The Living Dead - NEW book by George Romero and Daniel Kraus coming in 2020!

[ShadowMan]

Romero tinkered with The Living Dead novel for over a decade before passing away, with writer Daniel Kraus later brought on to finish the book. Now Kraus has confirmed via his Twitter that his work is finished and the book has been submitted. Tor Books will publish the novel in June 2020. Sounds like a definite for me!


Link to full article: https://screenrant.com/george-romero-living-dead-book-release-date/

[Neil]

Looking forward to this!

[Zombie Snack]

yes, i am looking forward to this

[BountyHunter]

So this has been out for a while now. Is there a thread for it somewhere that I just missed somehow?

Anyway I'm currently about half way through, and I love it so far. Anybody else read it?

[beat_truck]

I saw it for sale on Amazon.

The reviews are mixed on it. I am not an avid reader in the first place, and one thing that turned me off immediately is that some reviewers have said that Kraus or whoever had to shoehorn modern political overtones and "woke" bullshit into it.:rolleyes: I ain't reading that shit. I avoid the news so I don't have to hear it.

[BountyHunter]

It's there, all right. But it's not distracting me from enjoying the novel. And honestly, I probably wouldn't even have noticed if I hadn't made the mistake of reading some reviews before I bought it.

[MinionZombie]

I saw it for sale on Amazon.

The reviews are mixed on it. I am not an avid reader in the first place, and one thing that turned me off immediately is that some reviewers have said that Kraus or whoever had to shoehorn modern political overtones and "woke" bullshit into it.:rolleyes: I ain't reading that shit. I avoid the news so I don't have to hear it.


It's there, all right. But it's not distracting me from enjoying the novel. And honestly, I probably wouldn't even have noticed if I hadn't made the mistake of reading some reviews before I bought it.

What are we talking about here exactly? The usual Romero themes (that someone has mis-labeled as "woke" in this day-and-age), or some actual cringe-inducing Twittersphere level stuff?

[beat_truck]

What are we talking about here exactly? The usual Romero themes (that someone has mis-labeled as "woke" in this day-and-age), or some actual cringe-inducing Twittersphere level stuff?

I haven't read it, so I couldn't tell you for sure. Here is the Amazon listing with the reviews, though.
https://www.amazon.com/Living-Dead-George-Romero-ebook/dp/B07X16MWK9/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+living+dead+george+romero&qid=1602124198&sr=8-1

[MinionZombie]

I haven't read it, so I couldn't tell you for sure. Here is the Amazon listing with the reviews, though.
https://www.amazon.com/Living-Dead-George-Romero-ebook/dp/B07X16MWK9/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+living+dead+george+romero&qid=1602124198&sr=8-1

Hmmm ... ... sounds like it's a bit of a long slog to read. I did see the page count and I thought why on earth does it need to be that long? Seems a fair number of reviewers are complaining of Kraus' meandering prose and apparent tendency to stretch out events to unnecessary lengths - this is the sort of thing that'd wind me right up.

[beat_truck]

Hmmm ... ... sounds like it's a bit of a long slog to read. I did see the page count and I thought why on earth does it need to be that long? Seems a fair number of reviewers are complaining of Kraus' meandering prose and apparent tendency to stretch out events to unnecessary lengths - this is the sort of thing that'd wind me right up.

I am the same. Like I mentioned, I am not an avid reader to start with, so something that drags along and doesn't get to the point would be a turnoff for me.

I have a couple Stephen King books that I'd like to read eventually because they are supposed to be better/different than the movie versions. I'd especially like to read Salem's Lot but it is like 650+ pages. I would likely forget the details form the beginning before I got to the end.:rolleyes:

[MinionZombie]

I am the same. Like I mentioned, I am not an avid reader to start with, so something that drags along and doesn't get to the point would be a turnoff for me.

