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

[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.