New "? of the Dead" Info here..

[DrSiN]

Hey everyone, I attended Zombie's take Charlotte and it was awesome. Part of the event was a one on one with GAR where he took questions from about 50 people. And it started with.. a 5 minute behind the scenes look at "? of the Dead". That was the title on the clap board in the preview btw.. I didn't make it up.

I'm sorry to report I failed and my camera was out of power so I didn't get it filmed. I did however, get the whole Q&A on recorded on my phone.

Some neat things we learned.


George wanted Savini to do a cameo one off super cool effect but Canadian film board got in the way.
? of the Dead will finally touch upon what happens with animals
I saw more zombies in the 5 min behind the scenes than all of Diary
There is a cool feasting scene
It was sub-zero when they filmed it and it caused issues with the effect. But the zombies were troopers.


That's just a taste. As soon as I find some hosting, I'll get the audio from the event online. Hopefully the Light Factory will get something online quickly as well.

[axlish]

Cool man, keep us posted and thanks!

[DrSiN]

I've posted the audio here:

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?p=179508#post179508

[clanglee]

Well guess what. . .I had a camera!! It'll be on in a sec once I'm finished trimming it. For more stuff from the event look here.

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=13154

Oh, and an interesting tidbit. George said he addresses the issue of animals in this movie. Maybe a zombie animal in this one?

Ok here it is. Came out kinda crappy and dark, it tilts a bit halfway through (I was trying to hide the camera just in case, and you can hear my sis coughing a bit. Sorry.. best I could do. Enjoy

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l9vQC1EiuTs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l9vQC1EiuTs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[DrSiN]

Awesome. I was so pissed when I went to record it. I bought both one of our HD cameras and my Zoom H4 audio record to make sure I grabbed it. Both were dead by then.

That will teach me to film myself as an infected person in my hotel room while drunk the night before. I must have left both of them on.

[3pidemiC]

Very cool guys. Thanks for posting!

[clanglee]

Awesome. I was so pissed when I went to record it. I bought both one of our HD cameras and my Zoom H4 audio record to make sure I grabbed it. Both were dead by then.

That will teach me to film myself as an infected person in my hotel room while drunk the night before. I must have left both of them on.

Nah, no problem at all. So was the party fun?

[MinionZombie]

Kick arse vid there Clang ... about this movie - colour me very interested. :cool:

Can't wait for a proper trailer too. :)

[krakenslayer]

Looking good, I'm getting really quite excited about this.

One thing, though.I'm not nuts about the idea of involving animals (either as zombie chow or as zombies themselves) - I always thought that a) if zombies ate animals we'd have seen it by now, b) if animals became zombies upon death we'd definitely have seen it by now and c) if any animal can become zombified then there's simply no hope of escape, it's all over.

That said, I'm sure Romero will have thought this through so I guess I'll just have to sit tight and see how they deal with it in the movie.

[Mike70]

nice vid, thanks for posting it.

is it me or did the interview segments, esp. the one with the dude playing a zombie, seem completely sycophantic?

[Fecunditatis]

Very, very promising. Thanks for posting it. By the way, did anyone notice the Carpenter "They Live" tracks?

[MoonSylver]

Looking good, I'm getting really quite excited about this.

One thing, though.I'm not nuts about the idea of involving animals (either as zombie chow or as zombies themselves) - I always thought that a) if zombies ate animals we'd have seen it by now, b) if animals became zombies upon death we'd definitely have seen it by now and c) if any animal can become zombified then there's simply no hope of escape, it's all over.

That said, I'm sure Romero will have thought this through so I guess I'll just have to sit tight and see how they deal with it in the movie.

That says it for me as well. The idea of zombies eating animals...well...it just sorta flies in the face of what the movies (and the zombies themselves) have been ABOUT up until now (at least to me anyway)

The idea of animals BECOMING zombies, while a scary concept in & of itself, once again, doesn't seem to "fit" in the "GAR-verse" to me...honestly it smacks of "Resident Evil".

Hopefully, it addresses the issue as in: the zombies totally ignore cattle & go for the humans. But given the rumblings we've heard, I'm a bit leery. We'll see...:confused:

[MinionZombie]

Well we don't know what context it'll be in - for all we know a zombie will bite a dog and nothing will happen. :p

[Neil]

? of the Dead will finally touch upon what happens with animals

:(

Please let's not see:-
1) Zombie animals.
2) The living-dead the slightest bit interested in animals. Apart from a mouse in NOLTD, they've never been interested in animals. They want just human flash. Let's keep it that way, and not get gimmicky!

The fact it's been talked about means we're probably going to enter gimmick land now :(

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well the original LAND script called for Zombie Rats, but it was cut out for budget reasons. So I dunno. I for one would be interested in seeing a take on the subject.

[CooperWasRight]

Very, very promising. Thanks for posting it. By the way, did anyone notice the Carpenter "They Live" tracks?

I was digging that... Carpenter and Romero are long time friends but I doubt Romero choose the music. The nixing of the Savini cameo kind of bums me out.

[Fecunditatis]

Well, I remember that a few years ago it was reported that Carpenter wanted to produce "Dead Reckoning". He was going to do the music as well, but he would keep the rights for a new Dead franchise. Certainly, "Land of the Dead" ended up "feeling" very much like Carpenter. It wouldn't surprise me if this "Of the Dead" western does too.

[clanglee]

Ok so I am starting to freak out a bit. That damn video has exploded!!! It's got over 5000 hits and it has been linked on dread central and bloody disgusting and a few other horror web sites. Am I going to get a call from George's lawyers?

[MinionZombie]

Ok so I am starting to freak out a bit. That damn video has exploded!!! It's got over 5000 hits and it has been linked on dread central and bloody disgusting and a few other horror web sites. Am I going to get a call from George's lawyers?
hehe - you'll be alright - it was shown at a convention, it was bound to happen - at most it'd just be "oi, take that down please" - do so and you're golden.

If they don't get in contact, then fine - there's not a lot given away at all, if anything, in that vid - plus it gets the fans talking, so really it's to their benefit to leave it online getting the fan ferver going.

[bassman]

hehe....Glanglee's 15 minutes of fame...

[clanglee]

hehe....Glanglee's 15 minutes of fame...

Oh jeeze I hope not. Hate to waste it on this. ;)

[Mike70]

hehe - you'll be alright - it was shown at a convention, it was bound to happen - at most it'd just be "oi, take that down please" - do so and you're golden.

i think MZ is right. showing something at a convention and expecting that it isn't going to be shared around is a lot like putting water in the freezer and expecting it not to turn into ice cubes.

besides, i would think that the buzz generated by things like this would welcome. lots of folks are getting to see this who couldn't make it to the convention and wouldn't have been able to see it any other way.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ok so I am starting to freak out a bit. That damn video has exploded!!! It's got over 5000 hits and it has been linked on dread central and bloody disgusting and a few other horror web sites. Am I going to get a call from George's lawyers?

