Rabies doesn't hold up too well in a comparison to the rage virus from 28 Days Later, which converted its victims into berserkers within seconds of infection. Also, while rabies may cause its victims to lash out in delirium, they aren't automatically violent.
__________________
"Justice is a blade that draws blood from the innocent and wicked alike. And raised high, it can lead a charge that changes the world forever."
This avatar of Anders from Dragon Age 2 was provided by Dorian Soth. I didn't do it.
Also: Bullets have kinetic energy. Even ONE bullet is likely to knock even a very well balanced person on their butt.
Nah, bullet energy transfer doesnt work that way. It may cause hydrostatic shock, but there isnt the force to knock someone down even with large caliber rounds. The FBI has a report on it, and there is a Mythbusters episode on the subject.
Derby, UK and Bleak Despair battlestation. Species: Spirit-Bound Skeletal Lich (Lawful Evil)
Gender:
Re: World War Z (the film)
For that matter, tanks don't shoot their main guns at people. Even an HE round is generally inferior to using the coax or pintle MG. I suppose you might get more milage out of an HE round on something that doesn't try to take cover, but it's still not very optimal.
(Heck, tanks don't even see very well to shoot infantry. The vision from a buttoned-up tank has been akin to looking at the world through a toilet roll tube. On the other hand, aside from the genuine danger of causing a tank to shed it's tracks on their borken bodies, there's not much a zombie can do to an MBT. Real world tanks aren't only slightly more durable than a civilian car like most popular-culture depictions of the show. On a heavily armoured modern MBT like a Leopard or Challenger, even a lot of RPGs aren't very effective even from the rear, and the hatches are designed to be almost impossible to open from the outside; basically, the only way you can get in is by using a weapon that can penetrate the armour, so you could probably sit pretty safely inside one while the zombies banged around helplessly outside as soon as you'd thrown your tracks from mowing them down...!)
The book isn't so bad.
Brooks explained why many kind of ammo didn't work well against zombies, both for the collateral damage, both for things like "who cares if you suck out the air?". Some explanation works, some others, much less.
It's not realistic? again, who cares? we're talking 'bout zombies, it's not that a scenario with zombies with supernatural abilities (ala L4D) is less stupid.
in WWZ, zombies are impervious to explosions and so on, this is the setting.
'bout yonkers. It's stupid? yes. It is somehow justified? sort of. Soldiers were wearing senseless equipment for the presence of the TV, it was a sort of spot. See, we all know it was totally dumb, the whole trenches thing, the stationary tanks, yadda yadda.
You know what? it happens. Real military history, even the recent one, is literally full of battles losed by dumb decisions, made because you overestimate yourself, and undervalue your enemy. To be absolutely sure of your victory, usually leads to disaster, and (just to cite a famous example) you don't need to be a genius to guess that charging frontally a fortified position filled with cannons, with a cavalry light brigade, isn't probally the best option available.
Yes but that famous example was the cause of miscommunication and misunderstanding that followed military theory at the time, it was not a ridiculous plan from the onset. Yonkers is. Does this still happen? Sure. There's the Russian general in WWI who bragged about not having read a military text in years and sent his men charging at trenches. The result was not pretty.
The problem is Brooks tries to use that excuse, that the military leadership is old and would do something like this, when the military leadership of the time had a different mentality. Oh the love of advanced tech is still there, but the tech used would have destroyed the zombies.
Quote:
So, I can buy one Yonker. I'm less incline to buy that a single battle losed, throws into chaos your entire army and you're not able to do anything in your whole country except fleeing.
Yeah I didn't want to go into that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer Angel
True, but seriously, this can be said for basically all the films with the shambler zombie type. And also for a certain amount of the other zombie movies.
When you shoot with an heavy machine gun the crowd of zombies, you obtain nothing.
Oh yes you do. From force you can unbalance them, and if a leg/spine/head is hit they will fall down with enough bullets the front line of zombies could fall down or die since again it's much easier to aim when the target is coming at you without cover. And since they are in a group you will hit something. Make that something fall down, and get trampled. If this is done from behind some form of barricade or even a bloody hole in the ground it could be very effective of slowing down a zombie horde.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Succubus
I confess I've never read World War Z but Max Brook's Zombie Survival Guide did show a lot of careful thought and research throughout.
