eating the livestock

[Trin]

If the argument is whether or not a zombie woud eat livestock given no other more attractive food source - fine. Let the zeds eat all the cows they want offscreen where no humans are present. And bugs too. If the argument is that the zombies are just as likely to chase down cattle as humans, then we have a problem. That changes the nature of the threat and I don't think the movies could play out as they did with that as part of the zombie rules. Did we ever consider that the bug eating zombie might've just been a really stupid zombie? Like the weird kid on the street that eats dirt?

[krakenslayer]

That is a good analogy kracken, but it doesn't quite apply in the context of this argument. In Night, there is no conjecture that the zombie in question was anything other than a reanimated human. As humans, we are more than capable of eating insects. Some cultures in the world regularly eat insects, as well as Americans on game shows! While it is true that we dont "know" for sure that the zed ate the bug, as we did not see it chew and swallow, we also dont know if Clinton inhaled or not. Which seems more likely? As far as taking place in the countryside, have you ever chased another person outdoors with the intent to catch them? Have you ever tried to chase a cat outdoors with the intent to catch them? Which did you find easier? And as for the people in Night being the only ones around for miles, if I was standing in a field of broccoli, and was in the distance was a hotdog stand with a huge crowd of people waiting for hotdogs, and I was really hungry, I would go to the hotdog stand and take my chances on getting one, as I much prefer the taste of hotdogs to that of broccoli. Doesnt mean that I cant eat broccoli, and if the hotdogs sold out before my turn in line, and I was really hungry, I might go back and eat some broccoli, however, I think most people would go out of their way to eat food they enjoy the most as opposed to eating whatever food might be convenient to eat at the moment. And as the zeds "are us", they is no reason to assume they wouldnt do the same thing. You're missing my point. What I'm saying is - if we were just watching Night of the Living Dead for the first time, and saw that zombie eat that bug, we'd be forgiven for thinking that they'd eat anything. But since we've never really seen anything since then to back that theory up, and indeed we've seen several things to suggest otherwise, we have to reconsider the possibility that the bug-eating scene was just a one-off - a zombie biting an insect out of curiosity. One again, with regards to using dead soldiers as food in Day of the Dead: if the zombies will eat any meat as long as it's warm, then it's a ridiculously easy problem to overcome, just stick the Beef Treats in a microwave. And if heating the meat in an oven is not enough, if they require it to be actual body heat, then why does Logan butcher the soldiers in a freezer!? My conclusion: it has to be warm and human - Logan probably stored the soldiers in the freezer to stop them rotting, cut meat from them when needed, and heated it in his lab before feeding it to them.

[Philly_SWAT]

You're missing my point. What I'm saying is - if we were just watching Night of the Living Dead for the first time, and saw that zombie eat that bug, we'd be forgiven for thinking that they'd eat anything. But since we've never really seen anything since then to back that theory up, and indeed we've seen several things to suggest otherwise, we have to reconsider the possibility that the bug-eating scene was just a one-off - a zombie biting an insect out of curiosity. Again, I say there is absolutely no reason to think that a zed would not eat a bug. We see it. Just because we dont see it again doesnt mean it doesnt happen. It is totally irrelevant to the story being told. Have you ever seen a little kid eat a booger out of his nose? Eat a bug outside? Stick just about anything in his mouth? Why does someone (most of us anyway) stop this kind of behavior? We are taught to. It is a primordial urge to stick just about anything in our mouths. As zombies are governed by the primordial ooze in their brains, there is no reason to think that they would NOT eat a bug. One again, with regards to using dead soldiers as food in Day of the Dead: if the zombies will eat any meat as long as it's warm, then it's a ridiculously easy problem to overcome, just stick the Beef Treats in a microwave. And if heating the meat in an oven is not enough, if they require it to be actual body heat, then why does Logan butcher the soldiers in a freezer!? My conclusion: it has to be warm and human - Logan probably stored the soldiers in the freezer to stop them rotting, cut meat from them when needed, and heated it in his lab before feeding it to them. I guess I have done a poor job of explaining my thoughts on this. There would be a great difference between long dead, processed, microwaved meat, and meat from a live creature. As far as Logan and the freezer, I took it that he just recently put that body in the freezer to hide it from site. Not that he was storing it in there and reheating it.

