Horror Movies 101: The Zombies
Submitted by misscurly on Thu, 01/12/2006 - 04:35
Tags:
Stuff I've Got
- 28 Days Later I think this is possibly one of the best zombie movies. I'd pick this and Land of the Dead as my two favourites.
- Holes in Reasoning
- The "change" is way too fast. I mean seriously, it takes like 2 minutes from one little drop of blood?
- Assuming the zombies have some sort of memory remaining, why couldn't they figure out how to do things like oh say break a collar?
- This is a big one: why can zombies always smell when regular people are around? We're all born with the same shitty sense of smell, and no virus is going to change that!
- Another big one: Why are the zombies always hungry? Even 800 lb gluttons take a break and don't devour everything in site! Why can't they let the occasional meal pass by?
- Since we're assuming the zombies are created via virus (damn monkeys), then why aren't some people immune? There are documented cases of immunity to every disease and virus we've ever come across, so why is this different?
- Why couldn't the zombies swim the English Channel and spread the disease, if they were so hungry?
- Good StuffThe zombie-ness is passed around like a virus (think ebola or hepatitis)
- It is possible for the zombies to starve to death (eventually)
- Only people who were killed or hurt by zombies become zombies
- Dawn of the Dead (2004)
- Holes in Reasoning
- Good Stuff
- The zombies retain some memory, so (as explained in the movie) they return to the places they used to visit as humans
- Shaun of the Dead
- Holes in Reasoning
- Good Stuff
- It's funny
- The zombies move super slow because, you guessed it, they're dead and therefore less effective. Think of it. You get bitten in the leg and die. Now there's a huge hold in your leg muscle... you're not going to run very well, are you?
- Resident Evil Not a zombie movie in the strictest sense, but I think it has value. For example, in the sequels we learn that zombie + living person = SUPERPOWERS (But this stuff just refers to the first movie)
- Holes in Reasoning
- So if the virus is passed about through the air as well as scratch/bite, then how could a sealed, underground lab be entirely devoid of the airborne virus? Where did it go? Did they store it? Vent it?
- Back to the smell thing; how did all the zombies know where to find the rescue team? I mean before they started shooting up the joint...
- Good Stuff
- If the virus could be airborne, then the antivirus could be too, right? So there's an easy cure, if only they'd of thought of it.
- The man created the virus, probably as a bioweapon (but it's not a very good weapon, considering the people die and then come back and try to eat you... but nonetheless it's a plausible point of creation. Damn the man.
Stuff I've Seen
- Land of the Dead
- Resident Evil:Apocalypse
- Undead (2005) Possibly the worst zombie movie in the world, in which aliens as well as zombies come into play.
Suggestions for Future Viewing
- Night of the Living Dead
- Zombie Night (2004)
- Day of the Dead
- The Return of the Living Dead
- Dead and Breakfast
- Wild Zero
- Dead Alive
- House of the Dead
- Zombie
- Zombi 2
- Zombi 3
- Zombie 4
- Zombie 5
- City of the Living Dead
- The House by the Cemetary
- Hell of the Living Dead
- Nightmare City
- Let Sleeping Corpses Lie
- Dead Heat
- C.H.U.D.
- Zombiez
- Night of the Ghoul
- Corpses are Forever
- The Dead Next Door
- City of the living dead
- Carnival of Souls
- Zombi Holocaust
- Evil Dead
- Evil Dead 2
- Army of Darkness
- The Devil's Nightmare
- Dead People/Messiah of Evil
Author Comments:
I really like horror movies (and comedy, which could be considered subsets of one another. I specifically enjoy zombie movies, especially with the recent plethora of new stuff. I also like to pick apart the plausibility of the situations (it makes me less scared).
My most major zombie holes in reasoning:
Zombies can smell you
Zombies always want to eat you
Zombies are dumb
Almost none of the "Holes in Reasoning" are actually holes in reasoning, by the way.
Shh
What should I call them, then?
I feel special that your first contribution to the site is a criticism of my work! That's gotta say something.
Sounds like they're just things that bother you for whatever reason, but there's no real logical problems (save for the obvious ones, like the fact that zombies couldn't exists IRL). And criticism just means I'm interested in what you have to say, so I hope if anything that take it as a compliment.
Let's just look at the very first criticism, for instance - the idea that the change happens "too fast." What would be a "realistic" change speed for a zombie, considering that there's no way there's any hard scientific data on the matter? Since there are many neurotoxins that work almost instantaneously, it doesn't seem to be much of stretch to say that exposure to the infectant can have a near-immediate effect on the afflicted person. Since we're already suspending our disbelief and accepting that zombies can exist in the movie, it doesn't require any real leap to accept the rules as they're set up in the movie. If they weren't internally consistent, that would be another story. It just seems that you're asking too much from the "rules" of the movies, yet readily accepting the premise that they're in service of.
I think that in the movie we are told to consider the zombie-ness to be caused by a virus. A virus is a living thing, quite different from neurotoxins, and its purpose is to use the host to its advantage. A neurotoxin just causes cell death, which is why they work so quickly.
So, assuming zombies are caused by a virus intent on altering the host for personal advantage, it is unreal to assume the virus could work as quickly as a few short moments.
