did attack animals, why would that be of particular importance when they are ATTACKING AND EATING human beings? We are only shown very small clips of "experts" talking about the problem on TV. Seeing as there is SOMETHING on TV, it stands to reason that it is zombie talk "all day, all the time" on TV. There would be little interest in watching a Gilligan Island reruns with disaster around the globe. Who knows what else they may have been talking about on TV? Very easily mention of them eating livestock could have been on the TV, but that was unimportant to the plot, and simply watching what was on TV for 2 hours would not leave any room for anything else in the movie.

[Trin]

In my opinion:
- The biker's could not have ALL been stupid. The mere fact that they were still alive suggests that. The fact that we saw SOME of them acting stupid is not evidence that they ALL were. Recall that some of the bikers were chastising others for doing stupid things.
- Certain events CAN be assumed to NOT be going on. For example, we can safely assume that biker gangs didn't roll by every couple of weeks. If they had been the reaction of the group would've been different.
- Likewise with planes flying overhead. It IS important to the movie. A lot of time was given to the idea that the group was isolated and had no evidence of any further humans being alive. We CAN safely assume that it was not happening because the character development and plot relied on it.

And, finally, in my opinion if the zombies were attracted and could be fed with livestock or other animals then the whole nature of the situation changes. Changes enough that I feel the ripples would've affected the movies. What we saw doesn't make sense if the zombies could be lured with livestock.

Just look at Land. If animals could've been used to distract the zombies don't you think they would've had trained dogs out in the scavenger groups? Or rolled through town in the first pass dropping some kind of animal to lure the zombies out in the open? I think they would have.

[krakenslayer]

In my opinion:
- The biker's could not have ALL been stupid. The mere fact that they were still alive suggests that. The fact that we saw SOME of them acting stupid is not evidence that they ALL were. Recall that some of the bikers were chastising others for doing stupid things.
- Certain events CAN be assumed to NOT be going on. For example, we can safely assume that biker gangs didn't roll by every couple of weeks. If they had been the reaction of the group would've been different.
- Likewise with planes flying overhead. It IS important to the movie. A lot of time was given to the idea that the group was isolated and had no evidence of any further humans being alive. We CAN safely assume that it was not happening because the character development and plot relied on it.

And, finally, in my opinion if the zombies were attracted and could be fed with livestock or other animals then the whole nature of the situation changes. Changes enough that I feel the ripples would've affected the movies. What we saw doesn't make sense if the zombies could be lured with livestock.

Just look at Land. If animals could've been used to distract the zombies don't you think they would've had trained dogs out in the scavenger groups? Or rolled through town in the first pass dropping some kind of animal to lure the zombies out in the open? I think they would have.

I agree wholeheatedly all of the above. I was going to write something very similar but Trin saved me the trouble of doing so.

One thing I would add is I think the suggestion that they only eat human meat contributes a lot to what makes them scary. They're not just generally peckish, they don't want to eat just any old meat - it's almost like they want to consume human life It's unnatural and defies explanation; it adds to the mystery and that's what's frightening.

[MoonSylver]

I agree wholeheatedly all of the above. I was going to write something very similar but Trin saved me the trouble of doing so.

One thing I would add is I think the suggestion that they only eat human meat contributes a lot to what makes them scary. They're not just generally peckish, they don't want to eat just any old meat - it's almost like they want to consume human life It's unnatural and defies explanation; it adds to the mystery and that's what's frightening.

Bingo. Just because we saw them eat a bug or mouse doesn't necessarily mean they're out combing the fields for them. I got the impression that it was more along the lines of "they found it's moving, hmmm...let's pop it in the mouth & see what it tastes like.";)

Now us, yeah, they want to put the bite on our ass in the worst possible way. which makes them scary for all the reasons Kracken mentioned plus one other: it makes you think about THIS:

All the scientific explanations we like to throw around are fun & all, but at the end of the day, maybe it IS the wrath of God. Maybe we ARE being punished. Maybe it IS Hell on earth. If so, we're the targets, the ones whom have been judged & found wanting, who have been sentenced to be devoured by out own dead friends, family & loved ones.

Not out livestock, not our pets, us.

That to me is scary as hell. Not some accident. Not some virus or radiation. That this is the fate that we've been given by our own creator. Gives me the chills thinking about it.

(Not that I'm saying this IS the reason. I like it ill defined & unknown. That way it lends itself to the possibility of all of the above.)

[krakenslayer]

Bingo. Just because we saw them eat a bug or mouse doesn't necessarily mean they're out combing the fields for them. I got the impression that it was more along the lines of "they found it's moving, hmmm...let's pop it in the mouth & see what it tastes like.";)

Now us, yeah, they want to put the bite on our ass in the worst possible way. which makes them scary for all the reasons Kracken mentioned plus one other: it makes you think about THIS:

All the scientific explanations we like to throw around are fun & all, but at the end of the day, maybe it IS the wrath of God. Maybe we ARE being punished. Maybe it IS Hell on earth. If so, we're the targets, the ones whom have been judged & found wanting, who have been sentenced to be devoured by out own dead friends, family & loved ones.

Not out livestock, not our pets, us.

That to me is scary as hell. Not some accident. Not some virus or radiation. That this is the fate that we've been given by our own creator. Gives me the chills thinking about it.

(Not that I'm saying this IS the reason. I like it ill defined & unknown. That way it lends itself to the possibility of all of the above.)

That's exactly what I was trying to convey, MoonSylver, thank you! Without actually ramming it down our throats, it sort of railroads us towards the vague but uncomfortable conclusion that there is some kind of deliberate plan behind what is going on - be it the work of gods, demons, aliens, or something even more esoteric and unknowable. I was tempted to turn in this direction earlier in the thread, but was concerned it might lead us off topic. But seeing as the thread has naturally gone this way...

I've been watching these films for years and I'm starting to think that what's going on is mankind literally being eaten by its own appetites. I know this is usually mentioned in reviews and whatnot as a metaphorical layer of the series, but it potentially makes sense on a literal level too. To me it's the only possible "cause" that rings true in the context of the series - the zombie menace is the result of the mass of six billion human minds subconsciously lashing out against a stifling, hateful, self-consuming society; a sort of psychic/metaphysical feedback loop arising from the collective unconscious of the whole of humanity - a humanity that hates what it has become so much that it's begging to be put out of its misery - creating enough spiritual turmoil to literally cause the dead to rise from their graves to consume civilisation. Maybe, in the films, we've hit an emergency self-destruct button hidden away in our genetic code, a sort of fail-safe in case mankind ever reaches a dead end from which there is no way out - a self-induced plague to destroy the sick society and give at least some of us a chance to start again.

Of course, it reads like a bunch of metaphysical nonsense when I write it out loud... but lets just say if I ever were to write a zombie novel and my publisher put a gun to my head and told me I absolutely HAD to give a reason for the outbreak, that's be it. :D

[MoonSylver]

Wow, pretty deep stuff!


That's exactly what I was trying to convey, MoonSylver, thank you! Without actually ramming it down our throats, it sort of railroads us towards the vague but uncomfortable conclusion that there is some kind of deliberate plan behind what is going on - be it the work of gods, demons, aliens, or something even more esoteric and unknowable.

