[Rok]

Do you think zombies can die from hunger? If so, then if there are no more people to eat, do you think that they will turn on themselves?

[DarthJoe8]

Rok, on 01 December 2010 - 09:03 PM, said:

Do you think zombies can die from hunger? If so, then if there are no more people to eat, do you think that they will turn on themselves?

No and no. I can't think of a single source where zombies eat for food.

[Dallow]

Depends on what 'rules' you adhere to.

If you are referring to Romero's zombies then no. It is the instinct in one's past life to 'eat'. If you are referring to anything else made post-28 Days Later then yes. The 'infected' can most certainly die of starvation after a certain period of time. Depends on what angle you take it from really. That's if you think 28 Days Later is a zombie movie, that is.

[DarthJoe8]

Dallow, on 01 December 2010 - 09:36 PM, said:

Depends on what 'rules' you adhere to.

If you are referring to Romero's zombies then no. It is the instinct in one's past life to 'eat'. If you are referring to anything else made post-28 Days Later then yes. The 'infected' can most certainly die of starvation after a certain period of time. Depends on what angle you take it from really. That's if you think 28 Days Later is a zombie movie that is.

The infected starving to death is one of the many reasons as to why they aren't zombies. Just sick people, curable sick people...move along...

NaZ Squad!! KaPow!!!

[Trioxin Martini]

Aaaaaand cue DarthJoe!

Haha just missed

[SWAT Zombie]

Funny. I never saw any infected get cured in either movie

So I guess the zombies in Undead aren't zombies because they were cured.

Hey, there's no cure for HIV. Does that mean HIV sufferers are zombies?

Sick people don't run around mauling the uninfected and ignoring the infected. The truly sick usually just lay there and die. Now Carriers, there's a movie about sick people.

And Voodoo zombies can starve to death. I guess they're not zombies either

Sick? You can't get much sicker than having your internal organs non-functional and decay setting in while you stagger around drunkenly, bumping into things.


TaZ Squad moves along when it wants to move along Ka-Renallen!!!

[DarthJoe8]

Voodoo zombies were originally thought to be dead reanimated corpses. We now know that's all BS...or is it?? F voodoo.

Undead had alien mumbo jumbo.

I saw a couple of people who were immune to infection. In fact they found a cure for infection in the mother and boy.
KA-POW!!

[SWAT Zombie]

Yes, indeed. F Voodoo. But it doesn't change the fact that they are zombies just because you and me don't like them. It was their loss of free will that was the focus more so than being dead or not. Death and revival was part of the process of enslavement. And though they may have supposedly "died", they were still in fact living breathing people who can starve to death once they are "revived".

Undead may have had alien mumbo jumbo but they still got cured. Why does the fact that aliens did it invalidate it? Is it because aliens are so unrealistic, as opposed to, you know, dead people getting up and eating the living?

The mother and son weren't cured. They were resistant to the infection. So Scarlet was hoping to find a cure. So was Sarah, Fisher and Logan. Doesn't mean they will. Doesn't mean they won't. Even for Sarah and co. They just failed to find one. Besides that you can't cure viruses. You can vaccinate against them. Just like the zombie virus in Resident Evil. It couldn't be cured but it could be vaccinated against.

Besides all that, cures are a matter of choice for the writers. Zombies can be cured if the writer says they can be. Just because GAR's zombies can't be cured, doesn't mean nobody can do a movie with a cure.

Ka-Reemabduljabbar!!!

[DarthJoe8]

SWAT Zombie, on 02 December 2010 - 05:19 PM, said:

Yes, indeed. F Voodoo. But it doesn't change the fact that they are zombies just because you and me don't like them. It was their loss of free will that was the focus more so than being dead or not. Death and revival was part of the process of enslavement. And though they may have supposedly "died", they were still in fact living breathing people who can starve to death once they are "revived".

Truth be told, we don't know whether voodoo zombies are reanimated dead or if they were just drugged. Lets just not talk about voodoo crap.

Quote

Undead may have had alien mumbo jumbo but they still got cured. Why does the fact that aliens did it invalidate it? Is it because aliens are so unrealistic, as opposed to, you know, dead people getting up and eating the living?

That's this movies angle...I'm fine with it.

Quote

The mother and son weren't cured. They were resistant to the infection. So Scarlet was hoping to find a cure. So was Sarah, Fisher and Logan. Doesn't mean they will. Doesn't mean they won't. Even for Sarah and co. They just failed to find one. Besides that you can't cure viruses. You can vaccinate against them. Just like the zombie virus in Resident Evil. It couldn't be cured but it could be vaccinated against.

I know you see the difference between an undead zombie movie and infected. So far, I've never seen or heard of an undead zombie story where the zeds starved. Infected, starved to DEATH and they didn't get back up.

Quote

Besides all that, cures are a matter of choice for the writers. Zombies can be cured if the writer says they can be. Just because GAR's zombies can't be cured, doesn't mean nobody can do a movie with a cure.