I have a couple Stephen King books that I'd like to read eventually because they are supposed to be better/different than the movie versions. I'd especially like to read Salem's Lot but it is like 650+ pages. I would likely forget the details form the beginning before I got to the end.:rolleyes:

It's also an issue of having the time, as well.

Right now I'm reading the latest Chuck Palahniuk, which is a nice and brisk 228 pages, so I'm making good headway through that (it helps, of course, that I'm quite into the story).

I've got a couple of James Ellroy's latest (Perfidia as well as This Storm), but they're both chunky tomes (Perfidia is pushing 800 ruddy pages!), and while I'm a big fan of Ellroy's work and have read everything prior to Perfidia, finding the time to read it is a problem. For the last three years, in September, I made a point to knuckle down and make my way through his 'Underworld USA Trilogy' (which was very good, but also very long with each book pushing 600 or 700 pages each). It's funny, too, because numerous fans have been pointing out the sheer length of some of his more recent books, and you see the sneaky ways his publishers are trying to limit the page counts. Perfidia has no spaces between chapters (unlike the Underworld USA Trilogy, which had, say, 50 pages worth of blank spaces over the entire course of each book), and This Storm (the follow-up to Perfidia) has different (larger) dimensions so you get more text on each page to try and trim the page count down a bit. :rolleyes:

Now, as I said before, I am a big fan of Ellroy's work, so I'd still enjoy making my way through all those pages - but in terms of "The Living Dead", which seems to have most been written by someone else going on notes written by Romero himself, I'm much less keen.

[beat_truck]

Now, as I said before, I am a big fan of Ellroy's work, so I'd still enjoy making my way through all those pages - but in terms of "The Living Dead", which seems to have most been written by someone else going on notes written by Romero himself, I'm much less keen.

Yeah, that is another thing. If Romero wrote it himself, I would be more interested. I'm not so much interested in someone else's interpretation.

[steders]

I'd especially like to read Salem's Lot but it is like 650+ pages. I would likely forget the details form the beginning before I got to the end.:rolleyes:
Late response I know but Salems Lot is one of the best King books, I've read it 3 times. Its a real page turner and I hardly noticed how many pages there were.

[Neil]

Finished this last night. Some very good sections, many reasonable sections, and a few poor sections. The ending of the book fell flat for me unfortunately.

But most importantly, in the author's commentary at the end, Homepage of the Dead is mentioned :sneaky:

ps: I've always struggled with the notion of zombie animals too, no matter if Romero was for them or not :)

[paranoid101]

Finished this last night. Some very good sections, many reasonable sections, and a few poor sections. The ending of the book fell flat for me unfortunately.

But most importantly, in the author's commentary at the end, Homepage of the Dead is mentioned :sneaky:

ps: I've always struggled with the notion of zombie animals too, no matter if Romero was for them or not :)

Yep Zombie animals means game over for the human race in any book, film, etc.

Zombie Runners are bad enough to deal with imagine zombie rats, birds, fish, insects, you would have no chance.

[Neil]

Zombie Runners are bad enough to deal with imagine zombie rats, birds, fish, insects, you would have no chance.

Zombie mosquitoes :)

[MagicMoonMonkey]

I am sure that the original script for 'Dead Reckoning' had zombie rats in it. I am completely against the notion of zombie animals. The running zombie is still a bitter pill. Everything is over instantly when they're involved.

As for the Living Dead book, I am really struggling with this. I know it's only words, but I really hate when the author is throwing in things like the over descriptive nature of the priest's cock and the over descriptive sloppy suicide sex scene. Now maybe part of the reason is I am listening to the audio book and hearing Cardille being forced to say cock when it isn't really required or hearing Davison talk filth to me that is putting me off but I really don't need this kind of addition to a zombie story.

The POV from the dead is annoying too, as is the WWZ time-line from scratch to dead in terms of 'Mommy's Boy' receiving the scratch in the corridor and turning while dishing out the soup. I will go back to it, but I think I might just patch the audio book and buy the physical copy so it is just my own voice reading out the needless description of guy's hard-ons.

