Page 2 of 2

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:21 pm
by mattnall
I have a plan that follows the slow and shambling zombie genre. I like to think zombies will be like those in The Walking Dead - slow, cumbersome and not very clever (sounds like some of the kids I teach). I think this would be the most realistic approximation if it ever happens as the loss of brain function along with the 'already dead' thing wouldn't lend itself to much in the way of coordination.

I wouldn't like to think they have any intelligence or cooperative abilities like those in The Omega Man (and lesser extent in I Am Legend) - way too many issues with conscience when they talk to you as you blow them away and they'll easily out-think the traps made by my starved and tired brain. This is more like the 'collapse of society' starved and scared city dweller looking for food type scenario. Not really the same thing.

After watching WWZ and 28Days I am not liking fast zombies at all. If that happens then my plan is all to pot and needs a complete overhaul. Fast Zombies - I think I'll join the winning side and get bitten quick.

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:41 am
by Mcarpenter
mattnall wrote:I have a plan that follows the slow and shambling zombie genre. I like to think zombies will be like those in The Walking Dead - slow, cumbersome and not very clever (sounds like some of the kids I teach). I think this would be the most realistic approximation if it ever happens as the loss of brain function along with the 'already dead' thing wouldn't lend itself to much in the way of coordination.

I wouldn't like to think they have any intelligence or cooperative abilities like those in The Omega Man (and lesser extent in I Am Legend) - way too many issues with conscience when they talk to you as you blow them away and they'll easily out-think the traps made by my starved and tired brain. This is more like the 'collapse of society' starved and scared city dweller looking for food type scenario. Not really the same thing.

After watching WWZ and 28Days I am not liking fast zombies at all. If that happens then my plan is all to pot and needs a complete overhaul. Fast Zombies - I think I'll join the winning side and get bitten quick.
The problem is walkers aren’t consistent. The first season had a different director. His idea was that walkers are kind of smart. They were able to recognize things – see the very first zombie we see: little girl in a white gown picking up a teddy bear from the floor. Also Morgan’s dead wife was able to grasp doorknob and try to open the door. Then there were walkers who could pick up rocks, as I recall. In the following seasons they were dumbed down.
What is more, the idea of walkers on the show is that they are slowly decaying. That is why they were faster in the first seasons, like in the scene where Shane shots this farmer in the leg, so he could escape. These walkers were a lot faster than any walker in the 6th season.

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:35 pm
by kickback
ManInBlack316 wrote:I could see slow zombies being semi realistic as one could guess that maybe a viral/parasitic takeover of the brain doesn't allow the kind of coordination that we normally enjoy.
The "Zombie Survival Guide" also speculated that the reason a zombie could not be starved/suffocated is because the body was no longer replacing the oxygen/nutrients of the body and the body would just continue to go on without nutrients/oxygen because it was sort of rewired to just keep going until tissues and bones started to break down; probably nothing plausible scientifically to that though.

If cells did not regenerate, your feet would fall of in a week.

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:55 pm
by fred.greek
http://www.johnringo.net/TheLibrary/Bla ... lypse.aspx
The author at the link presents the argument that genetic manipulation ability is developing quickly and extensively, and becoming “cheap” and simple to do, with the probability that soon it will be possible for someone “in their basement” to create new virus and bacteria. Envision that someone being a zombie fan, who for fun (or whatever) creates a pathogen to do essentially what fictional zombie infections do.

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:55 pm
by ManInBlack316
fred.greek wrote:http://www.johnringo.net/TheLibrary/Bla ... lypse.aspx
The author at the link presents the argument that genetic manipulation ability is developing quickly and extensively, and becoming “cheap” and simple to do, with the probability that soon it will be possible for someone “in their basement” to create new virus and bacteria. Envision that someone being a zombie fan, who for fun (or whatever) creates a pathogen to do essentially what fictional zombie infections do.
This was also mentioned in another thread recently. That's honestly scary stuff....

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 3:00 pm
by Steeltalons
Choppy Choppy wrote:I don't mean to be stepping on anyone's toes or anything, and I hope that you take this thread for what it is, as I'm not trolling and I'm seeking an honest and open discussion about how close to a Hollywood-zombie our reality can actually experience. The zombies seen in most Hollywood flicks and shows are more fictional than "realistic" - rather, they're impossible, but many of you already knew that...

So, what would be a more realistic zombie?

