# World War Z: Announced



## Angel Tarragon (Sep 23, 2007)

Just stumbled across this on IMDB.

I've gotta say, I'm pretty stoked about this.


----------



## dravot (Sep 23, 2007)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Just stumbled across this on IMDB.
> 
> I've gotta say, I'm pretty stoked about this.




and J. Michael Straczinski doing the screenplay!  Sweet.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 23, 2007)

Hmmm. _Maybe_. Problem is, this looks like it is more of drama movie with all the cool zombie war stuff already over.


----------



## Joker (Sep 24, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Hmmm. _Maybe_. Problem is, this looks like it is more of drama movie with all the cool zombie war stuff already over.




Yeah, shame on them for bringing something on the screen that's mildly original .


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 24, 2007)

Hopefully they'll "Fix" the military battle with the zombie horde. That was one area where it really fell flat on it's face.


----------



## Pyrex (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankTheDM said:
			
		

> Hmmm. Maybe. Problem is, this looks like it is more of drama movie with all the cool zombie war stuff already over.




Why is that bad?  If the movie follows form with the book I suspect we'll get snippets of the interviewer with lots of 'flashbacks' to zombie-stomping action.



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Hopefully they'll "Fix" the military battle with the zombie horde. That was one area where it really fell flat on it's face.




How so?

I liked that chapter.  It served to show how fighting zombies is just plain _different_ from fighting people.


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 24, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> I liked that chapter.  It served to show how fighting zombies is just plain _different_ from fighting people.




Yes, but the author clearly demonstrated that he knows nothing about military hardware or how the military operates. For example, please tell me how zombies are going to threaten guys in a buttoned up tank, that can simply run over the zombies?

I understand what he was trying to do in that part of the book (he had to show and explain how the military failed against the zombies) and he made some gestures towards explaining why the military did so poorly in that situation (mostly the political interference in the set up and terms of engagement). 

However, zombies are basically a massed infantry charge which is what we've spent the past century learning how to slaughter. Obviously zombies are tougher than the average person to bring down, but when you start using cluster munitions, Fuel Air (or thermobaric) warheads or canister rounds from tanks. There's a limit to what the human body can sustain and still function.

The scene can be fixed, it is just going to take someone with some actual military knowledge and a bit more effort at thinking the situation through.


----------



## Joker (Sep 28, 2007)

*Take em down.*

I would actually like to see a zombie movie or any movie for that matter where the military does know what it's doing.
Like a movie where "The Marines" are systematically clearing out an infected city, supported by tanks, powered armors and gunships.

But then the aliens, who were responsible for the plague. come down in dropships and fight the human soldiers in a frantic urban no-holds barred end-of the world fragfest.
The soldiers, while initially surprised, quickly recover and proceed to kick some zombie and alien ass.

...

This idea is copyrighted by the way, so don't even think about going off to Hollywood and trying to film this masterpiece.


----------



## FoxWander (Sep 28, 2007)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Yes, but the author clearly demonstrated that he knows nothing about military hardware or how the military operates. For example, please tell me how zombies are going to threaten guys in a buttoned up tank, that can simply run over the zombies?
> 
> I understand what he was trying to do in that part of the book (he had to show and explain how the military failed against the zombies) and he made some gestures towards explaining why the military did so poorly in that situation (mostly the political interference in the set up and terms of engagement).
> 
> ...



SOrry, IDHMBWM but if I recall the scene correctly, the guys in the tanks WERE safe from the zombies. It was the military's own thermobaric weapons that killed them. Cooked them alive inside the tanks, I believe. 

Also, while we _used_ to be good at massed infantry charges, that's not how we fight wars today. So the military isn't really trained to counter that. Besides the book (and the Survival Guide before it) make it pretty clear (rightly so) that automatic weapons fire isn't very effective against zombies. You need precise, non-panicked shots- which is exactly the tactic they use later on. 

In that first military scene, things go fairly well until soldiers start to realize that there's no real end to the zombie horde. And then they start to panic. They open up in full-auto and they're effectiveness drops even more. While a charge from a _human_ army would break up after the first salvos dropped their front ranks by the thousands- zombies just don't care. They keep coming. Even if you drop thousands, there are _*millions*_ of them still coming. And even most of the ones that dropped are still crawling along- even if they're just a head and one arm!

That's what the first military scene was about- how we just weren't prepared to fight that kind of enemy. The main things that went wrong in the scene were the army's lack of foresight on two things- the true capabilities of their enemy and the sheer numbers of the enemy. Then on top of that you have grandstanding commanders who deployed the army more for publicity reasons the tactical ones. After that the inevitable panic went things start to go wrong makes the scene in the book entirely believable.

Yes, _maybe_ the REAL military might have done better- but maybe not. I'm in the Air Force and not the Army and so I can't really comment on how best to use infantry any better than anyone else who just studies tactics casually. But I can say that the reaction (and consequent force deployment) from the military "brass" seemed entirely realistic. And since THAT was the main "problem" with the scene- I didn't really see any problem.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Sep 28, 2007)

Joker said:
			
		

> I would actually like to see a zombie movie or any movie for that matter where the military does know what it's doing.
> Like a movie where "The Marines" are systematically clearing out an infected city, supported by tanks, powered armors and gunships.
> 
> But then the aliens, who were responsible for the plague. come down in dropships and fight the human soldiers in a frantic urban no-holds barred end-of the world fragfest.
> ...