"vague but uncomfortable"...I like that.:)

[SRP76]

Hold on. A couple of things about The Great Cow Maneuver:

1. Where are they getting these cows from in the middle of a city? Even if the biker gang wanted to get some, they wouldn't even know where to start looking for some cows, much less transporting them. Without the cows, there's no need to debate the transportation method.

2. Most of us have been on here for months, throwing out strategy after strategy. And we DON'T have ghouls trying to kill us every second of every day. We have time. And yet, we're just now developing The Great Cow Maneuver. So why are we assuming people would have just come up with and implemented this almost instantly?

[Philly_SWAT]

In my opinion:
- The biker's could not have ALL been stupid. The mere fact that they were still alive suggests that. The fact that we saw SOME of them acting stupid is not evidence that they ALL were. Recall that some of the bikers were chastising others for doing stupid things.

Not sure your point here. I already stated prior to your post that "Even if there were individuals in the gang that it might not be accurate to describe as personally stupid, the actions of the gang as a whole were very stupid." You seem to be rewording what I said and saying the same thing back to me, except you do not comment on whether or not you agree that the actions of the gang as a whole were stupid.


- Certain events CAN be assumed to NOT be going on. For example, we can safely assume that biker gangs didn't roll by every couple of weeks. If they had been the reaction of the group would've been different.
Yes, certain events can be assumed to NOT be going on. It does not logically follow that any event not shown is by definition not going on.



And, finally, in my opinion if the zombies were attracted and could be fed with livestock or other animals then the whole nature of the situation changes. Changes enough that I feel the ripples would've affected the movies. What we saw doesn't make sense if the zombies could be lured with livestock.

Just look at Land. If animals could've been used to distract the zombies don't you think they would've had trained dogs out in the scavenger groups? Or rolled through town in the first pass dropping some kind of animal to lure the zombies out in the open? I think they would have.

Perhaps I am totally not understanding your point here? I re-read thru the thread, and it still appears to me that you were arguing that livestock being used to lure zombies and/or keep them from eating us was a good idea, a concept that I was disagreeing with. That is why I said the bikers could not just bring cows to the mall, to which you replied you dont have to have a diploma to move cows. Now you are saying it doesnt make sense. What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that livestock should or shouldnt have been used as some type of plan to stop the zeds? There is a difference in between saying that zeds would eat warm flesh of non humans and saying that livestock could be used as a tool in the war against the zeds.




Hold on. A couple of things about The Great Cow Maneuver:

1. Where are they getting these cows from in the middle of a city? Even if the biker gang wanted to get some, they wouldn't even know where to start looking for some cows, much less transporting them. Without the cows, there's no need to debate the transportation method.

2. Most of us have been on here for months, throwing out strategy after strategy. And we DON'T have ghouls trying to kill us every second of every day. We have time. And yet, we're just now developing The Great Cow Maneuver. So why are we assuming people would have just come up with and implemented this almost instantly?

Exactly. Your first point is the one I have been trying to make. Your second is another good support for the first point.

[Rancid Carcass]

Hello, I'm new here - first post infact! Just thought I jump in and point something out that seems to have been overlooked during this rather spirited debate. The answer to the livestock issue lies in one of the articles on the front page of the Southern Globe newspaper that blows across the pavement at the begining of DAY. Not sure how many people have ever read it but here is the article:

THE DEAD WALK!

Biologists in Washington DC have released a report stating that the bodies of the recently-dead are returning to life, driven by an unknown force that enables the brain to continue to function. Doctors at the Center For Disease Control in Atlanta reject that theory, calling it "preposterous beyond belief". They feel the only reasonable explanation is a germ, a bacteria or virus, that has a mind-altering effect on its victims. Though how such a germ could have been delivered so quickly and over such a vast area remains a mystery. Researchers there are now working on a vaccine for this ghoulish plague. It’s being called Judgement Day by religious leaders who are asking for prayer, forgiveness, and understanding. These re-activated bodies are weak and uncoordinated, but are capable of inflicting damage on people and on property. They are to be considered extremely dangerous, especially when encountered in large numbers. These bodies can be disposed of in only one known manner. That is by incapacitating the brain. These re-activated bodies will attack warm-blooded animals of all species, including human beings, without provocation, and will devour the flesh of any prey. Dr. Matthew Logan of the neurology department at the US Army Medical Museum of Washington DC at a conference spoke about the mysterious condition. "Our research is just beginning. Earlier yesterday morning, in the cold room at the university, we had a cadaver, a cadaver from which all four limbs had been amputated. In a short time after being removed from the cold room, it opened its eyes. It was dead, but it opened its eyes and began to move. Problem now is to obtain more of such cadavers for examination and experimentation. We have to ask the military personnel and the civilian patrols that are out in the field to stop burning all of these things. We need them to be brought to us still alive so we can study them." When asked if he believed the crisis is a result of the Venus probe, he shook his head uncertain, saying "I’m not an aerospace expert. All we know right now is that there’s likely some pathological reason. If there is an unknown, extraterrestrial microbe, we would have to isolate it in a laboratory, and still go to Venus and see if it exists there. The only thing to do is to hope that it is a mutant form of virus that can not reproduce and that will die off soon."

Hope this helps! :)

[fartpants]

These re-activated bodies will attack warm-blooded animals of all species, including human beings, without provocation, and will devour the flesh of any prey.

this kind of says it all really

[krakenslayer]

These re-activated bodies will attack warm-blooded animals of all species, including human beings, without provocation, and will devour the flesh of any prey.

this kind of says it all really

I'm not sure it does, in Dawn of the Dead we have a scientist specifically say they only attack humans, and in Night of the Living Dead there are all kinds of confused, conflicting reports.

[Safari Mike]

Ok, I didnt read the whole thread but am probably the only cattle rancher here... Zoms move slow. Cows move slow. In this particlar situation the dead will shamble around trying to bite a cows hindquarters while Bessie is pretty much undetered from eating grass and lazily walks forward triping up the rotten fucks. You ever try to de-tick a cow and you know they are zom proof.

[krakenslayer]

In this particlar situation the dead will shamble around trying to bite a cows hindquarters while Bessie is pretty much undetered from eating grass and lazily walks forward triping up the rotten fucks. You ever try to de-tick a cow and you know they are zom proof.

All the more reason to use them as zombie bait! :D

[Philly_SWAT]

I'm not sure it does, in Dawn of the Dead we have a scientist specifically say they only attack humans, and in Night of the Living Dead there are all kinds of confused, conflicting reports.

This is an inaccurate statement on your part. He does not say specifically that they only attacks humans. You are taking a statement of his out of context, where he is specifically addressing the idea that the zombies are "canibals". He is trying to illustrate that these..."things"...that are walking around and eating people are re-animated dead people, a concept hard to believe. So naturally, someone suggests that they are not reanimated dead, but simply infected humans who are now canibals. To which he says they prey on humans, they do not prey on each other. He makes no statement one way or the other about the reanimated dead attacking animals or not.