- Slow vs fast zombies... if the bodies are "dead" then the flesh, organs, etc. begin to rot and is literally dead meat that will not function. The traditional dead zombies would be more plausible with slow zombies. However, different variations of "dead" seem to make it more plausible for fast zombies, such as a brain-altering virus or parasite that takes over the body while placing the host's consciousness in a vegetable state. Perhaps fast would be interpreted as having the same speed as the sprint speed of the human, or even faster if it's like a rage virus where the zombie is constantly filled with testosterone/adrenaline and is always hungry, and has a huge pain tolerance. Also, perhaps there's a synthetic, "permanent infection" caused by something like LSD such as that one guy eating someone's face off and being shot by police without "noticing".

- Zombies dying... again... If the zombies don't eat, they should be dead for good due to starvation, right? Some Hollywood portrayals of zombies still functioning with only the skeletal remains showing with whatever brain matter is left, turns me off. IMHO, 28 Days/Weeks Later went in the right direction with this, and starved out the zombies (and the virus part...).

And, there's the common theme about shooting the brain. It may be a surefire way of eliminating the function of the other organs since the brain controls everything, but what if you shoot the other vital organs? If humans need lungs to breathe to bring oxygen to the rest of the body so that they can function (e.g. the legs need oxygen to run, let alone walk), what would realistically allow zombies to fully function without any organs besides the brain?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. :)
I just got done watching a National Geographic series called "Evacuate Earth", which presents seven different scenarios that might drive humanity to the brink of extinction. Segment 5 ("Zombie Earth") involved the release into nature, due to human stupidity (laziness/carelessness), of a weaponized rabies virus that could be spread through the air, turning people into living, but essentially mindless, killing machines. This is, I think, a far more realistic scenario than the classic Romero shambler with no heartbeat and a craving for flesh.

The other segments of the series were interesting "what ifs" as well. #1 ("Evacuate Earth") showed a neutron star on a collision course with Earth, and a 75 year time span in which scientists and other specialists had to design a generation ship, supply it, find a suitable Earth-like planet to colonize, and select approximately 250,000 people out of the entire population to keep humanity alive. #2 ("Micro Monsters") involves nanotech run amok thanks to a rogue scientist. The cure turns out to be worse than the initial outbreak...! In #3 ("Flooded Earth"), a giant comet impacts the moon, causing an accretion disc of ice to form around the Earth which turns to rain - over 300 years worth of non-stop rain. Where's Noah when you need him? ;) #4 ("Killer Storm") features a giant storm that covers more than half the planet, brought on by a massive release of methane from the ocean floor (caused by human error) making the temperature of the planet rise, as methane is an even worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. #6 ("Hell On Earth") hypothesizes massive world-wide volcanic eruptions after a micro-sized black hole blasts through the Earth, creating shockwaves from inside the world. #7 ("Frozen Earth") has our world spiraling outward farther away from the sun due to a gravitational disruption from a chunk of dark matter. It's all available on YouTube, and interesting speculation based in calculated scientific possibilities.

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 6:02 pm
by MPMalloy
Steeltalons wrote:
Choppy Choppy wrote:I don't mean to be stepping on anyone's toes or anything, and I hope that you take this thread for what it is, as I'm not trolling and I'm seeking an honest and open discussion about how close to a Hollywood-zombie our reality can actually experience. The zombies seen in most Hollywood flicks and shows are more fictional than "realistic" - rather, they're impossible, but many of you already knew that...

So, what would be a more realistic zombie?

- Slow vs fast zombies... if the bodies are "dead" then the flesh, organs, etc. begin to rot and is literally dead meat that will not function. The traditional dead zombies would be more plausible with slow zombies. However, different variations of "dead" seem to make it more plausible for fast zombies, such as a brain-altering virus or parasite that takes over the body while placing the host's consciousness in a vegetable state. Perhaps fast would be interpreted as having the same speed as the sprint speed of the human, or even faster if it's like a rage virus where the zombie is constantly filled with testosterone/adrenaline and is always hungry, and has a huge pain tolerance. Also, perhaps there's a synthetic, "permanent infection" caused by something like LSD such as that one guy eating someone's face off and being shot by police without "noticing".

- Zombies dying... again... If the zombies don't eat, they should be dead for good due to starvation, right? Some Hollywood portrayals of zombies still functioning with only the skeletal remains showing with whatever brain matter is left, turns me off. IMHO, 28 Days/Weeks Later went in the right direction with this, and starved out the zombies (and the virus part...).