Up to the last sentence, I know of a movie that is exactly like this; it is called Meteorites. I believe it takes place in Australia.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 28, 2007)

FoxWander said:
			
		

> Also, while we _used_ to be good at massed infantry charges, that's not how we fight wars today. So the military isn't really trained to counter that. Besides the book (and the Survival Guide before it) make it pretty clear (rightly so) that automatic weapons fire isn't very effective against zombies. You need precise, non-panicked shots- which is exactly the tactic they use later on.




Of course, I haven't read the book, so I don't know if they do that or not, but based on my (admittedly partial knowledge), I'd:

* - Rely primarily on artillery, both to destroy advancing zombies and deliver scatterable minefields that can slow the horde down;
* - Armor uses beehive/canister rounds and supports the infantry;
* - Infantry uses same general strategy, digs in, uses aimed fire, directional mines, and flamethrowers to defend positions;
* - The line moves by bounds as the zombies come forward, at no point should the line be in contact with the horde;
* - Bombardment with cluster, thermobaric, and napalm munitions should be undertaken whenever possible.  

For truly large hordes, I'd be all for nuclear cluster munitions.  There might be some form of chemical warfare possible, if we could toss out some form of necrotizing agent to help them rot.  But both those would require some R&D, which might be...interesting in the circumstances.

But, yes, initial fights would be disastrous.

Brad


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 7, 2008)

FoxWander said:
			
		

> Yes, _maybe_ the REAL military might have done better- but maybe not. I'm in the Air Force and not the Army and so I can't really comment on how best to use infantry any better than anyone else who just studies tactics casually. But I can say that the reaction (and consequent force deployment) from the military "brass" seemed entirely realistic. And since THAT was the main "problem" with the scene- I didn't really see any problem.



Agree


----------



## RangerWickett (Feb 7, 2008)

Joker said:
			
		

> This idea is copyrighted by the way, so don't even think about going off to Hollywood and trying to film this masterpiece.




Yes, by Bungie. It's called Halo 3.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> For truly large hordes, I'd be all for nuclear cluster munitions.




Okay, for perspective (spoiler tagged for your protection): 



Spoiler



The scene they are discussing has a zombie horde comprised of, if I recall correctly, _the entire population of Manhattan_.  It is beyond "large".  We are talking not about hundreds, or thousands, or even tens of thousands, but about millions of zombies in one place at one time.



If it were not JMS, I'd be thinking that this movie would stink like week-old fish (or month-old zombies, really), but with that name, it has a chance.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 7, 2008)

I just can't figure out how you get large hordes of zombies.

There are 300 million people in the US. Lets say that one percent of that number are corpses right now. Many of those that have been buried just aren't going to be able to rise, even in a Romero style "any dead person becomes a ghoul" scenario. And most zombie plagues seem to use the disease vector model. 

So, 3 million corpses stand up and start attacking humans. The first 24 - 48 hours would be absolute chaos. The number of zombies could easily double to 6 million. And then the living smarten up. We out number the deadheads by 50:1. Those are pretty good odds. Even if you take out the elderly and children, you would still have something like 25:1 odds in the favor of the living. Even without factoring in the existence of a *lot* of firearms in the US, twenty-five humans could take out a single zombie with broken chairs.

There just isn't anyway to get *millions* of dead in huge hordes attacking the living. The scenario would play out like -Shaun of the Dead-. Lots of initial chaos and then life goes back to normal with the addition of zombies... Even in a Romero World people would quickly adjust. Humans are very good at killing things...


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 7, 2008)

Joker said:
			
		

> Yeah, shame on them for bringing something on the screen that's mildly original .



Yeah, tell that to the _Cloverfield_ hate folks.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 7, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> Yeah, tell that to the _Cloverfield_ hate folks.




I rather enjoyed Cloverfield. The monster violates the laws of physics but it was still entertaining.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 8, 2008)

I was actually watching "Four Feathers" tonight and I commented how the Brits would do well against zombies cause the soldiers in World War Z were essentially using the same tactics 

Yeah I would say it would be mainly panic that did in the army in that chapter. 

Also, I CAN'T WAIT till I see that flashback. I dunno about you, but I imagined all the army units stationed around this town, it is on a hill however. So stretched down before you in the distance is New York City, and you see a single black swarm, like a snake slithering its way toward the army and that are the zombies.

It has been a while since I have read it, but wasn't one of the reasons it hit so fast, is besides the Manhattan breakout there were tons of others thanks to evacuees, blood and organ donations so you had pocket cases that simply spread in various parts of the USA so there was no single front.

I do wonder though how many interviews the movie will showcase and will it be back and forth like the book or one straight interview after the other. I am guessing they probably won't have the ones mainly dealing with the political/business end of it, like the guy talking about managing the factories and such.

We better see some good Lobo action too


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> There just isn't anyway to get *millions* of dead in huge hordes attacking the living.




Absolutes aren't in your favor.  For one thing, just because you can construct a way that a scenario can be avoided, doesn't mean that that it automatically will be avoided.   Seems to me you are not taking fear into account.  And, more importantly, the lack of ability to coordinate.  Outnumbering the enemy 50 to 1 does not help if you cannot get that 50 to 1 in the right place, in the right time, with the right equipment.  

I mean, if the horde is in New York, how do you expect anyone west of the Mississippi, or even just outside the New York Metropolitan area, to matter to the fight at all?


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 8, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Absolutes aren't in your favor.  For one thing, just because you can construct a way that a scenario can be avoided, doesn't mean that that it automatically will be avoided.   Seems to me you are not taking fear into account.  And, more importantly, the lack of ability to coordinate.  Outnumbering the enemy 50 to 1 does not help if you cannot get that 50 to 1 in the right place, in the right time, with the right equipment.
> 
> I mean, if the horde is in New York, how do you expect anyone west of the Mississippi, or even just outside the New York Metropolitan area, to matter to the fight at all?




