Zombie Talk: Gruesome, Gory and Grabby

[NurseGiGi]

I think Nashville hit the nail on the head when he said the writers for Daryl went out for pizza and never came back.  Daryl is now like every other character I've seen Norman Reedus play.  He's too cool for school, he has his Harley and his cigarettes (even in the ZA) and just kind of sits around all emo while his hair gets darker and dirtier.  When I saw the Comic Com video of him making his entrance on that damn Harley I knew his character had jumped the shark.  Can you imagine how the rest of the cast feels while watching that shit go on?

 

Anyway, I only watched about 10 minutes of last week's episode and I don't really have any interest in watching the rest.  Maybe I just need a break from it for a little while and can binge watch later.  Or maybe I'm full of shit and will watch Sunday nights episode like I always do.

 

I just had a thought, though.  What if Glen's death scene was a fake out and Daryl instead gets knocked off the motorcycle and eaten by that herd of walkers because they're resentful that he smells worse than they do.  It could happen.

[AngelaHunter]

Not only does the show need hope but it needs a little levity.

 

Amen to that! Dark, dramatic shows like  Dexter, 6 Feet Under and The Sopranos had moments of humour so laugh-out-loud hilarious they would put to shame any so-called sitcom. Some comedy lulls the audience and makes the brutality/deaths/drama all the more shocking when they occur.

 

Yes, even in an apocalypse, people would still find something to laugh about. Humans need that release.  No one wants to watch anything that is unrelentingly grim and deadly serious.

[Nashville]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has Daryl not had a comic line since "We brought dinner"...?

[maystone]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has Daryl not had a comic line since "We brought dinner"...?

 

I thought his reaction to Carol's suburban housewife disguise was pretty funny. Come to think of it, a lot of his humor comes from him and Carol riffing off each other. That's what's missing: throw Carol and Daryl together again.

[AngelaHunter]

He's too cool for school, he has his Harley and his cigarettes (even in the ZA)

 

Sort of like a shaggy, post-apocalyptic Fonz.  I miss the days of,  "C'mon people. Am I only one Zen around here?"

[JBody]

Hello Zombie Talk Thread.  I just saw something on reddit whilst looking for the hilarious TWD photo recaps (couldnae find, dammit). 

 

The idea is, a giant hamster wheel turbine for zombies = infinite electricity.

 

Skippy the Hamster does his thing and powers a night light:

 

Possible?  Someone else wrote that zombies are an infinite power source and break physics since they can walk without any input of energy.

 

So would the giant hamster wheel turbine work?  Just think what could've been with the quarry walkers instead of Rick's brilliant plan to move them 20 miles somewhere else.

 

 

Yes I'm at work. 

[Bongo Fury]

Z Nation had zombies pushing a wheel a few episodes back. 

[fawadahmed087]

I Dont think so they are gruesome gory & grabby, they are zombies and they haven't any sense to think about how to treat people.

[Jel]

That brings up a good point. Why aren't the walkers' gums and teeth decaying? I'd think on the first chomp that their teeth would just fall out or break off.

This is the biggest physical credibility problem (in an incredible world) for two reasons: 1) Living flesh would not come off in easy chunks  and 2) Advanced periodontal disease. Those zombie teeth would definitely come out in a big bite like that. .

 

It also bugs me that every zombie snack just stands there while and screams they are being eaten -- never so much as a flinch and never any fight back.  

[AngelaHunter]

It also bugs me that every zombie snack just stands there while and screams they are being eaten -- never so much as a flinch and never any fight back.

 

I carped about that ages ago! Yep, when a zombie sneaks up on you in the woods, you must stand stock-still, arms at your sides and just scream as loud as you can. Simple, right?

[Jel]

I carped about that ages ago! Yep, when a zombie sneaks up on you in the woods, you must stand stock-still, arms at your sides and just scream as loud as you can. Simple, right?

Yes, the rules of zombie engagement: you can fight like a maniac right up to and until you get bitten-- spoiler if you haven't seen all the epis yet --

even Glen did it when he only appeared to be eaten, but they wanted us to think he was.  Even scrappy, scrappy Glen just screamed.  

[Ohwell]

Other than Carl, when is the last time someone was bitten/eaten by a zombie?  The zombies are losing and I don't like it, dammit! 

[WalkerTalker]

7 hours ago, OoohMaggie said:

Ohhh Moneypenny!

Negan should have been kissed by Lucille. Each member of Team Rick should have kissed his face with the ugly stick, a.k.a. Lucille. No ifs,ands, or buts about it, he should be dead!

