If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vanity Fair)   It turns out that "World War Z" is actually a sequel to "Ishtar"   (vanityfair.com) divider line 278
    More: Sad, Marc Forster, battle scene, Damon Lindelof, Malta  
•       •       •

17724 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 8:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



278 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-01 08:53:33 AM

stuhayes2010: I loved the book.  It was a fun read.  I don't hold much hope for  the movie, but according to Wiki:

 Aint it Cool News reviewed the script in March 2008, and said "This isn't just a good adaptation of a difficult book... it's a genre-defining piece of work that could well see us all arguing about whether or not a zombie movie qualifies as Best Picture.


So, maybe there's hope.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2013-05-01 08:53:49 AM

Fark It: ecmoRandomNumbers: They shot this thing without knowing how the bad the ending was going to be? Did they just wake up every morning and do improv? The script supervisor probably committed hara-kiri with a clapperboard.

They didn't decide if the zombies would be fast (28 Days Later) or shuffling, a la Romero, until two weeks before filming began.


And our course they chose the option that was the opposite of what made that book so creepy. The inevitable, yet slow, tide of the undead.
 
2013-05-01 08:54:11 AM
Good, maybe the self absorbed will stop making shiatty movies from OK books.  WWZ was a pretty gripping read as written.

Bred Pitt.  Geez us.
 
2013-05-01 08:54:23 AM

Raharu: Imagine if you will..

A WWZ miniseries, with walking dead level effects and production quality.

Each episode is a tale from the book with some filler episodes.

At the start of each story we get a glimpse into the world after the zombie war, as the narrator travels to each location around the world to interview one of the survivors.

This leaves room for guest stars, new and upcoming actors etc.  You could stretch out the material to about 2 full seasons...

Naaaaaaaah, lets just but the rights to the name, and go ZOMBIE FLASH FLOOD!


And the Clerks animated series could have been as good as or better than Family Guy if Kevin Smith had gone to Showtime or HBO.  He got lured into dealing with ABC because they were a network; if you've been dealing with independent or low-profile companies for years, and suddenly one of the Big Three knocks on your door, it's hard to see past the potential.  And what we ended up with was six episodes (of which only two aired).

That being said, if you have an interesting creative property this is an age where you should know you can find ways of maintaining creative control.  Either Brooks got blinded by the shine on Paramount's logo, or he was willing to forgo creative control for the rights and (presumably he was smart enough to demand) a percentage of the gross.  There's also the possibility he genuinely like the initial pitch, considering Strazynski was the screenwriter.
 
2013-05-01 08:54:44 AM
The moment they turned the zombies into weird....rolling things, I knew it was going to have some bizarre problems. There are times when taking liberty on portraying the story from the source material actually works (like Walking Dead), but there are times when you really don't have to do it for the sake of being able to say "This is our spin on the story just because everyone's doing so!".
 
2013-05-01 08:55:24 AM

Bishniak: Ignoring the fact that the Zombies are "fast-movers" which annoy me on general principle, but I can overlook it.  The First two paragraphs talk about how wonderful the book was looking at it on a global scale, and then when it comes to the movie, they had to remove all that, making this your standard run-of-the-mill Zombie movie.  I'll just stick with Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Walking Dead for that storyline, thanks


You can't have slow-moving zombies if you are going to show the zombies taking over the Earth,  Because the audience isn't going to believe a group of slow moving, unarmored, unintelligent human with poor motor skills and no organization are going to be able to end civilization.  Because they couldn't.  Honestly, I'd be more afraid of a single ill-tempered chimpanzee than I would a dozen slow zombies.

Slow zombies only work if you skip ahead to after the apocalypse and you have hordes against small groups of people.
 
2013-05-01 08:55:39 AM
I hope that the book can find it's way to the big screen yet.  Hell, there's a good movie in the Reddiker plan alone.
 
2013-05-01 08:55:45 AM

medieval: Ishtar was not a bad movie.

It got bad reviews, and it wasn't the greatest movie I've ever seen, but it was hardly a bad movie.


I just heard Vernon A. Reid on a podcast yesterday say "there are no really bad movies.  Except for Ishtar.  That was really bad."
 
2013-05-01 08:55:55 AM
 " Zombie Gili "


Which makes it sound like some Blacksploitation (also "Blaxploitation") film of the '70's.
 