Well I remember they had a cow when photos of me as a zombie in LAND were online, so who knows. I however, doubt Voltage is as Anal retentive as Universal and Atmosphere was back in 05.

[bassman]

Well I remember they had a cow when photos of me as a zombie in LAND were online, so who knows. I however, doubt Voltage is as Anal retentive as Universal and Atmosphere was back in 05.

And your zombie ended up being edited out didnt it? So they were worried for nothing. But still....worried over a few pictures of the makeup? I would understand if it threatened to leak a plot point or something, but sheesh...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Actually no, as I have said 1,000,000 times I was not edited out. I am in the film, at 3 spots, you see me up close at 38:34 on the UNRATED DVD

[CooperWasRight]

Ok so I am starting to freak out a bit. That damn video has exploded!!! It's got over 5000 hits and it has been linked on dread central and bloody disgusting and a few other horror web sites. Am I going to get a call from George's lawyers?

I also posted it around abit. You should be fine as stated before worst case it a notice telling you to pull the video.

[krakenslayer]

Ok so I am starting to freak out a bit. That damn video has exploded!!! It's got over 5000 hits and it has been linked on dread central and bloody disgusting and a few other horror web sites. Am I going to get a call from George's lawyers?

I think you'd better practice not dropping the soap, clang! :lol:

[Bub666]

I think you'd better practice not dropping the soap, clang! :lol:

:lol::lol::lol:

[clanglee]

I think you'd better practice not dropping the soap, clang! :lol:

Nooooooooo!!!!!!!:eek:

[darth los]

And your zombie ended up being edited out didnt it? So they were worried for nothing. But still....worried over a few pictures of the makeup? I would understand if it threatened to leak a plot point or something, but sheesh...

It is a recession so ya never know dude. They might be thirsty for the money or they just might wanna make an example out of him. :stunned:


relax. Just joking.





:cool:

[clanglee]

It is a recession so ya never know dude. They might be thirsty for the money or they just might wanna make an example out of him. :stunned:
:

:shifty::stunned::shifty:

[bassman]

Actually no, as I have said 1,000,000 times I was not edited out. I am in the film, at 3 spots, you see me up close at 38:34 on the UNRATED DVD

I wasn't trying to take a stab at you dude. I was saying that the photos were harmless and it's funny they made you remove them.

Never noticed ya in the flick, though...

[krakenslayer]

:shifty::stunned::shifty:

I'm sorry clang... but someone's going to have to tell you straight:


You are going to jail,
and you are going to get bum raped :(




:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Human Rain]

Technically, Romero's already addressed zombie-animals. They exist. His "Toe Tags" series, which he says is canon, had zombie monkeys and a zombie elephant.

[ProfessorChaos]

eh...zombie animals....no thanks.

i don't like the sound of that.

[AcesandEights]

eh...zombie animals....no thanks.

i don't like the sound of that.

'Nuff said, in my opinion. Zombie animals may be an okay in some contexts, but I'm primarily against the idea. It would have to be handled deftly.

[Danny]

eh...zombie animals....no thanks.

i don't like the sound of that.

first thing that comes to mind is the ceberus that smashes through the window in the spencer mansion:sneaky:

bring it on. it should have occurred sooner.

[krakenslayer]

first thing that comes to mind is the ceberus that smashes through the window in the spencer mansion:sneaky:

bring it on. it should have occurred sooner.

The fact that it didn't occur sooner is the problem. After this, whenever we watch any of the previous movies, we're gonna be thinking "Where's the zombie animals? Why doesn't anyone mention zombie animals?" Bear in mind animals are dying all the time, everywhere - rats, squirrels, insects, gulls, bees, ducks, worms... by the time of Land of the Dead everything living would have been stripped clean.

[Fecunditatis]

"Toe Tags" is probably the worst thing Romero has ever done.

[Wyldwraith]

My take,
Not a fan of zombie animals, but I see no logical reason why zombies wouldn't strip easy (relatively) to catch animals like cows and horses in stalls etc. It would make a sort of sense if they simply ignored anything that was moving too fast and often bouncing out of their field of vision (like say squirrels going up trees, or cats under a trailer).

I'm gonna go with the guy who said that zombie animals would be too Resident Evil-ish. The two things I most disliked about RE:3 were Alice's super-psi powers and the ridiculous application of zombie animals. (Anyone who knows anything about birds would know that birds with non-fresh/dead feathers aren't flying anywhere, and the damage likely to be done in the initial attack would render them flightless anyways)

I DO think that a scene demonstrating without doubt that zombies will ignore animal prey in favor of human flesh would be awesome. Like we've got these protagonists on horseback. Have them ride through a field with some cattle in it, and have the pursuing zombies shuffle right past the cows because they're dialed in on the retreating humans.

If you think about it, the world in Land looked like a silent desolate wasteland outside of Fiddler's Green. If zombies ignore animals where were the packs of feral dogs, the occasional feral cat or the resurgent native wildlife? If there's enough food and such to attract human salvagers then there's enough to attract a bear to a long-abandoned grocery store to loot the canned goods. We've got black bears invading suburban neighborhoods in NEW JERSEY at this moment in the real world. You don't see any of that though. Not even an owl hooting, or a mangy dog skittering across a dimly lit street.

Solid compromise on the zombie/animal interaction?

[MinionZombie]

where were the packs of feral dogs

Interesting you mention that, I wrote my zombie epic recently and included a bit involving a pack of wild dogs. :cool:

No, they weren't zombie dogs, just undomesticated.

I would imagine animals numbers would become depleted over time though, them attacking each other, not being able to depend on us humans throwing out trash, or feeding them, and so on ... but they'd still remain, albeit depleted in number - kind of like in Chernobyl now.

[Human Rain]

I liked Toe Tags. I think it works as the final, inevitable direction for evolved zombies caught in a battle with what's left of the humans, who have basically become far more disgusting creatures.

Regardless, I only bring it up because it makes clear that animals DO come back. Though the other films might have disregarded zombie animals because perhaps they only attack OTHERS of their kind. You don't really see zombie humans going after animals (except for the bug in Night), so perhaps zombie animals pretty much leave humans alone. In any case, I don't think it's cheating to bring in the concept into a film. Ultimately, I trust Romero and his narrative vision.

[clanglee]

What about the zombies eating the field mouse in the Night Remake. That film is almost canon in my opinion since all of the original parties were involved in it's making.