[Neil]

I am sure that the original script for 'Dead Reckoning' had zombie rats in it. I am completely against the notion of zombie animals. The running zombie is still a bitter pill. Everything is over instantly when they're involved.

As for the Living Dead book, I am really struggling with this. I know it's only words, but I really hate when the author is throwing in things like the over descriptive nature of the priest's cock and the over descriptive sloppy suicide sex scene. Now maybe part of the reason is I am listening to the audio book and hearing Cardille being forced to say cock when it isn't really required or hearing Davison talk filth to me that is putting me off but I really don't need this kind of addition to a zombie story.

The POV from the dead is annoying too, as is the WWZ time-line from scratch to dead in terms of 'Mommy's Boy' receiving the scratch in the corridor and turning while dishing out the soup. I will go back to it, but I think I might just patch the audio book and buy the physical copy so it is just my own voice reading out the needless description of guy's hard-ons.

Yes, some sections of the book I also just found tawdry. A few sections seemed to work OK, but others just felt weak...

As for the POV of the dead, it sort of reminded me a little of my short little piece of fiction - "Options (https://fiction.homepageofthedead.com/forum.pl?readfiction=555H)"

[EvilNed]

Heading over to Italy tomorrow. I'd completely forgotten about this book, but found it in the store yesterday. I love all things Romero, so I have to give it a go. Having read some of his scripts (thank you Neil for this website), and now working professionally with reading scripts, I still to this day think he's one of the best screenwriters I've ever come across. If the book holds somewhat the same quality, I'm all for it.

I'm not too terribly troubled by woke politics if they seem plausible, like they do in Romero's works. But we'll see, maybe it'll feel contrived.

[Neil]

Let us know what you recon...

[MinionZombie]

From what I've heard a lot of it is someone else's writing based on Romero's outlines and plans?

[EvilNed]

I'm about half-way in. I'm enjoying it, for the most part, but there's one thing that I kinda feel drags a bit. So, 300+ pages in and the narrative has yet to move forward from "Day 1" of the outbreak. Yet, even on day 1 - All hell breaks loose in a matter of hours? That seems a little bit... Excessive. These ghouls don't act in a way they do in the Romero movies. In Dawn of the Dead Roger is bitten and lives for days afterwards. Here a character is scratched and dies within two hours. Kinda fast. So basically the world just collapses, instantly, which just strikes me as kinda... I don't know, action orientated instead of suspenseful.

I will also say that the book spends way too much time on introducing it's characters. Sometimes entire chapters are spent on describing the traumatic history of a person, and considering there's quite a few characters here, that's just.. A lot of "dead air", no pun intended.

[JDP]

These ghouls don't act in a way they do in the Romero movies. In Dawn of the Dead Roger is bitten and lives for days afterwards. Here a character is scratched and dies within two hours. Kinda fast. So basically the world just collapses, instantly, which just strikes me as kinda... I don't know, action orientated instead of suspenseful.

This flagrant contradiction was unfortunately introduced by Romero himself in Land. In the previous two movies (Night is excluded from this for a very obvious reason: in that movie no one is familiar with the zombies yet, they are still a "novelty" to everyone) there is no rush to kill anyone who gets a non-lethal zombie bite*, it is understood by everyone who is familiar with the zombies that the "zombification" process of a bite survivor is a slow thing that takes several days to take effect. Thus a bitten person does not become an immediate threat, there is plenty of time to deal with the situation, and said bitten person can even still be useful and help others while his/her health does not deteriorate. This well established element was thrown out the window in Land, though, where now anyone who gets bitten becomes a threat in a matter of just a few hours and has to be disposed of fast.

