Zombie strength levels

[Jamn]

This was probably covered already. I know most of the forum wants the slow moving zombies in films. I want to know what everyone thinks about how strong a zombie is. Ok if there is a brand new freshly awake one would he be at his strongest and fastest of his undead life? Does he get weaker as time goes on or if he loses mass. A part of movies I hate is when a mostly skeletal zombie is attacking someone. If there is no meat and connective tissue, I don't want a skeleton walking around. I like Max Brooks explanations of zombies pushing their way out of a grave is not in his stories. I also like that he says zombies don't decompose like a dead body would because natural decomposition stops or is at least slowed down once infected. I don't like animal zombies either, I think it should only be a disease that takes out humans. Zombies should not eat animals either that just takes away from the horror part of it. But he also talks about zombies eating so much their guts explode, so they don't get any nourishment or replenish any energy no matter how much they eat. Wouldn't they get weaker with time? Just wondering what everyone's take was on this. James

[Dr Tongue]

George Romero never used Grave Rising Zombies.

PS: Why the hell does Max Brooks get all the credit for Zombies? I loved World War Z, but I am sick of people citing Max Brooks like he is the Zombie god.

Pet peeve, I don't know why.

EDIT: Look into the Playdough effect.

[darth los]

George Romero never used Grave Rising Zombies.

PS: Why the hell does Max Brooks get all the credit for Zombies? I loved World War Z, but I am sick of people citing Max Brooks like he is the Zombie god.

Pet peeve, I don't know why.

EDIT: Look into the Playdough effect.


The only reason he got published is because his father is. GAr didn't have that advantage.

:cool:

[bassman]

PS: Why the hell does Max Brooks get all the credit for Zombies? I loved World War Z, but I am sick of people citing Max Brooks like he is the Zombie god.

Pet peeve, I don't know why.



I wouldn't say he gets all the credit for zombies, he just wrote two detailed and highly regarded books on the subject. If anyone is credited for the "modern" zombie, it's Romero...

As for zombies and their skin/muscles.....I would like to point out my favorite of silly zombies: TARMAN! It's amazing how that fella can pronounce Brains with absolutely no lips.:lol:

[Dr Tongue]

I wouldn't say he gets all the credit for zombies, he just wrote two detailed and highly regarded books on the subject. If anyone is credited for the "modern" zombie, it's Romero...

I guess you are right. I am still bitter about it for some reason.

I was in a "Zombie Discussion room" at a random Anime convention, and a guy asked; "What is your favorite Zombie kill." and I said "Screwdriver in the the ear!" and was glared at by the entire room like I was crazy. Then he simply said "That's not in in any Max Brooks books.". I facepalmed. :lol:

EDIT:

The only reason he got published is because his father is. GAr didn't have that advantage.

:cool:

That is true. Though I loved WWZ, it makes me wonder if it would have had the same fate as many of the other, good Zombie novels that don't have the 'Brooks' name on them.

[Jamn]

I wouldn't say he gets all the credit for zombies, he just wrote two detailed and highly regarded books on the subject. If anyone is credited for the "modern" zombie, it's Romero...

As for zombies and their skin/muscles.....I would like to point out my favorite of silly zombies: TARMAN! It's amazing how that fella can pronounce Brains with absolutely no lips.:lol:


Tarman is the first that came to mind, second was the half lady that gave them all the info on brains. I don't think Brooks is the God, I just think his explainations made sense. Romero never tried to explain, he just went with it and let us try to come up with our own reasons. I heard one time that anything that had to do with Star Wars had to be approved by Lucas, comics, novels, etc. Romero could have done the same but he pretty much let anyone give their interpretation on what he created.

[Doc]

This was probably covered already. I know most of the forum wants the slow moving zombies in films. I want to know what everyone thinks about how strong a zombie is. Ok if there is a brand new freshly awake one would he be at his strongest and fastest of his undead life? Does he get weaker as time goes on or if he loses mass.

Well, in Day of the Dead the walking corpses are about a year or two old probably, and have enough strength to rip a guy's head off, and complete rip off the lower half of a man's body.

[clanglee]

I was in a "Zombie Discussion room" at a random Anime convention, and a guy asked; "What is your favorite Zombie kill." and I said "Screwdriver in the the ear!" and was glared at by the entire room like I was crazy. Then he simply said "That's not in in any Max Brooks books.". I facepalmed. :lol:
.

That's pretty awful. I feel the same way when someone says they love Dawn of the Dead. .and I perk up . . all surprised and ready to talk about one of my favorite subjects. But then they say something that makes me realize that they are talking about Dawn 2004. Now I happen to like Dawn 2004. . . .but when one is speaking about "Dawn of the Dead". .. . one should always mean the original. And if the person doesn't know it's a remake? Or they prefer the remake? . . . .oh the rage. . . . . it boils in me . . . .surely they can feel the heat of that rage. . . . surely they know that their respect in my eyes has been obliterated in the flames of my mighty furnace of loathing. . . . . . and I lament . . . .I lament for mankind. . . .I lament for us all. . . .alas. . .alack. . .oh lamentable day!!!!!!

but all that just looks like this. . ..

http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/data/roadbike/500/facepalm_ATHF.jpg

[MoonSylver]

That's pretty awful. I feel the same way when someone says they love Dawn of the Dead. .and I perk up . . all surprised and ready to talk about one of my favorite subjects. But then they say something that makes me realize that they are talking about Dawn 2004. Now I happen to like Dawn 2004. . . .but when one is speaking about "Dawn of the Dead". .. . one should always mean the original. And if the person doesn't know it's a remake? Or they prefer the remake? . . . .oh the rage. . . . . it boils in me . . . .surely they can feel the heat of that rage. . . . surely they know that their respect in my eyes has been obliterated in the flames of my mighty furnace of loathing. . . . . . and I lament . . . .I lament for mankind. . . .I lament for us all. . . .alas. . .alack. . .oh lamentable day!!!!!!

but all that just looks like this. . ..

:lol:

My reaction in that situation always looks more like THIS:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/ferris_bueller_maitre-d-chez-jonathan-schmock.JPG

"I WEEP for the future!!!"