2013-05-01 08:57:17 AM

elvisaintdead: DjangoStonereaver: I stopped reading when I saw Damon Lindelolf's name.

This will be a failure of epic proportions.

Bingo.


who?
 
2013-05-01 08:58:23 AM

Skail: I don't understand why it would even be a question. The book (and the Survival Guide) explicitly state that the zombies are slow and ambling. Why change it? The entire point of the battle of Yonkers was that the zombies are slow and horrific and will eventually overrun you if all you're relying on are big, flashy explosions instead of effective tactics. And then later, with proper strategy, they were able to use that to their advantage.


Which is kind of stupid, because it seems to ignore how pressure waves/concussive force works.

The big, flashy explosions from artillery shells? Wouuulllddd probably pulp zombie brains from the concussive force. I mean, we're getting traumatic brain injuries from vets who aren't even directly hit by IED's, but just thrown around a bit, and those are small-potatoes explosions compared to some of the stuff the military would have at their disposal-I would think artillery would actually be *VERY EFFECTIVE* at thinning out a dense hoard. Even better if you could fire in a noise maker to get them to concentrate before throwing in a heavier explosive.
 
2013-05-01 08:58:26 AM
fta: "I was like, 'To be honest with you, good luck selling that to Paramount.'"

and then, like I told Brad, dude, the film is like really narly.
 
2013-05-01 08:58:27 AM
tinfoil-hat maggie

It's amusing to laugh at sometimes, and it has zombies. My wife hates zombie movies, but she enjoyed mocking it. Win/win.

It suffers from the usual failings of the genre/production value...several of the zombies keep reappearing in scene after scene, the "special forces" people are moronic*, it could have been written by the local high school drama club...but you know how it is.

* typical scene: talk about how bad-ass you are, then suddenly zombies appear from nowhere and kill someone...and no one noticed the shambling corpses coming from all directions, or the one two feet behind you under a tumbleweed...
 
2013-05-01 08:58:40 AM

Securitywyrm: Nuclear Monk: I think I'll wait and watch the poorly/hastily made knock-off with a very similar title that is sure to pop up at Redbox a few weeks before WWZ is released.

The Asylum will surely release their own zombie movie around the time this comes out... and I'll be honest. Their last zombie movie was... one of the best zombie movies I've ever seen. Sure it had low production values, but the story was good, the characters were good, and most of all... at no point in the movie did someone do something absolutely retarded for the sake of plot progression.
"Hello new people. Everyone strip at gunpoint, we're doing a bite check before we welcome you into the group."
"As a new member of the group, please cut off that long hair, ditch the heels, and we're going to a sporting goods store to get you some better clothes and equipment."
ETC.


Got a title on that one? I gave up on Asylum for a while after their Sherlock Holmes rip-off had a velociraptor in it, but you pique my interest.
 
2013-05-01 09:00:58 AM

ruta: stuhayes2010: I loved the book.  It was a fun read.  I don't hold much hope for  the movie, but according to Wiki:

 Aint it Cool News reviewed the script in March 2008, and said "This isn't just a good adaptation of a difficult book... it's a genre-defining piece of work that could well see us all arguing about whether or not a zombie movie qualifies as Best Picture.


So, maybe there's hope.

notsureifserious.jpg


Harry Knowles is the embodiment of everything that's aggravated me about fantasy/sci-fi/comic/geek fanboys.  I'd have less resentment towards Comic Book Guy were he a real person.
 
2013-05-01 09:01:20 AM

stuhayes2010: I loved the book.  It was a fun read.  I don't hold much hope for  the movie, but according to Wiki:

 Aint it Cool News reviewed the script in March 2008, and said "This isn't just a good adaptation of a difficult book... it's a genre-defining piece of work that could well see us all arguing about whether or not a zombie movie qualifies as Best Picture.


So, maybe there's hope.


Or the check cleared (or exclusive coverage granted).

/Which new Star Wars movie was supposed to blow our minds?
 
2013-05-01 09:02:58 AM
The other day I was moaning about how Hollywood is getting all my money this summer ... but after reading the plot spoilers for Star Trek Into Darkness, and now reading that World War Z was written by Damon Lindelof, I'm starting to see where I can save some money.
 
2013-05-01 09:03:23 AM
Slow zombies are social commentary. Fast zombies are for action movies. They are designed to appeal to the same people that enjoy the Transformers movies.
 