[krakenslayer]

This is an inaccurate statement on your part. He does not say specifically that they only attacks humans. You are taking a statement of his out of context, where he is specifically addressing the idea that the zombies are "canibals". He is trying to illustrate that these..."things"...that are walking around and eating people are re-animated dead people, a concept hard to believe. So naturally, someone suggests that they are not reanimated dead, but simply infected humans who are now canibals. To which he says they prey on humans, they do not prey on each other. He makes no statement one way or the other about the reanimated dead attacking animals or not.

I was referring to the line: "They feed only on warm human flesh." Pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it?

[MoonSylver]

I was referring to the line: "They feed only on warm human flesh." Pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it?

That's what I was thinking too. Why specifically mention HUMAN if they feed on ANY warm flesh? Wouldn't he say "They only feed on warm flesh." or "The only freed on living things" or "anything living that moves" etc, etc, etc?

He actually mentions it twice IIRC: "We must not be lulled into thinking that these are out friends or our loved ones. They are not. They are not human. THEY PREY ON HUMANS. They do NOT prey on each other. THEY FEED ONLY ON WARM HUMAN FLESH.

[Thorn]

Just a quick interjection. IMO, there is no way of knowing whether that gator was zombified or not. There is only a 2 second clip of it after all and i don't see how anyone can tell either way.




:cool:

According to the films we have never seen anything other than humans reanimated, I do not see how all the sudden Romero would write in zombie poodles, alligators, and zombie turtles. (I LIKE TURTLES)

Resident Evil goes into Zombie animals I have never seen them in Mr. Romero's dead films.

As to Philly. Was the bug that was eaten in night warm blooded? How are they classified?

[krakenslayer]

According to the films we have never seen anything other than humans reanimated, I do not see how all the sudden Romero would write in zombie poodles, alligators, and zombie turtles. (I LIKE TURTLES)

Resident Evil goes into Zombie animals I have never seen them in Mr. Romero's dead films.

As to Philly. Was the bug that was eaten in night warm blooded? How are they classified?

Exactly, if animals could be zombified then humanity would have been wiped out longer before Day and Land. Imagine it - zombie dogs, cats, birds, cattle, insects, rodents - there would be no escape, the flesh would be stripped from our bones before the end of the first night!!

(The Land script originally had zombie rats but Romero cut them out because their existence didn't make sense in the context of the series).

Oh, and insects are almost entirely ectotherms - i.e. cold blooded.

[Thorn]

Thanks Krak so, it firthers the point I think to say that

a) there was never a mention in any of the films of animals returning from the dead to suckle on the living.

b) zombies may mouth anything that is moving in an effort to see if it is a food source or out of curiosity, sch as insects or other cold blooded creatures.

[SRP76]

I was referring to the line: "They feed only on warm human flesh." Pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it?

What we see a zombie do >>>>>>>> what some windbag that wants to nuke the cities says.

The jolly old fatman isn't the all-knowing, since zombie actions and other journalistic reports show him to be wrong. It would have been funny if the script was shot as written, since we'd get zombies eating dogmeat minutes after his speech.

[krakenslayer]

What we see a zombie do >>>>>>>> what some windbag that wants to nuke the cities says.

The whole point of what I'm saying is this: for every piece of evidence for one side of the argument, there is another equally weighted piece of evidence to the contrary. No side is gonna get the upper hand here. Until "...of the Dead" does indeed show zombies consuming a horse (as rumoured), I will continue to be sceptical with regards to claims that zombies will deliberately hunt down and eat anything other than human flesh. We don't see anything that strongly supports this in the series, and there are several strong arguments against (the WHOLE PLOT of Day of the Dead being the main one). ;)


The jolly old fatman isn't the all-knowing, since zombie actions and other journalistic reports show him to be wrong. It would have been funny if the script was shot as written, since we'd get zombies eating dogmeat minutes after his speech.

If we're going to start citing scenes that were scripted and never used (in the case of the dog-eating scene, it was most likely removed because Romero made a conscious decision to keep the zombies' focus on humans, further evidence for the other side), then what about the unused Day of the Dead script? It is a lot more explicit regarding the zombies' behaviour and eating habits - the scientists and military, working together, have been unable to find a satisfactory replacement for human flesh for use in their experiments; they attempt to use various types of meat, including beef and alligator meat, but the zombies will ONLY eat human flesh so the team is forced to recycle the bodies of dead soldiers and civilians as zombie chow.

[Philly_SWAT]

I was referring to the line: "They feed only on warm human flesh." Pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it?

That's what I was thinking too. Why specifically mention HUMAN if they feed on ANY warm flesh? Wouldn't he say "They only feed on warm flesh." or "The only freed on living things" or "anything living that moves" etc, etc, etc?

He actually mentions it twice IIRC: "We must not be lulled into thinking that these are out friends or our loved ones. They are not. They are not human. THEY PREY ON HUMANS. They do NOT prey on each other. THEY FEED ONLY ON WARM HUMAN FLESH.
Again, he is specifically differentiating between zombies eating humans vs zombies eating zombies as A DIRECT REASON because the question is asked "are they canibals?" Within the framework of that SPECIFIC question, there is no need to comment on animals one way or the other (which he doesnt). He specifically says HUMAN flesh to make it clear that the zombies do not eat ZOMBIE flesh.


We don't see anything that strongly supports this in the series, and there are several strong arguments against (the WHOLE PLOT of Day of the Dead being the main one). ;)

I guess that depends on what you call "strong" evidence. We see zeds eat animals and insects. That seems to be all the support needed to back up the claim "zeds will eat something other than human flesh". Do zeds like to eat animals as much as eating humans? Could the knowledge that zeds do eat animals lead to some unexplored plot points i.e you could use cattle to trap zeds? Would someone on TV mention that zeds eat animals in the midst of thousands/millions of people being killed? These and other questions may be valid for discussion, however, since we actual SEE on film zeds eating something other than human flesh should be evidence to the simple fact that they do in fact eat something other than human flesh.

As far as the WHOLE PLOT of Day, whether zeds will eat something other than human flesh is hardly the whole plot. All Day shows us is that they will not eat "Beef Treats", which is cold processed meat out of a can, hardly a substitute for warm flesh of any type.

[krakenslayer]

I guess that depends on what you call "strong" evidence. We see zeds eat animals and insects.

No, we see one zombie put an insect in its mouth in Night of the Living Dead. We don't even know if it swallowed it or not.

Yes, the remake had zombies eating worms and a mouse but that was the remake and not part of the core series, so it can't really be considered canon.

[Philly_SWAT]

No, we see one zombie put an insect in its mouth in Night of the Living Dead. We don't even know if it swallowed it or not.


I think they are certain things that you just have to assume in a movie, whether you see it or not. If we see a guy go into the bathroom, stand in from of the toilet, pull down his pants, and then you hear the familiar sound of water hitting water, is it more likely that the guy has his dick in his hand and is taking a piss, or that he is dickless, and just likes to listen to his "the sound of piss" CD while standing with his pants down in front of the toilet?

If it were important for the audience to know that the zed did NOT eat the insect, then that would have been seen, mentioned, etc. Otherwise, it is assumed that any creature that puts something in its mouth did so with the idea of swallowing it.