[bassman]

Time to face the truth, fellas. Kids these days would never like a character driven film like the original Dawn. To them....the single note characters in the remake are rich with life.:rolleyes:

What drives me up the wall is when I wear a Dawn shirt and someone starts talking about the remake. The shirt has the zombie stephen on it, for fucks sake!!!

[Ghost Of War]

Time to face the truth, fellas. Kids these days would never like a character driven film like the original Dawn.

Mine did.:p

[Wyldwraith]

Sadly,
The exception that proves the rule Ghost. With Romero working so intently on dismantling his legacy as he churns out sub-Uwe Boll-standard film after film, no one under 30-35 at a minimum, with the RARE FEW EXCEPTIONS of those younglings who benefit from the wisdom of loving elders, willing to cultivate a sense of taste and desire for quality in what they watch in their progeny is going to remember the Pure Awesome that was the Original Trilogy.

In fact, you can actually SEE the last scant few drops of Days-of-Yore-Quality talent leaving Romero's veins as one watches the few really good scenes from Land.

[Trin]

I was in a "Zombie Discussion room" at a random Anime convention, and a guy asked; "What is your favorite Zombie kill." and I said "Screwdriver in the the ear!" and was glared at by the entire room like I was crazy. Then he simply said "That's not in in any Max Brooks books.". I facepalmed. :lol:
Yeah, I remember that from Dawn. Awesome scene!! When Anna killed the wheelbarrow lady, right?

((:moon: @ clang and you all))

[childofgilead]

That's actually an interesting question..I think that zombie strength depends only on one thing..

WHAT'S IN THE SCRIPT!!!

;)

But yeah, on the one hand, they're weak, you can push em over (beat 'em off and blow 'em down, as our favorite sheriff liked to say..ew..), but then again, they can tear someone into pieces, which, I have it on good authority, is pretty tough to do..

As for Max Brooks..I dunno..his books seem okay, but this whole new zombie generation post DAWN 04..I just don't know.

[SRP76]

I missed this topic somehow.

Zombies are as strong as they need to be in the movies, so I'll just disregard that and give opinions instead.

I think they should be weak. Very weak. They don't have to be strong to bite someone, which is the whole point of their existence. They're dead, so they should be slow, weak, you-name-it.

Limb-from-limb type stuff, barricade breakthroughs, and other such things should only happen when zombies are bringing the numbers. A whole bunch of them acting at once would be able to do it. But one? Should never, ever happen.

[darth los]

Tarman is the first that came to mind, second was the half lady that gave them all the info on brains. I don't think Brooks is the God, I just think his explainations made sense. Romero never tried to explain, he just went with it and let us try to come up with our own reasons. I heard one time that anything that had to do with Star Wars had to be approved by Lucas, comics, novels, etc. Romero could have done the same but he pretty much let anyone give their interpretation on what he created.


And that's pretty much the reason why we have endless debates on his dead films.

If he laid everything out for us this would be a very quiet place indeed.

And what would Philly do with himself? :confused:

:cool:

[paranoid101]

I always thought strength wise at the start of the outbreak they would be very similar to the living, but we have the advantage of adrenalin.

But as time goes on the zombies starts to degrade and strength would drop, but this would be made up for by the increase in numbers of undead.

[AcesandEights]

I always thought strength wise at the start of the outbreak they would be very similar to the living, but we have the advantage of adrenalin.

But as time goes on the zombies starts to degrade and strength would drop, but this would be made up for by the increase in numbers of undead.

I wrote up a whole response, but lost it!

Anyway, I pretty much agree with your take on things. This is a good way to go with zombies in general, whether in print or film.

However, I could stomach the idea that zombies are somehow (slightly) stronger initially, because they can wring more effort out of their muscles through some unremitting lust for flesh and knowing no human psychological limit, but I would tend toward and prefer the former idea that they should be close to human strength and then trail off as decay/weathering sets in.

I do like to see a zombie taking a nice bite out of someone, but when it goes through denim or leather and they get a whole chunk of flesh AND the denim or leather in one gulp, well that's cinematic, but doesn't seem realistic. I can let it slide as part of the genre, though.

[Doc]

I think they should be weak. Very weak. They don't have to be strong to bite someone, which is the whole point of their existence. They're dead, so they should be slow, weak, you-name-it.


Hopefully, don't too weak that a simple punch to the head can bring them down, and never having to worry about them catching you as they move slower than you can walk. :-X

[shootemindehead]

It's one of the things that annoys the crap out of me in 'Land of the Dead'. We can see the shiluette of a zombie tearing a man's arm apart, length wise!!!!

WTF? Arnie wouldn't have been able to do that in his prime!

But, yes...slow and weak when alone or in small groups. Devastating when in a horde.

[darth los]

Does anyone notice that as Gar's trilogy progresses the ghouls seem to get stronger?

In night they are listless.

In dawn they can climb ladders and rip through paper mache' walls.

By the time day rolls around they look like they can tear you limb from limb.

Have you SEEN that firefighter zombie in action? I wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley.

:cool:

[AcesandEights]

Hopefully, don't too weak that a simple punch to the head can bring them down, and never having to worry about them catching you as they move slower than you can walk. :-X

I always liked the idea tht you could outmanuever and out walk a zombie, or even a few of them (assuming you don't panic or let yourself ghet surrounded/cornered), but that you have to be smart about long term evasion.

Afterall, a zed can walk till they fall apart...you'll succumb in a chase long before they will.

[bassman]

Does anyone notice that as Gar's trilogy progresses the ghouls seem to get stronger?

In night they are listless.

In dawn they can climb ladders and rip through paper mache' walls.

By the time day rolls around they look like they can tear you limb from limb.


Well they also tear apart taso in Dawn. I think it has more to do with the number of zombies pulling.

You wanna talk about easily ripping apart, look at David in Shaun. He comes apart easier than greased up legos!:lol:



Have you SEEN that firefighter zombie in action? I wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley.


Is this in Day? I can't recall a firefighter zombie. Looks like i'm about to lose my Day nerd credentials....

[Doc]

Is this in Day? I can't recall a firefighter zombie. Looks like i'm about to lose my Day nerd credentials....

