RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,963
Posts: 5,392,006
Members: 24,720
Currently online: 599
Newest member: Amywholoveswine

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 2 2013, 04:34 AM   #91
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post

That plot thread doesn't hold up under much scrutiny.
Most movies have plot elements that hold up under scrutiny. So I just go with it.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 05:11 AM   #92
Base_Delta_Zero
Commodore
 
Base_Delta_Zero's Avatar
 
Location: Maine
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

The Battle of Yonkers remains one of the most asinine descriptions of a military action ever put to paper. It's a perfect storm of every cliched dumb thing the military could do when facing zombies as imagined by someone with zero military experience. How it was written was amusing, but woefully divorced from reality.

I get it, slow zombies are only a threat if everyone is stupid during the initial outbreak and allows it to get out of control. It's a conceit of the genre. If the military went in and curb-stomped the shambling hordes on day one of the outbreak, that wouldn't be much of a zombie story.

Which is why I appreciated the movie changing the zombies into rapid-change, fast-movers. It at least gives the zombies a realistic chance to overwhelm hurriedly prepared positions. Although, I would have really liked to see what some armored cavalry units could do to blunt/divert the onrush and help push them back. Not to mention the impervious main battle tanks dominating everything. I don't care how many zombies crowd together, they ain't lifting a 70+ ton tank, let alone penetrating its armor with their teeth or fingernails. Hollywood has a depressing tendency to just stick Humvees everywhere and call it "the military".
Base_Delta_Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 05:14 AM   #93
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

Yeah, I like the fast-change aspect too. Also that the zombies were more concerned with biting to spread the "disease" and then moving on; rather than apparently not being very good at finishing their meals. (A zombie trope often glanced over.)
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 05:21 AM   #94
Base_Delta_Zero
Commodore
 
Base_Delta_Zero's Avatar
 
Location: Maine
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

Good point. I always wonder why typical zombies stop eating people just as they're sufficiently horrifying enough before moving on, but not so gnawed on that they can't get up, shamble and grapple with fresh victims. The fast change/spread virus imperative fixes that. Zombies don't eat other zombies here because hunger for food (on the macro scale) has nothing to do with their urge to attack.
Base_Delta_Zero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 06:13 AM   #95
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

So, what do those tanks do against zombies?
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 12:08 PM   #96
Mr Light
Admiral
 
Location: Pennsylvania
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

What was wrong with the Battle of Yonkers? Someone mentioned earlier that a 50 cal would tear a human body to shreds, is there more to it than that?
__________________

Mr Light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 01:20 PM   #97
DarthTom
Fleet Admiral
 
DarthTom's Avatar
 
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
But it goes back to "how sick is sick enough?" What ailment did the gimp guy in S. Korea suffer from that made him "immune." Does "cancer" (or whatever the bald, reedy kid in Israel had) or "oldmanism" (or whatever the old man in Israel had) really smell that different enough than a cold? And why would ANY infection or disease matter to a creature that's already dead and not biologically active?
Objectively speaking was the fast moving zombies being able to detect sick humans any worse in terms of a plot than Khan's magic blood being able to bring Jim Kirk back from the dead and cure sick people?

Both are complete fiction. And in both films we suspend our disbelief for the enjoyment of the film.

Now that I think about it - I liked World War Z even moreso than the latest Trek film. The Trek film was laced with as many if not more plot holes than Z but side-by-side Brad Pitt simply is a better actor than either Pine or Cumberbatch.

Base_Delta_Zero wrote: View Post
I get it, slow zombies are only a threat if everyone is stupid during the initial outbreak and allows it to get out of control. It's a conceit of the genre. If the military went in and curb-stomped the shambling hordes on day one of the outbreak, that wouldn't be much of a zombie story.
Part of the suspension of disbelief problem with The Walking Dead where the Zombies now do rule the world is as you say, either the US military was very slow to react to the threat or they are incompetent.

Also the other problem is the gun ownership percentages in the US and people's ability to defend themselves against the threat. You'd think that quickly people would learn that a shot in the head would end the problem and at least some parts of the media would be left to tell the remaining populace how to handle the problem.

World War Z's fast moving Zombies are a far more credible way for the world to be completely overrun.

Last edited by DarthTom; July 2 2013 at 01:45 PM.
DarthTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 04:02 PM   #98
Locutus of Bored
Furfallin'
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Yeah, I like the fast-change aspect too. Also that the zombies were more concerned with biting to spread the "disease" and then moving on; rather than apparently not being very good at finishing their meals. (A zombie trope often glanced over.)
The only problem with the fast-change zombies is that it almost completely eliminates airplanes and mass transit serving as a successful disease vector. They kept the reference to "planes being a perfect method of spreading the virus" from the book, but in the book that was only the case because you might not be symptomatic for a few days (I don't recall the exact timeline) after being bitten or otherwise exposed to the zombie virus, in which case you would spread the disease to another continent without even knowing it just by taking an international flight.