[krakenslayer]

I think they are certain things that you just have to assume in a movie, whether you see it or not. If we see a guy go into the bathroom, stand in from of the toilet, pull down his pants, and then you hear the familiar sound of water hitting water, is it more likely that the guy has his dick in his hand and is taking a piss, or that he is dickless, and just likes to listen to his "the sound of piss" CD while standing with his pants down in front of the toilet?

If it were important for the audience to know that the zed did NOT eat the insect, then that would have been seen, mentioned, etc. Otherwise, it is assumed that any creature that puts something in its mouth did so with the idea of swallowing it.

That is a good analogy Philly :lol:, but it doesn't quite apply in the context of this argument.

Let me put it this way - under normal circumstances, if a guy goes into the bathroom, we'd expect him to be going there to empty his bladder (or his bowels...) because we know from experience that that is what people do in the bathroom, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

However, if there was some conjecture that the guy who we saw going into the bathroom earlier might actually be an alien that doesn't need to evacuate waste in this way, then we might have to re-evaluate what we thought we saw - maybe he was just pretending to pee so nobody would suspect he was an alien, or maybe he was "trying out" urination to see what it was like to be a human, or maybe his spaceship is powered by toilet paper, or whatever...! :lol:

So just because we see one zombie put one bug in her mouth, we don't know whether that means that zombies will actively hunt down and consume animal flesh, or if they'll just take opportunistic bite to try it out, or what.

Moreover, that first movie takes place in the countryside - there should be plenty of animal life around for them to chase/consume, and yet the zombies gather around the farmhouse because the people there are the only humans for miles.

[Philly_SWAT]

That is a good analogy Philly :lol:, but it doesn't quite apply in the context of this argument.

Let me put it this way - under normal circumstances, if a guy goes into the bathroom, we'd expect him to be going there to empty his bladder (or his bowels...) because we know from experience that that is what people do in the bathroom, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

However, if there was some conjecture that the guy who we saw going into the bathroom earlier might actually be an alien that doesn't need to evacuate waste in this way, then we might have to re-evaluate what we thought we saw - maybe he was just pretending to pee so nobody would suspect he was an alien, or maybe he was "trying out" urination to see what it was like to be a human, or maybe his spaceship is powered by toilet paper, or whatever...! :lol:

So just because we see one zombie put one bug in her mouth, we don't know whether that means that zombies will actively hunt down and consume animal flesh, or if they'll just take opportunistic bite to try it out, or what.

Moreover, that first movie takes place in the countryside - there should be plenty of animal life around for them to chase/consume, and yet the zombies gather around the farmhouse because the people there are the only humans for miles.
That is a good analogy kracken, but it doesn't quite apply in the context of this argument. In Night, there is no conjecture that the zombie in question was anything other than a reanimated human. As humans, we are more than capable of eating insects. Some cultures in the world regularly eat insects, as well as Americans on game shows! :) While it is true that we dont "know" for sure that the zed ate the bug, as we did not see it chew and swallow, we also dont know if Clinton inhaled or not. Which seems more likely?

As far as taking place in the countryside, have you ever chased another person outdoors with the intent to catch them? Have you ever tried to chase a cat outdoors with the intent to catch them? Which did you find easier? And as for the people in Night being the only ones around for miles, if I was standing in a field of broccoli, and was in the distance was a hotdog stand with a huge crowd of people waiting for hotdogs, and I was really hungry, I would go to the hotdog stand and take my chances on getting one, as I much prefer the taste of hotdogs to that of broccoli. Doesnt mean that I cant eat broccoli, and if the hotdogs sold out before my turn in line, and I was really hungry, I might go back and eat some broccoli, however, I think most people would go out of their way to eat food they enjoy the most as opposed to eating whatever food might be convenient to eat at the moment. And as the zeds "are us", they is no reason to assume they wouldnt do the same thing.

[Trin]

If the argument is whether or not a zombie woud eat livestock given no other more attractive food source - fine. Let the zeds eat all the cows they want offscreen where no humans are present. And bugs too.

If the argument is that the zombies are just as likely to chase down cattle as humans, then we have a problem. That changes the nature of the threat and I don't think the movies could play out as they did with that as part of the zombie rules.

Did we ever consider that the bug eating zombie might've just been a really stupid zombie? Like the weird kid on the street that eats dirt?

[krakenslayer]

That is a good analogy kracken, but it doesn't quite apply in the context of this argument. In Night, there is no conjecture that the zombie in question was anything other than a reanimated human. As humans, we are more than capable of eating insects. Some cultures in the world regularly eat insects, as well as Americans on game shows! :) While it is true that we dont "know" for sure that the zed ate the bug, as we did not see it chew and swallow, we also dont know if Clinton inhaled or not. Which seems more likely?

As far as taking place in the countryside, have you ever chased another person outdoors with the intent to catch them? Have you ever tried to chase a cat outdoors with the intent to catch them? Which did you find easier? And as for the people in Night being the only ones around for miles, if I was standing in a field of broccoli, and was in the distance was a hotdog stand with a huge crowd of people waiting for hotdogs, and I was really hungry, I would go to the hotdog stand and take my chances on getting one, as I much prefer the taste of hotdogs to that of broccoli. Doesnt mean that I cant eat broccoli, and if the hotdogs sold out before my turn in line, and I was really hungry, I might go back and eat some broccoli, however, I think most people would go out of their way to eat food they enjoy the most as opposed to eating whatever food might be convenient to eat at the moment. And as the zeds "are us", they is no reason to assume they wouldnt do the same thing.

You're missing my point. What I'm saying is - if we were just watching Night of the Living Dead for the first time, and saw that zombie eat that bug, we'd be forgiven for thinking that they'd eat anything. But since we've never really seen anything since then to back that theory up, and indeed we've seen several things to suggest otherwise, we have to reconsider the possibility that the bug-eating scene was just a one-off - a zombie biting an insect out of curiosity.

One again, with regards to using dead soldiers as food in Day of the Dead: if the zombies will eat any meat as long as it's warm, then it's a ridiculously easy problem to overcome, just stick the Beef Treats in a microwave. And if heating the meat in an oven is not enough, if they require it to be actual body heat, then why does Logan butcher the soldiers in a freezer!? My conclusion: it has to be warm and human - Logan probably stored the soldiers in the freezer to stop them rotting, cut meat from them when needed, and heated it in his lab before feeding it to them.

[Philly_SWAT]

You're missing my point. What I'm saying is - if we were just watching Night of the Living Dead for the first time, and saw that zombie eat that bug, we'd be forgiven for thinking that they'd eat anything. But since we've never really seen anything since then to back that theory up, and indeed we've seen several things to suggest otherwise, we have to reconsider the possibility that the bug-eating scene was just a one-off - a zombie biting an insect out of curiosity.
Again, I say there is absolutely no reason to think that a zed would not eat a bug. We see it. Just because we dont see it again doesnt mean it doesnt happen. It is totally irrelevant to the story being told. Have you ever seen a little kid eat a booger out of his nose? Eat a bug outside? Stick just about anything in his mouth? Why does someone (most of us anyway) stop this kind of behavior? We are taught to. It is a primordial urge to stick just about anything in our mouths. As zombies are governed by the primordial ooze in their brains, there is no reason to think that they would NOT eat a bug.


