Why so hard to make a zombie movie?

[Nikki_Tikki_Tavi]

@Scumpup

I recently read World War Z, and despite the love for it here, I came away fairly unimpressed. Brooks’ basic idea was an excellent place to start, but he bungled things up in execution.

Agreed. Interesting idea presented badly.

1. He’s a poor writer. All his characters speak in the same voice.

The same boring voice.

2. He knows fuck-all about military tactics and hardware. His explanation of why artillery doesn’t “kill” zombies betrayed total ignorance of how artillery causes casualties. He then piles additional ignorance atop that. If he wanted, for the sake of his plot, to have the military defeated by zombies early on he should have done some very basic homework on what they do, how they do it, and what they use to do it.

As I also know fuck-all about military tactics and hardware, I didn’t question much here, but it does seem a little out there that it took so long for the soldiers to think about aiming for the head. Common sense tells you that when trying to kill something, you aim for the head or the heart.

3. The whole blind martial artist segment set in Japan was just retarded and didn’t belong in a story that is supposed to be a “realistic” description of the world overrun by undead.

I didn’t finish the book, but this was the most ridiculous thing I read in it. So out of tune with the rest of the stories.

I did like the story from the girl who moved north with her family and I thought the interview with the guy who marketed the fake vaccination was an interesting angle. Overall, thumbs down.

[Tristan]

@Scuba_Ben

It seems to me that to eliminate a city that’s gone over to the zombies 100%, a fuel-air explosive or a nuke would kill a zombie as effectively as anything else in the primary blast radius. There’s no kill like overkill.

But that’s only useful in extreme cases, when the heroes are all dead or undead.

Bad idea. This issue is covered in the book “Day by Day Armageddon”. The gov’t, attempting to control the situation, drops giant noisemaking devices in the center of several large cities, drawing the zombies in. Then they drop a nuke.

Sure, it probably destroys a HUGE number of them. But not as many as one would think.

A nuclear bomb does a lot of killing via shockwave and flying debris. Humans take a 2x4 through the torso, and we die. A zombie? Not so much. Plus, “surviving” zombies are no radioactive. This can create a whole other kind of problem for our plucky heroes.

[Ranchoth]

@Scumpup

I recently read World War Z, and despite the love for it here, I came away fairly unimpressed. Brooks’ basic idea was an excellent place to start, but he bungled things up in execution[…]He knows fuck-all about military tactics and hardware. His explanation of why artillery doesn’t “kill” zombies betrayed total ignorance of how artillery causes casualties. He then piles additional ignorance atop that. If he wanted, for the sake of his plot, to have the military defeated by zombies early on he should have done some very basic homework on what they do, how they do it, and what they use to do it.

While I have seen worse than him, I’ll “hear hear” that. The bit where a Comanche helicopter pilot, in desperation, attacks a horde of ghouls by mowing them down with his rotor and only crashes when he hits a car is particularly jarring. That, and the fact that he ressurected a helicopter program that was cancelled several years before the book was written.

Not to mention his idea of high radiation harming zombies by causing instantanious tumors to develop in their brains. Their biologically dead brains, at that. He brings that up in the ZSG, and again in WWZ, written years apart. I think Captain Planet used a better informed depiction of nuclear energy.

Plus, the socioeconomic commentary…I’m an odd duck politically, to begin with, but getting hit in the damn face by messages when trying to read the story doesn’t help anything. Heinlein was more subtle.

@Tristan

A nuclear bomb does a lot of killing via shockwave and flying debris. Humans take a 2x4 through the torso, and we die. A zombie? Not so much. Plus, “surviving” zombies are no radioactive. This can create a whole other kind of problem for our plucky heroes.

Um…heat, fire? Firestorm, even?

[DigitalC]

@Ranchoth

Um…heat, fire? Firestorm, even?

Only if they stay in it long enough to completely cremate themselves, otherwise you just have flaming zombies.

[MrBerious]

@Nikki_Tikki_Tavi

I didn’t finish the book, but this was the most ridiculous thing I read in it. So out of tune with the rest of the stories.

While that whole segment was pretty cringe worthy I think the prize goes to magical underwater zombies that happily walk around the ocean floor(for much longer than 15 minutes even).

Overall I did enjoy the book though and just ignored the stupid stuff.