Yeah, he's one of the zombies in the cave where the keep all the zeds. Heck, he even appears later in the film as, the zed Fisher tries to feed beef treats too. Not to mentiopn the moment when Logan tells it to think about what's it done, and the gonk cue!:cool:

[bassman]

Yeah, he's one of the zombies in the cave where the keep all the zeds. Heck, he even appears later in the film as, the zed Fisher tries to feed beef treats too. Not to mentiopn the moment when Logan tells it to think about what's it done, and the gonk cue!:cool:

Wow.....never noticed he's a firefighter.:confused:

[Doc]

Wow.....never noticed he's a firefighter.:confused:

Yeah, Steele knocked his firehat off when they out him outta the pen. They don't really show it's fate after they get him out.

I always prefered the fast, aggressive, and super-strengthed zombies od Day to all the other installments to be honest.

[bassman]

Yeah, Steele knocked his firehat off when they out him outta the pen. They don't really show it's fate after they get him out.



Wait a minute - now that you mention Steele knocking off his hat....I thought it was a hard hat? Like a miner or construction workers hard hat?

[Doc]

Wait a minute - now that you mention Steele knocking off his hat....I thought it was a hard hat? Like a miner or construction workers hard hat?

Hmm..actually you maybe right. My mistake about the firefighter thing. I might have been thinking about another zed film. I'll watch out for it the next time I see 'Day' though.

[MoonSylver]

Wait a minute - now that you mention Steele knocking off his hat....I thought it was a hard hat? Like a miner or construction workers hard hat?

Your Day nerd cred remains intact. It is a miners hat w/ a light on it, similar to the ones the humans wear about the place.

[shootemindehead]

Nice hat asshole


Around the 5:10 nark...
0WZj9FC0qVU&p=D63017A3CA4E7063&playnext=1&index=17

[Cinerary]

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj25/LoriBeth72/Funny/littlecloneseating.gif

[Jamn]

I agree that a zombie could be stronger because they feel no pain or they feel a great deal of pain to feed, that makes sense. The denim and leather statement is also something to consider, human teeth don't penetrate like a dog's would. What about the way you become infected? I just watched Survival and pretty much after you died you became a zombie whether you were bitten or not. Resident Evil even goes as far as saying one scratch will kill you. I think it should be limited to a bite. That at least gives you some chance.

[shootemindehead]

I think Romero's general death = zombie route is the best one. It goes some way to making for a more believable apocalypse. With the sheer amount of people dropping dead every day, that would equal a serious amount of zombies in a relatively short time.

[Publius]

I think Romero's general death = zombie route is the best one. It goes some way to making for a more believable apocalypse. With the sheer amount of people dropping dead every day, that would equal a serious amount of zombies in a relatively short time.

I agree that that's the best route to a believable apocalypse. But don't overestimate the number of people dropping dead every day. In the U.S., it's less than 7,000, compared to 309,000,000 living. And almost 60% of the dead are 75 years old and older or 4 years old and younger.

[SymphonicX]

All I have to say on the subject of zombie strength consistency is:

look at the zombies slowly knocking the shopping mall windows in Dawn....

Then look at what the fireman zombie does in Day when he's put into the wooden pen before being taken to the lab.

[shootemindehead]

I agree that that's the best route to a believable apocalypse. But don't overestimate the number of people dropping dead every day. In the U.S., it's less than 7,000, compared to 309,000,000 living. And almost 60% of the dead are 75 years old and older or 4 years old and younger.

That's still 7000 new zombies every day, plus those they attack.

[Wyldwraith]

Yes,
But one has to remember that not nearly all attack victims will be intact enough to reanimate, or even mobile if they do. Chew enough flesh (muscle) off the extremities and you might as well have amputated them once you lose X amount of connective tissue.

Additionally, there will be the % of people who become infected, but escape the attacking zombie's clutches. Once news of the invariably lethal nature of the zombie bite and the certainty of reanimation gets disseminated, many will choose a means of suicide that won't allow reanimation, or a comrade will do the job for them.

Of course this won't apply to all or even most infected humans, but it would probably be a significant % nonetheless. There's also the odd inverse that Greater # of Zombies Attacking Single Victim = Higher chance of the attack being immediately fatal, but Greater The # of Zombies Attacking An Individual = The more likely too much flesh for a viable/significantly functional reanimation has been consumed.

Basically, zombie propagation can ironically become a victim of the zombies' own success at increasing their numbers.

Finally, recall that early on civilians with guns & ammo will be at their most plentiful, before beginning to decline after zombies numbers exceed a certain density in a given area, due to both casualties and running out of limited supplies of bullets.

Meaning, early on you have the highest # of individuals equipped to terminate large numbers of zombies with (relatively) low combat proficiency, and these same individuals for the same reason have the means at that early stage in the outbreak to prevent their own reanimation or (more likely) the reanimation of a friend/family member/ally. After all, someone with a pistol can dispatch a currently-reanimating zombie easily enough if they were on hand when the person expired.

One of the scenes I hate the most in Dawn '04 is how the fat old dying woman and Anna's husband both reanimate so damned fast, and are fully functional and hunting so quickly after dying. I just can't suspend my disbelief to buy into a reanimation that happens so illogically/unbelievably.

Anyways, these are some of the impediments I see for the zombies numbers increasing in the early part of the outbreak.

[Publius]

fireman zombie

Come on now, don't start that again! :)


That's still 7000 new zombies every day, plus those they attack.

In addition to what Wyldwraith mentions, keep in mind that most people die in a hospital or similar facility. After the first day, the next 7000 won't be much of a surprise. Also keep in mind that a 310,000,000 to 7,000 ratio works out to about 44,300 to 1. Most small towns won't see a single zombie for days, which gives the people who live there a big head start for preparation and organization.

[Wyldwraith]

In addition to what Wyldwraith mentions, keep in mind that most people die in a hospital or similar facility. After the first day, the next 7000 won't be much of a surprise. Also keep in mind that a 310,000,000 to 7,000 ratio works out to about 44,300 to 1. Most small towns won't see a single zombie for days, which gives the people who live there a big head start for preparation and organization.

Agreed, but to elaborate further:
Take the typical small-town-situation Publius mentioned. Let's even go against the likely probabilities and say the unfolding situation in the world (the gory details/effects of the zombie apocalypse and civil unrest) depicted on the TV causes a rash of fatal stress-related heart attacks in a dozen senior citizens, and that on the same day a guy is so stunned by what he's hearing on the radio he either runs someone down with his car accidentally or crashes the car, killing himself, or both.