*Note: and no, Miguel in Day does not count. The reason why Steel wants to immediately kill him is simply because he hates him and incorrectly blames him for the accident, all the other characters are well aware that Miguel is not an immediate threat since his zombie bite was not lethal, so there really is no rush to dispose of him, they don't buy Steel's "he's been bit, we must act right now!" excuse to try to kill him.

[EvilNed]

This flagrant contradiction was unfortunately introduced by Romero himself in Land. In the previous two movies (Night is excluded from this for a very obvious reason: in that movie no one is familiar with the zombies yet, they are still a "novelty" to everyone) there is no rush to kill anyone who gets a non-lethal zombie bite*, it is understood by everyone who is familiar with the zombies that the "zombification" process of a bite survivor is a slow thing that takes several days to take effect. Thus a bitten person does not become an immediate threat, there is plenty of time to deal with the situation, and said bitten person can even still be useful and help others while his/her health does not deteriorate. This well established element was thrown out the window in Land, though, where now anyone who gets bitten becomes a threat in a matter of just a few hours and has to be disposed of fast.

*Note: and no, Miguel in Day does not count. The reason why Steel wants to immediately kill him is simply because he hates him and incorrectly blames him for the accident, all the other characters are well aware that Miguel is not an immediate threat since his zombie bite was not lethal, so there really is no rush to dispose of him, they don't buy Steel's "he's been bit, we must act right now!" excuse to try to kill him.

I don't have an issue with that, I'm more talking about the time it takes for a person to be bit and then die. Not necessarily how other's react to it.

[JDP]

I don't have an issue with that, I'm more talking about the time it takes for a person to be bit and then die. Not necessarily how other's react to it.

In Land it is not just the reaction of the characters, but we can actually see an example of why they are in a rush to kill anyone who gets bit. Cholo gets bit in the hand, nothing lethal that would kill him in a matter of minutes, yet a few hours later when he reaches Fiddler's Green he is already a zombie!

[MinionZombie]

In Land it is not just the reaction of the characters, but we can actually see an example of why they are in a rush to kill anyone who gets bit. Cholo gets bit in the hand, nothing lethal that would kill him in a matter of minutes, yet a few hours later when he reaches Fiddler's Green he is already a zombie!

Well, Peter says in Dawn that from his experience that he's seen someone bitten last "no more than three days". He's not saying that's for everyone, but from his personal experience that's the longest he's seen someone go before turning, which then justifies Roger's slow decline.

However, he's not saying in there how quickly other people can turn. It could easily be a mere three hours, say, before someone else could turn.

Cholo chooses to turn and see how the other half live, but he's also got a bit of a trek - blood pumping through his system, carrying the infection. Sure, it can be argued that there is an element of plot convenience, but it's already established in the series that there's a range of time that it affects people, which is fair enough. Just look at Covid - it barely touched some people while it hammered (or even killed) other people.

In terms of saving someone from a non-lethal bite, well ... the amputation would have to be done very quickly (e.g. Sarah performs the amputation in Day within a minute of the bite). Every second that passes, that infection is seeping into the bloodstream and then getting pumped around the host's body. There'd come a point, quite quickly, where amputation would be pointless as the infection has already spread. So it does have to be done pretty speedily, and without immediate access to some kind of medical help, you'll bleed out.

Cholo's decision is from a man weary of the whole game - a very rigged game - and, for him at least, the whole world is tumbling down. So he has one last thing he needs to do and that's all he needs out of life at that point - to get Kauffman.

[JDP]

Well, Peter says in Dawn that from his experience that he's seen someone bitten last "no more than three days". He's not saying that's for everyone, but from his personal experience that's the longest he's seen someone go before turning, which then justifies Roger's slow decline.

However, he's not saying in there how quickly other people can turn. It could easily be a mere three hours, say, before someone else could turn.

Cholo chooses to turn and see how the other half live, but he's also got a bit of a trek - blood pumping through his system, carrying the infection. Sure, it can be argued that there is an element of plot convenience, but it's already established in the series that there's a range of time that it affects people, which is fair enough. Just look at Covid - it barely touched some people while it hammered (or even killed) other people.