[Human Rain]

The question of the 1990 remake in the canon is tricky, because it's a reinterpretation of the original. You basically have to pick which one you want to use in the timeline. I perfer to think it's some sort of alternate universe version. Regardless: We never actually see the mouse get eaten. The zombie puts it in his mouth, gets a look of disgust as if it doesn't taste right, and then we cut away.

[krakenslayer]

The question of the 1990 remake in the canon is tricky, because it's a reinterpretation of the original. You basically have to pick which one you want to use in the timeline. I perfer to think it's some sort of alternate universe version. Regardless: We never actually see the mouse get eaten. The zombie puts it in his mouth, gets a look of disgust as if it doesn't taste right, and then we cut away.

Yeah! There was a whole thread devoted to the topic of whether or not zombies eat animals quite recently. I came to the decision that zombies would take a bite out of something that wasn't human, just to try it, but probably wouldn't consume the whole thing.

[AcesandEights]

I could care less about the idea of canon anymore, as you can't really depend on it in this 'franchise'.

I'll grade each case of zed animal munching on how well it is presented and how much sense it makes.

[archivesofthede]

I'm heading to Fangoria's convention in Chicago tomorrow. He will be there and maybe offer us more insight.

[Rancid Carcass]

Okay this turned into a bit of a rant...

I think that the idea of 'canon' is something that mainly exists in the minds of the fans. People tend to come up with their own ideas about 'what happens next' or 'what went before' and become so entrenched in these ideas that when the poor unfortunate filmmaker decides to return to their franchise with another tale that expands the story and ideas in someway, they simply don't stand a chance and the film gets mauled. It seems to me that the fans demand canon but are the first to reject it when they don't like something that is contrary to their own established theories. It's not just with the Dead films – how many Star Wars fans don't count the prequels because Lucas explained what the Force was? And you can bet your life there are dozens of Star Trek fans who've already decided that the new film is complete and utter garbage because it inevitably won't fit in with their own version of events. It's the same with Romero and this alleged horse eating scene, I wonder how many people have already condemned the film and it's canonicity because of it - or come up with yet another theory so that that particular scene somehow doesn't count. Land and Diary come in for a lot of flak, personally I don't think it's because they are bad films, it's because they're not the films 'you' want. Sure he could make formulaic rehashes of his earlier work to please the fans but George is doing the same thing today as he did with Night back in the 60's, he's challenging our established perceptions of what we know and pushing us out of our comfort zones. To me, that's damn good film making.

Now, lets just hope that scene with zombies bouncing down the street on space hoppers chasing luckless survivors makes the final cut of the film... :lol:

[krakenslayer]

Okay this turned into a bit of a rant...

I think that the idea of 'canon' is something that mainly exists in the minds of the fans. People tend to come up with their own ideas about 'what happens next' or 'what went before' and become so entrenched in these ideas that when the poor unfortunate filmmaker decides to return to their franchise with another tale that expands the story and ideas in someway, they simply don't stand a chance and the film gets mauled. It seems to me that the fans demand canon but are the first to reject it when they don't like something that is contrary to their own established theories. It's not just with the Dead films – how many Star Wars fans don't count the prequels because Lucas explained what the Force was? And you can bet your life there are dozens of Star Trek fans who've already decided that the new film is complete and utter garbage because it inevitably won't fit in with their own version of events. It's the same with Romero and this alleged horse eating scene, I wonder how many people have already condemned the film and it's canonicity because of it - or come up with yet another theory so that that particular scene somehow doesn't count. Land and Diary come in for a lot of flak, personally I don't think it's because they are bad films, it's because they're not the films 'you' want. Sure he could make formulaic rehashes of his earlier work to please the fans but George is doing the same thing today as he did with Night back in the 60's, he's challenging our established perceptions of what we know and pushing us out of our comfort zones. To me, that's damn good film making.

Now, lets just hope that scene with zombies bouncing down the street on space hoppers chasing luckless survivors makes the final cut of the film... :lol:

Very good points, but just to elaborate on my own feelings in the matter: the main reason I'm unhappy about the touted "horse eating scene" is that it will stretch my suspension of disbelief when it comes to watching - specifically - Day of the Dead, because the central thread of the plot in that movie depended upon the fact that the scientists were unable to reward the zombies with anything other than human flesh.

[DrSiN]

What horse eating scene?

[krakenslayer]

What horse eating scene?

Here you go: http://www.homepageofthedead.com/baps/question_setvisit.html

Third paragraph from the bottom. :D

[Yojimbo]

My wife believes that it might be Ara Katz, since we saw her with Romero at the Diary screening here in Los Angeles. It would make some sense since to some degree she is filling the role that Christine would have played during production.

Anyone with info on this?

[krakenslayer]

My wife believes that it might be Ara Katz, since we saw her with Romero at the Diary screening here in Los Angeles. It would make some sense since to some degree she is filling the role that Christine would have played during production.

Anyone with info on this?

I assume you meant to post this as a new thread? Maybe one of the mods will move it for you.

Edit: She was born in 1979, so it would be a bit creepy if we was swanning around with a girl who was not even born when he made Dawn of the Dead. There's about forty years between them, she's young enough to be his granddaughter!! :eek:

[clanglee]

, she's young enough to be his granddaughter!! :eek:

Hell yeah!!! that's the way I'm gonna do it when I am an old man!!!

[darth los]

Hell yeah!!! that's the way I'm gonna do it when I am an old man!!!

DUDE, Are you serious !?!

Anything less would be uncivilized. :thumbsup:

Anyone that age who says they'd never do that is a liar. The only reason they wouldn't is that they couldn't. Because believe you me if some old shrivled up dude who looks like one of the California raisins could get with that he would.

Nuff Said.




:cool:

[krakenslayer]

Nope, it's creepy and gross. Fuck that. :confused:

[MoonSylver]

Okay this turned into a bit of a rant...

I think that the idea of 'canon' is something that mainly exists in the minds of the fans. People tend to come up with their own ideas about 'what happens next' or 'what went before' and become so entrenched in these ideas that when the poor unfortunate filmmaker decides to return to their franchise with another tale that expands the story and ideas in someway, they simply don't stand a chance and the film gets mauled. It seems to me that the fans demand canon but are the first to reject it when they don't like something that is contrary to their own established theories. It's not just with the Dead films – how many Star Wars fans don't count the prequels because Lucas explained what the Force was? And you can bet your life there are dozens of Star Trek fans who've already decided that the new film is complete and utter garbage because it inevitably won't fit in with their own version of events. It's the same with Romero and this alleged horse eating scene, I wonder how many people have already condemned the film and it's canonicity because of it - or come up with yet another theory so that that particular scene somehow doesn't count. Land and Diary come in for a lot of flak, personally I don't think it's because they are bad films, it's because they're not the films 'you' want. Sure he could make formulaic rehashes of his earlier work to please the fans but George is doing the same thing today as he did with Night back in the 60's, he's challenging our established perceptions of what we know and pushing us out of our comfort zones. To me, that's damn good film making.