2 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Other than Carl, when is the last time someone was bitten/eaten by a zombie?  The zombies are losing and I don't like it, dammit! 

I always thought if the animals could have become infected, and or turned too, It would have made it more interesting. The impact on the food supply would have really made it survival of the fittest, smartest, and most armed. 

[OoohMaggie]

12 hours ago, WalkerTalker said:

I always thought if the animals could have become infected, and or turned too, It would have made it more interesting. The impact on the food supply would have really made it survival of the fittest, smartest, and most armed. 

One major complaint levelled at the show was that they chose the wrong type of walker, instead of the slow, shuffling, easily avoided type we have now, we could have had the 28 Days version, extremely deadly and exciting to watch.

Packs of Zombie dogs able to run as per normal would be one way to get some excitement and threat back in the show, a Bit late now alas.

[WalkerTalker]

2 hours ago, OoohMaggie said:

One major complaint levelled at the show was that they chose the wrong type of walker, instead of the slow, shuffling, easily avoided type we have now, we could have had the 28 Days version, extremely deadly and exciting to watch.

Packs of Zombie dogs able to run as per normal would be one way to get some excitement and threat back in the show, a Bit late now alas.

Actually, now that you mention it, we don't need za dogs. No more family pets. No more vets giving rabie shots.  Dogs should have converted back to pack animals. Running like wolves,attacking,and feeding at will. Also, we should have seen more zoo animals in the city of Atlanta. The walkers wouldn't be able to catch and kill all of them. Things that make you go Mmm, lol. 

[Nashville]

3 hours ago, OoohMaggie said:

One major complaint levelled at the show was that they chose the wrong type of walker, instead of the slow, shuffling, easily avoided type we have now, we could have had the 28 Days version, extremely deadly and exciting to watch.

Packs of Zombie dogs able to run as per normal would be one way to get some excitement and threat back in the show, a Bit late now alas.

Only one problem with that approach, though: no way CDB would’ve lasted a week.  Shortest damn GN - and TV series - run in history.  ;>

 

47 minutes ago, WalkerTalker said:

Actually, now that you mention it, we don't need za dogs. No more family pets. No more vets giving rabie shots.  Dogs should have converted back to pack animals. Running like wolves,attacking,and feeding at will. Also, we should have seen more zoo animals in the city of Atlanta. The walkers wouldn't be able to catch and kill all of them. Things that make you go Mmm, lol. 

One of the problems with the entire franchise ultimately being based upon the pock-faced pubescent musings of a young Bobby Kirkman, who’d rather stiffen up the sheets in his room dreaming up Negan things than going outside and interacting with the Real World: his total unfamiliarity with animals.  This is the same guy who thinks horses can’t outrun walkers, remember?  :P

[Smad]

6 hours ago, OoohMaggie said:

One major complaint levelled at the show was that they chose the wrong type of walker, instead of the slow, shuffling, easily avoided type we have now, we could have had the 28 Days version, extremely deadly and exciting to watch.

28 days doesn't have Zombies. Why are they always lumped in with actual Zombies? Zombies are people who died and came back to life. In 28 Days it's people infected with a virus that makes them go into hyper rage or something. The very fact that these 'zombies' die very fast due to lack of food/water proves that point.

And the show used to have those Zombies early on. The Zombies in the first Season and beginning of the second had intelligence about them (climbing ladders/fences, using stones to break windows etc.) and some were actually fast. It changed in S2 probably because they knew they would put their cast against them a lot and them surviving against 'capable' zombies all the time would be unbelievable. Especially in light of the fact that they knew their characters were dumb as a post, so them surviving at all was bordering on parody. Better slow down those zombies.

[Gobi]

12 minutes ago, Smad said:

28 days doesn't have Zombies. Why are they always lumped in with actual Zombies? Zombies are people who died and came back to life. In 28 Days it's people infected with a virus that makes them go into hyper rage or something. The very fact that these 'zombies' die very fast due to lack of food/water proves that point.

And the show used to have those Zombies early on. The Zombies in the first Season and beginning of the second had intelligence about them (climbing ladders/fences, using stones to break windows etc.) and some were actually fast. It changed in S2 probably because they knew they would put their cast against them a lot and them surviving against 'capable' zombies all the time would be unbelievable. Especially in light of the fact that they knew their characters were dumb as a post, so them surviving at all was bordering on parody. Better slow down those zombies.