If someone makes a new zombie movie they should concentrate on the breakdown of society and general panic as people realise “oh shit, zombies!”. That was by far the most compelling stuff in 28 Days and that Dawn of the Dead remake.

[Grumman]

@BigT

Apparently, you’ve never noticed that zombies have pretty capable regeneration abilities.

No, they don’t. Brooks’ zombies cannot heal at all.

@DigitalC

Only if they stay in it long enough to completely cremate themselves, otherwise you just have flaming zombies.

Even if the fire did not destroy the zombie, it could still cause damage that inhibits the zombie’s ability to move or sense prey.

[5-HT]

@Tristan

Bad idea. This issue is covered in the book “Day by Day Armageddon”. The gov’t, attempting to control the situation, drops giant noisemaking devices in the center of several large cities, drawing the zombies in. Then they drop a nuke.

Sure, it probably destroys a HUGE number of them. But not as many as one would think.

A nuclear bomb does a lot of killing via shockwave and flying debris. Humans take a 2x4 through the torso, and we die. A zombie? Not so much. Plus, “surviving” zombies are no radioactive. This can create a whole other kind of problem for our plucky heroes.

I thought I was the only one on earth to have read Day by Day Armageddon.

On top of this problem, you have the scenario presented in Return of the Living Dead. In that case, the zombies were caused by a toxic contamination and when the military nuked them, it caused smoke and ash that lead to zombie spreading rain.

[5-HT]

@MrBerious

While that whole segment was pretty cringe worthy I think the prize goes to magical underwater zombies that happily walk around the ocean floor(for much longer than 15 minutes even).

I don’t recall them being magical in any way. What would stop them from doing that? Sure, natural features would block them at some places, but it seemed like they mostly just went in the water in one place and came up somewhere else, not necessarily circumnavigated the globe.

[Ranchoth]

@Grumman

Even if the fire did not destroy the zombie, it could still cause damage that inhibits the zombie’s ability to move or sense prey.

Indeed. I had an old thread on the subject of zombie flame injuries, which even the greatly missed Gabriella weighed in on. As noted there, even fire damage tha doesn’t reduce the ghoul to ashes could easily leave the creature blind, unable to smell (er…detect odors, I mean. It’s gonna smell), and with no fingers. Much less of a threat, even at that.

Personally, though, I thought this question really needs some experimental research—something along the lines of the galvanic work of Giovanni Aldini and Andrew Ure. (Although one could/should probably substitute non-human body parts. Like a big cow leg, or something.)

[Terrifel]

To fault Max Brooks for describing ineffective zombie-killing techniques is to miss the point of the book, I think. The zombies destroyed the military not because zombies are magically powerful or capable of regeneration-- quite the opposite, they are ridiculously easy to evade and destroy. The military lost because the top brass were idiots who ordered their troops into a situation without bothering to think it through.

Brooks specifically addresses this in the account of the Battle of Yonkers, when he observes that the military could have simply positioned their men on rooftops and suffered zero casualties. He notes that effective anti-zombie ammunition such as flechette rounds could have been used, but weren’t. And when the military eventually does realize their error and resorts to heavy bombing, it’s too late to prevent the outbreak or even get their own men clear.

Brooks wasn’t trying to describe zombies as unrealistically difficult to kill with normal weapons. He was describing a situation where people in high places screw up and make stupid choices. At the time the book was written, this was highly topical.

[Ranchoth]

@Terrifel

To fault Max Brooks for describing ineffective zombie-killing techniques is to miss the point of the book, I think.

I’m criticizing the execution of the book. You don’t have to be a complete pedant to point out that you have trouble accepting the story because the monster’s zipper is showing.

Though that sort of thing does tend to reflect on the point of the tale itself, I suppose. The audience’s perception of the point, and it’s validity, at least.

[Terrifel]

@Ranchoth

I’m criticizing the execution of the book. You don’t have to be a complete pedant to point out that you have trouble accepting the story because the monster’s zipper is showing.

Though that sort of thing does tend to reflect on the point of the tale itself, I suppose. The audience’s perception of the point, and it’s validity, at least.

I suppose, although it seems to me that the points you specify as problematic were addressed by Brooks. It doesn’t matter if fire destroys a zombie’s eyes and nose, because they don’t track by sight or scent. How do they track? It’s left a mystery; all we know is that they are able to detect living creatures infallibly, even through such barriers as a submarine hull. They’re zombies; we don’t know how they work.

