^See, and the fact that I didn't get any sense of that at all shows that it needed a clearer explanation.
iZombie Season 1 Discussion and Spoilers
- Thread starter Saga
- Start date
Well, "I'm getting too old for this shit" doesn't mean much after you've stopped ageing.
There's a %10 he was trying or succeeded in faking his own death, if he held his breath after they found his corpse in the rubble, but I really think that he was dead, dead.
There's a %10 he was trying or succeeded in faking his own death, if he held his breath after they found his corpse in the rubble, but I really think that he was dead, dead.
Rob Thomas on season 2 - http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/09/izombie-season-1-finale-season-2-spoilers
Just got around to seeing it tonight. I really liked it. Rose McIver is really selling her character, and has been for many episodes now.
Nice edgy developments all around, not maintaining the status quo at all. Being dynamic at this level indicates to me that the showrunners are willing to take chances. They're not settling into too many patterns, which to me is great.
With respect to Suzuki's motivation, I agree with what Greg Cox said, but I also think that Suzuki's actions imply that he really wanted to do something to fight the zombies all along. He was probably just a good cop who got turned undead, and his discomfort at being under Blaine is totally consistent with that. Suzuki writing Blaine's name in his own blood (which the police can determine from forensic testing) is a way of putting Blaine, and therefore the zombies, directly on police radar. Since he was shot (because he shot himself), it's going to look exactly like he dipped his finger in his own blood and made a dying declaration. Looking at it this way, I think that one of things that kept Suzuki from coming out against the zombies earlier was that he was afraid of being identified as a zombie (naturally so, right?). Taking himself (the rest of the way) out of the picture means he doesn't have to deal with being hunted, rounded up, or killed, and yet he can also go out fighting the zombies. Frankly, that all seems pretty interesting to me, and I would have preferred getting inside Suzuki's head on the show a little more myself.
Nice edgy developments all around, not maintaining the status quo at all. Being dynamic at this level indicates to me that the showrunners are willing to take chances. They're not settling into too many patterns, which to me is great.
With respect to Suzuki's motivation, I agree with what Greg Cox said, but I also think that Suzuki's actions imply that he really wanted to do something to fight the zombies all along. He was probably just a good cop who got turned undead, and his discomfort at being under Blaine is totally consistent with that. Suzuki writing Blaine's name in his own blood (which the police can determine from forensic testing) is a way of putting Blaine, and therefore the zombies, directly on police radar. Since he was shot (because he shot himself), it's going to look exactly like he dipped his finger in his own blood and made a dying declaration. Looking at it this way, I think that one of things that kept Suzuki from coming out against the zombies earlier was that he was afraid of being identified as a zombie (naturally so, right?). Taking himself (the rest of the way) out of the picture means he doesn't have to deal with being hunted, rounded up, or killed, and yet he can also go out fighting the zombies. Frankly, that all seems pretty interesting to me, and I would have preferred getting inside Suzuki's head on the show a little more myself.
Lots of spoilers in there. Consider yourself warned.
So Blaine is going to stay in the brain delivery business. Liv is just stupid enough to allow him to do that, but I can't see Major standing for any more innocent people being killed. Therefore, I'll assume that Major and Liv force Blaine to deliver brains from the ME or from some funeral parlor or something along those lines.
Really? I picked up on that right away.
Yeah, given the course of his arc, I'm not sure it really needed to be spoonfed. Plus, he was a morally ambiguous character, so it fit that we didn't really know what he was thinking or planning until the very last minute . ...
Got all caught up on this and just watched the finale last night.
I was behind the whole time and stayed out of the thread.
The show really did feel like Veronica Mars, Zombie edition. The creator leaned heavily on what he knew but made it work here. It was fun every couple of episodes playing spot the VM actor in the episodes.
Suzuki (is he the police chief? or head of Detectives..I digress) isn't dead, he only injured himself to the point of looking dead to others. What's his end game in that ruse?
Blaine, not dead? Ok, Liv why didn't you shoot him in the head. Do we really believe Blaine is the ONLY reason a full on Max Ranger Zombie out break hasn't happened?
Major is the dumbest character on the show. I kept rooting for his death, kinda thought we might get it for about 5min there.
I feel bad for Ravi, he and Peyton really didn't get a solid chance and her character was so shaken up by the episode 11 reveals that she was MIA for the finale.
Liv's brother(whose name I forget)...will he live or die and if he lives Live is only going to be more estranged from him and her mom now after saying NO to a transfusion.
So next season starts in the Fall, a full 22 episode order then.
It may be iZombie in name only but not being tied to the source material with any passion I'm alright on this one. Maybe I'll check out he comic eventually though just to compare it myself at some point.
I was behind the whole time and stayed out of the thread.
The show really did feel like Veronica Mars, Zombie edition. The creator leaned heavily on what he knew but made it work here. It was fun every couple of episodes playing spot the VM actor in the episodes.
Suzuki (is he the police chief? or head of Detectives..I digress) isn't dead, he only injured himself to the point of looking dead to others. What's his end game in that ruse?