In terms of saving someone from a non-lethal bite, well ... the amputation would have to be done very quickly (e.g. Sarah performs the amputation in Day within a minute of the bite). Every second that passes, that infection is seeping into the bloodstream and then getting pumped around the host's body. There'd come a point, quite quickly, where amputation would be pointless as the infection has already spread. So it does have to be done pretty speedily, and without immediate access to some kind of medical help, you'll bleed out.

Cholo's decision is from a man weary of the whole game - a very rigged game - and, for him at least, the whole world is tumbling down. So he has one last thing he needs to do and that's all he needs out of life at that point - to get Kauffman.

In Dawn Peter's prediction based on his experience with the zombies comes quite true: Roger survives a few days. And he has not one, but two zombie bites! In Day, no one except Steel is in any rush to dispose of Miguel. He got bit in the arm, and Sarah thinks she might have cut off his arm in time to stop the infection. The plan now is to keep an eye on him. If his health deteriorates, then that means the infection was not stopped in time, so they will dispose of him. There is no rush to kill him. Miller is quickly disposed of, but there is a good reason for it: he got his throat ripped open by a zombie, he is bleeding to death, there is no hope at all for him, he will die from such a wound and come back as a zombie, it's only a matter of minutes. All of this is very different from what we see in Land, though. As soon as anyone gets bitten, even if on the arm or hand, nothing immediately lethal, the other characters promptly get ready to dispose of them. There is no time to waste. A bitten person is seen as an immediate threat by everyone.

[MinionZombie]

All of this is very different from what we see in Land, though. As soon as anyone gets bitten, even if on the arm or hand, nothing immediately lethal, the other characters promptly get ready to dispose of them. There is no time to waste. A bitten person is seen as an immediate threat by everyone.

Examples?

[JDP]

Examples?

Can't miss them: whenever someone gets bit in this movie there are always characters around who promptly get ready to dispose of the bitten person. There is no "OK, we can do this later on, when the bitten person's health actually gets worse, there's plenty of time to deal with the situation" mentality in this movie. The bitten must be gotten rid of quick, it only takes a few hours for them to turn.

[EvilNed]

In Land it is not just the reaction of the characters, but we can actually see an example of why they are in a rush to kill anyone who gets bit. Cholo gets bit in the hand, nothing lethal that would kill him in a matter of minutes, yet a few hours later when he reaches Fiddler's Green he is already a zombie!

Like I said, I don't have an issue with the reaction of the characters since that could be explained by a number of reasons. You could argue that any society that's managed to maintain order in a post-Zombie world would need to adhere to a very strict doctrine of killing any infected as quickly as possible. That would minimize the risk of zombies waking up within the green. But yeah, I get you with the Cholo bit, forgot about that. Again, you could argue it's circumstantial and a bite is way worse than a scratch.

Having further read the book it also establishes that people descend into utter anarchy within hours of Patient 0. I just don't buy it.

[JDP]

Like I said, I don't have an issue with the reaction of the characters since that could be explained by a number of reasons. You could argue that any society that's managed to maintain order in a post-Zombie world would need to adhere to a very strict doctrine of killing any infected as quickly as possible. That would minimize the risk of zombies waking up within the green. But yeah, I get you with the Cholo bit, forgot about that. Again, you could argue it's circumstantial and a bite is way worse than a scratch.

Also remember that Riley gives the example of his brother in answer to a question that is pertinent to the subject at hand. It only took about an hour for him to turn into a zombie after getting bit. Everything we see and hear in this movie regarding this issue implies that a bitten person does not have long to live, even for bites that would not cause the person to quickly die from the wound itself.