Here's the thing, there wouldn't *be* a horde in NYC. There might be 80,000 - 160,000 ghouls in the city. With some 8 million *living* to take them out. The people west of the Mississippi don't really need to lend a hand in that scenario. And you don't need special equipment. just the firearms (legal and illegal) in the city and whatever hand weapons can be grabbed or made on the spot. How many baseball bats are there in NYC?

Like I said, you are looking at a -Shaun of the Dead- situation, not WW Z.

There is *one* zombie scenario that I know of that would get you "hordes". -The Abandoned- by Ross Campbell, it is available as a graphic novel. In the story line everyone who is twenty-three or older dies. No explanation, it just happens one night (at midnight?). Once you turn 23, you also die. Then you Rise. Instant zombie apocalypse. They are the slow style of zombie as well. My preference.

But in a Romero type of universe (or even the remakes) you just don't get hordes.

I spent *decades* afraid that the zombies would actually rise. Silly I know. But once I started to dwell on the thought logically (and discovered why I had the fear) I came to realize how absurd most zombie story lines really were.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 8, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Here's the thing, there wouldn't *be* a horde in NYC. There might be 80,000 - 160,000 ghouls in the city. With some 8 million *living* to take them out. The people west of the Mississippi don't really need to lend a hand in that scenario. And you don't need special equipment. just the firearms (legal and illegal) in the city and whatever hand weapons can be grabbed or made on the spot. How many baseball bats are there in NYC?
> 
> Like I said, you are looking at a -Shaun of the Dead- situation, not WW Z.
> 
> ...



I find your faith in human's ability to not panic quite interesting. I don't care how many zombie movies you've seen, books read, games played. If it actually started to happen?  People would FREAK. Not everyone, but a likely most, at first.

Yes, weapons are readliy available, but the number of people able to effectivly use them? Considerably less, I imagine. And the ones who try and fail? your 160,000 begins to grow exponentially.

And of course, you and I are talking about the US, where firearms are pretty common. Countries with more gun control would be much worse off.


----------



## bento (Feb 8, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Here's the thing, there wouldn't *be* a horde in NYC. There might be 80,000 - 160,000 ghouls in the city. With some 8 million *living* to take them out. The people west of the Mississippi don't really need to lend a hand in that scenario. And you don't need special equipment. just the firearms (legal and illegal) in the city and whatever hand weapons can be grabbed or made on the spot. How many baseball bats are there in NYC?
> 
> Like I said, you are looking at a -Shaun of the Dead- situation, not WW Z.
> 
> ...



While I am glad you were able to logically flesh out why zombie hordes could never happen this way, you're essentially arguing about fantasy, and not the real world.  Since there are no such things as zombies, your argument holds no water.  

Personally, the book had a logical-enough set up for me to get sucked into it and read it in less than a day.  Huzzah Mr. Brooks on giving us this great yarn!


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 8, 2008)

bento said:
			
		

> While I am glad you were able to logically flesh out why zombie hordes could never happen this way, you're essentially arguing about fantasy, and not the real world.  Since there are no such things as zombies, your argument holds no water.
> 
> Personally, the book had a logical-enough set up for me to get sucked into it and read it in less than a day.  Huzzah Mr. Brooks on giving us this great yarn!



Agreed. I put off reading this book for a long time because I thought _The Zombie Survival Guide_ was trash. When I finally got to it, I was quite suprised. Good book, I think it could make a great movie. In fact, I think the 'flashback' nature of the story would (will) be better served as a film.


----------



## replicant2 (Feb 8, 2008)

*Head shots*

The other piece of information to consider that favors the existence of zombie hordes is the "head-shot knowledge factor," or more precisely, the lack thereof. 

Brooks' zombies follow the same laws as George Romero's, but in his world it's assumed that Romero's movies don't exist, and therefore people don't have a blueprint for slaying zombies via headshots or otherwise destroying the brain. Without this knowledge, I could readily imagine scenarios where a single zombie could bite and infect 10-15 panicked people, especially after a braver soul tries to stab or club the creature with no effect.

In Brooks' novel the populace of course eventually figured out the zombies' vulnerability and disseminated the information, but by then it was too late.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 8, 2008)

Writers of monster books/movies almost always eff-up their portrayal of military equipment and tactics, because the army needs to be slaughtered in order for the premise to work.

You might lose tons of lives if someone blunders and lets infantry get overrun, but in the end, it'd just be target practice for armor, artillery, and aircraft. (which is why the author needed to come up with the boneheaded assertion that artillery and bombs doesn't work on zombies)

...heh, anyone ever seen a video of a mine-flail tank in action? Those would come in handy.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 8, 2008)

replicant2 said:
			
		

> The other piece of information to consider that favors the existence of zombie hordes is the "head-shot knowledge factor," or more precisely, the lack thereof.
> 
> Brooks' zombies follow the same laws as George Romero's, but in his world it's assumed that Romero's movies don't exist, and therefore people don't have a blueprint for slaying zombies via headshots or otherwise destroying the brain. Without this knowledge, I could readily imagine scenarios where a single zombie could bite and infect 10-15 panicked people, especially after a braver soul tries to stab or club the creature with no effect.
> 
> In Brooks' novel the populace of course eventually figured out the zombies' vulnerability and disseminated the information, but by then it was too late.




