The Walking Dead Season 3

[wissaboo]

I'm thinking 90% of the population is already zombies or dead. At least in the area they are.

[Gotham Central]

wissaboo wrote:

---

I'm thinking 90% of the population is already zombies or dead. At least in the area they are.

There is nothing to support the idea that 90% of the population is dead. There just are not enough bodies/zombies around to account for a population that large.

[wissaboo]

well, there are little sprinklings of humans, and herds of zombies

[Scout101]

Gotham Central wrote:

---

I think that you folks are dramatically underestimating how many people there are in the world at this point.

There are seven billion people on this planet. Its a good bet that the zombie apocalypse only took care of about a quarter of that in the first year.

Sorry, but think you're using bad math. Of your 7 billion people, a little over 50% of them live in a city somewhere in the world. So, there's a little over 3.5 billion dead (or undead) within a week or so, give or take. That's just official urban areas, I'm guessing it's closer to 65-70% if you can count suburban areas, and anywhere within a few hours' walk of a city. Now we're down to around 2.1 billion give or take. Mostly in the first couple weeks. Might have some small pockets that hold out a while, but there's no food/water in a city that will keep things going for long, and no more coming. Plus, the aforementioned billions of nearby zombies, so you're mostly toast.

Probably the most unlikely part of Walking Dead is how close to Atlanta the survivor group is/was. Make a lot more sense if they came from the sticks, and were heading into Atlanta because of the CDC and whatnot. If they started there, seems unlikely they'd get out.

So anyway, down to around 30% of the world's population (give or take) within a few weeks. Now release the zombie hordes, cut off food supplies, allow for human/human violence to ensue, natural disasters, failure of a few nuclear power plants, and a winter to survive on their own, and can't imagine there's more than 10% or so of the population that has a chance, and they're in the sparsely-populated 3rd world countries where things like food deliveries and electricity weren't going to be missed.

Gotham Central wrote:

---

There is nothing to support the idea that 90% of the population is dead. There just are not enough bodies/zombies around to account for a population that large.

Because it's bad tv (plus hard to film) if it's just a pile of dead bodies everywhere. Half a million people in Atlanta, goes to a couple million if you count nearby outlying areas. Obviously we didn't see a couple million zombies or corpses. We also saw about 20 survivors, so feel free to extend those numbers out as far as you like. If there's even 1000 zombies seen for every 20 survivors, you're still looking at .001% survival rate. (projects to 70k humans if you use worldwide numbers, but some areas would be much less impacted, and wouldn't see such bad numbers.)

Even if you assume that there's more compared to our 20 or so we've seen, I'll give you a nice big 500 (not anywhere near what wev'e seen total). Works out to .025%, 1.8 million in the world.

There aren't enough zombies PLUS humans PLUS dead bodies to account for the whole population anyway (or even a decent percent), so can't use that to begin with. Most appocolyptic shows/movies usually accept the conceit that someone magically cleaned up a lot of the bodies...

[wissaboo]

all those extra zombies are walking in circles in fields or something

[MPH]

Scout101 wrote:

---

bad math, though. The BULK of new zombies would have been right at the start of the outbreak. They either turned or killed a huge percentage of the humans. From now on, the new zombie creation would be a trickle at best.

Especially since the zombies are just as likely to tear apart as to bite and turn a person, so they're not even making new zombies at a slow level, it's a very tiny number. Small human population, and really just getting the ones that die of non-zombie causes at this point, so they won't be replenishing the herd.

That what I thought! Its an easy excuse for the producers to make this continued zombie infestion viable

[RJDiogenes]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

That would be far too much common sense for this series, which features characters making irrational decisions every step of the way, as though they have learned nothing from surviving in a world overrun with zombies.

It's not all that bad. Generally speaking, the characters act no more irrationally than people in real life do.

PKerr wrote:

---

Right, beat me to it.

Yes, exactly.

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

So for their own ends, large numbers of zombies will continue to be produced forever.

As with anything, there's room for creative license. The zombie virus slows or stops decomposition. The winter also helps. There is still zombie production from suburban areas. But that can only take you so far before it becomes too unbelievable-- maybe a couple of years or so. We should soon be seeing fewer and few zombies and more successful enclaves of survivors.

[Venardhi]

Scout101 wrote:

---

Because it's bad tv (plus hard to film) if it's just a pile of dead bodies everywhere. Half a million people in Atlanta, goes to a couple million if you count nearby outlying areas. Obviously we didn't see a couple million zombies or corpses. We also saw about 20 survivors, so feel free to extend those numbers out as far as you like. If there's even 1000 zombies seen for every 20 survivors, you're still looking at .001% survival rate. (projects to 70k humans if you use worldwide numbers, but some areas would be much less impacted, and wouldn't see such bad numbers.)

Atlanta urban area is like 5 million people, not half a million.