Blaine, not dead? Ok, Liv why didn't you shoot him in the head. Do we really believe Blaine is the ONLY reason a full on Max Ranger Zombie out break hasn't happened?
Major is the dumbest character on the show. I kept rooting for his death, kinda thought we might get it for about 5min there.
I feel bad for Ravi, he and Peyton really didn't get a solid chance and her character was so shaken up by the episode 11 reveals that she was MIA for the finale.
Liv's brother(whose name I forget)...will he live or die and if he lives Live is only going to be more estranged from him and her mom now after saying NO to a transfusion.
So next season starts in the Fall, a full 22 episode order then.
It may be iZombie in name only but not being tied to the source material with any passion I'm alright on this one. Maybe I'll check out he comic eventually though just to compare it myself at some point.
Not initially.
Season 2 may be airing in the Fall, but The CW only gave the show a 13-episode guaranteed order with the "back nine" as a possibility.
To be honest, I don't buy the idea that this type of zombie could ever really cause a zombie apocalypse at all. They're all far too attached to their humanity, and as long as they attempt to remain more or less human they don't seem to eat very much at all. I mean, characters like Liv who seem to munch on a single brain for a whole week aside, even the bad guys can't be eating that often, considering an entire zombie community hasn't had any more impact on society than merely doubling the amount of disappearances from a single area. But then, maybe Super Max will change things.
Except it's the other way around -- it's only by eating brains that they can remain human. Without a reliable supply, they turn into classic mindless shamblers. And as we saw with Liv's old friend who was trapped in that pit, once they've degenerated far enough, feeding them won't restore their minds and personalities. There's a point of no return.
Plus there's the fact that the infection spreads with astonishing ease, if a simple scratch can do it. If anything, if it's that easily transmitted, it's surprising it hasn't spread much more widely already.
Right, but my point is, they don't need much in the way of brains to remain human, and as long they are still human they are very concerned with remaining that way and they have the skills and cunning to at least have a reasonable shot at getting the brains they need without getting caught. Couple that with the fact that all new zombies come into existence in this humanlike state, and it seems to me that at any given moment, the shambling, unthinking zombies should pretty much always be in the minority.
The fact that it can be transmitted by a scratch is basically par for the course for most types of zombies, but unlike most types of zombies, these ones have actual control over their actions and relatively little incentive to turn people.
I suspect that obtaining human brains on a regular basis is harder than it sounds, unless they're all planning on becoming expert serial killers from now on. Liv has her cushy gig at the morgue, but I'm not sure how the average infected Seattleite is supposed to get their hands on brains without ending up in prison . . .where they would soon devolve to a Romero-like state.
To start with, there's always grave digging. It's unpleasant, but it's something pretty much anyone can do and it's already proven effective on the show.
There are also morgues/funeral homes where it would probably be a very simple matter to break in.
And, as a matter of practical capabilities (moral anguish is a separate issue), murder should be a fairly simple thing for most of them. They're stronger than any human. They can crack open a skull with their bare hands. As long as their existence is still hidden, there are tons of different ways for them to do that sort of thing. Kill the delivery boy. Take out the little old lady that never talks to anyone. Lure kids with candy. Modern society is full of really vulnerable people.
Even after their existence is discovered, the most likely outcomes are 1) they get brains and remain human-like or 2) they get caught and destroyed. Still seemingly not much chance for a full on brainless zombie apocalypse.
When did "global apocalypse" become the go-to scenario for zombie stories? I mean, the modern notion of zombies is quite a recent invention, with the basic idea only dating back to 1968's Night of the Living Dead and the brain-eating concept originating in 1985's Return of the Living Dead, only 30 years ago. But this idea that a global apocalypse -- not just the risk of one, but the actual onset and aftermath of one -- is an expected part of any zombie story seems to be more recent, a product of the current century. Maybe it dates to 28 Days Later?
Anyway, it's weird to me to see this show and its audience treating these zombie tropes that are far younger than I am as if they were ancient, immutable traditions of zombie lore.
Anyway, it's weird to me to see this show and its audience treating these zombie tropes that are far younger than I am as if they were ancient, immutable traditions of zombie lore.
This is where I'm contractually obliged to point out that the entire zombie apocalypse genre was pretty much invented by Richard Matheson's novel, I Am Legend, way back in 1954. Matheson didn't call his mindless, undead hordes "zombies," but George Romero has admitted on numerous occasions that Night of the Living Dead was inspired by Matheson's novel, albeit in an "unofficial" way.
In fact, I Am Legend's monsters were vampires, essentially. I remember how the book took the conventions of vampire lore, like fear of crosses and the reaction to garlic, and came up with somewhat rational explanations for them.
And Romero called his monsters ghouls rather than zombies, making it kind of a mystery how that terminology became attached to them. Before '68, "zombie" meant a mind-controlled slave of a voodoo priest, revived from death or a trance state simulating death. (This was the version of zombies that Grimm used in its second and third seasons, a rare revival of the classic use of the term.)