Meh. I think it'd take a 20 year-old soldier with a gun roughly a minute to figure out those things needed to be shot in the brain. It's not that big a mystery - when you shoot at something human-shaped, you have all of two targets - center of mass and the head.

Sort of going off on a tangent here, but I never liked how immune to physics zombies always are... Unless they're magical, they still need the leverage provided by bones and muscles to move around - shots that shatter vertebrae, scapulas, clavicles, pelvises or femurs will go a long way to disabling them.

Obviously, two or three shots likely wouldn't do much, but fire a couple of dozen shots into one, and it won't be going anywhere. They're not golems.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 8, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Sort of going off on a tangent here, but I never liked how immune to physics zombies always are... Unless they're magical, they still need the leverage provided by bones and muscles to move around - shots that shatter vertebrae, scapulas, clavicles, pelvises or femurs will go a long way to disabling them.
> 
> Obviously, two or three shots likely wouldn't do much, but fire a couple of dozen shots into one, and it won't be going anywhere. They're not golems.



Not at all. Much of the damage you describe is disabling due to pain. Take away the pain and you need to completly destroy those body structures to be effective. Damaging them isn't enough. Find that hard to believe? Research what kind of physical punishment someone can take when hopped up on PCP. I promise, you will be suprised. Take away the pain and the human body is an amazing machine.

Now, back into the fiction, take away the need for breathing and blood circulation. All of a sudden nothing short of complete destruction of bone will slow the thing down. The problem is, most ammunition is designed to do soft tissue damage. They don't do much to harder bones. Bones that are protected and to a point held together by the surrounding meat. So, you need a headshot.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> Take away the pain and the human body is an amazing machine.




And let us remember that Brooks' zombies are... really amazing, in that sense.  They will keep moving for months with no intake of energy - once you let go of the most basic rules of thermodynamics, all bets are off.  This is a fantasy, so we really cannot assume that normal rules always apply...


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 8, 2008)

Also, disabling them doesn't necessarily take them out of the picture. The scene with the military clearly showed that, as zombies who had their legs or even up to their torso blown off, simply crawling their way toward the troops.

Plus, like these zombies can survive deep underwater environments so I think they can take a lot. The submarine scene will be crazy to watch in the movie.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2008)

Hm.  We should note that there's been talk about said movie for nearly a year already (like here).  Even with the writer's strike, I'd imagine a bit more information would be out there now...


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 8, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> Not at all. Much of the damage you describe is disabling due to pain. Take away the pain and you need to completly destroy those body structures to be effective. Damaging them isn't enough. Find that hard to believe? Research what kind of physical punishment someone can take when hopped up on PCP. I promise, you will be suprised. Take away the pain and the human body is an amazing machine.
> 
> Now, back into the fiction, take away the need for breathing and blood circulation. All of a sudden nothing short of complete destruction of bone will slow the thing down. The problem is, most ammunition is designed to do soft tissue damage. They don't do much to harder bones. Bones that are protected and to a point held together by the surrounding meat. So, you need a headshot.




Most military ammunition is not designed to do soft tissue damage _or_ bone damage, because of the simple fact that most military ammo is designed for ballistic performance and armor penetration rather than for what it does to the tissue it hits. That being said, most military rounds from assault rifle on up will shatter bone effortlessly, and often make a mess of the surrounding soft tissue. Sure, there have been accounts of people staying functional despite 15-20 9mm or .38 caliber wounds, but rifle rounds have several times the energy. Not so many accounts of people surviving a dozen 5.56mm hits, never mind 7.62mm or .50 caliber.

Like I said, it might take a lot more shots, but a couple dozen decently aimed AR or MG rounds and _anything_ humanoid that relies on muscle and bone for movement  is going to just flop around in a ragged mess. (naturally, I'm not trying to argue that that this would more effective or efficient than a single headshot)


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 8, 2008)

Also depends on the speed, like for example older model m4s had a much higher bullet-speed.

This became very noticeable during Somalia and the Black Hawk Down incident. Since the US soldiers would be shooting the insurgents and they be hit 5-6 or more times and not even feel it because they passed through the body so fast.

Thus the bullets are now slower, so they actually have some stopping power behind them. But given how a zombie-body is rotting, this may not be enough since the flesh be easier to rip, thus it simply pass straight through.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 8, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Also depends on the speed, like for example older model m4s had a much higher bullet-speed.
> 
> This became very noticeable during Somalia and the Black Hawk Down incident. Since the US soldiers would be shooting the insurgents and they be hit 5-6 or more times and not even feel it because they passed through the body so fast.
> 
> Thus the bullets are now slower, so they actually have some stopping power behind them. But given how a zombie-body is rotting, this may not be enough since the flesh be easier to rip, thus it simply pass straight through.




The problem in Somalia - such as it was, since all the evidence is pretty much anecdotal - was _apparently_ due to the US soldiers being issued with "green-tip" 5.56mm rounds, which are steel-cored and at high velocity do tend to blow through soft tissue without deforming and expending much energy.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 8, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Most military ammunition is not designed to do soft tissue damage _or_ bone damage, because of the simple fact that most military ammo is designed for ballistic performance and armor penetration rather than for what it does to the tissue it hits. That being said, most military rounds from assault rifle on up will shatter bone effortlessly, and often make a mess of the surrounding soft tissue. Sure, there have been accounts of people staying functional despite 15-20 9mm or .38 caliber wounds, but rifle rounds have several times the energy. Not so many accounts of people surviving a dozen 5.56mm hits, never mind 7.62mm or .50 caliber.
> 
> Like I said, it might take a lot more shots, but a couple dozen decently aimed AR or MG rounds and _anything_ humanoid that relies on muscle and bone for movement  is going to just flop around in a ragged mess. (naturally, I'm not trying to argue that that this would more effective or efficient than a single headshot)



I was unaware that we were restricting the topic to military ammunition. Guess Farmer John and Bubba are just lunch meat. 

