New "? of the Dead" Info here..

[AcesandEights]

Welcome to Home Page of the Beating the Dead Horse. Someone needs to make up t-shirts, ASAP!

[darth los]

Like fat chicks and hot chicks. Yes, they both have a vagina. And you'll do either in a pinch. But anyone with any standards can tell they are NOT the same. Now THAT'S one to grow on !! First thing I'm going to teach my sons, I'll tell ya that much!! If the next movie with the supposed "eating animals" scene is a continuation of 'Diary of the Dead', then it won't really matter if it abandons the precedent of 'Land of the Dead', as they are two totally different universes. That is one of the problems I have with 'Diary of the Dead'. The ill-advised move to leave the events of 'Night', Dawn', 'Day' and 'Land' and effectively mount an un-nesscessary "re-boot" of the zombie story. In the grand scheme of things 'Diary of the Dead' was completely superfluous to the previous GAR Living Dead films. In fact, it has abosolutely nothing to do with them. Therefore, if Romero wants to have zombies eating animals in this particular universe, he can. It STILL is a bad move though. But if '? of the Dead' is connected to 'Land of the Dead' etc, then it's downright idiotic. Both of those scenes aren't really an indication of zombies "eating animals" though. As I said earlier (maybe in this thread?), some animals (sharks for instance) will test bite many objects (including humans) and decide it's not for them and simply go away. However, they instinctively know that seal blubber is a meal they want. Perhaps the Living Dead, will idly mouth various objects too and decide that it's not worth bothering with. But their corrupt instinct (as pointed out by Dr. Logan) is to feed on living human flesh. A couple of issues with the points you made. I disagree with the term corrupt instinct. I see it more as Base instinct. Corrupt would imply there's something wrong with it. We are born with these instincts and then train our young to ignore them. The survival instinct knows nothing about moral values. All it's trying to do is keep the mechanism of the body functioning by whatever means nescessary. Next we have the issue of "test biting". It's a good theory except it's not really backed up by anything in the films. We don't see them trying to eat other edible things like oranges or plants to see how platable they are to them. Surely they know that these things are edible based on their past memories but they ignore them as a source of sustinence none the less. Perhaps it's movement that spurs them to hunt and then feed, who knows. Let's talk about what we do know as was suggested in the opening credits of Dawn. We know, courtesy of the good doctor in Dawn that they Ataack and feed only on warm flesh. Is that to say they don't feed on cold blooded animals? I don't think so. I take warm flesh to mean something that's alive, with a pulse. The bottom line is we don't really know if they've been feeding on animals to whole time. It might have been happening but never shown on film. I'll tell you what though. Don't you think that animals for the most part have been conspicously absent from the trilogy? Why do you think that is? Either all the animals have been eaten up already or, as all animal do, they sense that the ghouls are a mortal threat to them and steer clear of them, thus virtually no animals appear in the series. Either way, I highly doubt that animals become zombiefied. That coupled with the human ghouls would have wiped out humanity far quicker than what was the case.

[shootemindehead]

A couple of issues with the points you made. I disagree with the term corrupt instinct. I see it more as Base instinct. Corrupt would imply there's something wrong with it. We are born with these instincts and then train our young to ignore them. The survival instinct knows nothing about moral values. All it's trying to do is keep the mechanism of the body functioning by whatever means nescessary. Well, I don't think any human is born with a basic instinct to feed on living flesh, but yes we are born with the need to feed. However, that has become functionally twisted in the barely operating brain (R Complex) of a reanimated dead person. That's why I termed it corrupt. I meant corrupt as in data corruption, not morally..........as in Geroge Bush To quote a famous dead scientist... "They are us, they just function less perfectly" Next we have the issue of "test biting". It's a good theory except it's not really backed up by anything in the films. We don't see them trying to eat other edible things like oranges or plants to see how platable they are to them. Surely they know that these things are edible based on their past memories but they ignore them as a source of sustinence none the less. Perhaps it's movement that spurs them to hunt and then feed, who knows. Well, we have one zombie chomping down on a cricket 'Night of the Living Dead '68', Steven knawing at the walls to get back upstairs in 'Dawn of the Dead', Bub mouths his chain in 'Day of the Dead' and a zombie puts a field mouse in his gob in 'Night of the Living Dead '90'. So, there's loads! Just kidding really. I agree, we don't see a lot of it going on, but then we don't get to see dead in their downtime a lot either. so who knows what they get up to when human beings aren't around. Maybe they are scoffing any animal they can get their hands on. The only major scene I can think of where the dead are totally unaware of any human presence is in 'Land of the Dead'. But they seem more interested in making music. So, maybe in the excitment of warm flesh being around, they just aren't that interested in trying new things to eat or do. Let's talk about what we do know as was suggested in the opening credits of Dawn. We know, courtesy of the good doctor in Dawn that they Ataack and feed only on warm flesh. Is that to say they don't feed on cold blooded animals? I don't think so. I take warm flesh to mean something that's alive, with a pulse. As, yes...but doesn't Bub eat flesh from dead frozen soldiers? Heated up I s'pose. But, no pulse there...or life either. But maybe that was part of Logan's training mechanism. We stock up on frozen dead people and feed the living dead to control them...and they lose interest in seeing us as "Lunch"..."Dinner"..."Breakfast"..."ho ho ho.........."