Curious note: in the original script, Riley's brother actually manages to survive six days after getting bit! Romero evidently decided to throw this established point that bitten people can survive for days out the window for the shooting script of this movie because it did not go well with the actions of the non-bitten characters regarding the bitten victims. He must have noticed that their rush to kill anyone who gets bit would too obviously contrast with the fact that the bitten victims can survive for substantial periods of time. There should not be any urgency in disposing of them.

[EvilNed]

Also remember that Riley gives the example of his brother in answer to a question that is pertinent to the subject at hand. It only took about an hour for him to turn into a zombie after getting bit. Everything we see and hear in this movie regarding this issue implies that a bitten person does not have long to live, even for bites that would not cause the person to quickly die from the wound itself.

Curious note: in the original script, Riley's brother actually manages to survive six days after getting bit! Romero evidently decided to throw this established point that bitten people can survive for days out the window for the shooting script of this movie because it did not go well with the actions of the non-bitten characters regarding the bitten victims. He must have noticed that their rush to kill anyone who gets bit would too obviously contrast with the fact that the bitten victims can survive for substantial periods of time. There should not be any urgency in disposing of them.

I don't have a problem with the urgency to off someone, that makes sense to me even if it would take days for them to turn.
Overall it's not something I'm bothered with in Land but you're right in that it could be viewed as something that contrasts with earlier films, even though there could always be circumstances we're not aware of. It doesn't bother me in Land.

[MinionZombie]

I don't see it as contradicting anything in previous films. A range of possible times to turn was established and that it's different from person to person - so that inherently gives a large amount of wiggle room.

It's just as likely that Romero changed the time of Riley's brother's death from six days to an hour for other reasons - such as it being a much more sudden and shocking emotional loss for Riley, rather than something that was drawn-out and gave them a (relatively) long amount of time together. The loss is still going to be felt no matter what, but losing a loved one in a matter of an hour or less is going to be more shocking than knowing they're going to die over the course of several days. The loss is no less tragic, but the mind and body have some time to get used to the idea at least.

[JDP]

I don't see it as contradicting anything in previous films. A range of possible times to turn was established and that it's different from person to person - so that inherently gives a large amount of wiggle room.

It's just as likely that Romero changed the time of Riley's brother's death from six days to an hour for other reasons - such as it being a much more sudden and shocking emotional loss for Riley, rather than something that was drawn-out and gave them a (relatively) long amount of time together. The loss is still going to be felt no matter what, but losing a loved one in a matter of an hour or less is going to be more shocking than knowing they're going to die over the course of several days. The loss is no less tragic, but the mind and body have some time to get used to the idea at least.

It is a very clear contradiction. No one in the previous movies is in any rush to kill a bitten person, unless the wound itself is killing said person fast and nothing can be done about it, as in Miller's case. Even people with more than one zombie bite can survive for days, as we can see in the example of Roger. It's a slow process, so there is no sense of urgency in disposing of them soon after they are bit. Very different from what we see in the version of Land that was filmed, where everyone sees a bitten person as a threat that must be dealt with fast. And the two examples we are actually given (Riley's brother & Cholo) show us why it is so: they turn into zombies in a matter of just a few hours.

And Romero's change of the original 6 days to just about an hour is certainly very telling. He had to "speed up" the "zombification" process, that way there is no contrast within the movie itself, but that still left a contrast with the previous movies, where said process was much slower.

[EvilNed]

I don't see it as contradicting anything in previous films. A range of possible times to turn was established and that it's different from person to person - so that inherently gives a large amount of wiggle room.

It's just as likely that Romero changed the time of Riley's brother's death from six days to an hour for other reasons - such as it being a much more sudden and shocking emotional loss for Riley, rather than something that was drawn-out and gave them a (relatively) long amount of time together. The loss is still going to be felt no matter what, but losing a loved one in a matter of an hour or less is going to be more shocking than knowing they're going to die over the course of several days. The loss is no less tragic, but the mind and body have some time to get used to the idea at least.

Agree with this.