Actually I have a survivalist friend who disagrees. Though I as well have not read it.
Nah, bullet energy transfer doesnt work that way. It may cause hydrostatic shock, but there isnt the force to knock someone down even with large caliber rounds. The FBI has a report on it, and there is a Mythbusters episode on the subject.
Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location, and is beyond the control of the shooter. It can only be proven in the act, not predicted. It requires only two factors to be effected: a shot and cognition of being shot by the target. Lacking either one, people are not at all predisposed to fall down and don't. Given this predisposition, the choice of caliber and bullet is essentially irrelevant. People largely fall down when shot, and the apparent predisposition to do so exists with equal force among the good guys as among the bad. The causative factors are most likely psychological in origin. Thousands of books, movies and television shows have educated the general population that when shot, one is supposed to fall down.
IIRC they used pig carcases on Mythbusters and could barely get them to move.
In real life, if there truly was a zombie outbreak that had managed to overwhelm a city, the rest of the world would reduce said city into radioactive rubble pretty damn quick and the consequences be damned. Planes from the unlucky country would either be turned away or shot down.
__________________
Proof that avataring standards in the Playground have reached an all-time low:
The awful CG, the family focused characters, the same regard that iRobot had for the book. It is all there.
...Is it weird that I started humming the Katarami Damacy theme about halfway through the trailer?
__________________
Credit for my various avatars goes to Dashwood,Cealocanth,Kwarkpudding,Randomizer,kpengu in,Alarra,Bisected8,zimmerwald1915, and Thanqol.
Oh yes you do. From force you can unbalance them, and if a leg/spine/head is hit they will fall down with enough bullets the front line of zombies could fall down or die since again it's much easier to aim when the target is coming at you without cover. And since they are in a group you will hit something. Make that something fall down, and get trampled. If this is done from behind some form of barricade or even a bloody hole in the ground it could be very effective of slowing down a zombie horde.
I was just saying that i don't recall a movie shoving that entire bursts of M16 (or the equivalent) do something effective. Usually, they don't even slow down the zombies, despite all those injuries that, even if not painful, should be structurally meaningful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dienekes
The problem is Brooks tries to use that excuse, that the military leadership is old and would do something like this, when the military leadership of the time had a different mentality.
Well, i agree that currently there's a different mentality, and certainly Brooks exaggerated the worst possible outcome... but even now (or at least in the recent past), you can find some commander too overconfident, that plans operations without keeping in mind that things can go wrong. The subject is touchy, but the operation eagle claw is an example.
Apparently, Brooks filled all the headquarters and the whole military enstablishment with this kind of commanders.
__________________
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Withman)
Things that increase my self esteem:
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang
Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeYounger
Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi
If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimbold
THIS is proof that KA is amazing
Quote:
Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost
Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books
I wonder if Trailer showed it as action film, but what it's kafka komedy for Brad Pitt's character (as in no matter what you do, you will always lose).
Sometimes movie is more that how you see in the trailer.
Still, it will suck though.
There is still Hydroshock from artillery that will destroy the brains.
__________________
Pony Minecraft Avatar
Rest in Peace:
Spoiler
Miko Miyazaki, Thanh, Durkon- Order of the Stick
Krunch- Looking For Group
Bill- Left 4 Dead
Soap Mactavish- Modern Warfare 3
Sandman- Modern Warfare 3
Ghost and Roach- Modern Warfare 2
Gabe- Dead Space 2
Dom- Gears of War 3
Carmine Brothers- Gears of War series
Uriel Septim VII- Elderscrolls Oblivion
Commander Shepherd- Mass Effect 3
Ned Stark- Song of Ice and Fire
Apple Jack's parents
He didn't fill ALL of the commanding roles with these sorts of Armchair Generals. He just did it to America, and he did it with justification. Look, do some basic maths. Let's say, I don't know, 50 tanks rolled up to the Battle of Yonkers. It's safe to say that is a veritable buttload of tanks for any kind of battle, can we agree? And let's say each tank did really damn well. Let's say each tank accounted for five hundred zombies. Each. Again, that's saying these tanks are doing remarkably bloody well, don't you agree? Well, those figures mean the tanks would have completely wiped out twenty-five thousand zombies at Yonkers. That is by anyone's measure a huge number of rekilled zombies. The problem is that they were facing a swarm of tens of thousands more than that. The narrator who describes the Battle of Yonkers estimates that there were a million zombies, every single undead body in New York City, chain-swarming the soldiers at Yonkers.
