one shot, one kill.

[zombiekiller]

that's the thing i couldn't understand. why when they knew that a headshot killed the zombies why every one always used their weapons on full auto. i can understand at the bigenning cause they thought it migt be over real soon but after that it would seem that they would start saving their ammo. any other thoughts on this.

[Danny]

because its a movie? theres no really reason to watch if everyone is a crack shot, headshotting every zombie so theres no threat or progression. then it goes from people in an impossible situation to gun porn.

[SRP76]

Probably desperation. If there's only a few zombies, they can one-shot them. But against a solid, advancing wall of them, they panic and just start spraying and praying.

[bassman]

What danny said. Not everyone is a skilled rifleman. And even if they were, in stressful situations I imagine it could be difficult to keep your cool for a perfect shot. But the straight answer here would be that they're movies...

[paranoid101]

Thats one of the things that bothered me about Dawn 04, some of the running head shots the cast was pulling off were just too good lol. At least in the original Dawn it showed them training on the shop dummys, plus Roger and Peter had training. Only people in Dawn 04 that maybe could have been an alright shot was Andy the cop and maybe the Security guards. As it's been said most people would just end up panicking and going full auto when faced with a mass of undead, only those with Police or military train might have the composer to pick their shots. Thats the thing I like about Max Brooks Zombie Survival Guide that he recommends a Semi Auto gun.

[krakenslayer]

Probably desperation. If there's only a few zombies, they can one-shot them. But against a solid, advancing wall of them, they panic and just start spraying and praying. I agree with this. When dealing with a huge crowd approaching nearby, your first reaction would probably be simply to spray them wildly with bullets. When you're talking about an advancing wall of undead, it might even be your best chance to slow them down in a hurry (i.e. maim those in front, make them fall, stumble and flail around, slowing the progress of the crowd behind them).

[Legion2213]

Don't the military generally engage the enemy with high rates of fire? Hence military sharp shooters for single shot kills when they are useful/needed. And I also think that full auto has merrit when confronted with a huge horde, you can't headshot several hundred oncoming zombies (one shot at a time) if they are close. .

[Wyldwraith]

Why would you engage several hundred zombies if they were close? Wouldn't it be more prudent to use your speed advantage to avoid playing to their strengths (durability, relentlessness), to withdraw, regroup, and coax this large number of zombies into a situation that plays to your strengths (ranged attack capability, capacity for premeditation, teamwork)? I see a ground level firefight versus zombies (slow or fast) where the humans are outnumbered by 4 to 1 or more as indicative of poor planning. You don't win versus ghouls if they're the ones applying pressure IMHO. You need an equalizer to their narrow killzone, indifference to pain, negative effect on unit morale and stubborn tenacity. There's an online book I've been reading that, aside from the protagonists suicidal habit of regularly engaging zombies with melee weapons has some sound ideas. Book is called Dead Meat, and is available online at their website for free. Things like using a single highly mobile, or small group to act as "baiters" to coax the zombies into concentrating in a dense knot right where the humans want them to be, then ploughing over them in a big rig, firing on them from safe vantages etc. One of the best examples of individual adaptation and developing basic but effective combat strategies vs zombies I've seen in print. Check it out, the book deals with much of what's being discussed here.

[Trin]

I don't have a problem with early outbreak military shooting full auto center mass. Makes sense. By Dawn they were using handguns to the head at close range and controlled bursts at longer range. I really like the way Peter and Roger handled their guns, even avoiding shooting things in the mall during the initial raids. They'd just muscle past them and move on. And the depiction of Flyboy's skills was very believable. Day was pretty much single shots to the head from the bunker military. They freaked out a bit at the end and didn't really use their advantages. Land was mixed. The military, years into the outbreak, was full auto to the belly. They got overrun by a tiny group of zombies in wide open spaces. They panicked at the drop of a pin. Even the stupid girl on the guardpost lays down a huge amount of ammo on a zombie that is IN THE ELECTRIC FENCE. Anyone could've walked up and shot the thing in the face with one bullet. A very bad showing from the military. Contrast that with Riley, Charlie, and Cholo. Charlie was the epitome of the survivor sharpshooter. When offered a full auto gun he sticks with his single shot rifle - better accuracy and he generally doesn't need that many bullets. I loved the way he'd scan the area in a slow circle. Riley was a great shot and never needed more than a handgun. Cholo used the hand crossbow which is a great weapon for keeping noise down. He also had a trench spike which is a little detail but great for his character.