2013-05-01 09:03:32 AM
All they had to do was not use the title "World War Z" and this whole project would have been better received. It's sort of like they're making a Superman movie, but calling it Spider-Man. That being said, I'll go see it. I love zombie movies (fast and slow) and I like most Brad Pitt movies. I think I'll ultimately be OK with this.
 
2013-05-01 09:03:53 AM

Moopy Mac: And our course they chose the option that was the opposite of what made that book so creepy. The inevitable, yet slow, tide of the undead.


And that you were likely to lose to this shuffling tide of morons.
 
2013-05-01 09:05:19 AM

MagSeven: All they had to do was not use the title "World War Z" and this whole project would have been better received. It's sort of like they're making a Superman movie, but calling it Spider-Man. That being said, I'll go see it. I love zombie movies (fast and slow) and I like most Brad Pitt movies. I think I'll ultimately be OK with this.


Also, this zombie on crack vibe could work really well if those things were big armored bugs.
 
2013-05-01 09:05:25 AM

Mr. Cat Poop: Securitywyrm: Nuclear Monk: I think I'll wait and watch the poorly/hastily made knock-off with a very similar title that is sure to pop up at Redbox a few weeks before WWZ is released.

The Asylum will surely release their own zombie movie around the time this comes out... and I'll be honest. Their last zombie movie was... one of the best zombie movies I've ever seen. Sure it had low production values, but the story was good, the characters were good, and most of all... at no point in the movie did someone do something absolutely retarded for the sake of plot progression.
"Hello new people. Everyone strip at gunpoint, we're doing a bite check before we welcome you into the group."
"As a new member of the group, please cut off that long hair, ditch the heels, and we're going to a sporting goods store to get you some better clothes and equipment."
ETC.

Got a title on that one? I gave up on Asylum for a while after their Sherlock Holmes rip-off had a velociraptor in it, but you pique my interest.


I think it's Zombie Apocalypse. It's OK if you're somewhat inebriated.
 
2013-05-01 09:05:38 AM

lemurs: Milo Minderbinder: I refuse to spend money on anything that Lindelof touches. He's a hack that couldn't write a cat food commercial.

Seems appropriate:

[i.imgur.com image 640x624]


Is that a zombie cat?
 
2013-05-01 09:09:22 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
It's a travest-Z
 
2013-05-01 09:09:51 AM

Facetious_Speciest: tinfoil-hat maggie

It's amusing to laugh at sometimes, and it has zombies. My wife hates zombie movies, but she enjoyed mocking it. Win/win.

It suffers from the usual failings of the genre/production value...several of the zombies keep reappearing in scene after scene, the "special forces" people are moronic*, it could have been written by the local high school drama club...but you know how it is.

* typical scene: talk about how bad-ass you are, then suddenly zombies appear from nowhere and kill someone...and no one noticed the shambling corpses coming from all directions, or the one two feet behind you under a tumbleweed...


Oh, damn those are the best, yea I was young in the '80's and they used to play they best worst horror movies : ) I'll have to check it out when I'm in the mood.
Dead video or something like that is also really fun it's Romero so. But I don't think it's on Netflix right now.
 
2013-05-01 09:10:02 AM
Im sure the ending was changed to the following: most of the cast is dead, but they feel they have finally beaten the zombies once and for all and they all relax, then you suddenly see a zombie hand grab hold of one of them.  TA DA!  Same crappy ending pretty much every zombie movie ever has.  I even understand why they do it.  For some reason that's the ending zombie movie fans want every time.
 
2013-05-01 09:10:47 AM

Shadowknight: FTFA:The actor asked him to watch an edit, and told him, "The thing we really need right now is someone who is not burdened by all the history that this thing is inheriting, who can see what we've got and tell us how to get to where we need to get."

Ok, I'll be the first come out and say it:

THEN WHY BOTHER WITH BUYING THE BOOK RIGHTS IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO USE THE BOOK'S STORY?


No, this is about Pitt bringing Lindelhof in to do the rewrite.  That comment is a ponderous way of saying "we need an objective opinion."
 
2013-05-01 09:12:07 AM

This may as well be the thread to share this in.


Did you enjoy Dexter?


Like the walking dead show and comic?


Then this book could be for you.  It's Dexter meets the walking dead.