That would give us 14 zombies in one day, in a single small town VERY early in the unfolding Zombie Apocalypse. Let's further assume that NOT EVEN ONE person in this small town knows or suspects anything about shooting zombies in the head to terminate them at first, meaning EVERYONE in the town will need to be informed of this critical fact after a few survivors of conflicts with the initial 14 zombies discover the Head-Trauma-Weakness through hard-won experience.

How do you think this rural small town in say, the Southeastern United States would do?

IMHO, three major factors would spell the doom of the zombies in short order. 1) Small towns in the South = Disproportionate % of heavily armed rednecks/hunting enthusiasts/kooky survivalists. These armed civilians are most likely in possession of rifles and/or shotguns, as they are the more common hunting weapons. In fact, MANY areas of the South (know this from personal experience) include significant numbers of Shotgun-wielding deer hunters. Meaning the shotguns in question will likely be 16 or 12-gauge, and the shells will be 0 or 00 (aka "Double ought") buckshot, or (more likely) slugs. The rifles will likely range from 30/30s, .30-06s to .308s. Many states REQUIRE a certain minimum caliber for rifle hunting, and almost all require centerfire ammunition-loaded weapons. Additionally, because different geographical deer-hunting areas are divided by law into Shotgun OR Rifle Zones (meaning only one or the other may be used in that area, such as in Michigan), many Deer hunters will have both shotguns and rifles so they may hunt in more areas conveniently.

All of these factors increase the probability that the majority of rifles/shotguns and their attendant ammunition will be of a type highly effective against a human being as well as a deer. This is without even getting into the portions of society I'll touch on next, that have reasons of their own to possess quite lethal pistols among other weapons.

2) Criminals. Due to the sprawling nature of many scattered population centers in the South, there is a significant problem with highly mobile, extremely violent criminal elements. The very small size of many towns preclude them as anything other than a stopover for many criminal enterprises, due to the Small Town Effect, by which everyone knows everyone else and their business. Due to this and other factors, mobility becomes a desired attribute in many successful outlaw biker gangs (such as the Outlaws, based primarily in Florida (my state of residence) and Georgia), or even Chapters of the Pagans branching downward from their Maryland-heavy chapters. Combined with the # of small gangs cooking and distributing meth, PCP and Ketamine(sp?), that adds up to a substantial # regionally of well-organized, frighteningly well-armed individuals totally desensitized to the worst violence imaginable.

Dawn hit the mark when it depicted a motorcycle gang as likely survivors, and these criminal elements will only grow bolder and see their membership swell as the government/police begin to fail to keep people safe. That however is a tangent only peripherally related to this Small Town Hypothesis.

3) Regular, 2nd Amendment Lovers, who have guns because they want to have guns, because they very much like owning and using their guns.

Combine any two of these three groups, and you'll quickly see that even if each zombie causes overall ten times the original number of 14 zombies to be created, 140 zombies versus a town which likely possesses 3x that number of at least moderately proficient and well-armed individuals at a minimum.

Remember, even if you don't know to shoot them in the head, even just a couple of guys firing 12-gauges loaded with 00-buckshot or .308s (from much further away) can do an ENORMOUS amount of damage to a human body in a frighteningly short amount of time.

In other words, how many center-mass close-range blasts from a 12-gauge do you believe it'll take to render a zombie non-mobile/massively impaired?

I'm betting 3 solid blasts will do it. Anyone else?

[Jamn]

Remember, even if you don't know to shoot them in the head, even just a couple of guys firing 12-gauges loaded with 00-buckshot or .308s (from much further away) can do an ENORMOUS amount of damage to a human body in a frighteningly short amount of time.

In other words, how many center-mass close-range blasts from a 12-gauge do you believe it'll take to render a zombie non-mobile/massively impaired?

I'm betting 3 solid blasts will do it. Anyone else?[/QUOTE]


I agree with the gun ratio being much larger in the South. Huge cities like NYC and Chicago that are anti-gun will be in much more trouble just from the amount and density of the population. Like the saying goes 'if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns' (in those areas). I myself own many guns for many different reasons, I have several 22's for target and playing around with. I have several shotguns set up for different applications, like hunting or home defense. Yes 12 gauge rounds come in many forms and I have several of each. I do have handguns I carry everyday, but if I was stuck out somewhere my arsenal would be useless.

The whole thing would have to depend on everyone believing what is actually happening, and what would have to be done. Much like in Survival some heavily armed people would be no good if they couldn't put down one of their own. Any type of organized groups would be better off, and if they do not live by society's laws they are more likely to shoot first. The bikers in Dawn also stayed mobile so they weren't limited to protecting a stronghold.

[SRP76]

I agree that that's the best route to a believable apocalypse. But don't overestimate the number of people dropping dead every day. In the U.S., it's less than 7,000, compared to 309,000,000 living. And almost 60% of the dead are 75 years old and older or 4 years old and younger.

The world's a lot bigger than the United States. The U.S. only has about 5% of the world's people, and isn't close to the top of the mortality rate list.

Always remember, this thing's worldwide. Nowhere to run.

[Wyldwraith]

Who says you need somewhere to run?

Yes, it's a global phenomena. Meaning different nations, with different customs/social more, different levels of what we call "civility", and different densities of armed individuals proficient with said weapons, will almost invariably produce results as different from those in other nations as the nations themselves are different from one another.

In other words, different countries will in the main approach the problem of reanimated homicidal undead in ways significantly different from those chosen by other countries.

Someone is bound to choose **A** "right answer" and secure their nation against the undead.

Hell, an entire continent might end up secured against the undead, while one or more other continents are completely swallowed up by the undead.

If, for instance, the U.S/Canada/Mexico managed to get a handle on the undead-induced crisis, it's not likely European/African/Asian/Australian zombies can swim on over to North America to press the attack.

It's a poor assumption to assume all geographical areas will completely fail to stop the zombies.

[mista_mo]

But no one will need to run when all the zombies have already been killed.

[SRP76]

It's a poor assumption to assume all geographical areas will completely fail to stop the zombies.

