Manuel's comments (member since May 08, 2008)

Manuel's comments from the Apocalypse Whenever group.

the frightening thing about that book and movie, is that there are people out there who would love to turn our country into the same theocracy mentioned in the book.

I must admit that curiosity got the best of me and I indeed had to look up that word in the Urban Dictionary.

I had heard the term used to describe other things.
And Yes Jeff did warn me.

It is something truly disgusting.

However now that I know what it means. I dont understand the logic of Wade's question, since its something that might be done to a zombie, not something a zombie does.

With all due respect to Vanima,
I agree with all her picks except
"Dies the Fire".

I thought it was a horrible book. It is one of the books I reviewed for Goodreads.

When I was thumbing through the book, a certain code kept popping up. I thought it was something the cell victims had in common.

I dont remember if it was a direction or address or something else.

Dan,
I started to read King's story, but it didnt engage me very much and I gave up.

"Whats up with that "code" that keeps coming up?"

Some excellent points Hrimcealde,

I'll be the first to admit I havent read that much on zombies. I very much enjoyed "World War Z". I suppose the strongest part of the book for me, is how Brooks tries to explain the progression of the zombie infestation in a logical, scientific manner. In other words; there is an "infestation" and contanimation which happens through direct "person to person" contact. Unlike in some movies, no one put a curse on the victim(s) or the person didnt just die and then inexplicably wake up a zombie.

However I still have frustrations with the zombie condition. These are animated corpses, presumably their flesh is still dead, though their rate of decomposition is slowed down. The zombies in the book will bite living humans and infect them (in biology this makes sense, viruses will replicate themselves by infecting other hosts) But what is not clear to me is why the zombies consume the flesh of their victims? They have no way of digesting the flesh they have just eaten, and Brooks never explains if a Zombie who eats flesh "lives" longer than a zombie who has never biten another human. There is a line in the book that says the zombies will naturally start to slow down as their bodies decomposition makes movement difficult or impossible, however this process will take a few seasons. From a biological point of view, this condition doesnt make much sense to me.

You beat me to the punch Dan, yes, I was going to mention that "On the Beach" has a much more bleak and depressing scenario.

I was recently thumbing through old issues of LIFE magazine from the early 60's. It is interesting to see all their plans for fallout shelters in the suburbs or your own backyard. Ironically, the shelters are a little more sophisticated than the shelters used by Britons during the London Blitz, however unlike the Brits who could leave after a few hours, Americans were supposed to stay in these things for "weeks"

People actually thought you could survive a nuclear war. Perhaps having a shelter gave them peace of mind?

I always thought the war in Alas Babylon was too optimistic.

I don't think it was meant to be optimistic, in fact, I think it was meant to be realistic. But despite Florida and the rest of the nation being peppered by nuclear blasts, this small community manages to pull together and establish a niche in this new reality. Unfortunately there is no mention of nuclear winter or the long term affects of fallout or radiation half life.

I do remember the last line of the book. Something about the long night of a 1000 year dark age about to start.

The "Quiet Earth" scenario seems like a pretty comfortable existence.
Everyone is gone, and only a handful of survivors have inherited New Zealand and presumably the entire planet.

All other human beings are gone, yet the infrastructure is still there. Ideally, someone could find a comfortable place to settle down without worry of radiation or sickness or roving bands of survivors fighting for the scraps. The only real job would be to have babies (just an assumption) and either grow your own food, or continue to use the supplies that were left untouched (a limitless supply)

If you could choose which apocalypse to experience with your family and you could choose from what ever book or movie you've seen or read, which scenario would give you the best chance to survive?

in some scenarios, the apocalypse is localized, in others it is something affecting the entire planet.

In the movie "Independence Day" the world's largest cities are destroyed, but civilization hasn't collapsed. In the "Lathe of Heaven" %75 of the world's population is dead, but human kind still functions.

In "Deep Impact" a meteor in the ocean has flooded the entire United States east of the Appalachias, but the ending of the movie is still hopefull.

I think Im done with zombies for a while.
Yes I enjoyed the book and coincidentally I happened to watch the 1985 "Return of the Living Dead" movie.