One again, with regards to using dead soldiers as food in Day of the Dead: if the zombies will eat any meat as long as it's warm, then it's a ridiculously easy problem to overcome, just stick the Beef Treats in a microwave. And if heating the meat in an oven is not enough, if they require it to be actual body heat, then why does Logan butcher the soldiers in a freezer!? My conclusion: it has to be warm and human - Logan probably stored the soldiers in the freezer to stop them rotting, cut meat from them when needed, and heated it in his lab before feeding it to them.
I guess I have done a poor job of explaining my thoughts on this. There would be a great difference between long dead, processed, microwaved meat, and meat from a live creature. As far as Logan and the freezer, I took it that he just recently put that body in the freezer to hide it from site. Not that he was storing it in there and reheating it.

[SRP76]

If the argument is whether or not a zombie woud eat livestock given no other more attractive food source - fine. Let the zeds eat all the cows they want offscreen where no humans are present. And bugs too.

If the argument is that the zombies are just as likely to chase down cattle as humans, then we have a problem. That changes the nature of the threat and I don't think the movies could play out as they did with that as part of the zombie rules.



How does it possibly change anything? Every movie was focused on people that did not have any kind of other animal around. Their situation wouldn't have changed one single bit. Even if a zombie will chase a lion, nothing changes since there were no lions at the mall.

[krakenslayer]

Again, I say there is absolutely no reason to think that a zed would not eat a bug. We see it. Just because we dont see it again doesnt mean it doesnt happen. It is totally irrelevant to the story being told. Have you ever seen a little kid eat a booger out of his nose? Eat a bug outside? Stick just about anything in his mouth? Why does someone (most of us anyway) stop this kind of behavior? We are taught to. It is a primordial urge to stick just about anything in our mouths. As zombies are governed by the primordial ooze in their brains, there is no reason to think that they would NOT eat a bug.


Exactly my point. If a kid experiences something new for the first time usually the first thing they do is shove it in their mouth, it's a big part of how kids experience the world for the first few years of life. I remember when my little sister had only just learned to walk, she picked up a dog turd in the park and came this close to taking a bite before my mum screamed and knocked it out of her hand :lol:. HOWEVER, she didn't do it because she was hungry, she did it because she was curious, and I doubt very much that given the chance she'd have combed the park looking for jobbies to chow down on. :lol:

It's probably the same for zombies. If they see something that interests them, they might poke it, pick it up, take an experimental bite. Doesn't mean they'd choose a cockroach (or a horse or a cow) over a live human or that they would actively hunt them even in the absence of humans.



I guess I have done a poor job of explaining my thoughts on this. There would be a great difference between long dead, processed, microwaved meat, and meat from a live creature. As far as Logan and the freezer, I took it that he just recently put that body in the freezer to hide it from site. Not that he was storing it in there and reheating it.

He could have hidden them anywhere, if warmth is the only important factor (as you suggest) then why choose a freezer? And why not just hunt/trap the warm-blooded rats and bats that live in the caves and use those instead of hacking up the dead soldiers and running the extreme risk of getting caught and killed, especially when weaning them off human meat would in itself be a great victory in their quest to "domesticate" the zombies?

[Philly_SWAT]

Originally Posted by Trin
If the argument is whether or not a zombie woud eat livestock given no other more attractive food source - fine. Let the zeds eat all the cows they want offscreen where no humans are present. And bugs too.

If the argument is that the zombies are just as likely to chase down cattle as humans, then we have a problem. That changes the nature of the threat and I don't think the movies could play out as they did with that as part of the zombie rules.


How does it possibly change anything? Every movie was focused on people that did not have any kind of other animal around. Their situation wouldn't have changed one single bit. Even if a zombie will chase a lion, nothing changes since there were no lions at the mall.
SRP is correct here. The stories we are shown in GAR dead movies have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with zombies eating animals. Whether they do or do not eat animals is not important to the stories we are shown. Perhaps a movie could have been made showing a group of people trying to use animals as some type of plan to combat the zombie threat. If so, more explanation about the nature of zombies eating animals would be warranted in THAT movie. However, the stories we are shown focuses on the threat to humanity, and a small slice of what certain individuals are doing during the outbreak. I dont think that zeds are just as likely to chase down a cow, just that if a cow happened to be there, they would eat it. Personally, if given the choice between a steak or spam, I would go for the steak. If I could have spam right now, or steak 3 hours from now, I would wait for the steak. A zombie would have no such compulsion to "wait" for a human meal. As the movies would be largely uninteresting if it just showed a bunch of zombies eating animals with no humans around, like most movies, GAR dead movies focus on human beings and what they are doing. Hence, most of the time when we see zombies on screen, it is when human characters are in the area, as we are following the human activities. This would not change the nature of the problem whatsoever, it would only change the story on screen.

[MoonSylver]

Exactly my point. If a kid experiences something new for the first time usually the first thing they do is shove it in their mouth, it's a big part of how kids experience the world for the first few years of life. I remember when my little sister had only just learned to walk, she picked up a dog turd in the park and came this close to taking a bite before my mum screamed and knocked it out of her hand :lol:. HOWEVER, she didn't do it because she was hungry, she did it because she was curious, and I doubt very much that given the chance she'd have combed the park looking for jobbies to chow down on. :lol:

It's probably the same for zombies. If they see something that interests them, they might poke it, pick it up, take an experimental bite. Doesn't mean they'd choose a cockroach (or a horse or a cow) over a live human or that they would actively hunt them even in the absence of humans.

He could have hidden them anywhere, if warmth is the only important factor (as you suggest) then why choose a freezer? And why not just hunt/trap the warm-blooded rats and bats that live in the caves and use those instead of hacking up the dead soldiers and running the extreme risk of getting caught and killed, especially when weaning them off human meat would in itself be a great victory in their quest to "domesticate" the zombies?

See, all of this mirrors my thoughts as well. Even though This has been my opinion all along I've read both sides of the argument as objectively as possible to see if I could be swayed or not, & this is still what makes the most sense to me. The argument the other way just feels like too much of a reach to me (no offense Philly)

Of course GAR could stick the rumored scene in "...of the Dead" & render it all moot (& crap, all in one fell stroke):rolleyes:

[Philly_SWAT]

It's probably the same for zombies. If they see something that interests them, they might poke it, pick it up, take an experimental bite. Doesn't mean they'd choose a cockroach (or a horse or a cow) over a live human or that they would actively hunt them even in the absence of humans.
I have never claimed that they would choose ANY animal over a human. I have went out of my way to say they prefer humans, the same way I prefer steak over spam. If I was starving, I wouldnt actually hunt spam in the absence of steak, however I would eat spam if I could find no other food.