Now, lets just hope that scene with zombies bouncing down the street on space hoppers chasing luckless survivors makes the final cut of the film... :lol:

I understand where you're coming from. I'm willing to wait & see what GAR does, & if he does go this route I'll grudgingly accept it, but I won't agree with it & I won't like it. I might like the rest of the movie in spite of that, but I still won't like that particular thing no matter how great the rest of the movie is. It just doesn't jive with what we've been told/shown up 'till now.

I'm all for artistic freedom & the artist following his own muse free of the fans & all that, but when someone lays down the rules for you in a solid & consistent manor & then comes in & does a 180 on you, then yeah, it's a bit irritating. Why not suddenly say the zombies can run? Or fly? Or shoot laser beams outta their eyes?

Your comment about Lucas & the Force is incredibly apt in this case. Here we had this thing that was already well explained (enough) & we had a firm handle on & then he suddenly throws a bogus pseudo-explanation in that doesn't make a lot of sense, seems to invalidate our understanding of what has gone before, & really just seemed to smack of someone trying to demystify the mysterious because he was sick of people trying to turn it into a "real" religion.

To me part of what made the zombies (and the implication behind them) scary was that they were interested in eating US & ONLY us. That hinted of a design. A purpose. If they'll eat anything that moves...eh...kinda cheapens & lessens the effect TBH.

[thxleo]

My wife believes that it might be Ara Katz, since we saw her with Romero at the Diary screening here in Los Angeles. It would make some sense since to some degree she is filling the role that Christine would have played during production.

Anyone with info on this?

I can tell you for an absolute fact that George Romero is not dating Ara Katz. I've seen his "lady friend" and she is MUCH older and her hair is MUCH redder. And Ara is MUCH, MUCH more attractive. No offense George!


Here you go: http://www.homepageofthedead.com/baps/question_setvisit.html

Third paragraph from the bottom. :D

Hey, thanks for linking my report! :)

[krakenslayer]

Hey, thanks for linking my report! :)

Oh, that was you!? Great job!!

[thxleo]

Oh, that was you!? Great job!!

Thank you, sir.

[CooperWasRight]

[QUOTE=thxleo;180903]I can tell you for an absolute fact that George Romero is not dating Ara Katz. I've seen his "lady friend" and she is MUCH older and her hair is MUCH redder. And Ara is MUCH, MUCH more attractive. No offense George!


Wait did George and Christine Forrest get a divorce?

[krakenslayer]

Wait did George and Christine Forrest get a divorce?

Seems like it, or are at least that are now estranged. What's weird though, is that she's still listed as an executive producer on the Romero produced and presented Deadtime Stories and Deadtime Stories 2, which haven't even been released yet. Possibly a condition of her alimony? Dunno...

[Trin]

There are a few absolute truths in the world.

- Canon means nothing to GAR. He makes up the rules as he frames the shot.

- For zombies to eat animals now would be like Superman 13 revealing that Superman is actually defeated by either Kryptonite OR his lesser known weakness, quartz, the most abundant mineral in the world which although freely available in almost every state, he has up until this point never been exposed to in a movie, with no mention of how he could possibly have avoided it till this point.

- I had no idea DJ was onscreen and identifiable in Land even after the alleged 1,000,000 mentions of it. I now must watch the movie until that exact second to see. Belated as it is, congrats DJ for being in a GAR zombie movie!!

- Clanglee is going to jail. I'll miss you buddy. Whether or not he remains butt cherry is still a mystery.

[darth los]

Good points.

His apparent disregard for consistency in film or cannon has been well documented here and elsewhere.

It starts way back in 1968 in the first 10 minutes of the film and then never really stopped...





:cool:

[clanglee]

There are a few absolute truths in the world.

- Canon means nothing to GAR. He makes up the rules as he frames the shot.

- For zombies to eat animals now would be like Superman 13 revealing that Superman is actually defeated by either Kryptonite OR his lesser known weakness, quartz, the most abundant mineral in the world which although freely available in almost every state, he has up until this point never been exposed to in a movie, with no mention of how he could possibly have avoided it till this point.

- I had no idea DJ was onscreen and identifiable in Land even after the alleged 1,000,000 mentions of it. I now must watch the movie until that exact second to see. Belated as it is, congrats DJ for being in a GAR zombie movie!!

- Clanglee is going to jail. I'll miss you buddy. Whether or not he remains butt cherry is still a mystery.

:lol: are we talking my pirated video, or my preference for younger women?

[RJ_Sevin]

In the DAWN novel, (which was based on George's gigantic early screenplay) Fran and company have a dog named Adam. When Flyboy and his dead followers are on the way up the stairs, Adam runs down to see its master. They eat him.

It seems obvious that this wasn't cut for some nonsense canonical reasons, but for budget: when you're working with limited time and money, you don't want to do take after take because some stupid dog isn't hitting its mark.

[darth los]

:lol: are we talking my pirated video, or my preference for younger women?

Either one of them will do the trick.

Although you, under no circumstances, want the rep of someone who gets with "younger" women in prison. Trust me dude.




:cool:

[clanglee]

Either one of them will do the trick.

Although you, under no circumstances, want the rep of someone who gets with "younger" women in prison. Trust me dude.




:cool:

Not that young!!!!!

[Human Rain]

Well, since I brought up the word "canon," I'll respond: I'm not particularly loyal to the word, I only use it because it is the most popular way of saying that something is or isn't part of the official series. We're panicking about animal zombies in the new one, and the point is, Romero has technically already addressed it in a comic book that he has said takes place in the same world in which his series takes place. I'm not a fanboy who clings mercilessly to a timeline or a continuity; Romero's free to do anything he likes from film to film, including contradict previous established rules, because as the creator of the popular zombie myth, it's his goddamn right!

Re: the Star Wars prequels. I didn't care about mediclorians, or whatever the hell they're called. I just thought they were boring movies.

But I agree with you that fans cling to canon like it's gospel and grumble pointlessly about contradictions. Life's probably too short--my rule is much simpler: Is it a good movie or not? Thus far, in his zombie series, Romero has yet to let me down.

[krakenslayer]

- For zombies to eat animals now would be like Superman 13 revealing that Superman is actually defeated by either Kryptonite OR his lesser known weakness, quartz, the most abundant mineral in the world which although freely available in almost every state, he has up until this point never been exposed to in a movie, with no mention of how he could possibly have avoided it till this point.

