WARNING! This Spoiler gives away the ending! Click at own risk!
If once they are infected, they become zombies (undead), why would it matter if the host was currently infected with a potentially terminal disease? So the disease will kill hem, but so will being turned into a zombie. Just doesnt really make a whole lot of sense to me
WARNING! This Spoiler gives away the ending! Click at own risk!
If once they are infected, they become zombies (undead), why would it matter if the host was currently infected with a potentially terminal disease? So the disease will kill hem, but so will being turned into a zombie. Just doesnt really make a whole lot of sense to me
Potentially is the key word. They inject you with diseases that were once terminal but can now be treated. Long before this movie came out I wondered what would happen to a vampire if it drank blood from a victim that had some sort of blood disease.
WARNING! This Spoiler gives away the ending! Click at own risk!
If once they are infected, they become zombies (undead), why would it matter if the host was currently infected with a potentially terminal disease? So the disease will kill hem, but so will being turned into a zombie. Just doesnt really make a whole lot of sense to me
It's clearly stated in the movie that they would ONLY use terminal illnesses that were TREATABLE/CURABLE. For example meningitis is only fatal if untreated, but the virus would just see a fatal illness and leave the host alone.
It's clearly stated in the movie that they would ONLY use terminal illnesses that were TREATABLE/CURABLE. For example meningitis is only fatal if untreated, but the virus would just see a fatal illness and leave the host alone.
I do understand that they used deadly, but treatable diseases to camo the host, my question was pertaining to the Zombie virus. If the virus kills the host by turning it into a Zombie, what would it matter as far as the Zombie virus infecting a terminal human? Even if the victim had cancer or ebola or small pox etc, they would still turn into a Zombie once they were bitten, wouldnt they? .
I do understand that they used deadly, but treatable diseases to camo the host, my question was pertaining to the Zombie virus. If the virus kills the host by turning it into a Zombie, what would it matter as far as the Zombie virus infecting a terminal human? Even if the victim had cancer or ebola or small pox etc, they would still turn into a Zombie once they were bitten, wouldnt they? .
Yeah it doesn't really make sense.
I get what you are asking, but it makes no sense. there would be no difference between healthy or not. you make a good point.
I don't know. They just weren't zombies. They had zero traits that made them so. They weren't covered in make-up. They weren't undead, they didn't eat people.....
And that's fine. If you're not making a zombie film. But still. Not even my biggest problem with the film.
I do understand that they used deadly, but treatable diseases to camo the host, my question was pertaining to the Zombie virus. If the virus kills the host by turning it into a Zombie, what would it matter as far as the Zombie virus infecting a terminal human? Even if the victim had cancer or ebola or small pox etc, they would still turn into a Zombie once they were bitten, wouldnt they? .
You wonder why the virus would care if the host was sick. You are assuming that the purpose if infection is to make zombies. That's not quite right. The goal of a virus is to find a suitable host. This particular virus needs a healthy host. Apparently, a seriously ill host is not a viable one. Kind of like once a woman is pregnant, she can't get pregnant again on top of that.
I don't know. They just weren't zombies. They had zero traits that made them so. They weren't covered in make-up. They weren't undead, they didn't eat people.....
And that's fine. If you're not making a zombie film. But still. Not even my biggest problem with the film.
They were undead. That's said over and over again throughout the film.
Watching it, I clearly understood that it was a virus which kills its host and animates it in the same way the Walking Dead virus works.
Did you really expect this to be a zombie movie? I mean, I know what the "z" in the title stands for, but the previews (and the rating) made it pretty clear that this was a disaster/outbreak movie with the zombie premise as a vehicle.
As far as not eating people, when did that ever become a requirement for zombies? In this incarnation, the zombie's only motivation was passing the virus, not filling a non-functioning stomach.
Also, many of the zombies had pretty extensive makeup/prosthetics.