It's a perfect assumption. Point out which country doesn't have crime. Or terrorists. Or organized gangs. Or even pirates. There isn't one. Why? Because it is simply not possible to "secure" a nation.

Seriously, we can't even tackle a hurricane - when we've got a WEEK to prepare for it! In ONE spot. Which his, and then is done and gone in a few hours. If you get blindsided with, "oops, we've got man-eating corpses...ohshitlookout!!", it's game over. It's everywhere, there is no "zombie tracking chart" ahead of time at your local convenience store, and it does NOT stop in a few hours.

Shit, Los Angeles has had over 30 years to put down the Crips. No closer to doing so than on day one. You're not going to get 30 years with zombies. It's right this second, or you're toast.

[darth los]

All I have to say on the subject of zombie strength consistency is:

look at the zombies slowly knocking the shopping mall windows in Dawn....

Then look at what the fireman zombie does in Day when he's put into the wooden pen before being taken to the lab.

I'm with you on the fireman zombie dude.

:cool:

[Wyldwraith]

We've gone round about this before SRP,

Again (for those of you just tuning in), the example comparisons you highlight are ALL situations where the government retains/demands oversight/control, and civilian contributions are limited by design to specific grunt work.

In a anarchy-produced conflict, which includes the rising of the hungry undead, the role of the private citizen will be much larger, and have far more impact than is possible in the comparisons you cited.

For example, if the Governor of California announced a bounty-season for the heads of Crips (along with indisputable proof the decapitated head belonged to a Crip), one of two things would've happened within a month's time. (Assuming of course the bounty payment-per-kill justifies the risk to life and limb. Let's say 1,000$ a Crip-head.) ((Don't think that's enough? The average street-level assassination in the U.S costs less than 1,000$))

1) All the Crips would be hunted to extinction, probably with their former rival gang-members making a pretty penny acting as Urban Big Game Guides to Uber-Hunter types.

2) Any Crip not killed/decapitated would have fled the boundaries of the state.

ONE decree, irregardless of its illegality, the fact remains that ONE decree could loose the citizenry on the Crips, after first giving them strong motive to take human lives (which in this economy wouldn't be THAT MUCH of a stretch for many people once the unemployment runs out). Faced with a vast number of trigger-happy private citizens looking to cash in, it would become irrelevant the Crips themselves are organized and exceedingly well-armed, because any casualties they caused in their own defense would be dismissed by the other Citizen-Hunters, using the "Bad things happen to the other guy" delusion.

See what I'm saying, in this hypothetical, however ridiculous, it readily becomes apparent that if you change the rules to allow civilians to play in what was until now a government-only sandbox, all the all preconceptions go out the window, and its a whole new game.

[Publius]

The world's a lot bigger than the United States. The U.S. only has about 5% of the world's people, and isn't close to the top of the mortality rate list.

Always remember, this thing's worldwide. Nowhere to run.

Mexico will be more of a problem than Canada, with 3+ times the population and higher mortality. Fortunately, northern Mexico is mostly desert with low population density, and borders U.S. states that are mostly desert with low population density. So the problem will take some time to build up. Wouldn't want to be San Diego, though. On the other hand, they've got an awful lot of Marines and usually an aircraft carrier or two in the county.

[Trin]

It's a perfect assumption. Point out which country doesn't have crime. Or terrorists. Or organized gangs. Or even pirates. There isn't one. Why? Because it is simply not possible to "secure" a nation.

Shit, Los Angeles has had over 30 years to put down the Crips. No closer to doing so than on day one. You're not going to get 30 years with zombies. It's right this second, or you're toast.
You're making a serious apples/oranges comparison here.

Let's assume that the crips decided to go around on foot and bite people to death. And both law enforcement and private citizens were given free reign to destroy them however they saw fit. How long would it take to secure the area from them? Less than a day I'd wager.

[SymphonicX]

I'm with you on the fireman zombie dude.

:cool:

Phew, thought I was alone on that one!

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------


You're making a serious apples/oranges comparison here.

Let's assume that the crips decided to go around on foot and bite people to death. And both law enforcement and private citizens were given free reign to destroy them however they saw fit. How long would it take to secure the area from them? Less than a day I'd wager.

Isn't the missing factor that whoever the Crip's had bitten, would also become a Crip?

and what about the Bloods? Are they happy with .....(insert fast food here and run the risk of being called out for racism)?

[darth los]

Phew, thought I was alone on that one!

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------



Isn't the missing factor that whoever the Crip's had bitten, would also become a Crip?

and what about the Bloods? Are they happy with .....(insert fast food here and run the risk of being called out for racism)?

I'm a brown guy so i'll say it.

KFC...? :lol:

:cool:

[Trin]

Isn't the missing factor that whoever the Crip's had bitten, would also become a Crip?
For that to be a factor it assumes that the person bites you to death, immediately, without you retaliating enough to render them immobile, and without you becoming immobile. If either of you is rendered immobile then it's a one-for-one swap. And if you take out the person and are not in immediate risk of death, then it's a problem for later.

The deaths that occur hours or days later would only be a factor if the initial uprising was never managed, or if somehow no one figured out that death = reanimation.

[darth los]

The deaths that occur hours or days later would only be a factor if the initial uprising was never managed, or if somehow no one figured out that death = reanimation.

I don't think it's so much figuring out that death= reanimation. That would happen fairly quickly.

I think it's more accepting what's happening and what has to be done to stop it, especially when it's in direct conflict with one's religious and moral views.

The subject was brought up in dawn as well as survival.

Logic makes it very hard for us to fathom how an outbreak of shamblers can cause the end of the world. The emotional conflicts involved is really the only way it can happen.

:cool:

[SRP76]

You're making a serious apples/oranges comparison here.

Let's assume that the crips decided to go around on foot and bite people to death. And both law enforcement and private citizens were given free reign to destroy them however they saw fit. How long would it take to secure the area from them? Less than a day I'd wager.

No way. There aren't enough law enforcement to do dick. And private citizens are certainly allowed to defend themselves and their neighborhoods. They DON'T. Why? Fear, plain and simple. People are scared shitless of pricks wearing blue. How do you suppose they'll react to walking freaking corpses?! That's right, cowering and quivering in the closet, that's how. And as the vast majority freaks the hell out and hides, and most of the rest go bonkers and spend their time rioting and looting, zombies will just be picking off stragglers left and right. Many of which will then become zombies themselves. And the cycle continues, until the streets are choked with the walking dead.