The remake of Dawn of the Dead (a rare good remake) had fast zombies. TPTB have said in interviews that they are showing the zombies decaying over time, which explains why they are more rotted and less agile. But then, aren't any new zombies being created? If not, the za isn't going to last very long.

[OoohMaggie]

4 hours ago, WalkerTalker said:

now that you mention it, we don't need za dogs.

The thing with a Zombie dog is that any bite would end up being fatal, rather than just a chance of picking up Rabies or a general infection. That would ramp up the tension, especially if they have to use up close and personal bladed weapons, it would also mean a lot more Hershel type on the spot amputations. All I want is more action and danger, don’t care where it comes from.

[Nashville]

1 hour ago, OoohMaggie said:

The thing with a Zombie dog is that any bite would end up being fatal, rather than just a chance of picking up Rabies or a general infection. That would ramp up the tension, especially if they have to use up close and personal bladed weapons, it would also mean a lot more Hershel type on the spot amputations. All I want is more action and danger, don’t care where it comes from.

...maybe.  :)  The good thing about ZV-infected animals would be, the writers can have pretty damn wide latitude in how they want the ZV to act.  Virii in the process of cross-species transmission don’t have to play by any rules; they can mutate, become more/less/non-virulent, and/or totally change their attack methods and effects upon an infected host.  Picture a mutated ZV where an animal bite doesn’t necessarily immediately kill or zombiefy you, but instead introduces something else.  A slow necrotic rot, maybe, or a Jekyl-and-Hyde-like brain infection similar to malaria which periodically sends infected hosts into brief-but-intense homocidal rages - of which the infected have zero memory in their non-rage cycle periods.  In short, a whole other world of possibilities bounded only by the imagination.  ;)

 

1 hour ago, Smad said:

28 days doesn't have Zombies. Why are they always lumped in with actual Zombies? Zombies are people who died and came back to life. In 28 Days it's people infected with a virus that makes them go into hyper rage or something. The very fact that these 'zombies' die very fast due to lack of food/water proves that point.

Uhhh, I dunno - maybe because they’re formerly normal humans infected with a virus which turns them into homicidal cannibalistic creatures whose sole reason for existence is to rip you to shreds, kill you, and eat you (and not necessarily in that order)?  ;>

Your distinction is 100% correct in a technical sense and absolutely meaningless in a practical sense, but I’ll make you a deal.  If you can produce so much as ONE clip of a 28DL victim whose last words upon being attacked are, “AT LEAST THEY’RE NOT ALREADY DEAD...!!!”, then I’ll concede your distinction as meaningful.  :D

Edited September 10, 2018 by Nashville

[WalkerTalker]

3 hours ago, Smad said:

28 days doesn't have Zombies. Why are they always lumped in with actual Zombies? Zombies are people who died and came back to life. In 28 Days it's people infected with a virus that makes them go into hyper rage or something. The very fact that these 'zombies' die very fast due to lack of food/water proves that point.

And the show used to have those Zombies early on. The Zombies in the first Season and beginning of the second had intelligence about them (climbing ladders/fences, using stones to break windows etc.) and some were actually fast. It changed in S2 probably because they knew they would put their cast against them a lot and them surviving against 'capable' zombies all the time would be unbelievable. Especially in light of the fact that they knew their characters were dumb as a post, so them surviving at all was bordering on parody. Better slow down those zombies.

World War Z zombies would have lit the fire under everyone's pert little butt. Start with fast zombies. Progress to slow zombies. But, as they start slowing down, they get smarter like the Z-Nation zombie. In Z-Nation the zombie is evolving and changing. That gives the show more flexibility on storylines, and character development. 

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, Nashville said:

One of the problems with the entire franchise ultimately being based upon the pock-faced pubescent musings sweaty fantasies of a young Bobby Kirkman, who’d rather stiffen up the sheets in his room dreaming up Negan things than going outside and interacting with the Real World: his total unfamiliarity with animals.  This is the same guy who thinks horses can’t outrun walkers, remember?  :P

Yeah, I think even a kid might know that a horse who can run at least 30mph could outrun shuffling zombies. But this is someone who thinks a 500lb tiger who can take down a buffalo can't fight off or escape some rotting corpses. I feel - and I could be wrong - that wee Bobbie is unfamiliar with a lot of things in the Real World. Bobby - Google is your friend!

[CrazyDog]

21 hours ago, peach said:

Yep.  I happened to like Tyrese's death episode!  Which makes me a party of one, I think.