Undead Situation.


http://www.amazon.com/The-Undead-Situation-Eloise-Knapp/dp/19348615 88



It's the writers first book, I picked it up when it was just 1$ on the barnes and noble ebook store. I enjoyed it so much, that I picked up the audiobook version from audible.

B&N Link

It's pretty good.

 
2013-05-01 09:12:22 AM

fonebone77: Im sure the ending was changed to the following: most of the cast is dead, but they feel they have finally beaten the zombies once and for all and they all relax, then you suddenly see a zombie hand grab hold of one of them.  TA DA!  Same crappy ending pretty much every zombie movie ever has.  I even understand why they do it.  For some reason that's the ending zombie movie fans want every time.


I have never seen a zombie movie end like that. Not a single one. Name one.
 
2013-05-01 09:12:24 AM
This movie is the headshot that will kill the zombie genre.
 
2013-05-01 09:13:47 AM

Subdue their bellies: This movie is the headshot that will kill the zombie genre.



It could indeed.
 
2013-05-01 09:18:17 AM

MagSeven: fonebone77: Im sure the ending was changed to the following: most of the cast is dead, but they feel they have finally beaten the zombies once and for all and they all relax, then you suddenly see a zombie hand grab hold of one of them.  TA DA!  Same crappy ending pretty much every zombie movie ever has.  I even understand why they do it.  For some reason that's the ending zombie movie fans want every time.

I have never seen a zombie movie end like that. Not a single one. Name one.


Maybe not specifically with the hand, but there is always the weak turn where you know there are still more zombies and the survivors are still screwed.  I know its partially hollywood's penchant for leaving movies open ended, but its just cheezy.
 
2013-05-01 09:19:15 AM
At least the movie will get us the extended audiobook
 
2013-05-01 09:20:51 AM
This is Brad Pitt's "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen".
 
2013-05-01 09:22:45 AM

MagSeven: All they had to do was not use the title "World War Z" and this whole project would have been better received. It's sort of like they're making a Superman movie, but calling it Spider-Man. That being said, I'll go see it. I love zombie movies (fast and slow) and I like most Brad Pitt movies. I think I'll ultimately be OK with this.


This. I will just have to separate the movie from the book. Is it going to be a canon zombie flick? No. Is it going to be true to the book? No. But it will be fun to go watch it at the drive in. Popcorn flick. Not every movie is going to be another Citizen Kane or Shawshank Redemption. And that's ok.
 
2013-05-01 09:23:11 AM

Shadowknight: FTFA:The actor asked him to watch an edit, and told him, "The thing we really need right now is someone who is not burdened by all the history that this thing is inheriting, who can see what we've got and tell us how to get to where we need to get."

Ok, I'll be the first come out and say it:

THEN WHY BOTHER WITH BUYING THE BOOK RIGHTS IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO USE THE BOOK'S STORY?

Also, HBO miniseries ect...


PItt meant "all the history of the project, the shoot, etc. We need someone who isn't part of the project to look at it objectively".
 
2013-05-01 09:23:40 AM

Raharu: Subdue their bellies: This movie is the headshot that will kill the zombie genre.

It could indeed.


Fingers crossed.
 
2013-05-01 09:24:11 AM

Raharu: Subdue their bellies: This movie is the headshot that will kill the zombie genre.


It could indeed.


But probably not, This movie may die in the box office but it will be watched and well there's so many movies out there, I mean "Otto, or up with dead people"? It's become more than Romero ever envisioned.
 
2013-05-01 09:24:20 AM

mccoma: At least the movie will get us the extended audiobook



I farking hope so.

The abridged audio book was nothing short of fantastic with all of its voice actors!
So good I went out and got the unabridged audiobook...

farkingnhell.

1 guy reading the entire book In monotone voice, like he was reading the phone book to congress to block a gay marriage bill.
 
2013-05-01 09:24:33 AM

ruta: stuhayes2010: I loved the book.  It was a fun read.  I don't hold much hope for  the movie, but according to Wiki:

 Aint it Cool News reviewed the script in March 2008, and said "This isn't just a good adaptation of a difficult book... it's a genre-defining piece of work that could well see us all arguing about whether or not a zombie movie qualifies as Best Picture.


So, maybe there's hope.

notsureifserious.jpg



There's this too.  Scripts tend to change in the years between initial draft and final cut.  I'm not necessarily defending AICN, but five years is a long time and it's possible the original script was a lot better than this appears to be.  For example:

Fark It: They didn't decide if the zombies would be fast (28 Days Later) or shuffling, a la Romero, until two weeks before filming began.