Well of course not. See "Undead". Again, infected are not and never will be a zombie movie to me. One reason is because zombies don't starve. Ka-Pow!!

[SWAT Zombie]

DarthJoe8, on 02 December 2010 - 05:38 PM, said:

Truth be told, we don't know whether voodoo zombies are reanimated dead or if they were just drugged. Lets just not talk about voodoo crap.

My whole reason for talking about Voodoo zombies is to show that being dead is not the be all of being a zombie. I think undeath and loss of free will both play a part in making a zombie.

DarthJoe8, on 02 December 2010 - 05:38 PM, said:

I know you see the difference between an undead zombie movie and infected. So far, I've never seen or heard of an undead zombie story where the zeds starved. Infected, starved to DEATH and they didn't get back up.

DarthJoe8, on 02 December 2010 - 05:38 PM, said:

Well of course not. See "Undead". Again, infected are not and never will be a zombie movie to me. One reason is because zombies don't starve. Ka-Pow!!

So the infected have a limited life. GAR's zombies have a limited life when you look at it. They eventually rot. Why, because they can take no nourishment to rejuvenate their bodies. They eventually starve too. It just takes longer. The same seems to be happening in The Walking Dead (comic) from what I've seen so far (haven't read it for a while). Starving, or wasting away from lack of nutrients (let's face it, that's what they're doing), seems to be a problem for both the infected and the undead.

And you can say that you'll never see the infected as zombies if you like, I'm sure fans of Voodoo thought the same thing about GAR's living dead. But they've become a part of the genre whether the NaZ Squad likes it or not.

"My zombies are dead, 28 Days zombies are not."

Ka-Rrottop!!!

[Dark Gale]

SWAT Zombie, on 02 December 2010 - 04:43 PM, said:

Funny. I never saw any infected get cured in either movie

The only time I remember it happening was in the alternate ending to 28 Days Later, where they cured the girl's infected father by doing a complete blood transfusion between him and Jim. As far as the actual movies go, I don't remember anyone getting cured either. unless you consider death a cure.

[Creeping Death]

If said zombies are dead, than no.

Plain and simple.

[SWAT Zombie]

He's talking about the Rage infected.

But death in the undead obviously isn't a cure but a bullet through the brain is definitely a release. But the same could be said for the infected. Wouldn't be nice to be either type really.

[Creeping Death]

SWAT Zombie, on 02 December 2010 - 06:54 PM, said:

He's talking about the Rage infected.

But death in the undead obviously isn't a cure but a bullet through the brain is definitely a release. But the same could be said for the infected. Wouldn't be nice to be either type really.

People had already covered the 28 Days later ending. :P

[SWAT Zombie]

Creeping Death, on 02 December 2010 - 06:57 PM, said:

People had already covered the 28 Days later ending. :P

Not following you.

[Creeping Death]

SWAT Zombie, on 02 December 2010 - 06:58 PM, said:

Not following you.

Several people already brought up the death of the infected in 28 Days Later, so I didn't really address it.

[DarthJoe8]

SWAT Zombie, on 02 December 2010 - 06:08 PM, said:

My whole reason for talking about Voodoo zombies is to show that being dead is not the be all of being a zombie.

The label of zombie was applied to GARs creature because of the seemingly loss of free will which reminded people of the classical voodoo zombie. We know that GARs creatures aren't really voodoo zombies (the only real zombie) because GARs creature can think and voodoo zombies don't, GARs creature is also undead and voodoo zombies aren't dead so because the infected think and we know that they aren't undead................they end up just being sick.

Quote

I think undeath and loss of free will both play a part in making a zombie.

I agree. Which is one of my issues with thinking zeds.

Quote

So the infected have a limited life. GAR's zombies have a limited life when you look at it. They eventually rot. Why, because they can take no nourishment to rejuvenate their bodies. They eventually starve too. It just takes longer. The same seems to be happening in The Walking Dead (comic) from what I've seen so far (haven't read it for a while). Starving, or wasting away from lack of nutrients (let's face it, that's what they're doing), seems to be a problem for both the infected and the undead.

Undead just don't starve. Dr Frankenstein says so: "It wants me! It wants food! But it has no stomach, can take no nourishment from what it ingests. It's acting on INSTINCT! ". The infected are alive. Without nourishment they starve and die within a few weeks in the movie. In real life they'd last less than a week from lack of water. GARs undead can last for decades. Truth is we don't really know how long but we know it's much longer than typical "rot", our only real knowledge comes from Land otD and we know that's many years after the start of the outbreak and they look pretty fresh.

Quote

And you can say that you'll never see the infected as zombies if you like, I'm sure fans of Voodoo thought the same thing about GAR's living dead. But they've become a part of the genre whether the NaZ Squad likes it or not.

"My zombies are dead, 28 Days zombies are not."

Ka-Rrottop!!!

GARs become an old coot. His creatures aren't even zombies...

Dark Gale, on 02 December 2010 - 06:21 PM, said:

The only time I remember it happening was in the alternate ending to 28 Days Later, where they cured the girl's infected father by doing a complete blood transfusion between him and Jim. As far as the actual movies go, I don't remember anyone getting cured either. unless you consider death a cure.