:lol: Funniest... shit... I've read all day! Thanks Trin! :D

[Trin]

Romero's free to do anything he likes from film to film, including contradict previous established rules, because as the creator of the popular zombie myth, it's his goddamn right!Certainly you are correct in your statement and I support your position 100%. Similarly, the fans have the right to turn their backs on the work if they feel it is handled haphazardly. Not saying I or anyone here would do that, but it's a slippery slope when you jack with your fanbase.

It all goes back to whether we're talking about GAR as an artist, GAR as a businessman, or GAR as a cult figurehead. Yes, as an artist he can crank out anything that trips his trigger and screw the fans and critics alike - that's art. But if GAR is intending to be a businessman then he needs to appeal to the studios and the masses to get their support, ala Dawn '04. If he's attempting to assert himself as the uncontested master of the zombie movie then he needs to appeal to the fans and screw the studios. I don't see where he's doing any of these effectively. He's making whatever movie he likes and thumbing his nose at anyone and everyone who gives negative feedback.

Calling his recent efforts art is, imo, a last resort for movies that failed to achieve widespread support from horror movie viewers in general (i.e. the masses) or from the GAR faithful (i.e. the cult following).


:lol: Funniest... shit... I've read all day! Thanks Trin! :D

Thanks Kraken - I laughed myself silly writing it too. :)

[Human Rain]

George Lucas is making whatever movie he likes and thumbing his nose at anyone and everyone who gives negative feedback.


I noticed a typo in the above sentence, so I'm correcting it for you. ;) (Sorry...too easy.)

In regards to this accusation against Romero, I don't see this happening. Romero has NEVER thumbed his nose at people who give him negative feedback... Quite the opposite; he just keeps on making movies about subjects that interest him, and he listens to his fans when they don't like what they see. Fans grumbled about Day when it was first released, but time has been on its side and it turned out to be a near-perfect conclusion to the initial trilogy; Romero trusted his instincts (and his budget limitations) and pulled it off. So Day is ultimately absolved; fans wanted more, so he gave them Land. When fans grumbled about Land, Romero went back to the basics, stripped down the gloss, and gave us the string-of-his-teeth Diary. A lot of fans didn't care for that one either, so now he's trying something of a Dawn-like, action-themed film. Seems like his has his finger right on his fan base's pulse if you ask me. But as an artist, he doesn't want to make the same movie over and over, so he's experimenting with theme and plot, which is his prerogative as an artist. Land and Diary were both flawed, but they were loaded with fascinating ideas and good filmmaking; I'd take them any day in the week over a glossy, freshly-polished, slickly-produced zombie film that made for perfect entertainment but was ultimately superficial and hollow. (That's not necessarily a jab at Dawn 04, but it's a good example.)

[Trin]

I actually like Phantom Menace and thought it was a great kick-off to the new Star Wars movies. But the later ones... not so much.

I look at Diary and I see everything that was bad about Land without any of what was good. Bad plot. Ridiculous characters. Implausible motivation. Overly obnoxious message that obliterates the storyline. Too few zombies. Erratic behavior from humans and zombies alike that defies explanation.

I don't think he absorbed the negative feedback from Land and tried to fix it. I think he took the negative feedback and deduced that the fans just didn't get it, so hit them with it harder. More message. More gags. More zombie kills. All things that no one complained about with Land.

And it sounds like he's cueing up the next sucker punch. Which I will hungrily go and see and probably be the first in line. Probably the only in line. Diary didn't have hardly anyone there when I went and I'm guessing that GAR didn't gain any following since then.

[eaten]

the use of the Cramps song in the video was great

RIP lux !

[darth los]

Overly obnoxious message that obliterates the storyline.


That's definitely something he has to ease up on. He did it in Diary as well and it got monotonous. There were 2 seperate scenes where Jason's girlfriend bitches about "if it didn't happen on camera it's like it didn't happen right?" It felt to me as if i was watching the same scene all over agian. And that my friends is NOT a good thing.


But Jason was actually right in the end despite the protests of his girfriend, professor and the rest of his gang. It's ironic how in the dead films the people we beat up the most turn out being right in the end. Cooper is another example of this.


I think i see a pattern developing here. :confused:






:cool:

[Trin]

@darth - Agreed, my friend, the message has got to tone down. You also make a very interesting point regarding the hated survivors in the group making the most sense. Dr. Logan belongs in the ranks. Monster, yes, but he was spot on about the ability to "blow the piss out of them." He had a keen grasp of the problem if not the solution.


That said, I'm sure Romero will have thought this through so I guess I'll just have to sit tight and see how they deal with it in the movie.Lol - Are you nuts man? If there's one thing I'd bet my cookies on it's that GAR will NOT have thought it through.


The fact that it didn't occur sooner is the problem. After this, whenever we watch any of the previous movies, we're gonna be thinking "Where's the zombie animals? Why doesn't anyone mention zombie animals?" Bear in mind animals are dying all the time, everywhere - rats, squirrels, insects, gulls, bees, ducks, worms... by the time of Land of the Dead everything living would have been stripped clean.
On this point I agree 100%. How can you introduce this now after all the movies have ignored it? Can a zombie animal infect a person? That pretty much means Land of the Dead didn't happen. The rat population would've made quick work of the street people. Can zombie animals infect each other? Then how was it that Mouse had a live mouse at the docks? Wouldn't that mouse have been long since munched by his mouse buddies?

I don't see any way zombie animals works.

Which leaves the idea of zombies eating animals.


To me part of what made the zombies (and the implication behind them) scary was that they were interested in eating US & ONLY us. That hinted of a design. A purpose. If they'll eat anything that moves...eh...kinda cheapens & lessens the effect TBH.
I'm with you here. For me it's a statement. The zombies eat people. Is it the wrath of God? Is it judgement? Or is it something else? Do they truly take no nourishment from what they eat, or is it really that they feast on souls of the living? And they'll only eat a creature with a soul (as most religions don't attribute a soul to an animal)?

[darth los]

@darth - Agreed, my friend, the message has got to tone down. You also make a very interesting point regarding the hated survivors in the group making the most sense. Dr. Logan belongs in the ranks. Monster, yes, but he was spot on about the ability to "blow the piss out of them." He had a keen grasp of the problem if not the solution.



Well, I'd have to say that Rhodes was the most hated person in the group, but yeah, i know what you mean. :p :D


Although you could make the argument that Rhodes had a very good point as well. Logan never said he was wrong, he only said that "the time to have done that would have been at the beginning, we're in the minority now."