We've seen a few different groups mind you. The old folks home from season one, the gang from season two, Hershel's farm, now the town, the prisoners, the group from the latest episode, etc. That adds up to a lot more than 20 survivors. While it is clearly a small fraction of the overall population, if you extrapolate it out to other areas and assume even a few neighborhoods or facilities that managed to survive the initial outbreak and shore up their defenses, there could be areas with tens of thousands fairly easily.

I think it is safe to assume at least a few million people are still alive at the time of the show's most recent events. Is that enough to keep the hordes replentished? Of course not, but that assumes they need replentishing. Once the dead are walking I don't see any reason they should be dying off out of something as simple as starvation or exposure.

[Kegg]

DarthTom wrote:

---

I'm not sure modern audiences will accept a story arc that has the characters forever living a more grim life. There has to be IMO at some point hope and a search for the "cure,"

The TV writers have said they have basically no interest in doing a 'cure' storyline, and I don't blame them (I believe Glen Mazzara said he felt it would make Walking Dead too much of a science fiction series when he considers its natural genre to be horror).

'Hope' in the context of this series then is stuff like what the prison was at the start of this season, when Rick built it up as the safe refuge the group desperately needed, a place they could settle down on, grow crops in, and have a life for themselves.

So hope is not finding a way to end zombies, it's finding a way to live in a zombie-infested world and to ensure that there will be another generation of human beings (and as such children like Carl and Judith are part of that hope).

RJDonner&Blitzen wrote:

---

I'm disappointed in Andrea because Dale would be disappointed in Andrea.

Dale's fixation on Andrea was generally pretty creepy and posessive. Do not miss him at all.

[trekkiebaggio]

Kegg wrote:

---

The TV writers have said they have basically no interest in doing a 'cure' storyline, and I don't blame them (I believe Glen Mazzara said he felt it would make Walking Dead too much of a science fiction series when he considers its natural genre to be horror).

'Hope' in the context of this series then is stuff like what the prison was at the start of this season, when Rick built it up as the safe refuge the group desperately needed, a place they could settle down on, grow crops in, and have a life for themselves.

So hope is not finding a way to end zombies, it's finding a way to live in a zombie-infested world and to ensure that there will be another generation of human beings (and as such children like Carl and Judith are part of that hope).

Which I think is far more interesting than finding a cure. I'd love to see how people adapt to this new world and what new traditions spring up, like eventually I think shooting loved ones in the head when they die will become accepted practice, and a ceremony may even come about because of it.

I had a thought last night. I know some people want to know how the outbreak got started. I don't think they'll actually answer it in the main storyline, but if they wanted to reveal it they could do it as the last scene, so the final scene of the last episode is sort of the beginning of the show.

[AvBaur]

RJDonner&Blitzen wrote:

---

The other thing is, even if the decomposition process is slowed, these zombies are obviously rotting away-- how many months or years will it be before the zombie herds become completely unjustifiable?

One of the producers (Darabont?) said some time ago that, rather than decomposing quickly and completely, the "older" zombies become "mummified" and therefore can be around for quite a while.

[Derishton]

trekkiebaggio wrote:

---

Which I think is far more interesting than finding a cure. I'd love to see how people adapt to this new world and what new traditions spring up, like eventually I think shooting loved ones in the head when they die will become accepted practice, and a ceremony may even come about because of it.

If you haven't seen the amazing Fido, you should seek it out: it mines this territory pretty well.

[trekkiebaggio]

Derishton wrote:

---

If you haven't seen the amazing Fido, you should seek it out: it mines this territory pretty well.

I haven't no, thanks for the recommendation I'll be sure to look out for it!

[RJDiogenes]

Kegg wrote:

---

Dale's fixation on Andrea was generally pretty creepy and posessive. Do not miss him at all.

He was my favorite character. It's sad that we live in an age where the knee-jerk response to unsolicited friendship and concern is "creepy." Coincidentally, I was thinking of this last night while I was watching Annie at the theater. The storyline concerns a rich old man whose life is empty until he comes to love an 11-year-old orphan girl-- he even proposes adoption in a manner similar to proposing marriage. It's quite heartwarming, but I was wondering to myself how many people in the audience interpreted that as "creepy" in the current climate of political correctness.

AvBaur wrote:

---

One of the producers (Darabont?) said some time ago that, rather than decomposing quickly and completely, the "older" zombies become "mummified" and therefore can be around for quite a while.

Sure, and that's all well and good, but even mummies crumble to dust after a while. Artistic license can only be stretched so far.

[Kegg]

RJDonner&Blitzen wrote:

---

He was my favorite character. It's sad that we live in an age where the knee-jerk response to unsolicited friendship and concern is "creepy."

He only gave that to the young blonde woman. He was perfectly comfortable with letting Jacqui die in the CDC. Even if we assume his motives weren't sexual (which apparently they were in the comic) he was treating Andrea, an adult, as someone he should guilt trip and manipulate into doing what he wants.