Zombie Fiction

[KAH]

As to why on the order.... because it's logical. If the only way to ensure to a 100% degree that there is no chance of infection spreading is by killing everyone in the square, then kill everyone in the square. I fail at all to see the problem with this rationale particularly given how the events of the film play out in the 'epilogue' in Paris.

As to why not just let let the infected and non infected roam free? 2 reasons I can think of: 1)Non infected may try to escape the island through some means and while not likely there is a small chance they would succeed, there is an equally small chance that those that succeeded may have unwittingly brought some way of being infected with them. 2) Time. Armies cost money, money means time must be seen to be used efficiently. Letting them all go is not particularly efficient as then should they again try and repopulate they would have to wait 6 months (or however long it said at the beginning) on the off chance that one infected escaped and is at large.

It's not logical because there is no one there but the few repatriated and the soldiers. It makes sense to kill all if there is a population to protect, but the english mainland is empty.

And the epilogue is rather illogical too - England was successfully quarantined when there were millions of Infected there, but a handful of Infected makes it all the way to France on the second go? They didn't show how that was supposed to work out, and quite frankly; I can see why.

IIRC, the Infected starved to death within 5 weeks (whether they needed water is not entirely clear; either they don't, or they got enough wherewithal to seek out drink for themselves). They would not need to wait 6 months, although they might as well, since they would no doubt have to gather up new volunteers to try again, and after the last faux pas that's gonna take a while. The alternative is to give up, reinstate the quarantine and just leave for good. The killing is then superfluous.

Of course, the 'unwitting carrier' problem was something they might have considered, but Code Red would then be a nuke to obliterate any human presence whatsoever in the London area, since American soldiers are just as prone to be unwitting carriers as any British repatriates.

[Slurktan]

It's not logical because there is no one there but the few repatriated and the soldiers. It makes sense to kill all if there is a population to protect, but the english mainland is empty.

And the epilogue is rather illogical too - England was successfully quarantined when there were millions of Infected there, but a handful of Infected makes it all the way to France on the second go? They didn't show how that was supposed to work out, and quite frankly; I can see why.

IIRC, the Infected starved to death within 5 weeks (whether they needed water is not entirely clear; either they don't, or they got enough wherewithal to seek out drink for themselves). They would not need to wait 6 months, although they might as well, since they would no doubt have to gather up new volunteers to try again, and after the last faux pas that's gonna take a while. The alternative is to give up, reinstate the quarantine and just leave for good. The killing is then superfluous.

Of course, the 'unwitting carrier' problem was something they might have considered, but Code Red would then be a nuke to obliterate any human presence whatsoever in the London area, since American soldiers are just as prone to be unwitting carriers as any British repatriates.

No one is there in England, but there is still everyone else in the world. Can the rage zombies swim the channel? Can't take the chance and so logical.

For your last paragraph, the soldiers were not in any danger at all so it makes absolutely no sense to just nuke your army as well as the controlled quarantine. In fact damn near all of them (except the one guard, Scarlett, Doyle and the ones Doyle kills) get away scott free and pose no danger to the world as a whole. Code Red worked rather effectively except they didn't count on Doyle and the chopper pilot being sentimental idiots.

The epilogue is caused by the kid who is infected but still in control. Much like how the second outbreak was started by the Mom who was infected but still in control. Somebody got spit on, kissed him, bled on, sneezed on, whatever and they weren't prepared because he looks normal and they'd have no reason to suspect he is in fact carrying the disease.

The biggest plothole of the movie is one you didn't talk about, and thats how the Mom actually survived being in a house with many rage zombies, and one coming right at her. Sure she is infected, but how was she not killed like later in the film when the Dad turns?

[KAH]

No one is there in England, but there is still everyone else in the world. Can the rage zombies swim the channel? Can't take the chance and so logical.

For your last paragraph, the soldiers were not in any danger at all so it makes absolutely no sense to just nuke your army as well as the controlled quarantine. In fact damn near all of them (except the one guard, Scarlett, Doyle and the ones Doyle kills) get away scott free and pose no danger to the world as a whole. Code Red worked rather effectively except they didn't count on Doyle and the chopper pilot being sentimental idiots.

The epilogue is caused by the kid who is infected but still in control. Much like how the second outbreak was started by the Mom who was infected but still in control. Somebody got spit on, kissed him, bled on, sneezed on, whatever and they weren't prepared because he looks normal and they'd have no reason to suspect he is in fact carrying the disease.

The biggest plothole of the movie is one you didn't talk about, and thats how the Mom actually survived being in a house with many rage zombies, and one coming right at her. Sure she is infected, but how was she not killed like later in the film when the Dad turns?