The problem was that society as a whole became paralyzed by the religious/moral implications of the dead rising and refused to take action in a timely matter that would have contained the plague. By the time people realized that there was no other option the situation had already reached the point of no return. Enter day of the DEAD !!






:cool:

[Trin]

Yeah, I agree darth.

But help me out on one point. What was Jason right about? The whole "if it didn't happen on camera, it didn't happen" thing? I'm not sure I follow.

I pretty well hated Jason through the whole movie and in retrospect wished he'd died in the opening credits. So if you can enlighten me on some aspect of his character that is worthy of respect I'd actually enjoy that.

My overriding point with Jason is that "if the entire human race dies with camera's in their hands then it hardly matters what is on camera. Pick up a gun, idiot." LOL

[darth los]

Yeah, I agree darth.

But help me out on one point. What was Jason right about? The whole "if it didn't happen on camera, it didn't happen" thing? I'm not sure I follow.

I pretty well hated Jason through the whole movie and in retrospect wished he'd died in the opening credits. So if you can enlighten me on some aspect of his character that is worthy of respect I'd actually enjoy that.

My overriding point with Jason is that "if the entire human race dies with camera's in their hands then it hardly matters what is on camera. Pick up a gun, idiot." LOL




Well, and this is just my opinion, He had the wherewithall To see the big picture and document the whole thing while everyone else was just concerned with their own affairs such as getting home to their families. (important as well but instinctual, imo) Believe or not (not directed at you) despite being ridiculed by his girlfriend and disparaged by his professor who seemed , frankly, disgusted by what Jason was doing (i don't know what the old man's deal was but the fact that Jason was documenting all of this seem to stem from his experience in the "war" and his friends dying all around him while some military photographer took pictures of the carnage instead of joining in the fight, that's my theory anyway) what Jason was doing was of far more importance than what the others had on their minds.

Now, while family means the world to an individual, to others they don't mean squat. He was thinking how he could get the truth out to people about what was really happening in an effort to save their lives. The funny thing is what he was doing wasn't interfering or a detrement to what the group was trying to accomplish but he still caught shit from all sides. (Any theories as to why that was?)

In the end The rest of the group came around and realized how important what jason was doing actually wasand even joined in and in the end, finished his work.



To answer your original question, Imo, the phrase " If it didn't happen on camera it's like it didn't happen" can mean a couple of things:


1st) If private citizens don't document what's happening then everyone one relies on the gov't for info and all the propaganda that comes with it. As you saw in the film the authorities were lying about what was going on and people were surely dying because of it. It's no wonder that in dawn, 3 weeks into the plague people were still in denial about what was going on. That no doubt contributed to the ghouls taking over because by the time people realized the truth humaity had already panicked and broke up into too many factions to battle what was frankly a determined, methodical, unrelenting and single minded enemy.



2nd) Think about the two wars were in. Do you feel as if we're at war? Neither do I. You know one of the reasons, Imo? Because it's not real to us. We don't see the true cost because that information is censored. The talking heads discuss the war on terror and they voice over stock footage of muslims in these training camps negotiationg monkey bars or whatever ridiculous obstacle course they have over there. We dont' see the caskets with our best and brightest young people come into Dover. If we did alot of people might rethink this thing so they just don't allow us to see it. I know Obama just rescinded that policy and now it's up to the families whether or not to allow media coverage of their loved ones coming home. I saw the first casket and man i wept for about 15 minutes. That's what Jason was trying to do. Make it real to us. No he wasn't fighting, but everyone had a role to play and his was just as important as any.






:cool:

[IRA_LCPL]

That says it for me as well. The idea of zombies eating animals...well...it just sorta flies in the face of what the movies (and the zombies themselves) have been ABOUT up until now (at least to me anyway)

The idea of animals BECOMING zombies, while a scary concept in & of itself, once again, doesn't seem to "fit" in the "GAR-verse" to me...honestly it smacks of "Resident Evil".

Hopefully, it addresses the issue as in: the zombies totally ignore cattle & go for the humans. But given the rumblings we've heard, I'm a bit leery. We'll see...:confused:

In Night '68 the two Zombies end up pushing eachother back and forth for a second over a field mouse that one of them snaged and was eating next to the burned out truck.

I am still hopful he will not go into the resident evil esc world of zombie animals as was stated by moon though.

Over all I am enthused for sure

[darth los]

In Night '68 the two Zombies end up pushing eachother back and forth for a second over a field mouse that one of them snaged and was eating next to the burned out truck.

I am still hopful he will not go into the resident evil esc world of zombie animals as was stated by moon though.

Over all I am enthused for sure


The scene that you're refering to happened in the remake. However, the original contains a scene where a female zombie plucks a centipede off of a tree and eats it.






:cool:

[Trin]

...what Jason was doing was of far more importance than what the others had on their minds.
I agree with that.


He was thinking how he could get the truth out to people about what was really happening in an effort to save their lives. The funny thing is what he was doing wasn't interfering or a detrement to what the group was trying to accomplish but he still caught shit from all sides. (Any theories as to why that was?)
Hmmmm... I'm not so convinced his goals were altruistic. To "save their lives" didn't come through to me nearly so much as to "make a name for himself" or to "expose the government as liars." It felt to me he had a personal agenda in mind the whole time.

I think he was a detriment to the others. I freely admit this is an "if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem" line of reasoning. The guy who got bit in the hospital could easily have avoided it if Jason didn't have a camera plastered to his face. The people at the end (including Jason himself) might have survived had he whacked the mummy zombie in the woods when he had the chance. Maybe this is how reporters are expected to act in war, but who elected Jason the reporter and made the others the soldiers? I'd have been in his face giving him shit too.

I think the others decided to finish his work once it was safe to do so. I'm not sure they ever really had disagreement with "what" he was doing, just "how" he was going about it. The risks he was taking. I'm not convinced they would hold a camera and watch each other die as Jason was willing to do.

I don't know on the rest. GAR wrote a story wherein the government and/or media lied and Jason was shown as a conspiracy theorist who was proved right. This fiction has an awful lot of spin in it.

[Dachan-da]

Just read the First few post's of the thread and took a gander at the video.
This is going to be awesome, totally looking forward to it!!!
Thanks for posting the info'z
:D

[zombie craig]

I've recently seen Romero's Dead films after being inspired by the Resident Evil games and the Dawn of the Dead remake (wanting to find the 'source' of the outbreak as it were ;) )

They were awesome!!!!!

To be honest, it's a relief they're so much better than the Resident Evil films. Dissapointed by those.

Aaaaanyway, I had no idea Romero was making a new film, and the clips that i've seen on here look great. anybody want to suggest what films I should see and why, to satiate my newfound hunger for the living dead in the meantime?