And, there's the common theme about shooting the brain. It may be a surefire way of eliminating the function of the other organs since the brain controls everything, but what if you shoot the other vital organs? If humans need lungs to breathe to bring oxygen to the rest of the body so that they can function (e.g. the legs need oxygen to run, let alone walk), what would realistically allow zombies to fully function without any organs besides the brain?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. :)
I just got done watching a National Geographic series called "Evacuate Earth", which presents seven different scenarios that might drive humanity to the brink of extinction. Segment 5 ("Zombie Earth") involved the release into nature, due to human stupidity (laziness/carelessness), of a weaponized rabies virus that could be spread through the air, turning people into living, but essentially mindless, killing machines. This is, I think, a far more realistic scenario than the classic Romero shambler with no heartbeat and a craving for flesh.

The other segments of the series were interesting "what ifs" as well. #1 ("Evacuate Earth") showed a neutron star on a collision course with Earth, and a 75 year time span in which scientists and other specialists had to design a generation ship, supply it, find a suitable Earth-like planet to colonize, and select approximately 250,000 people out of the entire population to keep humanity alive. #2 ("Micro Monsters") involves nanotech run amok thanks to a rogue scientist. The cure turns out to be worse than the initial outbreak...! In #3 ("Flooded Earth"), a giant comet impacts the moon, causing an accretion disc of ice to form around the Earth which turns to rain - over 300 years worth of non-stop rain. Where's Noah when you need him? ;) #4 ("Killer Storm") features a giant storm that covers more than half the planet, brought on by a massive release of methane from the ocean floor (caused by human error) making the temperature of the planet rise, as methane is an even worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. #6 ("Hell On Earth") hypothesizes massive world-wide volcanic eruptions after a micro-sized black hole blasts through the Earth, creating shockwaves from inside the world. #7 ("Frozen Earth") has our world spiraling outward farther away from the sun due to a gravitational disruption from a chunk of dark matter. It's all available on YouTube, and interesting speculation based in calculated scientific possibilities.
Cool! 8-)

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 7:32 pm
by flybynight
ManInBlack316 wrote:
fred.greek wrote:http://www.johnringo.net/TheLibrary/Bla ... lypse.aspx
The author at the link presents the argument that genetic manipulation ability is developing quickly and extensively, and becoming “cheap” and simple to do, with the probability that soon it will be possible for someone “in their basement” to create new virus and bacteria. Envision that someone being a zombie fan, who for fun (or whatever) creates a pathogen to do essentially what fictional zombie infections do.
This was also mentioned in another thread recently. That's honestly scary stuff....
Image

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 7:40 pm
by JeeperCreeper
Anyone ever work in mental health??

Schizophrenia, Dementia, Alzheimer's, any other brain abnormality can make some bizarre, even scary, temperament and behavioral issues. Even a UTI in the elderly can create rabid, drunk, and hallucinogenic-like behaviors.

I think a disease or biological threat that could affect the brain could create a "zombie-like" state in the human mind.

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 7:50 pm
by MPMalloy
This is an interesting thread. Thank you everyone. :)

Re: What would be a more realistic zombie?

Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 10:42 pm
by Ellywick
JeeperCreeper wrote:Anyone ever work in mental health??

Schizophrenia, Dementia, Alzheimer's, any other brain abnormality can make some bizarre, even scary, temperament and behavioral issues. Even a UTI in the elderly can create rabid, drunk, and hallucinogenic-like behaviors.

I think a disease or biological threat that could affect the brain could create a "zombie-like" state in the human mind.
My day job is as a mental health professional. I've seen people with mental health issues be violent, delusional, resistant to pain, and super strong, but I'm not sure I would equate just those characteristics to being zombie-like. Guess I feel that zombies have a static, chronic mindless state and need to create carnage, rather than a situational one. Most people with the conditions you described at least have some periods of lucidity or calm. And, honestly, most people with mental health issues are not that extreme. More people are depressed or anxious than delusional and extremely violent.

All this being said, I think mental health medication could indeed make someone zombie-like. I mean, "zombie-like" is a term used for over-medicated people all the time. Overly high doses of meds to psychiatric patients in the 50's-70's totally turned people into mindless shamblers, albeit non-violent ones. And Ritalin in someone who doesn't really need it can turn them into a rage monster. I'm not against psychotropic meds necessarily, they can be really helpful, but the research indicates we are playing with something we still really understand little about. And trials rarely track longitudinal effects of psychotropic meds, particularly in children, who we are dosing up in record numbers.

Find a medication that seems to work well for people, get a bunch of people dosed up on it for a long time, and then find out later that it burns out their brains. Turn Prozac Nation into Zombie Nation.