They could have bombed New York, sure, but they didn't because this was supposed to be a morale victory, to say to the people during the Great Panic, "We can beat these things!" That's also the reason they used their fanciest and most expensive weapons, to show their superiority. If the plan had worked, they'd have stood triumphant with their high-tech weaponry and cheered in the streets of reclaimed New York. This is a perfectly reasonable plan; the problem was that they had a very poor understanding of zombie physiology, they used their weapons in an inefficient manner, and they were simply overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
That is the only major battle we get full information on, and it is legitimately justified as the worst-case scenario come true. Other battles went considerably better, and other nations survived considerably better. This was just The Big Fight for the US, and they lost because they went in over their heads. I honestly cannot understand why this scenario is so unbelievable - if you suspend your disbelief enough to say, "Okay, swarm of zombies!" why is it so hard to accept that the army fighting them might not win?
__________________
...but of course that's just my opinion.
It's unbelievable because the explanation boils down to one of two things;
Magically immune zombies laughing off machinegun and tank fire or the military simply forgetting to bring enough ammunition.
That is the only major battle we get full information on, and it is legitimately justified as the worst-case scenario come true. Other battles went considerably better, and other nations survived considerably better. This was just The Big Fight for the US, and they lost because they went in over their heads. I honestly cannot understand why this scenario is so unbelievable - if you suspend your disbelief enough to say, "Okay, swarm of zombies!" why is it so hard to accept that the army fighting them might not win?
That is not what I have a problem with. For the third time I believe. I'm fine with the zombie apocalypse overrunning the army. Cool, it's necessary for a zombie apocalypse to happen. But if you go that route, do not go around saying this is totally what is going to happen and that you went and backed up all of your information with facts. Which is what Brooks did, repeatedly, when clearly he did no so such thing and instead set up a frankly ridiculous scenario designed for the zombies to win. A situation that does not just require every single general involved with the plan to be stupid, but also every soldier to ignore all the training we've had in the last 50+ years just so they can be overrun.
It's not the story I have a problem with, it's the author.
Well, I didn't much like the story either to be honest. But the main point I'm arguing here is the author.
Magically immune zombies laughing off machinegun and tank fire
Magically immune to what? The high-velocity rounds that would pass through a torso without slowing them more than a solid punch would? The burns that they can't feel? The pressure-wave from an explosion that won't effect a dead body? The disemboweling, rib-breaking, and shrapnel punctures that would have no effect at all? The blinding, deafening, disorienting fire that doesn't matter in the slightest to a mindless drone that only knows "walk toward meat"?
All of those things would stop a human on the spot because he'd drop dead if it happened to him. This will not happen to the zombies. Every single impact has to either smash in the skull, sever a spine, or blow off a leg, otherwise that zombie will at worst be knocked down. It will then immediately get back up and resume its advance.
If we cheerfully say that, I don't know, one machine gun bullet in five successfully did that, or that every tank round did this to ten zombies, fine. And let's say that the narrator, Todd, was so disoriented that he multiplied the size of the swarm by ten. So instead of a million zombies, there are a hundred thousand of them. Using these figures, try to work out how many actual rounds would need to be fired to kill them all.
In short, yes. Zombies are magically immune to tank rounds and machine gun fire, because they are zombies. And given that, it is extremely believable that the soldiers were not physically carrying enough bullets for the task. I mean, how many rounds do you think they were carrying each? A few hundred? That would be nowhere near enough. And you can't resupply from the truck when there are fifty zombies hanging off it. It just... it makes no sense that they could win that battle.
__________________
...but of course that's just my opinion.
The awful CG, the family focused characters, the same regard that iRobot had for the book. It is all there.
well awful cg is a bit of an exaggeration, while not good at all its tolerable I think.