I seem to recall that the radiation weapon was presented in the text as a device that explicitly didn’t work effectively (at least in WWZ), along with a number of other quick-fix technological solutions that are investigated and abandoned. Obviously as the book progresses, the survivors aren’t killing the zombies with insta-tumor guns. They’re zombies; we don’t know how they work.

The erroneous presence of a Comanche helicopter might reasonably be a realism deal-breaker for you. I hadn’t noticed that mistake.

[Grumman]

@Terrifel

How do they track? It’s left a mystery; all we know is that they are able to detect living creatures infallibly, even through such barriers as a submarine hull.

There are these things called “ears”, which people and zombies can use to sense people, even through an opaque solid.

Unless, of course, they have been deafened by the overpressure caused by a nuclear weapon.

[Terrifel]

@Grumman

There are these things called “ears”, which people and zombies can use to sense people, even through an opaque solid.

Unless, of course, they have been deafened by the overpressure caused by a nuclear weapon.

Do they ever expand on this, though? I recall at least one incident where a zombie without any flesh on its head nonetheless detects the approach of a human (I guess that doesn’t rule out the eardrum remaining intact). Survivors also attempt to mimic the zombies with no luck; so the zombies must somehow be able to detect heartbeat or respiration from a distance, which is pretty impressive to say the least.

I don’t recall the zombies homing in on just any random sound; they only seem to respond to living creatures or the groans of another zombie.

[Ranchoth]

@Terrifel

I suppose, although it seems to me that the points you specify as problematic were addressed by Brooks. It doesn’t matter if fire destroys a zombie’s eyes and nose, because they don’t track by sight or scent. How do they track? It’s left a mystery; all we know is that they are able to detect living creatures infallibly, even through such barriers as a submarine hull. They’re zombies; we don’t know how they work.

With all due respect, that’s a cop out. For a story that isn’t simply pure allegory, and is trying for some semblance of realism.

I seem to recall that the radiation weapon was presented in the text as a device that explicitly didn’t work effectively (at least in WWZ), along with a number of other quick-fix technological solutions that are investigated and abandoned. Obviously as the book progresses, the survivors aren’t killing the zombies with insta-tumor guns. They’re zombies; we don’t know how they work.

IIRC, in the Survival Guide, it’s presented as a theoretical method of zombie killing; in WWZ, a character speculates on the effects of radiation on zombies vs humans, noting a living person’s brain would become riddled with “multiple, expanding tumors.” A character making such a statement is one thing: mistakes or misunderstandings go nicely towards character development. When the nit comes in “word of god” statements from the author, it’s cringe inducing. Not all little technical mistakes are instant deal-breakers, of course. But sometimes they aren’t so little; and sometimes lots of little ones pile up. And it can start to reflect badly on the author’s grasp of the subject as a whole.

[Tristan]

@Ranchoth

Um…heat, fire? Firestorm, even?

Heat would be essentially meaningless to a foe that doesn’t feel pain, and thus is not incapacitated by massive blistering or even third degree burns as long as they don’t severe tendons or obliterate major muscle groupings enough to immobilize.

Fire, as noted, would make for a walking molotov cocktail, setting fire to the things around him and making a general nusiance, but until the muscles/tendons are destroyed enough to incapacitate, you still have a brain biting pussbag waiting to enjoy some Ranchoth tartar.

Firestorm will help this along of course, by making a hotter fire.

Nobody is saying that a nuke blast won’t destroy a large amount of zombies, and long term destroy more (burning/collapsing buildings, etc.), but the pressure wave will be far less damaging to our undead friends than to their living breathing analogs. Same with the radiation.

As for testing, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is a young man from a board created in support of the Day by Day Armageddon book who attempted to bite into a roast through denim, to put to rest the age old question of if a human could actually do damage the way shown in so many MANY movies and books.

He broke several teeth, but I question his original premise, personally.

[Ranchoth]

Ah, Tristan…if I may ask: what are you smoking, and can I get some before flu season?

A zombie close enough to a nuclear blast to be set on fire isn’t going to be a “walking molotov” threat to anyone. For the simple reason that it’s any humans (or buildings) close enough to encounter one will have been killed by the blast themselves.