As for Diary and Jason's camera-obsession: I thought of it as more of a metaphorical device rather than a true motivation. I mean, the whole way through Jason is detached from everything and glued to his camera, and it dehumanises him. Other people start getting drawn into using cameras and detaching themselves from reality too. Kind of a commentary on 'viral' information and the digital age being a virus like that of the zombies maybe.

The camera is certainly responsibler for a few deaths by the end and detaches Jason from emotional and survivalist qualities that I'd associate with humanity.

My thoughts, anyway :p

First post! Glad to be here

[MinionZombie]

Welcome aboard, for one ... glad you dug the GAR zed flicks, for two ... and as for some recommended titles:

The Living Dead At Manchester Morgue
Zombi 2 (aka Zombie Flesh Eaters)
Return of the Living Dead
Undead
Shaun of the Dead
Dead Set (British TV mini series)

Just a few off the top of my head.

Now, as for some infection/plague/outbreak style movies (which are not zombie flicks - there was a whole other thread about that topic here recently), here are some recommended titles:

Rabid
28 Days Later (and Weeks Later)
The Crazies

You might have seen some of them already, but just a few off the top of my head.

[shootemindehead]

On this point I agree 100%. How can you introduce this now after all the movies have ignored it? Can a zombie animal infect a person? That pretty much means Land of the Dead didn't happen. The rat population would've made quick work of the street people. Can zombie animals infect each other? Then how was it that Mouse had a live mouse at the docks? Wouldn't that mouse have been long since munched by his mouse buddies?

I don't see any way zombie animals works.

If the next movie with the supposed "eating animals" scene is a continuation of 'Diary of the Dead', then it won't really matter if it abandons the precedent of 'Land of the Dead', as they are two totally different universes.

That is one of the problems I have with 'Diary of the Dead'. The ill-advised move to leave the events of 'Night', Dawn', 'Day' and 'Land' and effectively mount an un-nesscessary "re-boot" of the zombie story. In the grand scheme of things 'Diary of the Dead' was completely superfluous to the previous GAR Living Dead films. In fact, it has abosolutely nothing to do with them.

Therefore, if Romero wants to have zombies eating animals in this particular universe, he can.

It STILL is a bad move though.

But if '? of the Dead' is connected to 'Land of the Dead' etc, then it's downright idiotic.


The scene that you're refering to happened in the remake. However, the original contains a scene where a female zombie plucks a centipede off of a tree and eats it.

Both of those scenes aren't really an indication of zombies "eating animals" though. As I said earlier (maybe in this thread?), some animals (sharks for instance) will test bite many objects (including humans) and decide it's not for them and simply go away. However, they instinctively know that seal blubber is a meal they want.

Perhaps the Living Dead, will idly mouth various objects too and decide that it's not worth bothering with. But their corrupt instinct (as pointed out by Dr. Logan) is to feed on living human flesh.

[Trin]

Welcome zombie craig, and great first post!!


As for Diary and Jason's camera-obsession: I thought of it as more of a metaphorical device rather than a true motivation. I mean, the whole way through Jason is detached from everything and glued to his camera, and it dehumanises him.I'd agree. I think the fact that we saw virtually none of Jason further presses this point home.

I just think that the metaphor crushed the storyline.

@shootmeindehead - Living, dead, sharks... we all know seal blubber is a meal we want.

[clanglee]

Mmmmmmm . . . seal blubber.




Now, as for some infection/plague/outbreak style movies (which are not zombie flicks - there was a whole other thread about that topic here recently), here are some recommended titles:

Rabid
28 Days Later (and Weeks Later)
The Crazies
.

If they are not zombie movies then why mention them if they have nothing to do with zombie movies? :p

[MinionZombie]

If they are not zombie movies then why mention them if they have nothing to do with zombie movies? :p

Because they're kinda close, but not the same ... and more to the fact, people who like zombie movies usually like infection/plague/outbreak movies.

So there, ya jammy bastard. :D

[Trin]

Like fat chicks and hot chicks. Yes, they both have a vagina. And you'll do either in a pinch. But anyone with any standards can tell they are NOT the same. :p

Welcome to Home Page of the Beating the Dead Horse.

Add "Warning Sign" to the list. Small movie and it's infected, not zombies, but good survival horror.

[AcesandEights]

Welcome to Home Page of the Beating the Dead Horse.


Someone needs to make up t-shirts, ASAP! :p

[darth los]

Like fat chicks and hot chicks. Yes, they both have a vagina. And you'll do either in a pinch. But anyone with any standards can tell they are NOT the same. :p


Now THAT'S one to grow on !! :thumbsup:

First thing I'm going to teach my sons, I'll tell ya that much!! :lol: :p





If the next movie with the supposed "eating animals" scene is a continuation of 'Diary of the Dead', then it won't really matter if it abandons the precedent of 'Land of the Dead', as they are two totally different universes.

That is one of the problems I have with 'Diary of the Dead'. The ill-advised move to leave the events of 'Night', Dawn', 'Day' and 'Land' and effectively mount an un-nesscessary "re-boot" of the zombie story. In the grand scheme of things 'Diary of the Dead' was completely superfluous to the previous GAR Living Dead films. In fact, it has abosolutely nothing to do with them.

Therefore, if Romero wants to have zombies eating animals in this particular universe, he can.

It STILL is a bad move though.

But if '? of the Dead' is connected to 'Land of the Dead' etc, then it's downright idiotic.



Both of those scenes aren't really an indication of zombies "eating animals" though. As I said earlier (maybe in this thread?), some animals (sharks for instance) will test bite many objects (including humans) and decide it's not for them and simply go away. However, they instinctively know that seal blubber is a meal they want.

Perhaps the Living Dead, will idly mouth various objects too and decide that it's not worth bothering with. But their corrupt instinct (as pointed out by Dr. Logan) is to feed on living human flesh.



A couple of issues with the points you made.


I disagree with the term corrupt instinct. I see it more as Base instinct. Corrupt would imply there's something wrong with it. We are born with these instincts and then train our young to ignore them. The survival instinct knows nothing about moral values. All it's trying to do is keep the mechanism of the body functioning by whatever means nescessary.


Next we have the issue of "test biting". It's a good theory except it's not really backed up by anything in the films. We don't see them trying to eat other edible things like oranges or plants to see how platable they are to them. Surely they know that these things are edible based on their past memories but they ignore them as a source of sustinence none the less. Perhaps it's movement that spurs them to hunt and then feed, who knows.