  But, even so you still need to actually hit bone to shatter it. More rounds would be wasted tearing through the surrounding flesh. Now you're talking about targets even smaller than the head. You're also talking about accuracy through volume. Risky, time consuming, and as you said ineffecient.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 8, 2008)

Lol, you know this is why I love zombies of all the sorta monster-type-of-things they are the one type everyone has their own theory on/survival thoughts


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 8, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Writers of monster books/movies almost always eff-up their portrayal of military equipment and tactics, because the army needs to be slaughtered in order for the premise to work.
> 
> You might lose tons of lives if someone blunders and lets infantry get overrun, but in the end, it'd just be target practice for armor, artillery, and aircraft. (which is why the author needed to come up with the boneheaded assertion that artillery and bombs doesn't work on zombies)
> 
> ...heh, anyone ever seen a video of a mine-flail tank in action? Those would come in handy.




Right. APCs and tanks would be immune to the Risen. Heck, so would armored cars.

Put zombies into an actual fantasy world, like D&D and I won't argue. But base them in our world and logic does still apply.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 8, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> I find your faith in human's ability to not panic quite interesting. I don't care how many zombie movies you've seen, books read, games played. If it actually started to happen?  People would FREAK. Not everyone, but a likely most, at first.
> 
> Yes, weapons are readliy available, but the number of people able to effectivly use them? Considerably less, I imagine. And the ones who try and fail? your 160,000 begins to grow exponentially.
> 
> And of course, you and I are talking about the US, where firearms are pretty common. Countries with more gun control would be much worse off.




I do actually have some limited faith in humanity. But mostly I have faith in every individuals desire to not be eaten alive. Purely a selfish motivation. 

Hitting any animal in the head is a good way to kill it. If a "normal" human attacked me and attempted to bite me, I wouldn't stop hitting them in the head until I saw brains.

Put zombies in the real world and you get 24 - 48 hours of shear panic and chaos. Then the humans fight back. Then the humans win. Then the humans find a way to exploit the zombies.

I have the advantage of owning both firearms and polearms...


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 8, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> I have the advantage of owning both firearms and polearms...



And a trenchcoat, I assume?


----------



## replicant2 (Feb 8, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> I do actually have some limited faith in humanity. But mostly I have faith in every individuals desire to not be eaten alive. Purely a selfish motivation.
> 
> Hitting any animal in the head is a good way to kill it. If a "normal" human attacked me and attempted to bite me, I wouldn't stop hitting them in the head until I saw brains.
> 
> ...




If you haven't read *World War Z*, you should, because in many ways it matches your beliefs. There's more than 24-48 hours of panic, but the humans do fight back with great effectiveness.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 9, 2008)

replicant2 said:
			
		

> If you haven't read *World War Z*, you should, because in many ways it matches your beliefs. There's more than 24-48 hours of panic, but the humans do fight back with great effectiveness.




I don't read fiction any longer...


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 9, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> And a trenchcoat, I assume?




No trench coat I'm afraid. And I can't find my black wool officer's coat either...


----------



## Felon (Feb 9, 2008)

bento said:
			
		

> While I am glad you were able to logically flesh out why zombie hordes could never happen this way, you're essentially arguing about fantasy, and not the real world.  Since there are no such things as zombies, your argument holds no water.




That's a rather obtuse assertion. Just because a book contains an element of fantasy, it is not completely absolved of any need to portray events in a believable manner. You are making the all-too-common mistake of conflating realism with believability. 

In this case, it seems like a pretty straightforward point that needs addressing. There just aren't huge caches of intact dead bodies laying conveniently around for some zombie effect to activate. I don't have any dead bodies in my house, or within a block of my home, or likely even within ten or twenty blocks. How about you? Again, I'm talking about corpses sufficiently intact to mobilize. And if they're the type of zombies that rip the living apart and devour them, then they're not even self-propagating. 

So, there is a question of where millions of dead bodies come from. Perhaps WWZ addresses it with a super-fast-killing-plague or something. Haven't read the book myself.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 9, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> So, there is a question of where millions of dead bodies come from. Perhaps WWZ addresses it with a super-fast-killing-plague or something. Haven't read the book myself.




In WWZ, it isn't awakening of already-buried corpses - there is a plague that kills you, and then your dead body gets up and starts with the shambling.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 9, 2008)

It all got started with some kind of bacteria, virus, chemical/biological spills drifting up from the now-underwater cities in the Yangse River.

Also with the virus it doesn't go active right away. It takes time, which is how the virus spread. Since people bitten in China who escape would then go Zombiefied when in another country, or in a couple case on the plane/boat itself. The virus could also remain dormant in organ/blood donations. So anyone receiving a blood/organ transplant from someone who had the virus would soon become a zombie after the transplant.

I am looking forward to see the mop-up crews in the Canadian north, smashing frozen-zombies. That will either be creepy or very weird looking.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 10, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> In WWZ, it isn't awakening of already-buried corpses - there is a plague that kills you, and then your dead body gets up and starts with the shambling.




Real world diseases just don't spread all that fast or far, even with modern transportation. Even airborne diseases don't kill that many people. And if the scenario calls for the "bite vector" variety things slow down even more. It just isn't that easy to achieve a zombie "horde".