Everyone else in the world was just fine the last time the Infection spread, which involved "taking the chance" of Infected swimming the Channel the last time. The quotation marks because they did not have any chance whatsoever to prevent it if they had wished to. Unlike the previous outbreak, there are not millions of Infected, but hundreds. Unlike the previous outbreak, they are not all over the British Mainland, including the coast facing continental Europe - they are cooped up in London, and every direction they move will be by foot.

As for my last paragraph, you were the one who said

Non infected may try to escape the island through some means and while not likely there is a small chance they would succeed, there is an equally small chance that those that succeeded may have unwittingly brought some way of being infected with them

The soldiers would be in every way as much in danger of 'unwittingly bringing the infection' as everyone else there, from the viewpoint of the rest of the world. And with that mindset, nuking everything and everyone in London (including the soldiers) makes sense, just killing the repatriates does not.

Having the kid as the new source of Infection does make rather more sense than generic Infected swimming the Channel. It also highlights why the Code Red plan is a failure from the outset. When the soldiers start shooting everyone, the non-Infected are discouraged from seeking help from them afterwards, since they can expect to be massacred - and that of course includes the kid, the 'unwitting bringer of infection'. Had they not started shooting everyone, they could have sorted out things orderly afterwards.

Mommy getting away is a loophole, yes. Whether it's the biggest is up for debate, it's the Mighty Leap trope all over again. Not completely out of this world that she could have dodged and ran away from 2-3 Infected with just a bite or two, if one or two of them jumped the kid instead of her.

[Slurktan]

As for my last paragraph, you were the one who said

The soldiers would be in every way as much in danger of 'unwittingly bringing the infection' as everyone else there, from the viewpoint of the rest of the world. And with that mindset, nuking everything and everyone in London (including the soldiers) makes sense, just killing the repatriates does not.

Having the kid as the new source of Infection does make rather more sense than generic Infected swimming the Channel. It also highlights why the Code Red plan is a failure from the outset. When the soldiers start shooting everyone, the non-Infected are discouraged from seeking help from them afterwards, since they can expect to be massacred - and that of course includes the kid, the 'unwitting bringer of infection'. Had they not started shooting everyone, they could have sorted out things orderly afterwards.

Incorrect on the military. The military and repatriots were effectively closed off from one another when the outbreak happened. Unless someone broke quarantine, none of the soldiers had any chance of being infected at that point.

The kid should have been shot dead in the code red or at the very least killed by the nepalm strike/gas attacks afterwards. The only reason he wasn't was because Doyle broke the quarantine. So yes, in turn Doyle killed France.

Yes I suppose it would be easier for the military to just nuke everyone including their own provided there was a nuke handy, but that would also effectively destroy London as a habitat permanently. Defeating the whole purpose of going there and so not very logical whatsoever.

[KAH]

Incorrect on the military. The military and repatriots were effectively closed off from one another when the outbreak happened. Unless someone broke quarantine, none of the soldiers had any chance of being infected at that point.

The kid should have been shot dead in the code red or at the very least killed by the nepalm strike/gas attacks afterwards. The only reason he wasn't was because Doyle broke the quarantine. So yes, in turn Doyle killed France.

Yes I suppose it would be easier for the military to just nuke everyone including their own provided there was a nuke handy, but that would also effectively destroy London as a habitat permanently. Defeating the whole purpose of going there and so not very logical whatsoever.

Lots of soldiers inside the building when the outbreak starts, lots of soldiers on the streets when the Infected and non-Infected spread out there...how is that even remotely equal to 'effectively closed off from one another'?

The kid should have been shot dead because of Code Red, but as the movie shows, Code Red is ineffective in destroying everyone, and not just because of Doyle abandoning his post. Infected escape in numbers from the firebombing and gassing. And there is no reason Infected should escape in larger numbers than non-Infected, quite the contrary - there would be a much higher number of non-Infected, and they would not pause to bite someone either (i.e. present themselves as better targets).

And with the indiscriminate killing, the plan would effectively dissuade any Non-infected from trying to return to the military post after an initial hiding, as well as killing morale (including Doyle's). You could say that Doyle killed France, but in my mind, it's far more apt to say that Code Red killed France.

The nuke is less logical than the ideal solution (i.e. retreat and gather up remaining Non-Infected afterwards while picking off the rest), but it beats the fiasco that was actually planned. This because it actually achieves the 'kill-all-possible-Infected' goal, as opposed to Code Red, which does not assure this.

A nuclear war-head need not destroy London as a habitat permanently; Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki is populated today. And most of the rest of the empty British mainland would still be there for immediate repopulation; they don't have to stick with London.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Apologies if this has already been stated, but the reason the Americans behave in an astonishingly stupid manner in 28 Weeks Later is because it's an allegory for Iraq.

Mind, the movie's problems aren't limited to 'What the fuck kind of plan was that?' I'd point, as the most glaring example, to the Helicopter Rotors of Doom.