In that movie, the zombies are fully animated, they run, jump and chase their victims through Louisville Kentucky. A much more dangerous foe than the slow walking stumbling zombies of "World War Z"

Thank you Michele, but yes, someone else already mentioned that article and the link.

Hard to take it seriously. Like medieval scholars debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. More of an exercise in mental masturbation IMO.

I think I would be more frightened of a Trifid invaision than zombies.

Despite my enjoyment of the book.
I kept asking myself if a zombie infestation would really get as out of hand as the one in the book?

It seems to me that there are other diseases that would be much more dangerous to human kind than the walking dead.

In the book, you can only become a zombie if you are bitten by one. The victim will eventually begin to suffer from severe chills and eventually go into a coma and die, then become reanimated as one of the walking dead. Supposedly the process will take a few days, unless the victim dies faster due to vast bleeding and other injuries. The book says that severl victims were consumed by the zombies; I take it for granted that if their brain is still intact and they still have a body, they will also become zombies.

Nevertheless, there is no mistaking a zombie for a living person. Zombies give out a groun when they see a potential victim and supposedly they dont blink their eyes when you shine a light on their face. They also dont move very fast, their greatest strength probably is their ability to mass and overwhelm potential victims into becoming more zombies.

My point is that I dont think this would ever be more than a localized emergency. I dont think this would ever become a world wide infestation like the great plague of 1918 or the more recent swine flu.

I would imagine that if I became infected with zombieism, I WOULD KNOW IT. The last thing I would want, would be to possibly infect my family or other people. Its not like influenza where a carrier has it for a while, and is unknowingly infecting everyone by breathing near them on them or contaminating a door knob or public phone.

In other words, the zombie threat seems pretty easy to avoid and contain. You can easily outrun them, or if you choose to confront them, they wouldnt put up much of a fight when you crush their skull. Yes I might see a town or two getting overwhelmed, but I still think it would be a localized event.

The "what ifs" are fun to speculate.

Supposedly there is a movie in the works.

Just finished "World War Z".

Yes I greatly enjoyed reading this book.
I can understand the fuss about zombies a little better than a few weeks ago. Yet I still dont see why they are so popular as a genre.

I was reading a little about the author Max Brooks.
He said, there are people out there who not only loved his books, but they are getting ready and looking forward to the Zombie menace coming true. He said they are like the fans of the 1984 movie "Red Dawn"; after they watched the movie, they looked forward to the Soviet invaision of America.
These people could only see the adrenaline rush of the fighting, but had'nt really thought our the consequences if these nightmares came true.

I thought it was making a direct parallel to our own dark ages and and the role of the Catholic church in making profane things from the old Roman Empire, into objects of veneration and faith I.E. the modern "Shroud of Turin" and other sacred objects in Catholic iconography that still exist today.

hello Megin,
Im glad you also liked the book.

Welcome

How about the Russian movie.
"Letters from a Dead Man".

Survivors living under the ruins of Moscow. Surprising, because it was made during the days of the Soviet Union, yet the movie is very critical of the Communists.

It has the most beautiful destruction I have ever seen of a major city on film. Moscow incinerated at night. Slow motion of the fireball as it consumes the Kremlin and the Moscow suburbs.

Did anyone ever see the HBO version of "On the Beach"?

Starring Rachel Ward as Moira.

In the original movie, they filmed part of it in San Francisco. They closed down the Golden Gate Bridge on a Sunday morning so they could film the submarine sailing in under the empty bridge. Supposedly the city was still intact, but everyone was dead from radiation poisoning and fallout.
In the HBO version they show a devastated San Francisco.
To me it was like getting a kick in the stomach, to see the ruins of my hometown. They did a good job on the special effects. I could recognize many familiar landmarks...

Its a beautiful movie dealing with a horrible subject matter. No scenes of cities with mushroom clouds, no scenes of people fleeing in terror and chaos. Supposedly the movie was inspired by a dream the writer had during the height of Reagan's arms build up.

I think you are thinking of is called "Testament". Jane Alexander and her family live in a small Northern California town a few hours drive from San Francisco.

The father is a business man who commutes to San Francisco.