I have to second this. I loved Tyrese and actually found his death episode pretty moving. Despite the reappearance of Beth. 

So I'll join you at the party :)

They may not be actual zombies, but I also think of 28 Days and how fast the infected moved...they were pretty terrifying. The walkers on TWD...not so much. But the herds can still be unnerving.

[Smad]

13 hours ago, Nashville said:

Your distinction is 100% correct in a technical sense and absolutely meaningless in a practical sense, but I’ll make you a deal.  If you can produce so much as ONE clip of a 28DL victim whose last words upon being attacked are, “AT LEAST THEY’RE NOT ALREADY DEAD...!!!”, then I’ll concede your distinction as meaningful.  :D

I don't need to.

Quote

A zombie (Haitian French: zombi, Haitian Creole: zonbi) is a fictional undead being created through the reanimation of a human corpse.

That's the definition. See the bold word. So nope, 28D doesn't have Zombies. And again it's even made clear that they are still human because they die if they don't get anything to eat or drink. Whether a body gets reanimated supernaturally or by other means, it has to be dead first to become a zombie. To me the 28D later are the same as Croatoan virus victims on Supernatural. People infected with a virus going into hyper rage. Didn't they also explain that in 28D? Been a while since I've seen that one.

11 hours ago, WalkerTalker said:

World War Z zombies would have lit the fire under everyone's pert little butt. Start with fast zombies. Progress to slow zombies. But, as they start slowing down, they get smarter like the Z-Nation zombie. In Z-Nation the zombie is evolving and changing. That gives the show more flexibility on storylines, and character development. 

Never watched those. But I'm pretty sure Land Of The Dead did the evolving Zombies long before Z-Nation.

I would have loved if they made different Zombies in TWD because hey, why not. Everyone reacts differently to the Zombie bite after all. The times until death and the rising after vary greatly which proves flexibility within the 'rules'. They could have them move at different speeds depending on how long they have been turned (newly turned move faster). They could have given them different levels of intelligence since it is a virus/fungus/bacteria etc. that caused the outbreak. Humans react differently depending on their genetic makeup, technically there should be people on the planet immune to the virus or whatever it is. But that's just me having paid attention back in high school biology. Something the creators of the comics/shows clearly haven't.

[Anela]

18 hours ago, Smad said:

People infected with a virus going into hyper rage. Didn't they also explain that in 28D? Been a while since I've seen that one.

 

I think they did. I remember the animals in a lab, at the beginning of the movie. 

I have no other part in this discussion. I don't watch many zombie-related things, and up until TWD, I can only remember being exposed to Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead (remake), and Return of the Living Dead, Part 2, which I loved for its silliness. 

[Nashville]

19 hours ago, Smad said:

I don't need to.

That's the definition. See the bold word. So nope, 28D doesn't have Zombies. And again it's even made clear that they are still human because they die if they don't get anything to eat or drink. Whether a body gets reanimated supernaturally or by other means, it has to be dead first to become a zombie. To me the 28D later are the same as Croatoan virus victims on Supernatural. People infected with a virus going into hyper rage. Didn't they also explain that in 28D? Been a while since I've seen that one.

Okay... I was going for humor, but apparently emojis ain’t getting it.  So let’s break it down to the component parts of the sentences:

1. “Your distinction is 100% correct in a technical sense” - See?  No argument.  Whatever the bluedilly fuck the antagonists in 28DL are, the one thing in the multiverse they AIN’T are zombies.  Nosireebob, no zombies in these here parts.  These are not the zombies you’re looking for, Mister Stormtrooper sir.
2. “and absolutely meaningless in a practical sense” - regardless of whatever the absolutely-100%-not-zombies are, they act just like zombies.  They bite you, they eat you, they kill indiscriminately, and they spread their inimical pathogen with their assault.  Put a zombie and a 28DL infected side-by-side, and you’ll be hard-put to make a significant distinction between the two as they fight over which one gets the meatier parts of you.  Any differences are purely academic.
3. “but I’ll make you a deal. “ - lead-in to a joke (see #4).
4. ”If you can produce so much as ONE clip of a 28DL victim whose last words upon being attacked are, “AT LEAST THEY’RE NOT ALREADY DEAD...!!!”, then I’ll concede your distinction as meaningful.” - an apparently inadequate attempt at humor aimed at further illustrating the point raised in #2.

Summation: No the 28DL infected ain’t zombies, and no the difference don’t mean functional shit - especially to their victims.  ;)

[Anela]

2 hours ago, Nashville said:

 

1. ”If you can produce so much as ONE clip of a 28DL victim whose last words upon being attacked are, “AT LEAST THEY’RE NOT ALREADY DEAD...!!!”, then I’ll concede your distinction as meaningful.” - an apparently inadequate attempt at humor aimed at further illustrating the point raised in #2.

\

I got it, and I laughed, but I also like the science behind something like that. I didn't like biology, in school, but I love that there are people who think this sort of thing over. 

[Nashville]

4 hours ago, Anela said:

I got it, and I laughed, but I also like the science behind something like that. I didn't like biology, in school, but I love that there are people who think this sort of thing over. 

Same here.  I liked the technical aspects of the infected in both 28DL and WWZ - especially the latter’s incorporation of the infection’s discriminatory criterion for potential hosts.  The cinematic imagery used to illustrate this, with the kid in Israel and hordes of infected breaking around him like water rushing around a rock...?  Stunning, the first time I saw it.

[Smad]

On 12.9.2018 at 6:32 AM, Nashville said:

Summation: No the 28DL infected ain’t zombies, and no the difference don’t mean functional shit - especially to their victims.  ;)

Oh I don't know, it would make a huge difference to me. If I had a choice between infection via 28D or actual zombies, I chose the former. At least there I know I will be dead after a few days if I don't get to eat. Sure beats possibly wandering the world for years (or forever) while your body is slowly decaying more and more.

[Nashville]

14 minutes ago, Smad said:

Oh I don't know, it would make a huge difference to me. If I had a choice between infection via 28D or actual zombies, I chose the former. At least there I know I will be dead after a few days if I don't get to eat. Sure beats possibly wandering the world for years (or forever) while your body is slowly decaying more and more.

I don’t know if it would be THAT bad being a zombie.  I always did like to travel.  ;>

Edited September 13, 2018 by Nashville

[AngelaHunter]

Part of what attracted me to this show was the cool, old-style mindless and shuffling zombies I recalled from horror movies I saw as a kid. This new style of zombies (and vampires too, who used to be eerie and strangely seductive) who act like lizards on speed, racing and flying around with so many jump cuts we can't see them or what they're doing bore me as obviously no human could escape or defeat them.

[MisterBluxom]

I'd like to ask a general question of people who enjoy this show.

I once saw a movie about zombies that was extremely well made and very enjoyable. It was Dawn of the Dead (2004). Since then, I've tried to watch several other Zombie films but only ever found one that I really enjoyed. It was the Woody Harrelson & Jesse Eisenberg film Zombieland.

My feeling about movies and TV shows about Zombies is that they are kind of like "one trick ponies".  You see a zombie. You shoot it in the brain or you stab it in the brain and it dies."

That's about it. I don't understand what it is about a show like TWD (which is admittedly very well done) that people find entertaining.

I mean, they are struggling to move from Point A to Point B. But every few minutes some zombies appear and then they must either shoot them in the head or stab them in the head.

Rinse and Repeat. This series of events just keeps repeating forever. I'd really like to find some entertainment in TWD. I bought the entire series. But I just couldn't make it past the first couple of episodes in Season Two. It just kept putting me to sleep.

I'd sure appreciate if anyone could explain to me (just one or two sentences would be plenty). What is it about TWD that lets you keep watching it week after week?  Why don't you get bored by it?  Do you not find it's just the same kind of action over and over again?

[OoohMaggie]

38 minutes ago, MissBluxom said:

I'd sure appreciate if anyone could explain to me (just one or two sentences would be plenty).

For many of us who have been watching from day one, we started watching because we liked the Zombie / Horror genre, we keep watching because we became invested in the characters, we bonded with them, they became ‘our people’, we rode the rollercoaster of emotions with them, and when ‘our’ particular characters died, we felt it!

[MisterBluxom]

1 hour ago, OoohMaggie said:

For many of us who have been watching from day one, we started watching because we liked the Zombie / Horror genre, we keep watching because we became invested in the characters, we bonded with them, they became ‘our people’, we rode the rollercoaster of emotions with them, and when ‘our’ particular characters died, we felt it!

Thanks Maggie. I'm real glad you explained that to me.

May I ask another question? I recently watched several episodes of TWD and found myself wondering why no one ever seemed to ask the following question. It seems like a very important thing to know.

If a zombie does not feed, will it eventually die of starvation? If so, how long does it take? A human being can no longer function after about 30-40 days without food and dies shortly after that. Has anyone ever seen an explanation of this question on TWD or any other TV show or movie?