[Trin]

I disagree with the term corrupt instinct. I see it more as Base instinct. Corrupt would imply there's something wrong with it. We are born with these instincts and then train our young to ignore them. The survival instinct knows nothing about moral values. All it's trying to do is keep the mechanism of the body functioning by whatever means nescessary. I'm not sure on that one. Babies operating at the lowest level of intellect are pretty keen to recognize what is food and what isn't. They'll put anything into their mouths, true, but they lose interest in most stuff pretty fast. And they don't go chasing down people or animals out of instinct. I have 3 kids and never had to train any of them not to eat the cat. I see the zombie's instinct to feed on human flesh as corrupted in the "not operating as intended" way. It's possible that in Night the zombies were still in the experimenting phase putting stuff in their mouths, and by Dawn, Day, etc. they'd come to realize that human flesh is the next best thing to seal blubber. The question of why animals do not appear in the Dead series is just troubling. Zombies feasting on animals doesn't explain it. Zombies are not catching a deer. Zombiefied animals doesn't explain it either. Apart from the simple argument that zombie animals would've wiped out humanity easily, there's the same problem that a zombie deer isn't going to catch a deer either. You don't see birds either and there's no way birds are affected by zombies, even if zombies would eat birds and zombie birds existed. Sadly, the only real rationale for no animals is that GAR didn't feel like dealing with animals on the set.

[darth los]

Well, I don't think any human is born with a basic instinct to feed on living flesh, but yes we are born with the need to feed. However, that has become functionally twisted in the barely operating brain (R Complex) of a reanimated dead person. That's why I termed it corrupt. I meant corrupt as in data corruption, not morally..........as in Geroge Bush To quote a famous dead scientist... "They are us, they just function less perfectly" Well, we have one zombie chomping down on a cricket 'Night of the Living Dead '68', Steven knawing at the walls to get back upstairs in 'Dawn of the Dead', Bub mouths his chain in 'Day of the Dead' and a zombie puts a field mouse in his gob in 'Night of the Living Dead '90'. So, there's loads! Just kidding really. I agree, we don't see a lot of it going on, but then we don't get to see dead in their downtime a lot either. so who knows what they get up to when human beings aren't around. Maybe they are scoffing any animal they can get their hands on. The only major scene I can think of where the dead are totally unaware of any human presence is in 'Land of the Dead'. But they seem more interested in making music. So, maybe in the excitment of warm flesh being around, they just aren't that interested in trying new things to eat or do. As, yes...but doesn't Bub eat flesh from dead frozen soldiers? Heated up I s'pose. But, no pulse there...or life either. But maybe that was part of Logan's training mechanism. We stock up on frozen dead people and feed the living dead to control them...and they lose interest in seeing us as "Lunch"..."Dinner"..."Breakfast"..."ho ho ho.........." Good points all around. What's cool about Dawn is that we get to see zombies in their "downtime" as well. They obviously like to shop, play with manequins and play ice hockey. They are us....

[IRA_LCPL]

The scene that you're refering to happened in the remake. However, the original contains a scene where a female zombie plucks a centipede off of a tree and eats it. you know I actually had to sit down and watch them to make sure you were right but you are definitely more correcterer than I am thanks brother

[darth los]

you know I actually had to sit down and watch them to make sure you were right but you are definitely more correcterer than I am thanks brother No problem. It happens to the best of us. The funny thing is I'm sure you could have sworn on a stack of bibles that you were correct. As a law student they taught us that eyewitness testimony is the the most notoriously unreliable kind. People of misremember important details especially the further away they get from the event.