[paranoid101]

To be honest I think your in more danger of being killed by your fellow humans than zombies at the start of an out break.

As the old priest in Dawn said "we must stop the killing or lose the war"

[Yojimbo]

To be honest I think your in more danger of being killed by your fellow humans than zombies at the start of an out break.

As the old priest in Dawn said "we must stop the killing or lose the war"
Therein lies the problem for the survivors that nearly guarantees that Los Angeles would be a dangerous place within a short period of time.

It doesn't take much to get this city to explode into a fest of looting and frenzied violence- they riot when the Lakers win just as they riot when the Lakers lose.

Add to that the deaths that occur regularly on a normal day - old age, heart attacks, traffic accidents, cancer, etc - and then to that add all of the casualties that will occur out of excited idiots who own firearms but cannot possibly hit what they are aiming at, causing the death of innocent bystanders and maybe too add to that a few fires that the impacted emergency services cannot immediately extinguish, to that incidents of road rage and traffic jams and finally then add to that the number of deaths brought about by the living dead and you will be more than likely to have a lousy afternoon. At that point, any Los Angelenos who remain in the city would be quite fucked within a few days. Sincerely, we will be wishing for the old, halcyon days where all we had to worry about were knuckle-headed gangsters wearing blue.

[Wyldwraith]

I disagree with the Crip-parallels drawn for the following reason:
Yes, currently the citizenry doesn't go after/strenuously defend themselves from the Crips for 3 main reasons. 1) If you kill a Crip in anything but a cut-and-dried self-defense situation, the police will throw you under the jail to prevent another L.A Riots.

2) Most people currently still believe that law enforcement is deterring/preventing the bulk of crime, and are STRENUOUSLY deterred by well-organized law enforcement from taking vigilante action.

3) Most people do not feel immediately threatened by life-or-death situations currently.

All of these reasons would go out the window if it became widely known the Crips were biting people to death on sight, the police were hopelessly overtaxed/unable to effectively respond, and the population felt like they and their families were in imminent danger if they didn't take action THEMSELVES.

YES, under these circumstances many people would STILL cower until killed/converted, and many others would panic and end up dead, but a far larger-than-you-believe cross section of the population WOULD be willing and able to fight back.

Just my .02

[SRP76]

3) Most people do not feel immediately threatened by life-or-death situations currently.


This right here is another reason we're all going be eaten. You think people will magically turn into Community Man if zombies walk? Nope. Like now, unless they themselves are under attack, they will NOT lift a finger. They will close their front door, and pretend they dont hear the screaming down the street. "Better them than me" is the mindset. Don't believe it? Look out your window, you'll probably see it in action right now. Watch the 6 o'clock news, you'll see examples of it every single day.

They will hide, just as they do now, until DIRECTLY attacked. As in, ghouls breaking through their windows. And at that point, it's too late. Much too late. Dinner time.

WARNING, SUBJECT CHANGE AHEAD:

I also am alarmed by the probability of instant multiplication of zombies due to helpless victims. I hadn't thought about it before, but when I went to see my father in the hospital the other day, I happened to think of zombies. You see, he had his foot amputated, so they're sending him to a nursing home/rehab facility. Well, all of those places in this area are highly populated with the old, physically disabled, helpless types. Hallway after hallway, lined on both sides with room after room of 2-3 helpless, immobile slabs of meat for zombies to just eat their fill.

If even a couple ghouls get into a place like that, their population will utterly explode in a matter of just a couple hours.

And you can imagine how many of these places there are. Every community has at least one. Most have more.

Fucking zombie breakfast buffets.

[Wyldwraith]

Well,
Nursing homes/rehabilitation centers like the one you describe would be absolutely wonderful places for zombies to eat their fill, and empty deserts regarding increasing their numbers in any meaningful way.

Why? That's easy. We'll start with the amputees/individuals with a structurally unsound leg or legs. Helpless in the face of zombies, yup. Almost certainly non-ambulatory after the trauma of being attacked and devoured alive. Combine with this the brittleness of elderly bones, and the compound fractures caused by zombies breaking their damned teeth on leg and arm bones to get at the interspersed blood vessels and/or marrow, and yet more reasons you'll end up with nothing better than a crawling ghoul.

Moving on to the hopelessly bedridden who've been vegetative/near-vegetative for quite some time. Doesn't matter if the undead body ignores physical distress, it CANNOT IGNORE MUSCLE THAT DOESN'T EXIST. Ie: Muscle atrophy, or muscle the zombies themselves compromised by chewing through themselves. Again, more crawling if not feebly twitching reanimates.

Finally, the simply old and neglected. Nothing terribly wrong with them, just poor souls with the bad luck to either end up homeless and thus in a state facility (basically the 4th circle of Hell), or with the equally bad luck of having soulless children/next of kin that shunted them into such a place.

Finally here you have some potentially fully mobile reanimates, IF the zombies don't knock them down hard or fall on them with the weight of multiple bodies. Ever seen what happens to a 92yr old woman who falls to the ground when her walker slipped out from under her at the edge of her kitchen's linoleum, while still mostly on her living room's carpet? I have. The result in that instance was both hips fractured, one badly and one with a series of hairline fractures, one kneecap completely non-salvaged and one cleanly snapped Ulna.

To be clear, that was from a simple uncomplicated stumble-induced fall, that involved no secondary impacts or any weight falling atop her, yet STILL there was enough damage to put her in the ICU for two weeks and in need of 4 surgeries when she stabilized plus shit-tons of phys. therapy to get her walking with a walker again, and then only for VERY limited distances.

Your best shot for viable reanimates in a nursing home are ironically those healthy younger medical staff too moral to simply abandon their charges when the shit hits the fan.

Raise your hand if you believe such individuals to be plentiful, and please leave your email addy in ur response, cuz I have six major bridges to pitch reverse mortgages to you for. ;)

[Trin]

Hallway after hallway, lined on both sides with room after room of 2-3 helpless, immobile slabs of meat for zombies to just eat their fill.