So there's a lot of overlap between the various kinds of undead. Indeed, iZombie's title entities remind me very much of your modern TV vampire -- a kind of "undead" person who manages to stay fully sentient, functional, and even attractive, closer to a superhero/villain than a classic monster.
And Romero called his monsters ghouls rather than zombies, making it kind of a mystery how that terminology became attached to them. Before '68, "zombie" meant a mind-controlled slave of a voodoo priest, revived from death or a trance state simulating death. (This was the version of zombies that Grimm used in its second and third seasons, a rare revival of the classic use of the term.)
So there's a lot of overlap between the various kinds of undead. Indeed, iZombie's title entities remind me very much of your modern TV vampire -- a kind of "undead" person who manages to stay fully sentient, functional, and even attractive, closer to a superhero/villain than a classic monster.
Yeah, Matheson was riffing on vampires, but the shambling, undead hordes in his novel are basically the direct ancestors of your standard Romero-style "zombies."
And the basic setup--Mysterious plague wipes out civilization, even as the dead rise to outnumber the living, who barricade themselves against the voracious undead hordes who have overrun the world--all comes from Matheson's novel, so that you can draw a direct line from I AM LEGEND (the novel) to THE WALKING DEAD ....
I like to refer to I AM LEGEND as the grandfather of the entire zombie apocalypse genre--even if it never uses the word "zombie."
I thought Neil deGrasse Tyson's interview with Max Brooks on Star Talk (Part One and Part Two) covered this discussion quite well. Most of the current depictions of zombies allows storytellers the ability to tell stories about our fear of the spread of disease (the CDC even embraced this), as well as the ties between the "Zombie Apocalypse" and other major catastrophes).
It ties into our greatest fears, many of which relate to our fear of terrorism. As with the extreme fears about terrorism, where we are afraid that friends, family members, co-workers, etc. could be terrorists, just as a zombie can be anyone. We're also afraid that terrorists can strike anywhere and that everyone is a target, meaning no one is safe, just as in a zombie attack.
Zombies are easy substitutes for anything that we are fearful of, specifically those things that cannot be reasoned with, bribed, etc.
It ties into our greatest fears, many of which relate to our fear of terrorism. As with the extreme fears about terrorism, where we are afraid that friends, family members, co-workers, etc. could be terrorists, just as a zombie can be anyone. We're also afraid that terrorists can strike anywhere and that everyone is a target, meaning no one is safe, just as in a zombie attack.
Zombies are easy substitutes for anything that we are fearful of, specifically those things that cannot be reasoned with, bribed, etc.
^(To Greg) Sure, I Am Legend is the antecedent, by way of Night of the Living Dead, but the point is that zombie movies in the past often portrayed the zombie uprisings as local phenomena or had them averted before they went global. It seems to be only in the past decade or so that "zombie" and "apocalypse" have come to be seen as inextricably linked, that the majority of zombie movies and shows have been set during or after a worldwide "zombie apocalypse," so that a non-apocalyptic zombie story is seen as an anomaly.
To shivkala: That's a bit odd, that we'd see something as small-scale as terrorism as a global, apocalyptic threat. That strikes me as fighting the last war -- WWII or the Cold War, conflicts that really did pose dangers on a global scale. Terrorism is mostly small-scale and local -- indeed, a lot of the time, it doesn't even get national attention. The press focuses on Islamist terrorism because that plays into the established fearmongering narrative, but the actual fact is that homegrown right-wing and anti-government terrorists have killed far more Americans over the past decade or so than Islamists have. Yet it gets little media attention. And except in rare events like 9/11, terrorist attacks tend to have a death toll in single or double digits. Since 9/11, Islamist terrorist attacks have killed 50 Americans, while anti-government domestic terrorism has killed over 250 Americans. Certainly a threat, but tiny next to the death tolls from ordinary homicide or traffic accidents. So it makes little sense to see terrorism as an apocalyptic threat. Disease, maybe, now that more and more infections are developing antibiotic resistance. But terrorism? No. That just reflects people's typical inability to assess risks realistically.
To shivkala: That's a bit odd, that we'd see something as small-scale as terrorism as a global, apocalyptic threat. That strikes me as fighting the last war -- WWII or the Cold War, conflicts that really did pose dangers on a global scale. Terrorism is mostly small-scale and local -- indeed, a lot of the time, it doesn't even get national attention. The press focuses on Islamist terrorism because that plays into the established fearmongering narrative, but the actual fact is that homegrown right-wing and anti-government terrorists have killed far more Americans over the past decade or so than Islamists have. Yet it gets little media attention. And except in rare events like 9/11, terrorist attacks tend to have a death toll in single or double digits. Since 9/11, Islamist terrorist attacks have killed 50 Americans, while anti-government domestic terrorism has killed over 250 Americans. Certainly a threat, but tiny next to the death tolls from ordinary homicide or traffic accidents. So it makes little sense to see terrorism as an apocalyptic threat. Disease, maybe, now that more and more infections are developing antibiotic resistance. But terrorism? No. That just reflects people's typical inability to assess risks realistically.
Similar threads