[Wyldwraith]

@Trin: Agree that Land had the worst showing by far of...let's call them "security forces." For all the reasons you named, and also for the poor design of fortifications they obviously had years of no-pressure time to work on. An alleyway to the infested territory beyond just walled off with an inch-thick wooden wall? Electric fences that consumed precious energy, yet didn't effectively neutralize ghouls. Laughable sentry coverage, as if these people just FORGOT that umm, *everywhere beyond their borders was infested with the walking dead*. I too have no difficulty with the idea that soldiers during early outbreak would continually put 3-round bursts into the center mass of targets. Especially during the Night, Dawn & Day time periods. It simply wouldn't happen in 2010 though. We have suicide bombers, car-bomb drivers and the like to thank for that Failure to Stop drill I love to mention. Nowadays headshots aren't something military and police would have to "figure out" worked on zombies. Its become S.O.P to tap twice to the torso, pause, and put 1 in the head if the target is still coming forward. Since that's how we drill and train law enforcement and military nowadays, other than those giving in to panic, or those whose normal role is to provide suppressive fire (SAW gunners come to mind here), the vast majority of individuals belonging to these two groups would NOT IMHO devolve into spray and pray. That would be the freaked out civilians. It isn't hard to imagine your average redneck who can't believe what his eyes are telling him continue to put rounds from his trusty 30/30 or .306 into the center mass. Might go something like this. 1st Bullet: Hits solidly, ghoul stumbles but doesn't go down. (High velocity round, most likely a through-and-through). Redneck thinks: "Damn, musta grazed him. These suckers move awful weird, like they're drunk, high or both. 2nd Bullet: Hits solidly, ghoul goes down, then struggles back to its feet. Redneck: "WTH, I *KNOW* I pegged that sumbitch square. Must be on that, whatcha call it, PCP. Yea, PCP, that's it." 3rd, 4th & 5th Bullets in rapid succession: Ghoul knocked clean off its feet. By now its chest looks like spoiled hamburger, yet it isn't bleeding the way a man who hunts deer, elk and maybe bear KNOWS it should be bleeding. The first icy chill of SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG HERE goes down Redneck's spine. 6th Bullet or Panicked Flight. If redneck shoots, the range is probably very close by now, puts one into the bridge of the nose. Blows out or damages much of the C-1 vertebrae, and maybe nicks the brainstem. Zombie falls and starts twitching like an epileptic having a Grand Mal Seizure. Redneck DEFINITELY freaks out and hauls ass out of there. One tiny situation in the overall horror transpiring everywhere, and that was depicting an individual who's a good shot, has better than average guts, AND is in possession of weapon(s) & ammunition at outbreak's beginning. That seemed like a perfectly reasonable depiction of a "winning" first encounter with the enemy. Many others won't be so fortunate. What do you think?

[zombieparanoia]

I think the full auto is a mistake in movies for two reasons, first it does make you take a few empathy/IQ points away for every character that does it and second, I think showing a group of reasonably skilled shooters slowly running out of ammo would build more suspense, it would underscore the idea that even if you kill a bunch of these thigns there are always more behind them. the point shouldn't be to show the durability of zombies but rather the hoplessness of fighting them. I also disagree with posters who say "thats civilian shooters for ya, always aiming for the body" I think the untrained shooter would be LESS likely to aim for a center mass/heart shot than someone who has been trained to do so. Especially game hunters who understand the idea that sometimes the first shot doesn't kill and a CNS interrupt is needed.

[Trin]

Yeah, consider the scene of Peter and Roger in the apartments. They run out of bullets in their handguns shooting ghouls that are basically already contained. At some point they are going to regret using their precious handgun ammo on those. Dawn just comes off better and better in these discussions. The fact that the crew was so solid at basic zombie fighting in the second movie, then Day and Land both showed regression towards idiocy.

[Wyldwraith]