And I like the movie.

[KAH]

Apologies if this has already been stated, but the reason the Americans behave in an astonishingly stupid manner in 28 Weeks Later is because it's an allegory for Iraq.

I realize that, and I think this is part of the problem, trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The Iraqi situation is the result of leadership being blissfully, willfully unaware that anything can go wrong and it blowing up in their faces. Code Red does however take into account a worst case scenario (i.e. Infection that they can't contain properly), it just deals with that scenario in the worst possible way. I would have found it far more believable if it was not part of a preconceived plan and that the general just panicked, but that's not what happens.

[Ran]

BTW, just to expand on something Stego said earlier, The Walking Dead is being developed by Frank Darabont for AMC (or was it TNT? I think AMC).

And now AMC has ordered six episodes, to be written and directed by Darabont, apparently. October 2010 premiere. Rick's friend, the other cop guy in the first graphic novel, is the first role that has been cast apparently.

[Slyfinger]

This is awesome news.

[palin99999]

And now AMC has ordered six episodes, to be written and directed by Darabont, apparently. October 2010 premiere. Rick's friend, the other cop guy in the first graphic novel, is the first role that has been cast apparently.

Awesome.

[Lichen]

Yeah that should be interesting, I've liked basically everything by Darabont.

I just recently read the first tpb of The Walking Dead. Not groundbreaking but good enough to keep reading. Have there been any estimates of how long the series (comic) will be?

Don't know if this was already mentioned here but the Man himself, George Romero, has a zombie novel called The Living Dead: The Beginning coming out this summer. Synopsis:

In San Diego, an autopsy seems routine until the corpse sits up and begins to walk--after all of his organs have been removed. Suddenly, the rules of this world have been rewritten and the dead now walk the earth. In Atlanta, a reporter covers the epidemic, showing viewers glimpses of increasing chaos from across the globe. Nowhere, it seems, is safe. The captain of an aircraft carrier hopes to save his crew from the disease by remaining at sea, but seemingly within moments zombies are wreaking havoc on the ship. THE LIVING DEAD follows different groups of people as they react to the crisis, working together or, for some, using their limited knowledge of zombies to try to survive. But is survival even possible? Or desirable?

[palin99999]

I just recently read the first tpb of The Walking Dead. Not groundbreaking but good enough to keep reading. Have there been any estimates of how long the series (comic) will be?

I believe Kirkman has said that right now he sees no end for the series.

[KAH]

I believe Kirkman has said that right now he sees no end for the series.

That statement worries me.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

That statement worries me.

Not just you.

I mean, okay, when he started I read stuff about him seeing it going on for years and years. It's been years and years. Stories are meant to end, unless they're fucking superhero comics.

Yes, I do kinda like my superhero comics, but c'mon.

[palin99999]

Walking Dead prose novels on the way.

Robert Kirkman's bestselling comic series The Walking Dead, which already migrated to TV with the upcoming AMC series, will now spawn a trilogy of original novels to be published by Thomas Dunne books, an imprint of St. Martins Press, starting in 2011. The books will be conceptualized and outlined by Kirkman before being developed by horror novelist Jay Bonansinga (Perfect Victim). The books’ plots will take place in the “universe” or context established by Kirkman’s comic series, which is currently in its 77th issue and has sold approximately three million copies worldwide. AMC's The Walking Dead premieres on October 31.

[ipeefreeli]

I completely stopped reading a few issues after a certain death in the series, one that no one saw coming. It kind of killed whatever happiness was left in that series. After that, it was impossible for me to have any attachment to any character, and that kinda ruined the series for me.

[peterbound]

I completely stopped reading a few issues after a certain death in the series, one that no one saw coming. It kind of killed whatever happiness was left in that series. After that, it was impossible for me to have any attachment to any character, and that kinda ruined the series for me.

ha, and yet you post on a GRRM message board.

[ipeefreeli]

ha, and yet you post on a GRRM message board.

LOL, GRRM has nothing on The Walking Dead.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Max Brooks of World war z andswerws the interstsnetsqwuesttoins

[Isis]

Cool. Thanks for posting.

"Why do you think that, as of late, women seem to be infatuated with vampires (Twilight, True Blood, etc.), while men seem to be enthralled by Zombies? In your mind, what is behind this dichotomy of living-dead interest?"

OMG vampire infatuation has taken over my life!!11 *eyeroll* Stupid fucking question. I enjoyed the answer though:

"Now there's a whole new generation, and that's the Twilight generation. And good for them! Because they're a generation of little tween girls, who are absolutely terrified of penises. And finally, they have a vampire genre for them. So good for them. "

In other news 'raspywilhelmscream' is an absolutely superb name. :)

ETA: goddamnshittyformattingraaaaaaaaaaar