Edited October 26, 2018 by MissBluxom

[OoohMaggie]

11 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

May I ask another question? I recently watched several episodes of TWD and found myself wondering why no one ever seemed to ask the following question. It seems like a very important thing to know.

The  Zombies on this show do not die through starvation, only trauma to the brain will ‘kill them’. which is why you often see Walkers with no stomach or digestive system. If you cut the head off, the head alone will survive until decay kills the brain.

As to whether the show has addressed the issue, I can’t recall, apart from one episode set in the ‘CDC’ the show hasn’t really explored that side of things.

why do they desire to feed even though food does them no good whatsoever?  I think the Virus / Infection stimulates the hunger response within the brain, this causes the Walker to want to bite a human and once bitten it is usually fatal. Which just starts the process over again , almost a perfect life cycle, for some Humans do get eaten completely.

I believe most Zombie films and shows follow the same principle, that they don’t die from starvation.

The creatures in the film ‘28 Days’ died within 28 days if they did not eat, but these were not Zombies, just infected

Edited October 26, 2018 by OoohMaggie

[MisterBluxom]

Thank you again OoohMaggie. That was a very good explanation.

I did Google looking for an answer and found several sites that attempted to explain this. But most all of them had different answers. Some only slightly different. Some very different.

None of them seemed to have the same explanation as you have indicated TWD use. Most of them seemed to agree the zombies would eventually die but the estimates of the amount of time it would take were very different.

Anyway, I'm happy that I found you - meaning someone who can provide good answers to zombie questions and I will try not to bother you too much in the future.

But thank you very much for your kind help.

[OoohMaggie]

2 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

But thank you very much for your kind help.

Anytime, that’s what we’re here for, although my knowledge of the Zombie world is extremely limited, i just go by what I see on the show. with a bit of WalkingWiki thrown in. Ive never been a Zombie fanatic so don’t really know the ins and outs of the undead, and as I said earlier, it was the original set of characters that kept and keeps me watching, although sadly dwindling rapidldly

The film that got me started was also Dawn Of The Dead, albeit the 1978 original, I saw it in the early 80’s, which then put me onto Night Of The Living Dead, such a cool film.

Are you saying that they agree the Zombies would starve to death eventually? Surely if a Walker is ‘alive’ to such an extent that it gains nourishment from what it eats, and would help keep it alive longer, then it would die long before starvation due to the lack of water consumption, after all we never see them drinking. It’s an interesting topic though!

[MisterBluxom]

31 minutes ago, OoohMaggie said:

Anytime, that’s what we’re here for, although my knowledge of the Zombie world is extremely limited, i just go by what I see on the show. with a bit of WalkingWiki thrown in. Ive never been a Zombie fanatic so don’t really know the ins and outs of the undead, and as I said earlier, it was the original set of characters that kept and keeps me watching, although sadly dwindling rapidldly

The film that got me started was also Dawn Of The Dead, albeit the 1978 original, I saw it in the early 80’s, which then put me onto Night Of The Living Dead, such a cool film.

Are you saying that they agree the Zombies would starve to death eventually? Surely if a Walker is ‘alive’ to such an extent that it gains nourishment from what it eats, and would help keep it alive longer, then it would die long before starvation due to the lack of water consumption, after all we never see them drinking. It’s an interesting topic though!

I will show you some of the links I found and they explain things much better than I can. Have you ever heard of the Zombie Research  Society? Heh Heh. Neither had I. But they have a nice web site.

1) Why don't Zombies eventually die in TWD?

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/78752/why-dont-zombies-eventually-die-in-the-walking-dead

2) How Long do Zombies Last? (Zombie Research Society)

https://zombieresearchsociety.com/archives/1344

3) Can zombies die of natural causes, like old age?

https://www.quora.com/Can-zombies-die-of-natural-causes-like-old-age

 

Have fun! Heh Heh.

[Iguessnot]

2 hours ago, OoohMaggie said:

Anytime, that’s what we’re here for, although my knowledge of the Zombie world is extremely limited, i just go by what I see on the show. with a bit of WalkingWiki thrown in. Ive never been a Zombie fanatic so don’t really know the ins and outs of the undead, and as I said earlier, it was the original set of characters that kept and keeps me watching, although sadly dwindling rapidldly

The film that got me started was also Dawn Of The Dead, albeit the 1978 original, I saw it in the early 80’s, which then put me onto Night Of The Living Dead, such a cool film.