I don't know. They just weren't zombies. They had zero traits that made them so. They weren't covered in make-up. They weren't undead, they didn't eat people.....
And that's fine. If you're not making a zombie film. But still. Not even my biggest problem with the film.
You wonder why the virus would care if the host was sick. You are assuming that the purpose if infection is to make zombies. That's not quite right. The goal of a virus is to find a suitable host. This particular virus needs a healthy host. Apparently, a seriously ill host is not a viable one. Kind of like once a woman is pregnant, she can't get pregnant again on top of that.
That's what I got out of it anyway.
They were undead. That's said over and over again throughout the film.
Watching it, I clearly understood that it was a virus which kills its host and animates it in the same way the Walking Dead virus works.
Did you really expect this to be a zombie movie? I mean, I know what the "z" in the title stands for, but the previews (and the rating) made it pretty clear that this was a disaster/outbreak movie with the zombie premise as a vehicle.
As far as not eating people, when did that ever become a requirement for zombies? In this incarnation, the zombie's only motivation was passing the virus, not filling a non-functioning stomach.
Also, many of the zombies had pretty extensive makeup/prosthetics.
This is why I was saying this felt just like a sequel to 28 Days later, but you guys explained it a little bit better.
the infected in 28 days later did not eat people either. They bit people and scratched them and hurt them, but they didn't really eat people. They just acted crazy and wanted to kill everyone. (plus, they ran....)
They were undead. That's said over and over again throughout the film.
Watching it, I clearly understood that it was a virus which kills its host and animates it in the same way the Walking Dead virus works.
Did you really expect this to be a zombie movie? I mean, I know what the "z" in the title stands for, but the previews (and the rating) made it pretty clear that this was a disaster/outbreak movie with the zombie premise as a vehicle.
As far as not eating people, when did that ever become a requirement for zombies? In this incarnation, the zombie's only motivation was passing the virus, not filling a non-functioning stomach.
Also, many of the zombies had pretty extensive makeup/prosthetics.
1. Goddamn right. It's called World War Z. Based off a book about Zombies. So yeah. Kinda expected to see some zombies.
And yes, eating people is a requirement. Name one Zombie film that doesn't involve eating people. 28 Days Later doesn't count. Not technically zombies, closer to these things.
And i've went over what I didn't like/ hated about this movie. But I can sum it up for you.
Also, depending on how you define "zombie", there are plenty of examples where they don't eat people.
Before the modern ghoul idea of a zombie that Romero made popular, zombies never ate people.
Thenammagazine once insisted that Frankenstein's monster is a zombie.
If the events of this movie happened in real life, meaning people started dying of a virus that animated their body and caused them to chase aftere you so they can bite you, WTF would you call them if not zombies?
It's fine if you didn't like the movie, but don't say it's because they weren't zombies. It just didn't meet your narrow expectations.
Also, depending on how you define "zombie", the are plenty of examples where they don't eat people.
Before the modern ghoul idea of a zombie that Romero made popular, zombies never ate people.
Thenammagazine once insisted that Frankenstein's monster is a zombie.
If the events of this movie happened in real life, meaning people started dying of a virus that animated their body and caused them to chase aftere you so they can bite you,WTF would you call them if not zombies?
It's fine if you didn't like the movie, but don't say it's because they weren't zombies. It just didn't meet your narrow expectations.
Narrow my ***. They weren't ANY kind of zombies. They met no criteria for any version of Zombies.
So, if you don't want to make a zombie movie, then don't base your film off a popular zombie book. Simple as that. And also, write a better script too.
Contagion was the best World War Z movie possible. It just didn't have any zombies in it. Yet, it was far more effective.
I just don't like CGI non practical PG-13 friendly infected monsters passed off as zombies based off a book I sorta know that's entirely about zombies.
Also, I didn't expect the characters to be so simple. That whole CDC scene was just so dull. Looking forward to the alternate ending. Sounded better then what we got.