If true, that's pretty damning.
 
Poe
2013-05-01 09:25:38 AM
I have said this before, but...

If I were Supreme Ruler of the World, I would have had the people behind this movie watch a little flick called The Man From Earth.  It's about a caveman who does not age, and the entire movie is him talking with a handful of other people about his life over the last 14,000 years.  Takes place almost entirely in one room, no CGI or flashbacks to his experiences, and it farking works, because dialogue is so well written that you forget that you are listening to a story and instead see it in your minds eye.  WWZ is written as a series of interviews, and with the right actors and set dressings, it could be done the same way.  The only actual zombies you see would be the half frozen ones in the segment with the girl who's parents took her north into Canada, and you would have to get an outstanding young actress for the feral child part, but it could be done.  With the Hollywood love of remakes, I really hope someone makes a proper WWZ a few years down the line.
 
2013-05-01 09:25:57 AM

fonebone77: Maybe not specifically with the hand, but there is always the weak turn where you know there are still more zombies and the survivors are still screwed. I know its partially hollywood's penchant for leaving movies open ended, but its just cheezy.


Heh that's pretty much the ending to every Resident Evil movie. They finally beat the "big bad" of the movie, everyone is taking a breather, then they all look up and scan all around them. Camera pans out and hundreds/thousands of bad guys are about to be on top of them.
 
2013-05-01 09:26:25 AM

LineNoise: You mean a book that reads like a highschool freshman creative writing paper doesn't translate well to the big screen? Color me shocked.


This movie will turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to that book. If it's as terrible as people think it will be, they can say that the book was better and be right despite the book being pretty bad to begin with.
 
2013-05-01 09:26:36 AM

stuhayes2010: I loved the book. It was a fun read. I don't hold much hope for the movie, but according to Wiki:

Aint it Cool News reviewed the script in March 2008, and said "This isn't just a good adaptation of a difficult book... it's a genre-defining piece of work that could well see us all arguing about whether or not a zombie movie qualifies as Best Picture.


So, maybe there's hope.


AICN. That's cute. If you will recall, Harry Knowles wrote a review of Blade 2 in which he described the experience of watching that movie - at great length and in explicit and overwrought detail - to the filmmakers performing cunnilingus on the audience. Seriously. Totally NSFW: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/11793 The contributors to that site are and have always been the hackiest bunch of navel-gazing hangers-on that ever hacked a hack.
 
2013-05-01 09:30:07 AM

fonebone77: MagSeven: fonebone77: Im sure the ending was changed to the following: most of the cast is dead, but they feel they have finally beaten the zombies once and for all and they all relax, then you suddenly see a zombie hand grab hold of one of them.  TA DA!  Same crappy ending pretty much every zombie movie ever has.  I even understand why they do it.  For some reason that's the ending zombie movie fans want every time.

I have never seen a zombie movie end like that. Not a single one. Name one.

Maybe not specifically with the hand, but there is always the weak turn where you know there are still more zombies and the survivors are still screwed.  I know its partially hollywood's penchant for leaving movies open ended, but its just cheezy.


Ah. I get you. They do have a tendency to leave the door wide open for more.
 
2013-05-01 09:31:14 AM

stuhayes2010: I loved the book.  It was a fun read.  I don't hold much hope for  the movie, but according to Wiki:

 Aint it Cool News reviewed the script in March 2008, and said "This isn't just a good adaptation of a difficult book... it's a genre-defining piece of work that could well see us all arguing about whether or not a zombie movie qualifies as Best Picture.


So, maybe there's hope.


A) It's AICN, so don't put too much stock in it

B) It's from 2008! That's 5 farking years ago. In movie production time that might as well be two completely separate movies. Who knows, maybe the 2008 script kicked ass, but I can guarantee that is not what's about to disgrace the theaters.
 
2013-05-01 09:32:55 AM
I liked the book but it has narrative issues that would have to be overcome to adapt it to fit the big screen. The most obvious one is everything is in the book is in the past tense and the "hero" is a bureaucrat writing down the recollections of other people. It would be like filming Band of Brothers where the hero was Stephen Ambrose. So it would have to be fit into the present and the number of characters and subplots whittled down to fit the time the movie had to tell the tale. But it could still capture the essence of the book and do it in a very scary way.