He could have hidden them anywhere, if warmth is the only important factor (as you suggest) then why choose a freezer? And why not just hunt/trap the warm-blooded rats and bats that live in the caves and use those instead of hacking up the dead soldiers and running the extreme risk of getting caught and killed, especially when weaning them off human meat would in itself be a great victory in their quest to "domesticate" the zombies?
Again, perhaps I do not have the medical vocabulary to describe what I am saying. By "warm", I do not mean a certain temperature, I mean the inherent warmth of LIVING flesh, or the warmth of flesh that was living a few minutes ago. Trapping rats and bats would be difficult for a pansy type like Logan, and I doubt the soldiers would have helped in that regard. Plus, it was much easier to use meat that he had available (i.e. recently dead human) then to go around hunting cave bats. Presumably at some point after death if a body does not revive, for example the living person was killed by being shot in the head and wont revive, a zombie will quit eating it, as it is no longer "warm", warm being whatever it is that lets a zed know/think it is "alive". That is why I think Dr Roush in Dawn says that the zeds dont eat of all a body, and that they are usually intact enough to be mobile when they revive. The zeds quit eating after the body had been dead for a certain period of time. I take it that Logan used the warm flesh of the soldier to feed to Bub, but realized that he couldnt do that forever because it would not be "warm, fresh, etc" after a while, so he temporarily threw the body in the freezer, to both hide it from view, and to keep it from decomposing while he figured out what to do with it.

[sandrock74]

Even if a zombie will chase a lion, nothing changes since there were no lions at the mall.

Now, that is something I would like to have seen! Zombies in the Monroeville Mall. Peter could wear his mink coat while hanging out with the lions. Cool!
Not to mention the laughs that would have been had as the lions quickly made the zombies realize which of them was really the prey!

[Safari Mike]

And thus, I choose my hideout as the desert southwest. I'm intimately familiar with it from how to find water, how to snare protein, how to harvest vegetables from things such as cactus and desert flowers and how to disappear. In that setting, a zombie would pretty much be buzzard bait with their eyeballs and brains picked clean by scavengers while I watched from a distance as the creoste and mesquite shredded them to cheese whiz.

Its been a long time but I still stand by my arguement of of 10 years ago that I'd bbq the fresher of them and eat well. Its no more dangerous than eating in any central or south american country today.

[sandrock74]

And thus, I choose my hideout as the desert southwest. I'm intimately familiar with it from how to find water, how to snare protein, how to harvest vegetables from things such as cactus and desert flowers and how to disappear. In that setting, a zombie would pretty much be buzzard bait with their eyeballs and brains picked clean by scavengers while I watched from a distance as the creoste and mesquite shredded them to cheese whiz.

Its been a long time but I still stand by my arguement of of 10 years ago that I'd bbq the fresher of them and eat well. Its no more dangerous than eating in any central or south american country today.

Eat a zombie?? Bad idea.

[MoonSylver]

Eat a zombie?? Bad idea.

I'd be pretty leery myself. Under normal conditions, yeah, you can kill most any bug if you cook it long enough at a high enough temperature, but these ain't normal conditions.;) What if whatever in the hell they're infected with (assuming that's what it is...) doesn't die off that easy? Do you really wanna take the risk? Who's gonna go first? Pretty dicey...

[krakenslayer]

I have never claimed that they would choose ANY animal over a human. I have went out of my way to say they prefer humans, the same way I prefer steak over spam. If I was starving, I wouldnt actually hunt spam in the absence of steak, however I would eat spam if I could find no other food.

In a way I do agree with what you are saying. A zombie might take one or two tentative bites out of another animal because it was desperate to satisfy its hunger - but I certainly wouldn't expect to find hordes of zombies swarming over cows, trying to tear them apart. Human flesh is what they crave, that's what makes them scary.



Again, perhaps I do not have the medical vocabulary to describe what I am saying. By "warm", I do not mean a certain temperature, I mean the inherent warmth of LIVING flesh, or the warmth of flesh that was living a few minutes ago.

I would be willing to accept that, but the point remains regarding the use of the freezers...


Trapping rats and bats would be difficult for a pansy type like Logan, and I doubt the soldiers would have helped in that regard. Plus, it was much easier to use meat that he had available (i.e. recently dead human) then to go around hunting cave bats. Presumably at some point after death if a body does not revive, for example the living person was killed by being shot in the head and wont revive, a zombie will quit eating it, as it is no longer "warm", warm being whatever it is that lets a zed know/think it is "alive". That is why I think Dr Roush in Dawn says that the zeds dont eat of all a body, and that they are usually intact enough to be mobile when they revive. The zeds quit eating after the body had been dead for a certain period of time. I take it that Logan used the warm flesh of the soldier to feed to Bub, but realized that he couldnt do that forever because it would not be "warm, fresh, etc" after a while, so he temporarily threw the body in the freezer, to both hide it from view, and to keep it from decomposing while he figured out what to do with it.

You see, I just think that's all a bit of a stretch. Logan spent half of the film triumphantly shouting "reward is the key" as if he had some fantastic (workable) plan up his sleeve - I very much doubt he was just planning to cut a few scraps off every time someone died; how is he going to create system of rewarding the zombies for good behaviour if he has to wait for someone to die every time he can reward them?

If what you're suggesting is the case, and he could have hidden the bodies anywhere, why would Romero even show us a freezer if the fact of it being a freezer is totally redundant? It just doesn't make narrative sense - if you show something prominently like that in a movie without any added qualification, you are doing it because you want to use the audiences' most obvious associations of that object/thing to help illustrate a plot point. When you show a freezer, the 100% totally obvious association that comes to mind is the storage of foodstuffs for later consumption. If Romero was not suggesting that this was Logan's plan, then there would be no point in him deliberately showing a freezer with a dead body in it, especially since the freezer doesn't feature anywhere else in the movie.

To suggest anything else is too much of a stretch, in my opinion. Occam's Razor can apply to movies too. ;):D

[Trin]

SRP is correct here. The stories we are shown in GAR dead movies have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with zombies eating animals. Whether they do or do not eat animals is not important to the stories we are shown.It absolutely IS important. The stories we were shown would not be plausible if the zombies would suffice to eat cattle. It changes the whole nature of the phenomenon.

I can see Dawn being totally different. As they're watching the TV - "Researchers don't know what to do. But a bunch of ranchers in Texas solved the problem. You can all leave the mall now."


I dont think that zeds are just as likely to chase down a cow...If, as you say, it's completely irrelevant to the story we were shown, then how did you form that opinion? I'll tell you how. Because the story would be different without this assumption. And thus we can rightly assume, exactly as you have, that they wouldn't chase down a cow.

[shootemindehead]

The point about zombies "eating" bugs and mice is redundant IMO. We don't see them actually eat these things. They simply try them.

Tester bites are common to a lot of meat eating creatures (including us). Sharks will bite anything, including the bars of a shark cage or the side of a boat. It doesn't mean that they are "eating" these things. Likewise dogs will "mouth" many items if they want to see what it feels like in their mouth.

I like to think that the living dead, driven by the cloudy instinct of feeding, will mouth different things and reject them accordingly.

After all Bub mouthed the chain that was holding him in Logan's experimental lab in "Day of the Dead".