I don´t really mind the super zombies because lets be honest without something like an instant 50+% of the population turning to zombies thing (contaminated vaccination; flu like contamination with only a few resistant etc) the stupid slow shamblers just don´t pose any kind of threat whatsoever especially in a country like the us where there are more weapons then people available and ammo to kill everyone about 10.000+ times.
And this not only in military bases but distributed around the country.
The main turnoff for me however is the family characters and the apparently single point of view we get instead of the multiple povs with a narrator to tie it all together.
This makes it look pretty much like any other zombie flick we had so far, which is really a shame, might still watch it and maybe even be entertained but I´m not expecting all that much anymore sadly :-(
As for the book, I liked reading it but it was in no way realistic, yes it tried to be but it fell short quite a bit
Magically immune to what? The high-velocity rounds that would pass through a torso without slowing them more than a solid punch would?
Shoot to slow them down and keep them within given locations to be bombed.
Quote:
The burns that they can't feel?
If you burn away a leg muscle they cannot move.
Quote:
The pressure-wave from an explosion that won't effect a dead body?
High pressure waves will most definitely effect a dead body. Actually it can potentially tear apart a dead body.
Quote:
The disemboweling, rib-breaking, and shrapnel punctures that would have no effect at all?
Except that now they are literally tripping over their own insides, that shrapnel can puncture scull, especially if the zombies do not take cover. And while rib-breaking will not affect them, leg and spine breaking will.
Quote:
The blinding, deafening, disorienting fire that doesn't matter in the slightest to a mindless drone that only knows "walk toward meat"?
But will make their body completely ineffectual and can actually fry the brain within the body.
Quote:
All of those things would stop a human on the spot because he'd drop dead if it happened to him. This will not happen to the zombies.
Yes, some of it will.
Quote:
Every single impact has to either smash in the skull, sever a spine, or blow off a leg, otherwise that zombie will at worst be knocked down. It will then immediately get back up and resume its advance.
Slowly, these zombies move slowly, and stupidly. If one falls it's actually entirely possible, even likely that it will trip up a couple more. While all the army has to do is backpedal to not be overrun.
Quote:
If we cheerfully say that, I don't know, one machine gun bullet in five successfully did that, or that every tank round did this to ten zombies, fine. And let's say that the narrator, Todd, was so disoriented that he multiplied the size of the swarm by ten. So instead of a million zombies, there are a hundred thousand of them. Using these figures, try to work out how many actual rounds would need to be fired to kill them all.
Like we did during the Cold Wars, you know, like the general in command of this mess. Doing so would be inefficient. Instead we'd have the smell of napalm in the morning.
High pressure waves will most definitely effect a dead body. Actually it can potentially tear apart a dead body.
Especially if you consider what will happen to the brain (which apparently they still need) under a high pressure wave.
None magical zombies can´t survive that
That is not what I have a problem with. For the third time I believe. I'm fine with the zombie apocalypse overrunning the army. Cool, it's necessary for a zombie apocalypse to happen. But if you go that route, do not go around saying this is totally what is going to happen and that you went and backed up all of your information with facts. Which is what Brooks did, repeatedly, when clearly he did no so such thing and instead set up a frankly ridiculous scenario designed for the zombies to win. A situation that does not just require every single general involved with the plan to be stupid, but also every soldier to ignore all the training we've had in the last 50+ years just so they can be overrun.
It's not the story I have a problem with, it's the author.
Well, I didn't much like the story either to be honest. But the main point I'm arguing here is the author.
Basically, from what I could see, Brooks did the research to find what Standard Operating Procedure would be for a pitched battle against a massed infantry force in a suburban environment. Maybe picking one that was a little out of date to justify his "older general" excuse.
Then let's say he gives them overpowered and overcomplicated equipment to justify what he claims for the story: that this was to be a "morale victory" to prove that modern man with his powerful weapons and technology could easily trump a bunch of silly ole zombies. In other words, poor tactics and the desire for good publicity took precedence over understanding the environment that the troops were going into.
And last, probably the biggest: he's decided that this is Zombie New York, and there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of zombies. And they're all going to show up at once.