But what this film appears to be from the trailers is an absolute mockery of the book in every respect. CG physics defying swarms of zombies, bloodless PG-13 action and lots of Brad Pitt heroically doing nothing remotely related to the book. Looks like a frigging disaster from that point of view.

That said, maybe few people care that it's not like the book or even that there was a book. It's zombies and explosions and Brad! I won't be queuing up to see it though unless the reviews suggest it has some redeemable qualities of its own.
 
2013-05-01 09:35:19 AM

Poe: I have said this before, but...

If I were Supreme Ruler of the World, I would have had the people behind this movie watch a little flick called The Man From Earth.  It's about a caveman who does not age, and the entire movie is him talking with a handful of other people about his life over the last 14,000 years.  Takes place almost entirely in one room, no CGI or flashbacks to his experiences, and it farking works, because dialogue is so well written that you forget that you are listening to a story and instead see it in your minds eye.  WWZ is written as a series of interviews, and with the right actors and set dressings, it could be done the same way.  The only actual zombies you see would be the half frozen ones in the segment with the girl who's parents took her north into Canada, and you would have to get an outstanding young actress for the feral child part, but it could be done.  With the Hollywood love of remakes, I really hope someone makes a proper WWZ a few years down the line.


Wait that's the one where they're in a cabin and.... Oh, hell yea loved that, granted I don't see it working for WWZ but, well a more understated style could be cool.
 
2013-05-01 09:36:24 AM
Having not read the books... only hearing about them...  from what I've heard, everyone thought ahead of time that it would be a very difficult book to adapt to a movie due to its format.  So I can only assume that they were struggling to find a good way to wrap things up in a way that would make sense for film, and then it came time to start principle, so they had to either a) postpone everything until they finalize the script (which means the project is almost all but dead) or b) Start it up with the hopes that you will figure it out at some point.

I'll reserve judgement until someone actually WATCHES the film rather than hearing the stories about the making....  no one likes to see how their sausage is made.
 
2013-05-01 09:37:10 AM

FLMountainMan: Bishniak: Ignoring the fact that the Zombies are "fast-movers" which annoy me on general principle, but I can overlook it.  The First two paragraphs talk about how wonderful the book was looking at it on a global scale, and then when it comes to the movie, they had to remove all that, making this your standard run-of-the-mill Zombie movie.  I'll just stick with Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Walking Dead for that storyline, thanks

You can't have slow-moving zombies if you are going to show the zombies taking over the Earth,  Because the audience isn't going to believe a group of slow moving, unarmored, unintelligent human with poor motor skills and no organization are going to be able to end civilization.  Because they couldn't.  Honestly, I'd be more afraid of a single ill-tempered chimpanzee than I would a dozen slow zombies.

Slow zombies only work if you skip ahead to after the apocalypse and you have hordes against small groups of people.


I think it depends on how it's done.  We're looking at it with the eyes of those who know about zombies and how zombies 'work' etc.

Think if this happened in real life, and had say a 15-30 day incubation period where they're still carriers but not yet zombies.  Or worse, could spread via bodily fluids prior to zombifying.

The first cases no one would know what it was.  We'd all just think it was a new bird flu, or some fever or something.  Meanwhile we're trying to treat these people in hospitals.  Maybe before symptoms begin showing people are transmitting it via sex or kissing, or blood donation.  Maybe symptoms don't show at all until like 1 day before they die and come back.  In this scenario we don't know who is infected, and it could easily infect huge amounts of the population before we even know what it is, that it's incurable, and causes zombies.  We wouldn't kill the first people to zombify.  We'd be trying to help them, and treat them.  We'd think they're just going crazy or something, meanwhile another x number of people are infected by him.  And on it goes.

The premise relies on the idea that a huge percentage of the population is infected (but not yet zombied) in order to work.  And that a large number of the survivors are infected by the new zombies due to not knowing how to react or respond to the zombies when they do rise.  Then when those guys go down all we have left is our small and outnumber survivor population vs the horde.  The problem is most movies seem to do the '10-15 minutes from infection you become a zombie' thing.  The deadliest diseases in history are the ones that incubate for a long time since that's the time needed for it to spread.  Otherwise it burns out too fast, killing the host before it gets a chance to pass on.
 
Displayed 50 of 278 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report