If even a couple ghouls get into a place like that, their population will utterly explode in a matter of just a couple hours.

Ooooh... I'm real scared of getting eaten by a zombie that COULDN'T CHEW SOLID FOOD in life!! :p

Now if zombies create more zombies by gumming jello to death, count me scared shitless.

[SRP76]

You should be scared. Karen Cooper was just a little girl that couldn't do shit in life. Yet, as a zombie, she managed to kill two people real quick, didn't she?

Every zombie is deadly. Not just "dead Rambo".

[Wyldwraith]

Yes, BUT:
Karen Cooper was a reasonably large child at 7-9yrs old, and completely ambulatory, PLUS in the tiny minority of weapon-using zombies. Much like the undead children Peter encounters at the airfield in Dawn, their small size and relatively quick (for a zombie) movements actually make them MORE dangerous than many adult zombies. That's without even touching on the emotionally-difficult-to-terminate issue many would experience when confronted by undead children.

The gist of my argument remains the same however. 9 out of 10 people can be useless zombie buffets, and the zombies still wouldn't reach epidemic numbers at all quickly if the 10% of individuals with the guts, will and ability to act come into play.

Ie: It doesn't matter if 9 people literally lay down and offer their throats to the zombies if the 10th guy in this 9 out of 10 example habitually terminates 10 or more ghouls before himself being killed. Plus, I call your attention to the fact that Bitten By Zombie/Infected DOES NOT = Instantly unable to continue fighting.

In FACT, one could argue that a minor zombie bite might make the individual in question an even more effective combatant during the time he/she has left, because he/she need no longer fear being infected, and only needs to avoid being dragged down and painfully dismembered.

How many zombies can an infected ex-cop with nothing to lose bring down before he sickens enough to feel the need to kill himself to prevent reanimation?

If it's more than 10 total, the 90% Useless Sheep argument just went out the window, because the other 10% are cleaning up the mess. At least until ammo runs low.

Simply a numbers game. Look at that Infection simulation we all toyed with awhile back. If you set the Armed Civilians percentage to 10-15% and gave them 20% accuracy, and set the police population to the minimum or one notch above minimum and gave them 30% accuracy or more (which I would argue is quite low for many police officers), zombie numbers went DOWN.

[Trin]

One, I'm not afraid of a little girl with a trowel who was able to kill her mop of a mom and already shot dad, and two, as Wyld says any 7-9 year old reduced to zombie intellect is far more dangerous than a 79 year old.

Zombies are just gonna do what they did in life. If that's geriatric zombies then that means worrying about bowel movements. And since they never have them, it's gonna take literally ALL their time.

Instead of fireworks they could turn on Matlock. "Zombies can't take their eyes off him."

[Publius]

I think it's more accepting what's happening and what has to be done to stop it, especially when it's in direct conflict with one's religious and moral views.

The subject was brought up in dawn as well as survival.


I wonder about this. I know Dawn and Survival addressed the issue, but I think Romero was out of his depth here. This bit from The Onion's review of The Last Exorcism reminded me of Romero's depiction of religious people:

"Aided by strong performances from Bell [playing the possessed girl] and Fabian [playing the preacher who tried to exorcise her], [director Daniel] Stamm deftly plays with the boundary of fact and fiction, though his game might have worked better with a little more grounding in verisimilitude. Fabian's brand of fundamentalism feels cobbled together from an outsider's perspective of how evangelicals think. . . ."

Does anyone here think their religious beliefs would prevent them from reacting appropriately to zombies? I'm what some of you would call a "fundamentalist Christian" (though I'd prefer the term "evangelical"), but I'm not aware of any "thou shalt not resist the zombies trying to kill you and your family" commandment in the Bible. I don't think many of the, shall we say, less rigorous varieties of Protestantism are likely to have more difficulty with zombies. Catholics? They came up with "just war" theory and an intricate demonology, so I don't think they'll have a problem on the whole (aside from those crazy old priests and nuns who used to chain themselves to the gates of military bases etc).

So whose religious beliefs command the kind of passive resistance that would make them incapable of reacting to zombies? In the US, the Quakers and a handful of New Agers and Zen Buddhists? On the whole, I think the problem is often exaggerated.

---------- Post added at 04:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 AM ----------


They will hide, just as they do now, until DIRECTLY attacked. As in, ghouls breaking through their windows. And at that point, it's too late. Much too late. Dinner time.

Is it? Too late for organized resistance, maybe. But if the family owns guns, even if they take the ostrich approach, ghouls breaking through their windows means "target practice" before it means "dinner time." If the outbreak has just started, the threat can be eliminated quickly. If it's been building for a while (so the number attacking exceeds available ammunition times accuracy percentage), the family is likely to be overwhelmed, but still stands a good chance of making the attack a net loss for the zombies (more zombies killed than "recruited"). In the meantime, the efficient minority described by Wyldwraith is doing the real mopping up. It's another application of the Pareto principle: 20% of the people do 80% of the work. Although zombies are more homogenous than humans, so the ratio will probably be even more lopsided.

[Wyldwraith]

Excellent post Publius,
Agree completely with your dismissal of religious conviction as possible cause for non-resistance versus zombies (or anyone attempting to harm the believer or his family/loved one).

On a personal note, would like to say hello to a fellow believer, though I consider myself non-denominational and stick to small-scale study and focusing on my personal relationship with God and Savior Jesus.

Also, I would further elaborate that during the period when zombie numbers are too low for them to "horde up", but high enough they're readily visible to anyone who looks, anyone with REAL proficiency with a semi-automatic firearm won't have much trouble picking off their targets.

The biggest factor that convinces me the above statement is true is that not only do zombies fail to take evasion action when threatened, their movements are linear and predictable IN THE EXTREME.

Example: I'm 30 feet from the nearest zombies, an adult male with a messed up foot/ankle that causes a structurally-based limp. I look around in a full 360 degrees and find no other zombies closer than the target-zombie, now 27-25 feet away.

I watch my target for 2-4 seconds, getting a feel for the pattern of his repetitive-movement sequence, by which time the zombie has closed to 20-18 feet from me.

I know what the entire movement sequence the zombies will perform is now, and can estimate with a high-degree of precision where his head is going to be in the next couple of seconds.