Let's talk about what we do know as was suggested in the opening credits of Dawn. We know, courtesy of the good doctor in Dawn that they Ataack and feed only on warm flesh. Is that to say they don't feed on cold blooded animals? I don't think so. I take warm flesh to mean something that's alive, with a pulse.

The bottom line is we don't really know if they've been feeding on animals to whole time. It might have been happening but never shown on film. I'll tell you what though. Don't you think that animals for the most part have been conspicously absent from the trilogy? Why do you think that is? Either all the animals have been eaten up already or, as all animal do, they sense that the ghouls are a mortal threat to them and steer clear of them, thus virtually no animals appear in the series.

Either way, I highly doubt that animals become zombiefied. That coupled with the human ghouls would have wiped out humanity far quicker than what was the case.





:cool:

[shootemindehead]

A couple of issues with the points you made.


I disagree with the term corrupt instinct. I see it more as Base instinct. Corrupt would imply there's something wrong with it. We are born with these instincts and then train our young to ignore them. The survival instinct knows nothing about moral values. All it's trying to do is keep the mechanism of the body functioning by whatever means nescessary.

Well, I don't think any human is born with a basic instinct to feed on living flesh, but yes we are born with the need to feed. However, that has become functionally twisted in the barely operating brain (R Complex) of a reanimated dead person. That's why I termed it corrupt. I meant corrupt as in data corruption, not morally..........as in Geroge Bush :D

To quote a famous dead scientist...

"They are us, they just function less perfectly"



Next we have the issue of "test biting". It's a good theory except it's not really backed up by anything in the films. We don't see them trying to eat other edible things like oranges or plants to see how platable they are to them. Surely they know that these things are edible based on their past memories but they ignore them as a source of sustinence none the less. Perhaps it's movement that spurs them to hunt and then feed, who knows.

Well, we have one zombie chomping down on a cricket 'Night of the Living Dead '68', Steven knawing at the walls to get back upstairs in 'Dawn of the Dead', Bub mouths his chain in 'Day of the Dead' and a zombie puts a field mouse in his gob in 'Night of the Living Dead '90'. So, there's loads! :p

Just kidding really.

I agree, we don't see a lot of it going on, but then we don't get to see dead in their downtime a lot either. so who knows what they get up to when human beings aren't around. Maybe they are scoffing any animal they can get their hands on. The only major scene I can think of where the dead are totally unaware of any human presence is in 'Land of the Dead'. But they seem more interested in making music. So, maybe in the excitment of warm flesh being around, they just aren't that interested in trying new things to eat or do.



Let's talk about what we do know as was suggested in the opening credits of Dawn. We know, courtesy of the good doctor in Dawn that they Ataack and feed only on warm flesh. Is that to say they don't feed on cold blooded animals? I don't think so. I take warm flesh to mean something that's alive, with a pulse.

As, yes...but doesn't Bub eat flesh from dead frozen soldiers? Heated up I s'pose. But, no pulse there...or life either. But maybe that was part of Logan's training mechanism.

We stock up on frozen dead people and feed the living dead to control them...and they lose interest in seeing us as "Lunch"..."Dinner"..."Breakfast"..."ho ho ho.........."

[Trin]

I disagree with the term corrupt instinct. I see it more as Base instinct. Corrupt would imply there's something wrong with it. We are born with these instincts and then train our young to ignore them. The survival instinct knows nothing about moral values. All it's trying to do is keep the mechanism of the body functioning by whatever means nescessary.

I'm not sure on that one. Babies operating at the lowest level of intellect are pretty keen to recognize what is food and what isn't. They'll put anything into their mouths, true, but they lose interest in most stuff pretty fast. And they don't go chasing down people or animals out of instinct. I have 3 kids and never had to train any of them not to eat the cat. I see the zombie's instinct to feed on human flesh as corrupted in the "not operating as intended" way.

It's possible that in Night the zombies were still in the experimenting phase putting stuff in their mouths, and by Dawn, Day, etc. they'd come to realize that human flesh is the next best thing to seal blubber.

The question of why animals do not appear in the Dead series is just troubling. Zombies feasting on animals doesn't explain it. Zombies are not catching a deer. Zombiefied animals doesn't explain it either. Apart from the simple argument that zombie animals would've wiped out humanity easily, there's the same problem that a zombie deer isn't going to catch a deer either.

You don't see birds either and there's no way birds are affected by zombies, even if zombies would eat birds and zombie birds existed.

Sadly, the only real rationale for no animals is that GAR didn't feel like dealing with animals on the set.

[darth los]

Well, I don't think any human is born with a basic instinct to feed on living flesh, but yes we are born with the need to feed. However, that has become functionally twisted in the barely operating brain (R Complex) of a reanimated dead person. That's why I termed it corrupt. I meant corrupt as in data corruption, not morally..........as in Geroge Bush :D

To quote a famous dead scientist...

"They are us, they just function less perfectly"




Well, we have one zombie chomping down on a cricket 'Night of the Living Dead '68', Steven knawing at the walls to get back upstairs in 'Dawn of the Dead', Bub mouths his chain in 'Day of the Dead' and a zombie puts a field mouse in his gob in 'Night of the Living Dead '90'. So, there's loads! :p

Just kidding really.

I agree, we don't see a lot of it going on, but then we don't get to see dead in their downtime a lot either. so who knows what they get up to when human beings aren't around. Maybe they are scoffing any animal they can get their hands on. The only major scene I can think of where the dead are totally unaware of any human presence is in 'Land of the Dead'. But they seem more interested in making music. So, maybe in the excitment of warm flesh being around, they just aren't that interested in trying new things to eat or do.




As, yes...but doesn't Bub eat flesh from dead frozen soldiers? Heated up I s'pose. But, no pulse there...or life either. But maybe that was part of Logan's training mechanism.

We stock up on frozen dead people and feed the living dead to control them...and they lose interest in seeing us as "Lunch"..."Dinner"..."Breakfast"..."ho ho ho.........."



Good points all around.



What's cool about Dawn is that we get to see zombies in their "downtime" as well. They obviously like to shop, play with manequins and play ice hockey. :D


They are us....

[IRA_LCPL]

The scene that you're refering to happened in the remake. However, the original contains a scene where a female zombie plucks a centipede off of a tree and eats it.






:cool:

you know I actually had to sit down and watch them to make sure you were right but you are definitely more correcterer than I am thanks brother

[darth los]

you know I actually had to sit down and watch them to make sure you were right but you are definitely more correcterer than I am thanks brother


No problem. It happens to the best of us. :D



The funny thing is I'm sure you could have sworn on a stack of bibles that you were correct.

As a law student they taught us that eyewitness testimony is the the most notoriously unreliable kind. People of misremember important details especially the further away they get from the event.






:cool: