How plausible is Dawn of the Dead?

In article <5acdd75a.0401151338.17bf42e5.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>,
volkischlemiel.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (volkischlemiel) wrote:

> But, you're assuming that all people do is run. Wouldn't people unite
> with baseball bats, guns, and blow the zombies away. Humans are not
> only prey but predators. We do fight back.

Movies, like other stories, often have things called "themes" that give
them a kind of depth. One of the "themes" Romero was exploring
(according to him, at least) was the extent to which people will, and
sometimes must, abandon their humanity in order to survive. Romero's
zombies aren't angry or otherwise emotional, they're acting on instinct
and they happen to be the bodies of people their victims often love. In
the opening of Dawn, the apartment complex is full of zombies because
the loved ones have tried to avoid killing them (sic) out of a misguided
sense of respect, dignity, whatever - humantiy. The military (in this
case, SWAT) comes in and dispassionately dispatches the zombies, but the
strain of the situation is already causing those professionals to show
very poor judgement.

Your mom's sick. She has Mad Cow Disease, and she's not only going to
die but she's going to infect anybody who gets so much as a little of
her blood or spit on them. There's no cure, no hope, and she's going to
suffer.

You gonna put that bullet in her head yourself? Now, or are you gonna
wait a while, see if there isn't something that can be done? How many
people - perhaps even yourself - are going to be infected by her while
you mull it over?

> In the Thing a few guys went up against a far more formidable enemy
> and gave as good as they got.

Which is why that was a different kind of story. The Thing is a scary
alien in a military base, not the mother of some of the people charged
with killing it.

--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary

Steven
 >> Stay informed about: How plausible is Dawn of the Dead? 

> The dead are getting up and killing. The people they kill are
getting
> up and killing. It adds up pretty quickly.

...but as anyone who has watched Return Of The Living Dead will know,
the zombies are after the 'Braaaaaaaaains' of their soon-to-be
victims.. If they manage to eat said brains, their victims cannot come
back to life (according to NOTLD).. Or something?

Maybe.
 >> Stay informed about: How plausible is Dawn of the Dead? 

In article <nZyNb.10817$OA3.3206106@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>,
"kowalski" <jamie.dammes RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote:

> > The dead are getting up and killing. The people they kill are
> > getting up and killing. It adds up pretty quickly.
>
> ..but as anyone who has watched Return Of The Living Dead will know,
> the zombies are after the 'Braaaaaaaaains' of their soon-to-be
> victims.. If they manage to eat said brains, their victims cannot come
> back to life (according to NOTLD).. Or something?
>
> Maybe.

Different movie, different rules.

--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary

Steven
 >> Stay informed about: How plausible is Dawn of the Dead? 

SpaceGirl wrote:

> Yeah because zombies rising from the grave to eat brains is oh so plausible
> in the first place.


It happened to Dickpurgis's family.
 >> Stay informed about: How plausible is Dawn of the Dead? 

Uhh, Tony...there aren't any flesh-eating zombies. Ergo, it is not plausible
at all, nor was it meant to be.

Welcome to the real world, however brief your visit may be.
 >> Stay informed about: How plausible is Dawn of the Dead? 

volkischlemiel wrote:

> Night of the Living Dead is plausible because a small group of people
> were isolated in some small town somehere.
>
> But, how in the hell can zombies take over entire communities?
> What is the deathrate among 100,000 people? How can slow moving
> zombies so easily outnumber and overpower humans with their weaponry?

I don't know. The last time I went to the shopping mall, it all seemed so
plausible.
 >> Stay informed about: How plausible is Dawn of the Dead? 

Geometric progression...he kills two friends, and they each kill two people,
and so on, and so on, and so on....

Romero took into consideration the idea of urban sprawl and crowding when he
considered his second film (from what I understood from fanzine readings and
the like).

Let's look at my home city of Chicago. In your average 6-flat apartment
building, there are approximately 25 people.
An infected person dies overnight and bites at least two people in his
apartment. They, along with the original, will turn and kill the people who
stay to see after them...note, they haven't caught on that the dead are
rising and in this case, they might get the doctor or paramedics as well.
And if they are taken to the hosipital, then it's a feeding frenzy.

Next we have attacks on the homeless (re. Skipp and Spector). They have the
freedom to move where they will...one zombified guy walks up to a cute
suburban couple and at the best case scenario, one of them gets a
scratch...that's all it takes. Goodbye, Schaumburg.

The crowding of the cities is the key to it getting out of control. Now, I
just mentioned Chicago. Lets try that scenario again in say...Hong Kong or
Calcutta.

KragShot
"volkischlemiel" <volkischlemiel DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5acdd75a.0401150427.72279d5d@posting.google.com...
> Night of the Living Dead is plausible because a small group of people
> were isolated in some small town somehere.
>
> But, how in the hell can zombies take over entire communities?
> What is the deathrate among 100,000 people? How can slow moving
> zombies so easily outnumber and overpower humans with their weaponry?
>
> And, Day of the Dead, forget it. The interesting thing about the first
> two was no truly satisfying explanation was offered. But, Day of Dead
> tries to spell out the science of zombery and it's just silly.
>
 >> Stay informed about: How plausible is Dawn of the Dead?