Yeah, consider the scene of Peter and Roger in the apartments. They run out of bullets in their handguns shooting ghouls that are basically already contained. At some point they are going to regret using their precious handgun ammo on those. Dawn just comes off better and better in these discussions. The fact that the crew was so solid at basic zombie fighting in the second movie, then Day and Land both showed regression towards idiocy. That's what I don't understand, Dawn's protagonists included as their best combatants a pair of (admittedly veteran) police officers, coming to grips with the outbreak in its earliest form initially. They recognize what's happening, realize the danger of their situation, and take the most reasonable steps they can manage to escape to a situation of potentially much lower *eventual* risk. Along the way, they rapidly adapt to the realities of both fighting the ghouls and attaining strategic goals despite their opposition. Yet Day shows us military men whose situation as depicted makes it a near certainty they've had a significantly longer period to adapt to the same risks, necessities, and difficulties/opposition posed by the undead to the achieving of their goals. However, in each and every case, the trained combatants amongst those in the base handle themselves like you would expect exhausted and overworked combatants that are confronting the changed reality of a world infested with zombies for what seems like the first/very recent time. Land takes this trend to the extreme, and goes beyond depicting ineffectiveness to systemic complacency. With the exception of Riley and his merry band, all combatants we see depicted behave as if zombies are nothing more than a nuisance, or a dangerous irritant at best. I feel like you do Trin. Not able to understand how an increased depth of experience, and longer period of personal adaptation somehow seems to result in FAR LESS effective combatants. It's almost as if each human who reaches a safe zombie-free haven (of however long a duration) has their experience, learned behavior, and psychological breakthroughs in coping with the horrors surrounding them reset to a pre-Night level. It makes no sense, yet the available narratives seem to confirm the truth of it. Reaching safety wipes away any and all positive traits/attributes that could contribute to prolonging survival in an undead world. What could possibly account for such a trend? (Excepting the obvious. Ie: That GAR kept making them dumber to drive home his preachy message that mankind is incapable in whole or part, in all but the rarest of individual exceptions that prove the/HIS rule, of rising above or emerging victorious from conflict with the Zombie Rising Phenomena.) It might be interesting to open a topic to debate people's opinions as to whether or not GAR's contention has any validity, and if so why/if not, why not? I for one believe that assuming a moderate proficiency, and possession of sufficient ammo to survive the "Shooter's Learning Curve", that most individuals who meet these criteria and are of average or better intelligence will consistently behave in a manner diametrically opposite to the behavioral template GAR asserts would become the norm. In other words, that people would learn rapidly from any mistake they made or witnessed being made that didn't get them killed. That many (not qualified to argue what %) would realize the need to band together for mutual protection against that all-important Common Enemy that so often unites men, and that many of these bands would seek to achieve the same goals the Dawn cast did. Always open to differing viewpoints, and as always, the above is simply IMHO. Your mileage may vary dramatically.

[Trin]

Excepting the obvious. Ie: That GAR kept making them dumber to drive home his preachy message that mankind is incapable in whole or part, in all but the rarest of individual exceptions that prove the/HIS rule, of rising above or emerging victorious from conflict with the Zombie Rising Phenomena. It supports the message plain and simple. And it's also why Dawn doesn't have the same problems. The message in Dawn was not at odds with their basic survival skills or common sense. In Land the message overruled common sense. You cannot blame the depiction of the military as idiots on GAR's loose storytelling or inattention to detail. If that were true we wouldn't have the exact opposite depiction of the scavengers. There was meant to be a large and obvious gap in skills between the two groups, pointing out the relative complacency of the military and those in the protected zone. As to the validity of the message. I think if you take any 10 people and ask them if the depiction of the military in Land makes sense most of them will say no. Which means that the message doesn't ring true. Do the same thing with the message in Dawn and people will agree that they'd likely feel the same drive and do the same things as the Dawn crew. That message rings true.

[Wyldwraith]

It supports the message plain and simple. And it's also why Dawn doesn't have the same problems. The message in Dawn was not at odds with their basic survival skills or common sense. As to the validity of the message. I think if you take any 10 people and ask them if the depiction of the military in Land makes sense most of them will say no. Which means that the message doesn't ring true. Do the same thing with the message in Dawn and people will agree that they'd likely feel the same drive and do the same things as the Dawn crew. That message rings true. Perfectly stated Trin, I agree 100%. Everyone can easily imagine putting it in high gear when they've realized the shit just hit the fan, and wanting to get them and theirs somewhere "safe." (Whatever "safe" means in the particular situation) I believe you're correct because the Dawn message deals first with intelligence and improvisation in service of the self-preservation drive, and the drive to protect friends/family/allies common to all non-psychopaths/non-sociopaths. The 2nd half of GAR's message about commercialism and the reiteration of his "They're Us" philosophy is couched in such a way that people can reject it out of hand as the idiocy it is, because in this case GAR's delivery of this message doesn't goad him into completely ruining the plot and characterization to make it work. Whereas in Day and Land GAR essentially tries to hold us as captive audience to his social commentary by making their plotlines completely dependent on the delivery mechanisms of his message-assertion. Which is ultimately the source of so many of the unthinking assumptions we Survival Horror fans are sort of conditioned to make when we're imagining or discussing the hypothetical aspects of the reality that would exist if the events of GAR's movies became real. Separate from the issue of zombie uprisings, most citizens of developed nations would agree that with the exception of China, or Russia if it went for its WMDs, no single nation could stand against the consolidated power of the US military. Yet somehow it ends up seeming reasonable, more than that, even probable that slowly shambling instinct-driven cadavers of the recently deceased could pose as great a threat to the survival of humanity as say, an asteroid impact of similar size to the one(s) that have contributes to a couple of the Earth's great Mass Extinction Events. When you say it like that it doesn't seem quite as reasonable, does it? Yet GAR says to us that this is exactly what he considers true-to-life as regards the human condition in times of sustained & severe crisis. The dichotomy is readily apparent when we consider what we know about man's capacity to be as merciful as he can be savage, etc, yet GAR's genius and perhaps his greatest achievement is to make such a grave indictment of the Human Condition appear so rational & believable to us. Just my .02