Given the "zombie apocalypse" genre, I'd say that any of these plot devices are 100% reasonable for the sake of his story. God knows we've seen them in other movies. I do agree that combining all three of them for a single clusterf*ck of a battle just to dump the US in an unwinnable fight is... well, it strains credulity a bit. He could have handled that better. But ultimately, he's just roped together a few quite reasonable concepts to get to the end result his story needs. That's hardly the worst liberty taken with common sense or, y'know, the laws of physics in modern pop culture today.
If you don't like his style of writing, I can respect that, and nothing I say will change your mind. All I'm trying to do is defend a story that I genuinely liked. Yeah, it's got its holes in it, but find me a Zombie Apocalypse story that doesn't! And yes, maybe him claiming that, "This would all happen according to my research!" is a bit silly. But is that any worse than, oh, any "Based On A True Story" story you've ever seen? At least Brooks has the good humour to hang a lampshade on himself in the story and acknowledge how stupid it is. That's more than you'll get in a Michael Bay movie.
__________________
...but of course that's just my opinion.
It's unbelievable because the explanation boils down to one of two things;
Magically immune zombies laughing off machinegun and tank fire or the military simply forgetting to bring enough ammunition.
Your first objection:
Zombies are immune to a good amount of effect of tank's fire. It is explained why as part of the setting. In media, some zombies are fast, some are intellingent, some got superpowers. Brooks' ones are particulary resilient to bombing. It's simple as that.
BTW, the previous version of the official NATO cal, received criticism for the poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the firearms used and the downrange bullet deceleration didn't achieve the minimally required terminal velocity at the target to cause fragmentation. This failure also occured when the bullets passed through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a small individual (or a zombie with poor muscolar tissue, I would add), as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment.
Your second objection:
Military with problems with ammo, facing great number of enemies? It already happened.
__________________
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Withman)
Things that increase my self esteem:
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang
Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeYounger
Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi
If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimbold
THIS is proof that KA is amazing
Quote:
Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost
Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books
Avatar removed, work in progress...
Last edited by Killer Angel : 11-09-2012 at 11:39 AM.
That is a 134 year old battle, back when the tactics Brooks demonstrates would actually have been considered efficient.
My point is: probably Brooks took historical facts, military debacles and so on, mixed them together and depicted the scenario of Yonkers.
Is the scenario believable? On the whole, not so much, but at least is enjoyable.
__________________
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Withman)
Things that increase my self esteem:
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang
Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeYounger
Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi
If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimbold
THIS is proof that KA is amazing
Quote:
Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost
Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books
Avatar removed, work in progress...
Last edited by Killer Angel : 11-09-2012 at 11:44 AM.
(Various responses to my post that I'm removing to save post size.)
Shortening to save space...
Firstly, you're of course right that a pressure wave will damage a dead body; that was stupid of me to phrase it like that. What I was meaning was that it would have less of an effect on a dead body than a live one. It might toss them like a ragdoll and cause their veins to burst along with their stomach, eyeballs and eardrums, but again, none of that will do anything more than slow a zombie down. Damage that would actually disable the zombie is perfectly possible, but it's a very long way from guaranteed.
Yes, burning through a muscle will make it useless, but moist flesh will burn very slowly, and superficial burns won't slow the zombie down at all. This would only work on a direct or near-direct hit, which will probably just blow the leg off anyway.
Blinding and deafening a zombie won't do anything; Brooks specifically states that Solanum zombies have been witnessed with their eyes and ears and nose damaged to the point where they should have been useless, but that zombie is still able to sense and move toward prey, and nobody is sure how. Yes, it's a handwave, but one he's long-since established.
Tightly-packed bodies will absorb the shock of a blast. That shrapnel wave will take down the ones immediately close by, and not even reach the rest of the zombies beyond a short radius.
As for the rest of it - bombing, sustained fire to slow them down, falling back to another position - well, that's sort of the point. The soldiers at Yonkers tried it. They tried all of it. And it all failed because the zombies just kept coming through the hail of fire, because that's what zombies do. And when the first line of soldiers got attacked, the rest of the troops' morale broke and they cut and ran. The simple fact is that they tried those tactics and they did not work!
If you're trying to argue that a modern weapon could kill a zombie, well, of course I agree with you. Obviously that's true.