A lack of a fear of fire or pain might actually be beneficial—with a big, pretty bonfire making an ungodly roar, and a 40 mph gale at his back, a ghoul might actually walk into a firestorm. And as the thread I’ve cited earlier noted, in one medical examiner’s opinion, a body can be burned to physical immobility in even an ordinary house fire in about half an hour.

As for the pressure wave…well, a 1.2 megaton blast (that’s the highest listed yield setting of an American B-83 strategic bomb), everything within an almost two mile radius is going to be hit by an 20 psi overpressure blast wave. That’s about 500 mph, by my numbers. I’ve seen figures claiming that somewhere between 10 and 20, limbs start getting blown off. At five miles, it’s about 5 psi—about 160 mph. Now, according to the handy old nuclear bomb effects computer, that’d be enough to fling a man in an open field at 25 ft/second, enough to cause a skull fracture—which Brooks himself lists as the minimum required force to re-kill a zombie brain—on impact with a hard surface. (I’m leaving out debris injury—either to the brain, or simply dismemberment by flying debris.)

At this distance, a target would also absorb a bit under 50 calories per square cm of thermal energy; according to one source, 19 cal/sq cm is enough to burn dry pine. Denim ignites at 27 cal/sq cm. At 10 miles, a target would only absorb a bit under 10 cal/sq cm. Not quite enough to ignite clothing, but enough to ignite newspaper, and easily leave a human with a 2nd degree burn. The possible effects on undead are somewhat less certain—I can’t find exact details on what kind of energies are needed for flash blinding, or permanent eye injury. And on the whole the process would probably be more analogous to cooking, or drying. Perhaps a chef would be able to weigh in!

For the record, according to my numbers, a nuclear radiation exposure 5000 rems (50 sieverts) is required to cause fatal neurological effects. There would only be a 500 rem/5 sievert exposure at 2 miles from a 1.2 MT airburst.

On top of everything, we have to consider the circumstances of the weapon’s deployment. If your strategy is to lure the zombies into the center of a city with noisemakers, THEN nuke them, they’re going to be heavily concentrated, much more than a populated human target. Probably more so than normal living people would would ever group, even in a large mob, riot, or outdoor concert. That’s going to reduce the number of merely “wounded” zombies even further. I mean, look at this blast map of New York. Or San Francisco. How many ghouls are going to cram themselves into the primary kill areas alone, with a big enough lure? They’re not going to wander off, flee to the countryside, or care about trampling other zombies (or being trampled) to try and get to the pretty noise.

In other words…stir-fried zack.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

See, this is EXACTLY the kind of feedback I need for planning & logistics purposes before I unleash my zombie hordes on the rest of youse guys.

[Scupper]

@Scumpup

Brooks claimed artillery didn’t kill zombies because they don’t have functioning circulatory and respiratory systems to be damaged by the shock wave of the explosion. Apparently Brooks is completely unaware of shell fragments aka shrapnel, which are actually the chief wounding mechanism. He’s also apparently unaware of the clever things modern artillery can do, like airbursts, to get the most out of those fragments. It’s a given that he’s never heard of cool things like beehive rounds that would be just super for use against a zombie hoard.
His knowledge of military tactics and hardware make the average GI Joe episode look like a training film.

Shrapnel was specifically mentioned. It killed zombies it hit in the head – that just wasn’t enough of them.

Beehive rounds were mentioned indirectly – the army character describing the scenario mentions canister rounds and bemoans the fact that the tanks had so few of them.

The point of the chapter, though, was not that the military could not have won the engagement, or that the military had no weapons with which to fight it, it’s simply that the Battle of Yonkers was so mismanaged that the Army gave up virtually every advantage it had against the zombie horde.

For me, it was the best chapter in the book, albeit one that required considerable suspension of disbelief.

[Some_FNG]

Sorry to derail the thread, but here’s some undead ignorance to be fought.

Why do zombies prefer brains? Is it a requirement for their continued existence ala vampires and fresh blood?

Ok, so now you’re undead. What’s next? Does one shamble about in search of a tasty morsel until destroyed by a handy-with-weapons hero (preferably a hot girl in leather), or is there some other factor that limits the useful lifespan of the zombie? Stated another way, how long can a zombie exist given a reasonable diet of fresh brains and a lack of heroes?

Given an uninterrupted lifespan, is there any evolution from zombie to Something Else? Can they claw and bite their way up through the ranks to vie for the Zombie Lord position or do they just remain zombies?