I just find it interesting for argument. Of course it's ridiculous to assume that zombies could ever exist in the real world, that goes without saying. I feel that a good horror movie should be as flawless as possible, because it requires its audience to suspend certain beliefs in order to get the full effect. I think that the smaller the leaps of faith, the better the movie and therefore the scarier.
Well, first of all, a virus is not necessarily a living thing (though the majority opinion seems to treat them as though they are these days) but that's academic. A virus, like a neurotoxin, is a mass of chemicals, and while none that I know of make use of neurotoxins, there is no such thing as zombies either. If one assumes that zombies are possible, there is no logic that dictates that they could not transform rather quickly. The neurotoxin example simply points to a real-life example of something effecting rapid change on an organism.
Basically, in fiction, you're allowed one "leap," and everything else has to be internally consistent. It doesn't seem to me that you've pointed out anything that is not internally consistent in these movies - of course they're impossible, but given that, they don't violate any of their own "rules."
As a biologist, I feel that everything you've stated is completely incorrect. A virus is nothing like a neurotoxin, and neither are simply masses of chemicals. These facts and others that I've previously stated are the logic I'm using to protest the timeline. You also need to keep in mind that exposure to neurotoxins is rarely to the tune of one drop, and in such an instance its effects would be greatly retarded, despite popular belief.
I'm also mildly annoyed that your main arugment to my points is that zombies couldn't exist in the first place. That is the exact point I'm trying to make, that zombies could not exist based on the explainations given, and I don't see the point in arguing the same side of an idea.
Um... hate to burst your biologist bubble, but EVERYTHING is a mass of chemicals. Everything. Well, save for free-floating elementary particles and single atoms, I guess. Maybe some brushing up on the basics of science is in order?
In any case, you're not reading my argument very well - it doesn't rest at all on saying viruses are "like" neurotoxins. You simply stated that it seemed impossible for something to act that quickly, and I pointed out something that DID INDEED act that quickly - neurotoxins. And if real-life neurotoxins can do it, fictional viruses may be able to do it too. Belaboring my analogy for any other purpose simply fails to address my argument and doesn't help your case.
I'm also mildly amused by how easy the idea of "fiction" can mildly annoy you - you should stick to non-fiction from now on, it should prove less annoying. Before arguing any further, I'd advise you to read up on basic chemistry and the foundations of basic fiction and the rules of storytelling, otherwise it's futile. Have fun - there's lots of cool stuff to learn.
I hate when it gets too far over on the right hand side.
So once again we return to the comparison of a present-day neurotoxin to a virus.
Most importantly one should note that neurotoxins, by definition, act on nerves. Do dead nerves mean death? Certainly not. "Neurotoxin" is an extremely broad group, mostly composed of animal venoms used to paralyze. For example, many snake and spider venoms (neurotoxins) serve as paralytics. (see here Interestingly, paralytics can result in death through paralysis of the respiratory system, but usually respiration is merely impaired.
I assume that instead of paralytics you're considering the dreaded neurotoxins used as bioweapons. One of the most common examples of the dreaded bioweapon is botulism. You know, the thing that appears when canned goods go bad? Swells the cans up? Deadly, no doubt. Also fast acting... 18-36 hours after exposure.
I think that thanks to the popular media, neurotoxins have recieved bad and misleading attention, untrue to their actual effects. Aspartame, after all, is another dreaded neurotoxin.
So back to what I've been trying to say the whole time: A virus is much more complex and dynamic than a neurotoxin. A virus can have a more severe impact than a neurotoxin. A virus is alive, in the strictest sense of the word. A virus cannot act as quickly as a neurotoxin for all these reasons. Zombies are reputed to be the result of a viral infection. Viruses cannot act that quickly.
As for your arguments, which you accuse me of ignoring, I think it is important to belabour you analogy because you're comparing two totally different things. You might as well say "A plane can fly above the speed of sound, so a fake virus could work that quickly." So what you're saying is that anything is possible in a fictional story... which is a good point despite the analogy. Please keep in mind that I am referring to the real-ness of the situation. Do you have any idea how large the body is from the scale of a virus? And that in order to infect a virus must reproduce itself to infinite amounts, and then invade the target cells?
I think that it's unnecessary to become rude about my education, just because I disagree with your oversimplification of complex systems. So we disagree... belittlement is uncalled for, and really just makes you look bad. In light of that, I won't be responding to you any further.
Almost as bad as belittlement: accusing someone of belittlement. Any "belittlement" on my part was in direct responst to the same on your part. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. I certainly took no offense, but in the future, don't make up stuff about what I said - just address my actual arguments, please. Doing otherwise is just rude.
Although you already have some of these listed, for zombie films I'd strongly recommend seeing these sooner rather than later: George Romero's orginal Dawn of the Dead (1978), Sam Raimi's Evil Dead II (1987), Jacques Tourneur's I Walked with a Zombie (1943), Peter Jackon's Dead Alive (1992), Vincent Price in The Last Man on Earth (1964), Ryuhei Kitamura's Versus (2000), John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness (1987) and Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator (1985).