You need to watch the original Dawn Of The Dead as this exact thing is covered in the first scene of the movie, people are hoarding zombified loved ones inside a apartment building in the basement. They are unsure what will be done with their “sick” loved ones should they turn them over to the disposal squads, feel they could be cured, and perhaps correctly notice enforcement is concentrating on poor people(class and racial tensions start boiling over).
This was part of the very first zombie apocalypse film
A number of these are covered in the Zombie Survival Guide: zombie flesh is toxic, zombies freeze during the winter but thaw in the spring etc. But it really doesn’t matter: the zombie apocalypse may be over very quickly, but that’s only good if humanity can sufficiently survive it.
And he has clearly never seen Stacy or Porn of the Dead
And is running for reelection?
This answers a question Saint George (Romero) never really did cover in his gospels – the apocolyptic outbreak starts by some Siberian eating a partly thawed zombie mammoth!!!
Nazi-made zombies actually prefer it but I’m not sure that the diseased versions do. Our only evidence is Land of the Dead which seems to contradict earlier scripture.
Romero’s original vision agreed with the article writer, at least until he realized how lucrative a zombie apocalypse movie franchise could be.
The original Night of the Living Dead was just that. A single night of hysteria and violence as all dead bodies (not just ones bitten) came back to life and started attacking people. By morning, the guys with pickup trucks and rifles were well on their way to eliminating the zombie menace and restoring order.
NOTLD isn’t really a zombie apocalypse movie, you’ll notice the zombies don’t even act much like zombies as we know them(they eat bugs and mice, use tools) they are more like some kind of ghoul.
Meh. I put this in the “Lightsabers couldn’t really exist because …” category. I mean, no shit, it’s a movie. The only reason people don’t recognize zombie apocalypses as science fiction is because most circumstances of everyday life are kept the same. Only the zombie itself is fictional. Of course it makes no sense; most fictional characters don’t.
That was mostly my point. Romero didn’t write a Zombie Apocalypse movie because under the rules he came up with for zombies, an apocalypse didn’t really make sense. It still doesn’t. You’ll notice that almost no zombie apocalypse fiction focuses on the apocalypse part. It’s all post-apocalypse. The few exceptions (like the Dawn of the Dead remake with its fast zombies) tend to have a major departure from Romero’s original premise.
Zombies as we know them are based pretty heavily on Romero’s original vision. Eating non-human animals is reasonably common in modern zombie fiction, and I think all of Romero’s zombies have used tools in a limited fashion, as part of their weak memories of life. In Night, the little girl uses some kind of stabbing weapon, in Dawn, I believe the newscasters at the beginning are reporting that zombies use bludgeons (and there’s the whole bit about them flocking to the mall out of vague memory, in Day, of course, Bub fires the gun, and in Land, one of them uses a jackhammer.
I don’t know that either minor tool use or eating non-human animals makes a substantive difference when discussing whether a Zombie Apocalypse is feasible under the standard zombie premise. It’s not like zombies that don’t use tools at all and don’t eat non-human animals are more likely to take over the world.