The most dangerous viruses in terms of being able to threaten the world are not the ones that kill their host quickly, it's the one where you are a carrier for days or even weeks without being noticeably symptomatic, and that way you can spread the disease far and wide. Ebola for instance, as terrible as it is, is fairly restricted to isolated areas with poor medical care, because it shows symptoms so quickly and has such a high mortality rate that it makes it difficult for it to spread beyond a relatively small region.

They tried to explain it by having a zombie stowaway onboard a plane like a plague rat, but that only worked because for some reason that zombie was extremely smart and crawled into the cargo deck of the plane and then into the freight elevator where he waited patiently to surprise the flight attendant, and because since the airport was being overrun there were no guards around to protect the perimeter of the plane. Early on during the breakout of the virus that wouldn't have been the case, so I don't see how the zombies could possibly spread via airplanes so successfully.

In reality it would be fairly easy to create isolated safe zones on islands and so forth and not let any uninspected flights or ships come in.

Of course, as you guys mentioned, the slow-change zombies carry with them their own set of plausibility issues in terms of why they aren't easier to contain and defeat, so it's kind of a toss up there.

DarthTom wrote: View Post
Objectively speaking was the fast moving zombies being able to detect sick humans any worse in terms of a plot than Khan's magic blood being able to bring Jim Kirk back from the dead and cure sick people?
Well, I commend you for moving beyond ST: Nemesis as the only movie you ever compare any other movie's implausibilities to, but you know there are like, hundreds of thousands of other movies out there other than Star Trek films to serve as a basis for comparison, right? Branch out a bit.

People make a big deal out of the whole magic blood thing, but I don't find it all that bad. It's not even in the top twenty worst technobabble items in Trek. If you can genetically engineer someone to the degree they did with Khan, I don't think giving them some kind of self-repairing cells seem that far-fetched. Sort of like a biological equivalent of molecular scale nanites to repair damaged cells and internal organs. The Genesis Device in TWoK was far more ridiculous if you want something to compare it to, though again, it's not like Star Trek is the only other movie series in the world.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Last edited by Locutus of Bored; July 2 2013 at 04:18 PM.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 04:17 PM   #99
bbailey861
Admiral
 
bbailey861's Avatar
 
Location: Kingston, ON
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

I went in to see this with no preconceptions. I didn't read the book and managed to never even lay eyes on a trailer until about a week ago. I went with the wife who loves the zombie thing. All I wanted to do was have an entertaining couple of hours without having it suck. I'm glad to say it did entertain and I didn't think it sucked at all. I enjoyed the movie; Pitt did a good job as did his supporting characters - especially his eventual Israeli sidekick, and I enjoyed the SFX. The ending didn't bother me like it appears to have done others because I found it credible, but after reading about the 'Russian sequence', I hope it makes it to the DVD. It was a good couple of hours of fun.
bbailey861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 04:34 PM   #100
DarthTom
Fleet Admiral
 
DarthTom's Avatar
 
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Well, I commend you for moving beyond ST: Nemesis as the only movie you ever compare any other movie's implausibilities to, but you know there are like, hundreds of thousands of other movies out there other than Star Trek films to serve as a basis for comparison, right? Branch out a bit.
Ah, Locutus - since both films came out within 1 month of each other - I think Trek or not - it's a fair example.

People make a big deal out of the whole magic blood thing, but I don't find it all that bad. It's not even in the top twenty worst technobabble items in Trek. If you can genetically engineer someone to the degree they did with Khan, I don't think giving them some kind of self-repairing cells seem that far-fetched. Sort of like a biological equivalent of molecular scale nanites to repair damaged cells and internal organs.
Kirk would have still have been brain dead. So those are amazing nanites.

The point is IMO that I lilked both films and it seems odd that a suspension of disbelief for Khan's magic blood isn't farfetched whereas superfast zomibes wouldn't attack sick humans is.

A cougar can travel at 45 MPH and as they pointed out in the film likely wouldn't attack sick prey. A suspension of disbelief would suggest that the virus also enhances humans ability to smell even thought that isn't in the dialogue. Problem solved

Regardless in both Trek and Z - it's both fiction. I liked both films. Did you like Z?


bbailey861 wrote: View Post
I'm glad to say it did entertain and I didn't think it sucked at all. I enjoyed the movie; Pitt did a good job as did his supporting characters - especially his eventual Israeli sidekick, and I enjoyed the SFX.
Agreed after all the negative press Z got - it actually is an entertaning film. People should give it a chance.