The world in a Romero type of Rising would fundamentally change. But it would still be *our* world.


----------



## TanisFrey (Feb 10, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Real world diseases just don't spread all that fast or far, even with modern transportation. Even airborne diseases don't kill that many people. And if the scenario calls for the "bite vector" variety things slow down even more. It just isn't that easy to achieve a zombie "horde".
> 
> The world in a Romero type of Rising would fundamentally change. But it would still be *our* world.



The pandemic flu of 1918 hit all over the world at the same time.   No one knows why it hit at the same time.  Some say WWI was why but this does not explain why very remote villages in North Canada, Alaska, Russia got hit by it.  It skipped over vast empty area between the villages it area of very poor transportation.  Others say it was a mutated bird flu that jumped to man, but the resent scare about bird fly (2005) does not fit the pattern of 1918.  One scientist claims exogenous start, many discount him.

So saying that real world diseases can't spread so far, so fast is flawed.  I have given you one real world diseases that has defied the experts theories.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 10, 2008)

TanisFrey said:
			
		

> The pandemic flu of 1918 hit all over the world at the same time.   No one knows why it hit at the same time.  Some say WWI was why but this does not explain why very remote villages in North Canada, Alaska, Russia got hit by it.  It skipped over vast empty area between the villages it area of very poor transportation.  Others say it was a mutated bird flu that jumped to man, but the resent scare about bird fly (2005) does not fit the pattern of 1918.  One scientist claims exogenous start, many discount him.
> 
> So saying that real world diseases can't spread so far, so fast is flawed.  I have given you one real world diseases that has defied the experts theories.




While the 1918 Flu did spread very far and very fast, it didn't go as far and as fast as do Hollywood Diseases (HD). HDs also tend to have a lethality level far higher then even Ebola. Pretty much anyone that gets a HD (especially in a zombie-verse), dies. The HD never mutates into a less harmful form, it rarely mutates at all. 

Take -I Am Legend- as an example. Almost *every* human on the planet is infected. Even those on isolated islands (though you do pose an argument against that). Even, apparently, those on Naval vessels and submarines. Or those at Polar stations.

Note that the 1918 Flu *didn't* wipe out humanity. It didn't even effect many parts of the planet.

HDs only survive within poorly written scripts.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 11, 2008)

Though in the end, even if the spreading of the virus is poorly done. If the rest of the plot is successful, I really don't care about the actual virus. Especially considering that a book/movie where alot of the dramatic tension comes from the spread, it be less dramatic if done completely correctly.

Also, it actually doesn't reach islands and military ships/civilians ships in the book. Which is why the newly formed UN is in the sea amongst various aircraft carriers and cruise ships that governments had fled to.

Usually the only way islands/ships got hit was a infected was already on board the ship when it left dock. Or sheer bad luck made it that one of the roaming bands of zombies on the sea-bottoms hobbled their way onto the beaches of the island.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> HDs only survive within poorly written scripts.




If you happen to define "poorly written" as including anything that doesn't conform to modern norms known to science - such that we can't have a disease that is drastically more communicable than any before seen on the planet, for instance - then I guess I can't argue with you.  I've already noted that the zombies defy the most basic laws of thermodynamics as well, so the virulence is hardly the worst technical offense.

I would find that an odd attitude to find on a board devoted to RPG gaming.  The root of speculative science fiction is asking, "What if?"  I this case, the spread of the zombies is not really the point of the book.  The human stories of what happens to people in this (scientifically absurd, I grant you) world that are the real point.  They are written with craft, understanding, and artistry, and are what make the book good.  The details of the zombies are thoroughly secondary.


----------



## Wonzling (Feb 11, 2008)

I wonder what good it would do to run over a zombie horde with a tank. I mean, outside of a really big plain or similar location it would not be feasible to cause much damage to a large horde before running low on fuel, while the horde around you is busy munching on the population.
If I remember correctly, during the military scene in WWZ the horde was approaching roughly along a motorway filled with wrecked cars. This terrain and the number of zombies would render most types of vehicles quite inefficient, even tanks. Especially if your goal is to stop the horde there and now.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 11, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I would find that an odd attitude to find on a board devoted to RPG gaming.  The root of speculative science fiction is asking, "What if?"  I this case, the spread of the zombies is not really the point of the book.  The human stories of what happens to people in this (scientifically absurd, I grant you) world that are the real point.  They are written with craft, understanding, and artistry, and are what make the book good.  The details of the zombies are thoroughly secondary.




True, the scientific impossibilities really are the least of the book's problems - but I'm not sure we can talk about the other ones without violating the rules about discussing politics...

Though I suppose it ought to be ok to mention that, for example, Cuba becoming the world's dominant economy in the wake of WWZ seems to me even less likely than the suspension of the laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 11, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> If you happen to define "poorly written" as including anything that doesn't conform to modern norms known to science - such that we can't have a disease that is drastically more communicable than any before seen on the planet, for instance - then I guess I can't argue with you.  I've already noted that the zombies defy the most basic laws of thermodynamics as well, so the virulence is hardly the worst technical offense.
> 
> I would find that an odd attitude to find on a board devoted to RPG gaming.  The root of speculative science fiction is asking, "What if?"  I this case, the spread of the zombies is not really the point of the book.  The human stories of what happens to people in this (scientifically absurd, I grant you) world that are the real point.  They are written with craft, understanding, and artistry, and are what make the book good.  The details of the zombies are thoroughly secondary.




If you base a story line in the real world, I want it to behave like things do in the real world. While zombies are fantasy, a virus is not. I expect a virus to function like they do in the real world.