All this talk, and reading the book, actually makes me eager to rewatch the whole suite. Even the latter two.
I remember enjoying all of them to some extent - except Survival.

The book is mid...

[Moon Knight]

I don’t really think to stick to any general rule concerning people turning. Always seen it as what the plot requires since it’s always been all over the place.

[MinionZombie]

I don’t really think to stick to any general rule concerning people turning. Always seen it as what the plot requires since it’s always been all over the place.

It could also be argued that, in Land of the Dead, there might be a particularly harsh rule regarding bites so as to protect the settlement at large. It wouldn't be 'out of character' for Kauffman and Fiddler's Green considering how they snuff out troublesome people or 'no longer useful' underlings and literally toss them out with the trash.

[JDP]

It could also be argued that, in Land of the Dead, there might be a particularly harsh rule regarding bites so as to protect the settlement at large. It wouldn't be 'out of character' for Kauffman and Fiddler's Green considering how they snuff out troublesome people or 'no longer useful' underlings and literally toss them out with the trash.

If that was true, then such "rule" would have also applied to the people of Dawn and Day, who actually live in more confined and restricted environments. If turning into a zombie was such an unpredictable thing, and any bitten person can do so at such widely different periods of time, we should not expect anyone in the previous movies to have tolerated the presence of a bitten person for any period of time, they would dispose of them as fast as possible. A bitten person would be a veritable "time-bomb" with a potentially very "short fuse". There would be no telling if someone would survive zombie bites for a few minutes or a few days. But that is not what we see in the previous movies. People deal with the situation at a slower pace because they know there's plenty of time to do so. People do not become zombies soon after getting bit, it takes a substantial amount of time for that to happen. Only in Land do people show an urgency in disposing of those who get non-lethal zombie bites.

And it is not even within Kaufman's domains, BTW. All the examples that we see in that movie in fact happen outside of the city, even among people who are no longer working for Kaufman, so they do not have to follow any of his "rules". This is not "Kaufman's rule" but the obvious wariness that everyone in this movie has about people who get bit. They see them as a threat that must be dealt with fast. And we can easily understand why from the two examples we are given to illustrate it: Riley's brother turned in about an hour, Cholo turns in a few hours. With such a short "zombification" time frame, it is just too risky to delay disposing of them.

[EvilNed]

I myself don't have a problem with it being a rule that evolved in Fiddler's Green as a way to live and build-anew within dire circumstances, something that the Dawn and Day crew never really attempted on the same level.

So it works, and makes sense, for me.

[JDP]

I myself don't have a problem with it being a rule that evolved in Fiddler's Green as a way to live and build-anew within dire circumstances, something that the Dawn and Day crew never really attempted on the same level.

So it works, and makes sense, for me.

If the "zombification" time was not drastically altered for this movie, then it would make more sense to simply give the bitten victims a choice, whether to be disposed of promptly or later on, so that they can spend some of their remaining time with family and friends, or dealing with whatever personal problems/issues/affairs of their life they would like to resolve before the inevitable end. But the only person who is given such a choice is Cholo, and we see how that turns out. He chooses not to be disposed of, as he has a bone to pick with his former boss. Predictably & consistently with what we heard & saw previously in the movie, the choice he makes ends up with him becoming a zombie pretty fast.

[EvilNed]

If the "zombification" time was not drastically altered for this movie, then it would make more sense to simply give the bitten victims a choice, whether to be disposed of promptly or later on, so that they can spend some of their remaining time with family and friends, or dealing with whatever personal problems/issues/affairs of their life they would like to resolve before the inevitable end. But the only person who is given such a choice is Cholo, and we see how that turns out. He chooses not to be disposed of, as he has a bone to pick with his former boss. Predictably & consistently with what we heard & saw previously in the movie, the choice he makes ends up with him becoming a zombie pretty fast.

The way the movie portrays it works for me, and seems like a logical next step to keep security tight!

