I saw the movie this last Saturday. One thing I didn’t see addressed in this thread is a scene early in the movie where Gerry is fighting with a zombie who bleeds into Gerry’s mouth. I guess this means that if ingested, a zombie’s bodily fluid doesn’t affect humans but a bite injecting it’s fluids will infect humans?
Seems to be bite only.
And a bit anywhere on the body will turn you in 10-12 seconds but it sprints at the end as it won’t have left your hand yet in the five seconds.
There was a quote early on in the movie that ‘not everyone turned’ - you can assume one of two things -
a) the dog was right to bark at her - she was now a carrier -
b) Gerry was correct that quickly severing the hand prevented the spread.
I’ll go with (a) and Gerry has a false positive.
What line was there early on that not everybody turned?
When they first got to the carrier there was a shot of a solider on the phone with someone asking if there were any observed cases of someone bitten but not turning. But it was a question and we didn’t hear the answer.
I recall a line that specifically stated it - that x percent ‘didn’t turn’ - being told to Gerry. The soldier on the phone may have just been gathering data on that occurance/etc. It was in that act of the film - as the UN guy was briefing Gerry.
I could be wrong - but I do recall the line.
Yeah, I recall that line, too. Are we supposed to assume that Gerry is an immune, or that getting blood in his mouth wasn’t enough to transmit the disease?
I assume that ‘ingestion’ is not a proper transmitter, while breaking skin/bite is.
Maybe since they went with the ‘rabies’ connection, its a saliva thing and not a blood thing.
Here’s a review on the CBC site.
The postscript note:
Saw the movie this weekend. Treatment of zombies like some sort of a liquid was neat. The near-complete faithlessness to the book was not.
For some reason, it didn’t occur to the guys who made 28 Days Later to throw in similar lampshading. Get exposed to “rage” and - bam - you’re a zoombie in under a minute.
I really didn’t care for the supposed weakness of the virus- it didn’t make much sense. Why would the virus care whether it infected terminally ill victims? And really, Pitt didn’t really have much evidence that being terminally ill was the solution, anyway- all he saw was a handful of people who cowered helplessly or moved slower than the other humans.
How exactly was Zack supposed to detect these non-victims? It’s kind of hard to smell someone when you’re sprinting at them at ninety miles an hour, so scent is right out. Wouldn’t it be safer to bite first and ask questions later? And hey, if the virus can infect a victim in twelve seconds, even a guy on his deathbed might be able to bite at least one more person.
Honestly, my impression was just that the zombies preferentially attacked fleeing or attacking humans. It certainly makes more sense- healthy victims run away or flee, so it’s easier to pick off the slow and helpless after you bitten everyone else.
That kinds made me wonder about the anthill-like climbing of the Israeli wall. I mean, regardless of how mindlessly angry one can get, you’re still made of human flesh and bone. If someone tries building a human pyramid a hundred feet tall, the humans on the bottom are going to get crushed, and I don’t mean just trampled or smothered, I mean physically squished to a semi-liquid state. And it’s not like they’re cooperating or bracing themselves optimally - the zoombies clawing their way to the top would find it similar to trying to climb a hill made of porridge.
But it looks cool, anyway.
I figured it would be some kind of predator-movement thing, like the disease jumped to humans from cats or something. Just lie still and let the zombie bat at you a little, before it gets bored and moves on.
Then lead zombies into mass killing fields by using laser pointers.
I do remember the line about a small percentage of victims being bitten but not turning - but I assumed those victims still died and failed to re-animate.
I hope the sequel shows more of the reconquest. Then I might get my catacombs on screen.
I remember a similar line, but I don’t think they said “bitten”. I think we can assume that it was actually just a small percentage of the population that didn’t turn - because they were terminally ill and were never bitten in the first place.
Just out of curiosity, why would that ending be bad? Less of a resolution? Not a happy ending?
It was my impression that Gerry spit it out. Nobody else got that impression?
Nitpick: Korea is in East Asia, not Southeast Asia.
IIRC, the first nine all agreed, after hearing the word “zombie” in regard to the Indian case, that it could not possibly be an actual zombie. This 10th man acted on the assumption that it was a real zombie and started checking. He discovered enough to convince everyone that it really was a zombie they were talking about. And as the CIA agent in South Korea said, they didn’t build the walls completely from scratch but rather kicked into high gear and finished several wall projects that had supposedly been in the making for millennia.
Probably both but more because it would have been even more of a Non ending than what we did get. At least the ending we did get had some sort of conclusion with Gerry reuniting with his family.
Also, while I don’t dislike dark movies, the amount of misery in the original third act and ending seemed just gratuitous to me.
Although I knew he was in Korea when he was told that information, for some incomprehensible reason, I believed the events being portrayed happened in like Thailand or somewhere. I know this makes no sense at all.