The instinct to feed is an animal's basest instinct, it comes before everything else, including reproduction. We're born with it ingrained on us...in the R-Complex (according to Dr Logan :D ). So it's possible to conclude that the twisted "logic" of a zombie's reasoning power may dictate that it's the meat of a partcular being (us) that it should be seeking out, but trying a bug, a mouse or the arse of a cow is out of the equasion for the odd one or two zombies.

[Trin]

I sure do hate to re-open this topic, but I was watching Land and something caught my attention.

In the scene in the bar where Slack is thrown into the zombie fight pit.

Charlie - "Stenches don't fight."
Roach - "They do when there's food."
Charlie - "What's on the menu? Cat or Dog?"

This seems pretty darned conclusive that zombies would eat an animal. Even with dozens of people standing visible (but out of reach) on the other side of a chain link fence they'd still eat a cat or dog.

[MoonSylver]

I sure do hate to re-open this topic, but I was watching Land and something caught my attention.

In the scene in the bar where Slack is thrown into the zombie fight pit.

Charlie - "Stenches don't fight."
Roach - "They do when there's food."
Charlie - "What's on the menu? Cat or Dog?"

This seems pretty darned conclusive that zombies would eat an animal. Even with dozens of people standing visible (but out of reach) on the other side of a chain link fence they'd still eat a cat or dog.

Ghaaahhhh....y'know what....you're right. I'd forgotten all about that one. Sadly, you're right....http://www.routertech.org/images/smiles/set1_36.gif

[AcesandEights]

I don't know, this sort of stuff is fun to talk about, but not as fun as used to be, because I don't think Romero cares about, or has ever been so solid about the minutia of his own rule set. Meaning--and I don't blame him for this at all--if it came to a good angle for a story, I think he'd go in the direction that made narrative sense.

Anyway, the dog, cat comment was a good catch.

And off topic, my favorite random quote from this whole thread is, by far:


Don't be ridiculous. People move cows every day. It doesn't require a college degree. Or even a high school diploma.
:lol:

[sandrock74]

It doesn't mean the zombies eat cats and dogs. I figured it as meaning that the cat or dog got the zombies worked up and excited (probably due to movement).

[MoonSylver]

It doesn't mean the zombies eat cats and dogs. I figured it as meaning that the cat or dog got the zombies worked up and excited (probably due to movement).

I REALLY hate to say it, but this particular part of the quote seems to suggest otherwise:


Roach - "They do when there's food."
Charlie - "What's on the menu? Cat or Dog?"


Honestly, despite what I wish, or the fact it really breaks my heart, from the rumblings we've heard from "...of the Dead", plus other little crumbs scattered like this one have given me the uneasy feeling that this something that GAR has been hellbent on working in somewhere for a while now (why? Beats the hell outta me...) http://www.routertech.org/images/smiles/set1_36.gif

[Trin]

Hey, just for the record, it breaks my heart too. And I agree with Aces, I don't think GAR takes his own rules that seriously. We are nitpicking something he gave 1/100th the thought to that we are.

And I maintain that even in a zombie apocalypse people would NOT forget how to move cows!! :p ;)

[SRP76]

And I maintain that even in a zombie apocalypse people would NOT forget how to move cows!! :p ;)

So? Not everyone can move cows right now. Grab some dude from L.A. and tell him to grab a cow and get it from point A to point B. Enjoy the show as he can't even figure out where to begin.

[Trin]

Yes, people who currently do not know how to move cows would still not know how to move cows.

And if ALL the people who currently know how to move cows died in the first night of the outbreak it would probably take upwards of several days for Man to reacquire that knowledge.

My zombie checklist for the repopulation of Man:

Shelter. Check.
Filtered water. Check.
Electricity. Check.
Medicine. Check.
Get the cows moving... oh, hell, how do we do that??

ROFL

[SRP76]

Walk out across 100 miles of dead-infested wasteland to go rustle some cattle...real simple.

From Second One of a worldwide dead outbreak, everyone's stuck cowering in whatever shelter they're currently in. The idea of still being able to communicate with others or even poke your head out the door is utter fantasy.

Why do people try to make everything sound so easy? Wake up. We can't even get off our fucking roofs and onto dry land two weeks after a hurricane. Yet, we're going to be able to do everything normally when a billion ghouls roam the streets. Yeah, right.

[MoonSylver]

Hey, just for the record, it breaks my heart too. And I agree with Aces, I don't think GAR takes his own rules that seriously. We are nitpicking something he gave 1/100th the thought to that we are.

Yep, I'll agree w/ both on that, as much as I wish otherwise. To me, if I were GAR I'd do the exact OPPOSITE & show a scenario where the zeds had the chance to take an animal as food & SPECIFICALLY passed it by to pursue/attack a human. To me, the implications of that are disturbing as hell.

[darth los]

Yes, people who currently do not know how to move cows would still not know how to move cows.

And if ALL the people who currently know how to move cows died in the first night of the outbreak it would probably take upwards of several days for Man to reacquire that knowledge.

My zombie checklist for the repopulation of Man:

Shelter. Check.
Filtered water. Check.
Electricity. Check.
Medicine. Check.
Get the cows moving... oh, hell, how do we do that??

ROFL


You're forgetting the most important part of repopulation.

A MAN AND A WOMAN!! :p j/k




I guess that's one thing Zack Snyder has over GAR. (and there aren't many)

CLARITY IN HIS RULES.


He made it very clear in DAWN 04'. Zombies DON'T eat animals, they're only interested in humans. It's been 41 years for GAR and we're still not clear on this one.


Further more, he also makes it clear that only bites bring you back. Now, like it or not atleast he didn't leave it ambiguous for 37 years before he finally decided to set the record straight in land.

Disagree? Why is it then that he felt compared to say that anyone who dies will come back , but if you die you come back that much sooner in the opening credits of land for Christ's sake. And then, for the benefit of anyone on a bathroom break or getting popcorn he includes the Fiddler's Green hanging scene.

It was mentioned in night that the bodies of the recently dead are returning to life and committing acts of murder along the eastern 3rd of the U.S. But the radio reports were muddled and one could easily miss that vital info. If some one missed that or only saw Dawn and DAy they would be under the impression that you have to be bitten in order to turn as well.


One things for sure and has already been mentioned. GAR couldn't give two shits about rules, continuity or the details of the film either pre or post production.


Don't believe me? Just pop in the disc from the ultimate collection where GAr. Chris and Savini do the commentery. It's actually sad. I don't think GAR even remembers if he was married to chris at the time.






:cool:

[Trin]

Walk out across 100 miles of dead-infested wasteland to go rustle some cattle...real simple.

From Second One of a worldwide dead outbreak, everyone's stuck cowering in whatever shelter they're currently in. The idea of still being able to communicate with others or even poke your head out the door is utter fantasy.

Why do people try to make everything sound so easy? Wake up. We can't even get off our fucking roofs and onto dry land two weeks after a hurricane. Yet, we're going to be able to do everything normally when a billion ghouls roam the streets. Yeah, right.
You obviously have never used a ham radio. Communication is cheap and easy and extends any distance you like.

And you've obviously never driven from Kansas City to Denver. Do that one time and you'll realize that all the billions of zombies in New York and LA won't make a rat's ass difference to the farmer living in the middle of Kansas. He's protected by a 200 mile radius of NOTHING.