Even saying I miss the first shot, I have ample time to correct my aim and fire again. So long as my nerve doesn't fail me, or a live human doesn't unexpectedly attack me from a hidden vantage, I see no logical reason I cannot eliminate the zombie well before it breaches my 10-foot safety buffer-distance.

Extrapolating, this easily explains how, if I am among those that don't freeze up when confronting a zombie (or zombies), I can easily eliminate 10+ at a bare minimum before being killed or infected and then dead by my own hand.

Finally, going beyond the "Effective 10% doing the work of/for the useless 90% theory", 10-15% of the original 10% of the total population (which would make them about 1-1.5% of the total population), will likely find themselves in an "Andy situation" ala Dawn '04.

Meaning, this small fraction of individuals will find themselves with access to a safe vantage point well off the ground, and a much larger-than average supply of ammunition for their chosen weapon(s).

While few when compared to the total population, individuals in such a position face no obstacle stopping them from terminating hundreds of ghouls or all that they can draw a bead on from their vantage-point, whichever comes first.

This factor alone could prevent a large neighborhood from being overrun. With a courageous man or woman working in tandem with them down on the ground, literally every zombie in the area could be baited within range of the "sniper" by using the "runner" on the ground to lure them into easy range.

Thoughts on how such individuals could affect the overall process of a zombie infestation in its early stages?

[Publius]

While few when compared to the total population, individuals in such a position face no obstacle stopping them from terminating hundreds of ghouls or all that they can draw a bead on from their vantage-point, whichever comes first.

This factor alone could prevent a large neighborhood from being overrun. With a courageous man or woman working in tandem with them down on the ground, literally every zombie in the area could be baited within range of the "sniper" by using the "runner" on the ground to lure them into easy range.

Thoughts on how such individuals could affect the overall process of a zombie infestation in its early stages?

That could easily keep whole neighborhoods or small towns free of infections with just a handful of alert, responsible people. While most people "go to ground," hiding in their homes, the most capable few will draw all the attention of the few early zombies and easily dispose of them.

[darth los]

Does anyone here think their religious beliefs would prevent them from reacting appropriately to zombies? I'm what some of you would call a "fundamentalist Christian" (though I'd prefer the term "evangelical"), but I'm not aware of any "thou shalt not resist the zombies trying to kill you and your family" commandment in the Bible. I don't think many of the, shall we say, less rigorous varieties of Protestantism are likely to have more difficulty with zombies. Catholics? They came up with "just war" theory and an intricate demonology, so I don't think they'll have a problem on the whole (aside from those crazy old priests and nuns who used to chain themselves to the gates of military bases etc).

So whose religious beliefs command the kind of passive resistance that would make them incapable of reacting to zombies? In the US, the Quakers and a handful of New Agers and Zen Buddhists? On the whole, I think the problem is often exaggerated.[COLOR="Silver"]


But that's the problem. As we have seen in the various films , most recently survival, many don't view them as zombies but as family who have a sickness.

Not as a threat that must be exterminated but as family they must help no matter what. That's what family is all about after all.

When that's the case one can easily see how that can happen.

:cool:

[Trin]

To a certain extent I agree with you darth. At some point I don't think that people in general are going to continue to fall prey to their former loved ones. I think that point comes quickly.

I see a scenario where the government intercedes and views the problem from a sickness containment perspective. In that scenario the population becomes segregated into sick vs. well and the individual choice to harbor the sick lumps you in with them. The healthy get ushered out of the hot zones and the rest are considered lost. The national guard assures containment of the sick and those who won't leave them. If this happens quickly enough you end up with small camps of quarantined sick & dead.

[darth los]

To a certain extent I agree with you darth. At some point I don't think that people in general are going to continue to fall prey to their former loved ones. I think that point comes quickly.

I see a scenario where the government intercedes and views the problem from a sickness containment perspective. In that scenario the population becomes segregated into sick vs. well and the individual choice to harbor the sick lumps you in with them. The healthy get ushered out of the hot zones and the rest are considered lost. The national guard assures containment of the sick and those who won't leave them. If this happens quickly enough you end up with small camps of quarantined sick & dead.

Quickly is a relative term. When dawn began it was 3 weeks into the outbreak and that was still a major issue as we saw when they raided the apartments and from everything we heard on the t.v. broadcast.

And you would figure it went on a little longer than that. Is a month the point of no return?

:cool:

[Trin]

Quickly is a relative term. When dawn began it was 3 weeks into the outbreak and that was still a major issue as we saw when they raided the apartments and from everything we heard on the t.v. broadcast.

And you would figure it went on a little longer than that. Is a month the point of no return?

:cool:Personally, I file this under the genius of Dawn '78 storytelling. GAR did an amazing job of selling us the fall of civilization. Would that level of disorganization and ignorance still be the driving force 3 weeks into it? Dawn paints a picture that makes you believe that it would be even if common sense evaluation tells you that maybe it wouldn't.

I have difficulty believing that it would *really* go that way. I think if you really want to sell the zombie apocalypse getting out of hand you have to base it on the crisis leading to an explosion of crime that then leads to police being overwhelmed and a sharp rise in injury/fatality. Couple that with a delayed or incompetent response from the government and you could put together a nice plausible scenario.

[Doc]

Would that level of disorganization and ignorance still be the driving force 3 weeks into it?

Wait, wasn't the '3 weeks' comment direct to Mr. Berman for the lack of cooperating with Dr. Foster on how too dispose of the dead? I always figured the '3 weeks' comment was how long they were at it. Since, Foster says "You have not listen! You have not listen for the last 3 weeks!" or something around those lines.

[Publius]

But that's the problem. As we have seen in the various films , most recently survival, many don't view them as zombies but as family who have a sickness.

Not as a threat that must be exterminated but as family they must help no matter what. That's what family is all about after all.

That'll be true in many cases, but the vast majority of first encounters will be with strangers, not family members. So most people will have to get over the "maybe they're just sick" issue before it has a familiar (in a literal sense) face. What Trin says is also true -- if things get bad, most of the overly-sympathetic people will likely find themselves on the bad side of a quarantine. I also agree with Trin that the point of no return will come, if ever, more quickly than 3 weeks. Probably within the first week, in my opinion.