Are you saying that they agree the Zombies would starve to death eventually? Surely if a Walker is ‘alive’ to such an extent that it gains nourishment from what it eats, and would help keep it alive longer, then it would die long before starvation due to the lack of water consumption, after all we never see them drinking. It’s an interesting topic though!

You have to hand wave the starvation issue. For me the biggest issue that won't be addressed is decay. Even in a refrigerator, meat has a limit. So all these walking dead would have deteriorated a long time ago, especially in the Georgia heat. Skeletons can't move without muscle so the notion of these hordes of dead existing years into the apocalypse isn't sensible. You have to suspend your disbelief.

[OoohMaggie]

I will certainly have a look, but what do you think, do you believe  that a reanimated corpse can starve to death? 

Does a Zombie’s  heart beat? When a Walker in the show gets stabbed in the head, a big splash of blood goes with it, without a beating heart the blood in an upright Walker would settle in the legs, 

[MisterBluxom]

9 minutes ago, OoohMaggie said:

I will certainly have a look, but what do you think, do you believe  that a reanimated corpse can starve to death? 

Does a Zombie’s  heart beat? When a Walker in the show gets stabbed in the head, a big splash of blood goes with it, without a beating heart the blood in an upright Walker would settle in the legs, 

I honestly don't know what to think. Mostly that's because I can't get away from the key notion that zombies are not real and the concept really doesn't make much sense to me.

But that is not what's important. You prove that point abundantly. This show is about entertaining the viewers and I must admit it succeeds very well. To enjoy this show, I think people have to suspend their normal analytical minds and just accept some of the premise even though they know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The point is that this show is meant to entertain and it obviously does that very well.

If I had to explain how a zombie could live for years without any nourishment, I would just be at a total loss. I couldn't do it. But I can enjoy the concepts as part of the entertainment.

And you obviously enjoy it too.

[nodorothyparker]

Here's another answer to try on for size:  Not everyone who watches this cares about the zombies even one little bit.  I certainly don't.  They don't interest me enough to really give them much thought, so I mostly accept whatever they can or can't do this week for plot purposes.  I accept that they make no logical sense.  Because that's not the main draw for me anyway.  I'm a sucker for all post apocalyptic, sitting at the end of the world stories and this happens to be a halfway decently done one that just happens to have zombies.  It's how the world ended, the ruin and decay since then, and how the survivors navigate it to go on from there that I want to see.

[walnutqueen]

45 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

Here's another answer to try on for size:  Not everyone who watches this cares about the zombies even one little bit.  I certainly don't.  They don't interest me enough to really give them much thought, so I mostly accept whatever they can or can't do this week for plot purposes.  I accept that they make no logical sense.  Because that's not the main draw for me anyway.  I'm a sucker for all post apocalyptic, sitting at the end of the world stories and this happens to be a halfway decently done one that just happens to have zombies.  It's how the world ended, the ruin and decay since then, and how the survivors navigate it to go on from there that I want to see.

Agree.  I was never a fan of the zombie or horror genres, but I like post apocalyptic stories.  It is these stories, and the characters themselves, that have kept me tuning in for all these years.

[raven]

7 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

If I had to explain how a zombie could live for years without any nourishment, I would just be at a total loss.

I think a zombie would just rot away after years, whether they ate or not.  They don't have any way to keep themselves "fresh" so to speak.

I am a fan of post apocalyptic stories in general and enjoy apocalypse porn (empty streets/houses/cities; crumbling bridges, etc).  I love seeing pix of real world abandoned places, thinking about the people who were there once and observing how nature is taking over.  

With zombies specifically, I'm interested in the pathos - who was that person who is now stumbling around dead, what happened to them, their loved ones, did they even have any.  Those are the kinds of things I'm interested in, so I like when the show goes out of its way to show us, for example, a zombie in a store who was obviously the proprietor, stuff like that.  It doesn't happen often on this show though.

[nodorothyparker]

That's it exactly.  I'm willing to sit through a fair amount of stupid if they throw me those scenes where you can piece out how the world ended for a group of people or in a particular spot.  I love the set pieces that tell you a story, like the parking lot midway Rick and Michonne stumbled into a couple of seasons ago.  Whatever else I might think of what the show is doing, I do like the Life After People vibe this season is projecting as time passes and decay speeds up.  Apocalypse porn is a fantastic name for it as well as the possible name for any future garage band I may form.