@darth_los - Yep, Zach got the rules out there. I wondered if he did that on purpose or just got lucky. So much of his plot seemed to have little or no thought.

Oh, and what's this "woman" thing you're talking about? I've heard of those on other forums, too. Never really knew what they meant. :p

[darth los]

@darth_los - Yep, Zach got the rules out there. I wondered if he did that on purpose or just got lucky. So much of his plot seemed to have little or no thought.

Oh, and what's this "woman" thing you're talking about? I've heard of those on other forums, too. Never really knew what they meant. :p


lol :lol:




I'm a fan of Dawn 04', but with that said there are things about the film that I can't stand. People talk alot about the zombie baby and truthfully that didn't bother me. However, something far more idiotic did. That chick going after the dog takes the cake. The only thing worse is the idiots that decided to go after her. That REEEEEEAAALLY pissed me off. I mean who in their right mind is gonna do that. But it wasn't in vain. That scenario provided one of the great lines from the movie when steve says, "why do I have to go on a suicide mission to rescue his already dead girfriend !?!" Great stuff.



Now, with that said, when you're going to bash a movies faults you have to give credit where credit is due when things are done right and him leaving no ambiguity in his "rules" is one of them. Whether it was on purpose or not who's to say. But the evidence is that it was.

He devoted 2 scenes, one with the father and daughter in the mall where the father got bit and they're debating whether or not to shoot him before he turns and hurts someone. The case was made then that it was believed that only bites bring you back. This theory is tested later in the film in the scene where Andre and the old lady blow each other away and the you security gaurd is readying his pistol when Anna stops him and says don't bother, she's not coming back because she wasn't bitten.

Then we have two scenes that clearly show that the ghouls aren't interested in animals, only humans. The first is when the power goes out and they have to go through the garage iin order to restore it. They find chips the dog down there in a ghoul infested area virtually unmolested. To drive it home even harder the send the dog across the parking lot to try and get some food to Andy and thousands of ghouls just ignore it. It doesn't get any clearer than that folks.

GAR himself is on record saying that yes he wanted a clear message of us being slaves to material things in Dawn but the final product delivered it much more potently than he had planned but he was fine with it.

In any case it's common knowledge the some of the most ingenious things ever thought of by the human brain happened by accident/unintentionally. Either way GAR is a genious and few can match him at what he does.






:cool:

[Trin]

That chick going after the dog takes the cake. The only thing worse is the idiots that decided to go after her. That REEEEEEAAALLY pissed me off. I mean who in their right mind is gonna do that.
The only thing I hated worse than the fact that they stupidly went after the girl was that they actually rescued her. By all rights they should've died twice over. I have no idea what possessed them to think they could succeed without losing more life than they saved. Or what made them think the stupid girl was even still alive at all?? Just dumb.


...But the evidence is that it was...

...where Andre and the old lady blow each other away and the you security gaurd is readying his pistol when Anna stops him and says don't bother, she's not coming back because she wasn't bitten.
I really don't disagree with anything you've said, but I do question how intentional the rules were, or at least how much thought Snyder gave to how he evidenced the rules in the movie. Anna really had no way of knowing that someone who died unbitten would stay down. Unlike the very conclusive test they did with Max Headroom (sorry, cannot think of him any other way) regarding a bitten person coming back they just had no idea that an unbitten corpse would stay down.

[fartpants]

sorry but had to drag this thread back as GAR has been kind enough to finally answer this question once and for all in Survival, no spoilers from me but the man has spoken...

[darth los]

sorry but had to drag this thread back as GAR has been kind enough to finally answer this question once and for all in Survival, no spoilers from me but the man has spoken...


It's a different "universe" though. Gar's rules don't apply to any films but his own.

As Glenda the good witch of the north said. "You have no power here!!"

But in any case he established the revival rules about 42 years ago. " The bodies of the unburied dead are returning to life and attacking the living."

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

:cool:

[zombiekiller]

In Night, you do see a zed eat some type of insect that was on a tree. There are no horses or cows shown on screen that I recall, therefore we have no evidence of this one way or the other. But the fact that at least one zed eats a bug gives credence to the idea that they would eat livestock.

also in the night remake it shows a zed eating a mouse.

[shootemindehead]

I sure do hate to re-open this topic, but I was watching Land and something caught my attention.

In the scene in the bar where Slack is thrown into the zombie fight pit.

Charlie - "Stenches don't fight."
Roach - "They do when there's food."
Charlie - "What's on the menu? Cat or Dog?"

This seems pretty darned conclusive that zombies would eat an animal. Even with dozens of people standing visible (but out of reach) on the other side of a chain link fence they'd still eat a cat or dog.

Maybe he using slang for man (dog) or woman (cat)?

[Rancid Carcass]

sorry but had to drag this thread back as GAR has been kind enough to finally answer this question once and for all in Survival, no spoilers from me but the man has spoken...

I seem to remember that my very first post on this website (in this very topic), was to prove this very fact - glad to know I was right all along!

Go Rancid! Go Rancid! Go Rancid! Hoo-Yeah!

:D :thumbsup:

[Wyldwraith]

Something I've always wondered about,
We've all seen the scenes in Land where zombies are standing around doing their imitation of lawn ornaments until humans show up to stimulate them to move, so my question is this.

Let's say a couple zombies drag down an adult human they've cornered at the end of a dead-end alleyway, kill him/her, and feed on him/her until the magic interval elapses and the body-meat is no longer appealing to the two zombies. So the pair wanders off in search of more prey. Shortly thereafter their victim reanimates and stands up, a fresh zombie.

Now, there's no one around and the zombie has never been exposed to/perceived its own reaction to seeing a live human. In such a circumstance, what is it that tells the zombie that the thing that will satisfy their hunger (though I hesitate to call it hunger, because the word implies a provocation to go and seek food, when we know that zombies will stand around for years without moving)...is live human flesh?

Yes, I understand zombies are motivated by instinct, and they act on those instincts. Animals do the same thing. However, isn't some sort of stimulus required to trigger the instinct to begin with?

If I'm not being clear, look at it the other way. Shortly after reanimating, a zombie sees a live human running down the street away from other zombies. That sight/sound/smell stirs something in the zombie that makes it want to join the pursuit in the hopes of catching the human.

In the absence of that first experience, and having reanimated in an area with zero live-human stimulus, how do fresh zombies "know" what they want to do is eat live people, and once having been stimulated, what makes them go in search of live humans to eat when we clearly see in multiple movies hordes of zombies that have gone completely inactive without humans around to chase/feed on?

Is it less what we conceive of as hunger, and more a pre-programmed desire that every zombies possesses from Post-Reanimation Moment 1? Or if it is a traditional sort of hunger we can understand as such, why do they turn into lawn ornaments when not being stimulated by human proximity?

I ask because it doesn't seem like you can have it both ways. Either zombies are perpetually starving for human flesh and do whatever they can to hunt it down and feast on it/us, or its simply a feeding instinct triggered by human proximity, and in the absence of any humans they go all lawn ornament?

Which is it, and why?