I saw that as well. They scraped the idea because after establishing that it only takes a drop of fluid to cause infection how do you get every infected cell out of a body?

[SWAT Zombie]

DarthJoe8, on 02 December 2010 - 11:30 PM, said:

The label of zombie was applied to GARs creature because of the seemingly loss of free will which reminded people of the classical voodoo zombie. We know that GARs creatures aren't really voodoo zombies (the only real zombie) because GARs creature can think and voodoo zombies don't, GARs creature is also undead and voodoo zombies aren't dead so because the infected think and we know that they aren't undead................they end up just being sick.

GAR's creatures aren't really zombies because they have nothing to do with Voodoo not because they think. They are corpses that just mysteriously come back to life and eat people. Voodoo zombies are created through toxins and "mysticism" or whatever it actually is the Voodoo shaman/priest/witchdoctor, whatever, is supposed to do. The death part is supposedly to capture their soul or something like that. GAR's undead are just any old corpse that wakes up and gets hungry. Nothing to do with stolen souls and nothing to do with servitude.
However, GAR's undead showed similar behaviours to how Voodoo zombies are perceived so they were given the nickname "zombies" and it stuck. Just like what's happening with the infected. They are showing enough similarities to what became modern "zombies" to also gain that nickname. Simple really.
The infected demonstrate enough violent mindlessness to qualify them. Infectious hordes that mindlessly attack and maul the uninfected. The dad in Weeks stalked his kids. Like an animal would. Instinct. And what did he do when he reached them? He attack them mindlessly. He bit his son and ran directly into gunfire. Doesn't sound too much like thinking to me.

DarthJoe8, on 02 December 2010 - 11:30 PM, said:

I agree. Which is one of my issues with thinking zeds.

What I should have said is undeath and/or loss of will. I don't think both have to be involved necessarily. GAR's thinking zombies have the undead part of it. Infected and Voodoo "slaves" have the loss of will, and in some cases the undead part also. Voodoo zombies that is.

DarthJoe8, on 02 December 2010 - 11:30 PM, said:

Undead just don't starve. Dr Frankenstein says so: "It wants me! It wants food! But it has no stomach, can take no nourishment from what it ingests. It's acting on INSTINCT! ". The infected are alive. Without nourishment they starve and die within a few weeks in the movie. In real life they'd last less than a week from lack of water. GARs undead can last for decades. Truth is we don't really know how long but we know it's much longer than typical "rot", our only real knowledge comes from Land otD and we know that's many years after the start of the outbreak and they look pretty fresh.

No the undead don't just starve in the usual sense. But what happens to them is a different type of starving. Starving is the body breaking down because it is taking no nourishment, whether because of lack of food or some biological condition that affects digestion or whatever else. As Logan said, "it can take no nourishment". Hence it can not regenerate tissue, hence decay. The difference between the infected starving and the undead starving is that the infected will die and stay dead from it sooner because their biological condition isn't the same. The undead have the misfortune of lingering on until, we'd have to assume, the brain crumbles away and they die.
They starve. They just don't starve in the same sort of way.

DarthJoe8, on 02 December 2010 - 11:30 PM, said:

GARs become an old coot. His creatures aren't even zombies...

Nope. And they never truly were. Yet here we all are, referring to them as zombies. Much in the same way that the infected are being called zombies. They, like the living dead, have been included under a certain label in a fictional genre. Why? Because they can be, because it fits and because there's nothing wrong with the widening of the definition of a fictional movie monster.

[DarthJoe8]

SWAT Zombie, on 03 December 2010 - 09:17 AM, said:

No the undead don't just starve in the usual sense. But what happens to them is a different type of starving. Starving is the body breaking down because it is taking no nourishment, whether because of lack of food or some biological condition that affects digestion or whatever else. As Logan said, "it can take no nourishment". Hence it can not regenerate tissue, hence decay. The difference between the infected starving and the undead starving is that the infected will die and stay dead from it sooner because their biological condition isn't the same. The undead have the misfortune of lingering on until, we'd have to assume, the brain crumbles away and they die.
They starve. They just don't starve in the same sort of way.

Dude, enough with the spin. You could get a job in politics or work for a certain new organization... Zombies don't just rot away into nothing because they're "hungry",... You can't starve if you don't need to eat. (consume energy)

[SWAT Zombie]

DarthJoe8, on 05 December 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

Dude, enough with the spin. You could get a job in politics or work for a certain new organization... Zombies don't just rot away into nothing because they're "hungry",... You can't starve if you don't need to eat. (consume energy)

I'm not spinning. I agree, they aren't rotting because they are "hungry". They're rotting because their bodies are not regenerating new tissue because they can't take in new sources of nutrition or energy to replace it with. Hence they are starving.
So whatever causes their reanimation also seems to slow their rate of decay, but decay they still do. It's not that they don't need to consume energy, it's that they can't consume energy. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.