[SRP76]

If the argument is whether or not a zombie woud eat livestock given no other more attractive food source - fine. Let the zeds eat all the cows they want offscreen where no humans are present. And bugs too. If the argument is that the zombies are just as likely to chase down cattle as humans, then we have a problem. That changes the nature of the threat and I don't think the movies could play out as they did with that as part of the zombie rules. How does it possibly change anything? Every movie was focused on people that did not have any kind of other animal around. Their situation wouldn't have changed one single bit. Even if a zombie will chase a lion, nothing changes since there were no lions at the mall.

[krakenslayer]

Again, I say there is absolutely no reason to think that a zed would not eat a bug. We see it. Just because we dont see it again doesnt mean it doesnt happen. It is totally irrelevant to the story being told. Have you ever seen a little kid eat a booger out of his nose? Eat a bug outside? Stick just about anything in his mouth? Why does someone (most of us anyway) stop this kind of behavior? We are taught to. It is a primordial urge to stick just about anything in our mouths. As zombies are governed by the primordial ooze in their brains, there is no reason to think that they would NOT eat a bug. Exactly my point. If a kid experiences something new for the first time usually the first thing they do is shove it in their mouth, it's a big part of how kids experience the world for the first few years of life. I remember when my little sister had only just learned to walk, she picked up a dog turd in the park and came this close to taking a bite before my mum screamed and knocked it out of her hand . HOWEVER, she didn't do it because she was hungry, she did it because she was curious, and I doubt very much that given the chance she'd have combed the park looking for jobbies to chow down on. It's probably the same for zombies. If they see something that interests them, they might poke it, pick it up, take an experimental bite. Doesn't mean they'd choose a cockroach (or a horse or a cow) over a live human or that they would actively hunt them even in the absence of humans. I guess I have done a poor job of explaining my thoughts on this. There would be a great difference between long dead, processed, microwaved meat, and meat from a live creature. As far as Logan and the freezer, I took it that he just recently put that body in the freezer to hide it from site. Not that he was storing it in there and reheating it. He could have hidden them anywhere, if warmth is the only important factor (as you suggest) then why choose a freezer? And why not just hunt/trap the warm-blooded rats and bats that live in the caves and use those instead of hacking up the dead soldiers and running the extreme risk of getting caught and killed, especially when weaning them off human meat would in itself be a great victory in their quest to "domesticate" the zombies?

[Philly_SWAT]

Originally Posted by Trin If the argument is whether or not a zombie woud eat livestock given no other more attractive food source - fine. Let the zeds eat all the cows they want offscreen where no humans are present. And bugs too. If the argument is that the zombies are just as likely to chase down cattle as humans, then we have a problem. That changes the nature of the threat and I don't think the movies could play out as they did with that as part of the zombie rules. How does it possibly change anything? Every movie was focused on people that did not have any kind of other animal around. Their situation wouldn't have changed one single bit. Even if a zombie will chase a lion, nothing changes since there were no lions at the mall. SRP is correct here. The stories we are shown in GAR dead movies have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with zombies eating animals. Whether they do or do not eat animals is not important to the stories we are shown. Perhaps a movie could have been made showing a group of people trying to use animals as some type of plan to combat the zombie threat. If so, more explanation about the nature of zombies eating animals would be warranted in THAT movie. However, the stories we are shown focuses on the threat to humanity, and a small slice of what certain individuals are doing during the outbreak. I dont think that zeds are just as likely to chase down a cow, just that if a cow happened to be there, they would eat it. Personally, if given the choice between a steak or spam, I would go for the steak. If I could have spam right now, or steak 3 hours from now, I would wait for the steak. A zombie would have no such compulsion to "wait" for a human meal. As the movies would be largely uninteresting if it just showed a bunch of zombies eating animals with no humans around, like most movies, GAR dead movies focus on human beings and what they are doing. Hence, most of the time when we see zombies on screen, it is when human characters are in the area, as we are following the human activities. This would not change the nature of the problem whatsoever, it would only change the story on screen.