[shootemindehead]

Like I said, I don't have an issue with the reaction of the characters since that could be explained by a number of reasons. You could argue that any society that's managed to maintain order in a post-Zombie world would need to adhere to a very strict doctrine of killing any infected as quickly as possible. That would minimize the risk of zombies waking up within the green. But yeah, I get you with the Cholo bit, forgot about that. Again, you could argue it's circumstantial and a bite is way worse than a scratch.

Having further read the book it also establishes that people descend into utter anarchy within hours of Patient 0. I just don't buy it.

In Romero's world, if you die from anything you come back. That's over a million people a week just from natural causes alone. Couple that with people dying and returning from attacks and that number goes up drastically. Into the bargain, with the chaos of evacuation, refugees, mass movement of people, fighting amongst ourselves, the numbers would probably rise again.

But yeh, that's always been an issue with the slow zombies. The world just wouldn't go to shit in no time at all and more than likely we'd get a hand on it by acting ruthlessly and employing a zero tolerance policy toward the dead.

Alternatively, the runner zombies present the opposite problem where mankind would have absolutely 0 chance at all. Which, in a way, was one of the things I did like about the remake of 'Dawn of the Dead'. By the end of that movie, everything really was over.

[JDP]

While we are on this subject of problems/discrepancies regarding the disposition of victims in Romero's movies:

Few people seem to have noticed this apparent mistake in Day: Johnson gets shot in the chest by Miller, when he in his turn gets bitten in the throat by one of the loose zombies. Since everyone who dies, not just those who die from zombie bites, come back as zombies, Johnson should have also been shot in the head to prevent him from coming back. Steel does not waste time dispatching Miller, since he only has minutes to live, but right after he shoots him, he should also have shot Johnson in the head, who is in fact dead, and thus already a "ticking time-bomb". It would be reasonable to assume that he did shoot Johnson's head. But later on, when Sarah and McDermott are nosing around Logan's lab, they discover Johnson's zombified severed head. Evidently Logan has been conducting experiments with it. This should NOT have happened if he had indeed been shot in the head to prevent him from coming back as a zombie. So, either Steel strangely "forgot" to appropriately deal with Johnson's corpse, or somehow Doc Logan got to Johnson's body before his brain could be damaged to prevent him from turning into a zombie. But both choices are highly implausible. The other men would have obviously inquired regarding Johnson's body, to make sure that he was properly disposed of. If Steel merely "forgot" to deal with him, he or some of the other men would have gone back to the location where he died to finish the job. If Logan somehow managed to "snatch" his body before they came back for it, that would have made the men highly suspicious and start inquiring about the whereabouts and condition of Johnson's body. For all they know, Johnson could have already turned and be wandering around the base. Too dangerous to let such a thing just "slip by". If Logan came clean and confessed that he took Johnson's body while no one was watching, that would have also been very suspicious. The others would most likely demand explanations and to see Johnson's body.

Plus on top of all that, Logan would have had to carry Johnson's corpse all the way down to his lab, which is on the other side of the base. Pretty darn difficult to pull this off with no one noticing, and also before Johnson turns into a zombie.

Note: some of you might try to conjure up the example of Major Cooper, and that Logan might have pulled something similar with Johnson's body, lying to the others regarding properly disposing of him, while in reality keeping his brain intact so that he could perform experiments with it. But here is the problem with this: we don't know how Major Cooper died. For all we know, he might very well have died while under Logan's care, with nobody else around. In that case, he could more easily lie and say that he died and was properly disposed of without arousing suspicion. Logan would not have had to go behind anyone's back to retrieve Major Cooper's body before someone would damage his brain to make sure he would not come back, as he surely would have had to do in order to retrieve Johnson's body, which was lying by the "corral", undisposed of, as everyone would have been well aware of. "Stealing" Johnson's body before anyone could get to him and damage his brain would definitely ring an alarm bell that "Frankenstein" is up to some shenanigans.