Base the story line in D&D or Star Wars and i will be much less picky. Put it in my backyard and it best obey the real world as much as possible. Reading a High School Biology text book would prevent most of the obscene errors seen in films that use a virus as a key element.

I am only willing to suspend disbelief so far...


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 11, 2008)

Wonzling said:
			
		

> I wonder what good it would do to run over a zombie horde with a tank. I mean, outside of a really big plain or similar location it would not be feasible to cause much damage to a large horde before running low on fuel, while the horde around you is busy munching on the population.
> If I remember correctly, during the military scene in WWZ the horde was approaching roughly along a motorway filled with wrecked cars. This terrain and the number of zombies would render most types of vehicles quite inefficient, even tanks. Especially if your goal is to stop the horde there and now.




The point is that the horde would be no threat to the tank, so it could keep on killing until it ran out of ammo, then head back to re-arm.

Also, you might be right about the WWZ scene, but that'd be just one more example of the author assuming terminal stupidity on the part of the armed forces in order to justify killing them off.

Oh, and just to make it clear I'm not just trying to nitpick - I've been reading Robert Kirkman's _The Walking Dead_ recently, and it (while you can still definitely point out holes in it, like in any zombie story) has a much better reason for the lack of organized military presence - after a while, most military units melted away as the individual soldiers began to worry about what was happening to _their_ families rather than about the strangers they were supposed to be protecting. Which I can at least see happening in the course of a fight vs. zombies that takes weeks - it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the military actually losing pitched battles...


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Base the story line in D&D or Star Wars and i will be much less picky. Put it in my backyard and it best obey the real world as much as possible. Reading a High School Biology text book would prevent most of the obscene errors seen in films that use a virus as a key element.
> 
> I am only willing to suspend disbelief so far...




As I said, I cannot really argue that, as I feel it is a matter of taste.  I personally see the effects of the fantastic on something familiar and contemporary as being far more accessible.  

We have problems sharing the state of mind with Han Solo, who lives in a world full of aliens and massively powerful technology (and magic), as compared to getting into the head of a soldier that live in our own world, but is then faced with a horde of several million zombies that don't stop when he shoots at them, and continue marching forward, moaning.  Or maybe the guys trapped in a market in Stephen King's _The Mist_.  These people, their fears, reactions, and strengths are understandable, where Obi Wan Kenobit's aren't.

Plus, there's the simple major problem that "preventing obscene errors" will generally also prevent the story from being written.  If the story is about _people_, one should not prevent it from being written on technical grounds.  If Robert Forward (who writes science fiction that is mostly about the science) screwed up a technical point, I'd be annoyed.  But WWZ is not about the science of zombiedom.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Feb 11, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> the science of zombiedom.




Please Umbran, if you're going to call it by its technical name, at least _attempt_ to get it right.

It's called "zombology."


----------



## sirwmholder (Feb 12, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> ...Humans are very good at killing things...



You sir have just been siged.

William Holder


----------



## grimslade (Feb 12, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> I am only willing to suspend disbelief so far...




Or, since you've stated you don't read fiction anymore, not at all.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 12, 2008)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Or, since you've stated you don't read fiction anymore, not at all.




Not true. I am an avid movie fan. I just want movies that make sense.

If you want to make a fantasy movie, make a fantasy movie. If you invoke actual, real world elements such as a virus, it should behave like an actual, real world virus.

If movies such as -I Am Legend-, -28 Days Later- or (the upcoming) -Doomsday- said, "It's magic!", I wouldn't argue. But the insist on saying that that a virus behaves in a way that a virus does not actually behave. Sloppy writing and directing.


----------



## grimslade (Feb 13, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Not true. I am an avid movie fan. I just want movies that make sense.
> 
> If you want to make a fantasy movie, make a fantasy movie. If you invoke actual, real world elements such as a virus, it should behave like an actual, real world virus.
> 
> If movies such as -I Am Legend-, -28 Days Later- or (the upcoming) -Doomsday- said, "It's magic!", I wouldn't argue. But the insist on saying that that a virus behaves in a way that a virus does not actually behave. Sloppy writing and directing.




I was only jerking your chain a little. 
I also agree with your point that at least some attention should be paid to pandemic forecasts and timelines. I am okay with a little bit of fudging to move the plot along but unaddressed  discrepancies pull me right out of a book or movie. It is better if they at least acknowledge the 'fictioning up' of an element, rather than let it stand there like an elephant in the room.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 13, 2008)

grimslade said:
			
		

> I was only jerking your chain a little.
> I also agree with your point that at least some attention should be paid to pandemic forecasts and timelines. I am okay with a little bit of fudging to move the plot along but unaddressed  discrepancies pull me right out of a book or movie. It is better if they at least acknowledge the 'fictioning up' of an element, rather than let it stand there like an elephant in the room.




I think all those dollar signs hide the elephants in Hollywood...


----------



## Felon (Feb 13, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> If you want to make a fantasy movie, make a fantasy movie. If you invoke actual, real world elements such as a virus, it should behave like an actual, real world virus.



How about it behave like a fantastic version of a virus? Elements of fantasy and realism can mingle. You're basically taking the same position as Bento did, conflating realism with believability.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 13, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> How about it behave like a fantastic version of a virus? Elements of fantasy and realism can mingle. You're basically taking the same position as Bento did, conflating realism with believability.




A fantasy version of a virus is magic. Just call it magic and avoid the confusion. 

If you call something a dog, it shouldn't have wings and fly. A virus should behave like a virus.