The zombies themselves?  Gore doesn't interest me.  Glimpses of the people they once were does, even if the show doesn't do that nearly as much anymore.

[Nashville]

Count me in on the Postapocalyptic Express.  Personally, I think nature needs a good apocalypse every now and then - if for no other reason than it’s likely the stupidest people would be the first to check out.

[OoohMaggie]

I agree that the Walkers nowadays are, or should be nothing more than a minor annoyance, they should pose no threat to anyone with a modicum of intelligence, which isn’t a good thing for a show such as this.  In the early stages of the series they played a major part in making the show what it ‘WAS’, They were scary, intimidating and deadly, people did panic when confronted by them, the situations our people got themselves into were believable and enjoyable to watch. Yet alas, now we’ve got Negan!

[OoohMaggie]

18 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

The point is that this show is meant to entertain and it obviously does that very well.

I noticed you said you didn’t get much further than the start of season 2, that coincides with the departure of Frank Darabont, the man who developed and directed the show until that point. Many feel that the show wouldn’t be in the mess it is now if he were still Showrunner. It literally has been like a rollercoaster ride in regards to the quality of the show, so it has been good and it has been absolutely awful. Things do seem to be picking up with the start of the new season, with new Showrunner Angela Kang in charge. It’s fingers crossed time at the moment, with the departures of the main star and one of the main characters imminent things could go either way.

[MisterBluxom]

13 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Here's another answer to try on for size:  Not everyone who watches this cares about the zombies even one little bit.  I certainly don't.  They don't interest me enough to really give them much thought, so I mostly accept whatever they can or can't do this week for plot purposes.  I accept that they make no logical sense.  Because that's not the main draw for me anyway.  I'm a sucker for all post apocalyptic, sitting at the end of the world stories and this happens to be a halfway decently done one that just happens to have zombies.  It's how the world ended, the ruin and decay since then, and how the survivors navigate it to go on from there that I want to see.

Very interesting. I enjoy the post apocalyptic stories as well and before the popularity of zombies, many of these movies and TV shows were about the aftermath of a terrible nuclear war or some terrible life-ending virus or other kind of poison. There are probably a great many premises to post apocalyptic stories.

I always enjoyed the sub-plots about preparation. Who prepared shelters and food and clothing to give themselves a decent chance to live.

I remember one interesting novel by Robert Heinline who made the point very forcefully that having powerful guns is far more likely to get you killed than to protect you. He made a lot of sense. But it seems very important to organize groups of people in advance who know how to co-operate with each other (even without any deadly weapons) and who can communicate with each other in secret. There is a huge wealth of stories just dealing with those few concepts. I've always been very interested to know that some very intelligent people believe that people who have not really studied the problem or prepared for it tend to go overboard buying powerful deadly weapons and those weapons usually wind up being used to kill the people who bought them or their families.

If I was going to write a story, it would be about some nerdy misfit (like me or like Gabby from Survivor) who spends years arranging for an underground shelter and provisions and people who they feel will have their backs. They would spend a great deal of time before "the end times" meeting with people and deciding how they can best organize themselves to protect themselves against many of the natural killers (like bad weather, hunger, and other deprivations) as well as practicing methods to communicate with each other if some evil doers ever over run their compound with weapons and are intent on causing them great harm. That would make for some great stories and the end times would never even need to happen.

Of course, if anyone can think of a different process that is like zombieism but somehow different, that could easily make for some real great stories.

[MisterBluxom]

1 hour ago, OoohMaggie said:

I noticed you said you didn’t get much further than the start of season 2, that coincides with the departure of Frank Darabont, the man who developed and directed the show until that point. Many feel that the show wouldn’t be in the mess it is now if he were still Showrunner. It literally has been like a rollercoaster ride in regards to the quality of the show, so it has been good and it has been absolutely awful. Things do seem to be picking up with the start of the new season, with new Showrunner Angela Kang in charge. It’s fingers crossed time at the moment, with the departures of the main star and one of the main characters imminent things could go either way.

Thanks Maggie. I will likely check in again when my hectic TV viewing schedule dies down a bit. Heh. Just kidding. But I'm kind of curious to see how things will progress with these travelers.

After reading these posts however, I sure would prefer to see this show spend more time telling stories of people who survive and the strategies they used in order to survive.

Every zombie encounter is almost identical. They just get boring after a while. They can mostly be summarized like .... "See a Zombie." "Stab a Zombie in the brain." "See the Zombie die."  "See another Zombie." Rinse and Repeat.