Walking Dead
- Thread starter MissouriCyclone
- Start date
I think she was heading that way, until she saw Carol. Carol needs the doctor (or appears to). Therefore, Beth lets the doc live (for now). Ergo...Carol just saved the doc.
Beth had a badass moment - let the cop think he was gonna get lucky because she's not a fighter, only for her to smack the candy jar upside his head and let the freshly woken walker eat him. Well played.
The wire saw would make a cleaner cut than an ax, this episode was pretty good I thought, don't know what everyone was complaining about.
I didn't care for the episode, however it was FAR better than:
1) Looking for Sophia on end and sitting around the farm arguing with each other
2) Andrea talking and staring and talking and staring until she gets bitten by zombie Milton while the Gov's group tours the prison, fire a bunch of guns, then guns down his own people
Ordinarily I'd agree. The problem that's going on in my head is the cause of this zombie apocalypse is different than just about any other form of zombie entertainment. In Zombieland, it's tainted meat that caused someone to die and become a zombie. In Resident Evil, it was scientific research gone wrong combined with corporate greed. In World War Z, it was a virus that mutated. Hell, in Shaun of the Dead, someone got sick. What these all have in common is person gets infected with the virus, virus kills person, virus causes person to become a zombie, virus is passed when zombie bites uninfected person, wash, rinse, repeat.
But The Walking Dead differentiated itself from this cycle by saying everyone is already infected with this virus that will cause everyone to become a zombie upon death. However, this virus isn't fatal and instead remains dormant until death. And, the zombie bite isn't what spreads the infection (because everyone is already infected), but infects them with something else that's highly lethal.
If The Walkng Dead took the traditional approach to how this all started, I wouldn't care so much. However, because they differentiated themselves, I'm now curious. And no, I'm not looking for this realistic explanation behind a zombie apocalypse, I'm just curious where the creators are going with this - what's their train of thought. Why did they go different, and as a result what are the mechanisms.
It had been explained on talking dead that zombie scratches or bites kill a person because of the decomposing flesh bacterias that ccause an infection to the bloodstream of the living which explains all the fevers/etc.
But I don't think 28 days later or the Land of the Dead movie series ever had an orgin point did they?
I understand this much. My point is in traditional zombie entertainment the zombie infection is passed along by bites and scratches, and that's how more zombies are created. If that's what happened in this show I wouldn't care so much. However, in this show everyone is already infected with the virus that turns you into a zombie when you die, but instead of it being an active virus that kills the host, it lies dormant in the host until it dies, then it activates and turns the host into a zombie. Because it's so different than every other zombie pic out there, that's why I'm curious as to how the whole world got infected with the virus. I can understand why people don't want to know or want to find out later, because it's bound to be "that's nice" at best and disappointing at worst, but I'm the kind of guy that wants to know how these minor details work so I can say in my mind "that's nice."
I agree. Just lazy writing, like they decided to take a week off. Makes me appreciate BB and The Sopranos all the more.
It's been so long since I saw 28 Days Later (I was still at ISU) and I haven't seen Land of the Dead, so I can't comment. Like I said, they brought up the subject and the subject went a completely different route than other zombie pics and I'd like to see it addressed at some point. If they never brought it up or they went status quo I wouldn't care so much. Bt it's because it's different is the reason why I want to know how the whole world got infected with this thing.
The beginning of 28 Days Later did explain the origin of "rage," at least to a point. It started in an animal testing lab with chimpanzees when activists broke in to free them. The chimps attacked the humans and boom. It didn't explain "why" or anything other than setting up the story in the first ten minutes of the movie.
28 Day's Later did, but it was very brief. From the 28 Day's Wiki
In Cambridge, animal liberation activists break into a medical research laboratory with the intent of freeing captive chimpanzees. They are interrupted by a scientist (David Schneider) who desperately warns that the chimps are infected with "Rage," a highly contagious virus that is spread through blood and saliva. Ignoring the scientist, the activists release the chimpanzees. One of the chimps attacks an activist and immediately infects her, leading her to infect everyone else present
Sounds kinda-sorta like what happened in Resident Evil to an extent, where Umbrella Corporation created the T-Virus, and a corporate terrorist infected everyone in the Hive with it, then how it got out is Umbrella thought they could salvage the incident and lost control of it. Not the same, but same idea.
Quick observation. Last season, there was an episode that had Michonne and Carl looking through a house. The scene where Michonne told Carl that for every room he cleared he could ask her a question. Well, Michonne stumbled upon a kids room. It looked like everyone committed suicide in there? However, none of them turned?