Magic can do anything it darn well pleases.


----------



## Felon (Feb 14, 2008)

Please refrain from making personal attacks.  

- Xath


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 14, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Please refrain from making personal attacks.
> 
> - Xath




It isn't a rejection of SF. I used to love SF novels and I am still a fan of SF films.

A virus isn't an SF trope. It is a part and parcel of the real world.

As for my education on the topic. Nothing formal. But I have read a dozen or so books on the subject. On the structure of the virus, the history of their research, the effect on military and civilian history. I am not am expert. But I am about as well informed on the topic as a layperson can be. 

But I didn't need to read any of those books to know Hollywood BS when I see it. You only need a passing familiarity with biology to see the gaping holes in scripts where a virus plays a part.

Dogs bark, firearms discharge rounds, knives cut string. These are elements of the real world. I expect them to function the same way in a script. If a writer and director fail to achieve this, they have failed at their craft. I don't think it is asking too much from a script writer or director to have a High School level of understanding on the central theme of their film.

I think that film goers ask too little of films. So we get poorly crafted films. I say hold script writers and directors to a higher standard. Don't settle.


----------



## Felon (Feb 14, 2008)

Whatever. Your position is based on certain questionable presumptions (i.e. "a virus is not a SF trope"), but if a mod is feeling triggerhappy enough that challenging the inflexibility of a poster's attitude will be deemed a personal attack, then the only reasonable reaction at this point is to say the hell with it.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 14, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> Whatever. Your position is based on certain questionable presumptions (i.e. "a virus is not a SF trope"), but if a mod is feeling triggerhappy enough that challenging the inflexibility of a poster's attitude will be deemed a personal attack, then the only reasonable reaction at this point is to say the hell with it.




If it matters, I don't feel that I am under a personal attack.

I was however expressing my opinion. Which you are more than welcome to disagree with. Have two people ever agreed on a film?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Feb 14, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> If you call something a dog, it shouldn't have wings and fly.




What if, during the course of the plot, a dog grew wings and flew because of a slow-acting, real-world-like virus.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 14, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> What if, during the course of the plot, a dog grew wings and flew because of a slow-acting, real-world-like virus.




Make it an advanced nanite colony and I might just buy it...

Though the idea of a dog flying over my head makes pigeon poo seem a small deal...


----------



## Rykion (Feb 14, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> Not true. I am an avid movie fan. I just want movies that make sense.
> 
> If you want to make a fantasy movie, make a fantasy movie. If you invoke actual, real world elements such as a virus, it should behave like an actual, real world virus.



Like movie guns work like real world guns?  They never seem to jam or run out of ammo unless it's dramatic, and their ability to knock people back is amazing.  I seldom notice any recoil either.  I guess it's movie cars that are like their real world equivalents.  Cars do blow up when shot and everytime they go off a cliff right?  Well there are always movie cops.  They walk all over the law and obtain tons of evidence illegally, but they always get their man and it holds up in court.  Movie court that is, where you can introduce new evidence whenever you want and don't have to worry about any inconvenient laws unless it's dramatic.  Then there are movie soldiers.  I doubt real soldiers always walk out in the open and silhouette themselves against pretty much every light source.  No matter how much mud and rain those movie heroes go through they have pearly white teeth and dry, clean clothes.  Movie pilots have to take off those silly masks so they can talk to each other through their radios, even though their mics are in those masks.  Those radios always do a great job of communicating, even with the bad guys.  Of course the planes always have the right mix of missiles and plenty of them.  I could go on about every genre.

Every movie that isn't a documentary is a fantasy.  Heck even a lot of documentaries are fantasies.  Every movie requires suspension of disbelief at some level.  It's just a little odd that in a movie about the walking dead, the rapid spread of a virus that is super effective, is the deal breaker.


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 15, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> Like movie guns work like real world guns?  They never seem to jam or run out of ammo unless it's dramatic, and their ability to knock people back is amazing.  I seldom notice any recoil either.  I guess it's movie cars that are like their real world equivalents.  Cars do blow up when shot and everytime they go off a cliff right?  Well there are always movie cops.  They walk all over the law and obtain tons of evidence illegally, but they always get their man and it holds up in court.  Movie court that is, where you can introduce new evidence whenever you want and don't have to worry about any inconvenient laws unless it's dramatic.  Then there are movie soldiers.  I doubt real soldiers always walk out in the open and silhouette themselves against pretty much every light source.  No matter how much mud and rain those movie heroes go through they have pearly white teeth and dry, clean clothes.  Movie pilots have to take off those silly masks so they can talk to each other through their radios, even though their mics are in those masks.  Those radios always do a great job of communicating, even with the bad guys.  Of course the planes always have the right mix of missiles and plenty of them.  I could go on about every genre.
> 
> Every movie that isn't a documentary is a fantasy.  Heck even a lot of documentaries are fantasies.  Every movie requires suspension of disbelief at some level.  It's just a little odd that in a movie about the walking dead, the rapid spread of a virus that is super effective, is the deal breaker.




I guess my willingness to disbelieve is a lot lower than most folks. The things you mention do in fact bug me to no end. I see it as sloppy craftsmanship. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Rykion (Feb 15, 2008)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> I guess my willingness to disbelieve is a lot lower than most folks. The things you mention do in fact bug me to no end. I see it as sloppy craftsmanship. Your mileage may vary.



I use to let them bug me, but my friends always got mad at me when I pointed the flaws out after the movie.  I've learned to try to turn my brain off for Hollywood.  Even with that, I still gripe a lot about movies.


----------