[MoonSylver]

Exactly my point. If a kid experiences something new for the first time usually the first thing they do is shove it in their mouth, it's a big part of how kids experience the world for the first few years of life. I remember when my little sister had only just learned to walk, she picked up a dog turd in the park and came this close to taking a bite before my mum screamed and knocked it out of her hand . HOWEVER, she didn't do it because she was hungry, she did it because she was curious, and I doubt very much that given the chance she'd have combed the park looking for jobbies to chow down on. It's probably the same for zombies. If they see something that interests them, they might poke it, pick it up, take an experimental bite. Doesn't mean they'd choose a cockroach (or a horse or a cow) over a live human or that they would actively hunt them even in the absence of humans. He could have hidden them anywhere, if warmth is the only important factor (as you suggest) then why choose a freezer? And why not just hunt/trap the warm-blooded rats and bats that live in the caves and use those instead of hacking up the dead soldiers and running the extreme risk of getting caught and killed, especially when weaning them off human meat would in itself be a great victory in their quest to "domesticate" the zombies? See, all of this mirrors my thoughts as well. Even though This has been my opinion all along I've read both sides of the argument as objectively as possible to see if I could be swayed or not, & this is still what makes the most sense to me. The argument the other way just feels like too much of a reach to me (no offense Philly) Of course GAR could stick the rumored scene in "...of the Dead" & render it all moot (& crap, all in one fell stroke)

[Philly_SWAT]

It's probably the same for zombies. If they see something that interests them, they might poke it, pick it up, take an experimental bite. Doesn't mean they'd choose a cockroach (or a horse or a cow) over a live human or that they would actively hunt them even in the absence of humans. I have never claimed that they would choose ANY animal over a human. I have went out of my way to say they prefer humans, the same way I prefer steak over spam. If I was starving, I wouldnt actually hunt spam in the absence of steak, however I would eat spam if I could find no other food. He could have hidden them anywhere, if warmth is the only important factor (as you suggest) then why choose a freezer? And why not just hunt/trap the warm-blooded rats and bats that live in the caves and use those instead of hacking up the dead soldiers and running the extreme risk of getting caught and killed, especially when weaning them off human meat would in itself be a great victory in their quest to "domesticate" the zombies? Again, perhaps I do not have the medical vocabulary to describe what I am saying. By "warm", I do not mean a certain temperature, I mean the inherent warmth of LIVING flesh, or the warmth of flesh that was living a few minutes ago. Trapping rats and bats would be difficult for a pansy type like Logan, and I doubt the soldiers would have helped in that regard. Plus, it was much easier to use meat that he had available (i.e. recently dead human) then to go around hunting cave bats. Presumably at some point after death if a body does not revive, for example the living person was killed by being shot in the head and wont revive, a zombie will quit eating it, as it is no longer "warm", warm being whatever it is that lets a zed know/think it is "alive". That is why I think Dr Roush in Dawn says that the zeds dont eat of all a body, and that they are usually intact enough to be mobile when they revive. The zeds quit eating after the body had been dead for a certain period of time. I take it that Logan used the warm flesh of the soldier to feed to Bub, but realized that he couldnt do that forever because it would not be "warm, fresh, etc" after a while, so he temporarily threw the body in the freezer, to both hide it from view, and to keep it from decomposing while he figured out what to do with it.

[sandrock74]

Even if a zombie will chase a lion, nothing changes since there were no lions at the mall. Now, that is something I would like to have seen! Zombies in the Monroeville Mall. Peter could wear his mink coat while hanging out with the lions. Cool! Not to mention the laughs that would have been had as the lions quickly made the zombies realize which of them was really the prey!

[Safari Mike]

And thus, I choose my hideout as the desert southwest. I'm intimately familiar with it from how to find water, how to snare protein, how to harvest vegetables from things such as cactus and desert flowers and how to disappear. In that setting, a zombie would pretty much be buzzard bait with their eyeballs and brains picked clean by scavengers while I watched from a distance as the creoste and mesquite shredded them to cheese whiz. Its been a long time but I still stand by my arguement of of 10 years ago that I'd bbq the fresher of them and eat well. Its no more dangerous than eating in any central or south american country today.

[sandrock74]

And thus, I choose my hideout as the desert southwest. I'm intimately familiar with it from how to find water, how to snare protein, how to harvest vegetables from things such as cactus and desert flowers and how to disappear. In that setting, a zombie would pretty much be buzzard bait with their eyeballs and brains picked clean by scavengers while I watched from a distance as the creoste and mesquite shredded them to cheese whiz. Its been a long time but I still stand by my arguement of of 10 years ago that I'd bbq the fresher of them and eat well. Its no more dangerous than eating in any central or south american country today. Eat a zombie?? Bad idea.

[MoonSylver]

Eat a zombie?? Bad idea. I'd be pretty leery myself. Under normal conditions, yeah, you can kill most any bug if you cook it long enough at a high enough temperature, but these ain't normal conditions. What if whatever in the hell they're infected with (assuming that's what it is...) doesn't die off that easy? Do you really wanna take the risk? Who's gonna go first? Pretty dicey...