What I'm trying to say is that a group of very frightened men using sub-optimal weaponry, without adequate support, don't have a realistic way to deal with a few hundred thousand walking corpses that break almost every rule of biology these soldiers have been trained to understand. The problem wasn't that they couldn't kill zombies, it's that they couldn't kill them fast enough. And given that at this point in the story, the commanding officers were not prepared to level an entire city with bombs, that really does make sense. I mean, what could these guys bring to bear that could take out that many undead?
__________________
...but of course that's just my opinion.
The thread of zombies were never the fact that they are incredible resilient, it's just that they're everywhere, and in incredible big numbers. In a George A Romeo Scenario (Everyone is infected), the problem is, that in the long run, you going to have 7 billion zombies, and evey weapon that would wipe them out (Nukes, bombs, armies, ect.) would either wipe as many humans out in the process or themselves becomes zombies. The problems with zombies is they inhabit the same places as humans, so any weapon effective against them will eradicate as many humans as zombies, or you'd have reached a point where there'd simply be too many of them to eradicate. Bear in mind, that there is always survivors of bombs, and just a single surviving zombie can start it all over. (There for example were this Japanese guy who survived both the nukes in the end of the WWII and just continued to work, even though everything around him burned to ashes and were hellishly irradiated. He lived to be 80-90 somthing.)
Just imagine fighting a hundred unarmed people, even if you had the biggest most bad-assed assault rifle, you could easily find yourself overwhelmed. That besomes an even bigger problem with a thousand, and even a bigger one with ten-thousand, or a million for that sake. Or if you live on the wrong continent, a couple of billions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scowling Dragon
It doesn't. But thats why it doesn't happen.
We already have a version of the rage zombie virus:
Rabies.
The world continues to turn.
Rabies doesn't work the way you think It work. It basically just cause inflammation to the brain and kills humans outright, no zombie behaviour there. Dogs go feral, but they doesn't hunt other dogs down and become cannibalistic, they just go mad. A more likely disease is Mad Cows disease, which actually changes the brain, instead of causing so much pain its victim goes mad. There exist no disease that, even mildly, is similar to a zombie virus, so we cannot in anyway make comparison to the real world. The zombie virus is fictional, and hopefully continue to be exactly that.
For that matter, tanks don't shoot their main guns at people. Even an HE round is generally inferior to using the coax or pintle MG. I suppose you might get more milage out of an HE round on something that doesn't try to take cover, but it's still not very optimal.
Not even nukes. Just a ton of regular bombs to prevent fallout.
Cluster bombs. Very good for pulverising stuff. Or if you really want things gone, some B-52's. Thats over 6 toms of bombs per plane. And those planes canbe deployed anyplace in the world in a couple of days at most. For a target in the US they could have planes over it in a matter of a few hours.
The assertation that the US Military is hidebound and working with old tactics is wrong. The US military has for a long time been highly innovative and *flexible*. Brooks in attempting to justify what happens in his book clearly ignored the real thing.
The thread of zombies were never the fact that they are incredible resilient, it's just that they're everywhere, and in incredible big numbers.
The thing that is the problem is that when a zombie outbreak starts, it will soon attaract the attention of the CDC and similar organizations. And this will be long before you have hundereds of thousands of zombies. Do a seach for "7 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Outbreak Would Fail" I don't to directly link to it since it probably has bad language.
I'm not going to hide the fact that I’m a bit of a Max brooks fanboy, i own the zombie survival guide, i own world war Z, i own the comic-style recorded zombie attacks book, heck shortly after reading world war Z i started (but never finished) writing my own little self-insert fanfiction in which i survive an outbreak in my own little town and start helping other survivors get out, with full intention on finding a way to send it to Brooks once it was finished in hopes he'd bring it up or otherwise include it in his next book should he ever write one.
That said, yeah it sucks that the world war Z movie includes fast zombies and focuses on the states as the big heroes, but you know what? that's fine. it's still a zombie movie, and it's still a world war that happens to be against zombies, i'm probably going to see it anyways.
Though i must ask, does anybody know if Brooks actually has any say or pull in this movie or did he simply allow the folks at Hollywood to make it?
RSS Feeds: 
Re: World War Z (the film)