One thing I thought I'd be disappointed in was the scene where the zombies were trying to climb the wall. While it was obvious that the scene was computer generated the way it played out didn't end up being cheesy as some expected it might.
DarthTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 04:41 PM   #101
paudemge
Captain
 
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

One of the biggest problems I had was that the Zombies in the movie where uncontrollably drawn towards noise, seem like it would be very easy to just lure them somewhere and kill them at will.
paudemge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 04:42 PM   #102
Starkers
Admiral
 
Starkers's Avatar
 
Location: Paddling...
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

With regard to how the virus spread when the infection is so quick, I thought there was a throwaway line about how 5% of infected take a while to turn, presumably they're the ones spreading it? Still doesn't quite hold true, but at least partly explains it.
__________________
Werewolves on the Moon Now with Guardians of the Galaxy review

The Devils of Amber Street
Starkers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 04:53 PM   #103
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

DarthTom wrote: View Post
Kirk would have still have been brain dead. So those are amazing nanites.
As I recall, McCoy had Kirk's body put in stasis to preserve the brain, but there's a LOT of issues I have with the "magic blood" thing but that's neither here nor there.

On the spread of the disease thing, Lo pointed out it's a good point that the fast-change makes the disease spread easier to contain but there's ways we can think around that, maybe the alive being carriers without being actually infected.
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 05:20 PM   #104
Locutus of Bored
Furfallin'
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

DarthTom wrote: View Post
Kirk would have still have been brain dead. So those are amazing nanites.
I didn't say they were nanites, I said they were probably cells in the blood that worked similar to the concept of using nanites to repair other damaged cells.

As far as brain death goes, it's the 23rd century, I'm sure Bones has some means to keep oxygen flowing to the brain and keep electrical activity going, he just needed a way to repair the radiation damaged cells. Hence the blood.

The point is IMO that I lilked both films and it seems odd that a suspension of disbelief for Khan's magic blood isn't farfetched whereas superfast zomibes wouldn't attack sick humans is.
They're totally different genres, set in totally different eras, with totally different medical conditions and technology at play. It just seems like you would compare it to other zombie/outbreak genre films before you went so far afield.

A cougar can travel at 45 MPH and as they pointed out in the film likely wouldn't attack sick prey.
Cougars are typically more ambush predators than sprinters, and they and other big cats prey on the sick, the old, the young, and the weak all the time because they're easier to kill, but that's beside the point. Was that really the example they used in the film? Because that's completely wrong if it was. I don't recall exactly what they said though, though.

Regardless in both Trek and Z - it's both fiction. I liked both films. Did you like Z?
It was fairly entertaining in the first two sections, though I thought it fell totally flat in the (most important) third act of the film once they left Jerusalem. Judging the film on its own merits and without comparing it to the book, which still bugs me, because they were just piggybacking on the name recognition while carrying over almost nothing that made the book unique or engrossing; but just for the film on it's own I'd give it a grade of "B-".

Another thing I thought was ridiculous --though this is a flaw of the novel as well-- is that there is just no way in this day and age off mass global media that a zombie plague could spread around the world and still take people by surprise as they're sitting in their cars in Philadelphia. Look at how the media reacts to SARS, Bird Flu, Mad Cow, and every other disease that pops up every few years and then tell me they wouldn't be all over a zombie outbreak in India and Korea like flies on shit within five minutes. Hell, one guy on drugs in Florida went cannibal and that was national news for a couple weeks and spawned all kinds of exaggerated spin-off stories.

Just like slow moving zombie not being able to be easily destroyed by the military, I guess it's a conceit of the genre that you just have to live with in order to justify the threat becoming global, but it's just so silly when they seem to forget that the media even exists.

I did appreciate that this film actually tackled the mass outbreak itself again, though, instead of just skipping to the aftermath by having the protagonist in a coma or something, as some other recent zombie/outbreak films/shows do.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2 2013, 05:51 PM   #105
DarthTom
Fleet Admiral
 
DarthTom's Avatar
 
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: World War Z ratings/spoilers

paudemge wrote: View Post
One of the biggest problems I had was that the Zombies in the movie where uncontrollably drawn towards noise, seem like it would be very easy to just lure them somewhere and kill them at will.
Without spoiling the book if you haven't read it - that's part of the solution. The other part I'll leave unspoiled how that eventually ends the plague.
DarthTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
horror, zombies

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.