[krakenslayer]

I have never claimed that they would choose ANY animal over a human. I have went out of my way to say they prefer humans, the same way I prefer steak over spam. If I was starving, I wouldnt actually hunt spam in the absence of steak, however I would eat spam if I could find no other food. In a way I do agree with what you are saying. A zombie might take one or two tentative bites out of another animal because it was desperate to satisfy its hunger - but I certainly wouldn't expect to find hordes of zombies swarming over cows, trying to tear them apart. Human flesh is what they crave, that's what makes them scary. Again, perhaps I do not have the medical vocabulary to describe what I am saying. By "warm", I do not mean a certain temperature, I mean the inherent warmth of LIVING flesh, or the warmth of flesh that was living a few minutes ago. I would be willing to accept that, but the point remains regarding the use of the freezers... Trapping rats and bats would be difficult for a pansy type like Logan, and I doubt the soldiers would have helped in that regard. Plus, it was much easier to use meat that he had available (i.e. recently dead human) then to go around hunting cave bats. Presumably at some point after death if a body does not revive, for example the living person was killed by being shot in the head and wont revive, a zombie will quit eating it, as it is no longer "warm", warm being whatever it is that lets a zed know/think it is "alive". That is why I think Dr Roush in Dawn says that the zeds dont eat of all a body, and that they are usually intact enough to be mobile when they revive. The zeds quit eating after the body had been dead for a certain period of time. I take it that Logan used the warm flesh of the soldier to feed to Bub, but realized that he couldnt do that forever because it would not be "warm, fresh, etc" after a while, so he temporarily threw the body in the freezer, to both hide it from view, and to keep it from decomposing while he figured out what to do with it. You see, I just think that's all a bit of a stretch. Logan spent half of the film triumphantly shouting "reward is the key" as if he had some fantastic (workable) plan up his sleeve - I very much doubt he was just planning to cut a few scraps off every time someone died; how is he going to create system of rewarding the zombies for good behaviour if he has to wait for someone to die every time he can reward them? If what you're suggesting is the case, and he could have hidden the bodies anywhere, why would Romero even show us a freezer if the fact of it being a freezer is totally redundant? It just doesn't make narrative sense - if you show something prominently like that in a movie without any added qualification, you are doing it because you want to use the audiences' most obvious associations of that object/thing to help illustrate a plot point. When you show a freezer, the 100% totally obvious association that comes to mind is the storage of foodstuffs for later consumption. If Romero was not suggesting that this was Logan's plan, then there would be no point in him deliberately showing a freezer with a dead body in it, especially since the freezer doesn't feature anywhere else in the movie. To suggest anything else is too much of a stretch, in my opinion. Occam's Razor can apply to movies too.

[Trin]

SRP is correct here. The stories we are shown in GAR dead movies have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with zombies eating animals. Whether they do or do not eat animals is not important to the stories we are shown. It absolutely IS important. The stories we were shown would not be plausible if the zombies would suffice to eat cattle. It changes the whole nature of the phenomenon. I can see Dawn being totally different. As they're watching the TV - "Researchers don't know what to do. But a bunch of ranchers in Texas solved the problem. You can all leave the mall now." I dont think that zeds are just as likely to chase down a cow... If, as you say, it's completely irrelevant to the story we were shown, then how did you form that opinion? I'll tell you how. Because the story would be different without this assumption. And thus we can rightly assume, exactly as you have, that they wouldn't chase down a cow.

[shootemindehead]

The point about zombies "eating" bugs and mice is redundant IMO. We don't see them actually eat these things. They simply try them. Tester bites are common to a lot of meat eating creatures (including us). Sharks will bite anything, including the bars of a shark cage or the side of a boat. It doesn't mean that they are "eating" these things. Likewise dogs will "mouth" many items if they want to see what it feels like in their mouth. I like to think that the living dead, driven by the cloudy instinct of feeding, will mouth different things and reject them accordingly. After all Bub mouthed the chain that was holding him in Logan's experimental lab in "Day of the Dead". The instinct to feed is an animal's basest instinct, it comes before everything else, including reproduction. We're born with it ingrained on us...in the R-Complex (according to Dr Logan ). So it's possible to conclude that the twisted "logic" of a zombie's reasoning power may dictate that it's the meat of a partcular being (us) that it should be seeking out, but trying a bug, a mouse or the arse of a cow is out of the equasion for the odd one or two zombies.